Andrew Bacevich describes America as an "unserious empire." He corrected his PBS interviewer who had offered the more commonly heard phrase "reluctant empire" as a way to think about our country. Evidently there is concurrence of American political thought that America is indeed an empire, legitimate debate limited only to the qualifier.
Before examining our unserious empire, it might be interesting to see why it is that being "reluctant" is more acceptable to Americans at war than being unserious. If I am a reluctant bride or a reluctant student, the implication is that I am forced to do something by the stronger party in a husband/wife or teacher/student relationship. "Reluctant" implies that the doer of the deed wants something different, and in marshalling their limited autonomy, is trying to avoid the sin perceived.
Clearly, the United States is in no way a reluctant empire.
Many Americans operate blind to the machinations of American foreign policy. Of those who do pay attention, most miss, or are unaware, of the fundamental context of American empire. For example, a poll last May indicated that 87% of Americans are "concerned about the security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan" as Taliban fundamentalism gains popularity there. Forget for a moment the role of American anti-communist policy in the proliferation of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Please ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars in military and political aid granted Pakistan in the modern era. Kindly disregard the history of American involvement in Pakistani politics, invariably supporting U.S. compliant and corrupt military dictatorships and working diligently to destabilize and threaten elected, less controllable Pakistani leaders. US intelligence agencies and our Pakistani dictator at the time immediately blamed the 2007 assassination of electoral hopeful Benazir Bhutto on former US ally and anti-communist partner, the infamous Taliban. The specific culprit, Baitullah Mehsud, was reported killed a few months later by a US drone strike in South Waziristan. Naturally, crazy conspiracy nuts like the late Robert Novak suggest that Benazir’s murder carried no trademark of al Qaeda, and by extension, the even less sophisticated Taliban. Instead, Novak and others point to US interests, foreknowledge and involvement.
No comments:
Post a Comment