Taliban's rapid victory embarrasses US, smashes image, arrogance

China respects Afghans' choice, urges Taliban to implement commitments

`

 

Afghans' distrust of US reflects the fact that the entire world ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

A US soldier (center) points his gun at an Afghan passenger at Kabul airport on Monday as thousands of people mobbed the city's airport trying to flee the country. Photo: AFP

 

The Afghan Taliban have successfully returned to Kabul and are ready to set up a new government while the hasty US retreat, which had caused deaths to locals, makes the end of the 20-year-long war look increasingly embarrassing to the US..

` The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting to discuss the situation in Afghanistan on Monday..

` Before the Security Council meeting, key US allies including the UK and France who fought the war with the US in the past two decades had expressed their disappointment and concerns, but China and Russia remain calm and cautious in observing the situation..

` Chinese analysts said to what extent the Taliban could win worldwide recognition depends on how it could implement its commitments, and the failure in Afghanistan could deeply damage the US image as a hegemon.. But the pullout from Afghanistan would make the US bolster its presence in other regions..

` Washington is still able to export chaos to other countries and regions with the excuse of "values, international orders or human rights" and people worldwide should learn from the current situation in Afghanistan, experts noted..

` China to be cautious.

` "China has noticed that the Afghan Taliban said yesterday the war was over, and they vowed to establish through negotiations an open and inclusive Islamic government, and to take responsible actions to ensure the safety of Afghan people and foreign diplomatic personnel," Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a Monday news conference. .

` Jin Canrong, associate dean of the School of International Studies at the Renmin University of China, told the Global Times on Monday that "China needs to stay calm to observe the current situation, because the Taliban have gained an unexpected victory. This does not mean the Taliban have had overwhelming military power to ensure control, but the [Afghan] government's force has lost morale and given up.".

` The Taliban need to take political responsibility, but considering there are different forces within the Taliban, how to prevent the struggle for power and keep an internal balance, as well as satisfy local tribal forces would be the new challenges for the Taliban, and the risk of chaos still exists, Jin said..

` Pan Guang, a senior expert on counter-terrorism and Afghan studies at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said that the possibility of a humanitarian crisis is there and if the Taliban failed to restore peace and order, the UN Security Council would have to consider sending UN peacekeeping troops into the region, not just to prevent the country becoming a breeding ground for terrorism, but also to conduct anti-drug missions and other humanitarian work. .

` "But this needs all five permanent members of the Security Council to be united," Pan noted..

` Zhu Yongbiao, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies in Lanzhou University, said the Afghan Taliban's success in Afghanistan is difficult to duplicate elsewhere, but some terrorist and extremist militia forces in the region, such as the Taliban Movement in Pakistan, as well as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and even ISIS in the Middle East, might believe that they would have the similar chance too..

` "China and Russia, as well as other partners in the region and under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, are paying attention to the situation to prevent the potential spillover and to strengthen border controls," he noted..

` Reactions from major powers.

` Russia was in contact with Taliban officials through its embassy in Kabul, President Vladimir Putin's special representative on Afghanistan said on Monday, a day after the Afghan government collapsed and the capital fell to the Taliban, Reuters reported..

` Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also pointed out that there has been no reaction from Washington to human rights violations in Kabul and the appeals of Afghan citizens for evacuation help at Kabul airport, TASS reported on Monday..

` The West shows a totally different image compared to those of China and Russia. "World leaders blame Biden, and express disappointment with Afghanistan." This is the headline of a report from Fox News on Monday, as it has listed the negative comments on the US failure from the leaders of some Western major countries, including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. .

` Johnson told Sky News that it was "fair to say the US decision to pull out has accelerated things, but this has in many ways been a chronicle of an event foretold." He urged Western leaders to work together to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a "breeding ground for terrorism." French President Emmanuel Macron was scheduled to speak on Monday about the situation, while France also sent military aircraft to evacuate its nationals from the country..

` The different attitudes between the West and non-Western major powers prove that those who closely followed the US in the Afghan war have felt the pain and shared the US feeling of failure. But China and Russia, which didn't follow the military actions, could be more flexible to deal with the dramatic change, Zhu said..

` The Xinhua News Agency published on Monday a commentary entitled, "The 'fall of Kabul' rings the funeral bell of US hegemony." .

` The article said the US can simply leave but it has left Afghan people with endless pain. In the past 20 years, more than 30,000 civilians had been killed directly or indirectly by US forces, and more than 60,000 had been injured, with 11 million refugees. This proves that the US is the biggest exporter of chaos in the world, and its hegemony has caused too many tragedies. .

` Chinese experts said the end of the war in Afghanistan has deeply damaged the image of the US as a hegemon, and in the future, if the US decides to launch military actions elsewhere with the excuse of "democracy, values, human rights or rules-based order," very few countries would keep following it, or they would just send very few troops to reluctantly fulfill the relevant alliance treaty..

` "But when the US withdrew from Vietnam in 1970s, it pulled itself out of a mess, which gave it more resources to do more in other regions. So the US global influence remains powerful," Xiao He, an expert from the Institute of World Economics and Politics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Monday..

` Experts warned that Washington is still able to export chaos by force,, and the world still needs to stay alert, and learn from the current situation in Afghanistan..

` Source link` 

 

RELATED ARTICLES

 

Taliban in charge of Afghanistan

The Taliban were in control of Afghanistan on Monday after President Ashraf Ghani fled the country and conceded ...

China respects Afghans’ choice, expects Taliban to keep its words of establishing inclusive govt

China hopes that the Taliban can implement its previous commitments and ensure a smooth transition of power in ...

European countries evacuate diplomats, citizens from Afghanistan as Taliban enter capital

Several European countries have decided to evacuate diplomats, citizens from Afghanistan and close embassies there as Taliban members ..

 

Related posts:

 

Moral vacuum at the heart of modernity, now embodied in US laws!

  ` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ...

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY

Huduh is good for Malaysia?

Enough with hudud

The growing number of politicians in this country who think that hudud is a good idea for Malaysia should see the video that is circulating online of the execution of an Afghan woman by her husband for alleged adultery.

HERE is a video circulating online which everyone in this country should watch:



It depicts the execution of an Afghan woman for alleged adultery. Her husband shoots her many times in the head while being cheered on by a crowd of men.

If anyone thinks this happened many years ago during the Taliban–era, they are sadly mistaken.
This gruesome event happened recently, in present-day non-Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

The authorities are now looking for the executioner who has predictably disappeared. But really they should arrest the entire crowd that watched it, as accessories to murder.

I think this video should be shown to the growing number of politicians in this country who think hudud is a good idea for Malaysia. In particular, it should be shown to those who have just called for the same.

If they can watch the video without at least blanching and truly think that’s what they want, then I hope they will be held accountable for not only the exodus of Malaysians from this country but also for the drastic reduction in foreign investments coming in.

If they want to blow us back to the Stone Age, then they should at least be made to answer for it.

What is it with some of our politicians who seem to have taken leave of their senses?

Is the loathing for reading and knowledge so widespread that they have to show it off with such ill-informed statements?

In a world where problems are increasingly sophisticated and complicated, is hudud the only response these people can come up with?

Maybe they should get out a bit more.

They might like to travel to places like Pakistan where the literacy rate is all of 55% and where, in some areas, only 22% of women can read.

Or, go to Iran where a full 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. They might also like to notice the vast numbers of children forced to do backbreaking work in the Middle East.

Or they can stay home and instead of reading the tabloids and beefing up their knowledge on which actress is about to marry which rich man, they might like to read up on our very own Federal Constitution which basically says that not only can’t you have hudud laws, you also can’t impose it on anyone who isn’t Muslim.

Unless they have some subconscious need to lose the elections for their beloved party, then they might pause and see where this is going.

But introspection is not a Malaysian strong point.

Somebody floats an “idea” that they think will attract some press attention and next thing you know, everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon.

Never mind that none of the so-called hudud punishments can be found in the Quran.

For years, our Government has steadily pooh-poohed the idea of having hudud in this country because that was what the Opposition (or at least some of them) wanted. For years those of us who knew that hudud did not belong in the 21st century have held on to that as our bulwark against theocratic rule in this country.

Now, however, the government supporters have changed their tune and are echoing the Opposition’s line all those years ago. They seriously think this is the way to win an election?

If hudud is to be implemented, then I hope someone realises that it has to be implemented fairly.

Therefore not only will petty thieves get their hands cut off but major-league million-ringgit bribe-takers too. And no doubt we will have morality police patrolling the streets and checking that everyone is being good.

MUSINGS
By MARINA MAHATHIR 

Related posts
 Practise 'Addin', a Malaysian way of life? PAS Vows Hudud for ...
Gender segregation slammed!
Insap forum on Hudud leaves public still grappling with ...  

Related articles

• Hudud issue threatens Malaysian's future

  ---

Drones, computers new weapons of US waging shadow wars!

 AP FILE - This Jan. 31, 2010 file photo shows an unmanned U.S. Predator drone flies over Kandahar Air Field, southern Afghanistan, on a moon-lit night. After a decade of costly conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of war is evolving toward less brawn, more guile. Drone aircraft spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm's way. Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses sent from computers to foreign networks strike silently, with no American fingerprint. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)

Supporters of Pakistani religious party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, burn a representation of a US flag during a rally condemning US drone strikes in tribal areas and the reopening of the NATO supply line to neighboring Afghanistan, in Hyderabad, Pakistan, Friday, June 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Pervez Masih)

FILE - In this Sept. 7, 2011 file photo, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, speaks in Washington. After a decade of costly conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of war is evolving toward less brawn, more guile. Drone aircraft spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm's way. Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses sent from computers to foreign networks strike silently, with no American fingerprint. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) — AP

 
WASHINGTON — After a decade of costly conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of war is evolving toward less brawn, more guile.

Chart shows the number of air attacks in Pakistan — AP

Drone aircraft spy on and attack terrorists with no pilot in harm's way. Small teams of special operations troops quietly train and advise foreign forces. Viruses sent from computers to foreign networks strike silently, with no American fingerprint. 

It's war in the shadows, with the U.S. public largely in the dark. 

In Pakistan, armed drones, not U.S. ground troops or B-52 bombers, are hunting down al-Qaida terrorists, and a CIA-run raid of Osama bin Laden's hide-out was executed by a stealthy team of Navy SEALs. 

In Yemen, drones and several dozen U.S. military advisers are trying to help the government tip the balance against an al-Qaida offshoot that harbors hopes of one day attacking the U.S. homeland. 

In Somalia, the Horn of Africa country that has not had a fully functioning government since 1991, President Barack Obama secretly has authorized two drone strikes and two commando raids against terrorists. 

In Iran, surveillance drones have kept an eye on nuclear activities while a computer attack reportedly has infected its nuclear enrichment facilities with a virus, possibly delaying the day when the U.S. or Israel might feel compelled to drop real bombs on Iran and risk a wider war in the Middle East. 

The high-tech warfare allows Obama to target what the administration sees as the greatest threats to U.S. security, without the cost and liabilities of sending a swarm of ground troops to capture territory; some of them almost certainly would come home maimed or dead. 

But it also raises questions about accountability and the implications for international norms regarding the use of force outside of traditional armed conflict. The White House took an incremental step Friday toward greater openness about the basic dimensions of its shadowy wars by telling Congress for the first time that the U.S. military has been launching lethal attacks on terrorist targets in Somalia and Yemen. It did not mention drones, and its admission did not apply to CIA operations. 

"Congressional oversight of these operations appears to be cursory and insufficient," said Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy issues for the Federation of American Scientists, a private group. 

"It is Congress' responsibility to declare war under the Constitution, but instead it appears to have adopted a largely passive role while the executive takes the initiative in war fighting," Aftergood said in an interview. 

That's partly because lawmakers relinquished their authority by passing a law just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that essentially granted the White House open-ended authority for armed action against al-Qaida. 

Secret wars are not new. 

For decades, the CIA has carried out covert operations abroad at the president's direction and with congressional notice. It armed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan who fought Soviet occupiers in the 1980s, for example. In recent years the U.S. military's secretive commando units have operated more widely, even in countries where the U.S. is not at war, and that's blurred the lines between the intelligence and military spheres. 

In this shroud of secrecy, leaks to the news media of classified details about certain covert operations have led to charges that the White House orchestrated the revelations to bolster Obama's national security credentials and thereby improve his re-election chances. The White House has denied the accusations. 

The leaks exposed details of U.S. computer virus attacks on Iran's nuclear program, the foiling of an al-Qaida bomb plot targeting U.S. aircraft, and other secret operations. 

Two U.S. attorneys are heading separate FBI investigations into leaks of national security information, and Congress is conducting its own probe. 

It's not just the news media that has pressed the administration for information about its shadowy wars. 

Some in Congress, particularly those lawmakers most skeptical of the need for U.S. foreign interventions, are objecting to the administration's drone wars. They are demanding a fuller explanation of how, for example, drone strikes are authorized and executed in cases in which the identity of the targeted terrorist is not confirmed. 

"Our drone campaigns already have virtually no transparency, accountability or oversight," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and 25 other mostly anti-war members of Congress wrote Obama on Tuesday. 

A few dozen lawmakers are briefed on the CIA's covert action and clandestine military activity, and some may ask to review drone strike video and be granted access to after-action reports on strikes and other clandestine actions. But until two months ago, the administration had not formally confirmed in public its use of armed drones. 

In an April speech in Washington, Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, acknowledged that despite presidential assurances of a judicious use of force against terrorists, some still question the legality of drone strikes. 

"So let me say it as simply as I can: Yes, in full accordance with the law - and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives - the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones," he said. 

President George W. Bush authorized drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere, but Obama has vastly increased the numbers. According to Bill Roggio of The Long War Journal, an online publication that tracks U.S. counterterrorism operations, the U.S. under Obama has carried out an estimated 254 drone strikes in Pakistan alone. That compares with 47 strikes during the Bush administration. 

In at least one case the target was an American. Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September. 

According to a White House list released late last year, U.S. counterterrorism operations have removed more than 30 terrorist leaders around the globe. They include al-Qaida in East Africa "planner" Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, who was killed in a helicopter strike in Somalia. 

The drone campaign is highly unpopular overseas. 

A Pew Research Center survey on the U.S. image abroad found that in 17 of 21 countries surveyed, more than half of the people disapproved of U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders in such places as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. In the U.S., 62 percent approved of the drone campaign, making American public opinion the clear exception. 

The U.S. use of cyberweapons, like viruses that sabotage computer networks or other high-tech tools that can invade computers and steal data, is even more closely shielded by official secrecy and, arguably, less well understood. 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been a leading critic of the administration's handling of information about using computers as a tool of war. 

"I think that cyberattacks are one of the greatest threats that we face," McCain said in a recent interview, "and we have a very divided and not very well-informed Congress addressing it." 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and national security officials often talk publicly about improving U.S. defenses against cyberattack, not only on U.S. government computer systems but also against defense contractors and other private networks linked, for example, to the U.S. financial system or electrical grid. Left largely unexplained is the U.S. capacity to use computer viruses and other cyberweapons against foreign targets. 

In the view of some, the White House has cut Congress out of the loop, even in the realm of overt warfare. 

Sen. James Webb, D-Va., who saw combat in Vietnam as a Marine, introduced legislation last month that would require that the president seek congressional approval before committing U.S. forces in civil conflicts, such as last year's armed intervention in Libya, in which there is no imminent security threat to the U.S. 

"Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would operate, and when the awesome power of our weapon systems would be unleashed has diminished," Webb said.

By ROBERT BURNS, LOLITA C. BALDOR and KIMBERLY DOZIER, Associated Press

Online: Pew Research Center: www.pewresearch.org The Associated Press

Related posts:

Rightways: American drone wars and state secrecy! Jun 03, 2012

US military still strongest in the world

Despite the impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the financial crisis, the U.S. military is still the most powerful military in the world, a report released Tuesday in Beijing said.

The report "U.S. Military Assessment Report 2011", published by the China Strategic Culture Promotion Association, contains six chapters, 14 sections and three appendixes, including the U.S. strategic points, the U.S. military strength and deployment of troops, the defense budget and procurement of weapons and equipment, the U.S. structural and organizational reform, the new development of the U.S. combat theory and the U.S. joint military exercises, and summarizes the development situation of the U.S. military strength between 2010 and 2011.

The report pointed out that the internal and external environment faced by the United States has undergone major changes over the past two years. At home, the impact caused by the financial crisis on real economy has not been fundamentally alleviated; the national economy continues to decline; the budget deficit hits record highs and the unemployment keeps high. Outside the country, the United States is faced with the challenge to its leadership position brought by the multi-polarization of international forces and the rise of emerging powers. 

On the occasion of withdrawing from Iraq and ending the war in Afghanistan, the United States shifted its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama administration has formulated new national security strategy, defense strategy and military strategy and accelerated the global deployment of troops. It is making efforts to strengthen army building in terms of institutional establishment, weapons and equipment, combat theory and military training and enhance the ability of war and non-war military actions.

The report said that although the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis began in 2008 had an important impact on the comprehensive strength of the United States, the impact on its military capabilities has not yet been seen. The U.S. troops are still the most powerful in the world and it still has the ability to simultaneously start two large-scale regional wars and some small-scale emergent battles. It can provide strong support for the United States to return to the Asia-Pacific region and shift the strategic focus eastward.

The report also said that on one hand, China should remain vigilant on the United States' returning to Asia-Pacific region, intervening in the territorial disputes on South China Sea and transfer of its strategic focus eastward; on the other hand, China should also see the common interests in the deep economic integration of the two countries and in maintaining the peace, stability, development, cooperation and prosperity of the world.

In line with the spirit of mutual respect and mutual trust, equality and mutual benefit, both sides should strengthen the cooperation and exchange especially that of the two militaries and jointly cope with the challenges and threats of the 21th century.

The China Strategic Culture Promotion Association is a national non-profit civil society group composed of experts, scholars and social activists who are engaged in studies of international issues, Taiwan issue and cultural issues. The association was founded in Beijing on Jan. 5 2011, aiming at promoting security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region and encouraging the peaceful development on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through the studies, dissemination and exchange of Chinese strategic culture.

Read the Chinese version: 中国智库：美国军队仍然是世界上最强大的军队，author: Yang Tiehu

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related Reading

1. What 'invisible expenditures' does US military have?
2. US military report on China fails to see China's defense policy peace-oriented

Facing still more of the same - 10 years after 9/11

Tweet

Facing still more of the same

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

Ten years after 9/11, little has actually changed, least of all political attitudes.

UNTIL Sept 10, 2001, the world seemed a simpler place.
Image by Walt Jabsco via Flickr
Terrorism was a scourge that needed to be kept in check, if not eliminated while Afghanistan was a tribal wasteland in the boondocks and the legendary graveyard of foreign empires.

Iraq was an oil-rich autocracy and established US ally against Iran but with a tendency to slip into unilateral nationalist fervour, and the United States was a neo-conservative right-wing Republican bastion huffing and puffing for something to blow at.

The next day, two planes slammed into the two towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Neither bad coincidence nor pilot error was ever an issue.

Other aircraft had been hijacked the same day, but the twin crashes at the twin towers were more dramatic and dominated headlines, sound bites, political posturing and public imagination.

As the heart of lower Manhattan seemed to dissolve in a rising mound of smoke and dust, more than just debris was in the air. It was a time of change for the US and certain parts of the world.

Suddenly, the United States had the national tendency to slip into unilateralist fervour, Afghanistan and Iraq became targets that needed to be kept in check if not eliminated, and terrorism, oil-rich autocracies and Muslim states came to be profiled as one from many a Washington desk.

The neo-conservative right-wing bastion in the White House had found a couple of things to huff and puff at. Such was its enthusiasm that it forgot how Afghanistan remained very much a graveyard of foreign empires.

The result now, a full decade later, is described in Washington circles and elsewhere as the worst US policy overreaction of the century.



Within weeks, the George W. Bush administration blamed the attacks on Osama bin Laden and his followers, collectively called “al-Qaeda” as the Arabic translation of “the base,” the name the CIA originally gave Osama’s group and training camp. Nobody had claimed responsibility for the New York attacks, and al-Qaeda soon after denied any involvement.

The Taliban government in Afghanistan was then accused of sheltering al-Qaeda, so that made it fair game for elimination. In late 2001, Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders were ousted and replaced by the Pashtun activist and CIA point man Hamid Karzai.

The Zionist neo-cons in Washington were on a roll, “regime change” was the name of the game, and they were about to aim that exuberance and momentum at another target. But for the purpose to hit home, some points still needed to be made at home.

So Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was to be the new Hitler, he trashed his country’s wealth on costly palaces, he killed many people (decades ago), and he endangered the world or at least Israel with many nasty ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapons.

The problem was getting enough voters in the US and the general public in ally countries to go along with the idea. Bush and his British counterpart Tony Blair then decided the latter reason was the most persuasive: that Saddam had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs).

This was despite UN weapons inspectors having found no Iraqi WMDs, a recent major feature in Newsweek magazine coming round to the same conclusion, and the story about secret sourcing of radioactive material for a bomb discovered as fake. What mattered more instrumentally, however, was whether the UN Security Council could be massaged into endorsing a US invasion of Iraq.

It could, China’s abstention notwithstanding. As plans for an invasion of Iraq were being drafted, the US public also needed convincing.

So there was the ruse that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda was responsible for all the nasty things. Meanwhile Osama, having found that such issues could really rile the world’s sole superpower, “admitted” that he was responsible for the policy panic in Washington.

Thus Saddam was eliminated and replaced by a US ally, although the vast quantities of high-grade Iraqi oil seemed more elusive. But the violence and instability in Iraq also meant China could not access the oil either.

Still, the casualty rates in terms of human lives, economic cost and national destruction and degradation continue to mount. Ten years on and with the follies rather more exposed, senior US and British officials have queued to disown any responsibility for the continuing debacle.

Errors of judgment

Early this month, former head of British intelligence service MI5, Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, gave a BBC lecture to enumerate the multiple errors of judgment across the Atlantic at the time. Critics replied that she should have said so then, since it is now too late.

Former British foreign minister Jack Straw pleaded innocence through ignorance, saying that the Blair government at the time had been misinformed by allies, including the US. As justice minister later, Straw refused to apologise personally to an Algerian pilot whose career was ruined after Straw wrongly accused him of training a Sept 11 hijacker.

Former US vice-president Dick Cheney also released a biography focusing on that period, typically accusing others who disagreed with him at the time. Former US secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Colin Powell swiftly blasted him for the effort.

Powell was followed by former US secretary of state and national security adviser Dr Condoleezza Rice, who also found Cheney small-minded and mistaken. Rice should be replying more fully in her own biography later this year, so her critics should in turn be prepared.

However, the whole point of being honest, truthful and accurate should be to acknowledge past mistakes and avoid new ones. With the military occupation of Afghanistan now set to extend beyond the promised deadline, and new occupations likely in Libya if not also Syria, avoiding mistakes is not going to be easy or even possible.

Global military dominance becoming unaffordable

Tweet

Midweek by BUNN NAGARA

Both ‘Britannia’ and the Western alliance are losing the means to perpetuate military-political hegemony worldwide.



BRITAIN was once a proud maritime power, with a foremost Royal Navy that policed a global empire on which “the sun never set.”

These days the British Navy has trouble trying to pin down a single Third World country with a tottering regime: Libya. This incompatibility between present Western capacities and current intentions is, however, greater than any disjuncture with past glories.

This week Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, Britain’s First Sea Lord, announced that the Royal Navy would not be able to sustain the current campaign against Libya for more than six months. He also noted that the decline is in both equipment inventory and, consequently, morale.

Britain’s Strategic Defence and Security Review last year had cut 10,000 jobs in the Navy and Royal Air Force, and consigned the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, the frigate HMS Cumberland and the once-iconic Harrier jets to the storeroom or junkyard.

As the Libya military campaign suddenly loomed, the Cumberland was diverted there to help in evacuating British nationals. Yet for Downing Street, Britain remains a leading military power with the world’s fourth-largest defence budget.



Evidently like much of Europe, Britain’s lack of appetite for global patrolling work is not totally in sync with US interventionist moves. The “pole positions” occupied by Britain and France over Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya helps to conceal the incongruity, but not for long.

When US Defence Secretary Robert Gates reportedly blasted unnamed Nato partners in Brussels last week for not contributing their share, he ridiculed some for running out of ammunition at critical times in laying siege to a country. The Royal Navy now needs to purchase more Cruise missiles from the US after firing some of them.

The US provides more than 75% of Nato’s budget, with Gates wondering aloud whether this major contribution and Nato itself could be sustained. All of this has come at a time of budget squeezes, after Osama bin Laden’s death and a Cold War which ended 20 years ago.

Washington has been lobbying its European partners in Nato to raise their military commitment, much of it in vain. It is not that the latter do not share US concerns about global instability, but rather they prefer political, diplomatic, economic and social solutions rather than inordinately military ones.

After Iraq, the US has waded into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya while straining to get stuck into Syria. Its challenge is to get a sizeable number of allies to go along to a significant degree.

For much of the world outside Washington, a propensity for unilateral military intervention abroad links these various armed adventures. It is not a popular indulgence, not even when the spectre of international terrorism is invoked as the alternative to inaction.

If the continued role of global policeman today seems dated, it is even more surreal given emerging major powers such as those in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). These are all fast-growing major economies, besides Russia and China being permanent members of the UNSC with veto power.

This week both Moscow and Beijing boycotted a UNSC meeting called by the Western powers to discuss a proposed resolution against Syria. The other BRICS countries are also unhappy with the prospect of further war against another oil-rich Muslim country.

Even in Western circles there is strong reluctance to rely on more military power. Germany, Europe’s leading economy and a major Nato partner, is still unconvinced by the campaign against Libya.

But if the interests of the military-industrial complex are any guide, efforts will continue towards war. Officially there are six major US military bases in Afghanistan, but on the ground US and other foreign forces are stationed at some 400 bases in the country.

Although the Obama White House is supposed to comply with its pullout schedule in Afghanistan, secret talks with Kabul are continuing over the actual outcome. There are reports that US forces may well remain in Afghanistan for decades after the 2014 complete pullout date.

On the surface the issue is a resurgent Taliban and their terror connections, but strategically Afgha­nistan is critically located in Central Asia next door to China, Pakistan and Iran. So long as it remains in that position, which it will, the great powers will play their “games” while the locals will fight a war to resist them.

Afghanistan meanwhile is pressing for better terms in a draft agreement that would reflect its sense of sovereignty. Whether that would work is another question.