23 January 2005 - 8:57am
Neo-Cols = Neo Colonialists
Neo-Cols
Based on 9/11, the United States invades Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 21st century word for this is "war on terrorism." The 19th century word for it was "colonialism."
Teaching history has fallen out of fashion. Boring stuff, right? A bunch of old guys and too many dates to remember, but Americans have a long and not-so-proud history of toppling the governments of smaller nations when corporate interests are concerned.
Recently a conservative pundit -- I am not sure if we are suppose to take her seriously, or if she's just a female version of Andrew Dice Clay -- suggested "what's wrong with stealing oil" and she went on to suggest oil provides jet fuel to bring cocaine to Hollywood moguls. Now there's a stretch if there ever was one!
And speaking of cocaine, the United States toppled the government of the unsavory Manuel Noriega because he was a drug lord. And the Panama Canal? Oh, "we stole it fair and square," for a second time, not less, say Neo-cons/Neo-cols with a grin.
But the comparison with 19th century Europe is not quite apt as there were many nations that vied for an empire -- Britain, France, Germany, and even Russia and Italy. Later Japan. America stepped up its expansionism when it knocked out Spain with the slogan - Remember the Maine! A United States battleship of the day blew up in Cuba. Like the weapons of mass destruction that were never found, it would appear -- like the battleship Iowa that had a turret explosion, supposedly because of a homosexual -- evidence indicates the Spanish did not cause the explosion. It appears the Maine blew up because of a mechanical defect -- like the battleship Iowa whose spare parts were no longer manufactured. We can debate that. But what is clear?
What is clear: if it is Spaniards, Arabs, or homosexuals, or Serbian nationalists (the beginning of World War One) when a nation decides to wage war on another nation (or group), the reasons do not have to pass muster.
But I said the Americans are not like 19th century colonialist. Our pedigree harks back to another, older, Republic -- Rome.
We don't study ancient history and no one learns Latin any more -- a dead language -- but look at how Rome handled their territories. The Homeland was handled by the civil government. There were dictators, called Caesars, who invaded other lands and ruled through military means and puppet governments that answered to Rome. Thus the Roman Empire had two mechanisms for governing -- the domestic machinery at home and the military machinery for lands were the laws of the Republic did not apply.
Roman moved from being a Republic to being an Empire.
Our Republic is close to the slippery slope. Where will we go?
Matsu
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Actually, the United States has long been a nation forging an empire. Puppet governments were all the rage during the long, long Cold War for both the USSR and US, and many are still in place. Overthrowing elected governments one disagrees with, covert shennanigans (sp), etc. Manifest Destiny is merely a codeword for empire-building.
i must say that Bush, et al, are seemingly bolder than any of our governments have openly been. Very Nazi-like in the way it finds reasons to invade other countries, and the use of Big Lies to justify the invasion with the folks back home.
What nation is the new #1 threat, apparently? Iran, which is ruled by a militant gang of mullas who rose to power in a popular revolution against the Shah, who was put into power via CIA-backed coup d'etat.
In grad school, I knew an Iranian woman whose family fled that revolution. She had as much reason to hate the new regime as anyone. But she told me that the biggest mistake the USA could make would be to try to topple the regime or assassinate the Ayatolla. Through her eyes, I saw an Iran that basically was middle class, generally mistrustful of the Arab world (which seemed to arise as much out of racism as nationalism), well educated and valuing quality education, and not into any sort of populist religious fundamentalist movement at all. She said the best thing would be to just leave Iran alone, and the people will deal with it.
And that's what we were seeing -- not on a rapid scale, but certainly it was happening, and the people were chafing at their government's authoritarian rule. Of course, now they're rallying to the cry of nationalism against a potential foreign invader -- the same invader that installed their previous authoritarian government.
In 2004, we saw two countries undergo "democratization." In the Ukraine, it was led by the people (with covert, non-violent help from US intelligence operatives). It was one of the most wonderful and hopeful stories of the year. In Iraq, we see our own nation trying to impose "democratization" at gunpoint, with the help of bombs, mortars and cruise missiles. Unlike the second election in Ukraine, in Iraq nobody expects the elections to be a success. Iraq is a total broken mess of anarchy now, and through actions and inaction both, it's our doing.
Now we look to changing the rest of the world, and judging by the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon's hold on foreign policy, with death squads that can operate anywhere in the world (including the USA), it looks like we still look to Iraq as the model.
Bush makes big talk about how we need to believe in our own values. But he doesn't seem to believe in them himself. If he did, we would be leading by example, instead of a militant policy of "Do as I say, not as I do."