WORLD  
comments_image -

The Myth of U.S. Military Dominance in the Middle East

The notion that U.S. military presence has definitively shaped the region has been thoroughly discredited.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

WASHINGTON, Mar 5 (IPS) -- The arguments for maintaining a major U.S. combat force in Iraq at least through 2011, escalating U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and assuming a confrontational stance toward Iran appear to assume that the United States remains the dominant military power in the region.

But the pattern of recent history and current developments in the region has not supported that assumption. Not only has the United States been unable to prevail over stubborn nationalist and sectarian forces determined to resist U.S. influence, but it has not been able to use its military supremacy to wage successful coercive diplomacy against Iran.

Furthermore, even the ability of the United States to maintain troops in Iraq and Afghanistan turns out to be dependent on regimes which are by no means aligned with the United States.

Six years ago, after the United States had removed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the U.S. appeared to be militarily dominant in the region. Apart from its nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States had surrounded Iran with a network of airbases scattered across the region from the Persian Gulf sheikdoms through Iraq and Afghanistan to the Central Asian republics of Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan, along with aircraft on U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf.

Since 2003, however, events in the region have dealt a series of blows to the assumption that the U.S. military presence in general and ground forces in particular confer real power in the region. The first blow was the U.S. failure to subdue the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. By mid-2005, U.S. commanders in Iraq were admitting publicly that the U.S. military occupation was generating more resistance than it was eliminating.

The next blow was the Sunni-Shi'a civil war in Baghdad in 2006, which U.S. troops were unable to prevent or stop, even after the Bush "surge" of additional troops. The "cleansing" of Sunni neighbourhoods in Baghdad by Shi'a militias with the tacit support of the government ended only after a large swath of Sunni neighbourhoods in the capital had been taken over. That fact contradicts the later boast by Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, that "coalition forces" had "broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq".

The decision by Sunni insurgents to cooperate with the U.S. military in 2006 and 2007 was not the result of U.S. military prowess but of their defeat at the hands of Shi'a militias and the realization that the Sunnis could not oppose three enemies (the U.S., the Shi'a militias and al Qaeda) simultaneously.

It also enabled the Shi'a government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, which had close ties to Iran, to consolidate its power and to achieve a crucial degree of independence from the United States.

The George W. Bush administration and the U.S. military command continued to assume that it would be able to keep its Iraqi bases indefinitely. In mid-2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates invoked the Korean model -- a decades-long garrisoning of tens of thousands of U.S. troops -- as the plan for Iraq.

But in July 2008, the al-Maliki government began demanding that all U.S. troops leave the country by the end of 2010. After initially refusing to believe that the troop withdrawal demand was serious, the Bush administration was forced eventually to agree to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.

The evolution of Iraqi politics belies the popular narrative that Gen. David Petraeus miraculously rescued the U.S. war from a bad strategy and ultimately prevailed over U.S. "enemies", including Iran.

In its conflict with Iran over its nuclear program, the Bush administration tried to intimidate Tehran by seizing Iranians in Iraq and wielding indirectly the threat of attack against its nuclear facilities. But coercive diplomacy did not work, largely because Iran could credibly threaten to respond to a U.S. or Israeli attack with unconventional attacks against U.S. bases and troops -- and possibly even warships -- in the Persian Gulf region.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
The Dark Truth Behind the Kochs' Struggle for Control of the Cato Institute

By Ryan Cooper | Washington Monthly

 
 
Outrage: Kansas Pastor Wants the Government to Kill Gays

By Zandar | Balloon-Juice

 
 
How Right-Wing Media Pounced On Obama's 'Polish Death Camp' Gaffe

By Steve M. | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Study: Marijuana Linked to Lower Mortality Rate for Patients with Psychotic Disorders

By Paul Armentano | NORML

 
 
Planned Parenthood Endorses Obama, Eviscerates Romney With New Ad

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
WikiLeaks' Assange Loses Extradition Battle, Legal Wrangling May Continue

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Transfers $100,000 From Recall Campaign to Legal Defense Fund

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos

 
 
Glenn Greenwald: Obama's Secret Kill List "The Most Radical Power a Government Can Seize"

By Amy Goodman, Nermeen Shaikh | Democracy Now!

 
 
Oops! Romney Launches New App, Misspells "America"

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Ed Schultz On Florida's Purge of 180,000 Voters

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]