Iraq was really another chance

for the US to play the “Great Game”:

If any nation or power tried to cut off

American access to the oil

supplies of the Middle East,

military action would be taken in order to

forestall or eliminate such a threat

The grand strategy of the Great Game is one of

imperialism and establishing American hegemony

over not only the Middle East and the rest of the globe

If the U.S. can deny the Russians and Chinese

access to new energy sources, then the U.S.

can put a stop to the threat of two potential rivals,

Both Republicans and Democrats are too addicted to oil

and to a strategy of imperialism that sustains the addiction

The White House, long irritated by the frequent use of Vietnam as a metaphor for Iraq, embraced its own analogy yesterday: South Korea.

There's an undeniable attraction to holding up America's military presence in South Korea as a model for Iraq: Our soldiers stationed there aren't dying in large numbers every month.

But in other ways, the analogy is troubling. And flawed. And dangerous. And telling.

It's troubling because American troops have been in South Korea for more than 50 years -- while polls show the American public wants them out of Iraq within a year.

It's flawed because in South Korea, unlike Iraq, there's something concrete to defend (the border with North Korea); and because Iraq, unlike South Korea, happens to be in a state of violent civil war.

It's dangerous because the specter of a permanent military presence in Iraq is widely considered to be one of the most inflammatory incitements to Iraq's ever-growing anti-American insurgency, and may even be destabilizing to the entire region.

And it's telling because it gives credence to persistent suspicions that establishing a long-term strategic presence in the Middle East was a primary motivation for this misbegotten war in the first place.

All of that White House chatter about staying in Iraq for decades means that Bush has essentially given up on democracy there.

The Iraqi democracy of his dreams would not stand for permanent bases, unless Iran or some other neighbor were poised to attack.

Despite warnings from Sen. Joe Lieberman and a few others, there is no sign of that. Iranian mischief-making, yes. Invasion, no. At least not at present.

So why the move to permanent bases in Iraq? For years, I have been reluctant to embrace the oil theory of American policymaking in the Middle East.

I've subscribed to the notion that oil is only part of a complex set of strategic, political and moral issues animating American interests. I still believe that in the short term.

Bush and the few remaining supporters of his policy are motivated by more than oil. They want to avoid a failed state in the middle of a volatile region.

But what does that aim have to do with permanent bases? The only two reasons to station troops in the Middle East for half a century are protecting oil supplies (reflecting a pessimistic view of energy independence) outside the normal channels of trade and diplomacy, and projecting raw military power.

These are the imperial aims of an empire. During the cold war, charges of U.S. imperialism in Korea and Vietnam were false. Those wars were about superpower struggles. This time, the "I word" is not a left-wing epithet but a straightforward description of policy aims.

Iraq was really another chance for the West to play the “Great Game” - try to control Eurasia and all of the oil down to the Persian Gulf.

Some historians and commentators track the strategy back to the late 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter announced the Carter Doctrine in a State of the Union message.

It was a declaration in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. If any nation or power should seek to cut off American access to the oil supplies of the Middle East, military action would be taken in order to forestall or eliminate such a threat.

Bush has merely fulfilled what the Carter Doctrine promised.

The Bush effort has not succeeded, however, because the course it has taken in Iraq amounts to what the policy wonks call a “failed strategy.”

That simplistic analysis conveniently ignores the dirty truth that the grand strategy of the Great Game is one of imperialism and establishing American hegemony over not only the Middle East, but also the rest of the globe.

For if the U.S. can deny the Russians and Chinese access to new energy sources, then the U.S. can put a stop to the threat of two potential rivals, or Hegemons, that might be capable of moving in on America’s control of both the Middle East and the world.

Republicans and Democrats are both too addicted to oil and to a strategy of imperialism that sustains the addiction.

In the meantime, democratic representation in the United States and in Iraq is virtually dead.

The political elites of the U.S. political and financial establishment want control of Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea, and the rest of Eurasia.

These U.S. elites will do anything to block off Russian and Chinese efforts to profit from the energy reserves of the Middle East.

In geopolitical terms, the American strategy is one of seeking to maintain hegemony---unchallenged control over the region and the international economy.

In that sense, both parties have suffered withdrawal symptoms when it comes to leaving Iraq. Both parties are too addicted to oil and to a strategy of imperialism that sustains the addiction.

In the meantime, democratic representation in the United States and in Iraq is virtually dead.