Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Weakness of Empire
An unmanned drone hovers over the house of a suspected leader of a terrorist cell, the craft’s camera and missiles controlled by a soldier thousands of miles away on the plains of Kansas. A missile is launched, and the terrorist is blown apart—but so are innocent bystanders, among them a dark-eyed eight-year old girl named Aeisha who dreamed of becoming a doctor.
Can our war on terror justify the death of this child? Or is it a step down a path not only toward the creation of more terrorists, but also toward our resembling terrorists more? Are there better ways of achieving our goals? This is not a liberal or conservative issue; it is not only an ethical challenge, but also a question of practical self-interest bearing on the safety of our own children. As we make greater use of drones, we find it impossible to imagine that similar technologies might someday be used against us.
In the second decade of the 21st century, the United States continues to assume that it can most effectively head off potential threats by deploying, from 800-odd bases around the world, the most powerful military force in the history of the planet. Have we citizens given conscious consent to this policy, or have we drifted into it? Will genuine security be the outcome of continuing in this direction? Or is our police-the-world conception of power as obsolete as those of past empires like England, Spain, the Soviet Union—or Rome?
If our imperial project collapses because we relied too much on military definitions of strength, it will not matter whether our motivation was the disinterested expansion of freedom, or the self-interested expansion of markets for our goods, or the control of remaining sources of fossil fuels.
Why do empires fail? First because they over-extend themselves, second because the peoples of the world always push back against what they perceive as unjustified domination, and third because true security calls for addressing issues that are insoluble by military means— issues like the global challenge of maintaining sustainable sources of food, water and energy in the context of growing climate instability.
Over-extension can be seen in what we already ask our volunteer military to do in our name—repeated tours of duty which put intolerable pressures on families; nation-building projects beyond the scope and skills of our troops; and the giving and receiving of brute violence that resolves nothing. Over-extension also has obvious implications at home, where economic stresses, including the ever-rising national debt, challenge our domestic resiliency.
The second reason over-reliance upon military strength will fail is pushback. What Americans may rationalize as noble aims, people in other cultures, who are as real as we are in spite of cultural differences, will be less willing to see in a positive light. War, no matter who is perceived to have started it, is often embedded in a cycle of retaliation that continues through generations. This vicious circle will create more terrorism than it eliminates.
Our belief in American exceptionalism, which at its best posits our ideals as the hope of the world, has a shadow side: we think we are exempt from reaping what we sow. We assume we can rationalize torture or the murder of innocent bystanders without a terminal loss of integrity. If we do, we will gradually become the very thing we despise and resist. And then pushback, the violent response to our own violence, will only increase.
A third reason we need to change the way we think about our strength is that there are security challenges the military is not presently designed to address—though this could change, and is already starting to change, as military leaders understand the need to win hearts and minds.
But the cost of preparing for and waging even small wars has become so huge that it becomes much more efficient to prevent wars by meeting human needs directly. Should we maintain bases to secure the flow of oil from the Middle East, or should we build windmills in our own Midwest that not only increase our supply of non-fossil-fuel energy, but also allow us to lighten our military footprint in places where it may be fatally resented? Manufacturers of missiles and fighter jets who are concerned that if peace broke out their bottom line would suffer, can also make the solar panels and mass transit infrastructure that are alternative indicators of national well-being.
We can apply similar thinking to the places where extremists are actively training to do us harm. The reality that 500,000 Soviet troops could not subdue the tribal chaos of Afghanistan in a decade of occupation contains a lesson for America about the role of military force in making a barely functioning state more resilient. In his school building projects, Greg Mortenson has shown another way, tapping into a universal yearning for the education that will lead people beyond the simplistic temptations of extremism.
Finding alternatives to militarism is based in a paradigm shift that has already occurred. It happened during the fifty-year experience of the cold war period, including the hot wars in Korea and Vietnam. Those who possessed nuclear weapons, the ultimate military option, realized that they could not use them to win wars, because such use might initiate a world-destroying holocaust.
With the understanding that our planet is too small to sustain another world war, there is now a global consensus that nuclear weapons are useless and self-defeating. But because our existing stockpiles of warheads cannot deter non-state entities from using nuclear or other means of mass destruction, the way forward to security is blocked first of all by the weapons themselves—including our own. Nuclear war itself has become the ultimate enemy. The negotiation of reciprocal treaties for the reduction of existing warheads and the securing of loose nuclear materials becomes the only path open to the community of nations that leads to safety for all.
The United States is strong enough to defend itself not only militarily, but also to strengthen global security by enlarging its non-military initiatives toward a world in need. It will help us arrive more quickly where we wanted to get by the unworkable model of domination. When you become more secure, autonomous, and resilient, I become more secure. It is more in my interest to befriend you, to ask what you really need and try to supply it, than to threaten or bomb you into submission.
Our country can still decide to awaken from the delusions of empire and instead lead the world beyond war. If we humans can learn to resolve our conflicts without the use of nuclear weapons that would exterminate millions, the way is surely open to resolving our conflicts without violence on any level—without blowing up Aiesha, the dark-eyed girl who dreamed of becoming a doctor.
- Posted in
52 Comments so far
Show AllSioux Rose
Great piece. It answers where the MIC can put its muscle more constructively (the greening of America, technology-wise), and also deconstructs the counterfeit: that wars abroad (in pursuit of terrorists) make us safer at home.
I agree with Mr. Myer's astute analysis 99%.
Thank you CD for posting this!
Humanity cannot afford war; and yet by arming the world, the U.S. (via its Empire-building MIC) virtually ensures this calamitous outcome... all for the profit of a few who lack souls to begin with, thus they can't internalize the harm that they do in profit's name.
I agree as well and continue to wonder how it is that paranoia, fear and destruction bring about any positive results as opposed to holding out a helping hand and making a friend to counteract the negative forces that they may be suffering under. Treating people well generally promotes loyalty and a desire to pay back in kind and/or be helpful. Of course there are defective people and insane thinking but that is a small percentage of reality and yet our tendency is to base most actions on that small minority.
I posted what follows the first two paragraphs here on the article about withdrawal from Af-Pak, but it fits in here just as well.
Last night, I stopped and asked myself, "what is it that bothers me the most?" And the answer is the one I have given here many times. It is the thought of the tremendous amount of wealth and human beings being squandered that could be used to fund and create, to borrow a phrase from David Korten, "the Great Turning, from Empire to Earth Community."
I have read that total military spending is close to a trillion dollars. If you took the total the US has spent on the military over the past 20 years, and used half of it for____ fill in the blank, we all know what could have been done, we could have so totally changed the world it defies imagination.
The reason why all this Imperial-MIC bullsh** will never stop is because in order to make the case, a president or a congressperson would have to apologize to the people of Iraq and Af-Pak, and admit that the US made huge mistakes, something that would draw withering counter-fire on any politician who did it. They would have to acknowledge to the world that the US has acted like a psychopathic bully, and that the people who initiated these wars need to be put on trial for what they have done. Aint gonna happen. Tell me, does Cheney look like someone who is scared justice is going to catch up with him anytime soon?
Actually, stopping all this Imperial-MIC bullsh** would probably also need to entail calling into question and pretty much repudiating the validity of, all of American foreign policy since the dropping of a Weapon of Mass Destruction on the civilian population of Hiroshima, which was done as a warning to Russia.
Then again, there probably wouldnt have been a WW2 if the corporate plutocracy hadnt maneuvered and propogandized the US into WW1. And so it goes.
The US population needs to be educated to the fact that this country has been run by ruling elites who have killed and robbed with impunity for a very long time. Americans would have to acknowledge that the people who do what our elites did in Vietnam and are doing in Iraq and Af-Pak today - not to mention all the things documented in Blum's book, "Killing Hope", are psychopaths.
Stop and think about that. We are ruled by sick, sick people, and yet...it is considered foul to point this out.
What needs to be done as a fundamental of change is to absolutely de-legitimize the right of the ruling elite to even exist because they are unfit not only to govern, but moreover, to even be given the status of sane adult!
"Then again, there probably wouldnt have been a WW2 if the corporate plutocracy hadnt maneuvered and propogandized the US into WW1. And so it goes."
Explain more on this theory please.
Well, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn explored this territory pretty well. One of the main ideas about it all is how the New York-London elites made money off of the war bigtime, nothing new for wars, of course. So, a propoganda campaign to demonize Germany was set in motion, and the American people...were...lied...into...war.
Here is a link to Wiki for some history on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information
So if this had not happened then how would WW2 not have happened?
Germany was plummeted into a massive depression that drove people into dire circumstances. Had this massive depression not struck Germany, it's unlikely WW2 would have happened.
This depression, though, was at the very least abetted by corporate interests, if not outright managed by them.
I'm not quite as sure as you are about the depression leading to Germany starting WW2. The Weimar Republic was actually coming back from the depression when Hitler was put into office. Things had greatly improved for German citizens. There were still the war debts, but they were being paid off. But German pride was still injured.
Gary
“China and Vietnam have had major wars over little pieces of rock and we've got much more substantial disputes coming down the road as we speak.”
-- Rob Huebert
Sioux Rose
KITAJ: I have also reflected on these items quite often, and feel incredible sorrow for the calamitous losses on so many levels. You and I both respect the spiritual as well as mundane aspects at work. I think we are both interested in a better world for all sentient beings, and that perhaps, differentiates those with more conservative agendas, those falsely taught to only think in terms of short-term benefits for the self, from those of us committed to the greater good.
I just heard from an old friend who is now based in Argentina making books available as audio streams. I am hoping she'll translate some of mine. Perhaps I'll see more response in the lands down under where more socialist-styled policies have begun to improve the lives of "the masses." Too many in the US have been so long fed a diet of intellectual faux filler as not to be able to discern either Truth or Enlightenment when it's right before them.
I would suggest that the spending of all those trillions of dollars on warfare is by design.
Those behind the scenes do not see all of these invasions and wars as "Mistakes" They see them as part of a long term plan that will see them assert control over all the Worlds resources, using the Military of the United States to do so, and ensuring that even their OWN people, Citizens of the United States of America , remain impoverished so that there can never be a conceivable opposition to their rule.
They do not want to end "Poverty" in Pakistan, or Africa or Latin America. They want to see these people on the brink of starvation in order to ensure they remain compliant. They do not want a middle class in the USA or Europe or elsewhere. They want to break the back of the Middle Class in these countries to ensure no group can ever arise that will threaten their own grip on power.
The easiest way to do this is to keep the people frightened over imagined and created enemies that are coming to "kill them" and "Murder their Children".
If there no Muslim groups planting bombs in the USA and it deemed necessary in order to continue this fictional "War On Terror" then they will CREATE one.
Beautifully stated SiouxRose!!
Imagine what america COULD Do in real good ...and as a consequence....even without the intention , be truly what americans "believe" is america -- the "shining city"?
imagine all that power and wealth, creativity, resource...WILL....to GIVE of itself in ways that other nations need , such as in their disasters, their poverty, their infrastructure, health, food, and BECOMING prosperous and in peace also?
imagine the army that can be created like "doctors without borders"? genuinely going abroad without thought for profit for america already SO RICH ? and the "dividends" - unintended of good trade and exchange from other nations....if for nothing more than out of respect and genuinde gratitude that america shares of its greatness with NO malicious intent or EVEN "self- interest?" -- UNAFRAID that it will "lose" if it gives of itself in such a truly generous way?
imagine -- the WEALTH of humanity and humaneness that would come BACK to america as "blowback" - because of the kindness and generosity it COULD give where it is needed
rather than visit wars and destruction and exploitation to other peoples and regions sowing only hatred and resentment.
there IS in america this power - more than other nations' at this stage in civilization....
but america has chosen the path of exploitation and domiation for fear of losing its power.
and so - in its quest for "projection of power" - it has only sowed FEAR and resentment and rivalry - rather than JOY and real friendship and being WELCOMED with full open arms by other nations.
Jesus said "not by bread alone does one live, but by the spirit.."
one should say with america:
"NOT By Bullets and Power" can america be the shining city that it thinks it is or wants to be...but by DEEDS of kindness and generosity and genuine trustworthiness.
"for what does it Profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?"
the TRUE power of america should NOT be by ensuring its PROFIT -- but in its GIVING of itself .
what it will give in genuine kindness - EVEN at cost to "profit" - will bring back to america PROFIT that is countless times more in value ....because what it WILL get back from the rest of the world is genuine respect and even LOVE.
"It is more in my interest to befriend you, to ask what you really need and try to supply it"
What if that need is something that goes against human rights?
Let the hate responses begin...
Just to ask what someone really needs is not an invitation to provide more death and destruction. You can still be intelligent enough to know that more weapons and death-dealing are not what someone really needs or would ask for if dealt with on the level of what the quote is saying. Your invitation to "hate responses" is a projection of your inner world and is what you assume others will or would do if a hand in friendship is offered. Be the change yourself first.
"You can still be intelligent enough to know that more weapons and death-dealing are not what someone really needs or would ask for if dealt with on the level of what the quote is saying"
Ok if someone is asking for domonation and distruction of others how would you deal with that?
Sioux Rose
It's domination and destruction. I'd offer them a basic guide to spelling.
Thanks for the editing.
I would not provide them with that means or else I become exactly what they are by enabling behavior that I don't agree with. I don't think that was a serious question. Your original question was an important one and deserves some thinking by those who are serious about thinking and solving some of the oldest problems that face us as a race.
So what are some of the CD/progressive thoughts on that?
In my opinion the need to destroy others, or the need for weapons, is not the underlying need. the underlying needs are food, shelter, sexuality, dignity, and health.
I don't know if it's possible to satisfy all these needs for all people on Earth, but that's what I'm trying to figure out.
It is true that the need to destroy others is sometimes the only option. So if we're going to make the world a better place, we need to try to change it so that's not the only option, so that the underlying needs are met.
What you mean by the word "need", that's the question.
Dan Nissenbaum
Do you give what anyone asks for because they say they need it?
That is not a need, that is a crime.
The first way to deal with it is to say, "Nuts!"
The last time the U.S. went to war for anything even approaching human rights was WWII in the meantime we have intervened in other countries on behalf of corporations dozens of time, try again MIC shill:
http://killinghope.org/
The only thing I can think of that is a need, and must be considered as detrimental to human rights, would be self-defense. I am not sure where to go from there.
. . . we will gradually become the very thing we despise and resist.
This has already happened to us. It started long before George Wanker Bush and will continue long after Obama the Strutting Judas is pushed out of office.
Quite right the Spanish American War and intervention in the Philippines around 1900 was a big turning point in the U.S. going from small self contained republic (with its own problems like genocide of natives slavery etc) to full blown imperialism.
I submit it started earlier. They looked with envy on the lands held by Mexico and conquered those in 1848. They seized Florida from the Spanish. They tried to Annex Canada in the War of 1812. They threatened war on Britain in order to gain the Oregon Territory.
If you consider all of these happened within 70 years of Independence , this followed by the bloody Civil war and those ongoing wars to seize the Indian Territories the United States of America reached the "turning point" to Imperialism a long time before 1898.
If it was Imperialism that saw the British Empire lay claim to all of Canada from sea to shining sea, then it was Imperialism that saw the 13 Colonies do the same.
Empire-deconstruction always had three components: Internal corruption (DEMocrapitalists OR Miserepubilkans), external invasion (absolutely porous borders to illegal aliens and terrists, alike), and diversionary Spectacles (what of US entertainment and "news" ISN"T); and NOT the author's. But any way, We're Already THERE, NOW!
The military industrial theocracy is not noted for its brains and Americans love violence so much that as the cost of empire threatens bankruptcy and their society starts to disintegrates there will be incredible scenes of mass murder and mayhem no longer limited to abroad.
"Theocracy"? Are you serious? Are you coerced into subscribing to any religious dogma? If you want to see a real theocracy, look at Iran or Saudi Arabia. "Empire"? With the exception of Puerto Rico, no country on the planet is a member of the so-called American Empire. An empire controls every aspect of life in its dominion, as the British did in India, as the Romans did in Gaul, as the Soviets did in Poland. Any country that hosts our military can insist that we leave -- and, after huffing and puffing, we will. Any country that is part of our "Empire" will vote our way at the UN. (Often , few countries join us.)Furthermore, any country that is part of an American "Empire" will acknowledge that fact -- as Canadians used to admit that they were part of the British Empire, even if they bemoaned the fact. Which countries will label themselves "member of the American Empire"? Iraq? Sorry- we're on the way out, and most of the large oil contracts have gone to the Chinese. Afghanistan? Our presence there, along with several other NATO countries, is a drain on our resources. Empires are supposed to benefit the hegemon! No, there is no American "Empire" -- even when American hegemony throws its weight around.
You write, "Empires are supposed to benefit the hegemon!"
They do, and being an Empire benefitted the US. For a while, like with all empires. Imperial over-stretch then kicks in along with the Law of Diminishing Returns - which in fact governs all complex societies or civilizations, and is now taking down global industrial civilizationa as a whole, btw - and then drains the empire into bankrupcy.
But even as the US declines, the Imperial fact that the dollar is presently THE world reserve currency - with a lot of oil traded in dollars - is still an Imperial advantage (or privilege or privi lege = "private law")that is propping up the dying mechanical monster called the US economy.
It is said that Saddam's threat to start selling oil denominated in euros instead of dollars and trying to set up a system to circumvent the dollar, was a factor in why we invaded.
As we speak, countries around the world are strategizing how to get out from under this arrangement.
th4377 (above the previous post) was criticized by kitaj, but more needs to be said about th4377's vast ignorance of the accepted historical meaning of "empire." (The astute reader will have noted that th4377 cites no scholarly source for his/her implicit definition of "empire.") First of all, he/she is evidently unacquainted with the vast scholarly literature on "neocolonialism," which denotes imperial domination by mainly informal means. Latin America is a prime case in point, ever since the Monroe Doctrine. Secondly, th4377 is evidently ignorant of historical counterexamples to his/her claim that only such as the formal British Empire in India qualifies as imperial domination. In India itself British rule was both formal (in the Raj) and informal (in contiguous areas). And the empire that signalled the self-destruction of the world's first democracy--the Athenian Empire--was mainly secured by informal alliance and economic dependency. (I suggest that th4377 read Thucydides before resuming imperial commentary.)
The most ludicrous claim made by th4377 is the assertion--unsupported by evidence, of course--that the US empire is an economic liability. Liability to whom? An afternoon with Google would show him/her what percentages of "earnings" (profits) of the Fortune 500 are derived from overseas operations and activities. In particular, th4377 should tally up the "earnings" provenance from such as Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Goldman-Sachs and Monsanto.
The USA has been an empire from its inception; recall the fate of the Native Americans and their land. If th4377 had attended a decent school, he/she would have read of such champions of freedom as Thomas Jefferson engaging in wide-ranging discussions on the tactics and strategy of American "empire"--yes, the very word Jefferson used.
Empire is a system of full-spectrum dominance--economic, political, military, ideological and diplomatic--of one nation or people over another nation or people. Sometimes these arrangements are formal, as in the Zionist regime in occupied Palestine. Sometimes these arrangements are informal, as in the US domination of, say, Panama. By either regime empire especially benefits the rulers of the dominant nation, although there are trickle-down benefits for their class inferiors. There is always an economic dimension to imperialism. "Our" corporate capitalist/imperialist elite profits greatly from US hegemony, just as they profit when their imperial wars are financed by the taxes and lives of the hoi polloi; which is why our rulers are so enamored of such a marvelous system. The optimal form of imperialism is the cheapest to maintain--a reliable neo-colonialist ("friendly native") dependency, as is the goal of the US in Iraq. (This is the meaning of the Bush-Cheney-Obama mantra, When The Iraqis Stand Up, The USA Will Stand Down.)
Denial that the USA is an imperialist power only serves the imperialists; although it is noteworthy that many of the "neocons" openly brag of US "empire."
I was actually surprised -- despite my general skepticism of the "Fathers" in their true motives - to read that George Washington (who CAN be credited, if true, for refusing to treat the British prisoners with torture etc..) - actually intoned (perhaps with a hint of sadness or irony, let's give him the benefit of the doubt as a human being) -
"......this...our INFANT empire".
or also , i think Thomas Jefferson or james madison intoning:
"as I contemplate what we are ABOUT to DO -- (after they won independence) - and i consider if there really is a God of Justice....i TREMBLE for our nation" .....
clearly because he knew that "what we are about to do" to secure the new nation ("our infant empire") - meant to CLEAR the land of Native Indians...and to build its treasury and industries with enslavement...
today "what we are about to do" IS an ongoing spectacle that is the american empire. they began in new england, connecticut, maryland, etc....spread "from sea to shining sea".....
and THEN went GLOBAL!
Bring America Back !!!!
***Winslow Meyers answers most of his own rhetoricals in this piece, but his main premise needed to be in print ten years ago or so..
***For we need to awaken this author to the fact that we have already become what we most despise, and what we most embrace as the true character of America no longer exists in reality ! We are launching pre-emptive war onto sovereign nations, and lying to justify aggregious military attacks.
***Yes, our Nation kills children like Aishea who dream of better things for their people. One year ago, little sister ally Zion/Israel launched a Genocide against Palestinian GAZA, killing 1500, including 300 to 400 kids like Aisha.
***Not one tear or whisper of remorse from the King Bush administration, nor the Obama administration !! If you cannot cry, shed a tear, or speak remorse for 400 dead and innocent children, then you have no Soul, no Ideals, No Empathy whatsoever, and you cannot cry for Anything.
***No need to debate the same ol' tenets of 'The Nukes' of the world, as we are Guilty of being child killers already with our conventional and laser guided weaponry.
PLEASE see that Winslow Meyers goes back to Commondreams.org on Jan 12, 2009 in its article: "The First Mistake: Barak Obama's Silence on Gaza", by RU Freeman
****Even on his Inauguration Day, Obama was dancing on the graves of 400 dead Gazan children, without a whimper, without any remorse whatsoever ! As Freeman points out,
we are all Gazans in this modern world of wars, and we are
all collateral damage of the Insane Minds of the Leadership.
The United States of America is not an Empire.
America, Inc. is the Empire. A for-profit Corporate owned and operated Empire that cares as little for its own citizens as for those in any other potential consumer market. (Of course, here, instead of bombing and killing them, America, Inc. jails the 'bad folk' by the millions.)
We have over 700 bases in more than 100 countries, of which the average American has visited, maybe, one. Hell, the average American couldn't name 5 countries we have bases in, and only 2 of them could find 3 of those countries on a map.
IOW, The United States of America is not an Empire because We The People are not Imperialists. And that's why we don't seem to care that America, Inc. is bombing and killing anyone it dam pleases - because We The People tell ourselves it's not 'us' doing the lying and killing and stealing - it's 'them.'
And 'we' can't fight 'them,' now, can we?...
Actually according to official accounts we have 100,000 troops in Iraq, 100,000 in Afghanistan or headed there, 28,000 in Korea, over 35,000 in Japan, and 50,000 in Germany. By the Department of Defense’s “Base Structure Report,” there are 716 U.S. bases in 38 countries.
BUT according to Chalmers Johnson, who has written books on this subject, DOD is minimizing the empire. He discovered some 1,000 U.S. facilities, many of them secret and sensitive. And according to DOD’s “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country,” U.S. troops are now stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories.
It is worst than we realized. Meanwhile we are already spending more on "defense" than the next ten countries. Our Navy exceeds in firepower the next 13 navies combined.
Estimated combined budgets for the Pentagon, two wars, foreign aid to allies, 16 intelligence agencies, scores of thousands of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our new castle-embassies: $1 trillion a year.
(Thanks to, of all people, Pat Buchanan)
Gary
“One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.”
-- Robert Firth
Author Winslow Myers wants the USA to "win hearts and minds" in "the places where extremists are actively training to do us harm." He goes on to suggest "school building projects" in order to "subdue the tribal chaos of Afghanistan."
Myers is a common imperialist. Like any good U.S. imperialist, he is very good at minding other peoples' business. And like any American Exceptionalist he is unaware that his excrement stinks, i.e., that it is precisely U.S. imperialism that provokes "extremists . . . training to do us harm."
Read, for example, bin Laden's list of complaints against the U.S. They add up to a bill of particulars lodged against the U.S./Zionist imperialist alliance. Take away the empire and you will make bin Laden go away. (Evidently Myers has not noticed that when the former USSR got out of Afghanistan, their troubles with bin Laden ceased.) Give the Palestinians justice and you will make the suicide bombers go away.
Myers' praise for using "education" to advance the empire is nauseatingly dated--he should consult the "schooling" that the US forced the children of conquered Native Americans to undergo--and palpably ludicrous to any sane person who has experienced the US educational system either as student or teacher. Imperialist USA has absolutely nothing of moral or historiographical worth to impart either to its own citizens or to the citizens of "extremist" areas. And its vaunted technical knowledge is simply a means to crime, as exemplified by such wondrous products as "smart bombs" and cheese-flavored dog food, all courtesy of corporate capitalism/imperialism.
Only in an imperialist country would Myers be paid to write such rubbish. It is a measure of the degradation of what passes for the Left in America that Myers is featured on Common Dreams.
soloduff
excellent comments
Guess the question is, when Myers writes:
"Greg Mortenson has shown another way, tapping into a universal yearning for education" and "strengthen global security by enlarging U.S. non-military initiatives"
... does he intend these suggestions seriously, or is he using these comments only metaphorically to mean that military violence is wrong?
If it's just metaphorical, I don't fault this piece.
I agree with being disgusted by the imperialism of "educating" people of other societies, and all the other forms of, on the surface, non-military imperialism. Just not sure if that's where Myers is coming from.
America is not waging these wars...individuals are doing these things, and using the United States government as cover, tax dollars as personal treasure chests, and young men and women as DU fodder...
this claim that our country is doing this should be called out as false...
I do not wish these wars, I do not wish harm to this poor, beautiful girl, and if my government was representative, these things would not be happening...
the world is run by criminal gangs, and the gang working our governmental turf is using our children to do their gang fighting...
stop calling these America's wars...they're not...
Well in truth they are the wars of "The United States of America". These are Corporate wars and wars on the behalf of a small elite pursuing a given policy. They are using the people that Live in the "United States of America" as their troops and as their laborers and as their source of revenues.
The Government of the United States of America is owned by these Corporate Interests and that small elite.
These wars may not be YOUR wars, or the wars of SiouxRose, or the Wars of Donnalou or Kitaj or Droseras or some 10s of millions of other peoples that just happen to live inside the territory called "The United States of America" but the Government of that jurisdiction has shown clearly you are NOT a part of that exclusive club. You are just the hired help.
This disease is spreading elsewhere.
"Are there better ways of achieving our goals?"
What are our goals? This question is omitted from the public discussion, naturally. The unanswered question then answers itself with exploited optimism: We only want life, liberty and happiness. And so while we pursue these we find ourselves enslaved to the imperial agenda.
"As we make greater use of drones, we find it impossible to imagine that similar technologies might someday be used against us."
This militarist race is most certainly led by the "good ol USA" and so when others decide to "catch up" we have only ourselves to blame. Eh? HOT RAILS TO HELL!!
"It will help us arrive more quickly where we wanted to get..."
'It' being overall U.S. power, I presume. Nobody says just where it is "we" want to get. In general, after some years of reading CD and CD comments, I've found very little positive on the "Common DREAM" notion. Who gives voice to ways of life and living here? Sensibility underlies values. Our society systematically destroys sensibility (and sense and sensitivity)through mindless consumerism based in instant gratification and glorified violence. We understand the need for drama in a tough and short life but we don't know how to find the subtler, positive and nourishing drama there is in nonviolent, creative life. Some artists (of all kinds) know and try to share, but are put down from grade one on. A creative life that drives and nurtures human potential for self and shared realization is the dream that I'd like to see be a bit more common.
M.
Our society destroys itself by listening to the propaganda. The Bonobos learned to live in peace - but apparently humans (especially Anglos) haven't evolved that far yet... Turn off the TVs, the radios, and avoid magazines and billboards - they're all selling disaster.
"Are there better ways of achieving our goals?"
Well Mr. Myers, it depends on what you perceive those goals to be.
If your goals involve keeping people afraid and unified in their fear and anger against a common enemy...any enemy...while you loot the economy for your (and your corporate crony's) own selfish purposes...then surely you can see how this comment..."This vicious circle will create more terrorism than it eliminates."...might help to accomplish that end.
Very true comment. And why are American lives more valuable that 'other's' lives. What is the difference between 'terrorist' bombing a building and us bombing a village. Who made the US the brutal dictators of this world? Why do we put brutal dictators in power and then sit back and watch them deystroy, murder and rape their own people? Like we did in Haiti. If we could remove Haiti's president by a few soldiers, then why did it take the whole damn army to go after Saddam? Oil of course.
And the sheep of this country that say support our troops, are saying, yes lets keep murdering in our names.
this nation is a disgrace, and like Greenwald suggested, soon we will get ours. Many countries are thinking of kicking us out with all of our bases.
While we have millions here starving, dying without insurance, jobs going over seas.
Remember the many promises Barrack said about the PO? After telling his sad tale about his mother?
Did we get that option? NO. The insurance companies are going to make a killing, literally with this HCR.
I hope it goes down in flames. Because as Kusinich says Is this really the best we can do?
Our politicians are all corrupt and the US is divided like never before.
Climate Change may be the earths revenge and kicking off the cancer that has invaded it.
We have been at war since we learned to walk upright.
The Christians who support war and torture, would probably recrucify Christ if he came again today. Who follows his message of he poor? The sick, the children?
We are bombing children for Christs sake.
I wish Obama thought about the parents that are holding their dead children when he hugs his.
He is the biggest sell out period. Martin Luther King would be very ashamed of him. Go back and listen to King's Vietnam speech and see what I am talking about
>>We have been at war since we learned to walk upright.<<
Going by our ape cousins, war is even older than that. Time enough, already, to give it up and put away our deadly toys.
Gary
“Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.”
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
America's MIlitary and Financial; Empire --
it consists of at least 2 million Soldiers - with guns and weapons and ordnance that cause death and destruction to 'secure our liberty' and american primacy globally.
it FINANCES (much of it by borrowing) - this ARMY of KILLERS and killing machines and contraptions - to the tune of trillions of dollars...
it "educates" what are to become KILLERS .....and destroyers to "clear the way for reconstruction" according to American dictates....
IMAGINE the same america - using those resources to educate doctors, nurses, helpers - TWO MILLION of them as an 'army of peace'....
going to places like iraq - with NOT a single bullet in their suitcases....but genuine kindness and humanity...and NOT forcing it on anyone
some WILL die anyway because of domestic resistance ....
but how many american SOLDIERS have died in the project of empire and its destructiveness?
the opposite - such as an "army of Doctors without borders"......
IMAGINE what good that will do to people in need everywhere and TO america's standing?
An Army of Peace -- what a lovely idea -- sort of a Peace Corps writ large. That would help restore America's reputation far more than the election of a black President who turns out to be a neo-con in disguise. Millions of people rebuilding and educating. What a beautiful vision. Thank you.
Gary
“There is no way to peace, peace is the way.”
-- A. J. Muste
Yeah, we'd be just like Cuba - sending doctors and teachers and disaster aid (with no strings attached) to needy places all over the world. Cuba is famous for it - and they are a poor and persecuted country. Just imagine - what if we could get rid of both the Miami Mob and the Zionist Nazi-Nutcases? Nah. Just a dream.
As Zinn explains one reason for the Am. Rev. was to overcome the British prohibition on stealing Natives lands west of the eastern moutains.
This article is good except, the Tribal chaos was fostered by the USA arming Landlords and Fundamentalists against the viable socialist government initiating agrarian and womens rights reform.
There was a rebellion but nothing like the total civil war and destruction that ensued after the USA intrusion ( as usual)
The Soviets invaded in response to the choas created by the USA arming reactionary rebels(as usual).
Thanks to Myers for all the good here, but I will quibble, as is my wont.
"Can our war on terror justify the death of this child?"
Conceivably it could, were such a thing to exist.
"Or is it a step down a path not only toward the creation of more terrorists, but also toward our resembling terrorists more?"
The people accused of terrorists here are defending their country from foreign invasion and depredation. The "we" here appears to be the US government, which is slaughtering and torturing civilians.
Since neither the Afghanis nor the Iraqis attacked the United States, let's dismiss forever and throughout all our rhetoric anything that suggests that the American invasions are "against terror."
Does terror get sweeter if I call it "shock and awe"?
If "we" resembled "the terrorists," we might keep our troops in our own nation and cease to fight until we ourselves were under attack and had something that might be considered moral grounds for violence.