I don't know what Andrew Bacevich's credentials are, but I would rather lay my money on the opinion of Paul Kennedy (in "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and "Preparing for the Twenty-first Century"). In these books he lays down two general propositions about great powers. One is that while they are in their fastest phase of economic growth they don't worry about imperialism because other countries fall over themselves in offering resources to them. (Britain only went fully imperialist when it was being rapidly overtaken economically by America and Germany.) The other is that once great powers are in economic decline, it is then and only then that they start to spend much more on armaments than ever before in order to protect their supplies and trade routes -- and this can continue for as long as two generations after their economic peak.
Now America doesn't exactly fit Paul Kennedy's second proposition (mainly because, I suggest, because the Cold War interpolated a temporary hump into their armaments spending) but there are some close similarities. It appears now to be increasing its armaments spending again even though it hasn't any particular enemy. (I doubt very much much whether this would decline in the future even under a Democratic president.*) America now has over 200 military bases around the world but they're to protect its various interests, not as the or the outposts of a new empire. America could easily be imperialist in the usual sense of the term. For example, it could take over large chunks of South America and/or Africa with scarcely any resistance worth speaking of if it wanted to.
But even though America is hardly taking any practical steps at establishing an administration in Iraq, it's going to sit in Iraq's oil-fields with its tanks for a long, long time however! And it's going to keep its Special Forces ringed around Saudi Arabia, and to maintain large forces in Kuwait, too. Of this I'm sure. But it doesn't want to govern them, or lord it over the natives, as imperial powers did of old -- it's merely protecting its oil supplies, that's all!
(*When Clinton came over here last autumn to address a special Labour Party convention he told the delegates that, of course, they must support Bush's policy on Iraq. He didn't say why -- just that "of course" they must support him. I was a bit surprised at the time, but since then I understand why Clinton supported Bush -- because the real reasons are seen to be vital for his country's future.)
Keith Hudson
At 11:24 25/06/2003 -0400, you wrote: (KH)
> You're quite right when one is talking of psychological denial. But here > we're talking of Bush's denial (that oil is the main reason for the > invasion of Iraq). As for the NYT and Krugman's naivete, I'm not so sure > they are really being naive even though I charged them with it in my > posting. I think it's more likely that they're pretending to be naive in > order to heap further coals of fire on Bush's head. Even though neither > party has official responsibilities, they are sufficiently intelligent to > know that if America's true purpose is openly talked about in the columns > NYT then they could partly responsible for a really nasty response by the > Moslem countries. > > Keith Hudson (EW) I'm half way through "American Empire" by Andrew Bacevich, and while I would still agree that oil is one reason, I'm no longer sure that it's the main reason. The US attacked Iraq because that is what American administrations do. They do it because they genuinely believe that theirs is the best system in the world and that everybody should convert to it for both their own good and the good of the US. They also do it because they have the power to do it.
Excuses are of course needed, and 9/11 provided the ideal excuse. All the current Bush administration had to do was link 9/11 to the Taliban and Saddam, throw in weapons of mass destruction, and proceed to change the world. That leaders told lies may matter in the UK, but it is unlikely to matter in the US. The cause is noble, and if lies are needed, so what?
Ed Weick
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
