What the Democrats and the Republicans Won't Talk About: Defeat in the "Greater Mideast"

Are Georgia, South Ossetia and the rest of the Caucasus part of the nearby Middle East? Do Afghanistan and Pakistan belong to that same potential geographic Waterloo? Does Turkey, with its new ties to Russia and radical Iran?

Not that the cartographic quibbles and definitions really matter. More central is how the potential embarrassment of the United States -- the curtain that seems to be descending on its fading hegemony -- now extends beyond the older, narrower Middle East ranging from Egypt and Israel to Arabia, the Persian Gulf and Iran. The unfolding battleground reaches from Turkey, the Black Sea, southern Russia and the Caucasus in the west, to the Sudan and Somalia in the south, and in the east to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the nearby roof of the world where Pakistan and India meet China. And the tide is hostile.

Three or four decades from now, historians will write more precise epitaphs. However the West, especially the United States, undertook the hubris-driven commitment now boomeranging between the mid-1990s and 2003-2004. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and then George W. Bush predicted and proclaimed a New World order of democracy, Western oil access and the marketplace from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. In 2003 and 2004, remember, Washington leaders and pundits all but announced a new Rome on the Potomac. Sadly, highly relevant historical precedents made it a joke almost from the first.

Each of the the three nations that preceded the U.S. as the leading world economic power -- Hapsburg Spain in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Holland when New York was still New Amsterdam, then Britain from the Industrial Revolution to the early 20th century -- has met a roughly similar fate: global diplomatic and military over-reach, a transformation of its economy to rely on finance and globalism, misplaced hubris, wars it cannot afford and ultimately, debt it can no longer manage. Each comeuppance has been harsh. The Spanish finally drained their wealth in Europe's bloody Thirty Years War (1618-1648), the Dutch lost ground steadily after they ballooned their debt fivefold during the wars between 1688 and 1713, and the British were all but bankrupted by the two world wars, finally enduring a half-decade of food rationing after "victory" in 1945.

Since the early 1990s, I have been describing in various books the ever-growing relevance of these precedents to the United States, not that politicians or policymakers were inclined to pay much attention (nor did those in earlier nations heed warnings). Overall, the American self-deception is bipartisan, but the three terms of Bush presidencies bear the greatest responsibility, especially the years of George W. Bush.

The transformation since 2005 has been particularly frightening. Turkey, right next door to Europe, is now home to growing anti-American violence. This summer, Turkey hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a working visit, and some Turkish officials share Russia's concerns that their government should not let U.S. Navy ships enter the Black Sea to aid Georgia. Besides flexing its new energy muscle with Turkey, Russia is also repaying Washington for Moscow's late 1990s embarrassment in the Balkans when the West promoted the ethnic breakway republic of Kosovo. Now the Kremlin has replied in the strategic Caucasus by embracing the ethnic South Ossetian breakaway from the U.S.-supported Republic of Georgia. Overall, Washington's plan to bring Georgia, which borders Russia, into the NATO military alliance -- a classic of both hubris and over-reach -- now looks more like self-entrapment.

Within the old core Middle East, Lebanon and anti-America Syria have just established diplomatic relations for the first time in sixty years. In next-door Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, expected to win the upcoming national elections,is a Dick Cheney-style sabre-rattler. As for Iran, the souring of U.S. relations with Russia, means that the Kremlin will no longer help American attempts to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions. This should further enable Iran to use its oil resources as a regional political and economic weapon. Although part of the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 was to take over its oil, start pumping and break OPEC's hold on oil production, Washington's provocation and mismanagement so offended the Middle-East dominated OPEC producers that they let oil prices soar from the $22-28 dollar a barrel range of 2003 to over $100. Against this backdrop of Iraq as a petro-disaster, the military progress and Sunni-Shiite-Kurd political collaboration the White House now boasts of will probably do no more than postpone the ultimate unraveling of Iraq until 2009 or 2010. Half of its territory could become an Iranian sphere of influence.

Further to the east, the geopolitical quicksand is getting steadily oozier. Ever more Western soldiers are now dying in Afghanistan, and just as it took the Islamic hardliners a decade to drive out the Russians in the 1980s, by 2011 the tenth anniversary of the U.S. invasion could yield a kindred embarrassment. Next door, Pakistan, a longtime U.S. ally, is on the verge of economic calamity. At the same time, anti-Americanism is surging because U.S. troops based in Afghanistan are violating Pakistani borders. Alas, the newly chosen Pakistani President, Asif Ali Zardari, is a mediocrity who earlier served eleven years in jail on corruption charges. His nickname at the time was Mr. Ten Percent. To the north, under the auspices of the burgeoning Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Russia, China and four central Asian republics held first-ever joint military maneuvers last summer. They do not seem to have held any this summer, probably wise given August's other Russian provocations taking place in the Caucasus.

To a degree, this was predictable. Back in late 2002, as Messrs. Bush and Cheney prepared for their great conquest in Iraq, I contributed an essay, "Hegemony, Hubris and Overreach" to The Iraq War Reader, edited by Micah Sifry and Christopher Cerf and published just after the 2003 invasion. In it, I wrote that "The 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States produced a proper and effective retaliation in Afghanistan. There is less to be said for metamorphosis of that response into a broader ambition to subdue, dominate and reshape an area that stretches northwest from the Persian Gulf to the Caucasus and eastward to Afghanistan and Central Asia...Despite the difficulty in making comparisons across the centuries, there is a chance that such a role could begin the U.S. equivalent of the Hapsburg, Dutch and British draining experiences of 1618-1648, 1688-1713 and 1914-1945."

The negative odds seem to grow with every year that the United States remains mired in this regional Waterloo-in-Waiting. In terms of the November election, swing voters are right to see Republican John McCain as the nominee most likely to promote military and geopolitical overreach without any serious attention to its economic costs and dangers. But if the Democrats are better, it's not by much. The Clinton administration periodically over-reached, and although Democrat Obama was perspicacious in opposing the invasion of Iraq, his current positions on extending U.S. activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan and bringing Georgia into NATO underscore the bipartisan rhetoric that makes extrication seem so implausible.

The involvement is understandable. Whatever the clarity of later historical retrospect, the British, Dutch and Spanish did not slip into their fatal postures and commitments on a whim or a lark. When their decades of vulnerability arrived, they had generations, even centuries, of principles, commitments, patriotisms and religious beliefs -- a kind of moral and behavioral momentum -- underpinning their hubris and exceptionalism.

The United States of 2008 fits this pattern, too. Even today's economics of crisis -- fear of financial collapse, repetitious Washington bail-outs, intervention by foreign central banks to help a weak currency on the ropes -- has its precedents. Back in the 1920s, as British international leadership was unraveling, central banks led by the United States intervened (in 1925 and 1927) to try to support the weakened British pound. In the end, all this did was to create a bigger speculative bubble to burst in 1929-1932 . In the ensuing decades, it didn't save British finance, the pound sterling or British global hegemony. And the odds are that today's postures will not, over the coming decade, save Wall Street's financial bubble, the U.S. dollar or Washington's global over-reach.

Kevin Phillips's most recent book is Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism, published by Viking in April.

Comments

[lifejunkie]

PLease Mr Phillips, Keep educating us. We need it more now than ever!!
Thank you...

[lifejunkie]

PLEASE MR. Philips, keep educating us. We need it more now than ever!!
Thank you....

[LookingGlass]

As David Letterman said on his show the other night when talking about global climate change, "We're Dead Meat".

After watching the American public struggle with their emotions and limited enlightenment on who should lead the country the next four years, after eight years culmination of Bush/Cheney, it looks like the best they could come up with, judging by the most recent polls, is to elect McCain/Palin. Dead Meat Indeed. (DMI)

So as we in the US are forecast to accumulate another 100 million people by 2040, and the world a lot more than that, our fights will be more and more about "resources". Thank God we have the Congress, Supreme Court, Pentagon, Blackwater, Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, Blackwater, FBI, CDC, and all the rest including Blackwater & KBR in the hands of people who are going to look out for "our" best interests, not just those of the very wealthy and connected. Otherwise, I might really get worried.

[themodernleader]

When leaders forget thir origination, the organization goes into precipitious decline. Kevin Phillips, alone, warned of the Republican policy of regressive taxation, then trade deficit and fiscal deficit economics, theocracuy, now military overreach. He has read, studied and honors the Constitution. Our timid and self-interested leaders are willing to sacrifice long term planning and goals for short term political and financial advantage. And the nation perishes.
President Truman, one of human kind's greatest leaders, warned that a nation that forgets its past great leaders and gallant deeds is headed for dictatorship and ruin. Our voters and leaders must take heed before it is too late.

[yappnmutt]

seems the russians and chinese have read their history books very closely.

[arvay]

The "core" of our Mideast policy -- unswerving support for every Israel action no matter how damaging to ourselves, is also coming home to roost. It's a policy based not on our objective interests, but rather results from internal political pressure.

The unravelling started in 1973 when the Egyptian army pushed across the Suez Canal and we had to rescue the being-encircled Israeli forces. Rather than learn something from that, we reacted by bribing a corrupt and despised Egyptian government to tolerate Israel. Let's see what happens when "democracy" dawns in Egypt.

Recently, the vaunted IDF experienced a stunning reversal in Lebanon, fought to a standstill by Hizbollah irregulars. Israel's ultimate response? Trading numerous prisoners for two dead bodies. Israel is also wooing Syria, which still serves as conduit for Iranian supplies and advisers to Hizbollah.

What we've done here is back an unpopular, weakening nation. A billion Muslims hate us, people who might otherwise be friendly or at least indifferent.

Deluded by his egoistic fantasies, Nero burned part of Rome, and the result was his suicide.

Historical parallels are tricky, but our mideast policy is for sure the immolation of our national interest on a foreign altar, and the spectacle is drawing some laughter as well as the long-standing hatred we've engendered. For sure, whenever Bush or Rice bluster about what nations "must" do.

"Or what?" is the ever-growing reply.

[PatCroft]

Kevin Phillips was documenting this for the past twenty years through his books and radio talk appearances. His assertions have proven close to correct. We are dealing in a very dangerous new world order of which this hazardous government has created. Seemingly every time this government makes a correction it digs the hole deeper. Our past 40 years of political leadership, except for Jimmy Carter, made decisions that does not fair well to this hegemony. Certainly GW's role has accelerated this.

[PatCroft]

Kevin Phillips was documenting this for the past twenty years through his books and radio talk appearances. His assertions have proven close to correct. We are dealing in a very dangerous new world order of which this hazardous government has created. Seemingly everytime this government makes a correction it digs the hole deeper. Our past 40 years of political leadership, except for Jimmy Carter, made decisions that does not fair well to this hegemony. Certainly GW's role has accelerated this.

[davidly]

The US would be lucky to get off as easy as the UK did, but considering that with US cover, many western allies haven't completely reformed their imperialistic attitudes and tendencies. Measured against the cartoon of the US, others benefit from a relatively peaceful image.

[arvay]

The "core" of our Mideast policy -- unswerving support for every Israel action no matter how damaging to us, is also coming home to roost. It's a policy based not on our objective interests, but rather results from internal political pressure.

The unravelling started in 1973 when the Egyptian army pushed across the Suez Canal and we had to rescue the being-encircled Israeli forces. Rather than learn something from that, we reacted by bribing a corrupt and despised Egyptian government to tolerate Israel. Let's see what happens when "democracy" dawns in Egypt.

Recently, the vaunted IDF experienced a stunning reversal in Lebanon, fought to a standstill by Hizbollah irregulars. Israel's ultimate response? Trading numerous prisoners for two dead bodies. Israel is also wooing Syria, which still serves as conduit for Iranian supplies and advisers to Hizbollah.

What we've done here is back an unpopular, weakening nation. A billion Muslims hate us, people who might otherwise be friendly or at least indifferent.

Deluded by his egoistic fantasies, Nero burned part of Rome, and the result was his suicide.

Historical parallels are tricky, but our mideast policy is for sure the immolation of our national interest on a foreign altar, and the spectacle is drawing some laughter as well as the long-standing hatred we've engendered. For sure, whenever Bush or Rice bluster about what nations "must" do.

"Or what?" is the ever-growing reply.

[trevorfsj]

Britain endured a half-century of food rationing after their WWII victory in 1945?
Nonsense.......yes I remember rationing well and this was in force for some food items into the early 50's but that was the extent of it. Under your claim rationing would still have been in place into the 90's.....come on.....get real and check your facts!

[davidly]

I read this post quite some time ago, and it said then "a half-decade".

[SolarPowerGuy]

He wrote "half-DECADE," not "half-century".

[idest]

Read the post before you comment. Makes you seem smarter.

[WorkingClass]

The whole world is busy preparing for a post American world. The United States will learn to live within its means and within its borders. It has no choice.

[snesich]

Actually, it's the 90% of we Americans who have less wealth combined than the top 1% who will be forced to "live within our means". The people who run the show, have the "connections", own the resources and control the capital, will see no change in the way they live. They may even get richer, if the past is any indication.

It's the rest of us, nine out of ten Americans, who actually perform the work that produces wealth, and do the heavy lifting, that will continue to get crunched, while obediently singing "God Bless America", at the few remaining cheap seats at the ballpark, looking down at the people laughing and joking in their $2500 seats near home plate.

Will the great majority of us continue to fall for the nonsense we've been fed? Will we happily go fight their wars with the bodies of our kids? Or will we finally get fed up and demand new rules and a reshuffling of the deck, so that we begin to get more than just a few crumbs that fell from the Rich People's table?

Stay tuned...

[navy62802]

as it has done in the centuries since its founding...it wasnt until the recent decades that we have truly overstretched our bounds

[thebeerdoctor]

This is a well written article, with plenty of historical perspective, but Mr. Phillips assertion on 9/11 and Afghanistan "produced a proper and effective retaliation" is totally wrong. The people of Afghanistan had already suffered for years under the brutal extremist sharia law imposed by the Taliban, which the U.S. government blithely ignored, preferring the Unocal possibilities of energy development. In the late 1990's, an alternative newspaper I worked for, published extensive articles about what the Taliban was up to, and how their so-called cultural revolution (actually devolution) was an anathema to the rights of women everywhere. This too was ignored.
Speaking of historical perspective, here is one. When Taliban resistance fighter Ahmad Shah Massoud traveled in April of 2001 to address the European Parliament, he warned that the Taliban had connections with Al-Qaeda, and that an important terrorist attack was imminent. September 9, 2001, Massoud was assassinated. Two days later, the attack he warned of, came to bloody fruition.

[Tharsis]

This is a good article, but this is highly misleading :

Within the old core Middle East, Lebanon and anti-America Syria have just established diplomatic relations for the first time in sixty years

Syria basically ran Lebanon from the late 1970's until 2005, and had troops in the country for most of that period. So, while they may not have had embassies, they certainly had close relations. Their opening of embassies is, all in all, a positive sign that their relations may be becoming more normal, not a sign that Lebanon is drifting into the Syrian orbit.

[LeonBNJ]

To me the roots of the weaking of the USA goes back to the 'Cold War' era. We spent many Billions in Viet Nam and Southeast Asia and left there in failure, the region becoming a human rights horror site. During the Reagan era, we spent 10's of Billions in enlarging our military to eventually push the USSR to spend on military itself enough to help lead to it's ruin but also leading to massive deficits.
The USA is on the road to a new place somewhat less than it used to be. Yes, it is still powerful but it needs to look deeply in itself to realize we can't run the world, suck up all it's resources (especially oil), compete with more of the world, especially India and China for them as their standards of living are rising.