[lit-ideas] Re: The Philippines and Iraq
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:54:30 -0700
Omar,
Well, you don't have everything quite the way I would describe it. I would
hardly call Cold War battles Imperialism. Our Communist adversaries did,
but of course they would, wouldn't they. Also, there is a sense in which
everything the 13 colonies did would parallel something an Empire might do,
but the actions of the Colonies and later the fledgling nation hardly
qualify as Empire. It cheapens the term "empire" to apply it to most of
what America has done. Andrew Jackson took Florida from Spain and was then
backed up by his government. Was that an imperial act? When we look at the
circumstances we see that the British were using Florida to stir up trouble.
The trouble stopped after Jackson's act.
Someone could (and I believe that Niall Ferguson did) argue that the
nation's movement across the continent was an act of Imperialism, but here
again when we look at the settlers looking for land, Imperialism can hardly
be applied to their efforts. Analysts used the term "Manifest Destiny" to
describe what was happening. It was considered the nation's Manifest
Destiny that it would stretch from sea to shining sea. Whatever it was
(with apologies to Ferguson) it wasn't Empire.
The Monroe Doctrine has been described as an Imperial act, but this strikes
me as silly. At the time we issued the doctrine we didn't possess the power
to back it up. It served the nation that did have the power, Britain's,
interest to support the Monroe doctrine. It served Britain's interests to
keep their competitors out of the Western Hemisphere as much as possible.
Our motivation was one of timidity not Empire. We wanted the warlike
Europeans to leave us alone.
And in looking at your list, Cuba and the Philippines were acquired as a
result of a war that Spain declared upon the U.S. We were opposing the
Spanish Empire. And, as has been discussed, after considerable
congressional debate we annexed the Philippines to prevent Japan from
getting it. Was it an Empirical act? Yes, but as has been said, our heart
wasn't in it. We did the act to prevent the Japanese Empire (and their
heart was definitely in it) from acquiring the Philippines.
Korea wasn't an Empirical act. South Korea was an ally and we went to its
defense after North Korea invaded it. This was done as a United Nations
war. I was there and am entitled (if I should ever have occasion to get
back into uniform) to wear a U.N. ribbon.
Vietnam was messier than Korea. France (De Gaul) wanted to reacquire the
French Colonies and while we weren't supportive of that idea, we didn't want
Vietnam to fall into the hands of the Communists. The "domino theory" was
widely believed at the time. While I wouldn't want to be described as
anti-war, I did study Vietnam enough to doubt the domino theory. The
Vietnamese had a history of trouble with China; so I couldn't see Vietnam as
enduring "puppet status" for very long. Nevertheless the war was conducted
in accordance with the Kennan principle of containment (though Kennan
opposed going into Vietnam as I recall. He like Fukuyama didn't approve of
the way his thesis was carried out).
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were fought in an attempt to take the war to
Militant Islam. We can not at this point prove to everyone's satisfaction
that there is such an entity - any more than we could prove in 1899 that
Japan was a potential enemy and needed to be opposed. After their defeat of
the Russians in 1905 they were taken a bit more seriously but not enough so.
One can now plausibly argue that there is no such thing as militant Islam,
just a few blustering petty warlords who can be sufficiently cowed to keep
them from causing too much trouble. And of course there are the "Jihadists"
who are causing considerable trouble, but there aren't that many of them -
so goes the arguments of Roy, Kepel and Fukuyama. I don't agree with this
argument, but I think it a serious and interesting one. So about this war
we are conducting we can say it is prudent (if the U.S. administration is
correct in its assessment as I believe it is) or a mistake (if Fukuyama, Roy
& Kepel are correct), but we cannot with plausibility (in my opinion) argue
that we are engaged in war of empire.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:18 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Philippines and Iraq
I was in a bit of hurry, had to get to class. I guess
that the point should be that the American public
tends to be lead into imperial wars in Asia or Latin
America or the MIddle East (Cuba, Phillipines, Korea,
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and others) rather easily,
but typically lacks the determination to "stay the
course," stomach the causalties etc. This is in
contrast with the two World Wars in Europe where the
US were slow to get involved, but stayed the course
once they did. (Okay, they entered both WWs when the
Europeans were already exhausted, but let's not
quibble there.) Perhaps this might have to do with the
fact that the Americans feel closer to the Western
Europeans, and maybe understand them better.
And yes, I agree with you that the US public is
generally poorly informed (though it's getting better
informed now) about international affairs and about
their own government's policies abroad, which makes it
ill-equipped to make judgements. The Kosovo war might
arguably have been a just war but it seemed that most
of the American public didn't know where, or against
whom, or why it was being fought. This is one of the
things that are frighening to non-Americans. Since as
it is we can hardly trust the US government to do what
is best, it seems the safest thing is to say that the
US should mind its own business, even if occasionally
we have to tolerate massacres in some place like
Sudan.
O.K.
--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Omar, did you read your reference before you posted
> it? The author makes
> none of my points, but instead implies 1) we don't
> plan to leave Iraq and 2)
> We are suppressing Iraqi self-determination. This
> note was Bush-Bashing
> fare back when it was written on 5-03-04. Modern
> Bush-Bashers have honed
> their attacks quite a bit since then. Fie.
>
>
>
> Lawrence
>
>
Other related posts:
