|
I'm in blue, below.
Ed > America has been virulently anti-imperialist ever since its earliest
years.
> It was reluctant to get into WWI, and just as reluctant to be involved in > WWII, and might never have done so until Pearl Harbour happened. At the > Bretton Wood monetary talks, America tried to strip Britain bare of its > foreign possessions by withholding support for Keyne's proposals. America > is the most insular and parochial of all the countries in the world > (probably because until recently it has been one of the most > self-sufficient). Only 9% of Americans have foreign visas; even more > incredibly so have only 12% of its Senators! Bush has only been out of the > country twice! This sort of mind-set doesn't make for imperialism. (In > contrast, I'd lay a bet that every single one of our 600-odd MPs have been > to America at least once and at least half-a-dozen more foreign countries.) Not sure I would agree that
America has been all that insular. Historically, it has been very active
in regions that it considers its own sphere of interest, most notably the
Carribean and Central America. And one mustn't forget its involvement in
Korea, Vietnam and Somalia. It's been more a case of not wanting to get
into "someone else's fight" until there is clear evidence that its interests are
at stake.
> 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. I read "Preparing for the 21st
Century" some years ago and have read parts of "...Great Powers".
Bacevich, as I read him, is not being a theoretical historian. What he has
attempted to do is catalogue American behaviour and explore why and how it broke
out of its insularity to become the dominant global power. Whether it has
reached an apex is a moot point. The seeds of decline are certainly there
in the administration's domestic policies, and the US had better be
careful. Decline is also relative to something else rising. At this
stage of history, this would not seem to be another nation state (though perhaps
Europe) but an increasing ground level resistance to its foreign adventures
(terror, militants killing US soldiers).
> > 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. According to Bacevich, what the US
has attempted to do is make its military so diversified and so technologically
superior that it can accomplish anything far better than any other power.
To a considerable degree, it has succeeded in this, though it still has problems
with guys taking pot shots at its soldiers. It has also tried to make its
military more efficient. Here, because of inter-service rivalries, it has
not succeeded. The army and the marines duplicate each other. Each
service has its air arm. Etc.
> 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! Here I disagree. Bacevich
quite persuasively makes the case that Americans see their way of life and their
way of doing things is the best thing that ever happened to the world.
Yes, they want their oil supplies and the hegemony this brings, but they also
want the world, including the Iraqis and everyone else in the Middle East, to
become globalized, peace loving mutations of themselves. Why people are to
stubborn to accept this is a source of genuine puzzlement to
them.
> > (*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.) Americans don't have to say
why. It simply follows that if it's American, it's the best thing there
is.
Ed
> > 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 > |
