THE MURDOCH
DOCTRINE
I
was surprised to read this because the Post was one
of the biggest supporters of the Kosovo war. In an editorial
attacking
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for daring to raise questions
about Bill Clinton's Kosovo adventure, the Post complained
that Senator Hutchison was "one of the noisiest and most
irresponsible critics of any use of US force during the recent
war in Kosovo." She is, averred the Post, one
of those dreaded "isolationists." Her crime was
asking, "Why not let the Kosovar Albanians fight for
themselves?" The Post answered by citing their
own columnist, Paul Greenberg, who proclaimed what we might
call the Murdoch Doctrine:
"Washington
and other Western capitals [must] realize that they must impose
peace in Europe, or Europe will impose war on them."
LINGUISTIC
LEGERDEMAIN
We
"impose peace," the bad guys "impose war."
For the Post, that kind of linguistic legerdemain is
about par for the course. As Clinton was bombing some of Europe's
oldest cities from the cowardly height of 17,000 feet, the
Post was railing that he didn't bomb soon enough and
hard enough: "The problem with Bill Clinton," they
averred, "is not that he's been too quick on the trigger
– using what Hutchison calls, preposterously, 'gunpoint
diplomacy' – but that he usually waits far too long to
act and, when he does so, he acts incompetently. That was
true in Bosnia and in Kosovo, and, mark our words, it will
prove true again when it comes to the nettlesome, unresolved
issue of Iraq." If the editors of the Post are
now baffled that the Bushies are deepening our Balkan commitment,
then perhaps the explanation is that George W. Bush just wants
to "impose peace."
FLIP
FLOP FOLLIES
Aside
from that, however, the really interesting question all this
raises is how to explain what the Post, in its typically
snappy vernacular, calls "Bush's deployment flip."
(Also, typically, there is no acknowledgment of their own
flip-flop on the Kosovo question: no wonder their archive
of past articles extends only as far back as a week.) We all
heard George W. disdain the Clintonian policy of imperial
overstretch and Condi Rice made all kinds of noises about
how the result of a Bush administration "review"
of our Balkan commitment would likely mean a winding down
of the US troop presence. Now, instead of following through
on its campaign promises, the White House is "escorting"
Albanian rebels across the length and breadth of Macedonia,
demanding that the beleaguered government in Skopje cave in
to most of the Albanian demands, and the news is out that
the
US government is about to take out a 99 year lease on Camp
Bondsteel.
CURIOUSER
AND CURIOUSER
Speaking
of that
outpost of empire, Dubya was there just last week, where,
after claiming that our presence would not be "indefinite,"
he capped his
oration with a curious statement: "The American soldiers
here at Camp Bondsteel – and at bases and on patrol elsewhere
in Kosovo and in Bosnia – symbolize
America's commitment to building the better, broader,
more peaceful Europe that is within our grasp."
HAIL
EUROPA?
Coming
from the President of the United States, this "Europe
first" stance is a bit hard to take. What about American
interests? A couple of weeks ago, a reader responding to my
column on the dangers posed by a rising EU wrote in to
ask a very pertinent question: why is the US helping to consolidate
a potential rival superstate? This baffling policy is reflected
in Bush's Bondsteel speech, where he burbles on about "a
Europe whole and free." He made a point of commending
the Europeans for their meddling in Macedonian affairs, and
clearly indicated that the US would support the EU diktat
to Skopje. While finding it necessary to frame the issue in
terms of proposing an exit strategy – so as to appease
noninterventionists in the GOP – Bush dashed hopes that
US troops are coming home any time soon – and so the
mystery deepens. Why? The New York Post, Republicans
in Congress, and American GIs stationed there are all asking
the same question: Why are we in Kosovo?
THE
TURKISH CONNECTION
The
answers to both questions – why are we building up the
EU, and why has Bush gone back on his promise to get us out
of Kosovo – are inextricably linked. We have unleashed
the mad dogs of Albanian ultra-nationalism, first on the Serbs,
and then on the Macedonians, in order to increase Turkish
influence in the region. I made this point back in early February
1999, in what I believe was one
of my first contributions to this website. Turkey has
long been a bastion of US influence in the Middle East, and,
with the fall of the Iranian shah, became Washington's chief
satrap in the region. Superficially, it might seem that the
importance of Turkey as an ally would diminish with the end
of the cold war: US bases on Turkish soil were an integral
element of Washington's strategy of encircling and containing
the Soviet Union. Yet the reality is quite the opposite: Turkey
has become more important due to its
military alliance with Israel. Ankara is the linchpin
of US regional strategy, which is meant to protect Israel
and also keep the Russians out of the Caucasus.
ANATOLIAN
EAGLE
A
little noticed event last month was "Anatolian
Eagle," joint military maneuvers by the US, Turkey,
and Israel, which took place over southern Turkey – the
starting point of a possible invasion of Syria in the event
of a Mideast war. For 13 days ending June 29, a whole fleet
of fighter planes, bombers, refuelers, and other craft swarmed
like a cloud of angry killer bees over the plains of Anatolia,
buzzing the borders with Syria, Iran, and Iraq. As the Palestinians
stepped up their fight against the occupation of their lands,
and Washington gave Ariel Sharon the green light to go after
Arafat, operation "Anatolian Eagle" was meant as
a direct threat to the Arab world: resist and you'll perish.
PAYING
THE PRICE
The
re-creation of the old Ottoman Empire in the southeastern
Balkans is the price the US is willing to pay for the security
of Israel. But that isn't all: the Turks also want very badly
to gain entry to the European Union. After all, the whole
thrust of the doctrine preached by Kemal
Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish state, is that
Turkey must face
toward Europe, not toward Mecca, when offering up its
daily prayers. The Greeks have effectively blocked their EU
application, so far, but it is only a matter of time before
the mandarins of Brussels devise a convenient way to sweep
aside all objections and extend their domain to Asia Minor.
CLUELESS
IN NEW YORK
If
the price of Israel's defense is the consolidation and expansion
of a potential rival to the US – one whose arrogance
and contempt for America is even more vitriolic, in some ways,
than the old Soviet leaders' – then the present occupant
of the White House is willing to pay it. While this is not
good news for most Americans, surely it is a good enough reason
for the New York Post, which is, after all, unrivaled
in its shrill and pointedly unconditional support for Israel,
and for Ariel Sharon in particular. If only the editors of
the Post had a clue as to the geopolitics of our intervention
in the Balkans, somehow I think that they wouldn't be kvetching
about Kosovo. However, since the clue to this riddle has nothing
to do with Gary
Condit, Lizzie
Grubman or the latest blatherings of Madonna, the Post's
editorial writers will no doubt continue to remind the President
of his pre-election pronouncements on the subject. It's the
lighter side of being a foreign policy analyst – you didn't
think there was one, did you? So, please, don't anybody go
and tell them: you'll spoil my fun.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
A
contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of
Ronald Radosh's out-of-print classic study of the
Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right:
Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism.
Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your
Contributions are now Tax-Deductible
|
