 |
Worldview Blogby A Concerned Citizenback to the Worldview Menu |
|
|
Worldview Blogby A Concerned Citizenback to the Worldview Menu |
|
Endless War and American Politics 1 December 2007 This post will be a rambling, seat-of-my-pants list of why the war in Iraq won't stop soon, despite the wishes of a clear majority of Americans. I will jot down ideas as they occur to me, and the list may take a few days to finish.
No doubt, the power of money plays a key role in the subservience of the Establishment politicians to the dictates of Empire, as campaign contributions are the lifeblood of a political career. However, one must not underestimate the psychology of power. Those who rise to the top are ambitious, and hence love power, and hence love to have the U.S. project power. Those who rise to the top are also well versed in the arts of duplicity and are all too willing to fool themselves as well as the public regarding the 'humanitarian' basis of our military endeavors. All too often, whatever sliver of humanitarian gloss as may exist is dwarfed by the cruelty of realpolitik, compounded by our own ignorant bungling, but this is all easily overlooked or swept under the rug.
The ignorance continues regarding public knowledge of the true positions of presidential candidates. I doubt that one Democrat in ten realizes that Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all promised AIPAC that Iran will not get the bomb, even if that means war. Or that they have all refused to promise troop withdrawal by the end of their first term. What sense does it make for them to be 'antiwar' candidates? Yet they seem to be getting away with it, notwithstanding the public disenchantment with the war. I suppose that most of us are simply too busy to find out, and the mainstream media is too superficial to report the truth. Or perhaps the mainstream media is largely controlled by a bipartisan Establishment, which really believes in American empire and feels that the public are so many ignorant cattle who must be steered in the right direction. The Republicans love the military industrial complex, and the Democrats love 'humanitarian' intervention (as well as the MIC), so there is a convergence of interests among the powerful, who sacrifice nothing themselves when we do go to war. (Come to think of it, the general public sacrifices little either, now that we have a professional military. But wait until the bill comes due!) At a more personal level, I think that many people warm to one candidate or another, based on superficial and subjective impressions, ultimately rooted in a kind of narcissism. For instance, many professional women, even those who claim to be antiwar, are attracted to Hillary Clinton. Middle-aged, white, suburban males tilt towards Republicans, and so on. Or consider that many lefty blogs have arrogantly dismissed Ron Paul as a 'crackpot', rather than trying to reach common ground with someone who probably more accurately represents the average decent American than do most of the trendy, urban left. And we tend not to take a candidate seriously until he's appeared frequently on television, which requires the acquiescence of the corporate media barons. General self-absorbtion and apathy help this foolishness along. Even the lefties seem primarily interested in their own recreation, like most Americans and other humans who have been insulated from suffering. (In all fairness, our winner-takes-all system means that establishment politicians enjoy a huge advantage, even with voters who really despise them. No one wants to throw a vote away on a dark horse with little chance of success. Or is this a self-fulfilling prophecy?) Then there are so many distractions. For instance, I feel critical of the 'left' for having become enamored with so-called global warming. As an engineer, I am very skeptical that computers can predict something as complex as global climate, and I take the so-called professional 'consensus' with a considerable grain of salt. Scientists are also vulnerable to fads and groupthink, and scientific truth does not depend on any kind of vote, even among the alleged 'experts', who are not above hyping their dubious research for the sake of funding. At any rate, the proposed Draconian cure for global warming would hurt the poorest in the world the most, which further indicates that the left can be as thoughtless as anybody, despite their avowed principles. But my point here is that global warming is an unfortunate diversion from the much more important and immediate issue of mass death as a result of our foreign policy. That is what true 'liberals' should be concerned with. (Again, I suppose I should be fair and grant that many lefties truly believe that global warming is an apocalypse in the making, though I also wonder if politicians like Al Gore aren't simply shirking responsibility for the much more difficult struggle against ever encroaching American militarism.) Another distraction, even more powerful than global warming, is immigration. That may well become the leading issue of the 2008 election, with a simmering war in Iraq receding into the background. Here the 'liberals' had better be careful. I personally favor an idealistic view of America as welcoming immigrants from all over the world. However, I realize that public opinion must be respected, and I don't want to hand back the reins of power to the Republicans over this issue, any more than I do over gay marriage, abortion and other secondary issues. We are so powerful as a nation that our foreign policy must be our first concern. Our footprint is so huge that we are talking about mass death and misery all over the world, as one war leads to another. We have an obligation to humanity that transcends our petty domestic concerns. Unfortunately, the public barely seems to know or care, and our leaders are corrupt and stupid.
But how would I defend the homeland? UPDATE (1 Dec 07): Ah, you ask, but how would I fight terrorism and protect the homeland? Through policework and intelligence, and through an enlightened foreign policy. The monolithic threat of 'Islamofascism' is an absurd caricature. We are threatened by no Muslim army. The situation is nothing like 1938. Terrorists are individual criminals and should be treated as such. Cooperating with other nations rather than hectoring them can only help to foil terrorist plots, while invading Muslim lands fans the flames of hatred and does nothing to stop terrorism, any more that swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Further, while one cannot lay every problem in the Middle East at the door of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the latter is surely a major contributing factor. However one feels about Israel, there is no doubt that the Palestinians have been dealt a cruel hand by history, and that the United States has been entirely and blindly on Israel's side. We cannot expect Muslims not to care about their brothers. Moreover, better relations with Muslims could provide intelligence to thwart the terrorists, as well as diminish popular support for militancy. Finally, the billions squandered in Iraq could have gone a long way towards making the homeland more secure, which includes getting our economic house in order.
More evidence for an establishment press UPDATE (1 Dec 07): Those who think the notion of an establishment, imperialistic press is overblown should read Alan Bock's article below. Bush has just concluded a treaty-like agreement with the Maliki government in Iraq that commits us to the long haul, as in Germany or Korea. This was done surreptitiously, while Congress was in recess, with hardly a peep from the New York Times or the Washington Post, not to mention the Democrats in Congress. How can one not suppose that there is a bipartisan Establishment contemptuous of public opinion?
Ed Herman's 1998 prescience UPDATE (1 Dec 07): Notice what Edward Herman said in his aforementioned (and informative) article: When the evidence assembled after the 1998 bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan showed that the U.S. claims justifying the attack were false and based on incompetently gathered and evaluated data, there was very little if any criticism in the mainstream media. For the media, the U.S. has a right to bomb another country if it thinks it has any kind of case — it doesn't have to be sure of the facts, or rush to compensate the victims of its errors, any more than it is obliged to abide by international law. Written way back in 1998, I might then have dismissed this passage as radical-left demagoguery. Yet how prescient these words are for the Iraq debacle! One might argue that the press reported a bit more this time on the WMD fiasco, since it hardly had any other choice. Yet few in the mainstream media have uttered mea culpas, and our leaders simply formed commissions, whose advice they have not followed, while rewarding the culprits, as usual. And by now the public seems to have pretty much forgotten about the nonexistent WMD, which should have provoked outrage and resignations and an abrupt end to the war. Ah well, water under the bridge...
Could 'fascism' come to America? UPDATE (2 Dec 07): Could 'fascism' come to America? However one defines the term, the notion seems preposterous. Nonetheless, if you watch the following video interview with Naomi Wolf, you might wonder. Already, there are troubling signs, such as the provision in the Patriot Act allowing the president to declare any citizen a terrorist and hold him in solitary confinement for up to three years, or the fact that some 700,000 names are already on the terrorist watchlist (which puts you through extra annoying searches searches at the airport). Democracy cannot survive without a vigilant and thinking public. Fear and ignorance are the greatest enemies of freedom. I'm afraid we have too much of both in America today.
Petras more radical than Chomsky? UPDATE (2 Dec 07): Is Noam Chomsky not radical enough for you? Try James Petras. For instance, while Chomsky considers the Israel Lobby as second fiddle to Big Oil and The Military Industrial Complex, Petras sees the Israel Lobby as a key and malevolent force in its own right. I have barely scratched the surface of this scholar. In case he is opposed to the very existence of Israel, let me reiterate that I favor a two-state solution roughly along the 1967 borders. In the article on who rules America, Petras raises the interesting idea that AIPAC and Wall Street are experiencing a divergence of interests which may soon come to a head. Petras is also dubious of the 'Big Oil' explanation for the Iraq War. On the other hand, Finkelstein, in his debate with Petras, casts some interesting light on the notion that the neocons were doing it for Israel. All in all, this shows that there are serious disagreements within the 'radical' community of those who severely criticize US foreign policy, and that one must be careful in assigning blame and causes. My cautious attitude is to assume that a complicated and interacting variety of forces controls power in America, but that most of these are rich and powerful! The clueless and malleable public is largely going along for the ride.
The public is also to blame UPDATE (3 Dec 07): Enlightened academic idealists like Noam Chomsky tend to put all the blame on the elites and to let the people entirely off the hook. Ordinary folks are said to be the victims of 'manufactured consent'. I'm not sure I quite buy this. I see plenty of aggressive spirits and bigotry at the popular level, which are exploited by those in power, and compounded by general ignorance. Hawkish talk show hosts like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and Savage wouldn't be so popular if they didn't resonate with a large portion of Americans. After all, we are a nation of invaders, and that 'cowboy' ethic surely survives to a considerable extent, especially among white people (and perhaps especially among those who have lost out to globalization and to the cultural wars). And notice how much aggression there is in our movies and other media. Violence sells, just like sex! It must tap into some basic human instinct. (Even 'liberal' PBS can't stop re-running Ken Burns' rather sentimental treatments of our wars, and the History Channel would have you believe that US history is nothing but war.) Note also that the president's popularity always shoots up when he invades some country the public has never even heard of. And throughout history, the masses have marched off happily to war, certain of their righteousness and certain that God was on their side. Ah, the power of patriotism, tribalism and groupthink! (Did you think modern man had ceased to be 'tribal'? The psychological comfort of belonging to a group can be irresistable. And it tends to dissolve conscience.) This poses quite a dilemma for democracy, which perhaps explains why the topic is not discussed all that much, even on dissenting sites. It would help if we could at least acknowledge the same human emotions in those we have bullied, instead of further demonizing them when they get angry with us. (Let me also note that a charismatic leader like Reagan can be a godsend to hawks by bamboozling the people, many of whom feel a visceral identification with his image and are thus inclined to believe what he says. But please don't think I have any higher regard for Bill Clinton.)
Dems out of touch with average white Americans
UPDATE (16 Dec 07): Steve Sailer's article provides a candid and insightful analysis of how Democrats are out of touch with average (white) Americans. He claims that the two major 'marks of Cain' are that Democrats were not tough enough towards the Soviets during the Cold War years and that they are blamed for the 'horrific' 1964-1996 crime wave. In general, the Democrats rely on weak and contentious coalitions of disaffected, whining minorities, while Republicans favor team spirit, a can-do attitude, and other manly qualities. Frankly, there is some important truth to these cliches, as well as the usual misleading propaganda.
In foreign policy, we were right to organize NATO to protect Europe from evil dictator Joseph Stalin and his massive military. However, we also contributed to the antagonism with, for example, our vicious bombing of Hiroshima, which was meant as a warning to the USSR. (Japan was probably on the path to surrender, and the use of the bomb against civilians was a crime against humanity under any circumstances.) Add to this our bloody meddling with nations around the world, from Iran in 1953, to Vietnam to Central America and elsewhere. In almost all cases, we were siding with corrupt elites and opposing the vast majority of the local inhabitants, thus rendering our democratic rhetoric hypocritical. The 'Communist threat' was way overblown, except for Stalin and Europe, and we failed to notice how economically weak was the USSR. Even a 'liberal' president like JFK could play games with a nonexistent Soviet missile gap. If the American public truly believes that the Democrats were 'weak' on foreign policy, then I can only say that they were effectively brainwashed by the hawks.
However, Sailer may have a better case with regard to domestic matters. While one can argue the merit and effectiveness of social programs, it was inexcusable of the Democrats to be soft on crime, if indeed they were, as appears to be the case. Mind you, I am against locking up nonviolent drug offenders, but I would be a hypocrite if I did not oppose domestic violence with the same zeal that I oppose unnecessary war. (Come on, I don't hate boring white middle class people that much!)
A brief perusal of Sailer's websites shows that he is strongly opposed to immigration and believes in genetic disparities in IQ, among other things. Like many conservatives, he fears that a vast wave of Hispanic immigration will dumb down America (even further) and seriously strain social services. No doubt he is opposed to racial quotas. Even though my instincts are basically liberal on such matters, I must agree that conservatives have a point. Any government quotas to help 'disadvantaged' people should be based on economics rather than on race. I cannot disagree than a vast wave of uneducated and culturally unassimilated people could produce tremendous social tensions, as may be happening with Muslims in Europe. And I am not squeamish about such matters as IQ vis-a-vis race or gender; it is entirely possible for one social group to be more intelligent than another. Life is unfair. That said, I also realize that such fears can be abused to discriminate and create ugliness. These are tricky matters that require careful thought. We should probably err on the side of humanism and inclusiveness. A nation cannot be great if its spirit is not great.
As Sailer reports, one terrible mistake of educated liberals was to develop a disdain for blue-collar workers. I imagine that this goes back to the days when the educated liberals were college students protesting the Vietnam War and the blue-collar workers were bashing their heads in. The tragic consequence was that the macho blue-collar workers came to feel more of a personal identification with the aggressive Republicans, even though the latter were screwing them economically, not least with union-busting 'free' trade and globalism. At the risk of sounding elitist myself, it seems that many workers must have been unable to figure out how they were being used, without the guidance of intellectuals. This was no doubt especially true in the South, where Republicans have been skilled at playing the ugly racist card, thus dividing the poor. At the same time, I feel a lot of sympathy for ordinary people in countries like India and China, and I wish to see them benefit from global trade. But are they truly benefiting? And could the transition not have been less brutal for Americans? The irony is that supposed populists like Bill Clinton basically prostituted themselves to Wall Street, as far as I can tell. The sell-out of ordinary Americans has been a favorite game of the elites of both parties. They can get away with it, because knowledge is power, and ignorance is weakness.
Other good points made by Sailer are that liberals tend to be self-absorbed individualists of one type or another, and that they aren't doing a good job of procreating! It does seem a bit foolish to make sacred cows of abortion and gay marriage, especially since these issues would at worst revert to the states, and many states would continue to be liberal. Homosexuals could move to those states, and women seeking an abortion could hop on a plane or train (or bus if they are poor). It's better than losing too many elections. As I said before, the primary concern of true liberals should be to prevent American foreign policy from killing so many people. I disagree completely with Sailer than we should have Reagan's macho attitude towards other countries. But by the same token, I agree that liberals need to accommodate themselves on secondary matters with the general population, precisely for the sake of rendering our foreign policy more humanitarian and less brutal and selfish. (By the way, Reagan had nothing to do with the demise of the Soviet Union. He was an empty-headed windbag, and the Evil Empire collapsed from its own internal contradictions.)
Domestic matters often trump war concerns
UPDATE (03 Jan 08): Another sad but inevitable reason for endless war: as long as the TV news isn't too upsetting, the American public cares more about domestic matters. So I guess the 'surge' was brilliant domestically as well as militarily. Trouble seems to be dying down in Iraq, if only because the communities have, in effect, been 'ethnically cleansed', thanks to our invasion. This raises an interesting question of culpability. Is all well that ends well? I guess the morality of a war depends on who wins it, as least in the court of public opinion, especially that of the victor. It shouldn't; our invasion on false pretexts was a war crime under any circumstances. This new indifference on the part of public suggests that humans are selfish and irresponsible. So what else is new? Also, the public has the attention span of a child. It's true that the mainstream media has done an awful job of informing the public of what truly matters. Stellar documentaries like Bill Moyers' Buying the War are few and far between. How many Americans watched it? Probably less than 20%. One also wonders if the establishment press hasn't taken some cue recently to downplay the war, in order to preserve the plutocracy. Anyway, nothing has been solved politically in Iraq, so it could all explode again anytime.
Why is there no antiwar lobby?
UPDATE (07 Jan 08): We keep hearing of the great power of lobbies in America; AIPAC, the NRA, and the AARP come to mind. (Hmmmm. What is the moniker for the petroleum lobby? That should be a household name.) Such lobbies can wield power way beyond the number of votes that they represent, through the insidious device of campaign contributions, seemingly designed to short-circuit democracy. This make me wonder: Why, then, is there no powerful antiwar lobby? Or powerful lobby to redress our grossly unbalanced distribution of wealth? I suppose it's because the public, by and large, just doesn't care enough, as discussed recently here. Most people only become activists when their own money is at stake. That's what we really love. The mere gratuitous death of a million Iraqis, or other foreigners, is a bit upsetting perhaps, to those who even bother to find out, but not enough to do something about it. Still, why are the humanitarian activists not organizing such lobbies? If those lobbies exist, they must be so fractured that they recede into the noise. They probably have only hundreds or thousands of members each. Now just imagine millions of Americans sending a few bucks a year to one big antiwar equivalent of AIPAC! That would produce a sea-change in American politics. Dream on.
Failure to gain the moral high ground
UPDATE (18 Jan 08): We keep hearing from hawks that the Iraq war critics (specifically Democrats) are not willing to acknowledge the 'success' of the 'surge'. The Democrats do seem subdued lately, as they have basically lost, though I have some doubts about the sincerity of many of them on stopping the war. At any rate, this illustrates the failure to gain the moral high ground in the first place. The war was simply wrong, because we invaded a country on a flimsy pretext. But the Democrats wanted to play it safe and harped on the failures of the actual conduct of the war. Then, when deaths subside somewhat, they are left high and dry, due to their initial equivocation. Such is the reward of cowardice. Even if they didn't have the votes, they should have been a true, liberal, antiwar voice, so it would be clear that many Americans feel this way. They deserve no respect.
What about the argument that, regardless of the merits of the war, we are now responsible and cannot leave Iraq in anarchy? First, note that this argument is a convenient, even cynical, prescription for empire and perpetual war. The president can blunder into any war of his choosing, and then we have to stay forever, because we are 'responsible'. We are still in Japan and Germany, where the politics are relatively stable! Our presence causes conflict and incites terrorism. We should either partition the country, or else start slowly to leave, putting pressure on the Iraqis to get their act together as they see fit. Instead, we are building huge bases, and McCain is boasting that we may be there for a hundred years. Such hubris! The imperialists are really quite open about their designs. This much is clear from documents Rebuilding America's Defenses, published by PNAC in 2000 (even before 9/11). It contains statements such as, 'At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.' If that isn't empire, I don't know what is.
Back to the Home Page
|
The Establishment Likes Empire: We need to resurrect a great word from the '60s and '70s: the 'Establishment'. No word better describes the bipartisan consensus to project American power, with only minor nuances between the two parties. Republicans may indulge in tired old games in which (either) Clinton is portrayed as 'liberal' and hence supposedly 'dovish' and 'weak on defense'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill Clinton got involved in a number of wars, including the bombing of Serbia, whose 'humanitarian' motivation has been debunked by