The Richard Dreyfuss article linked above offers the best analysis of the thirty-year neoconservative plan to take over the Middle East. If you are looking for the historical background on the current US wars of conquest, this 2003 Mother Jones story is the best place to start.
After that check out THIS ARTICLE from Project Censored which covers "The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance". It specifically references a classified 1989 document called "Defense Planning Guidance" authored by Dick Cheney, Colin Powel and Paul Wolfowitz after the fall of the Soviet Union.
From the Project Censored article:
"The Plan called for the United States to maintain and grow in military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge us on the world stage. Using words like 'preemptive' and military 'forward presence,’ the plan called for the U.S. to be dominant over friends and foes alike. It concluded with the assertion that the U.S. can best attain this position by making itself 'absolutely powerful.' "
Of course, a good scholar like Paul will dismiss these articles as leftist propaganda. Therefore, we should examine primary neoconservative sources like the infamous Rebuilding America's Defenses published in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century. This neoconservative think tank is chaired by William Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard (not former Oscar host Billy Crystal). This Guardian article from 2003, appropriately titled "Out of Their Own Mouths" covers the highlights, if you don't want to sift through the actual white paper.
For SixStringSlinger, that right-wing champion who detests the "No Blood for Oil" cries of the left, we have another slightly dubious source, The U.S. House of Representatives. Posted on their website is a page titled "Iraqi Oil Will Pay For This" which includes quotes from administration officials that reveal their double-talk and outright lies about the estimated cost of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Former Undersecretary of Defense and now World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as saying, "...the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years..."
It is ludicrous to say that neocons only want to spread democracy to the Middle East. In their own words they call for an expansion of the US empire, and their aim is to acheive that through military dominance of the Middle East and its oil fields. So it seems the difference between the right-wing and left-wing perspectives of neoconservative statements on this blog at least is that our right-wingers believe what they are told to believe, and our left-wingers listen to and believe what the neocons actually say!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Nadir: We've had this discussion a thousand times. You insist on refering to the US as an "empire", and your entire thesis here pivots on the presumption of the US qualifying as an empire. I assume that you must know the definition of an empire, and thus where we must disagree is on the topic of the true sovernty of other nations, like Iraq and Afgahnistan, which you believe under absolute control of the US government. I heartily disagree. Also, in all of the documents that you have posted, in none of them to the neocon advocates call for the US government to hold control over the affairs of other nations. Instead they call for confronting hostile dictatorships by expelling those governments and facilitating the remaining residents in establishing their own autominous democracies.
Nadir: How do you find anything sinister or "empir-istic" in the original plan for Iraq's oil to pay for its post-war reconstruction, including the erection there of a government "for and by the people" with universal personal liberties codified in a central document? I see nothing in such a policy that denotes empire, or anything negative at all.
"A political unit that has overwhelming superiority in military power, and uses that power to influence the internal behaviour of other states, is called an empire. Because the United States does not seek to control territory or govern the overseas citizens of the empire, we are an indirect empire, to be sure, but an empire nonetheless."
OK, so you got me. You got here a neocon using his own incorrect, invented definition of empire, embracing it, and declaring the US to be an empire. But his incorrect definition of empire differs from your view of the US. The dictionary defines an empire as a nation (not merely any old "political entity") that exerts absolute control over external territories. Here this neocon author in his definition has an empire merely "influencing" other nations, and doing so only so has to prevent that nation from acting aggressively against the US.
The breathless article at globalplicy.org to which you refer us breathlessly (AND WITH ALL CAPS!) emphasizes such un-sinister goals as MAINTAINING MILITARY SUPERIORITY! Would you prefer that the your own nation not have MILITARY SUPERIORITY? I suppose you wouldn't, since you view your nation as the greatest source of misery and evil on earth, and perhaps the history of the world. But for those of us who believe that the US sets contemporary and historical standards of civilization, we believe that military supremacy vouchesafes those advancements (and enables them to procede). Without military superiority resting in the hands of such a nation, such advancements are at risk.
Do you want your house to have THE BEST SECURITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I dare say that you would, unless you believe that your house comprises unfettered misery and injustice.
The article I think is rediculous. This evil neocon, despite his invented and incorrect definition of "empire", merely advocates maintaining US superiority so as to preserve America, and to keep people around the world from killing each other senslessly. How can you read these primary documents and then summarize them with BOLD FACE ANXIETIES? Would the author rather that Iran or North Korea have MILITARY SUPERIORITY? Would you?
I can't find anything in these documents about controlling the elections of other nations, or robbing their natural resources.
Have you done your part Nadir and sold that gas-guzzling SUV of yours yet?
Did your drive to Chicago for the WCW smackdown?
I wonder how much gas you used on that trip?
Just curious.
Gas in Indiana costs less than it does in Michigan, by the way. I was surprised at that.
My Japanese mini-SUV (Toyota Rav-4) gets an astounding 31 miles per gallon on the highway. And it has enough room for my gear.
We have had the dicussion of empire a thousand times, and you guys, unlike neoconservatives and other right-wingers around the world refuse to acknowledge the existance of the concept "neocolonialism".
From Wikipedia (which is just as accurate as Britanica):
"Neocolonialism is a term used to describe certain economic operations at the international level which have alleged similarities to the traditional colonialism of the 16th to the 19th centuries. The contention is that governments have aimed to control other nations through indirect means; that in lieu of direct military-political control, neocolonialist powers employ economic, financial and trade policies to dominate less powerful countries. Those who subscribe to the concept maintain this amounts to a de facto control over targeted nations (see Immanuel Wallerstein's Dependency theory)."
But America's neocolonial exercises of the last 5 years have bordered on traditional colonialism wherein the US invades and occupies sovereign nations then sets up military bases and protectorates. They place puppet governments into power and tell the world the US military will then leave, when in fact, they have no desire to withdraw their military forces.
So the puppet civilian governments are the apparent policymakers while the US military (and Washington) is the de facto ruler of the nation. If you don't believe this is true, you should examine information about the Colation Provisional Authority which controlled Iraq long enough to insure the type of government "they" wanted to install in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/igc.htm
The people who drafted the Iraqi constitution were essentially hand-picked by Washington.
" I can't find anything in these documents about controlling the elections of other nations, or robbing their natural resources."
I've addressed the controlling the elections of other nations...
Why was the first priority of the US invasion to secure the Iraqi oil fields?
Why is the president of Afghanistan a former UnoCal exec? It has been argued that one of the primary reasons for the US invasion of Afghanistan (probably cooked up during the Clinton administration, but at least as early as June of 2001) was to allow the completion of a natural gas pipeline through that country. This is only part of the reason, as the military position is more compelling.
I suppose these are "coincidences"...
"Do you want your house to have THE BEST SECURITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I dare say that you would, unless you believe that your house comprises unfettered misery and injustice."
I don't necessarily need the best security in the neighborhood. I simply need adequate security to maintain my peace of mind and not have someone jack my shit.
I'm not going to go into my next door neighbor's house and kill the two women who live there because they "look like" they are plotting to get me. I have no proof. What do I have to gain from killing those women? Nothing.
Your belief in the need for US military superiority puts you squarely in bed with the hawkish neocons. My advice to you is to bring my cousin back from the Middle East and you take his place.
He just wants the Air Force to help pay his way through college. He is about halfway through, but now has to leave his studies to go fight YOUR motherfucking war! You fucking go fight yourself and let my family just try to make a living.
If you rich assholes want to dominate the world, send your own children into battle. Don't send my poor relatives.
Tell your daughter to fucking go claim your military superiority. My cousin is actually doing well in school, taking one class per semester because he can't afford any more than that and has to leave for extended periods to fight your war. By your own estimation, your daughter doesn't even act like she wants to be there.
You neocon assholes really piss me off.
And for the last time,
I don't hate this country. I just hate the motherfuckers who have been in charge for the past 230 years.
Nadir: Your cousin does sound more dilligent and college-worthy than my eldest daughter. As for who to send to a war, I do support the Cafe Heyak economists who call for the volunteer military to ammend its rules to permit its employees to quite, just like the Halliburton employees, or employees in Iraq of security firms who fight just like the US military forces.
But I reject your call for people who support this war to send their own children. This is preposterous. The military can only take adults, and unless you want a draft, the adults are volunteers.
You don't still believe the notion that "poor" kids fight the wars, do you? Disproportionately, enlistees serving in combat capacity have higher economic charactorizations than those serving support roles; generally, the poorer the enlistee, the more likely he or she is to choose support roles. This is even true of black enlistees; a higher proportion of them serve in support roles, while a higher fraction of whites choose combat duty. In other words, the breathless claims of Charlie Rangel represented unexamined declarations that are falsified by the facts.
If your cousin is so determined to avoid combat, why did he elect to pay for college by enlisting in the military? Most students who work their way through college do so without joining the military. The military certainly provides more money for this than the route I took (waiting tables), but this is for a reason: you place yourself at risk for combat.
Nadir: One of the most proposterous conspiracy reasons given by the peacenicks for invading Afgahnistan is that gas pipe. Simple economic agreements would mutually benefit all concerned parties in constructing that pipe. Is there any indication that the extremely poor taliban govt was refusing to accept profits from such a pipeline?
Nadir: The evil motherfuckers that have been running this country for 230 years by comparassion to the motherfuckers running all the other countries on this earth have, on balance, done an amazing job.
I would rate ending slavery and racial descrimination up there as one of humanity's greatest achievements, and for the most part that occured here under the management of these evil motherfuckers. The US ended slavery decades before most black-run African countries (and over some of their objections!); this is true also of formal racial descrimination. I believe that the ironically named Liberia ended slavery (descendants of American slaves enslaving non-descendants) only in the 1930s, and racial descrimination (along those same lines) only in the 1960s. Sudan still practices black-on-black slavery and racial descrimination.
No wonder so many black Africans immigrate here, and nearly no black Americans emmigrate away.
Then of course there are such things as indoor plumbing, paved roads, perminent dwellings, and other life-saving comforts that have spread to nearly 100% of the people living in the US, under the management of those evil motherfuckers running this country. They are evil motherfuckers indeed... except when compared to all the other motherfuckers running other countries.
=====Nadir
Why was the first priority of the US invasion to secure the Iraqi oil fields?
=========
For the same reason that it was a top priority of the tyrants to destroy them. Any military handbook wold dictate that invaders secure a taken territory's most valuable resources.
Post a Comment