As you've probably figured out by now, I'm of the opinion that American foreign policy since 1993 is more like something you'd find in Penn State's showers than the product of a deliberative process engaged in by smart people. It is every bit as much the embodiment of a "if it feels good, do it" philosophy as your average gang-bang is. In neither instance does anyone consider the consequence of a specific action until it's too late.
That's certainly true of the three men that followed George H.W Bush into the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush thought that they could use NATO to surround Russia, and that the Kremlin wouldn't mind all that much. Both thought that they could carve new countries out of Yugoslavia where none had existed since the 12th century. Then there's Iraq, which I believe will become history's most epic clusterfuck in the next decade or so.
The Obama administration's Libya policy is a microcosm of all that bad thinking that is U.S foreign policy in recent years. The overthrow and subsequent murder of international fashion icon, Moammar Gadaffi, will have consequences that are easy to see, but everybody chooses to ignore.
Don't get me wrong. I celebrated the man's death. I'm of the considered opinion that any head of state that dresses like Michael Jackson and acts like Prince probably should have his corpse dragged through the fucking streets. Having said that, I will miss his legion of chick bodyguards and busty Ukrainian nurses more than words can say. The man had a legendary libido that so closely resembles my own that I can't help but feel a certain kinship with him.
Be that as it may, I believe that NATO's intervention in Libya, like the American invasion of Iraq, is going to create almost metaphysical problems in the conduct of foreign policy.
As we're already seeing, the Libyan people aren't all that interested in democracy. If they are, they have an interesting way of showing it, what with the flying of the al-Qeada flag over the Bengazhi courthouse, and all. In any event, I think the rhetorical focus on freedom is utterly inconsistent with America's post-World War II conduct of foreign policy, anyhow.Yes, the rhetoric was there, but the deeds almost never aligned with it.
If you're not sure what I mean by that, ask Mohamad Mossaddegh, Jacabo Arbenz and Salvador Allende: all three of whom were products of the democratic process, and were deposed by contemporary of future American client tyrants. That the Iranian, Guatemalan and Chilean people suffered for decades afterwards was hardly a secret, it's just that 10 U.S presidents and the American people didn't give a fuck. People tend to forget this, but despots that were later painted with Washington's famous "Hitler brush", like Manuel Noreiga and Saddam Hussein, were at one time or another useful tools of U.S policy in their respective regions. Until they weren't. And then they became "like Hitler."
I've never really gotten into this before, but I oppose the International Criminal Court, the concept of universial jurisdiction, and the American process of trying foreign nationals in Lower Manhattan for crimes that were committed in places that no one in Lower Manhattan can find on a map.
The reasons for my opposition are pretty simple. If it is determined that a dictator must go, it's always best to let him flee into exile in some shitty place like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and sometimes France. It worked for Idi Amin, and that motherfucker actually ate people.
However, if you take exile off of the table, which the ICC, universial jurisdiction, and American criminal trials do, you leave said despot with no other choice than to stage a murderous "last stand" which will almost certainly kill untold numbers of innocent people.
And here's a neat fact. Dictators tend to pay attention to one another's fates. You only need to fuck over a scumbag like Charles Taylor on a safe haven deal once before you ensure that there's never going to be another such agreement. In reneging on a deal with a monster, you practically guarantee that the next monster will chance a seige of Berlin-style last stand, thereby killing more civilians than you otherwise hope to save.
Poorly thought out policy always creates unintended - if utterly predictable - consequences. When you invade Iraq for WMD that it doesn't have, you necessarily teach Iran that they probably won't be invaded if they actually demonstrate that they have WMD. Although he probably didn't intend it to happen that way, the second President Bush did more to further weapons proliferation than even A.Q Khan. Dr. Khan only supplied the weapons. President Bush created the strategic imperative for phychopathic regimes to obtain them. If you doubt me, ask yourself a simple question: "What would you do if you were Iran or North Korea in the wake of the Iraq invasion?" The answers really shouldn't surprise you, if you aren't a half-wit.
The comical demise of Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar Gaddafi, esquire, also taught the evil men of the world another valuable lesson: that being America's new buddy doesn't pay.
After 2003, Gaddafi did everything that Washington wanted to. He abandoned his almost satirical nuclear program. He accepted responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid restitution to the families. And not only did he renounce terrorism, it is widely believed that he tortured suspected terrorists for the United States as part of their "extraordinary rendition" program.
The picture to the right should give you a pretty good idea where playing ball with the United States got him.
Again, I hoisted a drink in toasting Gaddafi's inglorious passing. And it was a drink of such size and depth that only true heroes can really appreciate it. I imbibed it, fell down and giggled my goddamned ass off when I found out that ol' Muammar was murdered like a fucking rat.
But, in the grand scheme of things, my opinions don't matter all that much, do they? The opinions that you should really strive to influence are those of folks like Bashir al-Assad, Islam Karimov or Pakistan's ISI. And I just don't see how they view Gadaffi's fate after becoming part of the "family of nations" as being in their self-interest. Do you figure that Omar al-Bashir is pulling the fingernails out of more of America's enemies, or fewer of them, after being indicted by the ICC?
Sure, Moammar made cool friends. Barack Obama shook his hand. Paul Martin and Hillary Clinton came to visit. He comissioned "Black Rose of the Desert" in a failed attempt to get into Condolezza Rice's pants. Tony Blair cut him in on a few business deals. But none of that stopped him from ultimately being found in a fucking sewer and shot in the head. And that, teenagers, is the kind of thing that the West's other unsavoury allies - and they are many, for they are legion - tend to take notice of.
Most Americans like to believe that their foreign policy is based 100% on morality and freedom, almost entirely the product of candy, unicorns and angel farts. But Americans are hardly regarded as the world's most dilligent readers, are they?
I think that the LIbyan people are going to hate us for getting into bed with Gaddafi to the extent that we did, and our secret little friends with the dirty histories are going to take note of just how quickly we threw Moammar over the side when shit got ugly.
We're playing both sides of a sucker's game, and I figure that it's going to end about as well for us as it did for the banks when they did the same thing in the subprime mortage scheme. Just because Gadaffi was a megalomanical idiot doesn't mean that we should presuppose that all of our savage playmates are. We should start to understand our animals have their own self-interests that they're all keenly aware of.
You don't get halfway into bed with evil because eventually evil is going to make you sleep on the couch, and the victim's of evil aren't ever going to give you credit for your attempt to keep one foot on the fucking floor while you were still in the boudoir.
0 comments:
Post a Comment