A Jihadist Paradise on Earth-- (IOWD's: Is Western Policy Failing & Creating What We Never Imagined)
--Tom Englehardt
As the present chaos across large swathes of our world indicates, however, it didnt turn out to be so. The planet was telling quite a different story, one focused not on the concentration of power but on a radical form of power drain. In that story, the one for which the evidence kept piling up regularly in the post-9/11 years, no application of power seemed to work for Washington. No enemy, no matter how minor, weak, ill armed, or unpopular could be defeated. No jihadist group wiped out. Not one.
Jump 13 years and they are all still there: the original al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen), and a whole befuddling new range of jihadist groups, most of them bigger than ever, with one now proclaiming a caliphate in the heart of the Middle East; in Afghanistan, the Taliban is resurgent (and a growing new Taliban movement is destabilizing Pakistan); the Shia militias the U.S. couldnt take down in Iraq during its occupation of the country are now fighting the followers of the Sunni military men whose army Washington demobilized in 2003. The fundamentalists in Iran, despite endless years of threat and pressure, are still in power, their regional influence enhanced. Libya, which should have been a nation-building miracle, has instead become an extremist battleground, while (like Syria) losing a significant percentage of its population; Africa is increasingly destabilized, and Nigeria in particular faces one of the more bizarre insurgencies in modern history; and so on.
Nowhere is there a hint of Washingtons Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East, no less globally. In fact, across a vast and growing swath of the planet, stretching from South Asia to Africa, from Iraq to Ukraine, the main force at work seems not to be the concentration of power, but its fragmentation, its disintegration, before which Washington has proven remarkably helpless.
Thirteen years later, on the eve of another 9/11 anniversary, the president found himself, however reluctantly, on television addressing the American people on the launching of another hapless Iraq war, the third since 1991 -- and the first in which those announcing it visibly no longer had any expectation of victory or could even imagine what the endpoint of all this might be. In fact, before Barack Obama appeared on our home screens, word was already leaking out from official precincts in Washington that this new war would last not a decisive few weeks or even months, but years. At least 36 months was the figure being bandied about.
In other words, as he launched Iraq 3.0, the president was already essentially conceding a kind of defeat by willing it to his successor in the Oval Office. Not getting out of Iraq, as he had promised in his 2008 presidential campaign, but getting in yet again would now be his legacy. If that doesnt tell you what you need to know about the deep-sixing of the dream of global domination, what does?
Nor was the new enemy some ghostly jihadist group with small numbers of followers scattered in the backlands of the planet. It was something new under the sun: a mini-state-building, war-fighting, revenue-generating, atrocity-producing machine (and yet anything but the former Evil Empire). Against it, the drones and bombers had already been called in and Washington was now to lead -- the phrase, almost a quarter-century old, was making a reappearance in the general babble of reporting about, and punditry on, the new conflict -- a coalition of the willing. In the first such coalition, in 1991, 35 nations were gathered under the American wing to crush Saddam Husseins Iraq (which, of course, didnt quite happen). And the Saudis, the Japanese, and the Germans agreeably anted up $52 billion of the cost of that $61 billion conflict, making it a near freebie of a (briefly) triumphant war for Washington.
This time, however, as befit the moment, the new coalition was to consist of a crew so recalcitrant, unwilling, and ill-matched as to practically spell out disaster-in-the-making. Inside Iraq, a unification government was already being formed and it looked remarkably like previous not-so-unification-minded governments. The Kurds were playing it cagy on the question of support; Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric whose militias had once fought the Americans and were now fighting the forces of the new Islamic State (IS), was warning against cooperation of any sort with the former occupier; and as for the Sunnis, well, dont hold your breath.
And dont even start in on the Turks, the Egyptians, and others in the region. In the meantime, Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Iraq and promised that the U.S. would ante up $48 million to stand up a new Iraqi national guard. It was assumedly meant as a home for disaffected Sunni fighters to bolster the American-financed, -armed, and -trained Iraqi army that had collapsed in a heap when the warriors of the Islamic State descended on them led by former officers from Saddam Husseins disbanded army. And oh yes, with the help of the Saudis (who had previously funneled money to far more extreme groups of rebels in Syria), the U.S. was now planning to arm and train the barely existent moderate rebels of that country. If that isnt a description of a coalition of the shaky, what is?
Whole article is a good read...as this is only a snip.....
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175895/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_the_great_concentration_or_the_great_fragmentation/#more
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)unable to exert power either through a strong democratic mandate or a "strongman" dictator.
So they seek to topple dictators and undermine democracy.
And now instead of the Rumsfeld doctrine of fighting two major ground wars at the same time, they seek to ignite and then tackle lots of bush fires all over the place, seeking to create a world of constant flare ups, defensive firefighting and simmering tensions.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)The snip said a lot. But thought the whole article pulled much together in questions some of us might have had to put the "puzzle pieces" together in historical perspective.
Thanks....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)ISIS or try and kill everyone...neither works. The Saudi connection to fuel much of this has
been discussed before, the legions of desperately lost young men is riveting and we're
not holding to account the host countries for their role in where we are today.