This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
A LESSON FROM HISTORY
Published on January 11, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In History
It has become fashionable to call the USA an empire. Whatever the term may mean to radicals and conservatives the fact remains the both groups do not see the present international overreach of the USA as imperial. I have some trouble accepting such generalities because they obcure certain hard ground realities. A better mway of phrasing the question would be: Does the USA have the stamina to be an imperial hegemon of the 21st century. With the war in IRAQ going nowhere and no exit strategy in sight, the daily body count increasing to catatrophic levels and the public acceptance level of Bush and his Bushmen decling by the day, a look at the history of the USA is in order. Consider the following points made by Niall [pronounced Niel] Ferguson in his Colossus:The Rise and Fall of the American Empire:

Impressive military success
A flawed assessment of local sentiment
strategy of limited war and gradual escalation of forces
domestic turmoil over the unpopular and nasty war
premature political settlement
declare victory and withdaw

Sounds familiar. No we are not speaking of the Vietnam War. Afterall that war has still searing scars left to heal. We are referring to a much older war, one that is barely remembered.

In 1898 American forces won a striking victory over Spain.The pretext for the war, like the WMD in the case of Iraq, was the accidental explosion in the battleship Maine. How could Spain be responsible for the explosion, is any body's guess. Mckinley, the then President spoke in words that would credit Bush and the Bushmen:

I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight..
..I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance
..and light came..(1) We could not give them back to Spain(2) That we could not
turn them over to France or Germany our commercial rivals in the orient (3) They are unfit to govern
themselves(%) There is nothing left to sdo but educate, civilise and Christianize the Fillipinos...

Thus the evangelical rhetoric of Bush II has precedents in US history.

The fact that the USA completely underestimated the Resistance led by Emilio Aguinaldo. The War to "pacify" Phillipines was a costlt war and American tactics in the Phillipines bears recall of what is happening in Iraq; Read what the General officer Commanding of the US Forces in the Phillipines, General Jacob Smith ordered his men:

"I wish you kill and burn the more you kill and the more you burn the better you will please me... I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms. Max Boot The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, New York 2002. pp.120.

The point is that the rhetoric of freedom, civilization and democracy is only a smokescreen for what was an aggressive war based on perceived self interest. The Iraq war is no different."

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 11, 2006
Does the USA have the stamina to be an imperial hegemon of the 21st century. With the war in IRAQ going nowhere and no exit strategy in sight, the daily body count increasing to catatrophic levels and the public acceptance level of Bush and his Bushmen decling by the day,

Except Iraq is far from going "nowhere" (unless you consider the last year to never have happened), no war has EVER been fought with the current demands of an "exit strategy" (so the argument is little more than rhetorical crap), and Prs. Bush's numbers are actually on the rise (although I still say that the numbers are meaningless since Prs. Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election).

As far as your point about "evangelical rhetoric", you could say the same for almost all of the Founding Fathers and all of the Founding Documents.

Face it, our nation is one of people with a deep faith in the god of their choice. To deny that is to deny reality and come off sounding rediculous. When most of the people of this country believe in some form of diety, and out of those who believe, Christianity is the most prevalent, why on earth would it surprise anyone that the presidents have relied heavily on their faith?

Is your article about war, religious faith of our presidents, or are you just trying to show that faith leads to war?
on Jan 11, 2006

The pretext for the war, like the WMD in the case of Iraq, was the accidental explosion in the battleship Maine.


I wonder what would have happened, had one of the WMD accidentally exploded.

But I'd also not call democracy in Iraq "going nowhere". We have stopped the butcher of Baghdad, saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and created a pro-American and pro-British border state to Iran. That's hardly "going nowhere".
on Jan 11, 2006
~~~~"I wish you kill and burn the more you kill and the more you burn the better you will please me... I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms. Max Boot The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, New York 2002. pp.120.~~~~----Bahu

Yes, and in that war as well, General Pershing ordered all Moslem dead to be buried slathered in pig's blood and pieces of pork. The number of attacks diminished almost at once. Maybe we need to do that in Iraq, huh?

The Phillipines were pacified. They belonged to us until Japan took them for a few years, then we took them back. By overwhelming force.

Pick a war we lost, Bahu.....oh yeah.....THERE ISN'T ONE!
on Jan 11, 2006
Of course we're ready for a long war. It's like a sport and besides it's not like we have anything else to do anyway.

In case you are too ignorant to notice it, the above is what is commonly known as sarcasm.

This is such a pile of shit it isn't worth serious thought.
on Jan 12, 2006
Pick a war we lost, Bahu.....oh yeah.....THERE ISN'T ONE!

Name that film:
You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Winners?
Yeah. Winners.
Winners like... North Vietnam?
Shut up! We did not lose Vietnam! It was a tie!
on Jan 12, 2006
Name that film:
You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Winners?
Yeah. Winners.
Winners like... North Vietnam?
Shut up! We did not lose Vietnam! It was a tie!
---singrdave


Hmmmm.....from our previous interaction, can I assume it to be an 80s film? Not a clue.

For the record, though.....technically, we didn't "lose" in Vietnam. The body count on their side, by their own admission, was many times higher than our own. Also, we won in every head-on, pitched battle we were engaged in with them. It was all just so badly mismanaged from the top down that we never had a real chance, and kind of gave it away.


Name this film:

"...they're all good kids, until dried-up, burnt-out old scags like you get your hands on them and convince them they're not! Now, here's a quarter; I want you to go downtown and find a rat to gnaw thing off your face! Good day to you, madam."

A personal favorite of mine.
on Jan 17, 2006

Pick a war we lost, Bahu.....oh yeah.....THERE ISN'T ONE!
- Rightwinger

Might makes right, and the U.S. never makes a mistake.

Of course we're ready for a long war.
- MasonM

Of course, that's the reason Pres. Bush handling of the war has seen such dramatic poll improval since the beginning of the war. Hell, the guy is at, like, 99% by now, right?

Not all of us are ready for a 'long war'. I would think the first people in that group would be the families and friends of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

When the war was sold on the American public, the cost or the duration of the war was never fully disclosed or made fully apparent. You know how it is to sign on an open-ended agreement? That's what's happened with the American public. The cost keeps coming and coming - the benefits are nowhere in sight. Some have changed their mind regarding the wisdom of invading Iraq, their numbers keep growing as more information becomes readily apparent to them. Others, are in for the 'long haul' whenever that unspoken holy grail of success is presented to them (which never will be).
on Jan 17, 2006
"...they're all good kids, until dried-up, burnt-out old scags like you get your hands on them and convince them they're not! Now, here's a quarter; I want you to go downtown and find a rat to gnaw thing off your face! Good day to you, madam."


Uncle Buck

Sorry, sorry, sorry, I know that was for singrdave, but I love that movie and I couldn't resist.
on Jan 18, 2006
Name that film:
You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Winners?
Yeah. Winners.
Winners like... North Vietnam?
Shut up! We did not lose Vietnam! It was a tie!

A Fish Called Wanda

"...they're all good kids, until dried-up, burnt-out old scags like you get your hands on them and convince them they're not! Now, here's a quarter; I want you to go downtown and find a rat to gnaw thing off your face! Good day to you, madam."

Uncle Buck
Sorry, sorry, sorry, I know that was for singrdave, but I love that movie and I couldn't resist.

That's okay, Tex. I wouldn't have known it off hand, but now I remember the scene... with the Melanoma woman at the principal's office.
on Jan 18, 2006
Might makes right, and the U.S. never makes a mistake
---Deference

That wasn't my point and you know it.
Although, I must say that US might has made a lot of right in the last 100 years. This would be an awfully different world without it.

Tex: No problem, UB is one of my all-time favorites, too.
on Jan 18, 2006
That wasn't my point and you know it - Rightwinger

No, actually I don't know what your point was unless it was even more highly detrimental to an argument for the Iraq war.

I try to work with a threshold, here...

Seriously, what was your point I missed in regards to the quote in question?
on Jan 19, 2006
Yes, and in that war as well, General Pershing ordered all Moslem dead to be buried slathered in pig's blood and pieces of pork.


As far as I know, Gen Pershing faught only in Mexico and not the Phillipines.
on Jan 19, 2006
Deference, unless Bahu has done a complete 180 on his usual tack, there is no argument FOR the Iraq war from him.
I merely stated that he should pick a war we'd lost, if he'd wanted to make his point in our exchange, but sorry....there isn't one.
Vietnam, you say? Did we lose that one? Depends on who you ask. Their body counts were always higher than ours, we never lost a face-to-face, pitched battle with them. Also, they made no significant territorial gains for 14 long, bloody years.
We kept the Commies at bay until 1973, of course, when we started pulling out; then they made great strides.
Even with our reduced presence, though, it still took them two years to conquer a country about the size of Vermont. Did we lose Vietnam? No....we gave it away; almost from the start, you could say.
And one thing that didn't help was the divisiveness at home.
on Jan 19, 2006
As far as I know, Gen Pershing faught only in Mexico and not the Phillipines.
---Bahu

I'm pretty sure it was Pershing; I could be wrong. In any case, a general did order that done, I know that.
on Jan 20, 2006
We kept the Commies at bay until 1973, of course, when we started pulling out; then they made great strides. Even with our reduced presence, though, it still took them two years to conquer a country about the size of Vermont. Did we lose Vietnam? No....we gave it away; almost from the start, you could say. And one thing that didn't help was the divisiveness at home.


One should be realistic. Viernam was a defeat in more ways than one. It may have been a self inflicted defeat. "fighting with one arm tird" as they said but even so a defeat. Of course, the Vietnamese lost more men but victory and defeat are not settled lke base ball matches on the basis of a bidy count score card. Rather they are assessed on the basis of the objectives for which the power went to war in the first place. Aferall war is only politics by different means.
2 Pages1 2