American Empire: God's Nation at war

September Il was the excuse The war against terrorism is of course run on a permanent state of emergency and fear - a kind of global Civil War between the state and the terrorists. 9/11 provided an opportunity to the new American right (now an electoral majority) to overcome the Vietnam syndrome and mobilise the nation for war. Four imperialist wars have marked the last twelve years,° each signalling a greater shift towards a militarist and unilateralist stance, September 11 was the opportunity to put the new policy into highest gear. However, within a broader political redefinition of American global objectives, the Neo-Conservatives are just one faction promoting the 'New Imperialism'. Historically, this emerged after the end of the Cold War and represents a fundamental shift from the bi-polar world of the Cold War. to the new uni-polar world - with America, the lone- star, hegemonic superpower, or hyperpower as Gilbert Achcar" calls it. But it is important to recognise the continuities. The Cold War Grand Strategy elaborated after the end of World War Tiro was based on a post-war economic revival and reconstruction that was to be achieved with American aid (the Marshal Plan), and free trade. liberal democratic institutions, welfare systems and mul- tilateral alliances - the UN, IMF, NATO. By the end of the 1940s, this •Western' Alliance had become, as intended, a bulwark against Communism. This world order lasted more than 40 years but has now given way to the new strategic doctrines. The collapse of Stalinism and the break-up of the Soviet Union left the L'SA the overwhelmingly dominant world power; it opened up the possibility of huge new markets and sources of cheap labour - whole regions now became accessible, including important energy reserves, especially oil. However, it had its downside for US imperialism. It loosened the old alliances, freeing up potential for competitors and ri- vals to pursue their own interests and independent courses of action. Henry Kissinger, reviewing the situation after America's victory in the Cold War, wrote, Geopolitically, America is an island off the shores of the large land-mass of Eurasia, whose resources and population far exceed those of the United States. The domination by a single power of either of Eurasia's two principal spheres - Europe or Asia - re- mains a good definition of strategic danger for America, Cold War or no Cold War: For such a grouping would have the capacity to outstrip America economically and, in the end, militarily." Zhigniew Brzezinski adapted Cold War policy to these new condi- sions. To preserve and extend its leadership, he argued, the US must incorporate the other rising great powers. However, like Clinton, he was in favour of a judicious use of American power in the Balkan War (1994-99), a 'humanitarian war", in order to assert US dominance in the push to expand NATO to the East. The real reason for using NATO in this war is explained by Bacevich: "The intent of Operation Allied Force was to provide an object lesson to any European state fancying that it was exempt from the rules of the post Cold War era. It was not Kosovo that counted, but affirming the dominant position of the United States in a Europe that was unified, integrated and open.' 1? Brzezinski was one of the main architects of NATO expansion and what is termed 'out of area operation' directed towards central Asia. He argued that American dominion over Eurasia could be achieved through a continent-wide policy of divide and rule.' For Clinton and Brzezinski, promoting the expansion of NATO and the EU was a means to maintain American influences and control in Eurasia coa- lition-building. It was more interventionist than traditional multilat- eral approaches. The approach of Brzezinski and Clinton meant that America sought to gain the support of other counties if possible. But they would be strong enough to act alone if it was necessary. 14 Bush senior, particularly in the First Gulf War which was the water- shed, and Clinton, in the Balkans, but now especially Bush junior have moved away from a 'balance of power' strategy to one that relies increasingly on the unilateral use of American military supremacy From 1998 Clinton had increased military expenditure and by the time Bush junior came to power, American foreign policy had become increasingly militarised. Bush and the Neo-Cons represent a radicali- sation of the existing drift towards unilateralism and a de-facto rejec- tion of serious coalition-building. Today, American hubris means that the UN and even NATO are more or less by-passed, and often treated with contempt. Bush and Rums- feld talk only of the 'coalition of the willing', those willing to support US policy. Hence the 'poodle' status of Tony Blair, whose influence is greater than most, but still marginal - the tail does not wag the dog. The influence of the Neo-Cons has been to radicalise an existing trend towards militarising international relations where America is effectively unchallenged in the military field, unlike in the economic sphere. But they bring with them a reactionary political/ideological/ demagogic agenda capable of mobilising public support for the new National Security Strategy. The Neo-Cons were able to exploit 9/11 with the idea that the 'homeland had been violated'. American power had to be seen to be taking revenge. The Empire can be defeated In 2005 more client regimes within the Western alliances and beyond. whose interests are divergent with America's, or who feel increasing- ly isolated at home and sensing a major defeat, will probably abandon the US and Britain in Iraq, as some have done already. Washington will not retreat so easily. Too much is dependent on their control of oil-rich central Asia and too much invested in their belief in the New American Century, with the USA as an invincible, unipolar power. Across both major US capitalist parties, the political elite believes that a withdrawal - a defeat - will encourage others to challenge America's world supremacy. The logic of Washington for 2005 is that the War must contin- ue, victory must be secured - no matter what the cost in human lives, Iraqi or US, 'Petras insists. "The treasury and the budget, is hostage to the Logic of War: to defend the image of imperial invincibility, the empire will be brought to its knees.! But only if we the working people of the world make it so. The setbacks for the occupation forces in Iraq have created conditions for a shift in western public opinion against the war. The task of all socialists, anti-imperialists and democratic forces, is to help block the American global offensive, which today means stopping the occupation and war in Iraq and bringing the troops home. Of special importance is the building of the anti-war movements in the USA and Britain. But the working class movements in both countries must be brought visibly into the fight. Their organisa- tions must face up to the reality of this war. It is working class people, not only in Iraq, but here in the imperialist heartlands and beyond, who are paying the costs of a war without end. 10.- The Gulf War. 1991; Yugoslavia. 1999: Afghanistan, 2001: and Iraq. 2003 11.- See Gilbert Achcar. 'Thoughts on the Iraq War and the Anti-War Movement. Socialist Outlook. no 4. Autumn. 2004. 12.- Quoted by Callinicos (2003) p. 57 13. - See A. J. Bacevich, American Empire. Cambridge Mass.. 200? Quoted in Callinicos, p. 61 14.- See Z. Brzizinsky (1997), The Grand Chessboard. New York 15.- Petras. 2005.