From
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/pf/p-s081500.html

}}>Begin

The Old Cause
by Joseph R. Stromberg
Antiwar.com
August 15, 2000
Joseph Stromberg is on vacation.
We present a classic column from last year.
August 3 , 1999
Empire as a Way of Death

OVERVIEW
Pericles' Funeral Oration is widely seen as a noble statement of core Western
values. Noble, doubtless, but the rest is arguable (Western Civilization having
had a bad day or two). Pericles – the Athenian FDR? – saw the Athenian Empire
as the great defender of freedom – freedom defined, however, by the Athenian
Empire and its "defensive alliance," the Hellenic NATO aka Delian League. The
analogy goes further. Athens was democratic and imperialistic – thus refuting
Wilsonian Fallacy #1 that "democracies" are always peaceful and kindly. Like
the American globocrats and their NATO counterparts after 1989, the Athenians
asserted – in the famous dialogue with the Melians – their "right to rule"
after the overthrow of the Persians. For the Americans and NATO, the Soviets'
fall raised the question first posed by Southern comedian Brother Dave Gardner
in the early sixties, "What will the preachers do, when the Devil is saved?" We
know what George Herbert Walker Bush did: he found a lesser devil on whose
country he dropped the full weight of humane police action and peacekeeping to
the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis who never posed the slightest
threat to Kennebunkport.

THE AMERICAN EMPIRE'S FIRST CENTURY

The American Empire lurched into existence a hundred years ago with the Spanish-
American War. President William McKinley quickly learned how to sail under Two
Doctrines. The Outer Doctrine – for public consumption – was that American
intervention was uniquely philanthropic: the freedom of the poor Cubans and
good government for the Filipinos were our only goals. (Things didn't work out
that way – but never mind.)

The Inner Doctrine was a vision of prosperity through economic empire. The Open
Door Notes staked the claim. Government support for the expansion of favored
corporations into world markets became the central theme of 20th century US
foreign policy. Where foreign empires, states, or revolutions threatened this
goal, US policy makers would risk war to sustain it. In the end, whatever his
outward fuss over "freedom of the seas" and Teutonic "barbarities," Woodrow
Wilson's drive to involve Americans in the First Euro-Bloodbath had as much to
do with possible threats to the Open Door program as with his "idealism."
After Americans repudiated Wilson's war, a series of Republican Presidents
pursued the Open Door with less fanfare. It was emphatically not a period of
"isolationism" despite the moderation of those in charge. It seemed to Herbert
Hoover that the Open Door and the "territorial integrity of China" were not
worth a war. His New Deal successors fitted their policy, especially from 1937,
to threats to the Open Door while grumbling about Italian and German inroads
into Latin American markets. Once the European war broke out in September 1939,
Roosevelt worked to intervene as rapidly as possible.

US wartime military and civilian planning reveals the grand scale of the
American leadership's postwar ambitions. They thought in terms of US dominance
of the "Grand Area" – later the "Free World," and now, the "New World Order."
This planning rested on a mercantilist conception of hegemony. The self-named
"wise men" of the northeastern political and corporate Establishment were
supremely confident of their ability and right to manage the globe. After
bombing their opponents flat, they looked forward to an American Century, only
to find the Soviet Union blocking their path into very desirable markets and
resources.

The Open Door does not explain everything about the origins of the Cold War but
it was a major (even obsessive) concern of policy makers in the late 1940s.
Whether the Cold War made any sense at all, it did allow the worldwide
extension of US power. It gave an ideological and practical framework for the
growth of what can only be called an American Empire.

It also gave us dear old NATO. Debating the treaty in the aftermath of the
Berlin Blockade and the Marshall Plan, only a handful of Senators opposed that
entangling alliance. Senator Taft said that the pact "will do far more to bring
about a third world war than it will ever maintain the peace of the world."
This shows how hard it is to foretell things. Taft could not have dreamed that
NATO – having achieved its object and having, therefore, no reason to exist –
would expand its membership and attack a state which had not attacked a NATO
member any more than he could have imagined the wild ride of the Arkansas
traveler.

But much more than NATO was at issue. The Wise Men and their National Security
managers wanted colossal mobilization blurring the distinction between peace
and war. As some of them admitted in the infamous NSC-68, had there been no
Soviet Union, they would still have pursued much the same program. This
ambitious program almost ran aground on Congressional opposition to its costs
(hard to believe now).

The postconstitutional, Presidential War in Korea saved the planners' bacon. It
also continued the military practices and moral theory developed in other
conflicts. One General commented, "almost the entire Korean peninsula [is]... a
terrible mess. Everything is destroyed.... There were no more targets in
Korea." General Curtis LeMay noted, "We burned down just about every city in
North and South [!] Korea..... we killed off over a million civilian Koreans
and drove several million more from their homes." He was not being critical. I
shall pass over the "strategy" and "tactics" of the Viet Nam War.

TOTAL WAR AND POST-COLD WAR ADVENTURISM

An Empire – and by any standard there is an American Empire – which subscribes
to a doctrine of Total War ought to make everyone nervous. Somewhere along the
line from the Pequod War, Sherman's March to the Sea, the bloody so-called
"Philippine Insurrection," and the firebombing of Japan and Germany, US leaders
– civilian and military – took up the notion that it is reasonable to make war
on an Enemy's entire society. Only a few observers like C. Wright Mills and
Richard M. Weaver even questioned the doctrine during the High Cold War.
And, sadly, it all ended. For the planners and managers the Soviet collapse was
inconvenient – requiring a new ideological rationale, new enemies, and much
retargeting – if they stayed in the Empire business. I leave, unsung, the Gulf
War, with that lovely phrase about "making the rubble bounce" as well as the
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since that splendid little war
under the "humane" mechanisms of "economic warfare." I only add that this style
of warfare fails, in detail, the following useful test: Can we conceive of
Robert E. Lee using these weapons or tactics?

EMPIRE AS A WAY OF DEATH: MORAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND CULTURAL

There are many writers who worry themselves sick about "late capitalism"
(whatever that might be). It is more to the point to worry about the pattern of
late empire. Here we find an array of interlocking ideological, political, and
economic facts paralleling those of comparable periods in other civilizations.
One of these facts is irresponsible power centered in bureaucracies that aspire
to manage all aspects of human life (here Paul Gottfried's After Liberalism is
very useful). At the apex of the would-be Universal State stands the figure of
Caesar. Oswald Spengler defined "Caesarism" as "that kind of government which,
irrespective of any constitutional formulation that it may have, is in its
inward self a return to formlessness.... Real importance centered in the wholly
personal power exercised by Caesar" or his representatives.

Having allowed the American President to become an Emperor, who dares now be
surprised that an "impeached" Executive can, on his own motion, begin bombing a
state with which neither the US or NATO was "at war" in the name of human
rights and universal do-gooding? Perhaps Mr. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. needs to
take a deeper look at the imperial presidency. The sheer contempt shown for all
law – Geneva Convention, UN ephemera, NATO Treaty, and, what ought to matter,
our Constitution – shows an "arrogance of power" that would stun the present
incumbent's former employer, Senator J. William Fulbright (not to mention his
History Professor Carroll Quigley). That so few notice or complain is itself
part of the late imperial pattern. Empire, with its many "abridgments of
classical liberty" (to quote Richard Weaver) is, in its American form, not the
personalistic rule of a Great Khan, but is mediated through mega-colossal
bureaucracies, which at times can block the President. Precisely because
Presidential power is most unhampered in foreign affairs, recent Presidents
have aspired to strut upon the world stage while Rome – or at least Los Angeles
– burns.

OUTER DOCTRINE, INNER DOCTRINE, IMPERIAL DOCTRINE

In late empire, the empire itself becomes an ideological value. The Empire is
necessary, benevolent, and good. While spin-masters may still deploy
universalist rhetoric – "Doin' right ain't got no end," empire is increasingly
its own justification. It comes to seem unreasonable that there should be there
more than one power in the world. This is the classical imperial doctrine. Some
writers refer to this pattern as "Asiatic" – a formula that leaves out several
important cases.

Where two empires exist, each calls the other "evil" and asserts its claim to
sole universal rule, as in the "Cold War" propaganda duel between Justinian and
Chosroes (as recounted by George of Pisidias). The full imperial claim, which
arises with late empire, entails the following, as summarized by BYU Historian
Hugh Nibley: "(1) the monarch rules over all men; (2) it is God who has ordered
him to do so and.... even the proudest claims to be the humble instrument of
heaven; (3) it is thus his sacred duty and mission in the world to extend his
dominion over the whole earth, and all his wars are holy wars; and (4) to
resist him is a crime and sacrilege deserving no other fate than
extermination." Clearly, there is room only for one such Benefactor and all
others should get out of Dodge. Except for the references to God, this outlook
undergirds "the act you've known for all these years" and the propaganda
pronouncements of this latest frontier war. The "lateness" of our imperial
period is suggested by how little attention the public pays to these exercises.

They are now normal, even if few acknowledge that there is an American Empire.
And yet, as Garet Garrett wrote in 1954, "The idea of imposing universal peace
on the world by force is a barbarian fantasy" and the mental state of a
realized empire is "a complex of fear and vaunting."

The late "war," "police action," whatever, provides many examples of the
imperial hubris. Thus we witnessed the usual demonization of the Enemy Leader
and, then, the Enemy People. The mindless reflex that demands "Unconditional
Surrender" soon kicked in. Towards the end (of this phase, anyway) Sandy Berger
drew up Skinner Boxes for the Serbs, who would be rewarded with less bombing as
they withdrew from square A into B and so on. Bombing after an "agreement"
damned sure isn't traditional diplomacy – and it may not even be good
behaviorism. But, then, Empire means never having to say you're sorry. Or
wrong. But "mistakes" happen.

DOCTRINES, IDEOLOGY, AND PRACTICE

During the splendid little Serbo-American War, imperial spokesmen fielded the
old Outer Doctrine of Doing Right alongside the new Imperial Style of just
issuing orders whose justice is implicit. (Perhaps this is the real "End of
History.") The warmakers' practices simply improved on their old ones: hence
the new focused terror bombing in which civilian deaths are all "accidental,"
"unintended," "collateral," etc., and the Wise Guys' Lessons of Viet Nam: no
real press coverage, no casualties, no answering back from Congress, etc.
The ideological babble was deafening, as the sixties "Civilian Militarists"
gave way to the young Social Militarists. (What are armed forces for? mused
Secretary Albright.) It is beyond belief that these uninformed, half-educated
eternal youths, helped out by a few leftover ghouls from the Cold War, wish to
tell the world how to live. (Already in 1946, Felix Morley called the US "the
world's greatest moralizer on the subject of the conduct of other
governments.") After the high-tech smashing of Serbia, the US elite's little
sermons about "weapons of mass destruction" (and ordinary guns owned by those
terrible rednecks) ring a bit more hollow.

Just as World War I was the War of Austrian Succession and World War II the War
of British Succession, this "war" be seen as the War of Soviet Succession (or
part of it). This brings us back – like the Freudian return of the repressed –
to our old friend the Inner Doctrine: Open Door Empire. As Jude Wanniski points
out, NATO's American-run Drang nach Osten has something to do with grabbing
political-economic control of all the former Soviet assets in Western Asia. Oil
is sometimes mentioned. The old dream of American mercantilist world-
overlordship – now misleadingly discussed as "globalization": a mysterious
force rising spontaneously out of equally mysterious "late capitalism" – is
back. This is why the sober political-economic elites can tolerate the actions
of the hippie-bombers. Uncooperative minor states like Serbia that refuse their
assigned role must be swept aside. Their actual deeds are beside the point (and
similar deeds by others, who do take their orders, go quite unpunished). One
wonders if the overgrown, eternally innocent Boy Scouts who are spreading the
NATOnic Plague have any idea how dangerous major historical transitions can
get? Do they think about World War III? Probably not. Do they think it's clever
to poke the wounded but irritable Russian Bear with a stick? Do they yearn for
a rerun of the Crimean War? Do they think at all? Who knows? After all, they
don't have to think – and that, too, is part of the syndrome of Late Empire.

Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's out-of-
print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right:
Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086



End<{{
A<>E<>R

Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational
tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the
State among its hapless subjects.  His task is to demonstrate
repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the
"democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist
by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse
of objective necessity.  He strives to show that the existence of
taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between
the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled.  He seeks to show that
the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State
has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to
accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a
share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded
subjects.
[[For a New Liberty:  The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard,
Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]]

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to