Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGeorge Bush’s Gift To The World: The End of American Imperialism
After all, James Buchanan, the previous aspirant to the title, merely did nothing while the South seceded. Hah! You'll have to do better than that, Jimmy, if you want to wear this crown!
Bush did far better, of course. It would appear to be the one thing in his entire life he actually worked hard at, and the one challenge he was able to meet successfully. This was an astonishingly destructive presidency, that's true even despite the fact that we don't really know much about his administration, because in addition to being the worst, it was also the most secretive ever. (I'm sure that's just a coincidence, too.) Moreover, that's also even considering that most Americans still vastly underestimate the depravity of Team Bush. As I have argued previously, if you think they were ‘merely' arrogant bunglers with exceptionally bad politics, you've grossly underestimated them. In fact, they were predators who launched their class warfare agenda behind the smoke-screen of national security, faux patriotism and secret government.
Does this record of unparalleled devastation mean that Bush never did anything right in eight years? No, though it's pretty much the case that he never did anything right on purpose.
Unquestionably, however, Bush did make some positive contributions to American life, even if they were completely inadvertent, and even if they were dwarfed by the swath of destruction he left all across the landscape. Put simply, George W. Bush's greatest success was that he gave a very bad name to very bad things.
Like the Republican Party, for example. Or conservative ideology. Or theocracy. Or presidents with the last name of Bush. Or emotional midgets who seek the White House as a salve for their personal psychological neediness.
We can be grateful for all these contributions, and I certainly am - though "thanks" is not likely what I would say if I had the pleasure of relating my assessment of Mr. Bush to him directly. More likely it would be something closer to the gracious words Dick "Dick" Cheney had for Patrick Leahy early on in the administration, when the two bumped into each other on the Senate floor. Those remarks were not, shall we say, fit for print in a family newspaper.
But I digress.
George Bush left us many gifts, but perhaps the greatest of them is that he has ruined the sport of imperialism in America, maybe forever.
Admittedly, that may of course be wishful thinking. Woe be unto the world, for example, should there be another 9/11 type of event. Somebody somewhere would have to pay in spades, and they likely wouldn't be nice white folks.
And god only knows, alternatively, what Americans might be capable of under conditions of real resource deprivation. Considering what we've already done while being the richest and most powerful country in the world, it's scary to think of what we could do with our back genuinely to the wall.
But leaving those unusual situations aside, it must be said that, after Iraq, the fun has really gone out of eviscerating small foreign countries, even those foolish enough to locate themselves on top of our oil.
Imperialism used to be a fairly sporting avocation for gentlemen of a certain class. You could occupy hapless Latin American countries, topple Iranian democracies, and simultaneously sponsor apartheid suppression of whole populations, still having time left by mid-afternoon for a couple belts with the boys down at the club, all in celebration of a good day's work at the office. It was jolly good fun for all. Except, of course, for all for whom it wasn't.
Unfortunately, that latter category included more or less the entirety of the southern hemisphere, and not a few in the north to boot. But, so what? We're Americans! Caring about the morality of imperialism is for pre-dictatorship revolutionary anti-colonialist leaders and washed-up European former empires who can't get it up anymore.
Truth be told, we're now closer to being in that latter category than not, and we can thank George W. Bush for that, one of the few contributions of this complete and utter disaster going by the name of the 43rd presidency.
I'd say we're more than a bit lucky for that outcome, too. Imagine if Iraq had been a success. Imagine if it had been the cakewalk they obviously thought it would be. Indeed, one of the great ironies of American politics is that Iraq probably readily could have been a ‘great success', at least in terms of what could be marketed as such to a foolish American public.
In that sense, we are really quite fortunate, in a perverse sort of way, that Bush was as much a lazy boob as he was a warmonger. We are lucky that Rumsfeld was as dogmatic about his 21 century military ideas as Cheney was a completely psycho amoral sociopath. For had they simply run an occupation that was as carefully planned and as adequately staffed as the invasion, or had they toppled Saddam and then promptly left, "Mission Accomplished" would have been a lot more than some banner duct-taped onto the bridge of an aircraft carrier.
And that would have been very bad news indeed for the rest of the world. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba - there's no telling where they might have gone next, and likely with the full support of the American public, at that point popping the buttons off their jingoistic shirts (made in Thailand, of course), their chests puffed out to the wall.
Americans were already growing dubious of regressive exploits in international adventurism, it seems to me. I remember laughing at the senior Bush, whose first pronouncement after defeating the pathetically under-matched Iraqi military in 1991 was "By God, we've licked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!" Yeah, he actually said that. All I could think at the time was, if you have to say it, dude, it ain't really happenin'. And all I can think now is, out of 300 million people in this country, did we really go to the Bush family twice to staff the presidency?
But, in fact, the Vietnam syndrome had not been licked. That war was a traumatic experience, and it changed public perceptions about the desirability of war itself. On top of which, America was not completely immune to the general Western post-World War II movement away from militarism as a means of settling disputes. Then there's always been our long-standing vision of ourselves as both peace-loving and anti-imperialistic - however absurd those perceptions often were in light of actual practice. These also provided at least a speed-bump along the road to war in all but the more obvious cases.
Indeed, two things about public opinion and war in America struck me as pretty notable, but not much noted, these last years. One is that there was a surprising - I thought - lack of blood lust after 9/11. I guess part of that was that there was no state enemy to be attacked, as there had been in the past, and part of that was the foregone conclusion that we would be invading Afghanistan. But, really, I'm surprised there wasn't a far more intense call for revenge. As one measure of the absence of this, consider that Osama bin Laden still has not been captured or killed, almost a decade (!) later, and that nobody seems much to care about that or mention it very often.
The other thing worth noting is that the public was, in fact, dubious about the Iraq invasion, right up until the weeks before. People realized that it was bogus, at some basic level, and they certainly had a hard time connecting it to 9/11. It took a marketing full-court press to eventually garner public support for the war (America's pathetic excuse for a Congress was a lot easier to roll). It never worked abroad (another reason Americans were a bit slower to come on-board), but in the context of post-9/11 fears, a general tendency to trust the president, and the regressive movement's prowess at equating militarism with patriotism, the Madison Avenue campaign finally produced a tenuous majority support for the Iraq invasion in the weeks right before it actually went down.
I think it's slightly encouraging that, even in that context, it still took a real effort to sell the war. It's also seriously discouraging, on the other hand, that it could be sold, and that it was. But, as noted, this was a tenuous acceptance. Had the war gone well it would have amplified the militarism in the Bush team and the country's willingness to let them run rampant. Since it went disastrously, it had the opposite effect.
Iraq is probably not the last time America will go to war. But I think it's fair to say that this country - its nose once more bloodied by a stupid imperial adventure, stupidly prosecuted - will be that much more reticent to repeat the experience. We do learn in America. It is often a painfully slow process, sometimes punctuated by reverse trajectories (can you say ‘creation science'), but we do occasionally exhibit the classic clinical signs of a student who can be taught, however reluctantly and inadvertantly.
And thus we owe a debt of gratitude to the Iraqis, perhaps a million of whom have been murdered, another four or five million dislocated, and countless others wounded - emotionally, if not physically, if not both - for helping us to learn. And the people of Syria and Iran and much of the rest of the developing world owe these Iraqis thanks as well, for giving the US pause from invading other countries at will.
America's place in the world is likely to be entering a new period now, for several reasons. One is that the low-key successes of the Obama administration will help underscore the sheer lunacy of the Bush years, and all the policies associated with them. Another is that we are rapidly coming face-to-face with the reality that empire is expensive. As our standards of living go from mere steady decline to sheer precipitous decline, you'll know that we've actually turned that corner when mainstream politicians finally have the courage to talk about scaling back expenditures on the obscenely bloated American military machine.
But, in the end, it may truthfully be said that no one did more to discourage American militaristic tendencies than Jingo George, himself, however odd that may seem.
And, who knows? If I ever met him, maybe I could even bring myself to thank him for that, after all.
But only, of course, from above, after I had decked him.
93 Comments so far
Show All"Put simply, George W. Bush's greatest success was that he gave a very bad name to very bad things."
You mean the chimp smashed right through the "public relations" propaganda wall that gave a very good name to very bad things? The wall that corralled USans in for decades, pushing them to prioritize consumption over universal well-being, which enabled other USans a petro-fried prosperity unrivaled in human history, SOME of those being upstanding "leftists", guilty of nothing worst than the practice of "realpolitik"?
"words Dick "Dick" Cheney had for Patrick Leahy"
That was Tom Daschle who is in the news today for doing what the Demoks like to do: Share in the plunder. Darth Viper told him to go puck himself for daring to demand a share.
"there was a surprising - I thought - lack of blood lust after 9/11."
Of course! At that point USans were ready to be led away from imperialism. There just weren't any Demoks up to the challenge of facing down AIPAC. It is in this was that the Demok party acts as the wedge to divide/conquer the people, the Repuk party being the hammer.
"And thus we owe a debt of gratitude to the Iraqis, perhaps a million of whom have been murdered, another four or five million dislocated, and countless others wounded - emotionally, if not physically, if not both - for helping us to learn"
We can repay our debt to the world by shifting 1/4 of our exchange/association away from the elites and toward our local communities. We can repay our debt to ourselves by shifting the other 3/4.
In his essay Green notes:
"Woe be unto the world, for example, should there be another 9/11 type of event. Somebody somewhere would have to pay in spades, and they likely wouldn't be nice white folks."
Let's face it: the guys (and gals) who were awash in the glories of Empire are still around. Another (and god-forbid more massive) "false-flag operation" would go far in providing the perfect launching pad for showing up Obama's "dangerous, idealistic assumptions." This would be highly spinable material - revealing Obama's naive, Kumbyah-like approach to national and international relations: "Dick Cheney told you so! We needed torture, illegal domestic wiretaps, etc, etc."
Two books which may be of interest:
The Shell Game by New York Times best-selling author Steve Alten.
The book, which is written as a fictional political thriller (a page-turner for sure) is part "24," while also serving as a pretext and platform for weaving in documented data re- 9/11. It is set in 2012 where neo-conservatives have set in motion two domestic nuclear attacks. The clock is ticking.....Will their plot be foiled? Hint: yes and no.
**************************************
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11 by professor and noted theologian David Ray Griffin:
Griffin first assembles the abundance of 9/11 data that is now available. He then presents detailed research about the Roman Empire, which was the actual geopolitical and social context for Jesus’ teachings. Griffin then shows the way in which this itinerant rabbi‘s teachings were unequivocally anti-imperialist and anti-empire. He challenges many Christians to take a hard look at the policies and ideologies they've been supporting.
The U.S.A. has ALWAYS been a cancer in the world. It attempts to be the cure and doesn't appear to realise it's the core disease.
It's destructive, murderous and greedy symbiotic accomplices have been Japan, Europe and Australia. Collectively "the West" who have supported and orchestrated the installing of miserable despots through-out the third world.
Bush' regime has exposed this in an unambiguous manner to a wider audience.
To be fair, human society generally will attempt to dominate when it has the opportunity to do so; empire doesn't change and most wish it were them (from a collective national conscience perspective) rather than the other, or if one is small and insignificant (like Australia) one pride's oneself in "punching above one's weight" by aligning oneself in a sickening obsequies manner to the reigning super-power. On that score we even have a Mandarin speaking Prime Minister, just in case China takes over the mantle!
Quote article : "George Bush left us many gifts, but perhaps the greatest of them is that he has ruined the sport of imperialism in America, maybe forever."
Yes!
Are you listening all you other aspirants in the world? China, Russia, EU?
Don't think you can ever do any better.
Empire's always fall, eventually.
True, imperialists are everywhere. But look at the progressive solution: Universalism, socialism, localism. This basically means the defense of the people from the elites' class war aggression. It can apply everywhere, and serve as the foundation of world unity against all imperialists. Imperial aspirants may dream but they won't be able to build armies. Progressivism is the wedge that divides the elites from their would-be pawns, and unites the people against all organized aggression.
Dubya's gift to the world is stepping down on Jan 20, 2009 and not staging a coup d'etat to remain in power. It took 8 years for him to do anything good.
“And thus we owe a debt of gratitude to the Iraqis, perhaps a million of whom have been murdered, another four or five million dislocated, and countless others wounded - emotionally, if not physically, if not both - for helping us to learn.”
This sentiment, even if in pathetic jest, captures the imperialistic attitude in all of its vain glory.
nothing is revealed
The first sentence of this article is enough reason to dismiss everything that follows. You speak of President Jimmy as an aspirant for the crown but you have the wrong Jimmy , have you forgotten the glorious years of the Carter administration. 70% tax rates, 15% unemployment, 20% interest rates, what an achievement. But think of all the nice people you met waiting on lines to buy gas. All this while hostage takers laughed at the paper tiger named Carter. An ex-president who has become our national disgrace and a traitor to his country. Even his own party would not let him participate at their convention, at least not on camera. He was too busy serving the peanuts.
that is a little too harsh rick
he was thwarted by the events of the day no doubt
his speaking style was awkward
he was holed up in the whitehouse for months trying to figure out what to do about the hostages
not exactly a power position
but he has redeemed himself in the ensuing years
having said that though, the carter doctrine is a disgrace - this is the policy statement whereby he said that he would use the military against and and all countries that tried to keep the united states from doing whatever they wanted to steal resources of other countries
he was also the one who dispatched brezinski to afghanistan to arm obl in the jihad against the russkies, thereby creating the taliban (btdubs - the school text books used by the taliban were published by the american military and printed at the university of nebraska)and we all know where that went
but he is most definitely not a traitor - that is foolish - he has guts and courage and his humanitarian work is beyond reproach
cheers, b
I actually have admired his humanitarian work over the years, what other ex president would be banging nails to build homes for others who cannot afford them so I stand corrected to a degree. But he is clearly an individual who has been much more successful as an ex president than a president, his administration was a total failure and his resounding defeat for reelection confirms that. But it seems to me he shows very little respect for the office he once held and the tough decisions that any president must make at times.
I have made a number of points. You on the other hand display a total lack of class by your posts. When you have something of consequence to say, please come back, until then , just stay away, you contribute nothing to the conversation.
Rick, the 70% tax during the Carter admin and before was a way to check greed. Not the best way, but better than nothing. One of our lessons today is that unchecked greed is worst than checked greed. Please explain why USans ignore this wisdom of the ages. Maybe someone is cultivating our weaknesses. Ya think? Maybe the monstrous godzilla corporations?
About that 15% unemployment during the Carter admin: It should not matter in a petro-fried society. Suppose we reduce energy consumption to 1/4 current level and shift to renewables. Only THEN would the unemployment rate matter. Now shift ownership of production (food/fuel/materials) from the elites to the people, by limiting asset ownership and enterprise size to ten man-powers. THEN unemployment simply does not exist. Production in the hands of elites is a recipe for cyclic disaster.
About that 20% interest during the Carter admin. We don't need credit from far-flung elites. So the cost of their credit doesn't matter. First, we have property, property laws, and property inheritance. Even without property inheritance, we don't need their credit. In times and places where people thrive without elite credit they do this by pitching in to help each other build their houses. This is an organic kind of credit that keeps people's feet on the ground.
We have to get rid of all the elites' opiates/rackets, credit/gambling, war/oil, luxuries/conveniences. In their place, we embrace economic/political self-determination, enlightenment, responsibility, land/water and production rights for all.
Hello RT---With all due respect a 70% tax rate has nothing to do with checking greed and everything to do with the concept of income redistribution. It also reduces incentive to grow an economy, why take any business risk at all. Socialism sounds so great on paper but where has it worked? The problem is that any system has to be run and controlled by humans. The past has shown us that humans are greedy and corrupt when they can be, it does not matter which system they subscribe to. Most of the proponents of a socialistic society today are elitists who already have their wealth safely stashed away. Your theories remind me of a science fiction novel written by Austin Tappan Wright many years ago entitled "Islandia" . It was a thought provoking book but clearly fiction.
Hey Rick, it took george bush 8 years and two unjustified wars to put this country in the pit of financial dispair and ruin to the toon of at least 11 trillion dollars up from 3.9 trillion when he took office.Would you have us believe that Jimmey Carter did all you claim he did in 4 years by himself.
Seems too me after 8 year of republican capitilism nixon-ford, Carter inhertied another GOP mess.
Sound familiar.
All the GOP fantasy glue can not correct the fact that we have had a republican president 28 years of the last 44. Clinton signed NAFTA in to law and is as much a WTO and GAT member as Bush and company. So make that 36 years of traitors selling Americas soul to the hightest bidder, or lowest labor corporations world wide.
Thanks David, your aricles continue to stike wooden spikes into the blood sucking republican vampires and the hypnotic lies of Hannity,OReiely, Limbuagh , and Plain delusions just are not working any more.
The truth always travels much slower than lies around the world, but the truth finally does arrive, Thank God and the America intellectual community.
The pen is mightier than the sword, and when the revelutionary war was won, our founding farthers penned the Constitution.
To help protect us from government war mongering, so lets get real about has happend over the last 44 years.
BornFreeMen
It's more than a little early to proclaim the death of imperialism. Bush and Cheney are really dumb imperialists; the Democrats are smarter imperialists.
Actually, Bush, Cheny and the PNAC brought imperialism back home to America.
Imperialism took power from the average "native" and imposed a new set of imperial masters. Wake up ...we now have a new set of master ruling America.
Yes you can bail us out...but we do not have to be accountable. How dare you lecture us about executive bonuses and private jets.
And if you don't like it...we have already moved our corporate headquaters off shore and to the Xanadu on the Gulf...Dubai.
Be thankful that you have imperialism...We have taken everything else
Imperialism over? What does full spectrum dominance mean to you? The military industrial complex? The CIA? Homeland Security? One of the worst articles I've seen on Common Dreams yet.
I don't see how this is the end of imperialism.
Did any of the over 700 foreign military bases close...? No, we expanded with more into Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush successfully opened the largest 'embassy' in the world in Iraq. He bankrupt the treasury along the way which may mark the beginning of the end; but until we start closing bases abroad our imperialist ways are still running. As long as the vast majority of our soldiers and millions of sheeple think the US military is 'protecting our freedoms' imperialism is strong.
Can't argue with those points, DCNative. All well taken.
I would argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Congo and the new paramilitary drug war in Mexico are each accomplishing their primary objectives...
The cluster fuck of Iraq was useful for Military contractors & weapons manufacturers, looting the Iraq & the US treasury of trillions, establishing an enormous forward operating base, expansion of role of private security and mercenaries for basic operations, keeping the oil in the sand to keep the Saudi/OPEC/US $$$ system in place, and fomenting a civil war...
The initial invasion into Afghanistan gave a pretext for future preventive wars, restored the Opium trade, placed their Shell CEO into power, revamped the military bases, and gave cover for CIA special Ops and FBI SWAT & Pakistani ISI raids...
The civil war in the congo was fomented by the corporatists to get cheap access to the tungsten and other minerals necessary for electronics manufacturing...
The war on Drugs is a cover to para-militarize the country sides and militarize the police in the cities and suburbs and imprison the citizens to feed the for-profit prison & rehab industries... CIA and DEA AGENTS have admitted to running cocaine and heroin in the past...
It is a racket... just like the War on Terror, that we are funding in Colombia and Mexico...
Depressing, but accurate. What you said plus the 700 bases mentioned by DCNative. Meanwhile, China owns us. What a mess.
Joe
Q: What do the ambassador to China, CIA Director, VP, & POTUS all have in common?
A: they were all roles played by GHWBush... That set the stage for Clinton to make China "most favored nation" trade status... This bankrolling US resource wars while bankrupting the US with a half trillion $ annual trade deficit...
Hegel argued that great men make history, often in spite of themselves--through their actions they become the bearers of historical reason. He forgot to add that this is also true of wicked, stupid, incompetent and obstinate men, like our old favorite George Bush. It's only reasonable that one country shouldn't occupy and plunder another, as this causes human misery aplenty. And this is true even if the occupying country is "God's country," the good old USA.
"By God, we've licked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!"
What I remember pappie bush saying was "The Vietnam Syndrome lies buried in the sands of Iraq."
junior just had to go and dig it up to see what he had missed
Enjoyed the article, but it's a mistake to think Bush was a Lazy boob, or Rummie and Cheney were "psycho amoral sociopaths". You see the same thing ascribed to Hitler, that he had some kind of mental delusions or sickness, etc. This just lets these clowns off the hook.
They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. And what they did perfectly reflects their ideology. It's the ideology of conservatism, both in it's political and religious forms, that was at work here. From that point of view Bush/Cheney/Hitler/Rumsfeld did exactly (well, almost) what they set out to do. By calling these clowns "lazy boobs, psychos" it focuses criticism on the person, versus the ideology. And if you're a conservative Christian, or just the church itself, you'll work hard to characterize a Hitler or a Bush/Cheney as bad eggs, to take the focus off the real issue of the failed ideology.
I most always enjoy Green's writing, this one included. I find many of the comments disturbing. The world is made up of humans so what do you expect, utopia? We can all work to see that Empire is toned down and the harsh edges of capitalism are buffed off. Today's economic crisis is an opportunity for considerable changes and hallelujah for that at least. One thing Green brings up that has always bothered me was the need for Bush's adventure in Iraq to go badly. For years horrors occurred everyday in Iraq and that was necessary for the beast of empire to be throttled. And yet how horrible to have part of one's mind cheering on these nightmares. Of course our thoughts on this meant little unless it stirred up an anger at the whole disgusting scenario that could be channeled into positive actions. I truly admire pacifists, yet like Green, I would truly love to feed Bush a knuckle sandwich.
Of course none of this has gone unnoticed around the world. I would bet that in the next four years there will be massive protests in some of the nations in which the US has military bases, particularly where they do not appear to serve any positive purpose with respect to the people of the region. People know that the US is broke and that it has lost its international respect and position of leadership, both because of the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the financial collapse. Obama is in for many surprises.
And Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc ... will continue it unless they can prove me wrong by 2010 and beyond.
Die, USA, die.
Hey sneaker -------- Once we redirect all the evil empires onto the path of righteousness. What do you think that will look like? ------- Thanks ------- Peace ---------------------------
The Bush gang's revival of the Nazi blueprint by all means awakened many to the evils of empire. But let's make one thing perfectly clear. With (as Larry Pinkney would say) a "slick pro-apartheid Zionist" as our new prez, and a self proclaimed Zionist as his sidekick, American/Israeli imperialism is not disappearing anytime soon.
If it wasn't for his bad reputation, Dubya wouldn't have any reputation at all.
(LOL)
US imperialism is not 'dead yet' but it was 'coughing up blood last night' (the next Monty Python line).
I agree that it is scary to imagine what Americans might be capable of in situations of real resource deprivation. In the back of every Canadian's mind there is that fear of what 300 million armed Christians are going to do when the water and oil and McNuggets run out down there. Or when the coastal cities flood while the plains burn from climate change. We're headed into harder times and while Canadians have been wasting resources on the social safety net and healthcare, our warlike neighbours have been outspending the planet on weapons. Our sovereignty is now a polite fiction awaiting harsher circumstances. And here they come.
Sioux Rose
MAPLEFUDGE: Although armed and dangerous, it might comfort you to know that a great many are too obese to get far, and others rely on drugs to get up at all. Many have relied on a variety of service personnel for so many tasks that any remote concept of autonomy is a fiction at best. Possibly some militia in Montana might give you guys a run for your money, and/or what's left of our military. It would be great, a militarized version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" if there was a real mutiny within the uniformed ranks and the guns were turned on the leaders who have left such depravity and pain in their wake. Sometimes the odd and unusual trump what's considered reasonable or viable. Strange times call for strange, if not desperate measures, but that can take a number of forms. Expect the unexpected...
"It would be great, a militarized version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" if there was a real mutiny within the uniformed ranks and the guns were turned on the leaders who have left such depravity and pain in their wake."
are you suggesting that more murder would be "great"?
Sioux Rose
HOLD THEM AT GUN POINT and arrest the vast majority. Why? An illegal war for starters, next, the nod on torture, next giving retroactive immunity to team Bush for illegal spying on citizens, next, for politicizing the already too politically corrupt justice department, next, for cronyism in granting contracts for rebuilding Iraq and billions, possibly more disappearing, next, for NOT working to offset our "addiction" to oil so that global warming has had 8 more years to take lives south of our borders, and sometimes within them. AND THERE IS A LOT MORE. So, the use of force to incarcerate, try and punish those that sold the nation down river, by ALL MEANS.
I get DMG's point, but it contains a dangerous illusion.
Imperialism is a natural & inevitable consequence of capitalism. It isn't a "choice" made by a voting public. It has nothing to do with whether foreign meddling & warmaking are viewed favorably by voters, at a particular historic moment. Rather, it's something that flows naturally from the logic of an economic system that's competitive and requires raw materials, cheap labor & maximized profit opportunities.
No matter how badly a moronic gangster like Bush bungled everything he touched, the US (like all leading capitalist powers) will always strive for maximal global influence. This is not a question of what's fashionable or popular, at a particular time. It springs from the nature of the beast. It will inevitably lead to conflict & war, even if these things are not consciously desired by ANYONE.
It's a liberal delusion to imagine that "popular opinion" has anything whatever to do with whether a capitalist power engages in imperialism or goes to war. Such decisions are made by the captains of industry & their political representatives. It has nothing to do with the ordinary working people who, almost by accident, happen to inhabit the given capitalist power.
Germany had a "bad experience" in WWI. Did this "teach the Germans a lesson"? Of course not. Within 15 years, they were trying to achieve the same basic goals, but with a plan that they believed might work, where the first one had failed. // The US had a "bad experience" in Vietnam. Did this "teach the US a lesson"? Within 8 years, we were already knocking over Grenada, funding the contras, & backing the right-wing in El Salvador. // And those things are just the overt war or proxy-war conflicts. The underlying imperialism never stopped, even for a minute.
As Lenin pointed out, Imperialism is just another stage in the development of capitalism. Fortunately, according to him, it is the Final Stage. :-)
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
Did Lenin also point out that the only way true Marxism can (at least has ever) be implemented is via authoritarian police states like the one he created?
Lenin understood very well the necessity of establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat". He learned this from Marx (who in turn learned this from studying the Paris Commune and why it had been defeated). He understood that under capitalism, the state is a dictatorship of the capitalist class and the only way to defeat capitalism was to replace the state with one led by the proletariat. He understood that the capitalist class, after a socialist revolution would never give up trying to turn things back to the old ways through a counter-revolution. He understood that the working class must be armed in order to defend the gains made by the revolution. A real simple idea, really.
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
Ever read Marx, Adhoc?
What's true Marxism?
Allende, the assassinated Argentinian president, was an elected Marxist, overthrown by an authoritarian police state.
Chile-not Argentina
you're right - my mistake.
This is an ignorant remark, & its type of ignorance says quite a bit about Americans. The poster probably couldn't write a literate paragraph on what "true Marxism" is, or what Lenin represented. // Last I checked, it was the United States with its vaunted "free enterprise system" that's solely responsible for the ongoing financial disaster. It's the United States that drives most of today's global conflicts, & has itself built an authoritarian police state, not to mention a propaganda system that Pravda would envy. It's the formerly "great" USA that's leading the world into war, torture & bankruptcy.
Dave --------- I agree predatory capitalism needs to end. Yet I do believe capitalism as a vehicle to create wealth can be well tempered with socialism as a means to distribute wealth. Are not the majority of nations capitalistic? Only a few are occupying other countries. Yes more than a handful are waging economic war through globalization but no matter what the economic system, nations have always preyed on the weaker nations. Actually your agruement strongly indicates that the problem is more cultural than economic because of the repeat offenders while others with the same economic systems are more benign. And it is easy to find modern nations that were not capitalist but were extremely aggressive and warring. If nations could move to the light capitalism can be made just.
DaveBronstein, you are making an extremely important and correct point.
I tried to say the same thing in my post below, albeit in much terser terms. Your expansion was necessary.
In a sense, Green's intervention unwittingly perpetuates the nonsense song played to this county's citizenry for decades about the cozy relationship between democracy and capitalism. Capitalism is a vampire, as Karl Marx says and shows in the first volume of "Capital", and it sucks not only the blood of its domestic workers, but that of any nation the resources of which it needs for its incessant growth and deployment.
Don't think it is an accident that vampirism became such an obsession in literature since Bram Stoker's "Dracula" launched the theme, and, even more so, in the movies of the capitalist world. Literary and cinematic vampirism is a projection in the imaginary realm of what is always already taking place under capitalism, either in its places of work (actually, wage labor) or through its battlefields.
Sioux Rose
ABENDLAND: Interesting segue into vampirism. Funny (or should I say synchronistically) I used this metaphor in a response to an earlier thread. Thanks for elaborating.
In fact, I feel that an even broader category than that of capitalism is needed in this discussion, namely, that of productivism or industrialism, both in order to neutralize the ideological talk about the capitalism-democracy duo, and in order to accomodate the fact that capitalism can become state capitalism. Unfortunately, though, I don't have time to expand upon this now.
Abendland ------- Broadening discussion, good. My view is that more democracy there is more benign capitalism becomes. I think it follows into the international sphere also in that very few people actually want to go to another country to kill and be killed. When the press is free, I think even policies like globalization can be defeated. The thing is democracy is only benign if humankind can be benign. Can ANY system work if humankind is not benign?
Mr. Green writes:
"As one measure of the absence of this, consider that Osama bin Laden still has not been captured or killed, almost a decade (!) later, and that nobody seems much to care about that or mention it very often."
What is this sentence saying? Is it saying that
1) the reason for bin Laden's not having been captured lies in the absence of blood lust in the citizenry; or that
2) the lack of concern for bin Laden's not having been captured is a sign of the absence of blood lust in the citizenry?
If the first, the claim is extremely naive. Indeed, what would the phony war on terror be without bin Laden?
The other thing that needs pointing out about this article's argument is that the citizenry's sentiments about the desirability of war or the degree of its blood lust seems to have little to do with U.S. imperialism. Indeed, the massive domestic demonstrations against war in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq left BushCo unchanged in its determination to invade and occupy that country.
That is not to deny, however, that there is a relationship between U.S. imperialism and the citizens of the United States, but it is much more complex than what the author makes it out to be. Ideological and economic factors play a large role in the determinatiion of that relationship. Furthermore, the ideological component includes massive strategies of deception of the population.
David Green writes; “But, really, I'm surprised there wasn't a far more intense call for revenge. As one measure of the absence of this, consider that Osama bin Laden still has not been captured or killed, almost a decade (!) later, and that nobody seems much to care about that or mention it very often.”
Bin Laden was Bush’s enabler, without the bearded boogie man Bush would never have been able to implement his neoconservative political agenda. I suspect that if the truth ever came out the real reason that too few troops U.S. were tasked to invade Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance was employed to engage al Qaeda at Tora Bora was to intentionally allow bin Laden to escape thereby making the “War on Terror” endless. (It’s also possible that bin Laden rode out of Afghanistan aboard a Pakistani helicopter.)
Secondly Bush, in the last days of his administration, made a big fu@#$%# deal that there had not been a second terrorist attack on the U.S. Bush claimed that his policies were the reason there had not been another attack. The real reason, from the point of view of al Qaeda, was that because Bush invaded Iraq there was no need for another attack. Bin Laden played Bush like a puppet, releasing tapes before the elections of 2002 and 2004 that insured the right-wingers would win those elections. In fact, it’s possible that the republican loss of 2006 was due to bin Laden not releasing a tape and the republicans Diebolded too few votes expecting a bin Laden bump at the poles.
I do think bin Laden was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, but I think there was far more foreknowledge of the attacks by the inner circle of the Bush administration than what has been acknowledged. That there is not one word about the insider trades of put options of American and United airlines stock in the days before the attacks in the report of The 9/11 Commission, and that the trail of these trades leads to a bank with ties to the CIA…where the trail supposedly ends, stinks to high heaven. (See also Odigo, and the Israeli “art students” and “Moving Company.)
Sioux Rose
MADHOOSIER: I fully agree with your first 2 paragraphs, but depart dramatically from the conclusions of the latter two. Following the logic of the first 2, you might consider entertaining the notion that the need was genuine and the source of an earlier CIA facilitated knowing collaboration.
We’re are going the have to disagree on the last points you make, having said that, your comments are some of the most insightful I read on the internet.
Sioux Rose
MADHOOSIER: You are a gentleman. I am not in the forum to demand consensus, but to learn from others and hopefully impart insights. I appreciate your good manners. Progressives should be gracious in the art of agreeing to sometimes disagree. What a boring planet this would be if we all opted to be authoritarian clones, equivalents of those symmetrical Mr. Smiths from "The Matrix."
There's a lot of weird shit about 9-11, but I think it mainly comes down to the odd right-winger with authority here and there in the CIA and FBI who understood that an attack by Arabs on American soil would mobilize public opinion in a way beneficial for regressives interests. Clearly it's either this or there were quite a few incompetents in positions of authority in our intelligence agencies.
mad writes: "I do think bin Laden was responsible for the attacks of 9/11,"
oh yeah - how is that
there has never been any evidence offered by anyone that even implicates obl in 9/11
the fbi has him on the 10 most wanted list as usama bl for bombings in africa in the 90's and they say themselves there is no evidence to even connect him to 9/11
get your facts right
the put options - if you spent more than 20 seconds looking into 9/11 - are a minor detail - besides they were never cashed
osl was recruited in saudi arabia for the jihad in afghanistan against the russians by the cia
like saddam he was and remains a faithful employee on the payroll of the cia and unlike the turds on wall street he at least did some work for his 30 sheckels
ps. well we all know saddam is in retirement at this time
and, notwithstanding the fake obl tapes that surface whenever they are needed by the cia, no one has seen him since 2001 - so we can assume he has been dead since then
anyways, try to get your facts straight, i mean now that you are "thinking"
cheers, b
So I take it that the clandestinely filmed tape filmed by a Saudi agent of bin Laden boasting about his roll in the attacks to the crippled Saudi sheik that Bush released to the public in December of 2001 is a forgery as well?
By releasing the tape Bush exposed a flaw in bin Laden’s security that could have been used to bring bin Laden to justice.
hey mad your on a roll
wrong every time
the tape you allude to is not even bin laden - whoever it is has a nose twice as long as bin laden and weighs about 100 more
i guess you haven't actually seen it have you
you can find it on you tube
cheers, b
Anything with a nose twice as long as bin Laden would also have one or two humps on its back and be able to go a long way between stops for water.
ok mad that was funny
cheers, b
Disclaimer -- My good refers to a previous statement not the camel joke.
Updated to conform with political correctness guidelines.
Anything with a nose twice as long as bin Laden would also have one or two humps on its back and be able to go a long way between stops for water and sell cigarettes to teenagers.
Good Madhoosier
Thanks, when I look at the tape of Bush reading “My Pet Goat” the morning of 9/11 the only explanation I can think of for his lack of reaction when informed that the nation was under attack is that it was not a surprise to him. Also Condi Rice’s statement “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people…would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” has always struck me as the worst told lie I’ve ever heard.
Sioux Rose
MADH: I vote for the not-so convincing mushroom cloud tout of fear and damnation.
Almost certainly this was a lie to cover her pathetic ass. Otherwise, she was one of the worst national security advisors (or the worst?) we've ever had.
look at the tape again and you may notice that the book is upside down
his reaction though is more nuanced - i think he shit his pants when he realized that an operation like that was being carried out without him being notified
more to the point though is this: why didn't the secret service whisk him away
the nation was under attack
and why did he fly around the coutnry for the whole day doing nothing
bush was not involved - think about it - who would trust that fool with anything
cheers, b
How about one more;
3) The bin Laden family were close friends of the Bush family, and everyone knew Osama wasn't behind the attack on 9/11, and that's why bush worked so hard all these years to keep our minds and us away from areas where he might have been.
Yes and no. Let me briefly explain what I mean,
1) It seems to me that your point is included in the second alternative. It is certainly compatible with it.
2) Although it is true that the FBI's Web site refuses to accuse Osama bin Laden for the attacks of 9/11, and the White Paper promised by the Bush administration, which was to make the case that Al Qaeda organized and carried out the attacks, has not been produced, and the famous tape allegedly discovered by the U.S. in Kabul at the end of 2001 may be a fake, I do not doubt that airplanes were crashed into WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on the eleventh, and that Al Qaeda organized and carried out those attacks.
That view does not rule out, however, that WTC 1,2, and 7 were destroyed, or rather pulverized, with some help from domestic agents. There is strong evidence to believe that there were two attacks on 9/11: the one involving the hijacked airplanes, and a second one that, under cover of the first one, consisted in the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7.
Regarding the Pentagon, I side with Jim Hoffman's account in his papers "The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics" and "The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows."
john lear, the son of the guy who invented the lear jet and one of the most accredited pilots in the us, has stated that he couldn't hit the towers
he has also offered a cash reward for anyone who could do it in a flight simulator - he has offered everyone 6 passes to hit it
no planes on 9/11
no 19 arabs
also, fyi, the world trade center was comprised of 7 buildings - all towers - 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
smallest - 15 stories
all of them were destroyed on 9/11 - by two planes - no chance
none of them were even hit by planes
as far as the pentagon goes - you have to be a deluded idiot (many posters qualify for this by the way) to think a large plane could hit the building face at full throttle and create a hole that was about 20 by 40 feet and leave no plane parts
the impact didn't even break the windows that were 10 feet away on wither side of the impact
the lawn was not even scorched
use your head for christ sake
the only 4 planes to disintegrate completely upon impact in the history of aviation all occured on 9/11 - no chance
just like the only steel frame structures in the history of the world to collapse from fire - you guessed it 9/11 - once again no chance
like barnum said never give a sucker an even break
the same principles apply to jfk's assassination
oswald was, as he himslef said, a patsy - he was a loyal cia asset from the time he was 15 years old
again as he said: i didn't kill anyone
in order to make that bullshit work they had to keep him without charge, deny his right to counsel and then them kill in the basement of a police station with a drug dealing cia asset as the shooter
wake up sheeple
cheers, b
Byran D,
I admire your passion for delving into the truth of _9_!_!_, although I feel that you've been too accepting of some spurious theories ( bait: especially created to catch-up people and then intrinsically discredit their overall ideas, because of small errors along the way ).
Both DEW and no airplanes are examples, that discredit the much more plausible nano-therate explosives and months of preparation in WTC's key structural elements. I will attempt to provide some arguments for you to consider for further investigation:
{_1_} I'm a physicist who has worked in the area of DEW, and the possibility of several 747s lasers all together ( plus several buildings ) -- can not get even close to the 'missing energy' of collapse exhibited to pulverize the concrete and create various sizes of iron sphericals in the dust.
{_2_} Most DEW weapons have extremely long cycle times, and although extremely intense for a few nanoseconds - they cannot sustain a glimmer of sci fi beam weapons ( yet ) needed to progressively ( over 8 s ) destroy many independent substructures ( e.g. sky lobby floors, ~ 250 pillars ).
{_3_} They are also beyond normal understanding immensely large and complicated machines, requiring intense concentration and huge numbers of personnel to operate reliably. One weapon is not conceivably capable, while dozens would never all work at the same time ( w/o months of real time coordinated practice ).
{_4_} I also have much experience with targeting systems, and the degree of coordination and complexity mandated, is far beyond any imaginable array of super computers -- to become available in perhaps decades.
{_5_} Besides, DEW weapons have a serious limitation when used in dusty environments, as any line-of-sight instrument must first cut through the dust clouds or lose massively in dispersion, absorption, and inability to aim for specific structural elements holding up WTCs.
¿ Why eliminate the planes entirely is my question?
… as they are readily available and many eyewitnesses buttress the videos available -- so eliminating them is a likely suspicious trick -- to make other honestly true objections easier to dismiss.
You well suggest we continue to question the official narrative ( "their" conspiracy theory ), and investigate on our own -- and that is excellent advice. Perhaps there is much more for you to learn as well ?
Namaste
Bryan, just so you know, I use to work for the commericial airlines and my wife and I are frequent flyers, so have some contact with people that are knowledgeable and I would agree with Mr. Lear. As for Oswald, to all the sheeple that are naive enough to buy the GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY I have a bridge I would like to sell them in Nowhere, Alaska! When Ruby was asked why he shot Oswald his reply was: " I FELT SORRY FOR JACKIE ". Please--- the guy is an hit man and a thug from Chicago, that was running a strip joint in Dallas and he felt sorry for her! The guy was a small time hood and gangster that never felt sorry for anyone! I believe Ruby was told either you take Oswald out or we take you out. I know one thing for sure: you have to assume what you are told "officially" by your government is a lie and they are guilty until proven innocent and that goes back to 1492!
Sioux Rose
PAUL: Your post rings rather true. So much for checks and balances.
I'm not a pilot and don't know anything about john lear's offer, but if it is true that hitting the twin towers would have been near impossible, how is possible that pilots land on narrow runways every time?
Just asking.
geez marco - google john lear and he'll tell you
cmon take two minutes
its not as easy as it looks to hit a building a full speed - that is why planes don't land at 350 mph
landing on a runway in a plane that has decelerated and is not riding on the thermal updrafts from 1000 buildings makes it easier
cheers, b
I won't even discuss the thesis that there were no airplanes involved in the destruction caused on 9/11. It's about as compelling as the thesis that no one ever walked on the Moon or that the Earth is flat.
As for what happened at the Pentagon, as I said, I am in agreement with Jim Hoffman (see his papers at www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html).
actually, as the 9/11 commission report shows, lee harvey oswald was the only person in any of the cockpits of those planes.
me too - i say good one vdb
but more seriously, go here:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
no planes
so everyone can re-jig their half informed opinions based on their sensibilities to include the notion that none of these flights took place
none of them by the way are on the ntsb database - no flights
i hope more people will get informed and i mean really informed about 9/11
no planes, dew weapons, inside job
rolling back the curtain on this event will go a long way to rolling back the fascist government
cheers, b
me too - i say good one vdb
but more seriously, go here:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
no planes
so everyone can re-jig their half informed opinions based on their sensibilities to include the notion that none of these flights took place
none of them by the way are on the ntsb database - no flights
i hope more people will get informed and i mean really informed about 9/11
no planes, dew weapons, inside job
rolling back the curtain on this event will go a long way to rolling back the fascist government
cheers, b
Sioux Rose
VDB: good one!
I believe the premise of this articles is essentially correct. It has been under the Bush years that many Americans, I believe, have come to the realization that America is an empire, myself included. I was aware of certain things, like the coup in Iran in 1953 and funding of the Contras in Nicaragua, but there was still a disconnect. It must have thought of these as isolated incidents carried out by bad people or bad presidents, but somehow they weren’t part of a comprehensive plan of world hegemony. The cold war, I am sure had a lot to do with it, since we were brainwashed into believing that the Soviet Union was a much bigger threat than it actually was. Still, I failed to see it through the Clinton years, after the Soviet Union had dissolved. It wasn’t until Bush started his wars of aggression that I even considered the imperial behavior of the U.S. during the 90s. Bush offered a contrast with Clinton, but not between empire and non-empire, but a contrast in competence. Clinton was a better manager, while Bush has been a boob who has brought the empire to its knees. For this we should be somewhat grateful. But with that realization, it makes me very skeptical about Obama. I see an attempt on his part to manage the empire with a friendlier face. He gave an interview to Al-Arabiya where he identified with the Muslim audience, yet he takes Israel’s side in the latest conflict in Gaza, and promises to help the IDF tighten the noose on the resistance. He promises to leave Iraq and close Guantanamo — the most visible aspects of Bush’s failed imperial strategy — while escalating the war in Afghanistan and keeping open less visible military prisons in the Middle East that have been the site of the same type of atrocities as Guantanamo. Just because you can’t see the empire, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. We will have accomplished nothing if we allow Obama to take the empire back underground.
Well said, sir. Thank you.
Very sane and well stated comment. I recall noticing the world hegemony project well underway even during the Carter years. It wasn't as pronounced as it became under Reagan and Clinton, but the signs were clearly there, at least for anyone who was reading Chomsky in the '70s.
Bush's in-your-face, however bungled, efforts at Full Spectrum Dominance have made the American agenda crystal clear for all the world to see, and its failure is Obama's inheritance. How he can pull any living rabbits out of that tattered hat will be something to behold. I doubt such magic will be forthcoming. But that won't stop him from trying.
Most all Obama's stated foreign policy objectives are firmly parallel with imperialistic designs, even if it means a lot of cleaning up and rearranging of the furniture after Bush's wrecking crew left its hideous mess. He may close Gitmo, pissing off the Limbaugh rightists in Congress, and he may make at least symbolic moves to ramp down our aggressive posture in Iraq, but if he only moves the military chess pieces to Afghanistan and Pakistan he won't be showing any signs of backing away from the urge to fully dominate the spectrum. It will only constitute a new imperial strategy.
Obama simply can't have it both ways, and he'll eventually figure that out, or he'll be just another bull-in-the-china-shop president. And we can't afford any more of those.
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: Very-well put. I was thinking along similar lines.
JEFFREY: Right on analysis, too.
Good post JeffreyK
To paraphrase Jerry Sienfeld dialog on Sienfeld,
"Did you have to do that [way]..." to end the immature dreams of imperialism.
Wasn't there another way.
toophat for you!
Great article but; one HUGE BUT is there not a place called Afghanistan where we are slaughtering and escalating as the USA public quietly,economically fearfully shiver in their defunct SUVs?
One goal of the Neocons was to make entitlements impossible by bankrupting the Federal government. The Banksters Heist was successfull. I wonder if the sectarian violence in Iraq was not actually promoted by the USA in order to totally annihilate Iraq. bush also did pretty good job of ignoring the poor, destroying the middle class and concentrating the wealth in a few hands. He also accomplished alot of enviormental devestation.
The line from Monty Python I love the best = "I ain't dead yet". Imperialism could speak that line........