American Imperialism, Part I

When we give something a name, it is a common error to think we understand it. But we often don’t understand. Even worse, it is possible to misname things and build a false set of understandings leading to disaster. For example, the outgoing president has attempted to build democratic institutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along with this, Islam has been called “a religion of peace.”

When politicians are allowed to mislabel things, to attribute false capabilities or attributes, to apply solutions for insoluble problems, then you know that something wretched is in the works. But have we given that wretched thing the right name? Is the attempt to build Muslim democracies a case of “imperialism”?

I am looking at my grandfather’s 1943 Webster’s New International Dictionary for the definition of imperialism. Here is what I find: “(1) The power or government of an emperor; imperial authority or system. (2) The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion or empire of a nation….”

The official position of the United States in its “war against terror” is not imperialist. It is something worse. In fact, we need a new word to describe it – and a new set of understandings to see our way out of it. If you read President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, you will discover its foundation. According to President Bush, “We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

The president’s statement is logically correct, but strategically nonsensical. While the “expansion of freedom” is desirable for America, it is prohibitively costly and beyond our capabilities. It antagonizes every despot on the planet, and causes them to join with our enemies. In the Middle East, Bush’s policy of spreading democracy has a destabilizing effect. It promises nothing less than revolutions and civil wars. This, in turn, could disrupt oil supplies – promising ruin to the developed world. If the West suffers economic collapse due to chaos in the Persian Gulf, democracy may not survive anywhere. In that event, the attempt to spread democracy could actually destroy democracy.

As to whether Bush’s policy signifies “imperialism,” it clearly does not fit the definition – though it comes very close. Bush is not advocating “the extension of control, dominion or empire….” He is advocating the extension of popular control through “democratic” institutions. In accomplishing this “popular control” the use of American ground forces becomes necessary in order to suppress non-democratic elements. Now that this is supposedly accomplished in Iraq, the American forces are set to leave. Once again, this is not imperialism. In fact, it is liberalism run amok.

The Nazis were imperialists, and openly advocated “the extension of control, dominion or empire” for the German people. It is useful, in our analysis, to compare President Bush’s policy to Nazi policy. Seeing the differences, we can better understand President Bush’s position. The Nazis misnamed many things, creating a false interpretive system as the foundation of their bloodlettings and conquests. They did not advocate democracy, but the “Fuhrer Principle.” An imaginary enemy and scapegoat was their forte. Hitler saw Germany beset by “Jewish” capitalists on one side and “Jewish” Bolsheviks on the other. The Nazis said history was a struggle for survival and dominance between culture-creating and culture-destroying races. The Nazis, curiously enough, saw themselves as culture-creators; the Jews were defined as culture-destroyers. The Germans were the “master race” while the Jews had allegedly infected mankind with “slave religion” – the inversion of nature’s order. In Nazi thinking, words like “might” and “right” became interchangeable; the word “race” assumed primacy; the word “culture” justified war; the actor, Hitler, impersonated greatness and seduced a nation. After thirteen years of Nazi government in Germany, Central Europe was in rubble and 55 million people were dead.

Now let us consider the “imperialism” of George W. Bush.

“History always repeats itself twice,” wrote Karl Marx. “The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” When the Left compares Bush to Hitler, we ought to make use of Marx’s formula – turning it back on itself. A farce is a comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations. When President Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the world did not mobilize against him. There was no Battle of Stalingrad, no holocaust, no raving Fuhrer in an isolated bunker, and no “bomb plot” by disgruntled military officers. Instead, Bush ended his campaign with a press conference at which shoes were hurtled at his head by an “Iraqi journalist,” who shouted to the president: “This is farewell … you dog!” With youthful agility the president ducked both projectiles and smiled into the camera: “That was a size ten shoe he threw at me, you may want to know.” Bush later described the encounter as proof of victory. In a democracy, he explained, people wave at you without showing all their fingers. So Bush claimed victory, saying: “We made good progress.” And America’s enemies are repressing giggles.

Like Hitler’s blitzkrieg, George W. Bush’s blitzkrieg initially appeared unstoppable, victorious, sweeping all before it; but like Hitler, he overextended, became bogged down, found himself at odds with his generals, issuing a “no retreat” order in the face of collapsing morale. While Hitler filled the concentration camps and exterminated “undesirables” in conquered territory, Bush was determined to fill voting booths and elect the undesirables.

When the Gestapo captured insurgents, they were brutally tortured; when the Americans captured insurgents, they were forced to wear women’s underwear. Hitler attacked the Russians because of their treachery. Bush invited his treacherous Russian “partner” to a barbecue at his dad’s house. Facing the end, Hitler married an actress and promptly shot himself. George W. Bush, on the other hand, shook hands with his African-American successor and smiled at the prospect of retirement.

Here is the face of American imperialism as it ducks an incoming size ten shoe: “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation,” Bush said in his Second Inaugural: “The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.”

This was not a call for the “master race” to conquer the world. In fact, America’s enemies had reason to smile. Some of them probably laughed. “Iraq is lost, Iran won it,” noted former CIA operative Robert Baer. Because of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Iran will be the dominant power in the region. In Baer’s latest book, The Devil We Know, Bush’s invasion is described as a self-inflicted defeat. This is not imperialism. It is a case of misapplied philanthropy that promises to undo the philanthropist. “For eight years,” wrote Baer, “Iran tried, and failed, to defeat Iraq. Then, in the span of just over two weeks between March 20 and April 9, 2003 … [America] obliterated the Iraqi army, unintentionally handing Iran a victory it could never have achieved on its own. The United States was the instrument of its own defeat in the Middle East. By decimating Iraq’s army, we opened the door for Iran to annex Iraq and its oil through proxies – a process that is well under way.”

America is no Third Reich. Though its military knows the technique of blitzkrieg, the politicians don’t know what to do with the resulting “victory.” The American people are not an imperialist people. They do not particularly like foreign adventures, or telling other people what to do. The “war on terror,” therefore, tends toward farce. It is not imperialism, but misguided philanthropy in which many people are killed and America’s enemies gain the advantage.

Next week I will discuss the fallout of Bush’s “imperialist” policy in northeast Asia.

About the Author

jrnyquist [at] aol [dot] com ()
randomness