Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Middle East Theatre of War
Source: Centre for Research on GlobalisationGeneral Analysis on
US Military Expansion and InterventionThe United States has over 700 bases in 130 countries. As of April 2007, 146,000 US troops were actively serving in Iraq, and thousands of special forces were fighting in the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa and other regions. Back at home, the US government openly threatens Syria and Iran while covertly supporting coups, protests and uprisings in other countries, such as Venezuela and Kyrgyzstan. Washington defends its military expansion and interventions in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. However, as critics often point out, these interventions probably increase the threat of terrorism. The pattern of US interventions does not show support for democracy either. Instead, as a prominent study by the Library of Congress has shown, US interventions tend to have undemocratic results. Often they install tough military regimes that pay little heed to their people, privileging cozy relations with Washington and support for its economic and geostrategic interests.
Also See GPF's Pages on:
US Military Expansion and Intervention
Articles and Documents
2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | Archived Articles
US Interventions – 1798-Present (December 2005)
This timeline lists US military and clandestine interventions abroad from 1798. The list does not pretend to be definitive or absolutely complete. It does, however, demonstrate that the US has engaged in military operations worldwide for political and economic reasons for more than two centuries. (Global Policy Forum)
The US government plans to massively extend its use of unmanned aircraft systems in the coming decades. By 2030, officials expect these unmanned systems to perform all functions of the air force. This will markedly lower the threshold to waging war, as the US can expect fewer casualties. (US Department of Defense)
According to The Atlantic Monthly correspondent Robert Kaplan, US military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. Kaplan claims that whenever great powers have emerged or re-emerged on the scene, they have tended to be particularly assertive. China is developing a blue-water navy, which is poised to push out into the Pacific, where it will quickly encounter the US unwilling to budge from the coastal shelf of the Asian mainland.
In his book on militarism, Andrew Bacevich warns that as US political leaders’ love affair with military might intensifies, US citizens have become “normalized” to the rising number of foreign interventions. Under “warrior president” George W. Bush, war has gained an “aesthetic respectability” and is experienced as “a grand pageant, performance art or perhaps temporary diversion from the ennui and boring routine of everyday life.” As the status of soldiers and their institutions continues to rise, war is today “the seemingly permanent condition of the United States.” (TomDispatch.com)
This government document provides statistics on more than 700 bases that the US military maintains in dozens of foreign countries and territories. The report includes details such as locations, acreage, numbers of personnel, and “replacement value” in US dollars for the components of its worldwide infrastructure. For a critical analysis of the 2003 Base Structure Report, see this article by Chalmers Johnson.
According to the Pentagon report "Global Posture Review," the US military will continue to strongly prioritize energy access as well as reinforce its presence in bases worldwide. The report, which emphasizes "vital national security interests," clearly boosts US troop numbers in oil-producing countries. (Foreign Policy in Focus)
Chalmers Johnson suggests that US military bases - over 700 in 130 countries - have replaced colonies as indicators of modern imperial expansion. Are military metaphors such as “footprints” and “lily pads” really euphemisms for US imperialism? (TomDispatch.com)
In 2000 the Pentagon officially announced its ambition to achieve “full spectrum dominance” across air, land, sea, space and information environments. Realization of this policy would enable US forces to “defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.” (Part 1 | Part 2)
This report from United States Space Command defines US policy on weapons in space. Both China and Russia supported a UN ban on space weaponry to prevent a costly arms race. Yet, the US voted against such a draft resolution and withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The report reveals a unilateral strategy within US policy “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment” and “denying” access to “adversaries.”
2008
Radar, Star Wars, & the Czech Republic (May 1, 2008)
Z Magazine investigates whether the “free will of the citizens of one country can resist the hegemonic ambitions of empire,” as Czech villagers oppose US plans for a radar base southwest of Prague. Contrary to US media reports that “the Czechs have generally been receptive to the idea,” two-thirds of Czech citizens object to their government giving the US free-reign to build the radar and import military personnel. Villagers living near the proposed site fear the health risks and doubt that the US faces sufficient threat from Iran and Russia to warrant a radar base on European soil.The RAND Corporation: America's University of Imperialism (April 30, 2008)
RAND Corporation made a “peculiar contribution to the modern world” by manufacturing “the Cold War American empire,” argues Chalmers Johnson. The private think tank grew out of the US Air Force, employed Nobel Laureate economists, and invented reconnaissance satellites, missile defense and the internet. But RAND also made costly analytical errors. The Corporation overestimated the Soviet threat, based on research that fought Marxism through “rational” science. Johnson fears RAND’s graduate school trains a new generation of researchers to make biased blunders. (TomDispatch)How Come Zimbabwe and Tibet Get All the Attention? (April 17, 2008)
This Guardian article looks at why the US and UK decry human rights abuses in Tibet and Zimbabwe, yet barely pay lip service to election-rigging in the Middle East and “Africa’s worst humanitarian crisis” in Somalia. Double standards explain part, but not all, of the story. The author illustrates how the US and UK governments have had an influential hand in creating the Tibetan and Zimbabwean crises, and seek to cover their tracks.European Missile Defense: the America-Russia-Iran Knot (March 31, 2008)
A new arms race is afoot between the US, Iran and Russia, argues this openDemocracy article. The US plans to install a radar system on Czech soil to monitor potential Iranian missiles. Russia believes, however, that the US intends to use the system to oversee its arsenal instead. Even if Iran did possess missile stores, the US radars would fail to register long-range ballistics without homing devices. The author claims therefore, the US boasts its military might to rattle Russia and provoke Iran.Resisting the Empire (March 20, 2008)
This article from Foreign Policy in Focus applauds grassroots movements like the global “No Military Bases Network” for challenging the Pentagon’s “imperial arrangement” of 750 military bases. These outposts can launch potential nuclear attacks and impose control over foreign oil. “Host” countries object to the bases due to Marine-led crime and human rights abuses. Aggrieved communities are resisting the US military web through landmark court battles, like the case against the Marines of Okinawa, accused of raping minors.Africom Threatens the Sovereignty, Independence and Stability of the African Continent (January 24, 2008)
In this position paper, the National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) strongly oppose Africom, the US military command in Africa. Rather than “[achieving] a more stable environment in which political and economic growth can take place” The NCBL claim Africom protects US oil interests and allows the US to compete with China for dominance of Africa’s resources. In other words Africom is “likely to become a device for foreign domination.” (Pambazuka)2007
Bush More Emphatic In Backing Musharraf (November 21, 2007)
In response to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s state of emergency declaration, US President George Bush said that Musharraf “hasn’t crossed the line” and “truly is somebody who believes in democracy.” The emergency rule has resulted in mass arrests and the removal of Musharraf’s political opponents from the country. (Washington Post)Pervez Musharraf’s Desperate Gamble (November 5, 2007)
Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has imposed martial law, targeting the country's lawyers, journalists, judges and human rights activists. The President closed down independent television and radio channels, thus removing important sources of information for the fifty percent illiterate population. Musharraf’s largest supporter in the West, the US government, says it will not withdraw its support since Pakistan is an ally in the war in Afghanistan. (openDemocracy)The United States’ New Backyard (November 2007)
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has focused much of its foreign policy on the Middle East. The region’s geo-strategic importance and large oil resources coupled with the close US relationship with Israel have contributed to this development. President Bush has said “the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.” Le Monde diplomatique illustrates how the neocon doctrine of “constructive instability,” an approach of exploiting local rivalries to promote US interests, plays out everywhere in the region from Iraq to Lebanon.Bush’ World War Three (October 17, 2007)
US President George W. Bush has said that Iran and its nuclear program could cause a “World War Three.” Former Republican leader of the House Newt Gingrich has also used this term, saying that “we’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War.” This Global Research article warns that this rhetoric could serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy.In Harm’s Way (September 30, 2007)
This New York Times Book Review discusses journalist Robert D. Kaplan's new book “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts.” Kaplan follows the US military through different deployments around the globe while cheering on the soldiers’ efforts and their love of their country. By supporting the troops and their missions unconditionally, Kaplan comes off as biased and uncritical. He portrays the future of the US ‘empire’ as a global network of small military bases, almost invisible, but very much integrated in the host society.US Imperial Ambitions Thwart Iraqis' Peace Plans (September 19, 2007)
In this AlterNet article, Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar examine the reasons why Iraqi plans for peace are ignored by the mainstream media and the Coalition. Proposals from different Iraqi political parties include disbanding militias, providing for national reconciliation and rebuilding Iraqi government and security forces along non-sectarian lines. Ultimately all of the proposals call for a US withdrawal. However, according to the authors, the US prefers to follow a policy which involves permanent US bases, international control of Iraqi oil and where resistance is viewed as “sectarian violence.”Ethiopian Invasion of Somalia Still a Sensitive Issue (August 14, 2007)
With US support, the Ethiopian military invaded Somalia in December 2006. In accordance with US wishes, the invaders replaced the Union of Islamic Courts with the Transitional Federal Government. The US claims that the Union of Islamic Courts had connections with al-Qaeda. But many citizens viewed the Union as a mostly benign source of stability, and some predict that, contrary to US plans, its ouster will lead to “another weak, violent state and a newfound haven for outside terrorists.” (Daily Planet)A Spooky Look at the CIA (August 14, 2007)
In his book “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA,” author Tim Weiner provides a critical account of the US intelligence agency. Since its creation after World War II, the agency has led covert operations supporting US-friendly dictators or eliminating leaders leaning to the left. This book review argues that US leaders failed to consider the “crucial question,” of how “a democracy and a secretive intelligence agency [can] coexist.” (Christian Science Monitor)Peace in Iraq Is Inextricably Linked to a Palestinian Settlement (August 13, 2007)
In this article, The Age revisits a report presented to the US Congress by the Iraq Study Group, calling on the US to acknowledge that key issues in the Middle East – Iraq, Iran, terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict are all connected. Despite recommendations that the US cooperate with Iran and Syria to stabilize Iraq and create regional security, the US persists with a policy of isolating Iran. As the debate over US withdrawal continues, the failure of the Bush administration to seek regional cooperation is part of a “depressing pattern to America’s conduct of the war on terrorism.”A New Cold War Over Oil (August 11, 2007)
The US-China showdown over African oil has led the Pentagon to establish an African Command (AFRICOM) branch of the military. US-friendly African armies, for example in Congo and West Africa, have absorbed AFRICOM into their command structures, thereby increasing US military presence on the continent. In addition, because the US cannot outbid China on oil dollar for dollar, it implicated China in the Darfur crisis, therefore undermining Chinese investments in Sudan and promoting UN intervention there. According to Professor Vijay Prashad, such oil-based international intervention in Africa will only “create an Iraq” there. (Frontline)Iraq's Air 'Straits Question' (August 9, 2007)
As the debate rages over a US withdrawal from Iraq, some speculate that the US will compensate for any drawdown of troops on the ground by asserting permanent control of Iraqi skies. Such a strategy will likely provoke a “struggle for dominance [of Iraq’s air space] which will determine the balance of power in the Middle East for decades to come.” (Agence Global)US Escalates ME Arms Race (July 31, 2007)
As US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice continues her tour of the Middle East, Washington plans to give generous “military packages” to its allies in the region, primarily Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Although Rice claims that the Bush administration has designed this aid to create political balance in the Persian Gulf, this International Security Network article argues that Washington wants to “bolster the US arms industry” and “create a de facto Sunni Arab front against Iran.”Gerson's Crusade Against "Low-Hanging Fruit" (July 25, 2007)
This CounterPunch article argues that many neoconservatives in the US government have concluded that they will not be able to achieve regime change in Iran, and so they have suspended plans for intervention. However, some neocons, such as former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson, have turned their gaze on Syria instead, which they consider a “low-hanging fruit” – a state in which they can interfere more easily. Gerson claims that Syria fails to stop terrorists from crossing into Iraq. But this author disagrees and adds that not only does Gerson overlook “the complexity of the Arab world,” he also previously tried to frighten US citizens into supporting the Iraq war.A Change of US Plan for Pakistan (July 25, 2007)
Recently, the US has strongly supported Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, offering both development and military financing. And Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher “categorically ruled out the need for any direct US military involvement.” Washington’s backing, contingent on Musharraf’s cooperation in the US “fight against terrorism,” only increased Musharraf’s unpopularity in Pakistan. As Musharraf’s reputation at home deteriorates and his counter-terrorism strategies fail, US officials have reversed their standpoint and allude to a possible military intervention in Pakistan. (Asia Times)Bush and Poland's Kaczynski Defend Antimissile Plan (July 17, 2007)
Close allies, Polish President Lech Kaczynski and US President George Bush, reaffirmed their plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. They claim that the missiles, “a symbol of [their] desire to work for peace and security,” will counter potential weapons of mass destruction in North Korea and Iran. Russian President Vladimir Putin has argued that Iran does not pose a substantial threat and considers the US plans aggressive. Putin proposed that the US collaborate with Russia on the missiles and relocate them to an Azerbaijan base, but the White House refused. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)Parasitic Imperialism (July 14, 2007)
This Global Research article argues that “U.S. military expansions and aggressions” not only harm the regions in which the US intervenes, but they also hurt US citizens and economic interests. In order to feed its vast military budget, Washington reduces public spending and consequently widens the wealth gap. Moreover, US militarism provokes international dissent and hostility, which make the world less willing to buy US goods. The author also claims that US officials restrict democracy in the name of “national security,” hiding information from the public and sometimes fabricating or exaggerating enemies to justify war."Accidents" of War (July 9, 2007)
“Air power -- given the civilian casualties that invariably follow in its wake -- is intensely counterproductive in a guerrilla war,” argues this Tom Dispatch article. The author claims that the US military has always favored airstrikes as a principal tactic and frequently uses them in Iraq and Afghanistan because they appear more distant and less barbaric than “the atrocity of the car bomb” or “the beheading.” He argues that Washington will likely increase airstrikes in the future, despite the civilian casualties they incur, which devastate Afghanis and Iraqis and further provoke suicide attacks and Improvised Explosive Devices.Review Article: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases (July 1, 2007)
The US operates military bases in 63 countries and deploys 255,065 military personnel in 156 countries. This Global Research article provides maps and statistics about US bases and argues that Washington uses its global “War on Terror” to justify its interference in countless countries where it has usurped natural resources and “established its control” over governments. International progressive groups and antiwar activists protest US military intervention, but neither they, nor the exorbitant costs of military operations, have succeeded in deterring the US from expanding its “worldwide network” of bases.Pakistanis Baffled by US Support for Their Military Regime (June 27, 2007)
Washington considers Pakistan an important ally in its “War on Terrorism,” but the ties between the two administrations generate resentment of the US among Pakistanis. Former Pakistani Ambassador to the US Syeda Abida Hussain referred to Musharraf as “drunk on American power,” saying that he “steps on all possible Pakistani toes.” One organizer in the movement against Musharraf claims that the US imposed Musharraf’s leadership on Pakistanis, and now they have little choice but to use violence against him. (McClatchy Newspapers)Permanent Bases the World Over: Behold the American Empire (June 14, 2007)
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, mainstream media outlets reported very little on the multi-billion dollar construction of US military bases and the massive embassy in Baghdad, essentially ignoring evidence of a permanent US presence in the country. But recently, the media have begun to portray this long-term plan – the “Korea model” – as “breaking news.” Describing US military interventions in other countries as “the American way of Empire,” this TomDispatch article, however, argues that the Bush administration has long held such imperial ambitions.Czech Fears Over Missile Defence Radar (June 6, 2007)
As part of its new anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe, Washington will set up a radar station in the Czech village of Stitov. In this BBC piece, the mayor of Stitov voices concerns that the radar will have damaging effects on residents’ health and that it will be a target for attacks. Many Europeans suspect that the US plan does not aim to protect Europe as the Bush administration claims. The mayor states, “We feel the US doesn't care if there is a conflict in our country as long as it's not in theirs.”The New Pacific Wall (May 30, 2007)
This Foreign Policy In Focus article looks at US and Australian efforts to increase their influence in the Pacific region. Australia’s conservative prime minister has agreed to let the Bush administration establish two bases on Australia’s west coast to provide intelligence to the US military in Asia and the Middle East. But Australia’s strong trade relationship with China complicates the US-Australia alliance. Moreover, the new US bases will likely diminish Australia’s chance of separating itself from future US military endeavors.Darfur: Forget Genocide, There's Oil (May 25, 2007)
This Asia Times Online piece describes Darfur as the battleground for the petroleum geopolitical interplay between the US and China. The US has criticized China’s financial and other initiatives to secure raw materials in Sub-Saharan Africa, although securing oil has long been at the heart of Washington’s own foreign policy. The article surmises that the US eagerness to label the Darfur crisis as “genocide” is a move to open up the possibility of NATO “regime change” intervention. Further, the writer accuses the US of fueling the conflict in the region by training the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army and pouring arms into the region.And You Thought the Cold War Was Gone for Good? (May 11, 2007)
The Bush administration claims that it set up anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to fend off potential attacks from “rogue states.” This Foreign Policy In Focus article argues that the administration’s justification is covering up the US attempt to counteract Russia and China’s nuclear programs. The author reports that leaders in Moscow are highly suspicious, and the EU is divided on the issue. The article argues that the US missile defense system’s probable expansion into other regions increases the legitimacy of Russia and China's concerns.Putin Likens US Foreign Policy to That of Third Reich (May 9, 2007)
This International Herald Tribune article reports on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s increasingly vocal criticism of US foreign policy. The Russian government has frequently condemned US attempts to “dominate world affairs” through the expansion of NATO and establishing a missile defense shield in Europe. The author argues that the extent of Russian discontent is demonstrated in Putin’s comparison of US policies under the Bush administration to those of Nazi Germany.Curbing the Global Arms Bazaar (April 25, 2007)
This Asia Times article reports on the renewed push to adopt the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which is set to expire at the end of April. The author argues that the US and a coalition of developing nations led by China are set to oppose any attempt at adopting the treaty. Nearly half of all weapons sold to developing countries come from the US and Washington justifies the sales as part of its “war on terrorism.” Humanitarian organizations have criticized the US position claiming that “the arms being sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas.”Should More US Troops Be Kept in Europe? (April 24, 2007)
Army General Bantz Craddock – the new head of the US European Command – is rethinking a 2002 US Department of Defense proposal to reduce the number of troops stationed in Western Europe, reports this Christian Science Monitor piece. Craddock claims that most of the US troops stationed in Europe are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, which makes traditional training operations difficult to conduct. However, the author argues that Washington seeks to maintain US troops in Europe in order to continue sending a “forceful message to allies and potential foes alike.”Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda (April 24, 2007)
This World Public Opinion poll conducted in four predominantly Muslim countries finds that the majority of people polled want US forces to leave the Middle East. Additionally, a large majority of respondents believe undermining Islam and spreading Christianity is a key goal of US foreign policy in the region.Global Warming Called Security Threat (April 16, 2007)
This report by the Center for Naval Analyses – a group financed by the US government – finds that global climate change is a threat to US national security and should be incorporated into the country’s security strategies. The report lists some of the potential effects of climate change – such as rising border tensions and increased conflicts over food and water – which could lead to “direct US military involvement.” The authors conclude that the US “should commit to a stronger international role to help stabilize climate change.”Blame Game Over Somali Conflict (April 13, 2007)
At a regional meeting in Nairobi, Ethiopian officials blame Eritrea for undermining Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government and accuse Eritrea of being “actively involved in terrorism” in the region. Eritrea asserts that the Ethiopian invasion has not brought peace, stability or democracy to Somalia. Many feel that the fighting in the country reflects a proxy war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. 1,400 Ugandan peacekeeping troops were deployed in March in Somalia, and Burundi has agreed to contribute to the mission of the African Union. The AU mission deplores the fact that logistical and financial support promised to the peacekeepers has not arrived. (News24)Russia Threatening New Cold War Over Missile Defence (April 11, 2007)
A proposed US missile defense shield, parts of which would be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, is causing much discontent in Moscow, reports this Guardian article. Top Russian government officials have stated that Russia views the proposed defense system as hostile and that if it is completed it has the potential to spark a second arms race.Bush's Arc of Instability (April 10, 2007)
Bush administration attempts to bring down “rogue” regimes have failed, argues this TomDispatch article. After launching the “war on terrorism” US officials decided to target governments that makeup a so-called “arc of instability” – an area that ranges from North Africa through Central Asia. The author claims that Washington sought uninterrupted access to these countries’ energy resources, but instead of “stabilizing” nations within this arc, US actions have made the region more volatile.US-Made Mess in Somalia (April 9, 2007)
Ivan Eland, Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute writes that the unfounded US belief that Somalia would become a haven for terrorists, led it to support unpopular warlords in the country. This gave rise to Somali support for the radical Islamist movement where there was none before. Eland sees the same pattern of US counter-productive intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s and in Iraq, and warns that the unpopularity and weakness of the US-backed Transitional Federal Government may lead to resurgence of the Islamists in the future.US Agents Interrogating Terror Suspects Held In Ethiopian Prisons (April 4, 2007)
US intelligence agencies have been covertly interrogating terrorism suspects detained in Ethiopia, reports the Associated Press. Human rights organizations allege that the detainees were illegally transferred to Addis Ababa from numerous East African countries and are being denied access to the judicial process.Saudi King Slams ‘Illegitimate Occupation’ of Iraq (March 28, 2007)
In a speech at the annual summit of the Arab League, the Saudi King Abdullah, a close US ally, criticized the Iraq War and called it for the first time “an illegitimate foreign occupation.” Further, he criticized the US interference in Arab affairs and said that Arab nations should be able to decide the future of the region. Arab foreign ministers also supported an amendment of the Iraqi constitution, which would give Sunnis more power and bring about national reconciliation. (Agence France Presse)Nuclear Warhead Plan Draws Opposition (March 4, 2007)
This Washington Post article reports on the announcement by the US National Nuclear Security Agency that it plans to create a new arsenal of nuclear warheads. Many US Congress members oppose the plan – especially given US resistance to the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran – and will press the Bush administration to explain why a new type of warhead is needed.Outpost of Empire (March 2007)
The US has up to 1000 military bases in more than 130 countries around the world. These bases project US military power globally, but they also have a record of causing harm to the civilian population. US military personnel murdered a woman in Korea in 1992 and gang raped a 12 year old girl in Okinawa in 1995. Hundreds of other crimes have been committed on Okinawa, the largest US base in the world, but the perpetrators are exempt from national jurisdiction. (Red Pepper)Introduction to "Selling US Wars" (March 2007)
This excerpt from the book “Selling US Wars” by Tariq Ali analyzes the theories and mechanisms employed by the US to “ensure indirect domination” worldwide. One of the justifications the US gives for the extension of its sphere of influence is the “global war on terror,” which the author states is an unacceptable form of “political violence terror.” Ali also asserts that Washington’s selectivity in enforcing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is another tactic in its pursuit of regional and global ambitions. Moreover, the author criticizes the use of “humanitarian intervention” and “democratization” as reasons for military invasions. (Transnational Institute)Diplomacy and Empire (Part I) (February 27, 2007)
The decision by the Bush administration to “rule the world by force of arms,” following the September 11, 2001 attacks, put the US at odds with many countries including some of its traditional allies, argues this Globalist article. The author discusses the importance of diplomacy and faults US President George W. Bush’s decision to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq as “irresponsible” because diplomatic channels were not fully utilized.US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran (February 26, 2007)
This Telegraph article claims that the Central Intelligence Agency is covertly funding opposition militias in Iran to increase pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. The author argues that this policy has many risks as these violent militias – one of which the US State Department lists as a terrorist organization – share “little common cause” with Washington and ultimately might do more to destabilize the region then help it.US Gets Bigger Ears in the Sky (February 22, 2007)
This Asia Times article reports on the decision by the Australian government to allow Washington to build a military communications base in the country to relay information from spy satellites to US forces in the region. Additionally, the US will incorporate the base into a preexisting global network that intercepts international communications for US and UK intelligence agencies to analyze for potential threats.Moscow Perplexes US over Missile Defense in Europe (February 21, 2007)
The Russian government has demonstrated notable displeasure over decisions by Poland and the Czech Republic to allow the US to install components of its missile defense system within their borders. Washington argues that Eastern European bases are essential to adequately respond to any long-range missiles fired from Iran. However, Moscow views the close proximity of the missile interceptors as a threat and top Russian officials warn it could “spark a new arms race.” (International Herald Tribune)Hunt for al-Qaeda Overshadows Repression in Ethiopia, Some Fear (February 19, 2007)
This McClatchy piece reports on the Bush administration’s decision to ignore the Ethiopian government’s repressive tactics because of its desire for a regional ally to help eliminate the alleged al-Qaeda presence in Somalia. Critics argue that the US will not pressure Ethiopia’s government to discontinue its human rights abuses as long as the country maintains its counter-terrorism efforts.Skepticism Over US Africa Command (February 19, 2007)
This International Relations and Security Network piece highlights the skepticism facing US authorities over the proposal to set up a new military command center for Africa. Many critics argue that the motivation is the continent’s vast oil resources. They say that the Bush administration wants to ensure it has unfettered access to Africa’s oil and therefore it needs to be able to respond promptly to any crisis that might disrupt the flow.Thaksin's Loss, US's Gain (February 8, 2007)
This Asia Times article argues that the military coup which overthrew Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra benefits US regional interests. The author claims that the US viewed Thaksin as a liability because of the possibility that he would move Thailand into China’s “regional orbit” and away from US influence. Although Washington condemned the coup and took the obligatory step of cutting off military aid to the country, it has continued to work with and tacitly support the coup leader by continuing to provide non-military forms of financial assistance.African Democracies for Sale (February 7, 2007)
This ZNet article argues that a major threat to democracy in African countries comes from US-funded organizations such as the International Republican Institute and the US Agency for International Development. These organizations operate in at least 40 African countries, aiming in part to “promote” democracy by funding opposition groups to “overthrow” select governments. The author contends that foreign financing sets the political agenda for opposition parties while marginalizing the real needs of the people.How PR Ploys Fill the Pentagon's Recruiting Quotas (February 1, 2007)
This article from the Center for Media and Democracy details the public relations campaign the US Army undertook in the months preceding its 225th birthday on June 14, 2000 in an attempt to boost recruitment. The author argues that the US media played a major role in promoting the army during its 2000 campaign and speculates that with US President George W. Bush’s call to increase the size of the US armed forces by 92,000 over the next 5 years the army will again carry out a massive public relations campaign to enhance its image.Somalia (February 2007)
This article from Le Monde diplomatique argues that US involvement in Somalia now represents a third front in the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” The author claims that one of the reasons behind US President George W. Bush’s decision to encourage Ethiopia to send forces into Mogadishu was that the former Somali government – the Union of Islamic Courts – was allegedly receiving funds from Iran.The Price of Hypocrisy (January 25, 2007)
This Asia Times article argues that the Bush administration’s foreign policy is hypocritical, especially as propagated under US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The author cites a trip by Rice to Egypt – a nation with a notoriously poor human rights record – during which the country’s repressive tactics were glossed over because it is a key ally in the US quest for “hegemony” in the region.Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack on Somalia (January 22, 2007)
This Daily Nation article argues that US air strikes in Somalia – following the ouster of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) government – were motivated by oil interests. Washington maintains that the strikes were aimed at members of al-Qaeda, however, the author claims that the Bush administration – fully aware of the existence of oil in Somalia – wants to make sure that the UIC does not regain control and deny US corporations access to the lucrative oil reserves.CIA Gets the Go-Ahead to Take on Hezbollah (January 10, 2007)
This article from the Telegraph reports that US President George W. Bush has authorized the US Central Intelligence Agency to covertly counter the political organization Hezbollah in Lebanon by supporting the party aligned with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The author argues that the Bush administration has decided to engage the CIA to help combat the group as part of Washington’s escalating dispute with Iran – a primary sponsor of Hezbollah activities.Pentagon to Train a Sharper Eye on Africa (January 5, 2007)
The US armed forces are considering a proposal to create an Africa Command to deal with the issues it perceives are threatening US interests on the continent, says this Christian Science Monitor article. Historically the US has divided responsibility for Africa among its other regional command centers such as the European Command. The author argues that oil influences this decision, as US demand for Africa’s oil is projected to rise 15 percent by 2010.Somalia: New Hotbed of Anti-Americanism (January 3, 2007)
The US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia has led to an increase of “anti-American” sentiment in the region, argues this Global Research article. The author claims that many Somalis – especially supporters of the United Islamic Courts (UIC) which controlled Mogadishu prior to the invasion – believe Ethiopia is acting at the behest of Washington. The article concludes that the Bush administration believed that toppling the UIC was essential to its “war on terrorism” because the Islamic government threatened US regional interests.2006
Militarism and US Trade Policy (December 15, 2006)
This article from Foreign Policy In Focus argues that security and military considerations increasingly dictate US economic policies. The Bush administration in 2002 released its “National Security Strategy for the United States” which declares free trade a national security interest. The author concludes that activists promoting economic and environmental justice must develop a “common agenda” in order to challenge the new world order dominated by US policies that link economics with military interventions.Pinochet’s Death Spares Bush Family (December 12, 2006)
This Consortium News piece analyzes previous US administrations’ attempts to “cover up” the crimes of Chile’s former ruler Augusto Pinochet, who died in December 2006 without ever standing trial. In particular, the author focuses on one-time CIA director and former US President George H.W. Bush’s constant support for Pinochet, despite the brutal tactics the former dictator used to silence his critics. The article highlights the problem of high-ranking officials protecting their “reputations” at the expense of truth and justice.The New Washington Consensus: Blame the Victims in Iraq (December 8, 2006)
This Other News article argues that a new “Washington Consensus” has emerged among US lawmakers following the overwhelming rejection of the US-led war in Iraq by voters during the November 2006 US elections. The new consensus blames Iraqis and not US forces for the massive death and destruction in Iraq and will ultimately help lawmakers justify keeping US troops in the country. The author concludes that, although the Democratic party will control the US Congress starting in January 2007, little chance exists that the US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq in the near future as its “imperial agenda” in the Middle East is not yet completed.Military Spending in the New Democratic Congress (December 4, 2006)
This report published by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation details the likely increases in military spending under the Democratic-controlled US Congress in 2007. The author states that there has been bi-partisan support for increases in the Pentagon’s budget since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And during the 2006 US midterm election, Democrats signaled that they would continue to back such increases and intend to raise the Pentagon’s 2007 budget by US$75 billion. The report concludes that spending billions of dollars on unnecessary military outlays only increases the US budget deficit and takes the focus away from the “true security threats” the US faces.The New Middle East (November/December 2006)
This article in Foreign Affairs argues that the era of US dominance in the Middle East has ended and to “master” the new era “Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.” Following the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 the US enjoyed unprecedented access to countries in the Middle East. But after its invasion of Iraq in 2003 Washington’s influence began to diminish as many people in the region rejected US hegemony. The author concludes that the new era, marked by the growing influence of external actors such as China and regional actors such as Iran, will further limit US power in the region.The End of the Colombian Blood Letting Could Begin in Washington (November 20, 2006)
In November 2006 the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP) issued a letter to “leftist” US academics and actors asking them to persuade the US government to support a prisoner exchange program between the guerillas and the Colombian government. In response to the letter, the author of this Information Clearing House article discusses how Washington, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, pressured Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to suspend negotiations and brand FARC-EP a terrorist organization. The author concludes that measures such as prisoner exchange are essential to begin the peace process in Colombia; however such actions remain impossible as long as the US continues to support counterinsurgency efforts conducted by the Colombian government.Dismay Grows Over US Torture School (November 15, 2006)
The US Army’s School of the Americas (SOA), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001, trains Latin American soldiers. The SOA has come under constant domestic and foreign criticism for promoting tactics such as coercive interrogation and torture techniques. This article in The Nation argues that many of the leftist governments in Latin America have stopped sending soldiers to the SOA because of their opposition to US interventions, leading to a decline in the SOA influence. Furthermore, massive demonstrations in November 2006 against SOA in both the US and Latin America could potentially push the Democratic US Congress to cut funding to the school, ultimately resulting in a decline of US military influence throughout the region.Bush's Failed Liberation Theology (November 14, 2006)
Military interventions do not “achieve empowering ends” for people living under oppressive regimes, argues this TomPaine article. Following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States claimed to have “liberated” the people and increased women’s rights, which were largely repressed under the previous authoritarian regimes. However, women have not seen these newfound “freedoms” materialize and remain deprived of economic opportunities and education. The author concludes that a US military intervention in Iran would reverse the gains women have made in recent years, such as winning seats in Parliament, and instead provide Tehran with a reason to suppress reform as a way to unite the country against the “enemy.”US Is Top Purveyor on Weapons Sales List (November 13, 2006)
This Boston Globe article discusses an October 2006 Congressional Research Service report, which ranked the US as the top supplier of arms to the developing world. The report states that the US has supplied high-tech arms to 18 of the 25 countries in the world with ongoing conflicts and to a large number of nations known to violate human rights. The article concludes that US arms sales to conflict-ridden areas only perpetuate violence and hinder US security interests in the long term. However, the US government appears willing to forgo these risks for the economic benefits accompanying these transactions.Bush Replaces Rumsfeld with... Another Rumsfeld (November 8, 2006)
Following the announcement that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would resign, President George W. Bush nominated the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency Robert Gates to the position. US politicians as well as high-ranking officials in the US armed forces have strongly criticized Rumsfeld for his policies in Iraq. However, this AlterNet article argues that Gates shares many of Rumsfeld’s characteristics and the same “hawkish” ideology. Therefore, concludes the author, if the US Senate confirms Gates’ appointment, US military activities overseas will remain more or less unchanged.Kyrgyzstan Caught in US-Russia Squeeze (November 7, 2006)
This Asia Times article argues that US interference in Kyrgyzstan’s affairs will encounter stiff opposition internally and externally from Russia. The current Kyrgyz regime, in place since the US-backed Tulip revolution in early 2005, has courted both Russia and China while shunning the US. This hostility has resulted in the US providing greater assistance to opposition groups in Kyrgyzstan which, have staged repeated demonstrations attempting to bring the regime down. This article concludes that US-supported attempts at regime change will ultimately fail because they lack the support of the Kyrgyz people and the other major power in the region, Russia, does not want to lose its ally so it will continue to provide support to Kyrgyzstan.Targeting Nicaraguans’ Stomachs: The US’s 11th-Hour Elections Meddling (October 31, 2006)
Ahead of the November presidential elections in Nicaragua, current and former US government officials attempt to ensure that Nicaraguans do not make the “wrong choice” at the polls. Conservative US politicians strongly oppose the leftist Sandinista party and its leader and former Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and have threatened to cut off financial support to the country if the people elect him president. The author concludes that outside “intervention” in domestic politics is profoundly undemocratic and the US should let the Nicaraguans decide their own fate. (CommonDreams)Dissent Grows Over US Silent Treatment for 'Axis of Evil' (October 27, 2006)
Foreign diplomats and US politicians strongly criticize the Bush administration’s “no talk” strategy when dealing with the countries it deems part of the “axis of evil,” including, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Thus far US refusal to engage with these countries has proven unsuccessful, as demonstrated by North Korea’s October 2006 nuclear test. This New York Times article concludes that foreign disapproval will continue until the US develops a more interactive policy for dealing with such countries.Is Iraq Another Vietnam? It Is Already Lost (October 22, 2006)
This CommonDreams article argues that the US-led war in Iraq shares many similarities with US involvement in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s. The author draws parallels between the failure of US officials to recognize that the populations of these countries would resist foreign occupation, as well as the inability of the administrations in power to admit defeat. However, the article concludes that the situation in Iraq will prove worse for the US than Vietnam, because immoral US actions end up “increasing enemies and driving away allies,” which ultimately decrease the influence and prestige of the superpower.Space: America's New War Zone (October 19, 2006)
The Bush administration has issued a directive that “defends US interests” in outer space. This policy gives the government the right to deny its “adversaries” access to space if such access threatens US national security interests or in some way hinders US operations in space. In October 2005, the US blocked a UN attempt to ban the “weaponization” of space, demonstrating that the US may attempt to deploy weapons in space according to this Independent article.Nuclear Umbrella? The Peril of Missile Defense (October 12, 2006)
The nuclear situation in North Korea and Iran will likely lead to renewed calls by the Bush administration to continue development of the US missile defense shield, argues this Information Clearing House article. The expansion of the shield, designed to intercept missiles, not only violates the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, but also diminishes the credibility of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. The article concludes that Washington should spend its time and resources on creating a more effective and comprehensive international treaty than on developing a shield, which ultimately will do little to protect individuals.US Neo-Cons Call For Japanese Nukes, Regime Change (October 11, 2006)
North Korea’s announcement that it tested a nuclear device has led prominent US neo-conservatives to call on the Bush administration to end US engagement with rogue regimes and “get tough,” in effect, implement regime change. In addition, they call for Japan to build up a nuclear arsenal and for the overall cessation of humanitarian aid to the North Koreans. This Inter Press Service article argues that the “realists” in the State Department, who generally prefer diplomacy over intervention, will not silence the neo-conservative lobby which has a strong influence on the policies of the Bush administration, particularly through Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.The March to War (October 1, 2006)
This Global Research report details the deployment of US naval ships to the Persian Gulf, arguing that Washington is preparing for attacks on Iran. Additionally, the author points out that the naval buildup in the Eastern Mediterranean under the auspices of NATO and the US support of Israel against Lebanon signal US attempts to expand the war in Iraq to encompass a large swath of the Middle East. The article concludes that the US aims to take down “hostile” regimes with these strategies and install pro-Western governments to ensure an uninterrupted flow of Middle Eastern oil.US: World Empire of Chaos (October 2006)
This article from Le Monde diplomatique discusses why the Bush administration’s policy in the Middle East was doomed from its inception. The author argues that in the increasingly globalized world the nature of warfare has changed to include transnational actors. The Bush administration failing to realize the differences between national resistance fighters, such as those in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, and the global terrorist network, al-Qaeda, has attempted to combat them using the same methods. As a result of this ignorance the article concludes that the US has no viable option for creating peace in the Middle East and US policies have only increased the strength and number of US “enemies.”Bush at the UN: Annotated (September 20, 2006)
This Foreign Policy in Focus article dissects US President George Bush’s speech to the 61st session of the UN General Assembly. The article argues that nearly all of Bush’s comments about democratic transitions throughout the Middle East contradict US actions in the region, which, include supporting dictatorial governments in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and preventing early UN involvement in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict.US Accused of Covert Operations in Somalia (September 10, 2006)
This article in the Observer details how US-based private military companies (PMCs) planned covert military operations inside Somalia in support of President Abdullahi Yusuf's transitional federal government and against the Supreme Islamic Courts Council which currently controls the capital Mogadishu. The article states that correspondence between the PMCs suggests the involvement of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Such foreign involvement in Somalia would violate the UN arms embargo, the author affirms.Watching Lebanon (August 14, 2006)
Israeli military strategists met with US military officials including US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney in early summer 2006 “to get a green light in the bombing operation” in Lebanon. Such meetings, which took place in Washington, suggest that the US had a vested interest in the premeditated July 2006 attack. A US government consultant said that Lebanon “would be a demo for Iran.” This New Yorker article cites the delayed US call for cease-fire as further evidence of Washington’s stake in the conflict.Seoul Seeks Wartime Control Over its Army from US (August 10, 2006)
South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun has called for a shift in the control of his country’s troops from a US general to a South Korean one. Since the Korean War, during war-time, the South Korean military would become an appendage of the US military. Though critics within the country worry that this move will destroy the alliance between Washington and Seoul, Hyun sees the move as necessary for the sovereignty and security of the state. (International Herald Tribune)The Project for a New American Empire (August 9, 2006)
This Sojourners article discusses the “Project for the New American Century” under US President George W. Bush. The conservative think-tank, which aims to promote American global leadership, called for “an aggressive foreign policy with a then-unprecedented military buildup” to retain US hegemony. Before 2000, Democratic politicians largely rejected the project “as the work of hardliners.” However, the author argues that its steadfast implementation since President Bush’s election, most notably the implementation of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, begs the question of whether US citizens were manipulated into following a foreign policy they did not vote for. (Sojourners)Anti-US Feeling Leaves Arab Reformers Isolated (August 9, 2006)
Arab reform activists see US policies in the Middle East as more of an obstruction than an aid to their attempt at reforming governments and human rights in the area. Progressives recognize that “American policy either strangles nascent reform movements or props up repressive governments that remain Washington’s best allies in the region.” US efforts at “liberating” the region have only led to violence. Constant media coverage portrays the US as antagonists causing Middle Easterners to back any anti-US movement, repressive or otherwise. (New York Times)The US Proxies Who Haunt Washington (July 29, 2006)
The US military and CIA provide direct military aid to many US-friendly movements in foreign conflicts. This United States started this trend after failed intervention missions like proxy wars during the Cold War and the Vietnam War. This Asia Times article discusses such historical cases and the US military’s intervention in Somalia.The Axis of Intervention (July 27, 2006)
This Foreign Policy in Focus article cites a growing trend towards unilateral military action as opposed to multilateral diplomacy in solving conflicts. The US and Israel have justified “preventative war” under the “War on Terrorism.” Meanwhile, Japan threatens to preemptively attack North Korea, jeopardizing its “peace constitution.” This dangerous policy threatens to undermine the institutions of international law and global agreements such as the Geneva Conventions.Experts See Proxy War Under Way in Somalia (July 26, 2006)
Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen have sent supplies and troops to war-torn Somalia as an outlet for the countries’ own regional tensions. Washington has cautioned other governments from intervening in the conflict and creating a proxy war. Even so, the US has sponsored the transitional government and backed non-religious militias in Somalia, creating its own proxy war. (Associated Press)America's 100 Years of Overthrow (July 25, 2006)
This Texas Observer article details the US overthrow of fourteen foreign governments in the past 100 years. The US endorsed proxy wars in ten of these campaigns. Four of the coups, namely in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile, Washington carefully planned, financed and executed unilaterally.The Force Is Not with Them (July 17, 2006)
This TomDispatch article discusses the expansion of “Pax Americana,” or “The American Empire,” as a fundamental tenet of the Bush administration. Adherents of “Pax Americana” believe that force solves global issues, placing emphasis on a technologically advanced military. The unconditional reliance on military coercion has led to an interminable war involving multiple governments and proxy wars. The author warns that diplomatic options may quickly slip away.Dropping Musharraf? (July 14, 2006)
US officials and media often refer to China as a growing military competitor. This Foreign Policy in Focus article likens international diplomacy to a chess game, where the US builds ties with other Asian countries to counter the Chinese influence. The author shows how India, Japan, and South Korea have gained US favor and describes Pakistan as “a pawn that has outlived its usefulness.” This article suggests that President Pervez Musharraf may have reason to fear a US-backed regime change in Pakistan.The US Military Descends on Paraguay (July 12, 2006)
Hundreds of US troops entered Paraguay in 2005 for counterterrorism exercises. Since then, the US military has repressed Paraguayan social movements in the name of “security.” Many fear that the influx of US forces signals a plan to topple neighboring Bolivia’s leftist government and seize the country’s abundant natural resources. (The Nation)Italy Arrests Two in Kidnapping of Imam in 2003 (July 6, 2006)
Italy has issued warrants for the arrest of three US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives allegedly involved in Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr’s 2003 kidnapping. Italian prosecutors accuse the CIA and two Italian Intelligence agents of transporting the Muslim cleric from Milan to Egypt where he claims he was tortured. The case adds to mounting international criticism of the US’s “extraordinary rendition” practices. (New York Times)How the United States Continues to Manipulate Nicaragua’s Economic and Political Future (June 22, 2006)
US interference in Nicaraguan affairs has ranged from meddlesome and internally destabilizing proxy wars, to US-funded media outlets and US-sponsored political candidates. Mainstream US media has replaced communism with Latin American “radical populism” as an impending threat and source of fear, unjustly lending support for such interference. This Council on Hemispheric Affairs article follows US political and economic manipulation as it impedes Nicaragua’s self-determination.US Opens New War Front in North Africa (June 14, 2006)
The United States plans to spend US$500 million in the next 5 years on overt “counter terrorism” measures in Northern Africa. The US-backed Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI) marks the country’s unwelcome foray into 9 Saharan Nations. The TSCTI’s main target is the nearly inoperative Salafist Group for Call and Combat. This Asia Times article describes the stagnant group’s decline and the likelihood that US actions will generate terrorism in the region.A Warning to Africa: The New US Imperial Grand Strategy (June 6, 2006)
The US quest for influence in Asia rages forward with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Iran. With that region dominated, the next move may become a “Scramble for Africa.” Africa’s resource-rich region will see an increase in US military presence, warns the Center for Civil Society.Ukraine Crowd Tells US Troops to Leave Country (June 3, 2006)
Ukrainian citizens protested the presence of foreign military troops in the country, by blockading transportation of US Marines. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko invited the Marines for joint military exercises in pursuit of Ukrainian membership in NATO. But the Ukrainian parliament has not approved the military exercises, making the presence of foreign troops illegal. (Los Angeles Times)Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century (June 2006)
This Oxford Research Group report argues that the main causes of conflict stem from global climate change, competition over resources, “marginalization of the majority world,” and global militarism. These issues, combined with a military approach to terrorism, and the spread of fear-inducing propaganda, detract from realistic peace-building solutions. The authors report that unless world leaders tackle these four causes and refrain from promoting global militarism and waging wars on terrorism, the global system will become irrevocably unstable.US Perceptions of a Chinese Threat (May 31, 2006)
The US Department of Defense 2006 annual report lists China as a likely military threat to the US Navy in the South Pacific region. This Stratfor article points out that while a Chinese attack is unlikely, a mere perceived threat can alter world events. A perceived provocation might lead to US weapons proliferation and US military actions against China.US Secretly Backing Warlords in Somalia (May 17, 2006)
The US government secretly funds “counterterrorist” Somali warlords who are fighting Islamic groups over the control of the Somali capital. Most of Somalia is in anarchy since 1991 and there is no effective policing system. Some Somalis are calling for the US support in stabilizing the country, but as previous US involvement with warlords show, this strategy is bound to fail and backfire on the United States. (Washington Post)A Just War? Hardly (May 9, 2006)
Noam Chomsky believes that proponents of “just war theory” – such as Michael Walzer – are ignoring historical facts. Wars have rarely been “just.” Normally countries waged wars because of their national interests. The US, which proclaimed the interventions in Kosovo and Afghanistan as “just wars” uses this concept as a pretext for “preventive war.” (Khaleej Times)The Latin American Roots of US Imperialism (May 8, 2006)
New York University Professor Greg Gandin argues that past US interventions in Latin America shaped the Bush administration’s model of intervention in the Middle East. US interventions in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1970s and 80s taught US officials how to manipulate US media and push through destructive neoliberal policies on countries, Gandin says. (Mother Jones)Peddling Democracy the US Way (May 4, 2006)
Author Chalmers Johnson analyzes US efforts to impose its political and economic system on other countries. While the US has justified many military interventions in the name of promoting democracy, Johnson argues that none of the over 200 interventions since World War II produced a democratic government. Focusing on East Asia, Johnson further argues that the region reached economic prosperity by completely ignoring US preaching of free trade and liberalization, while pursuing protectionism and government regulation of the economy. (TomDispatch)Exporting the American Model: Markets and Democracy (May 2, 2006)
Chalmers Johnson argues in this TomDispatch article that nearly every single time the US tried to impose “democracy” on other countries it failed. The US openly supported military dictators in South Korea and a one-party rule in Japan. The recent imposition of “democracy” on Iraq seems bound to fail. Johnson shows that democracy is not exclusively about elections. It is about the importance of public opinion, separation of power and the existence of a mechanism to oust unsatisfactory leaders.Not Terrorism – China Drives up US Military Spending (April 7, 2006)
This Foreign Policy In Focus article argues that the massive defense budget increase proposed by the Bush administration for 2007 is not directed at fighting terrorism, as officially claimed. In reality, China is the reason for such expensive new weapons systems as new nuclear attack submarines and new generations of fighter jets. The Pentagon believes that China has the “greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States” in the future.Pentagon Stays the Course with Laser Weapon (March 22, 2006)
The US continues to finance its Airborne Laser Program. The Pentagon plans to use a Boeing 747 equipped with a high-energy beam weapon as one component of the projected National Missile Defense (NMD) system. However, such a system is very complicated to construct. If ever put in place, the US will use the NMD more against future rivals, such as China, than against terrorists or rogue states. (Space.com)The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy (March/April 2006)
For four decades, “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) defined the relations among the major nuclear powers. But with the US arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's arsenal decays and the Chinese one stays small, the era of MAD is ending. This raises the danger that the US could strike anywhere without fearing a retaliatory attack. (Foreign Affairs)US Plans to Modernize Nuclear Arsenal (March 4, 2006)
This Washington Post article argues that the Bush administration develops plans to modernize nuclear bombs and warheads and the necessary production facilities. The US seeks to “produce warheads on a time scale in which geopolitical threats could emerge.”US Will Be Launching Predator Strikes in the Horn (March 3, 2006)
This allAfrica article claims that East Africa could be the target of US strikes against “suspected al Qaeda elements” in the coming years. Special forces play a major part in that endeavor, but the US will increasingly use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to carry out “unilateral quick strikes.”It's Time for an American Foreign Legion (March 1, 2006)
The US armed forces are stretched thin because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington currently does not plan to introduce a draft, as that would cause massive opposition from the US population. Defending US imperial ambitions, a retired military officer claims in this International Herald Tribune article “all superpowers from ancient times turned to mercenaries to defend their interests.”Will Fight for Oil (February 24, 2006)
This New York Times op-ed argues that keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf has constituted a cornerstone of US foreign policy for more than half a century. The US regards any attempt to gain control of this region as an assault on its vital interests, which Washington will repel by any means necessary, including military force. The securing of oil constituted one of the reasons to invade Iraq.Why Is the US Again Hard On Sudan? (February 23, 2006)
Following a discussion with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, President George Bush agreed to support and lobby for an increase of peacekeeping forces in Darfur. Analysts see two main reasons behind Washington’s sudden shift in attitude towards Darfur: Sudan’s oil and geopolitical position. Indeed, Darfur’s location represents an entrance into the Arab world for the US to “prevent Arab countries from turning into a terrorist haven or a hotbed of terrorist activities.” (People’s Daily)'New Populists' vs. the West (February 10, 2006)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plan to join their “political forces” to counterbalance the “robust” power of the US. Both leaders criticize Washington for accepting Pakistan’s nuclear status while opposing Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Accusing the Bush administration of “hypocrisy,” they argue that the world superpower’s actions contradict its claims of spreading “democracy.” (Christian Science Monitor)US General Maps Out Strategic Refit for Iraq, Middle East and Asia (February 7, 2006)
US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt stated that Washington plans to “reposture” its troops over a large area covering the Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia. Kimmitt asserts that the US will retain “enough forces” to protect its “national interests.” He also warns that Washington’s “preoccupations” in Iraq and Afghanistan do not prevent it from conducting other operations in the region, such as a military strike against Iran. (Guardian)Ability to Wage 'Long War' Is Key to Pentagon Plan (February 4, 2006)
The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes an expansion of US military capabilities and strategies over a 20-year period. The review calls for an increase in the Special Operations Forces, as well as civil affairs and psychological operations units capable of performing worldwide. This “ambitious” new defense strategy also envisions large-scale and long-term clandestine operations in “politically sensitive” and “denied areas.” (Washington Post)The Only Hope for the World (February 1, 2006)
This CommonDreams article argues that Washington’s foreign policy and its tout for “freedom and democracy for all” have turned the country into the “biggest bully” in the world. A “biased” worldview has led the US to demonize the enemy and overthrow democratically elected leaders while siding with dictators. The article criticizes this “arrogant” foreign policy, warning that pride comes before a fall.2005
US Command Declares Global Strike Capability (December 5, 2005)
US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) tested US warfare capabilities against an imaginary country thought to represent North Korea. STRATCOM’s annual Global Lightning Exercise included the so-called CONPLAN 8022 mission of a “pre-emptive nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction facilities anywhere in the world.” US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President George Bush certified CONPLAN 8022’s "readiness" for global strike. (Global Security Newswire)Complicity Shown in East Timor Takeover (December 1, 2005)
Documents released by the US National Security Archive show how the US, Britain and Australia secretly supported the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor through policies of silence and diplomatic assistance to Jakarta. Washington wanted to avoid any conflict with Jakarta because the US had "considerable interests in Indonesia and none in Timor." US officials acted to avoid a controversy that would prompt a congressional ban on arms sales to Indonesia. (International Herald Tribune)Paper Says Bush Talked of Bombing Arab TV Network (November 23, 2005)
Leaked British intelligence documents reveal that US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair discussed the possibility of bombing the headquarters of Arab satellite news network Al-Jazeera. Though US officials have called the assertion “outlandish,” the arrest of two British officials for making a “damaging disclosure” gives credence to the possibility that the discussion took place. If so, previous US attacks on Al-Jazeera offices in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were explained as mistakes, would come into question. (Washington Post)Dark Armies, Secret Bases, and Rummy, Oh My! (November 21, 2005)
Brazilian and Argentinean officials argue that the US military's base in Paraguay, close to the Bolivian border, contributes to political unrest in Bolivia. Bolivia has been suffering from political instability for years due to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) - enforced privatization of its natural resources. Furthermore, the National Intelligence Council of the US State Department announced that Bolivia is on a list of 25 countries where Washington “will consider intervening in case of instability.” Argentinean Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Perez expressed his concerns over the base in Paraguay, remarking “once the United States arrives, it takes a long time to leave.” (Foreign Policy In Focus)US Military Bases in the Black Sea Region (November 19, 2005)
The US is planning to establish military bases in both Romania and Bulgaria. This Power and Interest News Report argues that these bases help Washington consolidate its power in the Black Sea region, an area close to the Middle East and rich in oil and gas. However, the European Union (EU) is concerned that any increase in US influence in eastern Europe might undermine the autonomy of the EU.Bush's Vision Fails to Win Over Middle East (November 15, 2005)
A US-backed Middle East democracy summit in Bahrain ended without any agreement among the participant countries. This Guardian article considers the result a total “disappointment” for US President George Bush, who stated that Washington has “a forward strategy of freedom” for the region. Participant countries also expressed increased concerns about an “imposed” US agenda in Iraq and deteriorated relations between Washington and Damascus.Is Nigeria the Next Persian Gulf? (November 10, 2005)
The US is intensifying its military presence in the Niger Delta in an attempt to grab hold of new oil fields that are not in the “troublesome” Persian Gulf region. According to a Nigerian NGO leader, "there is clearly an increase in US weapons in the hands of the Nigerian army and navy." Many in the Niger Delta worry that increased US military presence will heighten tensions and lead to more violent conflict. (AlterNet)US Military Eyes Paraguay (November 10, 2005)
Bolivian officials and the general public worry that the US will use its military presence in Paraguay to influence Bolivia’s December 2005 national elections and gain access to the country’s rich gas reserves. Washington claims that it has no intention of building a permanent base in Paraguay. Some Bolivian officials, however, argue that these claims remind them of Washington’s initial denials about establishing a base in Ecuador which gave way to an increased US military activity in the country. (In These Times)Empire Made Easy (November 4, 2005)
According to former US Defense Department strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett the US can alleviate the world's problems through “conquest, occupation and occasional diplomacy.” In the process, Barnett adds, Washington will use the power of globalization to bring democracy, which will eventually eradicate terrorism. This article asks if Barnett’s “war-to-end-all-wars” strategy reflects the “intrinsically beneficent” power of the US empire. (In These Times)Rice Attempts to Secure US Influence in Central Asia (October 17, 2005)
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan in an attempt to secure Washington’s access to Central Asia. The visit aimed at preventing another “loss of influence” in the region, following the US eviction from its Karshi-Khanabad air base in Uzbekistan. With this goal in mind, the article argues, Rice took a mild position toward democracy in the region to “calm the nerves of...authoritarian leaders.” (Power and Interest News Report)Bush to Blair: First Iraq, Then Saudi (October 16, 2005)
A confidential Downing Street memo shows that in January 2003, shortly before commencing the war in Iraq, US President George Bush told UK Prime Minister Tony Blair that he “wanted to go beyond Iraq.” President Bush indicated that he intended to target other countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea over weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With these countries on Bush’s “target list,” the Independent asks if Washington invaded Iraq as the first step in “a broader project.”US Pulls the Strings in Haiti (September 29, 2005)
The US is manipulating Haiti, reports this truthout article. After the US, France and Canada ousted the democratically-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the Haitian police jailed thousands of Aristide-supporters, and killed thousands of people. Furthermore, many reports have surfaced accusing the UN peacekeeping force of complicity in human rights abuses. In a visit to Haiti, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly maintained support for the new regime. She made clear that the US did not want President Aristide to return to Haiti despite the revelation by officials at Canada's Foreign Affairs Department that Aristide’s party remains the most popular in Haiti.Does Increasing Democracy Undercut Terrorists? (September 22, 2005)
“While the development of democracy can be aided from outside, it cannot easily be imposed by force,” Joseph Nye argues. The Iraq experience, and the growing insurgency after the invasion showed that “war was the wrong means to promote democracy” in the Middle East. Nye compares the process of “democratization” in Iraq to that in Germany and Japan after the US occupation noting that this time, Washington does not include the “soft power of the Marshall Plan” in its policies. (Christian Science Monitor)Pentagon Construction Boom Beefs Up Mideast Air Bases (September 18, 2005)
While the Pentagon is closing bases in the US and relocating troops in Asia, it is setting up new bases or expanding existing ones throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia. According to this New York Times article, “the military has more than $1.2 billion…to upgrade 16 air bases” in the region. Although the Pentagon argues that it is not “constructing [them] to have a permanent, enduring presence,” this expansion allows the US military “to use a wide range of airfields” for “national security crisis” throughout the region.The Pentagon's Bid to Militarize Space (August 17, 2005)
This Power and Interest News Report article considers the political, economic, and strategic problems of the Pentagon’s space militarization initiatives. These initiatives involve sending into space both offensive and defensive weapons that are capable of precisely striking targets in every part of the world. The article warns that this "ambitious" space militarization project “may generate more troubles than advantages for Washington and make it regret having opened the space front to begin with.”Central America’s Crime Wave Spurs Plan for a Regional Force (August 16, 2005)
Central American governments led by Guatemalan President Oscar Berger have discussed the idea of a “rapid-reaction force” to fight against growing transnational drug and gang problems. But the force would depend upon US support, training, and intelligence—which could threaten regional sovereignty and pave the way for a US-empowered “out-of-control SWAT team.” (Los Angeles Times)Presence of US Troops Upsets Paraguay's Partners (August 8, 2005)
The decision by the Paraguayan Congress that allows US troops to enter the country became a major concern among South America’s Mercosur trade bloc members Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. US troops are free to circulate, transport weapons and medical supplies in Paraguayan territory and are immune from prosecution. This Inter Press Service article argues that the presence of 500 US troops and the expansion of the Mariscal Estigarribia military base in the country could indicate plans to establish a permanent base in Paraguay. Therefore, the existence of US troops in the country “makes the situation even more explosive” in a region already destabilized by crises like that of Bolivia.Al Qaeda, US Oil Companies, and Central Asia (July 30, 2005)
In an excerpt of his book entitled "The Road to 9/11," author Peter Dale Scott examines how the US has consistently used the resources of drug-trafficking Islamic jihadists to further its own ends, particularly with respect to oil. Scott focuses on the “three way symbiosis of Al Qaeda, oil companies, and the Pentagon," arguing that, thanks to Al Qaeda, US bases have sprung up close to oilfields and pipelines in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Georgia, and Kosovo. (Center for Research on Globalization)US Evicted from Air Base in Uzbekistan (July 30, 2005)
Uzbekistan has evicted the US from Karshi-Khanabad air base, putting the US in an uncomfortable position regarding its combat operations and humanitarian deliveries to Afghanistan. The relationship between Uzbekistan and the US has become increasingly tense after the US withdrew almost $11million in aid last year. The Washington Post argues that this eviction notice will lead to further aid cuts and test “whether the anti-terrorism efforts or promotion of democracy takes priority” in the Bush administration agenda.US Bases Are Focus on Rumsfeld's Trip to Central Asia (July 26, 2005)
The US is urging its allies in Central Asia not to cave into pressure from China and Russia over the presence of US military bases in the region. Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan both host key US military bases, and China and Russia want them to set a timetable for withdrawal. The Pentagon has urged both host nations to "make up their own minds." One US general accuses the regional giants of bullying their smaller neighbors for their own political ends, but the US seems equally determined to hang on to its current arrangements. (Washington Post)The Neoconservative Convergence (July 21, 2005)
Well-known conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer discusses the evolution of US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. Claiming that each of the major schools of US political ideology has taken a turn at running things, he praises the “maturing” policies of today’s neoconservative Bush administration, contrasting them favorably with “realism” under President George H. Bush, and “liberal internationalism” under President Bill Clinton. He presents the neoconservative philosophy as one who’s “time has come,” and worryingly suggests that after Afghanistan and Iraq, the US must target Lebanon and Syria. (Opinion Journal)Too Close for Comfort (July 17, 2005)
The recent signing of a new Indo-US strategic partnership has caused major controversy in India, with critics arguing that the framework for defense relations will erode Indian sovereignty and reduce the growing Asian power to the status of dependent client. The author argues that the agreement offers little benefit to India, but will "embed" the US in Asia, creating an important counterweight to Chinese influence and a reservoir of Indian canon fodder for US military adventures. (Khaleej Times)The Re-Occupation of Haiti (July 10, 2005)
Due to Haiti’s high poverty rate, sustained violence and political crisis, outside entities—namely the US, France and the UN—have been quick to intervene and impose order. Yet many Haitian citizens blame the UN Stabilization Mission (MINUSTAH) for “neglecting its peacekeeping mission and behaving more like an occupation force.” Armed with the excuse of ensuring security before elections, the US and France may soon return to the troubled country. But this World War 4 Report warns that the lack of change in Haiti will make Haitians only more “skeptical” and “cynical” of outside intervention.Central Asia: Is It Time To Withdraw US Troops? (July 7, 2005)
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an alliance of China, Russia and four Central Asian states, recently called on the US to set a timetable for the removal of its forces from bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The White House dismissed the demands, despite claiming that the bases are not strategically crucial. It argued that they provide important support for missions in Afghanistan, and that only individual states have the right to manage their bilateral military deals with the US.(Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)Arab Spring: Late and Cold (July 2005)
This Le Monde diplomatique article argues that military intervention by outside forces does not help bring democracy to the Middle East. Iraq, with its deteriorating political situation, is the most vivid example of how military occupation is counter-productive in promoting democracy. Sweeping democratization in the Middle East will remain a dream, unless “civil rights and popular wishes are upheld in a way clear of any domineering relationship.”Constructive Instability (July 2005)
Robert Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, coined the term “constructive instability” in 2005. In his view, stability impedes US interests in the Middle East and by creating instability via local rivalries the US can break up the region. According to President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, this is the official strategy for US foreign policy in the Middle East “whatever the risks.” (Le Monde diplomatique)Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread? (June 26, 2005)
Michael Ignatieff discusses the origin and development of the “Jefferson dream” of universal freedom and democracy inspired by the US, in a paen to the “last imperial ideology left standing in the world.” The author implies that the Iraq invasion was a legitimate manifestation of this dream, and even that US President George W.Bush is a champion of a romantic and attractive national mission, a “noble dream” founded on self-belief. (New York Times)Uzbek Ministries in Crackdown Received US Aid (June 18, 2005)
The US trained and equipped Uzbek law enforcement and security ministries implicated in the Andijon massacres, according to the New York Times. Official records show that as part of a counter-terrorism project, the US has given years of massive security aid and intensive training to officers and soldiers, “improving the martial abilities of units that commit crimes against Uzbek citizens.” After the killings of hundreds of protestors in the “corrupt and autocratic” state, this aid is likely to associate the US “with repression in the eyes of Uzbek people and the Islamic world.”Southcom Generals Fret Over New Domino Effect (June 18, 2005)
As Latin America drifts increasingly leftward, Southcom, the US military command responsible for the region, has released a strategic plan demanding “U.S. military involvement in the internal affairs of what it calls its partner nations” says Inter Press Service. Southcom’s declassified “Theatre Command Strategy” frames its highly intrusive operating principles as part of the “war on terror.” With greater scrutiny, the plan more closely resembles a panic-inspired attempt to reassert US hegemony in its backyard.US Blocks Independent Inquiry into Uzbek Massacre (June 15, 2005)
The US has "helped block a new demand for an international probe” into the slaughter of at least 173 protestors in Uzbekistan last month. The Pentagon is currently negotiating with the Uzbek government over long-term access to its air base in the country, raising questions about US motives in blocking investigations into the Andijan “massacre.” According to recent reports, “the risk of provoking Uzbekistan to cut off U.S. access to the base was behind the U.S. resistance to pressure the Karimov government.” Some commentators have likened the administrations’ actions to the cold war policy of propping up abusive regimes because they opposed the US’ enemies. (Christian Science Monitor)Two-Thirds On Defense (June 10, 2005)
US military spending is dramatically higher than most US citizens believe, according to government statisticians. The Bureau of Economic Analysis says that rather than 19 cents per tax dollar going on defense as is commonly believed, the real figure is 68 cents per dollar. Moreover, TomPaine argues that the true figure is even higher - in 2004 the military “ran on $217.08 per citizen per month, while the remainder of the federal government ran on $103.83 per month.”Military Spending Tops $1T Mark (June 8, 2005)
The "war on terror" has helped push annual global military spending above $1 trillion says the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Appropriations of “extraordinary proportions” in the US, combined with India and China raising their defense budgets, have pushed the world's military spending back to the levels of the Cold War. (Associated Press)Bases, Bases Everywhere. Pentagon Planning in Iraq, 2003-2005 (June 1, 2005)
Revelations exposing the staggering number of US bases in Iraq are just scraping the surface. The Pentagon is aggressively pushing a wildly ambitious expansion of its existing global “baseworld.” This TomDispatch.com article describes the US government’s obsession with its “particular version of military empire,” and laments the media’s lack of interest.Intelligence Brief: Sudan (May 26, 2005)
After calling the situation in Darfur a "genocide," a legal trigger for military intervention, the US has agreed to a more multilateral approach. The article cites “Khartoum’s cooperation with Washington’s ‘war on terrorism’” as the main reason for the Bush administration’s shift of attitude. According to the Power and Interest News Report, this development opens the door to other states and international organizations to assist in the Sudan crisis. Will these multilateral organizations pursue a bold new approach, and will any new tactics prove successful?Four Bloody Lies of War, from Havana 1898 to Baghdad 2003 (May 8, 2005)
The Bush administration’s lies to justify its war on Iraq “fit a pattern of deceit that has dragged America into at least three other unjust and catastrophic wars,” says this article. US reasons for attacking Cuba in 1898, and intervening in World War I and Vietnam, were all based on “conscious, manipulative lies.” (Columbus Free Press)Ring Them Bells (May 2005)
This article draws attention to Washington’s oil interests in Sudan and the motives of proponents of a US intervention. President George Bush’s close ties with Sudan’s intelligence chief Salah Abdallah Gosh expose US hypocrisy over what the Bush administration has labeled genocide in Darfur. Although Gosh’s own government has accused him of directing attacks against civilians, Bush has forged close ties with him in the “fight against terrorism.” Gosh, described as “Osama’s designated minder in the 1990’s” could become a useful US ally, enabling Washington to chase oil profits in the name of humanitarian intervention. (Moscow Times)Intervention Spin Cycle (April 26, 2005)
The 1965 US intervention in the Dominican Republic paved the way for future interventions in Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam—many of which the US government based on flimsy excuses and “imperial arrogance,” says this Baltimore Sun article. Sadly, the scenario of a “disingenuous administration and a deferential press corps” remains the case today, and the public continues to buy into the glorified US military and its role in the world.Imperial Reach (April 25, 2005)
The US may begin the “most comprehensive restructuring of US military forces overseas since the end of the Korean War,” due to the shift from defense to offense, the unreliability of old European allies, and US geopolitical interests—especially the “oil factor” and the rise of China. Though the Bush administration justifies the initiatives as part of the “war on terrorism,” this author warns that such justification will likely cause increased criticism and hatred of the US around the world. (The Nation)Andrew Bacevich on the Neocon Revolution and Militarism (April 22, 2005)
In a second excerpt from “The New American Militarism, How Americans Are Seduced by War,” Andrew Bacevich describes how the new breed of idealistic neo-conservatives have helped create an intellectual climate ripe for militarism. Their vision of a world dominated and pacified by “benign” US military might is encouraging the “pugnacious” use of force to cement US control.(TomDispatch.com)A Most Dangerous Message (April 13, 2005)
Signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty include the US and Britain, yet these two countries have kept up an arrangement that allows for information sharing in the “pursuit of more sophisticated nuclear weaponry.” As North Korea, Iran and other "axis of evil" countries toy with nuclear technology, this Guardian article warns that the hypocrisy of Bush and Blair sends the message that possessing weapons can deter outside attacks.Pentagon’s Long List of Bases to Close (April 12, 2005)
Following similar cuts in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, the Pentagon has indicated that it will close several overseas bases in an effort to build a military more adept at fighting the “war on terrorism.” The Christian Science Monitor says the base closings will foreshadow a move to “smaller and more agile” military units that cooperate within the different branches of the army.Drugs, Bases and Jails (April 4, 2005)
Afghanistan, a “model democracy” for the Bush administration, essentially faces an “electoral-narco-gulag-permanent-base dependency.” The US controls the country via the weak Karzai government, runs jails devoid of international law, and continues to build a permanent military presence—conveniently, at the “meeting point” of rising world powers. As the media naively forecasts improvements, this TomDispatch article relates the reality of the Afghan situation, in which the areas outside of Kabul lack security, education, economy and, above all, democracy.If You Build It, They Will Kill (April 2, 2005)
In 2005, one US ammunitions plant “will produce enough ammunition, at one bullet each, to execute every man, woman and child in the world’s most populous nation [China].” This is just one indication that the US “national pastime” has become war, warns the author as he outlines the future of US military weaponry. Detailing several Pentagon-endorsed gruesome weapons designed to cause maximum pain and damage, the author emphasizes that these “killing machines” could viably appear in the hands of the US army in the near future. (TomDispatch)US Helped to Prepare the Way for Kyrgyzstan’s Uprising (March 30, 2005)
The US government and government-backed institutions funneled millions of dollars into Kyrgyzstan to produce “pro-democracy” broadcasting, educate and organize activists, create “civil society centers,” and ultimately fuel a wave of change in the country’s government, says the New York Times. Former President Askar Akayev blames the US for his overthrow, but Western officials praise US involvement. This article suggests Akayev characterized recent events as an “American conspiracy” to local media, but fails to question possible US motives or any downsides to this kind of action.Pentagon Increases Its Spying Markedly (March 24, 2005)
Adding to an apparent “turf war” between the CIA and the Defense Department, the Pentagon has expanded its intelligence operations abroad. Some efforts include clandestine activities without pre-approval from Congress and operations in countries such as Iran, North Korea and China without their governments’ knowledge. (Los Angeles Times)Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US (March 19, 2005)
In its quadrennial defense strategy review, the Pentagon has included preemptive strikes as part of US defense policy for the first time. The report masks unilateral actions as “self-defense” mechanisms and moves further from international institutions, such as NATO and the International Court of Justice, and towards informal “coalitions of the willing.” (Los Angeles Times)Playing the Democracy Card (March 17, 2005)
Author Dilip Hiro draws upon examples of US involvement in the Middle East from the 1930s to the present, demonstrating that the US promotes democracy only for economic, military or strategic interests—such as oil or presence of US military bases. The obvious double standard, “blatant myopia” in Hiro’s terms, parallels past US foreign policy in Central and South America as well. (TomDispatch)Democracy – By George? (March 16, 2005)
US President George Bush claims that his foreign policies have spurred the waves of democratic change in the Middle East, and even some critics think he may be right. But writer and professor Juan Cole refutes the declaration, pointing to several inconsistencies to show Washington’s concern for strategic importance over democratization. By denying civil liberties and ignoring human rights violations of US allies, Cole warns that “Bush risks having his democratization rhetoric viewed as a mere stalking horse for neo-imperial domination.” (Salon)US Warns China Over Latest Challenge Towards Taiwan (March 15, 2005)
Escalating tensions between China and Taiwan over a Chinese law authorizing force against secession attempts could lead to “a showdown between the US and Beijing.” The White House has historically provided military aid and vowed to protect Taiwan, but the US government ironically criticizes any Chinese unilateral policy and instead calls for more diplomacy. A potential “showdown” of military strength would have devastating effects on the already unstable region as neighboring countries such as Japan and Australia would have to choose between US military power and China’s economic benefits, argues the Independent.US, Cuba and Democracy (March 13, 2005)
The US measures democracy by “elections and civil liberties,” a narrow definition that emerged from the Cold War’s “democracy” v. “totalitarianism” phase in which all US allies disregarding human rights records were labeled as democracies, says author William Blum. Using this false cover, Blum concludes, US foreign policy actually aims to protect US transnational corporations, increase business for US defense contractors, quell anti-capitalism, fight communism, and expand the empire. (Global Politician)It Is Not Democracy That’s on the March in the Middle East (March 10, 2005)
The so-called democratic elections in Iraq and Palestine and upcoming elections in Lebanon are like the US-planned Vietnam elections in the 60s and 70s: simply “another mechanism for maintaining pro-western regimes rather than spreading democracy.” Forced US presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar, and perhaps in Syria and Iran, signals a “relentless expansion of US control in the Middle East” since 9/11 and is a far cry from freedom and a “happy future.” (Guardian)Freedom, Yes, But Only if US Strategic Goals Are Satisfied (March 5, 2005)
In his second inaugural address, US President George Bush vowed to spread the “untamed fire of freedom [to]… the darkest corners of our world.” While the White House has framed threats towards Iran and Syria in this context, officials have delicately ignored Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s undemocratic methods and human rights violations, whether because these countries are US allies or because they are “pit stops” for torturing the CIA detainees. The disparity highlights the contradictory nature of Bush policy and its “thinly veiled” strategic goals in the Middle East. (Daily Star – Lebanon)Afghanistan: How Would Permanent US Bases Impact Regional Interests? (February 23, 2005)
The future partnership between Afghanistan and the US could include permanent military bases, says US Senator John McCain. US military presence already exists through regional bases and Provincial Reconstruction Teams that controversially deliver reconstruction aid alongside military operations. Though Afghan President Hamid Karzai welcomes US assistance, critics warn that Washington could have underlying intentions—such as strategically placing forces within striking distance of Iran. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)Encouraging Nuclear Proliferation (February 10, 2005)
In response to a New York Times report that the US has begun to redesign its atomic weapons, this editorial warns that Washington’s increase in “nuclear creativity” will simply invite other states to do the same. As the US threatens to take action against Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs, the author points out that the cold war style build-up will damage rather than enhance global security. (New York Times)US, Indonesia Mull Closer Ties (February 9, 2005)
After the Indonesian army committed human rights abuses in East Timor in 1991, the US halted a training program for Indonesian soldiers and imposed military sanctions. Recently, several US officials have advocated ending the sanctions and reviving the training. These officials say the army’s human rights record has "improved" and that the fight against terrorism will benefit from US ties with Muslim-dominated Indonesia. (Christian Science Monitor)More Cannon Fodder, Please (February 1, 2005)
US President George Bush has often taken policy directives from the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which has long advocated a “Pax Americana” that relies on the US military to enforce international peace and security. In support of regime changes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Palestine, PNAC's latest suggestion is a large increase in US ground forces. However controversial the recommendation is, this Inter Press Service article points out that the military spending budget has no room for such growth.The Doctrine That Never Died (January 30, 2005)
In 1823, US President James Monroe proclaimed the right of the US to intervene in any nation in the hemisphere that had committed "chronic wrongdoing.” The Monroe Doctrine, now 182 years old, has not vanished into history but rather gained strength under current US President George Bush. This time, says author Tom Wolfe, “the Hemi in Hemisphere” is gone, leaving “nothing but a single sphere…which is to say, the entire world.” (New York Times)The Return of the Draft (January 27, 2005)
While the Bush administration claims citizens will not face a mandatory draft, Rolling Stone contends that government officials soon may have nowhere else to turn if Washington continues its “war on terror” crusade. With troop levels down, the military has lowered standards and spent almost $300 million—nearly as much as tsunami aid—on recruitment incentives. Officials have also allegedly considered a “selective” draft that targets all society members for skills work rather than simply armed forces.The New Bush Doctrine (January 25, 2005)
Philanthropist and currency speculator George Soros criticizes President George Bush’s inaugural address as “Orwellian doublespeak,” noting that US military action and Bush’s denials have led the rest of the world to believe the freedom fight stands for “America will prevail.” But Soros agrees with the ideals of spreading freedom and argues only that the US, as a “dominant power in the world,” has the responsibility to intervene yet must gain more international cooperation. (TomPaine)Bush Pledges to Spread Freedom (January 21, 2005)
In his second term inaugural address, US President George Bush laid out lofty rhetorical goals for spreading democracy and “ending tyranny.” Without specific country or policy references, he portrayed the US as sparking an “untamed fire of freedom [which] will reach the darkest corners of our world” yet said the US would not impose their government on the unwilling or use unwarranted military force. Bush did, however, call upon younger citizens to join the military and serve the “larger” cause. (Washington Post)Colombia & Iraq: Halliburton Makes the Connection (January 17, 2005)
As Colombia’s “fragile democracy” fights a guerilla insurgency, the US government has trained the country’s army officials in protecting oil infrastructure and sent more than $3.3 billion in military assistance since 2000. According to Bogota’s El Tiempo, Halliburton has now recruited retired Colombian officials to secure oil fields and pipelines in Iraq. Washington’s use of Colombian soldiers “through decades of a mutating war” on communism, drugs and now terrorism, could cause the country to fall back to an authoritarian regime. (World War 4 Report)The Salvador Option (January 10, 2005)
One Pentagon proposal to remedy the messy situation in Iraq could be “the Salvador option,” in reference to US government-supported “death squads” that assassinated El Salvador rebels in the 1980s. If implemented, the proposal could allow assassinating or kidnapping insurgents and interrogating them at secret facilities. Though the Pentagon denies use of the Salvador option, at least one military official says such operations could work because they would help instill fear in the insurgency. (Newsweek)War Prospects for 2005 (January 4, 2005)
This Reason Online article addresses the political affiliations of Weekly Standard magazine, which has issued calls for military force in Syria, North Korea and Iran and implied that “what America needs is more war.” But budget concerns and the thinly-spread 272,000 US soldiers in 120 countries provide “little wiggle room” for additional wars. Barring some great catastrophe, says the author, the neocon’s “martial lust will go as unsatisfied as did their pre-9/11 cruisin' for a bruisin' with China.”Riding the Wave (January 4, 2005)
Saying it was demonstrating US commitment to victims of the Asian tsunami, the Bush administration increased its pledge to $350 million and sent a “veritable armada” to the Indian Ocean
