By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t Perspective
Thursday 23 June 2005
With the revelation of the secret Downing Street Minutes, which exposed the fact that George Bush and Tony Blair had decided to invade Iraq in April of 2002, a heated debate has blown through media, congressional and activist circles. The decision to go to war in Iraq was made before any public debate was initiated, before the United Nations was brought into the conversation, confirming that Bush's blather about wanting peace and leaving war as the last resort was just that: blather.
So why did we go?
It had been suspected, and has now been confirmed by the Minutes, that Bush took us to war on false pretenses and by way of a whole constellation of lies and exaggerations. First it was the weapons of mass destruction that were not there. Then it was connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that did not exist. Finally, it became about bringing freedom and democracy to the region, which has emphatically not happened.
Threaded through the discussion was the belief that Bush and his petroleum-company allies lusted after Iraq's oil. There was also the idea that Bush wanted Saddam's head because of the "unfinished business" left by his father in 1991. Some whispered that Iraq had intended to change the monetary basis of its petroleum dealings from the dollar to the Euro, an action that would have spelled financial disaster for the boys in Houston. Finally, many believed Bush ramped up a war push in order to give Republicans a flag-waving platform to run on in the 2002 midterms.
All of these were on the table as reasons for an invasion, though most of them were not included in public debate. Yet the real reasons behind this war, the real reasons for many of our military actions over the years, were never discussed. As with almost everything we deal with today in the foreign policy realm, the real reasons we invaded Iraq harken back to World War II and the Cold War.
When the United States jumped into World War II, President Roosevelt ordered the American economy be put on a wartime footing. This was a sound decision: the country had to speed its industrial capabilities up to a sprint in order to manufacture a huge fighting army out of whole cloth. The action was successful beyond measure. The economy was invigorated, the war was won, and in the process the military/industrial complex, so named by President Eisenhower, was established as a power player in the American economy.
In 1947, President Harry Truman put forth the Truman Doctrine, a broad policy of foreign intervention to combat the feared spread of Communism around the world. The Doctrine was essentially created by a small band of men like Paul Nitze, who were the precursors of what we now call neo-conservatives. Nitze, it should be noted, was the mentor of Paul Wolfowitz, who went on to be the mentor of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
The establishment of the Truman Doctrine, the establishment of the "permanent crisis" that was the Cold War, required that the American economy remain on a wartime footing. There it has remained to this day, despite the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the threat of a global communist takeover. Ten thousand books have been written on this subject, on the impact of our wartime economic footing upon domestic policy, the environment, global affairs and politics. In the end, however, the fact that our economy is set on a wartime footing means one simple thing.
We need wars.
Without wars, the economy flakes and falls apart. Without wars, the trillions of dollars spent on weapons systems, military preparedness and a planetary army would dry up, dealing a death blow to the economy as currently constituted. Without wars or the threat of wars, the populace is not so easily controlled and manipulated.
Let us be clear, however. When I say "we," I do not refer to your average working man and woman on the street. The man running the shoe store or the woman managing the bar does not need war to remain economically viable. The "we" I speak of is that overwhelmingly wealthy and powerful few who have wired their fortunes into the manufacture of weapons, the plumbing of oil, and the collection of spoils through political largesse.
These are the people who need war. They need it to pile up the contracts from the Pentagon, to enrich the banking institutions that protect them, to pay the lawyers who defend them, to pay the lobbyists who sustain them, to purchase the politicians who champion them, and to buy up the media that hides them from sight.
Yet though this group is small in number, they are "we," for they are our leaders and our myth-makers. They have convinced the majority of this population that war is a necessity. They create the premises for combat and invasion, they convince and cajole and, when necessary, frighten us into line. All too often, almost every time, we buy into the fictions they manufacture, thus sustaining the "permanent crisis" mentality and the need for war after war after war.
The economic need for war creates the required excuses for war. The "permanent crisis" of the Cold War motivated the United States to support the Shah in Iran, a decision that led to the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of Iran as a permanent enemy. The Cold War motivated us to support Saddam Hussein financially and militarily as a bulwark against Iran. The Cold War motivated us to establish the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia to ensure a steady supply of oil. The Cold War motivated us to support Osama bin Laden and the so-called "Jihadists" in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet invaders.
Now, we prepare to invade Iran. We have invaded Iraq for the second time in 15 years. We will never invade Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that this nation's vast wealth and Wahabbist extremists make it the birthing bed of international terrorism. We lost two towers in New York City at the hands of a group that we created in the 1980s to fight the Soviets. Put plainly, the "permanent crisis" of the Cold War created a cycle of military self-justification. We build enemies with arms and money, and then we destroy them with arms and money, thus keeping our wartime economy afloat.
The Cold War ended more than ten years ago, but we still need war, and we need that "permanent crisis" to continue the cycle of military self-justification. If a legitimate war is not available, we will create one because we have to. We have our new "permanent crisis," which we call the War on Terror, another turn of the cycle created by an attack that our foreign policy and war-justifications of the last 50 years made almost inevitable.
We need wars. That's why we are in Iraq. This invasion and occupation of that nation has given our economy the war it needs, and has also created the justification for future wars by creating legions of enemies in the Mideast and around the world. Our wartime economy will tolerate no less.
Talking about Bush's lies regarding weapons of mass destruction, or about bringing democracy to the region, or about the dollar-to-Euro transfer, or about the midterm elections, is window-dressing. We invaded Iraq because we had to. This is the elephant in the room, the foreign policy reality nobody talks about.
If you want peace, work to change the underpinnings of our economy. Until that change is made, there will always be wars, invasions, and lies to brings such things about. It is what it is.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Batman Begins -- Awesome Quote
Oh, and quite the AWESOME movie as well I might add! Now THAT is how a Batman movie is done!
Quote: "Criminals thrive on the indulgences of society’s understanding."
,
Quote: "Criminals thrive on the indulgences of society’s understanding."
-- Ra's Al Guhl (Batman villain)
Friday, June 17, 2005
The Downing Street Memo -- Read for yourself
Please inform those close to you, who still might be "drinking the cool-aid."
The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so.
1
The Secret Downing Street Memo
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards,
CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a
genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on
extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried
and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming.
His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale
was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4
August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to
Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus
belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option.
Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement
were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
2
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering
from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime.
No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had
made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam
was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would
also help with the legal justifi cation for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were
three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The fi rst and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diffi cult. The situation
might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in
the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing
the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right,
people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether
we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the fi rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing
to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse
and urban warfi ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a
winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK
differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play
hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military
action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to
decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It
would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a
fuller picture of US planning before we could take any fi rm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we
were considering a range of options.
3
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this
operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions
by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly
work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and
of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal
advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so.
1
The Secret Downing Street Memo
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards,
CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a
genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on
extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried
and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming.
His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale
was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4
August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to
Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus
belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option.
Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement
were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
2
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering
from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime.
No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had
made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam
was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would
also help with the legal justifi cation for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were
three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The fi rst and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diffi cult. The situation
might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in
the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing
the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right,
people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether
we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the fi rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing
to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse
and urban warfi ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a
winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK
differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play
hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military
action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to
decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It
would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a
fuller picture of US planning before we could take any fi rm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we
were considering a range of options.
3
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this
operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions
by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly
work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and
of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal
advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Friday, June 10, 2005
"American Baby" -- Dave Matthews Band
...My Flag Day Tribute...
If these walls came crumblin' down
Fell so hard, to make us lose our faith
From what's left you'd figure it out
Still make lemonade taste like a sunny day
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby
Nobody's laughing now
God's grace lost and the devil is proud
But I've been walking for a thousand miles
One last time, I could see you smile
I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You bring me hope, I'll see you soon
And if I don't see you
I'm afraid we've lost the way
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby
I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You lift me up and always will
I see you in life
Hope I don't get left behind
I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You bring me hope, I'll see you soon
And if I don't see you
I'm afraid we've lost the way
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
I hope you
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby
Nobody's laughing now
But you could always make me laugh out loud
If these walls came crumblin' down
Fell so hard, to make us lose our faith
From what's left you'd figure it out
Still make lemonade taste like a sunny day
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby
Nobody's laughing now
God's grace lost and the devil is proud
But I've been walking for a thousand miles
One last time, I could see you smile
I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You bring me hope, I'll see you soon
And if I don't see you
I'm afraid we've lost the way
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby
I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You lift me up and always will
I see you in life
Hope I don't get left behind
I (I) hold (hold) on (on) to you
You bring me hope, I'll see you soon
And if I don't see you
I'm afraid we've lost the way
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
I hope you
Stay, beautiful baby
I hope you
Stay, American baby
American baby
Nobody's laughing now
But you could always make me laugh out loud
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
AMERICAN EMPIRE - Fallen before it ever came to be
By Melinda Barton | RAW STORY COLUMNIST
The American Empire. Pax Americana. The fervent dream of the ruling party. The nightmare of its opponents. Today’s political discourse is rife with tales of this mythical beast rising from the back rooms of Washington to wreak havoc on the unsuspecting citizens of the world.
Advertisement
Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately,) we just don’t have what it takes to become the latest empire. In the meantime, as we pursue the right wing’s pipe dream, American hegemony, the more benevolent albeit weaker younger brother of empire, is spiraling to its destruction. The American Empire is falling before it has even truly risen.
I blame it on the state of history education in this country. We’ve all heard the cliché, “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” How much truer must this be for those who don’t learn it at all? Or who ignore it altogether because they believe that our nation’s uniqueness protects us from the march of history?
Remember your own history classes? The rote memorization of names and dates. The patriotic mythology that filled the pages of your textbooks. The tremendous gaps in the relation of events where the “unimportant” people simply weren’t mentioned, where the history of our nation seemed the sole creation of a group of wealthy white men? Remember how you were taught that America was completely unique in the annals of human history and therefore, somehow, completely disconnected and safe from the trends that ravaged the rest of the world? It was all wrong.
History is very much about trends. You can change the names and dates as much as you want, but the bigger pictures won’t change very much. To truly understand how events will unfold, you need only find the connections to the common threads that continue unbroken through time and space.
Follow the threads and you’ll see how the “American Empire” is doomed to extinction even now, as it makes its first tentative steps into the world. If our ruling class had learned the lessons of the Roman Empire, the one whose propaganda we so readily mimic for our own purposes, they’d give up now and save our nation and our world from this disastrous enterprise.
The Roman Empire. Pax Romana. What can we learn from the inspiration for our attempt to bring about peace and freedom through American rule? Just this. We don’t have what it takes. The Romans began from a position of unprecedented strength and a unified people dedicated to society’s values. For all the patriotic ramblings of our rulers, we don’t have that anymore. The Roman Empire began its fall where we attempt to begin a rise to power. So, why did they fall? And why won’t we rise?
The decline of morals and values: The Roman Empire lost its strength when Roman values gave way to pleasure and treasure. Lavish parties, gladiatorial contests, violence, and other forms of immorality chipped away at the unifying values that kept the Roman Legion and thus the empire strong. Our own pursuit of pleasure and treasure is doing the same.
Lavish parties, reality TV, violence, and the abandonment of democratic values are leading us to destruction. For nearly two centuries, American individualism was balanced by the communal commitment to the construction of an ever more just nation through democratic processes. We voted and protested our way to greater freedom for all. Even those with no freedom to vote participated through the power of their voices. For the last few decades, however, the ruling elite has entertained and bullshitted us into submission. We have abandoned political discourse, building a taboo around “talking politics” lest someone’s feelings get hurt or an actual debate arises. Consequently, the American people now know less about the important political topics of our country than citizens of foreign nations and participating through protest is viewed as “un-American.”
Public health: The rampant spread of disease through Roman territories due to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions decimated that empire’s population. America is far more advanced in its knowledge of public health concerns and our ability to control, to some extent, the spread of disease. We have doctors that don’t use leaches, medicines that usually aren’t poisonous, and high tech hospitals that would have been the stuff of science fiction just a few decades ago. While the spread of communicable disease is not what it was, a variety of factors have contributed to a decline in the health of the average American: pollution; obesity; limited or non-existent access to preventative medicine due to cost-saving measures on the part of HMO’s and insurance companies; lack of access to preventative medicine due to lack of health insurance; the absence of early stage treatments due to some of the same factors; a serious dearth of public education about health realities due to religious influence on governmental policies. Despite spending more money on health care than any other nation, our citizens are far less healthy than those in other industrialized nations. Illness, according to some studies, costs the United States billions of dollars per year in lost wages and decreased productivity. We need no study to imagine the human costs.
Political Corruption: Rome’s system for choosing an emperor was rather democratic at first with the outgoing emperor, the Senate, the Praetorian guard, and the army coming together to choose the new ruler. Over time, the Praetorian Guard took complete control of the selection process and the highest bidder became emperor.
Our forefathers so distrusted the “mob” that they instituted the Electoral College to limit the powers of the people. Under this system, no less than three men have lost the vote but gained the presidency. Lately, however, the Electoral College has become less a threat to democracy than campaign finance. With election campaigns become ever more expensive, those with the most money have an ever-growing role in determining the winners and losers of the political shell game. Whoever spends the most money wins. With the exception of billionaires like Ross Perot, candidates must raise money from outside sources and thus become beholden to special interests and corporate powers at the cost of the common welfare. Access to the halls of power has become far too expensive for even the somewhat wealthy private citizens. Thus, a small group determines which candidates we’ll have the chance to vote for in any election and our emperor…ahem…president is generally the highest bidder.
It’s the economy, stupid!: Unemployment, inflation, and the trade deficit felled the great Romans. Surely, we’re in no better position than they were. President George W. Bush was the first ever American president to show a net loss of jobs during his first term in office. Those jobs that are being created are generally low wage positions in the service industries. Outsourcing of manufacturing has led to greater unemployment and underemployment as well as a monstrous trade deficit that places our economy at the mercy of foreign powers. Outsourcing of jobs that require skilled labor and successful competition from countries like India and China has led to an economy where skilled and highly educated workers make up an ever-greater percentage of the long-term unemployed. The “strong” American economy is a smoke and mirrors ploy. The “strong” American dollar is but a memory.
Military spending: Maintaining military might in the face of “recruitment” problems required that Rome hire outside fighting forces and draw resources from other necessary projects. Maintaining or building our own has and will do the same. Half of our tax dollars going to military expenditures limits our abilities to adjust to new necessities or shore up old ones. Public education, social programs like welfare and social security, and infrastructure maintenance are already feeling the bite. The military’s inability to recruit new personnel and retain current troops, as well as growing protests from reservists and recalled service members will push us to rely more heavily on the fighting forces of our allies.Unfortunately, few of our allies have the desire or the sheer number of troops that would be needed for an American empire to take shape. Only reinstating the draft would get us the manpower we need for empire, but that act would bring about the dangers of civil unrest.
So, we just don’t have what it takes to be an empire. As it is, American hegemony is quickly becoming the victim of foreign progress and unpopular American policies. Our allies are distancing themselves from us politically and are far less ready to support our every move. Developing nations are threatening the strength of the American economy by the fair competition and marketplace values we insisted they embrace. As they progress, we’ll face ever-greater competition for the resources we need to maintain economic strength. Thus, we’ll lose much of the power and influence our economy has provided. The sleeping tiger of our military might is beginning to look a bit more like an aggressive alley cat. Although we’re fortunate enough to have no military enemies on our borders, foreign military adventures will surely become less feasible in the future. The desire for an American Empire will only worsen the situation and ultimately, destroy what is left of our unprecedented strength in the world.
We just don’t have what it takes. Let’s hope the powers that be get the message before we, like Rome, become the power that was.
The American Empire. Pax Americana. The fervent dream of the ruling party. The nightmare of its opponents. Today’s political discourse is rife with tales of this mythical beast rising from the back rooms of Washington to wreak havoc on the unsuspecting citizens of the world.
Advertisement
Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately,) we just don’t have what it takes to become the latest empire. In the meantime, as we pursue the right wing’s pipe dream, American hegemony, the more benevolent albeit weaker younger brother of empire, is spiraling to its destruction. The American Empire is falling before it has even truly risen.
I blame it on the state of history education in this country. We’ve all heard the cliché, “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” How much truer must this be for those who don’t learn it at all? Or who ignore it altogether because they believe that our nation’s uniqueness protects us from the march of history?
Remember your own history classes? The rote memorization of names and dates. The patriotic mythology that filled the pages of your textbooks. The tremendous gaps in the relation of events where the “unimportant” people simply weren’t mentioned, where the history of our nation seemed the sole creation of a group of wealthy white men? Remember how you were taught that America was completely unique in the annals of human history and therefore, somehow, completely disconnected and safe from the trends that ravaged the rest of the world? It was all wrong.
History is very much about trends. You can change the names and dates as much as you want, but the bigger pictures won’t change very much. To truly understand how events will unfold, you need only find the connections to the common threads that continue unbroken through time and space.
Follow the threads and you’ll see how the “American Empire” is doomed to extinction even now, as it makes its first tentative steps into the world. If our ruling class had learned the lessons of the Roman Empire, the one whose propaganda we so readily mimic for our own purposes, they’d give up now and save our nation and our world from this disastrous enterprise.
The Roman Empire. Pax Romana. What can we learn from the inspiration for our attempt to bring about peace and freedom through American rule? Just this. We don’t have what it takes. The Romans began from a position of unprecedented strength and a unified people dedicated to society’s values. For all the patriotic ramblings of our rulers, we don’t have that anymore. The Roman Empire began its fall where we attempt to begin a rise to power. So, why did they fall? And why won’t we rise?
The decline of morals and values: The Roman Empire lost its strength when Roman values gave way to pleasure and treasure. Lavish parties, gladiatorial contests, violence, and other forms of immorality chipped away at the unifying values that kept the Roman Legion and thus the empire strong. Our own pursuit of pleasure and treasure is doing the same.
Lavish parties, reality TV, violence, and the abandonment of democratic values are leading us to destruction. For nearly two centuries, American individualism was balanced by the communal commitment to the construction of an ever more just nation through democratic processes. We voted and protested our way to greater freedom for all. Even those with no freedom to vote participated through the power of their voices. For the last few decades, however, the ruling elite has entertained and bullshitted us into submission. We have abandoned political discourse, building a taboo around “talking politics” lest someone’s feelings get hurt or an actual debate arises. Consequently, the American people now know less about the important political topics of our country than citizens of foreign nations and participating through protest is viewed as “un-American.”
Public health: The rampant spread of disease through Roman territories due to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions decimated that empire’s population. America is far more advanced in its knowledge of public health concerns and our ability to control, to some extent, the spread of disease. We have doctors that don’t use leaches, medicines that usually aren’t poisonous, and high tech hospitals that would have been the stuff of science fiction just a few decades ago. While the spread of communicable disease is not what it was, a variety of factors have contributed to a decline in the health of the average American: pollution; obesity; limited or non-existent access to preventative medicine due to cost-saving measures on the part of HMO’s and insurance companies; lack of access to preventative medicine due to lack of health insurance; the absence of early stage treatments due to some of the same factors; a serious dearth of public education about health realities due to religious influence on governmental policies. Despite spending more money on health care than any other nation, our citizens are far less healthy than those in other industrialized nations. Illness, according to some studies, costs the United States billions of dollars per year in lost wages and decreased productivity. We need no study to imagine the human costs.
Political Corruption: Rome’s system for choosing an emperor was rather democratic at first with the outgoing emperor, the Senate, the Praetorian guard, and the army coming together to choose the new ruler. Over time, the Praetorian Guard took complete control of the selection process and the highest bidder became emperor.
Our forefathers so distrusted the “mob” that they instituted the Electoral College to limit the powers of the people. Under this system, no less than three men have lost the vote but gained the presidency. Lately, however, the Electoral College has become less a threat to democracy than campaign finance. With election campaigns become ever more expensive, those with the most money have an ever-growing role in determining the winners and losers of the political shell game. Whoever spends the most money wins. With the exception of billionaires like Ross Perot, candidates must raise money from outside sources and thus become beholden to special interests and corporate powers at the cost of the common welfare. Access to the halls of power has become far too expensive for even the somewhat wealthy private citizens. Thus, a small group determines which candidates we’ll have the chance to vote for in any election and our emperor…ahem…president is generally the highest bidder.
It’s the economy, stupid!: Unemployment, inflation, and the trade deficit felled the great Romans. Surely, we’re in no better position than they were. President George W. Bush was the first ever American president to show a net loss of jobs during his first term in office. Those jobs that are being created are generally low wage positions in the service industries. Outsourcing of manufacturing has led to greater unemployment and underemployment as well as a monstrous trade deficit that places our economy at the mercy of foreign powers. Outsourcing of jobs that require skilled labor and successful competition from countries like India and China has led to an economy where skilled and highly educated workers make up an ever-greater percentage of the long-term unemployed. The “strong” American economy is a smoke and mirrors ploy. The “strong” American dollar is but a memory.
Military spending: Maintaining military might in the face of “recruitment” problems required that Rome hire outside fighting forces and draw resources from other necessary projects. Maintaining or building our own has and will do the same. Half of our tax dollars going to military expenditures limits our abilities to adjust to new necessities or shore up old ones. Public education, social programs like welfare and social security, and infrastructure maintenance are already feeling the bite. The military’s inability to recruit new personnel and retain current troops, as well as growing protests from reservists and recalled service members will push us to rely more heavily on the fighting forces of our allies.Unfortunately, few of our allies have the desire or the sheer number of troops that would be needed for an American empire to take shape. Only reinstating the draft would get us the manpower we need for empire, but that act would bring about the dangers of civil unrest.
So, we just don’t have what it takes to be an empire. As it is, American hegemony is quickly becoming the victim of foreign progress and unpopular American policies. Our allies are distancing themselves from us politically and are far less ready to support our every move. Developing nations are threatening the strength of the American economy by the fair competition and marketplace values we insisted they embrace. As they progress, we’ll face ever-greater competition for the resources we need to maintain economic strength. Thus, we’ll lose much of the power and influence our economy has provided. The sleeping tiger of our military might is beginning to look a bit more like an aggressive alley cat. Although we’re fortunate enough to have no military enemies on our borders, foreign military adventures will surely become less feasible in the future. The desire for an American Empire will only worsen the situation and ultimately, destroy what is left of our unprecedented strength in the world.
We just don’t have what it takes. Let’s hope the powers that be get the message before we, like Rome, become the power that was.
Friday, June 03, 2005
SIGN THE ONE DECLARATION
“WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs – education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans – would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all.”
For more information please visit www.one.org
--Heiwa!
Thursday, June 02, 2005
RELIGION TODAY COLUMN FOR WEEK OF JUNE 5-11
The End Is Coming -- The Hindu Version
Paul V.M. Flesher
Evangelical Christianity has long taught that the "End of the World" is coming. This teaching, called "Premillennialism," is often accompanied by detailed descriptions of apocalyptic events leading up to a cataclysmic finale. Of all the world's religions, Hinduism may have the most similar views of the end-of-time, even though Christianity believes in one God and Hinduism envisions many.
Premillennial Christianity starts with the belief that God created the universe in a perfect form, but two events soon marred it -- the sin of Adam and Eve and the rebellion of the angel Satan. These two events caused creation to begin a gradual deterioration. Year after year, human morality and nature's harmony have been getting worse. This will continue until matters are so bad that God will have to destroy creation. After this, God will make a new universe.
Surprisingly, Hinduism closely follows the three key features of this scheme. First, the universe was created perfect -- the best it can be. Second, this is followed by gradual moral and natural deterioration. Third, things will finally get so bad that creation will be destroyed, and then rebuilt in a perfect form.
Despite this general parallelism, Premillennialism and Hinduism differ on a key component -- the time-frame. Premillennialism views time on a biblical scale, with the time from creation to the end being approximately six thousand years. Hinduism designed its scheme in millions of years, 4.32 million to be exact. Hinduism imagines the existence of the universe as one day in the life of the god Brahma. That day is divided into four yugas, each of which lasts a multiple of 432,000 years.
At the beginning of the day, at creation, Brahma awakes and all creation is bright and lively. People, gods and nature live in moral and religious harmony. As Brahma's day moves from yuga to yuga, he starts getting tired, and morality and natural harmony deteriorate. Now, humankind is in the last yuga, the Kali Yuga, the period of absolute depravity and the reign of wickedness. This yuga is the shortest; it lasts only 432,000 years. When it ends, Brahma will fall asleep and the universe will disappear -- to be reborn when he reawakens.
When will the Kali Yuga end? According to modern calculations, the Kali Yuga began in 3102 B.C. So this year, humanity will have lived through only 5101 years of the yuga. There are 426,899 years to go! While Hinduism's scheme may share the overall shape of Premillennialism, its view of the end lies far in the future.
Flesher is director of UW's Religious Studies Program. More information about the program can be found on the Web at www.uwyo.edu/relstds
Paul V.M. Flesher
Evangelical Christianity has long taught that the "End of the World" is coming. This teaching, called "Premillennialism," is often accompanied by detailed descriptions of apocalyptic events leading up to a cataclysmic finale. Of all the world's religions, Hinduism may have the most similar views of the end-of-time, even though Christianity believes in one God and Hinduism envisions many.
Premillennial Christianity starts with the belief that God created the universe in a perfect form, but two events soon marred it -- the sin of Adam and Eve and the rebellion of the angel Satan. These two events caused creation to begin a gradual deterioration. Year after year, human morality and nature's harmony have been getting worse. This will continue until matters are so bad that God will have to destroy creation. After this, God will make a new universe.
Surprisingly, Hinduism closely follows the three key features of this scheme. First, the universe was created perfect -- the best it can be. Second, this is followed by gradual moral and natural deterioration. Third, things will finally get so bad that creation will be destroyed, and then rebuilt in a perfect form.
Despite this general parallelism, Premillennialism and Hinduism differ on a key component -- the time-frame. Premillennialism views time on a biblical scale, with the time from creation to the end being approximately six thousand years. Hinduism designed its scheme in millions of years, 4.32 million to be exact. Hinduism imagines the existence of the universe as one day in the life of the god Brahma. That day is divided into four yugas, each of which lasts a multiple of 432,000 years.
At the beginning of the day, at creation, Brahma awakes and all creation is bright and lively. People, gods and nature live in moral and religious harmony. As Brahma's day moves from yuga to yuga, he starts getting tired, and morality and natural harmony deteriorate. Now, humankind is in the last yuga, the Kali Yuga, the period of absolute depravity and the reign of wickedness. This yuga is the shortest; it lasts only 432,000 years. When it ends, Brahma will fall asleep and the universe will disappear -- to be reborn when he reawakens.
When will the Kali Yuga end? According to modern calculations, the Kali Yuga began in 3102 B.C. So this year, humanity will have lived through only 5101 years of the yuga. There are 426,899 years to go! While Hinduism's scheme may share the overall shape of Premillennialism, its view of the end lies far in the future.
Flesher is director of UW's Religious Studies Program. More information about the program can be found on the Web at www.uwyo.edu/relstds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
