In the last two decades we have been observing major upheavals caused by American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. From perspective of someone living in Europe or America, both of these wars seem like gigantic long-term failurea. USA failed to build viable states in conquered territories. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are marred by sectarian, ethnic and factional struggles and so far haven't built effective administration. Moreover, both wars played a huge role in radicalization of Islam and paved the way to the rise of ISIS and similar movements as well as of lone-wolf terrorism worldwide. Both direct and indirect causalities of these conflicts are counted in tens if not hundreds of thousands, most of them civilians.
So yes, a gigantic failure.... unless that was the goal all along. Let's think about it for a minute. American policymakers seized the opportunity given by 9/11 in order to create huge upheaval, one that was literally poised to stir up conflicts and radicalization. And then they committed resources far inadequate to deal with the effects. People have natural tendency to overemphasize many things, but let's be honest about one thing. American (and allied) presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan was far too small for effective occupation. Allies occupied Germany and Japan first with millions and then hundreds of thousands of soldiers. In Iraq, despite terrain far more favorable to insurgency, American military presence peaked for a short time at little over 160 thousand. Germany and Japan were rapidly pacified. The troop surge in Iraq was far too small and short to have a lasting effect, but still temporarily stabilized the place. Had America committed much larger force, both Iraq and Afghanistan would be a much different shape today. But why America did what it did?
Here comes the controlled burn theory. Controlled burns are a basic method of forest management. Forest fires do happen and can have pretty devastating effect. It is therefore prudent to start these fires and let them burn in a controlled manner. This prevents fuel from building up and thus prevents larger future fires that could easily run out of control. I believe that the very same principle was used in American policy in the Middle East in the past decade. Therefore the chaos that American interventions caused wasn't a product of American stupidity or incompetence. It was the deliberate result of these interventions.
Let's think about it. The collapse of USSR caused a major shakeup of geopolitics. Previously the cold war between two superpowers pinned down and paradoxically stabilized the world. It gave each state a clear place in the world - in very broad strokes everyone belonged to America's camp, USSR's camp or tried to stay away which in practice meant balancing somewhere between. The cold war conflict gave the restless youth also a viable and ready alternative to the real or perceived injustices of their own countries. That's why for example young people in Latin America were so enthusiastic about Marxism and why youth in Central Europe rejected Marxism and embraced capitalism with equal enthusiasm. Muslim and especially Arab countries were no different. The collapse of USSR briefly gave rise to expectations that the liberal-capitalist worldview will now be triumphal worldwide. In reality however, the void emptied by the fall of communism was filled in Muslim countries by radical Islam. This was already observable in 1980s when the Soviet power was waning, but came to a head in 1990s. The demographic explosion in many Muslim countries created a large generation of people who were young, impatient, restless and angry at the injustices and lack of economic opportunities in their native countries. These people were more than likely to turn to radical Islam as the only viable alternative and support revolutions that would overturn the governments in their own countries and replace them with radical Islamist governments. Unless of course something is done about it.
America's well-being largely depends on stable and friendly Middle East. Partially because of hydrocarbons are are extracted there and imported by America, but mostly because of petrodollar itself. Thanks to petrodollar, America can live beyond it means and finance social programs and defense spending it would never be able to afford otherwise. Because oil and natural gas are worldwide sold in dollars, the world buys dollars. This mean America can print and spend dollars domestically without the fear of inflation simply because large stream of dollars flows away each day never to return. The downfall of governments in oil-producing countries would not only cause the spike of oil and gas prices. That's something America can deal with quite easily. More importantly, this would cause the petrodollar system to fall. Without petrodollar, America would have to either to rise taxes or slash its spending, both will catastrophic results.
America therefore had to act to save the government in oil-producing states by dismantling the brewing radical revolution. And the best way to do it is to create a safety valve through which the excess steam would be expelled. And how to do it better than by creating something that would piss the young Muslims off? Not "nuke Mecca" kind of something, but "Muslims got invaded" kind of something. And it's best to do it in countries that do not participate in worldwide trade on large scale. Countries like... Iraq and Afghanistan.
By creating conflicts America created controlled environments to which the most radical youth could flock in order to fight and die for Islam. This thinned the herd in their home countries and decimated the ringleaders that could otherwise lead the revolution. Even more was gained when ISIS got a territory to govern. They were pretty soon exposed as murderous assholes whose methods of government was no different than that of an armed gang. Their destruction of antiquities turned away peoples like the Egyptians who value their heritage above all else. Their genocide of minorities invigorated said minorities who know they have to protect itself. And so on. From what we see, the youth in Muslim countries are turning away from ISIS and radical Islam in general. Instead, normal life is becoming a viable alternative to them.
So, was Bush right when he proclaimed "Mission accomplished"?
So yes, a gigantic failure.... unless that was the goal all along. Let's think about it for a minute. American policymakers seized the opportunity given by 9/11 in order to create huge upheaval, one that was literally poised to stir up conflicts and radicalization. And then they committed resources far inadequate to deal with the effects. People have natural tendency to overemphasize many things, but let's be honest about one thing. American (and allied) presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan was far too small for effective occupation. Allies occupied Germany and Japan first with millions and then hundreds of thousands of soldiers. In Iraq, despite terrain far more favorable to insurgency, American military presence peaked for a short time at little over 160 thousand. Germany and Japan were rapidly pacified. The troop surge in Iraq was far too small and short to have a lasting effect, but still temporarily stabilized the place. Had America committed much larger force, both Iraq and Afghanistan would be a much different shape today. But why America did what it did?
Here comes the controlled burn theory. Controlled burns are a basic method of forest management. Forest fires do happen and can have pretty devastating effect. It is therefore prudent to start these fires and let them burn in a controlled manner. This prevents fuel from building up and thus prevents larger future fires that could easily run out of control. I believe that the very same principle was used in American policy in the Middle East in the past decade. Therefore the chaos that American interventions caused wasn't a product of American stupidity or incompetence. It was the deliberate result of these interventions.
Let's think about it. The collapse of USSR caused a major shakeup of geopolitics. Previously the cold war between two superpowers pinned down and paradoxically stabilized the world. It gave each state a clear place in the world - in very broad strokes everyone belonged to America's camp, USSR's camp or tried to stay away which in practice meant balancing somewhere between. The cold war conflict gave the restless youth also a viable and ready alternative to the real or perceived injustices of their own countries. That's why for example young people in Latin America were so enthusiastic about Marxism and why youth in Central Europe rejected Marxism and embraced capitalism with equal enthusiasm. Muslim and especially Arab countries were no different. The collapse of USSR briefly gave rise to expectations that the liberal-capitalist worldview will now be triumphal worldwide. In reality however, the void emptied by the fall of communism was filled in Muslim countries by radical Islam. This was already observable in 1980s when the Soviet power was waning, but came to a head in 1990s. The demographic explosion in many Muslim countries created a large generation of people who were young, impatient, restless and angry at the injustices and lack of economic opportunities in their native countries. These people were more than likely to turn to radical Islam as the only viable alternative and support revolutions that would overturn the governments in their own countries and replace them with radical Islamist governments. Unless of course something is done about it.
America's well-being largely depends on stable and friendly Middle East. Partially because of hydrocarbons are are extracted there and imported by America, but mostly because of petrodollar itself. Thanks to petrodollar, America can live beyond it means and finance social programs and defense spending it would never be able to afford otherwise. Because oil and natural gas are worldwide sold in dollars, the world buys dollars. This mean America can print and spend dollars domestically without the fear of inflation simply because large stream of dollars flows away each day never to return. The downfall of governments in oil-producing countries would not only cause the spike of oil and gas prices. That's something America can deal with quite easily. More importantly, this would cause the petrodollar system to fall. Without petrodollar, America would have to either to rise taxes or slash its spending, both will catastrophic results.
America therefore had to act to save the government in oil-producing states by dismantling the brewing radical revolution. And the best way to do it is to create a safety valve through which the excess steam would be expelled. And how to do it better than by creating something that would piss the young Muslims off? Not "nuke Mecca" kind of something, but "Muslims got invaded" kind of something. And it's best to do it in countries that do not participate in worldwide trade on large scale. Countries like... Iraq and Afghanistan.
By creating conflicts America created controlled environments to which the most radical youth could flock in order to fight and die for Islam. This thinned the herd in their home countries and decimated the ringleaders that could otherwise lead the revolution. Even more was gained when ISIS got a territory to govern. They were pretty soon exposed as murderous assholes whose methods of government was no different than that of an armed gang. Their destruction of antiquities turned away peoples like the Egyptians who value their heritage above all else. Their genocide of minorities invigorated said minorities who know they have to protect itself. And so on. From what we see, the youth in Muslim countries are turning away from ISIS and radical Islam in general. Instead, normal life is becoming a viable alternative to them.
So, was Bush right when he proclaimed "Mission accomplished"?
