Ironic Alliance

Remove all ads!

Serbs to fight beside US troops in Afghanistan.

The irony? When the serbs were ruthlessly butchering the bosnian muslims the US asked Al Qaida to supply the worst killers keen on jihad to make sure the serbs get a real problem. Well, that plan worked. Now, less than ten years later the US get aid in the fight against their little Frankenstein from the very people they let it loose against, benefitting from the questionable "expertise" the serbs gained in fighting them.

In the turn of events both sides got a reputation: The foreign muslim volunteers for being fierce savage fighters with a bad habit to mutilate and the serbs for having a wider genocidal focus.

The US are confident the serbs won't settle old scores, expecting them to be on their "best behaviour".

[ October 06, 2003, 12:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Human stupidity has reached a new level.

Excuse me when I go kill myself so that those idiots won't get the satisfaction when they manage to blow Earth up in pieces.

Yep, ironic it is. And will probably have muchos backstabbing involved....

 

Ironic, maybe. But not nearly so ironic as America's sudden alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union after the Second World War.

Maybe the truly ironic element is how quickly America forgives, and enlists, its former enemies.

 

Ooops, just another minefield. The Germans, which set out to battle the jewish-bolshevic world conspiracy were, as the Italians and Japanese, embraced by their former enemies, to be a .... bulwark versus bolshevism.

I wouldn't call it so much "forgiving" more rational Realpolitik.

 

Should we be expecting a "I've decided to kill myself" post in the Sorcerous Sundries forum now?

Drama queen.

In any case, I think the only real point that can be made from the article is that the U.S. truly will make an ally out of anyone were its convenient, then discard them when appropriate, typically by arming a former or future problem to aid in the process. Bizarre.

Edit: spelling... sigh

[ October 06, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

ArtEChoke, exactly.

It's the stumbling from one ad-hoc solution to the next: Building up the Mujahedding to fight the Soviets, and then the Serbs. Finding that in the wahhabi militants among them they created a monster that turned against its creator. Empowering the Northern Alliance as a partner in the war on terror to fight the Taliban/ Al Quaida monster. Finding that the Northern Alliance is boosting opium trade and fighting them in the name of the war on drugs, recruiting another thuggish ally who will become a problem later ... and so on and so on.

A friend who spent a year in the US characterized this as a US mentality problem: You have a headache so you take a pill. The pill causes you an itching exceme, so you use ointment. The ointment causes you diarrhea and you take another pill ...

 

I fail to see why lightning speed adaptation to survival in war is a sin? Please elaborate.

If the serbs are a tool to be used, use it for your purposes while you can however rotten it might be. Can always discard it later, or is there a point I'm missing?

 

"One ad-hoc solution to the next"? Bismarck's masterful policy was a string of ad-hoc short-term solutions - and it was when that policy was abandoned in favor of longer-term concerns (e.g., Russia supporting Slavs because they were Slavs, Germany and Austria linked together for cultural reasons) that the most trouble erupted.

As for the Afghan mujahedeen "ad-hoc solution", I'd say that this was, if anything, the result of too much focus on the long-term. It's easy to forget that in the late '70s and early '80s, the USSR had a massive conventional military machine and enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the world several times over, with ideological meddling in the Americas, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and Africa. (Oh, and Warsaw Europe, too.) Would the USSR have crumbled without the Afghan campaign imploding? Yeah, maybe - and maybe not. Look at how well Cuba and North Korea have held up, even without their Soviet sponsor - and let's not forget that the Soviet economy, unlike the collapsing North Korean economy, continued to grow (if slowly, Japanese-stagnation style) throughout the '70s and '80s.

And it's not as if terrorism was invented by the Afghans - Iran had already labelled America as the Great Satan and organized anti-American attacks, and al-Qaeda lived on Saudi money and would have found some other excuse to target the US, mujahedeen or no. Look at the history: the US helps Afghans against the Soviets, and the US is accused of creating monsters; the US helps Kosovars against the Serbs, and the Muslim world gives America no credit; the US appeases Pakistan's rulers instead of invading their country, and the US is accused of fostering dictatorship; the US invades Iraq to liberate its people, and the US is viewed as a crusading army. There ain't no way to please 'em!

The destruction of the WTC was a horror (may such disaster never be seen again), but some perspective, please: 3,000 murdered innocents loosely connected to a policy that helped forestall global nuclear devastation by at least two decades? Not bad for an "ad-hoc" solution.

 

Well, I disagree. Bismarck solutions were longterm solutions to secure the peace and savety of Germany. The bond between Germany-UK-Russia-Austria should have and could have been a lasting one, with the focus of Germany not to be drawn in any conflict with them. The point was balancing the wants and needs. The Russian "panslavism" maybe better translated into "lure of the mediterranian". Which obviously was not in the interest of the Austrian-Hungarians and surely not in the interest of the British Empire, because Russian access to the Mediterranian would question the dominance of the British in southern Asia. Indeed, Balkan-quarrels made treaties with Russia void. But Bismarck made new treaties with Russia, balancing the whole issue out again. The blancing act only began to crumble, as the new Emperor fired Bismarck and set other (foolish) priorities for German foreign policies. Managing not only to overthrow himself with the Russians, but with the British too.

Germany included in a cooperative Europe, reminds of something contemporary.

Well, the Shah of Persia was a close ally of Western nations, including the US. His downfall obviously had some further implications.

The Saudi-Arabians were (I guess formally are still ?) allies of the US, which worked together with the Americans, including putting money into the Afhanistan "freedom fighter" project.

By the way, I posted this before, but I am still thinking about it. The Saudi-Arabians are a dictatorship, right ? And the US-armed forces stationed in Saudi-Arabia where there "invited" by the Saudi-Goverment, a dictatorship, right ? Why not make a poll with the Saudi people and ask them, if they want foreign troops on their territority ? If a large number says no, go. Well, I know those troops are now replaced, but still.

Well, I am not a muslim, but the reasons and consequences of the occupation of Iraq concern me too. I guess it's not only a muslim trait. Guess I am one of them hard to please. But maybe it's a benevolent gift ? Stability and peace in the Middle-East will benefit Eurasia. The spice must flow.But after your great essay GM, I doubt the outcome will be stability and peace. It's just a new reshuffle of pawns, imo.

I know, that if there is an occident, there must be an orient. But I am not sure if my feelings are close tight to the christans in the Philipines and Zimambwe. I do not know if the "muslim world" really is such an unity, concidering that the mostly cause havoc among themselves.

[ October 07, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Per Bismarck - you're right, he did have a coherent long-term vision, but he carried out it with shifting short-term designs. The US has a coherent long-term vision too - President Bush constantly preaches about it, to the world's dismay - for spreading American-style democracy and liberty to the world. But there's a lot of short-term ad-hockery in the run-up to utopia.

The US has already stripped most of its personnel from Saudi territory (as you mention). If asked to leave, the US would leave - look at how quickly the US abandoned its century-long commitment in the Philippines when asked to depart. If anything, the US is a little TOO quick to pack up and go home - South Korea has been protesting the American presence in Seoul for years, but now that the US is shifting forces out of the city, the people are upset that the US Army is abandoning them to North Korea's tender mercies. And crazy rightwingers are still threatening to pull up stakes in Germany and shift to greener pastures in Poland.

Invading Iraq was hardly a "benevolent gift" - it was done for American self-interest. That said, this was a case where America's self-interest peculiarly coincided with Iraq's self-interest. There were lots of ways that the US could've "fixed" the Hussein problem, without taking into account Iraq's interest - paying for Iraqi reconstruction at the risk of Bush's treasured domestic policy and reelection chances was clearly not the amoral realpolitik choice.

You write, "I do not know if the 'Muslim world' really is such an unity, concidering that they mostly cause havoc among themselves." Granted. As the much-excoriated Samuel Huntington wrote in his infamous "Clash of Civilizations", wars are most common within, not between, civilizations. (The American civil war, the two world wars, and the current African bloodletting spring to mind.) And it should be emphasized that only 15% of the world's Muslims are Arab - the most populous Islamic nations are quasi-democratic Indonesia and nuclear-armed Pakistan.

But it's still appropriate to speak of the "Muslim world" - despite its lack of unity - just as it's appropriate to speak of "the democratic nations" (despite America vs. the other democracies), "the West" (despite America vs. Europe), "the Communists" (despite Soviet-Warsaw-China frictions), "the Americans" (despite a near-even presidential contest), etc.

 

Let us not forget that Sadam Husssein, the Al-qaida, Bin-Laden, Pinnochet, Pol-Pot (I think), the Taliban, Castro, almost every other Dictator in the last 50 years, and the majority of the here mentioned wars, civil, genocidal, or otherwise, (among so many others) were either initiated, put in power, or supported (usually all three) by the US Government and the CIA in the first place, most often by George Bush Senior!

Now I'm not saying that the US is totally to blame for all this, and some good change in certain situations has been illicited, and I'm not going to even get into the thrice dammned WTO, but they hardly spread Liberty, US-style Democracy or otherwise. (Isn't that an oxymoron? )

Seriously though, this is getting too close to trolling. Ahh, it's a funny old world isn't it... Stop it here, I wan't to get off.

 

Grey Magistrate,
you mix up an actual ideology with a policy. Spreading democracy is nice and good. However, you have to see what Bush does and what he sais. A look at his National Security Strategy tells a tale about that: It labels Chapter III "Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends" and Chapter IV as "Work with others to Defuse Regional Conflicts". Whoa. That sounds really long term ... but unfortunately it also sais something that sounds very different:

Considering that the US wanted the war on Iraq anyway it is nice to recall this line from the NSS: "international obligations are to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal without furthering its attainment". Well, I didn't see much of that approach in the preface to the invasion of Iraq. The Powell Show clearly was unconvincing to countries who had intelligence of their own and didn't share the sort of worst case "doomsday" scenarios the Bush crew pressed. Today we see that they, after all, were in fact pretty accurate in their assessments. But no, obstruction, obstruction. When you in school write a series of 6 F's, it's stupid to blame your fellow pupils for pointing out that there might be a problem.

The US position was "We lead and you follow. No questions please." But that's what characterises the difference between a Vassall and an Ally. Allies have common interests - to make this sure there has to a be a dispute and not an unconditional: "If you're not with us you're against us." That isn't really the stuff an alliance is made of. And it doesn't really encourage countries to like and trust in the US. The US rampage to gather support for Iraq is a classical example for how to waste goodwill and damage a longterm alliance. Have a look at the NATO frictions. It's not all about the evil obstructors. Go to a bar and say: "Gimme a coke you a**hole!" and then try to come again.

The famed "coalition of the willing" is longterm? It will crumble as soon as the US, under their current administration, moves on to another issue requiring another coalition, much more as it is to a largest part coerced and bribed. And coercion and bribe is a tool Bush's goons also use in other aspects of their foreign policy. The use of force to coerce other countries is legitimate. But it is kinda puzzling when it targets countries seen as friends. Longterm? The actual US administration demands discipline, nothing more. And groups who expect gratitude for aiding the US have usually been disappointed: Have a look at their proxies from the cold war from Liberia to Afganistan. They were forgotten real quick. Countries with their instuitutionalised representation are in a somewhat better position.

In the case of the Iraq war Bush's approach hit a wall, as you can see at their frenzy to dig out allies where they can get them.

[ October 07, 2003, 12:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ironic? Not much if you stop and think it a little. Serbs most of them really DO HATE muslims because of the attrocities that were commited against them by the muslims. They dislike USA but would love to blood their knives with some muslim blood.

They hope i bet they will lose.
But i fear USA is desperate otherwise the administration would think twice before putting more oil in the fire. Because this will prove to be the case. Furthermore Belgrade is trying to rebuild and this means not only infrastructure but diplomatic relationship as well. So which is the better way to do that? Help the strong when he needs you
I believe that we may see more of these strange situations in the near future.
I forgot to mention that USA already gave money to their traditional allies Turkey to "help" them decide to sent some troops in. Another move that holds too many risks. Turkey has many interests in Iraq and they don't combine with the US administration plans for Iraq.
But i mentioned this just to show how exploited USA will be from nations that wait chances like that to gain something. In different times USA would say jump and Turkey would ask how high.

 

Well, as far as I can see this is nothing more than a gesture made by the Serbian government as a somewhat indelicate attempt at cooperation with the US. I cannot see any real benefit for either the US or Serbia for that matter. Some slight benefit might come to the current Serbian government - after the assasination of priminister Djindjic their position was weakened and the thinking might be that this will provide some international support hence fortifying their own position. Unlikley, but I guess some might consider it a possibility.

 

Enemies can become allies at the drop of a hat -- The West Germans became our best friends during the cold war. It's all a matter of necessity!

 

Allthough i can't really say i totally disagree, i want to remind that necessity is not always a good advisor. Especially in matters of politics and diplomacy

 

An illustrating and interesting article about the warlords in afganistan - the ones from the "good" northern alliance that helped fighting the Taleban and Al Quaida - and how they are an obstacle in stabilising afganistan - and likely to become as much a problem as the regrouped Taleban.

 

The situation in Afganistan is quickly turning into what it was after the Soviets left, many factions all vying for power. I think that in a way illustrates the danger and difficulty with switching foreign governments. Even vile regimes like the taleban.

 

Another bit on ad-hoc alliances and their disadvantages is that they always bear the risk of others free-riding. The US are *desperately* seeking countries contributing troops. In their situation, risking to wear down their overstretched forces, the US can't be picky.

So they brought turkey to Iraq. The US liberated the kurds from Saddams evil rule - you may remember Halabja from Powell's disgraceful and dishonest show event there.
The price for the US-turkish agreement was that the US would join the turks in fighting the evil kurds of the PKK, who, discriminated for half a century, are pissed off about that and seeking the impossible: Independence. So the turkish as a minor won the US as a proxy for their interests. More on that here and here and here.

The Serbs who plan to contribute troops to Afganistan also have an agenda of their own. Today's Christian Science Monitor reports:

What a chance. It wouldn't wonder me if they actually demand US support in the war on terror, that is against bosnian muslims who - of course - have Al Quaida links.

Insofar I see a distinct difference when comparing that to germany after WW-II: When germany became an ally it was clear that this alliance would last long. Of course it wasn't all love. Germany was meant to be built up as a counter model to the communist countries in the east and was to be held as a bastion in the cold war.
And Germany and the US had genuine and long term common interests and a common enemy: Both didn't want to see the warsaw pact overrunning germany. So the german army was built and designed to delay a russian onslaught on german territory until NATO reinforcements arrived.

With ad-hoc alliances the problem is that the US run risk of doing other peoples dirty work, and harvesting the fruits of that. In the middle east or with muslims in general that means terror.

[ October 09, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]