blatham wrote:finn
it is not a republican or democrat matter, as you say. it is an imperial matter.
And we return to the issue of American Imperialism.
Before I venture back into that one, I would like to point out that you, who seems to believe that America is engaged in a street fight for its soul, are in for a rude awakening if and when John Kerry is elected president. I have absolutely no doubt that his Middle East policy will (when it comes to the need for preserving America's access to ME oil, even through military force if necessary) bear a remarkable resemblance to that of every other US president (including GW Bush) since oil became the life blood of the American economy.
He has often spoken of developing alternative energy sources (although less, it seems, since he's become a presidential candidate) to rid us of our strategic dependence on ME oil, and on this I agree with him. However, as a US Senator he did precious little to advance legislature that might promote the notion he espoused. As to why this is so:
1) Kerry's record in the Senate is one of higher profile policy pronouncements and committee involvement rather than actual legislation
2) Perhaps he has never actually had the stomach to face off America's oil interests.
In any case, it is by no means certain that having been elected President, he will raise and or divert tax dollars to a federally sponsored effort to develop alternative energy sources. Populist candidates have no problem promising the voting populace the Sun and the Moon during their campaigns, but once they take office they find that raising taxes lowers popularity and diverting taxes alienates constituencies.
Back to
imperialism. I appreciate that you are of the opinion that the definition of imperialism in the 21st century needs to be redefined. We disagree here. Your notion would be much stronger if the actual definition was, effectively, obsolete. The end of the Soviet Empire (for that is precisely what it was) did not signal an end to imperialism of the traditional mode. Given the opportunity, I think the current Chinese government would not shy away from actually seizing foreign territories for incorporation into the greater state of China. And while their capabilities are in doubt, I believe that the radical Islamists causing so much trouble in the 21st Century have goals of a traditional empire.
Since an actual empire is only a few decades behind us, and there is no reason to believe that future empires have been, fundamentally, rendered obsolete, the existing definition of Imperialism remains quite extant.
Moreover, since the term Imperialism carries such contemporary cultural baggage that is directly derivative of it's traditional definition it is either a mistake or a cynical effort to redefine it so that it may be applied to the foreign policies of the current global super powers.
Finally, despite its admitted flaws, The United States in exercising it considerable power of the 75 years or so has repeatedly evidenced the intent to forgo the traditionally defined practices of Imperialism, and having had the opportunity to establish a traditional Empire, has deliberately not done so. Therefore it is erroneous and/or disingenuous to attempt to redefine Imperialism to fit the policies of a nation that has rejected that course.
[quote="blatham"Your protest re the Eisenhower quote is not credible, as the US clearly has supported very repressive and non-democratic regimes in the middle east (Sadaam, Saudi Arabia, etc) and elsewhere when such support seemed emollient to American interests.[/quote]
Point well taken.
I admit that I sometimes want to clothe America in shining armor while still arguing the virtues of real politik. Actually I am far less convinced of the virtues of real politik than the (flawed) brilliance of America.
However, this does give rise to the dilemma of GW Bush and his opponents who are also opponents of real politik. While the highly publicized justifications for invading Iraq have proven to be dubious, the core of what has happened is that the US has overthrown a "very repressive and non-democratic regime," and is working very hard on establishing a democratic government in its place. That the effort was made with American interests foremost in mind is undeniable, however should the effort prove successful over the longer term the interests of ordinary Iraqis will have been very well served too.
This is far more the essence of neo-con policy than the imperialistic world dominance that opponents shrilly decry.
It does seem, to me, to be an unrecognized or unacknowledged dilemma for the foes of real politik that the administration has not applied it in dealing with Iraq.
At the same time it is a dilemma for neo-con supporters of Bush to reconcile this administration's real politic relationship with Saudi Arabia. I don't think any neo-con is about to argue for an invasion of Saudi Arabia, but we would like to see more evidence of a toughened position than has been forthcoming.
Kennan was correct though that we cannot allow day dreams and sentimentality to drive foreign policy. Some level of real politik is necessary, on at least a temporary basis, or we will find ourselves invading every bad guy nation in the world, or simple retreating within our borders.
blatham wrote:But such a self-concerned policy, however pragmatic, will inevitably create enemies (as contrasted with revealing enemies) who are ill-used as a consequence. This is the truth to the statements that the US was itself complicit in 9-11. And unfortunately, precisely that is occuring again with Iraq, and in spades.
Unfortunately the statements that the US was itself complicit in 9/11 are not, by any means, limited, in context, to the unintended consequences of real politik, and even when they are, too often carry the repulsive odor of schadenfreude.
In any case, holding the US complicit in 9/11 by reason of real politik is akin to holding a woman complicit in her rape by reason of her short skirts and promiscuous nature.
