America Now Says: "Old Ways of Military Intervention Don't Pay!!"

Its first President and liberator has said it. "No entangling alliances," It was George Washington's wise counsel to the U.S. More than 200 years later, another great American general, an Afro-American, also said it. Colin Powell as Secretary of State said: "Before we get militarily involved, we must have an exit strategy."

But then America lost its way. Duped by the war lords into attacking Iraq in 2003. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, coalesced around the idea of war on Iraq would be a bonanza for the U.S. Intelligence assessments were tampered with. Expert reports were commissioned to produce desired conclusions. First: that Saddam was in league with Al-Qaeda. Second: Saddam's lie about possessing weapons of mass destruction should be manipulated.

Results: Colin Powell appeared before the UN Security Council advocating the necessity of war on Iraq. Presenting false evidence, a pack of lies given to him by the CIA, on Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Lies within lies. America attacked. When those WMD could not be found, the war lords had a stupid answer: "We shall eventually find them." None could be found.

So from 2003 to 2011, when US troops had to leave Iraq (a raging Sunni rebellion, and Maliki's refusal to extend American military stay), Iraq was left earth-scorched. Rampant sectarianism; destroyed infra-structure; non-trained Iraqi army; and calls by Vice President Biden for splitting Iraq in 3 statelets.

The voids were quickly filled. In Erbil, Kurdistan, with oil emerging to challenge Baghdad. Musab Al-Zarqawi, a thuggish jihadi in Anbar split from Al-Qaeda. After his liquidation by an American predator air strike, his successor was a more brutal thug - Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

With Syria in flames, as of March 2011, against Bashar, ISIS, now split from Al-Qaeda, acquired a new "capital." Raqqa in northeastern Syria, became an ISIS hub. A hub with oil, money, propaganda, and welcoming Sunni allies in Anbari Iraq.

And with a huge arsenal of American war materiel left behind, the highly trained Saddam's war generals found a new employer: ISIS. Mosul, the second largest Iraqi city, a ripe low hanging fruit, fell to ISIS. Nearly without a shot being fired.

America did not create ISIS. But America's war on Iraq did. As ISIS gained foreign recruits, nearly 3000 from Europe and America, it finds its criminal jihadis ready to strike. Inside and outside of the Arab world. Paris and San Bernardino, California were wake-up calls for America. One jihadi-directed; the other jihadi-inspired. Same result.

And as America packages its commercial products, so does it engage in collective punishment. Branding Muslims as potential jihadis. Producing calls from seekers of the US presidency in 2016, such as Donald Trump, for sanctioning 1.6 billion Muslims. Demented claims that "Islam Is Jihadism."

A lunacy gone too far -as declared especially by Republicans. A dilemma between going too far, and protecting America from Jihadism. So now we have the pendulum swinging again towards a middle ground.

• Tightening visa requirements with regard to applicants from mostly Muslim countries;
• Acknowledging that American intervention abroad negates the wisdom of "no entangling alliances;"
• Abandoning the myth of "nation-building" abroad, as a formula proving "non-working" in both Iraq and Afghanistan;
• Tacit approval of the Obama doctrine on Middle East conflicts -basically no American ground troops fighting those wars. The locals should do it;
• Focusing on nation-building in America: the economy; jobs; banking regulation; health care; the middle class needs. And a focus on technology, including a smaller but highly tech armed forces.

Now we have in America a civilian side to the Obama doctrine. "No nation-Building" abroad is complementary to no military footprint in the Middle East. Leading from behind militarily. A laserbeam focus on internal American issues. Including gun control through executive action.

In essence, the "civilianization" of the Obama military doctrine. Of course it has its opponents among the Republican neo-conservatives, the Tea Party, the evangelicals, and the war lords of the Bush Jr. administration.

Which side will win? I am betting on the success of those who espouse "no-intervention." The exigencies of the economy and the cost of monitoring jihadism through intelligence-sharing, mainly with NATO allies are crucial factors.

What does this mean to the Arab and Muslim worlds?

• Dictatorships are not a problem for America. They are the problem of the locals;
• Human rights throughout the world should be respected. But they should not be defended by the force of American arms;
• In fact the consequences of the fall from power of Saddam and Qaddafi are now being re-interpreted in America. "America would have been safer from jihadism if Saddam and Qaddafi were still in power. They were America's first lines of defense. Terrible dictators for Iraqis and Libyans. But America's safety is American's concern."
• Music to the ears of Bashar, the Syrian killer. But to the present American thinking: "Better Bashar than the unknown."

A near perfect alignment with American attempts to work with Russia, Iran and Turkey. And if Riyadh is upset, so be it.

It is now common knowledge that outside intervention is costly to the intervener in both blood and treasure. This is while those losses are usually compounded by uncertainties: Would the intervener gain at home from the intervention abroad? Of course Russia's intervention in the Syrian war by conventional weapons guarantees Moscow no net benefits.

By contrast, America's caution in regard to that very complex war arena carries with it its own benefits. Obama's Republican detractors are left in the dust howling: "Obama is weak." 

How can he be weak when he has turned the negatives of American footprint intervention into a positive? Primarily through enhanced arms sales to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Let the natives fight their wars with American arms, under multibillion dollar sales, supplies, continuous modernization, and constant training.

On this issue, the annual report by the Congressional Research Services, a division of the Library of Congress, has astounding revelations. It reports that the U.S. now controls over half of the global arms trade.

This is great economic, strategic and political news. Their delivery to Congress seems to command symbolic, if not statutory, timing. With an imaginary ribbon on top, that annual report came to Congress at Christmas, 2015.

American weapons receipts rose to $36.2 billion in 2014 from $26.7 billion the year before. A jump of 35%. Even as the lucrative weapons market was adversely affected by the free fall in oil prices. Russia was a distant second (only $10.2 billion in arms sale); Sweden was third ($5.5 billion); France was fourth ($4.4 billion); and China was fifth ($2.2 billion).

Connecting the dots, you would find a logical relation between America's opting to stay out of direct intervention, while enhancing its lucrative arms sales.

In a lecture at the American University in Cairo (AUC), delivered on October 18, 2015, I presented "The Obama Doctrine on Middle East conflicts." Its heart was the avoidance of intervention. But its main background was the calamitous American war adventurism in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. Calamitous for the following reasons:

• Its faulty motivation was 9/11. But Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, the perpetrator of that heinous crime;
• The Bush Jr. presidency was largely in the grip of four war mongers: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith. This gang of four set aside sober CIA analysis. Replaced it by fabricated reports on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction;
• As said above, that fabricated intelligence was fed to the UN Security Council. In February 2003. Colin Powell, as Secretary of State, presented imaginary evidence on biological weapons. A total lie; the war mongers called those fabrications "alternative intelligence;"
• With massive US military force slamming into Iraq in March 2003, Baghdad fell in less than 3 weeks. Saddam and his two sons fled. Later to be found and killed;
• Within weeks after Saddam, Iraq was in total chaos. Symbolized by a young Iraqi student crying: "My destiny is lost;"
• Yet Rumsfeld gloated in his press conferences that "America brought freedom to Iraq. And freedom is untidy."
• Paul Bremmer was dispatched to Iraq in May 2003. A total idiot who presided over de-Baathification and over the firing of a mighty Iraqi army, largely officered by Sunnis; he knew no Arabic; he had no inkling about Arab/Iraqi tribal culture;
• The Sunni massive rebellion in the north against the occupation, was the incubator of ISIS that in 2014 controlled one-third of Iraq, including Mosul.
• Said Richard Clarke, a former US presidential advisor on anti-terrorism: "If there was no American invasion, no ISIS would have emerged;" and
• Aside from ISIS, the Iraq war resulted in the death of 150,000 Iraqis and 5,000 Americans; in the massive loss of trillions of dollars; in entrenching sectarianism which is now tearing Iraq apart; and in the flood of migrants heading toward the West.

Not one of the gang of four perpetrators of that calamitous war, named above, even apologized for their actions. Actions which may be considered war crimes.

America's war on Iraq was aptly described by Fareed Zakaria, on CNN on December 27, 2015: "The Long Road to Hell." The Bush Jr. administration was drunk with power.

Now sits in the Oval Office, "a sober president," Obama, who now has laid a firm foundation for non-intervention. The cherished calm, relatively speaking, after a war-infected hurricane period.

This new commitment is also expected to catapult into the Oval Office, the first woman president -Hillary Clinton. Even calamities, like the war on Iraq, could become historical game-changers.

As for the New Egypt, these consequences are largely of no direct consequence. Except for more American respect for "the Strong State." The victory in Egypt of the secularists over the Islamists of "Al-Noor," in the recent Egyptian parliamentary elections should augur well for a refurbished Cairo-Washington reconnection.

History seems to be on the side of this evolution. To America of today, fluidity of alliances with Middle Eastern States is the norm. The magnetism of Middle Eastern oil is now gone as a glue to such alliances. Selectivity and temporariness of these old alliances are now dictated by two factors operating in the New America: Need and cost.

The deal with Iran on the nuclear file is pervasively instructive: Delay the day of a nuclear Iran at the cost of making Saudi Arabia jittery. And punish an Iranian challenge of missile development which will not be stopping it (President Rouhani is pushing for more). Yet America is bound to release $55 billion to Iran, which is Iranian money deposited in non-American banks. And continue to support Riyadh's war on Yemen!!

These are highly nuanced American foreign policies which may be difficult for Riyadh to absorb. A situation which gives Riyadh palpitations, but offers Washington internally some relief from the onus of an association with a State which greets the New Year with the execution of 26 persons accused, without evidentiary support, of terrorism.

Reflecting this pervasive trend toward avoidance by America of intervention in Middle East conflicts is to be found also in the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress in December 2015.

The bill allocated for the Pentagon $58.7 billion to continue fighting ISIS. But mainly only from the air. With Congress thereby abdicating its exclusive constitutional responsibility to declare war, the White House is left to implement the Obama doctrine of war avoidance.

It is not that Obama is weak. He draws more strength from being in his last year as President. No more worries regarding re-election. His executive pen is at the ready. Even in regard to closing Guantanamo. It is Congress that is weakened by its partisan conflicts. And ideological paralysis.

Happy New Year To All Readers!!