The Coming Implosion of the American Empire
02/23/04: (LewRockwell.com) The American Empire is
scheduled to depart from Iraq in June. The unofficial word is out
in Washington: Karl Rove has told President Bush that the body
count, however much reduced by strange definitions of what
constitutes a battlefield death, is going to cost him the
election if it continues through the summer. Dutifully, the
Commander-in-Chief has announced a June deadline for the transfer
of Iraq's sovereignty to "the Iraqis," meaning whichever remnants
of the coalition of the suppressed will still officially deal
with him on his terms.
If you want a mental image of what is taking place in the White House today, picture Dorothy and her three companions walking through the forest of Oz. They are chanting, over and over, "Shi'ites and Sunnis and Kurds."
The United States government started a pre-emptory war last year. Patriotic couch potatoes marveled at televised shock and awe: flash, boom, smoke. "Wow! Neat! Cool!" President Bush, Sr., said in 1991, "This shall not stand." That is what his son said about the Baghdad skyline. But Americans are now being asked to pick up the pieces, or at least to pay Halliburton to pick up the pieces. Karl Rove has heard the rumblings. The departure date is now set.
Of course, all of the troops will not depart. Reserves are being called up to serve as car-bomb fodder. But, officially, the United States will become an invited observer, probably sharing authority with the United Nations. (This assumes — safely — that no elections will be held prior to June 30; otherwise, the United States will be asked to leave on July 1.). That will please liberals, who will chant, "Bush should have done it this way from the beginning." Meanwhile, conservatives will conveniently overlook the fact that (1) the U.S. military is in retreat mode and (2) the Administration had to beg the United Nations Organization to come to Iraq and bail out Mr. Bush politically. Rush Limbaugh will not remind his listeners of this embarrassing fact. He will not sing the praises of "those courageous and dedicated representatives of the United Nations, the world's legitimizer of last resort." He will, instead, do his Winston Smith imitation, for which he is deservedly famous.
Americans thoroughly enjoy seeing American troops bang heads around the world, but only on these assumptions: (1) the victims can't or won't fight back; (2) the military's adventures do not visibly tap into Americans' pocketbooks; (3) our troops can pull out at any time without visibly putting their tails between their legs. When there are helicopter retreats from Saigon, American voters react in a hostile fashion. Americans like war, but they like it cheap.
The war in Iraq has been costly in every sense, yet Americans still are paying higher prices at the gasoline pump. The price of oil has risen. The flow of oil out of Iraq today barely trickles. The pipelines cannot be defended by our troops. They are being blown up, although the media rarely report this. The Iraq adventure has now become a vast foreign aid program, and Americans do not like foreign aid programs. The do not like to share the wealth. They want to get their hands on the wealth confiscated politically from their neighbors. They resent foreign interlopers who tap into the flow of stolen goods.
When the regular troops pull out, news from Iraq will peter out, just as Iraqi oil has. There will be stories of this or that car bombing, this or that assassination, this or that break-off tribe. But Iraq will become Afghanistan in the perception of most Americans: out of sight, out of mind. If you want it packaged in a convenient slogan, however incorrect politically, I suggest this one: "When wogs are killing only wogs, the West loses interest."
This will mark the reversal of the American empire. It has taken a long time.
"WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"
George W. Bush invoked weapons of mass destruction, just as Lyndon Johnson invoked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was never quite clear exactly what had happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, but it is clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Johnson was never successfully exposed publicly as a liar regarding the Gulf of Tonkin. Bush has been exposed, and will continue to be exposed, as either completely misled or a liar, either a nincompoop or a deceiver. He is never going to get back his image as a reliable leader in a time of war, which is the only positive image he ever enjoyed, brief as it was. He will be on the defensive from now on. The phrase, "weapons of mass destruction," will be pinned on his backside the same way "trust me" was pinned on Carter, "read my lips: no new taxes" was pinned on Bush's father, and "I feel your pain" was pinned on Clinton, barely leaving enough room for "I did not have sex with that woman."
It will become extremely difficult from now on for any American President to invoke a looming military threat in order to justify military intervention by the United States. Clearly, President Bush will never be able to do this again, but I think it goes beyond him. His enduring legacy will be the conversion of "weapons of mass destruction" into the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time." The phrase will become a laughingstock. Every President from now on who attempts to justify anything comparable to the Iraq war will be greeted with Congressional hoots of "weapons of mass destruction." Any Congressman with an eye to being re-elected
Iraq is a sandy quagmire, just as the war's critics predicted it would be. It is Vietnam without a comparable body count. It is a continuing disaster, and as soon as the troops leave,
[. . .]
Our troops won a minor battle in March, 2003.
The contraction of the American empire will begin in June. It has already lost considerable legitimacy in the eyes of the voters, not because of some great alteration of their principles, but because we are being car-bombed out of the place. The oil is not flowing. Sand isn't worth the price.
This will be an historic event. Historians will be able to establish a date on which to hang their narratives. Historians will do anything to find such a dated event. December 7, 1941 marks the beginning of the empire in the textbooks, although the Spanish-American War was the more obvious birthplace, assuming that the Louisiana Purchase wasn't — a major assumption. But Pearl Harbor gets all the attention because of the unarguable transformation of American foreign policy that it produced. Sporadic intervention prior to Pearl Harbor became permanent intervention after.
The troops' departure from Iraq will mark the day that Johnny comes marching home. There will be no parades, any more than there were when Israeli troops pulled out of Lebanon.
The implosion of the American empire is about to begin — not just the military one but also the commercial one. An empire that can no longer afford to keep its troops on active duty in occupied areas is not a good credit risk.
Gary North [firstname.lastname@example.org] is the author of Mises on Money.