The first presidential candidate who credibly promises to grant them their wish will go far. --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGDwvAbx_fg
On Jul 6, 9:30 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Against ‘Nation-Building’And empire-buildingbyJustin Raimondo, July 06, 2011 > Americans aresick and tiredof perpetual war: even that champion evader, > Barack Obama, had to acknowledge that in his recent Afghanistanspeech, in > which he said it’s time to start nation-building right here at home. Of > course, he’ll say anything to get reelected – except, perhaps, that it’s time > to end the wars inAfghanistan(andPakistanandYemenand…) and bring all our > troops home now. > With polls showing70 percent-plusin favor of doing just that, the President > had to make some accommodation with popular sentiment. The War Party, > however, has no such political calculation to make: they don’t care about > popular sentiment, at least the neoconservatives don’t. Indeed, the neocons > areself-consciouslyelitist, disdaining the hoi polloi, who supposedly live in > a world of “myth,” in favor of the alleged wisdom of the “enlightened” > minority – the Philosopher-Kings – who supposedlyknow what’s goodfor the rest > of us. The neocons make their appeal to Washington, and the foreign policy > establishment, not the American people, and that’s who Max Boot,writingin > theLos Angeles Times, is addressing when he avers:“The signature line of > President Obama’s June 22Afghanistanaddress was ‘America, it is time to focus > on nation-building here at home.’ This no doubt resonates among an electorate > sick of foreign wars and eager to focus on domestic problems, but it is a > wrongheaded statement. ”Whenever America has eschewed commitments abroad and > turned inward, the results have been disastrous. The most isolationist decade > in the country’s history the 1930s was followed byWorld War II. The ‘Come > Home, America’ isolationism of the 1970s was followed by the fall of South > Vietnam, the genocide in Cambodia, the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet > invasion of Afghanistan. In the 1990s, the post-Cold War desire to spend the > ‘peace dividend’ led the U.S. to turn a blind eye to the rising threat fromAl > Qaeda.”After all, whocareswhat the American people think? Senor Boot andhis > crew of war-loversknow what’s best for the country, what with their > specialized – albeit very selective – knowledge of history. What Boot leaves > out of his capsule account of American “isolationism” in the 1930s is that > Franklin Delano Roosevelt – elected in 1932 – was hardly an opponent of US > entry into the world war. Indeed, he spent much of his first two > termsfinagling and manipulatingthe US into entering the war. In a series of > ever-escalating steps –Lend-Lease, theembargo of Japan, US intervention in > China– FDR edged us toward war. Boot also leaves out World War I – > aneminently avoidableconflict – which wasthe preludeto the second act. > Boot’s history of the 1970s is similarly myopic: the “fall” of South > Vietnamcould not have been prevented, no matter how many more troops were > sent into that inferno. The genocide in Cambodia wasthe resultof President > Richard Nixon’s invasion of that country, which enabled the crazies of the > Khmer Rouge to come to power – an example of “blowback” with a vengeance. > As for the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: the > former can hardly be blamed on “isolationism,” since it was conceived as a > protest against US intervention in Iran – rememberthe overthrow of Mossadegh? > – and ourfulsome effortsto put and keep the Shah in power. > I’m astonished Boot has the audacity to invoke the short-lived Soviet > conquest of Afghanistan, since the complete failure of that tragic enterprise > underscores the irrationality of our present project. The Soviets, too,tried > to “nation-build”in that vast prehistorical enclave of rugged mountains and > fierce tribesmen: the ruins of their effort litter the landscape. What’s > more, their hubris helpedbring downthe rest of their ramshackle empire a few > years later. Do we want to follow their example? > Undeterred by either history or common sense, Boot – who once called for the > creation of an “American empire” – asks:“Is isolationism really a course we > want to follow today at a time whenIranis going nuclear,Pakistanis turning > against the West, North Korea is trying to export its destructive technology, > turmoil is spreading across the Middle East, Al Qaeda is far from defeated > andChina’spower is growing?”Although Boot never defines his terms, the clear > implication is that anything other than full-on “nation-building” and > military occupation of targeted countries is an example of “isolationism” in > action (or, rather, inaction). By this standard, Ronald Reagan, who got usout > of Lebanon, was an “isolationist,” as was every American chief executive who > ever chose peace over war. > As to Boot’s specific examples of looming “threats”: no informed observer is > going to be quaking in their boots.There is no credible evidence Iran is > building a nuclear weapon: Israel remains the solenuclear powerin the region. > If Pakistan is “turning against the West,” then the West also seems to > beturning against Pakistan– and how, exactly, is a policy of > “nation-building” supposed to reverse that trend? Increasing the American > presence in a country thatalready hates ushardly seems to be solving the > problem. As for North Korea: its people areon the brink of starvation, and > “nation-building’ is hardly going to deter them from exporting > whatevernuclear technologythey have. “Nation-building” will deter neither the > crazed commissars of the Hermit Kingdom nor the Islamist ideologues of > al-Qaeda. As long as US intervention continues tocreate fresh enemies, the > ranks of the terrorists will be replenished – and al-Qaeda will never be > defeated. > Boot’s evoking of China as the latest bogeyman is particularly ludicrous: if > we keep over-extending ourselves, sending troops and billions in taxpayer > dollars abroad, the Chinese will soon be “nation-building” right here in > bankrupt America, where entire cities have been foreclosed and abandoned > (check outthese picturesof Detroit). In any case, I hardly think the Chinese > – ourmajor creditors– are going to attack us any time soon: why would they > want to destroy their own investment? > Boot blames everything butthe policyfor the disaster we wrought in Iraq: > according to him, Iraq fell intopostwar chaosbecause the Bush administration > “refused to prepare for it.” Nor did we throw enough resources at the task: > apparently the$1 trillion costof that war wasn’t enough for Boot. Which isn’t > surprising: after all, it was Boot who, in the first months of the > Afghanistan war, infamouslymourned the lackof American casualties. > When you’re dealing with a neocon, you’re dealing with absolute evil – but at > least they’re consistent! > Americans are sick and tired of war, but that’s not all: they’re also sick > unto death ofthe neocons, those pencil-neckedlaptop bombardierswho never tire > of agitating for wars other men’s sons will fight. Americans have had it with > the arrogant elites of Washington, D.C., and vicinity, with their grandiose > visions of vast social engineering projects thousands of miles from the scene > of the real disaster – which isright here at home. > That’s why a new coalition of progressives, conservatives, and libertarians > is coalescing around the demand to “Come Home America.” An open letter to the > Powers That Be, signed by an impressive list of activists on both sides of > the political spectrum, declares:“The wars in which the United States is > currently engaged–in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Libya–are harming U.S. > national and economic security, degrading the standing of the United States > in the world community, fueling hatred abroad for Americans and undermining > the rule of law. These unconstitutional wars have been justified on false > premises, and most recently in the case of Libya there was not even the > pretense of a congressional declaration of war, making it an impeachable > offense. We urge you to end the current illegal wars and start a national > dialogue about shifting U.S. foreign policy away from dominance through > military might, and toward being a member of the community of nations.” > The signers go on to call for “a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy,” > and in this they have the support of the American people in their > overwhelming majority. That’s what the neocons, and their “progressive” > allies in the Obama administration, fear the most: Boot’s piece is meant to > reassure the Washington crowd they’ll be taking the noble and patriotic > course if they don’t cave in to public sentiment. > If Joe Six-pack’s house is beingforeclosed, can Max Boot tell him why he > should be thrilled that we’re building a newhousing projectin Afghanistan? Of > course, Boot doesn’t have to engage in such a dialogue: the neocons never run > for office themselves, they stay undercover behind the scenes and whisper in > the ear of the Prince. Theyattach themselvesto Power – whatever Power is > currently in office – and wage their wars by proxy. > Yet even Boot makes concessions to the unpopularity of these constant wars by > constructing an argument that holds up “nation-building” as a means > ofpreventinglarge-scale military intervention: if we just buck up “friendly > regimes” by sending massive amounts of aid and “small numbers of U.S. > military personnel and civilian advisers” to countries like Colombia, Mexico, > and Somalia, we can avoid “necessary” military intervention later on. The > cruel joke is that these “small numbers” are soon increased – and no matter > how small the initial US presence, we will be setting up a tripwire that can > get us involved in a major war rather quickly. > Which is precisely what the neocons are counting on. > The American people aren’t fooled by any of this hogwash: they want out, and > they want outnow. The first presidential candidate who credibly promises to > grant them their wish will go > far.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/05/against-nation-building/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
