The Language of Imperialism. An Ode to priceman

I have been inspired to write this blogpost after reading priceman’s diary in the Daily Kos. The diary in question can be found here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/19/1133713/-Looking-Beyond-Reelect...

For imperialism to persist, a nation must first conquer the consciousness of its population before it can conquer the lands and bodies of foreigners. What I mean by this is that a nation must convince its citizens of something first (to republish my comment on Daily Kos):

"A nation must convince its population that it is fighting a just war that "civilian-casualties," are either collateral or accidents or that if it does not extend its hegemony abroad and fight wars, its very existence and safety will be endangered."

And it convinces the population by means of propaganda. For instance, the invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam had WMDs, which were later proven false. When Saddam did use chemical weapons for instance, it was of no dismay to the Reagan administration:

"There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent". (See GreenLeft link below).

And in fact the administration aided Saddam in using those weapons on Iranian deployments,

"The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to "senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program", even though "senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents ... President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/26825

After which the narrative shifted. The narrative became “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” as if the freedom of another people were our top priority or concern. It was not our concern, when Saddam actually was massacring his own people. As Time Magazine noted:

“Desperate Shi'ite and Kurdish leaders begged the U.S. military for help. But Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wanted U.S. troops safely home, not mired in what might become a messy civil war. Secretary of State James Baker feared the "Lebanonization of Iraq." His nightmare: Iraqi Shi'ites, aligned with Iran's fundamentalist Shi'ites, would carve out the south; Sunni Muslims would hold the center; and Kurds, who long craved an independent state, would capture the north, upsetting Turkey, which feared revolt from its own Kurdish population.

American pilots flying over southern Iraq held their fire as the Republican Guard massacred Shi'ites on the ground. Bush refrained from aiding Kurdish rebels in the north, although he finally sent troops and relief supplies to protect hundreds of thousands of fleeing Kurds who were in danger of freezing or starving to death.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004633,00.html#ixzz26x...

It is as if through a short duration of time, Saddam went from being our baby to becoming our Frankenstein. And the reason is very simple…he outlived his usefulness to us, as politicians before him outlived their usefulness and politicians after him will.

The Iraq fiasco cost over 1 million Iraqi lives and over 4,000 dead U.S. military personnel. The financial costs may be replaceable if by some miracle the economy picks up, but the human cost of war is irreplaceable. You cannot restore dead sons and daughters back to the arms of their mothers.

The same is true for Afghanistan. When the Taliban rose to power, U.S. State Department Spokesman, Glyn Davies said that, “there was nothing objectionable,” about the domestic policies pursued by the Taliban (see Dilip Hiro’s War Without End p. 251).

In fact, “Between 1994 and 1996 the U.S. supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and Pro-Western.”
“The U.S. conveniently ignored the Taliban’s own Islamic fundamentalist agenda, its suppression of women and the consenternation they created in Central Asia.” (Ibid and p. 253).

Here too a certain language was involved. The language of denial. A language, which fails to inform and replaces information and truth with deception and ignorance.

Such a language was responsible for our invasion of Afghanistan, just as much as terrorism was. U.S. policy betrayed Americans. It allowed a group that was antithetical to secularism, liberalism, feminism, in short westernization to persist. So it is no surprise that the Taliban would view the West, which is an embodiment of all these ideas with hostility. Stationing troops in sacred land and aiding in the occupation of other people such as the Palestinians did not help either.

The war industry and the extension of hegemony abroad will continue to exist as long as citizens continue to be duped and citizens will continue to be duped as long as they believe and absorb the language of imperialism within their consciousness.

Let me end this piece as I ended my Daily Kos comment...by quoting Chalmers Johnson:

"A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can’t be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, like the old Roman Republic, it will lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship."

Which do you want my fellow Americans? The choice is yours.

Topic: 

Rating: 

0
No votes yet

Comments

Excellent work, Shawn Russell

priceman's picture

I'm glad my diary inspired this brilliant one reminding us that the Taliban has been supported as early as 1994-1996 a few years before the Cole bombing. I member the footage of the Taliban visiting TX from Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladens, but this goes much deeper.

0
No votes yet

I have another theory on that

Shawn Russell's picture

I think it's because "you know who" stepped in with a diary defending anti-Obama cartoons. He put his foot down and said criticism of Obama is acceptable here (though not in those terms, it was implied).

Otherwise, I suspect you would have seen blow-back and hysteria, the same hysteria over the anti-Obama cartoons (one of which actually got a cartoonist temporarily auto-banned).

0
No votes yet

"A vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed"

geomoo's picture

Here is how Harold Pinter stated the appeal of this essay and of priceman's essay:

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

I must be annoying people with my repeated references to Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture, but I do so because I feel it is the speech that defines our era. His central thesis involves truth, involves how the United States has for decades engaged in successful lying to avoid accountability. It is known that politicians lie, that governments lie, that governments are interested in power, not truth, and that they manipulate words and the truth at their pleasure to aggregate and maintain power. Almost everyone knows this, yet every day we find intelligent people engaging in naive analysis of the words of politicians, of the government, as though those words are truthful and honest. We have an obligation to do better than this. We have an obligation to wake up and allow ourselves to see what we already know. We are obliged not to be hypnotized.

Here are more excerpts from the lecture. It is worthy of study. I invite anyone interested in their civic duty, in the need to restore dignity to our lives to read the entire lecture.

[All emphasis added]

Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.
snip

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.

The closing paragraphs are worth repeating:

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man.

0
No votes yet

Here's a teaser for you

geomoo's picture

In a 2008 interview with Bill Moyers, Bacevich said that it is a waste of time to parse every word Obama or McCain said as though it was going to somehow affect things. He said that it would never happen, that it would make no difference. I already had a lot of respect for Bacevich at the time, but I just could not see how that could be true. Looking back, he was exactly right. There are at least two excellent interviews with Moyers. There is a fact which lends great poignancy to his pronouncements about the unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as about how poorly they were conducted: his own son was killed in Afghanistan. I mention this because he doesn't speak of it much and you could read a while before discovering this fact. He used to be considered a conservative; I suppose he would still call himself that.

0
No votes yet

I should have added a disclaimer: He is a conservative

sartoris's picture

It's true, he is a conservative. I was commenting on his writing of the American empire in the same vein as Johnson. I'm sure I would have arguments with him on more traditional progressive ideas, but I find myself in agreement with his views on our empire. Sorry I didn't mention he is a conservative. That might be a deal breaker for you. There are many progressive writers who say a lot of the same things as he does. Chris Hedges is extremely progressive and says the same thing as Bacevich. You would probably find Hedges much more to your liking.

0
No votes yet

The label means nothing to me

geomoo's picture

I think he's one of the clearest thinkers today, and he's saying what matters. One thing he says that I'm not sure about is that the reason for empire is that we American people refuse to take a look at our way of living. There is some truth to that, but I think it is driven top down. It's a quibble, really. I have been wowed by pretty much everything I've read by him.

0
No votes yet

The Empire undermines US national security.

BruceMcF's picture

To paraphrase, "Avoiding reckless foreign entanglements that cost our blood and treasure to the detriment of our foreign security is not a Conservative Idea or a Progressive Idea, it is an AMERICAN Idea".

Indeed, one of the most damaging consequences of the radical reactionary movement labeling themselves "conservative" is that it prevents serious debate with actual conservatives that progressives ought to engage in.

0
No votes yet

An American Idea

geomoo's picture

The so-called founding fathers wrote repeatedly with great emphasis about both the dangers of foreign entanglements and a standing army. They warned against the precise results we are seeing. Yes, it is un-American to pursue empire, if one considers the notions of the founders. Yet, if one follows the history of America from manifest destiny forward, it has been about empire. I have read that China similarly has a empire complex rooted in their much longer history.

0
No votes yet

Those are some heavy hitters

sartoris's picture

I should know better than to recommend writers. It always seems arrogant, even when that is not the intent. There are so many good writers out there today in the progressive realm. I have my favorites just like everyone else. I really like Mike Davis but some people find his writing uneven and even bombastic. I think writing preferences are a lot like music, people like what they like and do not have to justify to others.

0
No votes yet