Americaca: smart empire-building going on

The U.S. is doing some real smart empire-building (Bush calls it 'freedom on the march') in the heart of what used to be the Russian sphere of influence.
'For our Afghan bases to make much sense, you have to consider as well, those fourteen (or so) permanent bases in Iraq, our many other Middle Eastern bases, our full-scale access to three or more Pakistani military bases, our penetration of the once off-limits former SSRs of Central Asia, including the use of an air base in Uzbekistan and the setting up of a base for up to 3,000 U.S. troops in impoverished Kyrgyzstan (where "the Tulip Revolution" has just ejected a corrupt pro-Russian regime). In fact, you have to see that from Camp Bondsteel in the former Yugoslavia to the edge of China, the US now effectively garrisons most of the heartland energy regions of the planet. As Maitra comments,
"Media reports coming out of the South Asian subcontinent point to a US intent that goes beyond bringing Afghanistan under control, to playing a determining role in the vast Eurasian region. In fact, one can argue that the landing of US troops in Afghanistan in the winter of 2001 was a deliberate policy to set up forward bases at the crossroads of three major areas: the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. Not only is the area energy-rich, but it is also the meeting point of three growing powers--China, India and Russia. On February 23, the day after McCain called for 'permanent bases' in Afghanistan, a senior political analyst and chief editor of the Kabul Journal, Mohammad Hassan Wulasmal, said, 'The US wants to dominate Iran, Uzbekistan and China by using Afghanistan as a military base.'"
Throw in our access to potential bases in the former Eastern European satellites of the former Soviet Union (Rumania and Bulgaria in particular) and you have the Pentagon positioned in quite remarkable ways not just in relation to the oil lands of the planet, but also in relation to our former superpower adversary. Analysts now speak of "the second breakup of the Soviet Union." Some even dare ask the ultimate question: "Could Russia itself be next?"
Just in the last year, we've seen "the Rose Revolution" in Georgia, "the Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, and now "the Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan, all heavily financed and backed by groups funded by or connected to the U.S. government. As Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times writes:
"The whole arsenal of US foundations--National Endowment for Democracy, International Republic Institute, Ifes, Eurasia Foundation, Internews, among others--which fueled opposition movements in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine, has also been deployed in Bishkek [Kyrgyzstan] … Practically everything that passes for civil society in Kyrgyzstan is financed by these US foundations, or by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). At least 170 NGOs charged with development or promotion of democracy have been created or sponsored by the Americans. The State Department has operated its own independent printing house in Bishkek since 2002--which means printing at least 60 different titles, including a bunch of fiery opposition newspapers. USAID invested at least $2m prior to the Kyrgyz elections--quite something in a country where the average salary is $30 a month."
American policy-makers have been aided greatly by the harsh and heavy-handed rule of corrupt local leaders and by the crude politics of Putin who, in his attempt to protect the Russian "near abroad," has positioned himself to fail in country after country.
(You could say, in a way, that the "near abroads" of both former superpowers have been falling away for years now; an urge to break away and implement new forms of democratic and economic independence from Washington's diktats has been evident in our former Latin American "backyard"--from Argentina to Bolivia, Brazil to Venezuela--the difference being that the Latin American version of this has lacked the funds from a distant superpower.)
The result of all this has been that, with the exception of Belarus and Siberia, Russia has been pushed back into something reminiscent of its borders several centuries ago. This has to be a dream result for anti-Soviet cold warriors like Dick Cheney and Condi Rice. They've accomplished what even the most rabid cold warriors of the early 1950s could only have dreamed of. They've turned "containment" into "rollback."
In the meantime, the Pentagon, firmly ensconced in an expanding set of bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, has Iran encircled. With approximately 160,000 troops and all those planes and helicopters, it now occupies two countries right in the oil and natural gas heartlands of the planet.
In fact, though their situations are many ways different, there are certain similarities between Iraq and Afghanistan. In neither country did we arrive with an exit strategy, because in neither case did we plan on departing. Both the government in Baghdad's Green Zone and the one in Kabul are, in the kindest of terms, "wards" of the United States. Both lack the ability to defend themselves. The Iraqi government is essentially installed inside a vast American military base and, as Maitra points out, "the inner core of Karzai's security is run by the US State Department with personnel provided by private contractors." (Try to imagine this in reverse: what would we make of an American president whose Secret Service was made up of foreigners hired by the government of Hamid Karzai?) In both countries, the Bush administration is eager for a "strategic partnership," which means its officials are eager to remain free to act beyond anyone's laws, in any manner of their choosing, with almost complete imperial impunity. More here.