After Caesar announced that he would be pulling all combat troops out of Iraq - not for any sound and principled opposition to occupation, of course, but only because he was abiding by the SOFA that Bush signed in 2008 and that US troops would no longer have immunity from the law - I wondered what sneaky trick the White House and Pentagon would play in order to keep their imperial military influence in the Gulf.
Obama heads the largest empire the world has ever known, after all, and given that the US is expanding into Africa and building new drone bases all over the Gulf of Aden, I assumed that there would likely be something to counterweight the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
And according to the NYT, Obama the megalomaniac has his cross hairs on Iran.
The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran [they say it like it's inevitable!].
The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama's announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.
After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.
In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.
At a time when the US government is trillions in debt, borrowing almost half of every dollar it spends, and spread thin across the entire globe, this is absolute madness. Is the White House really worried and threatened by Iran?

A dangerous tripwire: US military exercises in the Persian Gulf, circa 2008.
Forget about all the hype from the American neocons and the Likud Party in Israel calling Iran the "existential threat," comparing their powerless president to Hitler, and calling for a pile of Persian bones.
When one takes a sober look at Iran, there is very little to be scared about. Iran's annual military budget is less than $10 billion a year, and even the US government's top intelligence agencies claim that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The US military presence near the Persian Gulf is supposed to be a deterrent against the threat that Iran would cut off or restrict the flow of oil out of the Strait of Hormuz. But even if we accept the fact that Americans should have the fruits of their labor confiscated so that government bureaucrats can possibly kill and die for oil, the US would barely feel it if Iran decided to do such a foolish thing.
For starters, 36% of American oil is domestic. 22% comes from Canada, and Mexico comes in at third. The Persian Gulf supplies just about 13% of American oil. A sudden drop in production would definitely have an effect on the American economy, but how about increasing oil production here? If China can drill in the Gulf of Mexico, than so can we.
Instead of patrolling the Persian Gulf with theftillion dollar Destroyers, why not sit down with Iran and realize that is in the interests of both countries to trade and be at peace. An overwhelming majority of Iranians love Americans; they just hate the policies of the US government. And most importantly, most Iranians favor diplomatic relations with the US.
So why does the US continue to have such a hawkish stance towards a people that want peace and trade with us? There are many domestic reasons, of course: the Israel lobby, more war means more weapons means more profits for the merchants of death means more campaign donations, and there's nothing like an ethnically and religiously different bogeyman to instill fear.
But I ultimately think that most of the US actions around the globe are in a response to China's growing power. There are other factors as well, but given that it is cheaper to buy oil than it is to steal it, the Pentagon likely supports intervention everywhere for the sole purpose of preventing China from getting there. Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan; if the US is occupying them, than the Chinese can't.
The only problem is: we are broke. Actually, broke doesn't even begin to describe the financial mess the US is in.
But whatever the reason the US is rattling its saber near Iran, expanding the empire into Africa, and building new drone bases - hegemony, China, or good ol' fashioned imperial glory and blood-lust - it ultimately can not go on forever.
And the sooner we realize how counterproductive and costly empire is, the better off we, and the rest of the world, will be.
Recent Comments