What Khalilzad's Nomination Reveals About U.s. Plans For Iraq -- And The World
What Khalilzad's Nomination Reveals About U.s. Plans For Iraq -- And The World
Who is Zalmay Khalilzad, and what does his nomination to replace John Negroponte as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq tell us about Bushâ€™s plans for Iraq and the world?
Khalilzadâ€™s story â€“ from aid to Paul Wolfowitz in the 1980s, to neocon theorist in the 1990s, to top official under George W. Bush â€“ is the story of the rise of a group of imperialist strategists, with a sordid history drenched in blood, determined to solidify, deepen and extend U.S. global dominance by any means necessary. Theirs is a coherent global strategy that is now driving the actions of the Bush II regime. Understanding this agenda is key to understanding the real reasons behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq (hint â€“ it wasnâ€™t Sept. 11 or â€œterrorismâ€) and the rapidly unfolding events in the Middle East, including U.S. threats against Iran and Syria and demands for â€œreformâ€ in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as U.S. actions across the globe.
Khalilzadâ€™s nomination (he must now be confirmed by the Senate) highlights both the centrality of Iraq to that agenda, and the U.S. imperialists determination to press forward with their global plans, despite enormous difficulties in Iraq and the potential for even greater upheaval in the future. For them, their systemâ€™s place in the world and its long-term survival are at stake.
Khalilzad is considered a protÃ©gÃ©e of Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney. He was born in Afghanistan, emigrated to the U.S., educated at the University of Chicago (a hotbed of Straussian theory). In 1984 he began working in the State Department during the Reagan administration under now Deputy Defense Secretary and notorious war hawk Wolfowitz. During this period, he helped organize the arming of Afghan fighters â€“ including Osama bin Laden â€“ who were waging war against the Soviet Union, then the U.S.â€™s main imperialist rival, which had invaded Afghanistan in 1979. As a result of the Soviet invasion and subsequent U.S.-fueled war more than a million Afghans were killed, a third of the Afghan population was driven into refugee camps, and Afghanistan was left in ruins.
Visions of Global Hegemony: the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance
After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, the Bush, Sr. administration began to formulate a global strategy to maintain the U.S.â€™s status as the worldâ€™s sole imperialist superpower. This was first articulated in a 1992 â€œDefense Planning Guidance,â€ which was drafted by Khalilzad under the leadership of Wolfowitz and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.
The Defense Guidance called for the U.S. to insure, as the New York Times reported, â€œthat no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union.â€ The Defense Guidance called this the â€œdominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe , East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.â€ The strategy paper also placed special emphasis on the Persian Gulf: â€œIn the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil.â€ The Guidance envisioned accomplishing these far-reaching objectives by preemptively attacking rivals or states seeking weapons of mass destruction, strengthening U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil, and refusing to allow international coalitions or law to inhibit U.S. freedom of action.
James Mannâ€™s book, Rise of the Vulcans â€“ The History of Bushâ€™s War Cabinet, gives a flavor for the sorts of debates that were taking place within these ruling class circles at the time. According to Mann, Lewis Libby (then another Defense Department official and now Vice President Cheneyâ€™s top assistant) felt Khalilzadâ€™s draft position paper didnâ€™t go far enough. In Lewisâ€™ view, preventing the rise of rivals wasnâ€™t enough, instead the goal should be to make the U.S. so powerful that none would even considering challenging it. (pp. 208-215).
â€œFrom Containment to Global Leadershipâ€
When Bill Clinton became president in 1992, Khalilzad and his cohorts were turned out of office, but they didnâ€™t stop campaigning for a more aggressive U.S. global posture (and for military action against Iraq). Called â€œneo-conservativesâ€ or â€œneocons,â€ they worked through a host of right-wing think tanks and prominent publications like the Wall Street Journal and the media monopolist Rupert Murdoch-funded Weekly Standard. Over the decade, they churned out a stream of commentaries, strategy papers, articles, and books â€“ and helped organize the effort to oust Clinton.
In the eyes of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, and other imperial thinkers, things were drifting in the wrong direction, and Clinton and his team were frittering away American preeminence. They felt, as Bob Avakian put it, that the U.S. â€œdidn't really take advantage of the victory in the Cold War. â€˜We didn't â€˜roll upâ€™ the whole world the way we could have, and should have.â€™â€
In 1995, Khalilzad spelled all this out in his brief for U.S. global hegemony â€“ From Containment to Global Leadership. His book stressed that the U.S. faced both opportunities â€“ and new dangers â€“ following the Soviet collapse and that it had to act decisively to solidify and extend its empire â€“ all over the world.
Among the new dangers confronting the U.S. imperialists, Khalilzad included the potential for â€œmajor regional conflicts, attempts at regional hegemony, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,â€ as well as â€œchaos and fragmentation within statesâ€ and possibilities ranging from a â€œgrowing number of small warsâ€ to â€œRussian reimperialization and Chinese expansionism.â€ Khalilzad noted that â€œeconomic growth under way in Asia...will produce important changes in relative economic power-with important potential geopolitical and military implicationsâ€ and â€œintensified international economic competition.â€ Khalilzad called China â€œthe most likely candidateâ€ for global rival. â€œOver the longer term â€“ the next twenty years â€“ there is a real possibility of efforts by China or Russia or a coalition of states to balance the power of the United States and its allies.â€
Khalilzad complained that, â€œDespite efforts by both the Bush [I] and Clinton administrations ....no grand strategy has yet jelled and there is no consensus on overarching national security objectives. It appears that the country is still trying to get its strategic bearings.â€ There was no â€œunifying conceptâ€ in the Clinton global vision Khalilzad wrote, and its strategy â€œdoes not deal with some of the tough issues....It also does not provide a clear sense of priorities.â€
Khalilzad argued that the U.S. should focus on preventing others from having â€œhegemony over critical regions,â€ including the Persian Gulf. He concluded: â€œThe United States should also resolve to maintain its position of global leadership and preclude the rise of another global rival for the indefinite future. It is an opportunity the nation may never see again.â€
Targeting Iraq â€“ Years Before Sept. 11, 2001 â€“ and Working for UNOCAL
While demanding more aggressive action globally, Khalilzad and other neocons were also demanding more forceful action against Iraq. In 1998, for instance, the Project for a New American Century published an open letter to Clinton warning, â€œThe policy of â€˜containmentâ€™ of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding,â€ and â€œwe can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions.â€ These developments endanger â€œour friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worldâ€™s supply of oil.â€ The letter, which raised the specter of Iraqi acquisition of â€œweapons of mass destruction,â€ but made no mention of â€œterrorism,â€ concluded that the â€œonly acceptable strategyâ€ was â€œremoving Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.â€ The letter was signed by Khalilzad and other prominent right-wing strategists, many of whom would become top officials in the Bush II administration.
During the 1990s, Khalilzad was also a consultant to UNOCAL â€“ one of the worldâ€™s largest oil companies â€“ when UNOCAL was trying to negotiate with the Taliban government for rights to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. During this period, Khalilzad publicly defended the Taliban regime. UNOCAL is notorious for supporting and doing business with brutally reactionary regimes. For instance, in 1997, by Burmese refugees sued UNOCAL for human rights abuses carried out by the Burmese military hired by UNOCAL to protect its operations.
Major Player in the Bush II Regime
As soon as he took office in 2000, George Bush packed his administration with the strategists of more hegemonic U.S. global predominance. Khalilzad became a member of the Bush National Security Council staff as Special Assistant to the President for Near East, South West Asian, and North African Affairs. Shortly before the 2003 invasion, he was made emissary to the Iraqi opposition â€“ the pro-U.S. exile forces (such as Ahmad Chalabi) that the U.S. hoped to install in power.
In 2003, following the October 2001 U.S. invasion, Khalilzad was named Ambassador to Afghanistan, where he presided over U.S. efforts to solidify its control of this strategically located country â€“ an effort he described as developing a long-term military and economic partnership between the countries. (Just what this means was recently illustrated by U.S. Joints Chiefs of Staff Chair General Myers, who revealed that the U.S. was considering establishing long term military bases in Afghanistan.)
During Khalilzadâ€™s tenure in Afghanistan, opium and heroin production skyrocketed (in December 2004, a secret U.S. military report stated that opium production would continue to increase, strengthening power of warlords), and the U.S. stage-managed an election to keep its favorite, Hamid Karzai, in power. One of Khalilzadâ€™s last acts was to support giving a government post to the notorious warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostomâ€™s militia was responsible for suffocating hundreds of suspected Taliban supporters by locking them in metal shipping containers and for driving ethnic Pashtuns, many who backed the Taliban, from their villages.
Dispatching Khalilzadâ€™s to Baghdad - and what is planned to be the largest U.S. embassy in the world â€“ underscores the continuing centrality of the conquest of Iraq for U.S. global plans. And his nomination, along with the nominations of hardline neocons John Bolton (as UN Ambassador) and Paul Wolfowitz (to head the World Bank) highlight the rulersâ€™ determination to push forward with their war on the world for greater empire. The prognosis:
more U.S. aggression action around the world â€“ on many different fronts â€“ and heightened potential for both massive suffering and great economic, social and political upheaval.
Larry Everest is a correspondent for Revolution (formerly Revolutionary Worker) and author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda (Common Courage Press 2004) (from which much of the above was taken). His website is www.larryeverest.com
1. Bob Avakian, â€œThe New Situation and the Great Challenges,â€ Revolutionary Worker, March 17, 2002
2. Zalmay M. Khalilzad, From Containment to Global Leadership (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1995), 7-8
3. Khalilzad, From Containment to Global Leadership, 30, 7
4. Khalilzad, From Containment to Global Leadership, 30, 7