Arrogant and deaf to history, the American imperial moment already appears short-lived, writes Ayman El-Amir* Few empires in history have recognised the limits of their power and in good time saved themselves from the consequences of over-ambition. While historians point to the Roman Empire as the most classical example of the decline of overstretched empires, there are equally disastrous models in modern history. The Romanov's imperial Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburg and the Ottomans who ruled the Islamic State all collapsed under circumstances of revolution or global conflict. The British Empire learned the lesson of the limits of imperial power after it was battered by Germany in World War II and pressured by national liberation movements. London chose to relinquish the empire on which "the sun never sets" because it was unsustainable. The Soviet Empire, on the other hand, imploded. Contrary to claims by some US analysts, it was not Ronald Reagan's confrontational policies that brought it down. The US, the most recent imperial power on the world stage, is missing a rare opportunity to learn these historical lessons. Either its political elite does not read history -- except perhaps its own -- or that it is carried away by an arrogant sense of invincibility (an old-time imperial trait). Thanks to the Bush administration and its neo-cons, the US is deeply wedged in the turbulent Middle East. It is bogged down in Iraq with no clear strategic direction on how to get out, it is in confrontation with Iran over the latter's quest for nuclear technology, and has frozen the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, strangulated the democratically-elected Palestinian government, is working with Israel to divide the Palestinian Authority, and has unleashed the murderous Israeli military machine against the Palestinian people. Elsewhere, the Bush administration is pursuing similar confrontational policies. It is still embroiled in Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union fought a decade-long war and lost; it has stymied progress made by the Clinton administration in negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear weapons programme, replacing dialogue with threats and punitive sanctions; it encouraged Ethiopia to intervene militarily in the civil war in Somalia, thus inciting a potential major conflagration in the Horn of Africa; and it is fuelling an arms race in the Gulf region. Moreover, President Bush's war on terrorism is enhancing, not diminishing this dangerous global phenomenon. Imperial USA is stretched beyond limits. Following historical patterns, the rise of US imperial power came on the heels of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The execution of the first Gulf War that threw invading Iraq out of Kuwait was the first test of imperial prowess. It was not until the end of the two successive administrations of Democratic President Bill Clinton, the coming to power of George W Bush and his "neo-con" entourage, and the catastrophic events of 11 September 2001 that the imperial ambitions of the US became full-fledged. The preceding seven decades of bipolar international relations, until 1990, were marked by self-restraint based on limiting the exercise of power to spheres of influence. In a landmark White House strategy paper released September 2002, entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States, the neo-conservative Republicans unveiled their global imperial vision. It basically announced that the US will not allow its military supremacy, maintained since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, "to be equalled or surpassed"; that the US will launch pre-emptive strikes against countries that are suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction and which could be "perceived as a threat to the US"; and that it will attack, disrupt and destroy terrorist organisations that have global reach. The empire was in full swing and prepared to invade Iraq, which it did in March 2003. The centrepiece of US imperial strategy, Iraq may soon prove its nemesis. By all standards, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a typical example of old-time colonial conquest for economic gain. No one can recall exactly what the illegal invasion was supposed to achieve, and for whom. Was it the elimination of weapons of mass destruction that were never found? Was it to re-mould Iraq into a model of democracy for other Middle Eastern countries to follow? Was it the fairy-tale claim of crushing non-existent collaboration between Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime and Al-Qaeda? Or was it to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the dictator whose brutal execution, and the international indignation it provoked, served to redeem him more than to punish him? The clearest purpose to emerge so far is that the US invasion sought to dominate the oil-rich Gulf region, reorient incorrigible Arab regimes and destabilise and weaken Iran in the interest of Israel. Four years into the war, and despite claims to the contrary, the US campaign in Iraq and beyond has failed. President Bush's new policy direction to send more troops to Iraq will do little to change the situation; Iraq has been destroyed beyond reconstruction, sectarian violence is rampant, US and Iraqi casualties continue to mount and a de facto partition of the country has taken hold. As the International Crisis Group has noted, Iraq faces "complete disintegration into failed-state chaos" -- the result of misadventure by an inexperienced imperial power. The only way forward for the US in Iraq is the way out, be it as a result of rising casualties, the reigning state of chaos, or by the defiant opposition of the Democratic majority in the US Congress to an open-ended war. By mid-2007, the Bush administration will enter the state of lame-duck hibernation in preparation for the 2008 presidential election. By then, everyone will either try to put Iraq behind his back or use it to score popularity points over the Republicans in campaign polls. With the inevitable exit of the US from Iraq, the Middle East/Gulf region will never be the same and the exercise of imperial power will undergo fundamental change. Whatever spin the US may put on its eventual exit from Iraq, there is no avoiding the universal conclusion that its invasion was a dismal failure. This will embolden terrorists and jihadists, strengthen autocratic regimes that will gleefully view US departure as a regression of the call for genuine democratic change, and enhance the influence of Iran which will come into indirect, and possibly direct, confrontation with Israel. US military presence that will be left behind in the Gulf region will create a casus belli for nationalist forces opposed to foreign military presence on Arab territory. It will also undermine regimes loyal to the US and that increasingly will be viewed as collaborators with a foreign military power. The only alternative Gulf Arab countries can afford is to build their own military power, with US assistance, to deter Iran, reward the US arms industry with generous contracts and avoid being caught unprepared in any future conflict between Israel and Iran. This attitude is already fuelling an arms race in the Gulf region that may escalate into non-conventional weapons acquisition. Saudi Intelligence chief, Prince Muqrin Bin Abdel-Aziz, told a security conference in Bahrain 8 December 2006 that "the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is the most dangerous threat against Gulf security." Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinting that Israel possessed nuclear weapons touched a raw nerve in many parts of the region. When the US fought a decade-long traumatic war in Vietnam, it came out in 1974 badly bruised and empty-handed, with no success to show in rolling back the perceived communist threat. It was not even an imperial power then, only a superpower with a misguided strategic view of the Southeast Asian region. It was harassed and undermined by other superpowers, the Soviet Union and China. US defeat in Iraq will mark the end of a short-lived era of imperial power. The US will end up one of several powers in equal competition for the assets of a strategic and wealthy region. * The writer is former correspondent for Al-Ahram in Washington DC. He also served as director of the United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
