|
CounterPunch
March 8,
2003
4th Generation
Warfare and the Dangers of Being the Only Superpower
A Warning from
Clausewitz
By WILLIAM S. LIND
An American war on Iraq now seems certain. Even
if Saddam Hussein agrees to step down and go into exile, it is
not clear that Washington would forgo the occupation of Iraq
and the installation of an American military government. Wilsonianism
is in full flower, in what is likely to prove a false spring.
As we watch events unfold, it may be
useful to keep two points in mind. First, the center of gravity
of this war -- the place or places where a decision is likely
to occur -- are not in Iraq. As is also true of the war in Afghanistan,
the centers of gravity of a war with Iraq are in Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia and Egypt. Of these three, Pakistan is the most important.
Strategically, Iraq is not a key to very
much. One might argue that as Iraq goes, so goes Syria, but that
is not saying a lot. Iraq is not a key to Iran; on the contrary,
their rivalry goes back centuries. All Iraq means to Turkey is
an increased threat of an independent Kurdish state and maybe
a chance to grab Iraq's northern oil fields. The notion that
an American-conquered Iraq can blossom into a Swiss-style democracy
that will remake the Middle East comes from Cloud Coockoo Land.
If you want to see what democracy in that region would really
mean for American interests, look at the Turkish parliament's
vote this weekend against allowing U.S. forces to invade Iraq
from Turkey.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in
contrast, are keys to many other things. Pakistan has nukes,
Saudi Arabia controls world oil prices and Egypt offers Israel
its only hope of some kind of (temporary) deal with the Arabs.
If the pro-western regime in any of those nations falls, we will
have suffered a strategic disaster. If they all go, our position
in the region will collapse. The central strategic question,
therefore, is what effect an American attack on Iraq will have
on the stability and tenure of the Pakistani, Saudi and Egyptian
regimes.
That leads to point number two: if and
when American forces capture Baghdad and take down Saddam Hussein,
the real war will not end but begin. It will be fought in Iraq
in part, as an array of non-state elements begin to fight America
and each other. It will be fought in part in the rest of the
Islamic world where the targets will not only be Americans but
any local regime that is friendly to America. And, of course,
it will be fought here in America, as the sons of Mohammed remind
Americans that war is a two-way street.
This kind of war, Fourth Generation war,
is something American and other state armed forces do not know
how to fight. It is not going to go well, and among the casualties
are likely to be the pro-American governments in Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia and Egypt. In short, an American victory over the state
of Iraq (which is itself no sure thing) is more likely to lead
to a strategic failure for America than to a strategic success.
In a somewhat more famous On War, Clausewitz
wrote:
The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching
act of judgement that the statesman and Commander have to make
is to establish...the kind of war on which they are embarking:
neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something
that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic
questions and the most comprehensive.
With the invasion of Iraq, Washington
is trying to turn a Fourth Generation war, a war with non-state
entities, into a Second Generation war, a war against another
state that can be conquered by the simple application of firepower
to targets. If Clausewitz were still with us, I suspect he would
warn that we are marching toward Jena, the battle where Napoleon
decisively defeated Prussia in 1806.
The Spanish
Road
John Boyd defined strategy as the art
of connecting yourself to as many other power centers as possible
while isolating your enemy from as many other power centers as
possible. By that definition, Saddam Hussein appears to be a
better strategist than the Bush Administration. Since the U.N.
weapons inspectors renewed their work in Iraq, Saddam has managed
to forge de facto alliances against war with France, Germany
and Russia. He appears to be developing a positive connection
with the inspectors themselves, with the U.N., and possibly with
a majority of members of the U.N. Security Council. In contrast,
the Administration in Washington has isolated itself from several
of its oldest allies, provoked a serious split in NATO, and left
itself very much on the defensive in the face of an inspections
process that continues to find no Weapons of Mass Destruction
in Iraq -- and thus no causus belli for the U.S.
Is this simply ineptitude, or is something
larger going on here? I suggest the latter. For some time, elements
in the Administration have been looking far beyond Iraq. They
have spoken with increasing openness about re-making the entire
Middle East, installing "democratic" governments that
would be friendly not only to the United States but to Israel
(I put "democratic" in quotes because genuinely democratic
elections in most Middle Eastern countries would put radical
Islamist regimes in power, which is not the outcome the new Wilsonians
have in mind). America is to become not just "the only superpower"
but a "hyperpower" which no one can hope to resist.
China is to be cowed by an arms race she cannot afford; non-state
elements will fall to American Special Forces; the U.N. will
be a tool of American world dominance. America will be the new
Britain, perhaps the new Rome.
Or, more likely, the new Spain. The Spanish
analogy is not one most Americans will know, nor one the new
Wilsonians will much care for. But it may prove apt.
The quest to create the "universal
monarchy," which was the earlier term for "the only
superpower," began in earnest with the Holy Roman Emperor
Charles V, the father of King Philip II of Spain. Charles ruled
virtually all of Europe, except France. His kingdoms included
Spain, which had the first true world empire. Fueled with the
gold and silver of the New World and possessing an army so successful
that it went unbeaten for more than a century, Spain offered
Charles and then Philip the potential of ruling the world. You
may recall that Armada business, when King Philip decided to
end the impudence of an upstart island, England, and its Protestant
queen, Elizabeth I. That did not go quite according to plan --
somewhat like our current business in Afghanistan -- but no matter;
so rich was Spain that when the Armada was destroyed, Philip
just built another one.
What finally stopped Hapsburg Spain and,
later, France under Louis XIV and Napoleon and Germany under
Hitler from establishing the universal monarchy was a fundamental
characteristic of the international state system: whenever one
nation attempts to attain world dominance, it pushes everyone
else into a coalition against it. That dynamic, not any love
for Saddam, is what is behind German and French opposition to
the Bush Administration's plan for war with Iraq. That is what
is drawing others, including Russia, into supporting the French
and the Germans. The Dutch ambassador to the United States was
recently quoted in the Washington Post as saying he is concerned
about a "monopoly of power without checks and balances.
Self-assertiveness and an arrogance of power, that is a troubling
thing."
In fact, the Dutch ambassador is wrong:
there are checks and balances, and we are now seeing them start
to work. The failure of American strategy, and America's growing
self-isolation, are guaranteed so long as Washington aspires
to world hegemony. The very nature of the international state
system assures our quest for universal monarchy will fail, the
same way all have failed. And our "unbeatable" military
will find itself beaten, just as the Spanish army was beaten
at Rocroi, by someone it thought would be a pushover.
The real question is not whether the
American drive for world hegemony will succeed; it will not.
The question is why we are attempting it in the first place.
William S. Lind
is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free
Congress Foundation. He can be reached at: slilienthal@freecongress.org
Yesterday's
Features
The Black Commentator
All
About Clarence
Ben Granby
Nightmare
in Rafah
Fidel Castro
Bush's
War on the Dark Corners of the World
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Riding
the Tiger in India: Will the World's Largest Democracy Become
a Religio-Fascist Purgatory?
Linda Heard
Make Way for Reality Politics
Alex Lynch
Tragedy of the Ridiculous War
Paul D'Amato
Obey
the US or Pay the Price
Ron Jacobs
Peace Treaties, Nukes and North Korea
Shulamit Aloni
Murder
Under the Cover of Rigtheousness
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 28,
2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Meet
the New Yorker's Chief Hack: Jeffrey Goldberg
Saul Landau
Now
It's Personal
Michael Neumann
A Plea for Hysteria
Karima Bennoume
The UN: Tool for Peace or War?
The Black
Commentator
The Rev. Sharpton and the Soul of the Democrats
Jennifer Loewenstein
Don't Turn Off the War
Richard Levins
Cuba's Biological Weapons: Why the World Needs More of Them
M. Shahid Alam
Is This a Clash of Civilizations?
Clay Conrad
Juries
and Judges: What's Relevant?
Ben Tripp
Speaking in Tongues: a Guide to Gibberish in the Age of Bush
Eliot Katz
To Declare Preemptive War is to Declare a Bankrupt Imagination
Kurt Nimmo
Paying Through the Nose to Kill Iraqi Kids
Matt Vidal
George W. Bonaparte
Mark Zepezauer
Why the Right Hates America
Mickey Z.
The Anti----War Talk I Never Gave
Jerry Kroth
Jung and the Space Shuttle Revisited
Shyam Oberoi
Chronicle of a War Foretold
Ron Jacobs
What If the Firebombing of Baghdad Were a Nightclub Fire?
Poets' Basement
Eliot Katz and Jim Cohn
Website of
the Weekend
Defense
Tech
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|