America: Thug for Hire
The Skeptics
Doug Bandow
December 20, 2010
The United States once aspired to be a shining city upon a hill, an
example to the world. What an example it has become. Today Washington is
the place for other governments to go when they want a competitor roughed
up. No one wants to do the dirty work themselves. Instead, they ask the
United States to bomb, invade and/or occupy their adversary. At least,
that’s what the WikiLeaks cables suggest. Foreign governments routinely
and shamelessly urge America to go to war for their benefit. Other
nations long have urged the United States to defend them. In World War I
the entente powersincluding despotic Czarist Russia and colonial
governments which collectively subjugated hundreds of millions of
peoplepressed Woodrow Wilson to go to war for “democracy.” Alas,
America’s maladroit intervention resulted in everything but democracy.
In World War II France and especially Great Britain pressed for America’s
entry on their behalf. Here, at least, there was a truly evil and
threatening enemy. South Korea wanted and received U.S. aid when
attacked. The Hungarian revolutionaries hoped for the same and were
disappointed. South Vietnamese, Kuwaitis, Bosnian Muslims, Somali
warlords and ethnic Albanians in Kosovo later won Washington’s military
support; ethnic Karen guerrillas in Burma and the Georgian government did
not.
Some of these cases are complex. For instance, evidence indicates that
Tbilisi started the conflict with Russia. Nevertheless, it’s natural for
endangered countries or peoples to call on another nation to aid their
defense. Most of the time doing so isn’t in America’s interest. But the
request is understandable.
However, WikiLeaks suggests that foreign governments have moved a step
beyond. Even when there is no pressing, let alone imminent, threat, they
now ask Washington to loose the dogs of war.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly urged the U.S.
government to take military action against Iran. The WikiLeaks cables
included warnings from Israeli officials that Tehran was hardening its
nuclear sites, as well as a claim from Israeli Defense Minister Ehud
Barak that action was needed now, since in a matter of at most eighteen
months “any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral
damage.”
Yet Tehran currently possesses nothing and will not soon possess
anything. While there’s good reason to be suspicious of Iran’s
activities, evidence of a serious and successful nuclear weapons program
remains illusive. Moreover, Israel is the dominant regional military
power and possesses one hundred fifty or more nuclear weapons. Presumably
Israel developed nuclear weapons for just this contingency, to deter
attack by a neighbor. There is no evidence that the Iranian leadership is
suicidal; indeed, Israeli security analysts with whom I have spoken
believe Tehran desires the bomb for deterrence and status, not aggression
and self-immolation.
Yet Israel wants the United States to set fire to the Middle East,
initiating the third war in less than a decade. From Israel’s
perspective, Washington is not a friend or even ally, but just convenient
muscle on call. Several Arab nations obviously look at America the same
way. That’s not really surprising, but the dismissive assumption that
Washington’s job is to eliminate a regional rival remains disturbing.
There’s Saudi Arabia, well-armed by the United States and in line for a
new $60 billion arms package. Apparently the new F-15 fighters, upgrades
for older F-15s, Blackhawk, Apache, and Little Bird helicopters, anti-air
and anti-ship missiles, and guided bombs aren’t enough for a kleptocratic
monarchy which lacks popular legitimacy.
Under sanctions and suffering from a divided political leadership and
popular opposition at home, Tehran is not well positioned to threaten
Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states. Yet U.S. diplomatic cables indicate
that Saudi King Abdullah “frequently exhorted the United States to attack
Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program.” The Saudi ambassador
to America, Adel al-Jubeir, “recalled the king’s frequent exhortations to
the United States to attack Iran ” and the king’s admonition for
Americans “to cut off the head of the snake.” Although not necessary for
Riyadh’s defense, wrecking Iranian society would turn the Saud dynasty
into the dominant Muslim power in the Persian Gulf.
King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain took a similar stance, telling
an American diplomat “to terminate their nuclear program, by whatever
means necessary. That program must be stopped.” Abu Dhabi’s crown prince,
Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed, urged an early attack on Iran: “They have to
be dealt with before they do something tragic.” In 2003 he advocated that
action against Tehran “be taken this year or next year.”
Zeid Rifai, head of the Jordanian Senate, said simply: “Bomb Iran, or
live with an Iranian bomb.” Officials in other nations, such as Egypt and
Qatar denounced Iran as evil and a threat.
There’s good reason to work against an Iranian nuclear weapon, but the
cost of war for America would be very high, especially with so many
troops still deployed in Iraq. But other than Israel none of these
“allies” is willing to publicly back Washington in war. And all would
expect America to protect them from Iranian retaliation.
Iran is the most common target of other nations hoping Washington will
eliminate a potentially threatening rival. But it is not the only one.
China’s increasingly aggressive conduct has caused unease throughout East
Asia. It’s obvious that Washington’s allies, both formal (Japan, South
Korea and Australia) and informal (Taiwan) expect American protection in
the event of attack. But Canberra recently went further in pressing the
United States to act against Beijing.
While advocating engagement with China, then–Australian Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to prepare “to deploy
force if everything goes wrong.” Exactly what he intended isn’t clear.
Perhaps he only meant if Beijing assaults an American ally. But the U.S.
government considered preventive war against the mainland in the
mid-1960s. Moreover, Rudd’s comment could involve something more like the
blank check which many Taiwanese believe they enjoy. Engage in
provocative behavior, but don’t worry about the outcome, since Washington
will be there if things go badly.
War is sometimes a tragic necessity, but not nearly as often as
Washington attacks or threatens other nations. There’s a reason other
governments have come to regard America as a high-class street thug,
available to take out bothersome neighbors.
It is bad enough when the U.S. government gets involved to help other
countries defend themselves when doing so is contrary to America’s
security interest. It is far worse to go to war at another country’s
behest when the latter faces no imminent threat. Washington policymakers
should learn to resist the Sirens’ call to war, no matter how often or
insistently it is repeated.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/america-thug-hire-4603
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
