Socialist Outlook : SO/05 - Spring 2005

‘God’s Nation’ at War in 2005

The Grand Strategy of the American Empire
Dave Packer

Here David Packer looks at American strategy and its consequences as it unfolds at the beginning of 2005. Irrespective of the outcome of the Iraqi elections, he foresees a year of deepening conflicts in Iraq and internationally, social and economic crisis, but also a development of resistance and a growth in mass actions on the streets.

‘As the New Year begins the military and economic prospects for the US Empire are much worse than a year ago.’ (James Petras)

The apparent endorsement of the Bush Presidency and its belligerent militarism by US voters in November does not mean that the US will be able to launch major wars in 2005 against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, or other ‘rogue states’. The military weakness of the US in the face of the escalating Iraqi resistance, which is set to continue during and after the elections in Iraq, combined with serious economic and political problems at home, makes this unlikely.

The economic house of horrors

In contrast with the unchallenged hegemony of the dollar and a booming economy during the Vietnam War, 2004 saw a precipitous decline of the dollar, particularly after Bush’s re-election, which will probably accelerate in 2005. The underlying cause of this decline is America’s vast current account deficit running at about 6% of GDP - the war alone is costing $4.5 billion a month. At the same time personal debt is escalating out of control. The decline of the dollar in relation to other currencies, together with the unstable and generally rising price of oil, are only the most visible sign of the growing imbalances in both the US and world economy. Many economists have predicted that 2005 will see the value of the dollar continue to fall with a flight from dollar reserves and a general sell-off of devalued dollars by Japan, and possibly China, resulting in a severe decline in US stocks. A knock-on effect would be a sharp reduction in US imports, and a dampening down of economic growth in an increasingly uncompetitive Eurozone and Japan. And this means rising unemployment for the workers.

Then there is the question of oil prices, which can only reinforce these tendencies. They have been rising sharply because of exceptionally high demand from China and India, combined with the consequences of the Iraq war. Initially, European governments were sanguine about the surge of the Euro (and the pound) against the falling dollar because oil prices are traded in dollars and it helped insulate the European economies against the sharp price rises. However, with the price topping $50 per barrel last year the situation became dangerous. Worse, the OPEC cartel has recently announced cuts in production to keep the price permanently at over $40 per barrel, exacerbating sharp tensions between rich oil-guzzling economies and the producer countries such as Saudi Arabia. High oil prices can only further depress global economic growth.

The huge stakes for imperialism in Iraq, the declining dollar, combined with the perceived risks to oil prices and to flows from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, are further precipitating a crisis in the dollarized world economy, which in turn weakens the domestic foundations of the US Empire.

The US government hopes that Asian governments, banks and multinationals, will not sell off their dollar holdings, because their own economies are dependent on US consumer demand. But the globalised capitalist system and world market is anything but a planned or regulated economy. It should be noted however that for the moment the US economy continues to expand, partly because of the declining value of the dollar but also because it remains based on external financing and speculative earnings.

Deepening political fissures, but common strategic objectives?

The war in Iraq is going badly. Despite the brutal destruction of the city of Fallujah by US forces, presented as a military victory, the resistance has not been quelled. In fact Fallujah is a Pyrrhic victory that has strengthened the Iraqi resistance - the growth and breadth of which is showing the world that the US Empire is not invincible and the imperial military machine can be ground to a halt, if not defeated. The declining fortunes of this US colonial war, the withdrawal of allied forces (Spain, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine) and not least a growing anti-war movement in the US itself, will provoke more crisis and open up fissures within the Bush regime in 2005.

Internal political conflicts at the top are brewing. Some within the militarist alliance of Neo-Conservatives, Christian fundamentalists and Zionists are beginning to distance themselves from their own failed policies and blame Bush and Rumsfeld for their ‘weakness’. In this, they will be supported by none other than Senator John Kerry. During the Presidential Elections, he denounced Bush for his incompetence in running the war, and for not sending enough troops to ‘finish the job’, calling for 60,000 more troops to be sent. Even liberal Hillary Clinton is now calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq – an increase of up to 100,000 is frequently mentioned by Democrats and Republicans alike. Some Democrat critics of the Bush administration are more bellicose than Rumsfeld. The problem for the American ruling class is that any serious escalation would probably involve re-introducing the draft. Nonetheless, the coming year is likely to see greater American and British military involvement in Iraq. More British soldiers are being sent as we write – to police the elections, of course. But more troops will further stimulate the resistance movement and create more casualties, increasing opposition from the families of veterans and from the British and American populations. ‘Quagmire’ is now a scientific term to describe imperialism’s predicament.

As a result of military and political failures the professional military and security forces - the FBI, for example - are also beginning to question the Neo-Conservative control of Pentagon policy. Has Colin Powell resigned in order to head up this fight? Or, is he just bowing out from a disastrous policy?

Political fissures are not just the result of the war. The phenomenal growth and power of China’s economy and potential military power is one of the main concerns of the US Neo-Conservatives. But, as James Petras points out, there are growing signs in 2005 of conflict over the China policy between the Neo-Con ideologues in the White House and Pentagon and major US multinationals and bankers.

As China expands its economic reach overseas, securing access to energy and raw material resources, the Neo-Conservatives (and their ‘human rights’ allies) will demand a more aggressive political and military confrontation. In contrast, the realists on Wall Street realize that China’s purchase of US bonds is crucial in preventing a collapse of the dollar; US investments in China total over $300 billion dollars and fifty percent of Chinese exports to the US are by US multi-national corporations. [1]

However, the conflicts opening up between the Neo-Con ideologues and the so-called ‘realists’, are in my view, mostly between long-term strategic objectives and short-term economic interests – a contradiction that is always a problem for capitalist leaderships, as the Neo Cons themselves have often pointed out.

Despite the important divisions opening up within the American ruling class about the war in Iraq, in their majority, they are united in their objective of ‘finishing the job’. The isolationist wing remains politically marginal. But as in Vietnam, the presence of more soldiers and armaments in Iraq is likely to lead to increasing massacres, a greater use of torture and a widespread destruction of Iraqi society; an escalation likely to turn a resistance movement into a national liberation struggle – a peoples’ war – with the possibilities of a widening conflict - a regional, total war. Why is American imperialism apparently so united in pursuing such a high-risk policy?

The stakes for America’s long-term hegemony are very high. America cannot afford to suffer what would be a strategic defeat in oil-rich western and central Asia, the location of half the worlds oil reserves. The military bases in Iraq and elsewhere are crucial to the success of US strategy in the 21st century. So more setbacks are likely to lead to greater escalation of the war in the short term. The outcome will depend on the success of the Iraqi resistance and the scale of the anti-war movements in the West.

Part of the explanation for US policy can be found in strategic documents produced by the Neo-Cons whose long-term analysis, if not always their short-term political solutions, are widely supported within the political elite.

What is new in the ‘New Imperialism’ and in the global strategy of the Neo-Cons?

The Neo-Conservatives developed a geo-political paradigm, a ‘grand strategy’ couched in a language that is a fusion between reactionary demagogic nationalism and Christian fundamentalism. Alex Callinicos has called this ‘The Rhetoric of Conquest’. Today this populist style is common currency in the USA and typically utilises pre-Enlightenment, pre-modern forms of speech of which the Pilgrim Fathers would have been proud. World politics has become ‘The struggle between good and evil, the enemy is the ‘axis of evil’. There are ‘evil terrorists’ and ‘rogue states’. While at last year’s Republican Convention there were placards proclaiming George Bush was doing ‘God’s work’. Behind this demagogic populism lies a serious and dangerous politics not only for the peoples of Iraq in 2005, but the peoples of the world in the coming decades – if we allow them to get away with it.

James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, expresses the brutality of the Neo-Cons’ world-view. A strong advocate of the ‘war on terror’, which he describes as World War Four, he explained at a seminar that, ‘America was not just fighting terrorism but creating a ‘new Middle East’, spreading democracy to prevent hostile Muslim and Arab forces from ‘destroying liberal civilisation’. Globalizing free-market capitalism is the practice and Christianity the ideological message. Appeals for democracy are the smoke screen.

The New Imperialist strategy is not a hidden agenda and can be found in the Bush war manifesto, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. [2] However, the ideas of the Neo-Cons find their most explicit expression in the many texts of The Project for the New American Century. [3] ‘The generally agreed plan is unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority.’ [4] In these documents, Russia, China and India, although seen to share some common interests and values with the capitalist West, are primarily perceived as a potential threat to American hegemony in the 21st century. [5]

Before 1989 US strategic thinking was traditionally concerned with the threat posed to American power by the Soviet Union, a German-dominated Europe, or competition from Japan and the Pacific Rim. More recently the emphasis has shifted to the ‘war against global terrorism’, a smokescreen for military/economic expansionism. After Afghanistan and Iraq there remain other ‘Rogue states’: Iran, Syria, and North Korea and Venezuela. If the US can hold the line in Iraq, bringing these countries under US control will be Bush’s next priority. But these are not the only objectives of the New Imperialism’s global offensive. Today US strategists also discuss the rising threat of China. When China reaches the productivity levels of South Korea – which is some years away - its GNP will be 1.35 times greater than the GNP of the USA.

Some important forces in the Neo-Con Republican right, notably Rumsfeld and Richard Perle entertain an ambitious project to reorder the so-called Middle East (or central Eurasia) and control the world’s most important oil reserves, as a step towards the long-term containment of China. Simon Bromley argues that in addition to the economic significance of oil to the capitalist world economy, since the Second World War, it is also a ‘strategic commodity’, key to America’s ‘overall management of its global leadership’. [6] This is particularly the case today when three of the Empire’s potential rivals, Europe, Japan and China, have a greater dependence on imported oil than America itself. Saudi Arabia is by far the largest exporter of oil and petroleum, most of which goes to Asia, while less than one fifth goes to the US. The first Gulf War in 1991 was fought to stop Saddam Hussein from gaining control of the Gulf and Saudi oil reserves. Direct control of these reserves would give the United States powerful economic and political leverage in Eurasia.

Central Eurasia, with half the world’s oil, must not, in the American view, be allowed to fall into the sphere of influence of China, or Russia, which already controls substantial reserves of oil. The establishment of American military bases in central Asia, in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia) and on the Pacific Rim, meets the strategic objective of militarily encircling potential rivals.

The Bush doctrine also asserts that only the US is allowed to develop ‘advanced military capabilities’. Some passages in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America document have a threatening tone, ‘in pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbours in the Asian-Pacific region, China is pursuing an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness.’ The section concludes, ‘our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in the hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States.’ [7]

John Bolton has summed up the Neo-Con attitude to international institutions thus: ‘There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along.’ [8]

Bush’s main strategist Karl Rove elaborates this thesis in relation to the global war against terrorism: ‘It’s the battle of Iraq, not the war . . . This is part of the war on terrorism.’. This is a permanent state of war called ‘preventive war’ based on the idea that if you think somebody is threatening you then you must immediately strike to forestall the threat. It is the ethics of the Wild West - shoot now and ask questions later. International law or the UN has little to do with it. [9]

September 11 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, [10] 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. [11] But it is important to recognise the continuities.

The Cold War Grand Strategy elaborated after the end of World War Two 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 multilateral 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 USA 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 rivals 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 – remains 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.’ [12]

Zbigniew Brzezinski adapted Cold War policy to these new conditions. 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.’ [13]

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. [14] For Clinton and Brzezinski, promoting the expansion of NATO and the EU was a means to maintain American influences and control in Eurasia coalition-building. It was more interventionist than traditional multilateral 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.

Bush senior, particularly in the First Gulf War which was the watershed, 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 radicalisation of the existing drift towards unilateralism and a de-facto rejection 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 Rumsfeld 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 increasingly 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 continue, 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.’ [15]

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 organisations 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.

Dave Packer is a longstanding member of the Trotskyist movement in Britain. Packer has held a number of leadership roles in the International Socialist Group and the Fourth International. Dave is a former editor of Socialist Outlook.

NOTES

[1] James Petras, ‘The Empire in the Year 2005’, article found at www.globalresearch.ca.

[2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, www.whitehouse.gov.

[3] The Project for the New American Century. ‘Statement of Principles’, 3 June 1997, www.newamericancentury.org.

[4] Anatol Lievin of the Carnegie Institute, discussing US global strategy, quoted in Callinicos, The New Mandarins of American Power, (2003) Polity.

I have drawn on a number of books and articles, notably by Peter Gowan, The Global Gamble, 1999, London; Robert Went, Globalization, Neoliberal Challenge, Radical Response, 2000, Pluto Press; James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmasked, 2001, Zed books; Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms, Crusades, Jihads and Modernity. 2002, Verso; Gilbert Achcar, The Clash of Barbarisms, 2002, New York, and various articles now collected in Eastern Cauldron, 2004, Pluto Press; Alex Callinicos, The New Mandarins of American Power, 2003, Polity.

[5] William Kristol, a central ideologue of the Neo-Cons, lays down the line on North Korea. “To move beyond a policy that is "long on attitude (axis of evil) but short on strategy," Eberstadt writes that the Bush administration must recognize that North Korea cannot be talked or bribed out of its nuclear program, and that getting rid of Kim Jong Il and the current government should be our goal.” W. Kristol. ‘Toward Regime Change in North Korea,’ November 22, 2004, www.newamericancentury.org.

[6] S. Bromley, American Hegemony and World Oil, 1991, Cambridge.

[7] National Security Strategy. pp. 26, 27 & 30. Quoted in Callinicos (2003).

[8] Quoted by Callinicos (2003).

[9] See R. Perle, ‘Thank God for the Death of the UN’, Guardian, 21 March 2003.

[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., 2002. Quoted in Callinicos, p. 61.

[14] See Z. Brzizinsky (1997), The Grand Chessboard, New York.

[15] Petras. 2005.

back to top