A Question of Empire
Andrew Sullivan has been really, really good this week on the question of whether or not what the United States is actively pursuing in the Middle East is an Empire. I weighed in a little bit here. This post continues the conversation:
What I fear is that the Bush administration and many neo-conservatives are claiming one thing, while planning for another; and after the last eight years, the trust level is low. I fear they want a permanent presence in Iraq to reassure Israel; and to pursue the option of war with Iran. I fear the bases are there to detain, contain or attack the regional Shiite power, Iran, and to reassure the regional Sunni powers that the US military will protect them. If this is the agenda, please let us know. Let the American people examine and debate it. Have McCain own this position rather than refer to it as a premise as if we already know what it is.
Here’s what it is, it seems to me: an irrevocable new step in American enmeshment in the Middle East, with unknowable consequences.
That’s it, innit?
That is what McCain is putting forward as the central if unexamined premise of his candidacy. On short term Iraq policy, I actually think McCain and Obama will govern fairly similarly. But the end-games are radically, radically different. The question is: do we want to continue down the path of establishing ourselves as a Middle East Empire, or not? I say that not glibly, by the way; it is not as easy a question to answer as it might look on first glance. But a permanent “American enmeshment in the Middle East” is exactly what we are being asked to decide on with this election, not in the sense that our fortunes are tied together or we have such and such interests, but us ACTIVELY SETTING UP CAMP there and aggressively pursuing a permanent and massive on-the-ground day-to-day presence for, likely, the next 100 years at least. Is that what we want?
As an aside, it’s interesting that you can see Ron Paul’s influence on Sullivan here. Actually, I see some of his influence in McCain to; I think Paul may have actually helped us crack things open and see where we’re headed with a new clarity, on both sides. Not to put too fine a point on it.
Without Israel and Iran in the picture, long-term bases in a cooperative Iraq is an excellent and desirable outcome (and it doesn’t become less so with Israel and Iran considered). Any candidate that doesn’t wish, should Iraq be sufficiently US-friendly, to have bases there is making a mistake, to my mind.
Comment by Adam — 6/12/2008 @ 4:08 pm
Well, then you’re voting for McCain.
Unintended consequences don’t worry you in the least?
Comment by Brad — 6/12/2008 @ 4:32 pm
Of course — unintended consequences of every action should worry everyone who’s considering them — but I personally think that Obama will also see, should the opportunity to put permanent bases in a friendly Iraq arise, the benefits of such a course of action.
Comment by Adam — 6/12/2008 @ 4:44 pm
What are those benefits again?
We can already deploy pretty quickly to contain most any Middle Eastern situation. The only advantage that I could see to an occupation on the level of 50 massive permanent bases is to house an equally massive ground force should the need arise to invade a country. Not intervene, mind—we can do that already—invade. We can do THAT already too, of course, but would be able to do it better and faster.
Comment by Brad — 6/12/2008 @ 4:52 pm
Deployment isn’t as simple as you’re making out, so far as I’m aware.
Comment by Adam — 6/12/2008 @ 4:55 pm
No it’s not, but it’s not like we’re incapable without the bases there. The primary use of the bases, I would imagine, would be to house ground forces, i.e. a potential invasion force should the “need” arise. Again, we can do that already—the bases will just remove the most obnoxious logistical impediments/speedbumps.
Comment by Brad — 6/12/2008 @ 5:00 pm
“What I fear is that Obama and many liberals are claiming one thing, while planning for another. I fear they want to enact a 90% tax on all income over $50,000 a year and use the proceeds to guarantee every American full health care and a minimum annual income of $20,000 in cash.”
Unsubstantiated speculation is fun.
Comment by Rojas — 6/12/2008 @ 5:18 pm
I don’t think it’s unsubstantiated speculation so much as informed guesswork. They’ve certainly not been honest about quite literally any single objective they’ve laid out so far; don’t know why you’d think they’d be starting now.
Like my grandmother used to say (concerning love, actually): don’t pay attention to what they say, pay attention to what they do. And on that, I don’t think the record’s at all unclear.
Incidentally, Adam, I’m honestly curious now. What are the strategic advantages of 50 permanent military bases in Iraq that you’re excited about?
Comment by Brad — 6/12/2008 @ 6:17 pm
“They?” On which particular matter do you feel that John McCain has been dishonest? He’ll be the one implementing the policy that Sullivan claims is a trojan horse for Iranian invasion.
Whatever the merits of the “Bush III” claims–and I think they are dubious at best–they are utter crap where matters of personal integrity are concerned. There’s not a scrap of a reason to think that McCain would be disingenuous about his foreign policy intentions; if anything, he’s gone out of his way to shove unpopular policy stances in people’s faces for the past twelve years.
Comment by Rojas — 6/12/2008 @ 6:41 pm
His position on occupation HAS changed fairly recently though (aside from questions of forthrightness). Isn’t it true that as little as a year ago he was saying something to the effect that a permanent presence in Iraq was a strategic mistake because it inflamed insurgent passions over the long haul?
Comment by tessellated — 6/12/2008 @ 7:27 pm
Rojas, I don’t think I or Sullivan are claiming John McCain is lying and in fact has some kind of evil scheme going where he plans to invade Iran.
However, that’s a clear direction, I think, of where his policies will head. What do you think we’re going to do with tens of thousands of troops actively stationed in the heart of the Middle East for the next several generations? His notion of how to engage with the Middle East is, by and large, pugilist. Hunker down, dig in, and if it’s required, use the stick. And John McCain’s threshold for when it’s required is, I would suspect, a lot lower than yours or mine would be. Nobody’s floating conspiracy theories here (and for the record, I was talking about the neoconservative leaders of our foreign policy in the last 8 years when I talked about all the bullshit obfuscating objectives, not McCain personally); it is just their vision of how we ought to deal with Islamic fundamentalism and the Middle East generally. Active intervention. Sort of the way you’re saying, equating it with the Cold War, “it’s either us in there or it’s China or it’s Islamic fundamentalists or it’s Chavez or it’s whatever; so our job is to make sure it’s us”. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that (except that I don’t agree with it), but it’s being deliberately naive to not recognize that as the central component of John McCain’s vision (and neoconservatism’s generally) for the War on Terror, Mid East Foreign Policy, National Security, etc. “The best defense is a good offense” sort of thing. Or, being less generous, “we gotta get them before they get us.” Essentially, we have to remake the Middle East ourselves—actively, physically, militarily—before the Islamofascists do.
And I mean that above and beyond, say, intervening against The Taliban in 2001. Obama would do that. It’s not “John McCain wants to kill terrorists and nobody else does”. Both parties (Obama and McCain that is) recognize that the problem stems from the larger societies that spawn them. The difference is, Obama hopes to get at those populations through example and diplomacy. McCain through direct and active intervention (whether they like it or not).
And while I don’t think McCain’s lying, he is, I think, not quite expressing with much clarity his full vision. I don’t believe McCain’s primary concern is liberating Iraq in the sense that they get up and running and we leave, and the sooner all that happens the better. That sort of paradigm frankly doesn’t seem to interest him much at all.
You said the other day “John McCain certainly wouldn’t have invaded Iraq”. I think that was true at the time I think John McCain, now, would.
Comment by Brad — 6/12/2008 @ 7:52 pm
This is not my field of expertise, to be clear (and nor is it that of Sullivan, I believe). We both know someone that might be able to better explain potential advantages; I shall see if I can induce them to given an opinion.
Deployment of potentially large-scale forces very quickly seems to me to be a powerful tool (no waiting for long build-up in whatever other country you can find to allow it) and it also disincentivises Iran to invade Iraq (or parts of it).
The key point, though, is that the question is contingent on the effects on Iraqi stability and the assent of the Iraqi government. Absent those, it won’t happen (and I agree that 50 permanent bases, if that is what is supposedly definitive in the plan, which I can’t confirm, seems rather a lot, if only because they will of necessity be rather small in military numbers at each).
Lastly, and this is my speculation, it (permanent bases in Iraq) shows well a critical American commitment to protecting its friends in the region, something that will reassure the countries who may otherwise fear the regional Superpower, Iran, screwing them over while America looks the other way and whistles. A permanent presence announces America’s intent to provide cover for its friends (friends who would otherwise be faced with an difficult decision if it came down to agreement with a distant America or else a scary, close Iran). But, as I say, I’m not an expert and I’m speculating.
Comment by Adam — 6/12/2008 @ 10:30 pm
It’s worth pointing out, though, that this is just based on Sullivan’s fears, right? I mean, I’m happy with the general idea of long-term bases if the Iraqis are, for sure, but I am not sure that Sullivan knows anything we don’t.
Comment by Adam — 6/12/2008 @ 10:42 pm
Or it would announce that we’re colonizing the Arab world.
Now, which message has, so far, the Middle East, the Muslim World, indeed the entire world, been more inclined to take from our temporary presence?
Comment by Brad — 6/12/2008 @ 11:17 pm
No, Sullivan doesn’t know anything we don’t, but read through those posts of his I link. I think it’s the central question of this campaign, and no matter where you come down on it, I think he’s correctly parsing out the battleground. I’m a little unclear on what you and Rojas think Sullivan and I are incorrectly attributing to McCain himself, given that we’re taking his statements and explicit philosophy and following the line.
Comment by Brad — 6/12/2008 @ 11:19 pm
I thought neo-conservatism had proven its failure to work in the real world.
The entire way of arguing like that – US bases in ME is good, a base for developing democracy, a signal of friendship – it’s Unsubstantiated Speculation at best, and harmful ignorance at worst.
70% of Iraqis want USA out, the sooner the better. I wonder how many americans want permanent bases in ME?
Comment by fred — 6/13/2008 @ 7:50 am