Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How will America handle the fall of its Middle East empire?
FCUS    3/8/2011 10:14:04 AM
How will America handle the fall of its Middle East empire? by Peter Oborne (Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator) Empires can collapse in the course of a generation. At the end of the 16th century, the Spanish looked dominant. Twenty-five years later, they were on their knees, over-extended, bankrupt, and incapable of coping with the emergent maritime powers of Britain and Holland. The British empire reached its fullest extent in 1930. Twenty years later, it was all over. Today, it is reasonable to ask whether the United States, seemingly invincible a decade ago, will follow the same trajectory. America has suffered two convulsive blows in the last three years. The first was the financial crisis of 2008, whose consequences are yet to be properly felt. Although the immediate cause was the debacle in the mortgage market, the underlying problem was chronic imbalance in the economy. For a number of years, America has been incapable of funding its domestic programmes and overseas commitments without resorting to massive help from China, its global rival. China has a pressing motive to assist: it needs to sustain US demand in order to provide a market for its exports and thus avert an economic crisis of its own. This situation is the contemporary equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the doctrine which prevented nuclear war breaking out between America and Russia. Unlike MAD, this pact is unsustainable. But Barack Obama has not sought to address the problem. Instead, he responded to the crisis with the same failed policies that caused the trouble in the first place: easy credit and yet more debt. It is certain that America will, in due course, be forced into a massive adjustment both to its living standards at home and its commitments abroad. This matters because, following the second convulsive blow, America’s global interests are under threat on a scale never before seen. Since 1956, when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles pulled the plug on Britain and France over Suez, the Arab world has been a US domain. At first, there were promises that it would tolerate independence and self-determination. But this did not last long; America chose to govern through brutal and corrupt dictators, supplied with arms, military training and advice from Washington. The momentous importance of the last few weeks is that this profitable, though morally bankrupt, arrangement appears to be coming to an end. One of the choicest ironies of the bloody and macabre death throes of the regime in Libya is that Colonel Gaddafi would have been wiser to have stayed out of the US sphere of influence. When he joined forces with George Bush and Tony Blair five years ago, the ageing dictator was leaping on to a bandwagon that was about to grind to a halt. In Washington, President Obama has not been stressing this aspect of affairs. Instead, after hesitation, he has presented the recent uprisings as democratic and even pro-American, indeed a triumph for the latest methods of Western communication such as Twitter and Facebook. Many sympathetic commentators have therefore claimed that the Arab revolutions bear comparison with the 1989 uprising of the peoples of Eastern Europe against Soviet tyranny. I would guess that the analogy is apt. Just as 1989 saw the collapse of the Russian empire in Eastern Europe, so it now looks as if 2011 will mark the removal of many of America’s client regimes in the Arab world. It is highly unlikely, however, that events will thereafter take the tidy path the White House would prefer. Far from being inspired by Twitter, a great many of Arab people who have driven the sensational events of recent weeks are illiterate. They have been impelled into action by mass poverty and unemployment, allied to a sense of disgust at vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption. It is too early to chart the future course of events with confidence, but it seems unlikely that these liberated peoples will look to Washington and New York as their political or economic model. The great question is whether America will take its diminished status gracefully, or whether it will lash out, as empires in trouble are historically prone to do. Here the White House response gives cause for concern. American insensitivity is well demonstrated in the case of Raymond Davis, the CIA man who shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore. Hillary Clinton is trying to bully Pakistan into awarding Davis diplomatic immunity. This is incredible behaviour, which shows that the US continues to regard itself as above the law. Were President Zardari, already seen by his fellow countrymen as a pro-American stooge, to comply, his government would almost certainly fall. Or take President Obama’s decision last week to veto the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Even America itself accepts that these settlements are illegal. At a time when the Middle East is already mutinous, this course
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
SGTObvious       3/8/2011 4:23:35 PM
 
 
It's very interesting that in the Leftosphere, any nation with the United States has anything but a hostile relationship with is considered a subordinate state somehow, a vassal of the American empire.
 
By this same reasoning, Russia must be a US client state:  we buy their stuff, and we shake their hands in official meetings and issue statements about how we are cooperating. 
 
Of all the middle eastern arab states only Egypt and Iraq could even begin to qualify as "client states", and only by a stretch of the meaning.  The others... strictly business between nations.  They sell, we buy, we sell, they buy, quid pro quo, we defend common interests, yet we are vehemently opposed on other issues.
 
Egypt... well,  in exchange for peace with Israel, we subsidized and trained their military.
Darn good thing too- the Egyptian military has responded to its national crisis with far more professionalism than other Arab militaries we didn't develop.  They may well turn out to be the stabilizing institution Egypt needs to develop a true democracy.
 
The others... Tunisia?  A client?  Why, because a scene from Star Wars was shot there?  Because we are not at war with them?  No, Tunisia is certainly much more within the Italian Empire than ours.  Mostly, we don't care about Tunisia.
 
Libya?  One of ours?   You're kidding, right?  Algeria?  What? 
 
So, this is hardly an American Empire collapsing.  Iraq has been stable.  They even helped evacuate their own citizens from Egypt and Libya.  (Definition for Suck:  When Iraqis think the situation is so bad they decide to flee and return to their homeland.   When Afghans do this, the situation is so bad Suck doesn't begin to cover it.)  Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, our closest commercial partners, have been stable.  Yemen's a mess.  What else is new?  But Yemen is not and has never been a "friend".  Yemen is a battlefield.  Yemen is not a friend, Yemen is a nation that cooperates at gunpoint.  With anyone.
 
In fact, the article's bias and ignorance are both made apparent with the description of Hillary Clinton trying to "trying to bully Pakistan into awarding Davis diplomatic immunity" and calls it "incredible behavior".    Uhhh... no.  Davis already HAD diplomatic immunity as an embassy employee- you don't claim in "after the fact", it exists the moment you notify another nation that such and such a person is in their country on official embassy business.  Which the US did.  All Hillary is trying to do is get Pakistan to respect the law, and its own agreeements.  Much as the British did in 1984, when gunfire from the Libyan embassy in London killed a woman.
 
Apparently, according to Mr. Oborne, America is arrogant when it expects to existing laws to be respected.  In previous cases, international law has always respected diplomatic immunity as inviolable.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    SGTObvious Response   3/9/2011 1:57:21 AM

 

 

It's very interesting that in the Leftosphere, any nation with the United States has anything but a hostile relationship with is considered a subordinate state somehow, a vassal of the American empire.

 

By this same reasoning, Russia must be a US client state:  we buy their stuff, and we shake their hands in official meetings and issue statements about how we are cooperating. 

 

Of all the middle eastern arab states only Egypt and Iraq could even begin to qualify as "client states", and only by a stretch of the meaning.  The others... strictly business between nations.  They sell, we buy, we sell, they buy, quid pro quo, we defend common interests, yet we are vehemently opposed on other issues.

 

Egypt... well,  in exchange for peace with Israel, we subsidized and trained their military.

Darn good thing too- the Egyptian military has responded to its national crisis with far more professionalism than other Arab militaries we didn't develop.  They may well turn out to be the stabilizing institution Egypt needs to develop a true democracy.

 

The others... Tunisia?  A client?  Why, because a scene from Star Wars was shot there?  Because we are not at war with them?  No, Tunisia is certainly much more within the Italian Empire than ours.  Mostly, we don't care about Tunisia.

 

Libya?  One of ours?   You're kidding, right?  Algeria?  What? 

 

So, this is hardly an American Empire collapsing.  Iraq has been stable.  They even helped evacuate their own citizens from Egypt and Libya.  (Definition for Suck:  When Iraqis think the situation is so bad they decide to flee and return to their homeland.   When Afghans do this, the situation is so bad Suck doesn't begin to cover it.)  Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, our closest commercial partners, have been stable.  Yemen's a mess.  What else is new?  But Yemen is not and has never been a "friend".  Yemen is a battlefield.  Yemen is not a friend, Yemen is a nation that cooperates at gunpoint.  With anyone.

 

In fact, the article's bias and ignorance are both made apparent with the description of Hillary Clinton trying to "trying to bully Pakistan into awarding Davis diplomatic immunity" and calls it "incredible behavior".    Uhhh... no.  Davis already HAD diplomatic immunity as an embassy employee- you don't claim in "after the fact", it exists the moment you notify another nation that such and such a person is in their country on official embassy business.  Which the US did.  All Hillary is trying to do is get Pakistan to respect the law, and its own agreeements.  Much as the British did in 1984, when gunfire from the Libyan embassy in London killed a woman.

 

Apparently, according to Mr. Oborne, America is arrogant when it expects to existing laws to be respected.  In previous cases, international law has always respected diplomatic immunity as inviolable.

 

 


SGT. Obvious-long time, no see. A few things that I wanted to comment on your post about. Technically, I think you are correct the US has no "client states" in the Middle East. I don't think a client state should be defined as such unless it actually borders a more powerful state: (e.g. China, and North Korea, Poland and the USSR).  Still, states like Saudi Arabia, and the UAE buy American military hardware. This in of itself does not make them client states, and to be fair the article never mentioned the term "client state".
 
What the author is getting at, and what you seem to have missed is that America has, or had, influence in this region. Influence that was not overt, as the author termed it- an "invisible empire"-but was nonetheless there. The transition from bipolar world system to (briefly) unipolar one left the US as the one country outside of the region that could still bring real influence to bear on the region. As has been pointed out, the Europeans have colonial issues, China remained too passive, and Russia was a basketcase. 
 
That scenario has changed now. No longer can these leaders rely on the US to help them, since there is not much the US can do to help, limited as it is by overstretch, and
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/9/2011 11:09:43 AM
It seems that the current plan is to cede the whole Middle East to the Brotherhood of Nod.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=272293
 
 

White House official praises Muslim Brotherhood leader

Deputy NSC chief begs for 'cooperation' at mosque in Virginia


Posted: March 08, 2011
12:09 am Eastern

White House sources explain that deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough was unaware of the cleric's radical ties, and added that the presidential assistant attended the outreach event as a show of support for the Muslim community ahead of Thursday's congressional hearings on Muslim radicalization. Led by New York Republican Rep. Peter King, the planned hearings have already generated charges of "bigotry" from Muslim activists.

 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       3/11/2011 11:53:28 PM
What's not obvious to me from the article is this - what did this supposed "invisible" empire do for American interests? Is the mere act of selling oil at market prices by Arab countries a favor to these United States? Or is funding al Qaeda and fomenting Islamist extremism part of the Islamic world's tribute towards the United States? Maybe he means that the Arab world's biggest favor was not waging all-out war against us, choosing instead to attack us in limited ways, such as bringing down the World Trade Center and destroying a mere wing of the Pentagon instead of destroying us with nuclear fires. If that is in fact what he means, maybe we have much to worry about, if this "invisible" empire falls apart.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       3/17/2011 9:14:28 AM

Secondly, not all embassy personnel have diplomatic immunity. Only FSOs have diplomatic immunity.  I don't think Davis qualifies as an FSO, and he was not performing "official" diplomatic functions anyway.


That may be your opinion, and the opinion of the Pakistanis, but the US State Department says otherwise.  They say he was performing official diplomatic functions, he did have immunity, and they are, after all, the horse's mouth.
But, water under the bridge- he's home.  No doubt, whoever paid off the "victims", 1.4 million was a fraction of the expenses a trial and incarceration would have created, and how do you put a dollar value on the increased US-Pakistan tensions that would have resulted.  A bargain.  Maybe we should look into this "blood money" concept, it might not be such a bad thing.  Lord knows we could have avoided the whole OJ circus.
 
By bizarre coincidence, a long-time Pakistani friend of mine returned to the USA at the same time, and when I welcomed him back he said "Oh, and I brough Raymond Davis with me".
 
Maybe he did.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       3/17/2011 9:21:44 AM


. Technically, I think you are correct the US has no "client states" in the Middle East. I don't think a client state should be defined as such unless it actually borders a more powerful state: (e.g. China, and North Korea, Poland and the USSR).  Still, states like Saudi Arabia, and the UAE buy American military hardware. This in of itself does not make them client states, and to be fair the article never mentioned the term "client state".
No, but the article mentions "Empire" repeatedly, and if you want to get technical, an Empire requires some sort of client-states, colonies,  vassal states, etc.   So if you say "we have no client states", we might has well go the distance and admit "got no empire either".
 
What we have is just an interconnected web of political and economic relationships serving mutual interests.
 
The Saudis are a case in point.  They are very quick to work against US interests- when they wish to.   They will hunt down Al-Queda- to the extent that AQ also represents a threat to them.  But they will also fund the mosques that spread the doctrine that makes AQ possible.  Vassal states of an empire do not do this. 
 
Quote    Reply

donstrock       3/20/2011 10:39:41 AM
An op-ed from a British fish-wrap shytting all over the USA?  I'm shocked....
 
The nine irons need us a lot more than we need their soccer balls and rubber dog crap.  
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Let them have their Vietnam, again.   3/20/2011 12:55:42 PM
There will be no fall of a 'US Empire' since that does not exist.
 
As for the chest thumping? How about a few facts?

The rebels in Benghazi may see the tricolor on a few (count on the fingers of one hand) jets buzzing tanks (They've actually seen more planes [Harriers] that say MARINE, but I digress) , likewise the denizens of Tripoli know who  does the REAL pounding here. 

H.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    Clueless Thread   3/20/2011 12:57:01 PM
"Today, it is reasonable to ask whether the United States, seemingly invincible a decade ago, will follow the same trajectory. America has suffered two convulsive blows in the last three years. The first was the financial crisis of 2008, whose consequences are yet to be properly felt. Although the immediate cause was the debacle in the mortgage market, the underlying problem was chronic imbalance in the economy. "
 
The United States suffered the worst attack on domestic soil since Pearl Harbor a decade ago. That fact seems to have been overlooked. There was nothing invincable about that.
 
The financial crisis was caused by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and a spoiled financial market that demanded that its investments to be underwriiten by the US taxpayer. This was also assisted by a president who, having no real grounding in principles or convictions, threw the free market economy to the command economy wolves.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       3/24/2011 9:43:47 AM




Secondly, not all embassy personnel have diplomatic immunity. Only FSOs have diplomatic immunity.  I don't think Davis qualifies as an FSO, and he was not performing "official" diplomatic functions anyway.







That may be your opinion, and the opinion of the Pakistanis, but the US State Department says otherwise.  They say he was performing official diplomatic functions, he did have immunity, and they are, after all, the horse's mouth.


But, water under the bridge- he's home.  No doubt, whoever paid off the "victims", 1.4 million was a fraction of the expenses a trial and incarceration would have created, and how do you put a dollar value on the increased US-Pakistan tensions that would have resulted.  A bargain.  Maybe we should look into this "blood money" concept, it might not be such a bad thing.  Lord knows we could have avoided the whole OJ circus.

 

By bizarre coincidence, a long-time Pakistani friend of mine returned to the USA at the same time, and when I welcomed him back he said "Oh, and I brough Raymond Davis with me".

 

Maybe he did.



It's not an opinion, it is in fact the law....as defined by treaty. Article 9 of the 1961 Vienna  Convention on Diplomatic Relations states that the receiving state can at any time, for any reason (they don't have to even give a reason) declare a person attached to an embassy or consulate persona non grata, as in he/she does not have any immunity as he/she is not acceptable (this can be done before they even arrive in the country).  So, even if he did have "immunity" (which is dubious considering he did not have an actual diplomatic or consualr function in the consualte), he could still be declared persona non grata by Pakistan, which has the effect of removing immunity.  
 
Also, note that he wasn't using a diplomatic passport (you know, the thing that says you are a diplomat and thus subject to the protections in the Vienna Convention), and why if the State Department said he had immunity did the SecState request Pakistan to grant him immunity?

  Usually persona non grata isn't done since it can be reciprocated, so it is reserved for extreme cases (like killing someone or spying). The whole point of diplomatic "immunity" was/is to allow diplomats to perform their functions without harassment from the host government, which happened a lot in past history. However, it does not give diplomats carte blanche  to do whatever they want. For example, the US  holds foreign diplomats libel for torts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. I am sure other countries have similar laws enacted.
 
The whole point of this exchange is that you objected to the author of the article's reasoning on the "American empire." In order to discredit the author you thought you would point out an error, however I think the author was correct in reporting the facts on this particular case.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics