Tweet
Al-Jazeerah.Info, GA (USA)
Aug 20 2005
When are foreign troops overstaying their welcome?
By Ben Tanosborn
Al-Jazeerah, August 20, 2005
Almost always, to be sure! Anytime~E anywhere!
First of all, nations, or at least the people that populate those
nations, never extend welcomes to foreign troops. Their leaders do.
And those leaders, more often than not, represent their own personal
interests, or those of the groups they front.
That thought applies to the supposedly ~Sfriendly~T military guests~E
but what about the others, the uninvited foreign troops? Call them by
whatever preferred name you wish: invaders, liberators, mercenaries,
occupiers~E
Unbidden guests are often welcomest, said Shakespeare, when they are
gone. That~Rs something most of us can assent to personally~E and we
suspect such dictum also applies in affairs-of-state.
After 9/11, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan could not very well deny
support to the US when asked. Even Russia had to look the other way
as the US mustered more than a casual presence in those nations~R
military bases, instead of just temporary access for the initial
campaign in Afghanistan. Needless to say, after combat is out of the
way, there is always the ~Sstability~T issue. And so, American troops
are likely to remain there for a while~E for it is in the nature of
foreign troops, by their presence, to create or aggravate
instability. It~Rs a safe bet to predict that stability will never be
reached in Afghanistan or in Iraq~E not while American troops are
stationed there.
There is little question that the current joint military exercises by
Russia and China, ~SPeace Mission 2005,~T are but a marketing
opportunity for Russia to show China its military wares, particularly
the Tu-95 strategic and the Tu-22M long-range bombers, both capable
of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Both the Pentagon and the
State Department would be blind not to see a commonality of interests
by these two nations to keep Central Asia free from America
influence~E certainly free from American dominance. Unlikely
bedfellows can emerge to counter dominance by the only existing
military superpower. And the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is
just that start.
Recently, I was the subject of an interview by an Azerbaijani news
agency, chosen perhaps because of my writings on a geographical area
seldom touched by the press in the West, not since the cease of
hostilities in the 90~Rs between Armenians and Azeris on the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Half of the questions were de rigueur with an economic flavor-
dealing specifically with the ~Soil factor~T and the economic
development of Azerbaijan from the revenues to be obtained from the
BTC pipeline. The other half had as its theme how America~Rs
influence, or dominance, in the region would affect them
(Azerbaijanis).
Representative questions of the latter were:
How did I judge President Bush~Rs call for support of democratic
processes in Southern Caucasus and Central Asia during his speech in
Tbilisi, Georgia? Will US~R desire to see current post Soviet regimes
replaced by more democratic ones cause tension with Russia ~Swhich
supports present regimes~T? Would I consider the current regime in
Azerbaijan to be democratic? How realistic would be for Russia to
have a ~Svelvet revolution~T? Is Iran~Rs fate going to be like Iraq~Rs?
And, if so, Is the US likely to use Azerbaijan for any military
intervention in Iran?
American history evidences US~R propensity to exercise gunboat
diplomacy at requested or unbidden invitations, often involving
friendly dictators. [Their undemocratic ways somehow seemed less
repugnant when some American interests were to be well served by
their help.] But, although we associate that behavior with US
incursions in Latin America, we must not lose sight of the fact that
in this new century, and given the magna carta of neocon aspirations,
a new-age diplomacy must be installed~E one that operates in the
context that the United States is the one and only superpower. We are
way past the Monroe Doctrine, or the cold war with the Soviet Union.
An American mom, Cindy Sheehan, together with other moms throughout
the US, may be expressing their sentiments, asserting that the Bush
administration erred by invading Iraq, and insisting the US pulls its
troops out of that country; this, while leaders in Washington,
Republicans and Democrats, rationalize that since we are already
there, we must act as if a welcome mat had been extended for us. But
in truth, Americans will never get a true pulse of the situation
until they begin to comprehend and accept that moms come in a variety
of shades and nationalities, and that includes Iraqi moms.
American troops have overstayed their welcome in many locales around
the globe, specifically at this moment, in Iraq; unfortunately for
peace and reconciliation, Iraq continues to have a place of great
geopolitical significance in the neocon lexicon. It boils down to a
simple question: is ours a search for peace, or one of world
dominance? Answering that question will confront us with the truth,
and do away with the continuing political hypocrisy espoused by the
White House and~E yes, Congress!
Ben Tanosborn, www.tanosborn.com
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2005%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/20o/When%20are%20foreign%20troops%20overstaying%20thei r%20welcome%20By%20Ben%20Tanosborn.htm
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Aug 20 2005
When are foreign troops overstaying their welcome?
By Ben Tanosborn
Al-Jazeerah, August 20, 2005
Almost always, to be sure! Anytime~E anywhere!
First of all, nations, or at least the people that populate those
nations, never extend welcomes to foreign troops. Their leaders do.
And those leaders, more often than not, represent their own personal
interests, or those of the groups they front.
That thought applies to the supposedly ~Sfriendly~T military guests~E
but what about the others, the uninvited foreign troops? Call them by
whatever preferred name you wish: invaders, liberators, mercenaries,
occupiers~E
Unbidden guests are often welcomest, said Shakespeare, when they are
gone. That~Rs something most of us can assent to personally~E and we
suspect such dictum also applies in affairs-of-state.
After 9/11, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan could not very well deny
support to the US when asked. Even Russia had to look the other way
as the US mustered more than a casual presence in those nations~R
military bases, instead of just temporary access for the initial
campaign in Afghanistan. Needless to say, after combat is out of the
way, there is always the ~Sstability~T issue. And so, American troops
are likely to remain there for a while~E for it is in the nature of
foreign troops, by their presence, to create or aggravate
instability. It~Rs a safe bet to predict that stability will never be
reached in Afghanistan or in Iraq~E not while American troops are
stationed there.
There is little question that the current joint military exercises by
Russia and China, ~SPeace Mission 2005,~T are but a marketing
opportunity for Russia to show China its military wares, particularly
the Tu-95 strategic and the Tu-22M long-range bombers, both capable
of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Both the Pentagon and the
State Department would be blind not to see a commonality of interests
by these two nations to keep Central Asia free from America
influence~E certainly free from American dominance. Unlikely
bedfellows can emerge to counter dominance by the only existing
military superpower. And the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is
just that start.
Recently, I was the subject of an interview by an Azerbaijani news
agency, chosen perhaps because of my writings on a geographical area
seldom touched by the press in the West, not since the cease of
hostilities in the 90~Rs between Armenians and Azeris on the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Half of the questions were de rigueur with an economic flavor-
dealing specifically with the ~Soil factor~T and the economic
development of Azerbaijan from the revenues to be obtained from the
BTC pipeline. The other half had as its theme how America~Rs
influence, or dominance, in the region would affect them
(Azerbaijanis).
Representative questions of the latter were:
How did I judge President Bush~Rs call for support of democratic
processes in Southern Caucasus and Central Asia during his speech in
Tbilisi, Georgia? Will US~R desire to see current post Soviet regimes
replaced by more democratic ones cause tension with Russia ~Swhich
supports present regimes~T? Would I consider the current regime in
Azerbaijan to be democratic? How realistic would be for Russia to
have a ~Svelvet revolution~T? Is Iran~Rs fate going to be like Iraq~Rs?
And, if so, Is the US likely to use Azerbaijan for any military
intervention in Iran?
American history evidences US~R propensity to exercise gunboat
diplomacy at requested or unbidden invitations, often involving
friendly dictators. [Their undemocratic ways somehow seemed less
repugnant when some American interests were to be well served by
their help.] But, although we associate that behavior with US
incursions in Latin America, we must not lose sight of the fact that
in this new century, and given the magna carta of neocon aspirations,
a new-age diplomacy must be installed~E one that operates in the
context that the United States is the one and only superpower. We are
way past the Monroe Doctrine, or the cold war with the Soviet Union.
An American mom, Cindy Sheehan, together with other moms throughout
the US, may be expressing their sentiments, asserting that the Bush
administration erred by invading Iraq, and insisting the US pulls its
troops out of that country; this, while leaders in Washington,
Republicans and Democrats, rationalize that since we are already
there, we must act as if a welcome mat had been extended for us. But
in truth, Americans will never get a true pulse of the situation
until they begin to comprehend and accept that moms come in a variety
of shades and nationalities, and that includes Iraqi moms.
American troops have overstayed their welcome in many locales around
the globe, specifically at this moment, in Iraq; unfortunately for
peace and reconciliation, Iraq continues to have a place of great
geopolitical significance in the neocon lexicon. It boils down to a
simple question: is ours a search for peace, or one of world
dominance? Answering that question will confront us with the truth,
and do away with the continuing political hypocrisy espoused by the
White House and~E yes, Congress!
Ben Tanosborn, www.tanosborn.com
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2005%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/20o/When%20are%20foreign%20troops%20overstaying%20thei r%20welcome%20By%20Ben%20Tanosborn.htm
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress