Printed from Kansas City IMC : http://kcindymedia.org/
IMC Independent Media Center
Media Centers

www.indymedia.org

africa
ambazonia
nigeria
south africa

canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor

east asia
japan
taiwan

europe
andorra
athens
austria
barcelona
belgium
belgrade
bristol
cyprus
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
lille
madrid
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
paris
poland
portugal
prague
russia
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

latin america
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
sonora
tijuana
uruguay

oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
melbourne
perth
sydney

south asia
india
mumbai

united states
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
danbury, ct
dc
hawaii
houston
idaho
ithaca
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rocky mountain
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
tennessee
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

west asia
beirut
israel
palestine

[process]
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer

[projects]
climate
print
radio
satellite tv
video

This site
made manifest by
dadaIMC software

Comment on this article | Email this Article
Commentary :: Peace : Protest, Resistance and Direct Action : Right Wing : Third Parties
When are foreign troops overstaying their welcome? Current rating: 3
23 Aug 2005
Almost always, to be sure! Anytime. anywhere!

Read more from this author here



Almost always, to be sure!  Anytime. anywhere!

 

First of all, nations, or at least the people that populate those nations, never extend welcomes to foreign troops.  Their leaders do.  And those leaders, more often than not, represent their own personal interests, or those of the groups they front.

 

That thought applies to the supposedly "friendly" military guests. but what about the others, the uninvited foreign troops?  Call them by whatever preferred name you wish: invaders, liberators, mercenaries, occupiers.

 

Unbidden guests are often welcomest, said Shakespeare, when they are gone.  That's something most of us can assent to personally. And we suspect such dictum also applies in affairs-of-state.

 

After 9/11, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan could not very well deny support to the US when asked.  Even Russia had to look the other way as the US mustered more than a casual presence in those nations' military bases, instead of just temporary access for the initial campaign in Afghanistan.  Needless to say, after combat is out of the way, there is always the "stability" issue. And so, American troops are likely to remain there for a while. for it is in the nature of foreign troops, by their presence, to create or aggravate instability.  It's a safe bet to predict that stability will never be reached in Afghanistan or in Iraq. not while American troops are stationed there.

 

There is little question that the current joint military exercises by Russia and China, "Peace Mission 2005," are but a marketing opportunity for Russia to show China its military wares, particularly the Tu-95 strategic and the Tu-22M long-range bombers, both capable of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.  Both the Pentagon and the State Department would be blind not to see a commonality of interests by these two nations to keep Central Asia free from America influence. Certainly free from American dominance.  Unlikely bedfellows can emerge to counter dominance by the only existing military superpower.  And the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is just that start.

 

Recently, I was the subject of an interview by an Azerbaijani news agency, chosen perhaps because of my writings on a geographical area seldom touched by the press in the West, not since the cease of hostilities in the 90's between Armenians and Azeris on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.

 

Half of the questions were de rigueur with an economic flavor- dealing specifically with the "oil factor" and the economic development of Azerbaijan from the revenues to be obtained from the BTC pipeline.  The other half had as its theme how America's influence, or dominance, in the region would affect them (Azerbaijanis).

 

Representative questions of the latter were:

 

- How did I judge President Bush's call for support of democratic processes in Southern Caucasus and Central Asia during his speech in Tbilisi, Georgia?

 

- Will US' desire to see current post Soviet regimes replaced by more democratic ones cause tension with Russia "which supports present regimes"?

 

- Would I consider the current regime in Azerbaijan to be democratic?

 

- How realistic would be for Russia to have a "velvet revolution"?

 

- Is Iran's fate going to be like Iraq's?  And, if so,

 

- Is the US likely to use Azerbaijan for any military intervention in Iran?

 

American history evidences US' propensity to exercise gunboat diplomacy at requested or unbidden invitations, often involving friendly dictators.  [Their undemocratic ways somehow seemed less repugnant when some American interests were to be well served by their help.]  But, although we associate that behavior with US incursions in Latin America, we must not lose sight of the fact that in this new century, and given the magna carta of neocon aspirations, a new-age diplomacy must be installed. One that operates in the context that the United States is the one and only superpower.  We are way past the Monroe Doctrine, or the cold war with the Soviet Union.

 

An American mom, Cindy Sheehan, together with other moms throughout the US, may be expressing their sentiments, asserting that the Bush administration erred by invading Iraq, and insisting the US pulls its troops out of that country; this, while leaders in Washington, Republicans and Democrats, rationalize that since we are already there, we must act as if a welcome mat had been extended for us.  But in truth, Americans will never get a true pulse of the situation until they begin to comprehend and accept that moms come in a variety of shades and nationalities, and that includes Iraqi moms.

 

American troops have overstayed their welcome in many locales around the globe, specifically at this moment, in Iraq; unfortunately for peace and reconciliation, Iraq continues to have a place of great geopolitical significance in the neocon lexicon. It boils down to a simple question: is ours a search for peace, or one of world dominance?  Answering that question will confront us with the truth, and do away with the continuing political hypocrisy espoused by the White House and, yes, Congress!

See also:
http://www.populistamerica.com

Copyright by the author. All rights reserved.

Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Read 9 objects from the database. Queried the database 12 times. Served 1 files from the cache.