realpolitik, oil, and the u.s. military presence in iraq

one of my american friends reacted strongly about my journal entry entitled, quagmire: bush’s iraq war and his troop realignment plans. she told me that i’m too much of an idealist. she advised me to be more realistic: “dann, be realistic! ...you and i live in a world of realpolitik. wake up!”hmmm… realpolitik, huh?

she has a point. i have to look at the u.s. foreign policy from this perspective. i have to reflect on how realistic i am in looking at global politics in general, and the iraq war in particular. (she used to teach political science in a university extension program at the u.s. naval base, subic bay, philippines. she’s married to a retired u.s. navy officer. i respect her a lot.)

okay...let me start by reviewing the meaning of this term—realpolitik. literally, it means real politics. it is the practice of politics independent of moral or ethical considerations, usually for the advancement of the national interests of a country. it is supposed to be free from ideological influences.

independent of ethical and moral considerations? yeah, i can believe it. but free from ideology? i doubt it!the national interest of each nation is usually defined by economic progress (wealth) and national security (power). the conventional view today is that, economic progress is achieved when there is "free market" not only nationally but globally. this is the ideology of "rule by the world market"—the ideology of neoliberalism. this ideology has one single cause—economic growth in a linear fashion. it reduces the other dimensions of global reality—such as ecology, culture, politics, spirituality, and civil society—and subordinates them to the game of the world market system in which everything is measured by linear economic growth. in other words, it’s getting all the material wealth one can get with bulldog tenacity, while ignoring the other important aspects of life that makes us truly and fully human.

national security is achieved by having a strong defense infrastructure or superior military force. in a global reality of the 21st century, it's not enough for a strong nation to guard its borders; it must deploy its military forces to guard or secure their economic interests beyond its borders.

i agree with my friend. the u.s. foreign policy is based on realpolitik. her prompting led me to an article by a senator from nebraska, chuck hagel. he calls on his fellow republicans to rethink american foreign policy for the twenty-first century, asserting that such policies will require more than traditional realpolitik and balance-of-power politics ("a republican foreign policy," foreign affairs journal, july-august 2004).

realpolitik is the set of lenses through which i now see the military occupation of iraq by the united states of america. the americans are there for oil. they are there to secure the black gold that is so crucial to continually fuel their economy. the issue of saddam hussein’s abuse of power and the issue of the still-unproven weapons of mass destructions are good side-reasons for the real reason for military presence in iraq—oil. i’m not pretending to say new things about oil and the u.s. military presence in iraq. this correlation is a taken-for-granted knowledge in the arab world's coffee shops. the people on the street among the least developed countries know this as the basic premise for the u.s. military presence in many parts of the world.

i'm so glad that my friend see u.s. foreign policy from this perspective. she had me convinced; and i’m puzzled why many americans still refuse to see the war on iraq based on realpolitik.

i hope my friend will convince them too.

quagmire: bush’s iraq war and his troop realignment plans

quagmire. a bog or marsh. it’s a soft wet area of low-lying land that sinks underfoot.

when a person is bogged down in a quagmire, it means he or she is unable to meet obligations. that person would be stuck in a daily, self-defeating routine. this is how i see the predicament of george w. bush and his administration as they deal with the war in iraq. from march 20 to may 1, 2003 (the end of major combat when bush declared "mission accomplished") 139 u.s. soldiers were killed. from may 2, 2003 to june 28, 2004 (when sovereignty was turned over to iraq) 715 u.s. soldiers were killed. from june 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to iraq) up to the present, 90 u.s. soldiers have been killed. the total number of american soldiers killed in iraq? 944 and counting. these are real lives of sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters of patriotic americans who are mostly coming from poor economic background.

with these casualties of war, the americans are still losing the hearts and minds of the iraqi people. bush and the hawks around him knew how to win the votes of u.s. legislators in leading u.s. into war, but they don’t know how to lead their nation to win the peace among the people of iraq.

now, they are making image-building decisions to cover up the reality of their iraq quagmire. this thought came to mind while watching the cnn yesterday morning:

bush said about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel would move from overseas to posts in the united states over the next decade. “the move would also involve about 100,000 family members and civilian employees,” bush said.

"the new plan will help us fight and win these wars of the 21st century," bush said in a speech before a convention of the veterans of foreign wars.

troop movement plans three months before the election? hmmm… why does the term “approval rating” keep on flashing before me? would the americans still believe that bush can really lead them win a war?granted. the current global alignment of american troops were designed for the cold war. yes, the americans need to realign their troops to adapt to the new global challenges (to their hegemony). but it's obvious that the timing of bush's move is so politically convenient as he seeks re-election.

this troop realignment would also make more military personnel and resources available for redeployment to iraq—especially those who are presently based in europe and asia. if this happens, many of those who are currently in iraq would hopefully be allowed to go home. many of my american friends, whose loved-ones are in iraq, would be very happy. and i’ll be happy for them. fred and wilma would finally see their daughter come home. alfredo and celeste would be able to embrace their son again. jean would soon be reunited with her husband. (all these loved-ones on the battle field should have been back in the u.s. a few months ago. however, their respective tours of duty were extended—against their will.)bush might benefit politically from these military resource-movements. but it’s a band aid approach to the real problem he’s facing—that he's into a quagmire.

i hope i'm wrong.