AMERICAN IMPERIALISM

HISTORY AT CROSS ROADS

Standing at the crossroad of ever changing position of global power we

are witnessing yet another twist in the history. A merciless and cruel phenomenon
which time and again has intruded the life of mankind, history clearly depicts,
that ever since the evolution of mankind a struggle for dominance has started
among the human race some time to impose own ideas and philosophy on others some
time to extend own territory and might and foremost for the dominance of resources
for the accumulation of wealth to strengthen their stranglehold on subjugated
subjects. For this new empires merged on the scene while the old one diminished
because of their failure to grasp the ever changing scenario and evolution of
human mind. Yet we are witnessing another hegemonic power trying to create a
empire by using lame and shameful excuses in order to put the world on her toes,
The stiff resistance against such hegemonic designs is natural whether you name it
terrorism or struggle for self respect and independence. Imperialism is defined as
the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the
establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations and an empire
is a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of
territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. An empire exists
when one nation, tribe or society exercises long-term domination over one or more
external nations, tribes or societies. Through that domination the imperial power,
or empire, is able to determine many of the key political, social, economic and
cultural outcomes in the dominated society or societies. And that is the critical
point---the ability of the empire to determine what happens, the outcomes in the
societies under its control---is what distinguishes an empire from other forms of
political organization. Those who hold power at the centre of an empire typically
derive economic benefits, access to important resources, control of militarily
strategic territory, and other forms of power as a consequence of imperial
arrangements.

One thing is clear with the passage of time the systems and philosophy
regarding the establishment of dominance changed. Some time ethnic conflicts some
time religious and some time civilization conflicts were the name given to these
uprising. Very few admitted there wish of creating there empire. Primitive
conflicts were ethnic conflicts in which we saw some ethnic community dominated
the other, Achamanides Julius Cesar, all were ethnic based dominations where lust
for booty and grabbing of opponent resources were prime, ultimately when the
resources of opponent drained the effects were felt at higher echelons of empire
and inability to drag that burden the empire collapsed. Romans Empire in an
example where lust for money was at its peak and so many states were plundered
just to boost the booty again this lust of money made the Roman Empire over
stretched and due to inability to sustain this overstretched empire economically
the Roman Empire collapsed. All the wars fought before Jesus Christ were ethnic in
nature with no tint of religious scent , After Jesus we saw the struggle entering
in to new era with the edition of religious furiousty, struggle between
Israelites and Christians were primarily religious with the mixture of ethnic
conflicts between the monarchs and empires of west . But one thing remained common
the subjugation of material resources of the adversary. There is a pertinent
lesson in the history that an instinct of economic gain has stretched the empire
to an extent where it became impossible for the kings to maintain there might
ultimately creating an atmosphere where others slide in the game. This is a common
spectrum and stretched over all the history period.
 After reformation and at the start of industrial revolution it was west who
in the struggle to gain control over the resources and to add their economy
plundered the world, it will not be wrong to say that at the start of 15th century
when the new worlds were discovered was primarily an economic issue. Columbus in
1492 started a voyage for exploring the new commercial route like wise vas coda
gamma explored the route to India, further between 15th and 19th century west
embarked on a struggle to capture resources rich areas there by giving rise to
colonialism, Dutch empire Napoleon wars and later British conquest of colonies are
pertinent examples in this regard.

Great’s army captured Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire, in 331 BC;
the treasure seized was equivalent to 300 times the annual income of the richest
city in Greece.
The battle of Adys was the first major battle during the Roman invasion of North
Africa during the First Punic War. Having captured Aspis, a Roman army under the
consul Marcus Regulus had moved inland, plundering reaching the walled town of
Adys. Alexander left Macedonia to conquer the world his prime aim was to get
wealth and resources for Macedonians. Genghis Khan Wars were also an example of
horrific plunder. . After the fall of Constantinople in 1204, the crusaders looted
the city and transferred its richness to Italy. After half a year of besieging the
Protestant city during the Thirty Years War, the Roman Catholic troops of Imperial
Field Marshal Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly committed the Sack of Magdeburg.
Dutch empire extended through Dutch East India Company and Dutch West India
Company established in 1602 AD and 1621AD respectively through which the Dutch
controlled the empire in Ceylon Sumatra and West Indies this was primarily an
economic enterprise in order to control the wealth and resources of the mentioned
states. Similarly expansion of British Empire started with establishment of East
India Company incorporated by royal charter on Dec. 31, 1600. Starting as a
monopolistic trading body, the company became involved in politics and acted as an
agent of British imperialism in India from the early 18th century to the mid-19th
century. In addition, the activities of the company in China in the 19th century
served as a catalyst for the expansion of British influence there.

The 1850s Opium Wars between British Empire and China saw the rapid growth of
imperialism. Some of the shared goals of the western powers were the expansion of
their overseas markets and the establishment of new ports of call. The French
Treaty of Huangpu and the American Wangxia Treaty both contained clauses allowing
renegotiation of the treaties after twelve years. In an effort to expand their
privileges in China, Britain demanded the Qing authorities renegotiate the Treaty
of Nanjing (signed in 1842), citing their most favored nation status.

The British demands included opening all of China to British merchants, legalizing
the opium trade, exempting foreign imports from internal transit duties,
suppression of piracy, regulation of the coolie trade, permission for a British
ambassador to reside in Beijing and for the English-language version of all
treaties to take precedence over the Chinese .China was to pay compensation to
British merchants in 2 million tales of silver for destruction of their property.

The struggle remained intense in 19th and early 20th century where we see
colonialism and draining of adversaries resources at peak. WW-1 is pertinent
example for controlling the material resources and a struggle for dominance of
commercial lanes even the end of WW-1 is as commercial enterpries. Treaty of
Versailles is more a commercial document rather than a armistice truce, WW-2 was
another effort to safeguard the colonialism after WW-2 the system of world
politics altogether changed and the world was clearly divided in two major super
power , This was a struggle of two school of thoughts the capitalism and
communism, if we study critically both systems appear a strangle hold to keep
hegemony on the world resources after the demise of one of super power this system
ultimately halted and a unipolar world emerged where capitalism became supreme
and USA emerged as a hegemonic power with no equals. Instead of being a lonely
power to scam the pains of the world the lonely superpower embarked on a mission
of world dictation and to force her own thought and orders some time in the shape
of New World Order and later creating the phenomenon of rouge states and axis of
evil doctrine. Unaware of the consequences and in the myth of power the lonely
super power has put the world in a furnace where it is melting continuously and
the temp in geopolitics arena has risen to an extent where every body is feeling
the heat and the picture on the canvas of Globe is ever changing this essay is to
analyze the polices of lonely super power with special emphasis on her
imperialistic designs and suggest remedies against imperialism.

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, several
commentators have advanced the idea of security through empire. They claim that
the best way to protect the United States in the 21st century is to emulate the
British, Roman, and other empires of the past. The logic behind the idea is that
if the United States can consolidate the international System under its
enlightened hegemony, America will be both safer and more prosperous. Although the
word “empire” is not used, the Bush administration’s ambitious new National
Security Strategy seems to embrace the notion of neoimperialism. Max Boot of the
Council on Foreign Relations and former Wall Street Journal editorial features
editor. The September 11 attacks says Boot, were “the result of insufficient
American involvement and ambition; the solutions to be more expansive in our goals
and more assertive in our implementation.” Boot holds up the 19th-century British
Empire as an example of what he has in mind: “Afghanistan and other troubled lands
today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by
self-confident Englishmen in Jodhpur pith helmets.” Another advocate of empire is
Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby says that” the logic of neoimperialism
is too compelling . . . to resist. The chaos of the world is too threatening to
ignore, and existing methods for dealing with that chaos have been tried but
failed.” He therefore calls for an” imperialist revival” wherein orderly
societies, led by the United States, can and should take a page from the past and
“impose their own institutions on disorderly ones.”

The most sophisticated argument in favour of empire, however, comes from Atlantic
Monthly correspondent Robert Kaplan. Who says that American policymakers should
turn to chronicles of the Greek, Roman, and British empires for helpful hints
about how to run American foreign policy. “Our future leaders could do worse than
be praised for their . . . ability to bring prosperity to distant parts of the
world under America’s soft imperial influence,” further he says “Rome, in
particular, is a model for hegemonic power, using various means to encourage a
modicum of order in a disorderly world.

” In his 1919 book, The State in Peace and War, political theorist John Watson
attempted to provide the moral justification for an” enlightened” imperialism. In
a nutshell, Watson argued that outsiders have a “legitimate authority” to run the
affairs of troubled countries if they are “consciously acting on the basis of a
higher good,” namely that of advancing civilization and development. “Political
rule over others,” he wrote, is “justified if the rulers exercise their authority
for a good that transcends their own desires” for power and material gain, the
hallmarks of traditional imperial rule. Today’s advocates of empire similarly talk
in terms of both an imperial imperative—colonizing the world’s zones of disorder
will be good for us—and imperial virtue—colonizing the world’s zones of disorder
will be good for the natives. Kaplan, for example, says that “the wise employment
of force [is] the surest guide to progress” and that imperialism is a “dependable
form of protection for ethnic minorities and others under violent assault.” Boot
agrees and justifies imperialism as a way to liberate people from chaos or
tyrannical rule and to bring to them the blessings of a better way of life. He
stresses how American empire can “feed the hungry, tend the sick, and impose the
rule of law” in troubled places. Similarly, according to the Bush administration’s
National Security Strategy, there is a “single model for national success.
Freedom, democracy After World War I, President Wilson advanced the idea of
creating a mandatory system of protectorates, whereby the colonial possessions of
the defeated Ottoman and German empires would be put under Western” trusteeship”
in order “to build up . . . a political unit that can take charge of its own
affairs” Eventually. Under Wilson’s plan, “imperial sovereignty” would have been
exercised, not by a single nation, but by many. Wilson’s project ultimately
failed, but the idea behind it has been undergoing a resurrection ever since the
Cold War ended. Most recently, Robert Cooper, a senior foreign policy adviser to
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has tried to update Wilson by developing the
idea of “cooperative empire.” Cooper argues that the existence of zones of
disorder—such as Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Somalia, and Zimbabwe—is too
dangerous for established states to tolerate anymore. Kaplan is blunter in his
assessment to future.

Predominance and emphasizes “delegation” rather than “cooperation.” For him, the
United States is a force unto itself: “Our prize for winning the Cold War is not
merely the opportunity to expand NATO, or to hold democratic elections in places
that never had them, but something far broader: We and nobody else will write the
terms for international society.” The extent to which the UN or any other
international institutions matter depends on how much the United States makes them
matter; because “the UN is effective to the degree that it has the tacit approval
of a great power.” Any “imperial sovereignty” over the world’s zones of disorder
may therefore fall to the UN or some other international body in practice, but it
will be the United States that gives that sovereignty its meaning. The new
imperialists have been emboldened to use the attacks of September 11 to justify an
American empire to tame failed states that they believe could become havens for
terrorists. They, however, are not interested merely in pacifying dangerous
corners of the planet where America’s enemies can hide and conspire, and where
tyrants, mass murderers, and other predators can deny their people a decent life.
Many are interested in implementing the theory of hegemonic stability, which holds
that a massive imbalance of power makes for the most stable international system
because no one will be willing or able to challenge the dominant power. The object
of U.S. foreign policy, they argue, should be not mere national defence but
international supremacy. Given America’s disproportionate military and economic
superiority, there is now a temptation to try to revise the world and”
universalize both peace and the institutions of freedom” by extending an American
imperialism across the planet. The subsuming of the Warring States under the
Confucian value system of the Han emperors was a good thing: its global equivalent
can now only be achieved by the United States. Koshy (2002), Mann (2003), and
Harries (2004) have examined America’s increasingly unilateral foreign policy
direction, and each draws different conclusions. Koshy claims that the ‘war on
terror’ is imperialist war designed to secure control of resources; Mann that
America needs to recant from morally driven unilateralism and return to the more
imperfect but realistic multilateralism.

Harries argues America attempts to dominate the world, probably has a right to do
so, but hasn’t been able to succeeded in creating consent for its actions

First of all we will see that US imperialism is a phrase of recent era or it is an

old phenomenon, Stuart Creighton a famous writer says that US imperialism has been
the subject of agonizing debate ever since the united states acquired formal
empire at the end of 19th century during 1898 Spanish American war, philosopher
Douglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionnalism as a
distinct phenomenon back to 19th century, Historian D.W.Meining argues at length
for use of word “empire” and imperial for the United States, rooted as early as
the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 ad which he describe as an imperial acquisition,
United States Constitution own its structure as much to the ideas of John Locke
and Thomas Hobbes as to the experience of the Founding Fathers ,Jeffersonian
thought to a great extent Paraphrases the ideas of earlier Scottish philosophers
and that even the unique frontier egalitarian has deep root in seventeenth century
English radical traditions.
Many Marxists, anarchists, member of the New Left, as well as some conservatives,
tend to view US imperialism as deep –rooted and amoral. Imperialism as US policy,
in the view of historians like William Apple man, Howard Zinn, and Gabriel Kolko,
traces its beginning not to the Spanish American War, but to Jefferson ,s purchase
of the Louisiana Territory, or even to the displacement of Native Americans prior
to the American Revolution, and continues to this day. Historian Sidney Lens
argues that “the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has
used very available means – political, economic, and military- to dominate other
nations Numerous U.S foreign interventions ranging from early actions under the
Monroe Doctrine to 21st century intervention s in the Middle Fast are typically
described by these authors as imperialistic.

A theory of “ super-imperialism “ asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies driven

not simply by the interests of American businesses, but by the interests of the
economic elites of a global alliance of developed countries, Capitalism in Europe,
the U.S, and Japan has become too entangled , in this view , to permit military or
geopolitical conflict between these countries and the central conflict in modern
imperialism is between the global core and the global periphery rather than
between imperialist powers.
A “Hardt and Negri-ite “theory is closely related to the theory of “Super-
imperialism “but has a different conception of Power. According to political
theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the world has passed the era of
imperialism and entered a new era. Hardt and Negri no longer hold that the world
has already entered the new era of Empire, but only that it is emerging. According
to Hardt, the Iraq War is a classically imperialist war, but represents the last
gasp of doomed strategy this new era still has colonizing power, but it has moved
from national military forces based on an economy of physical goods to networks
bipower based on an informational and affective economy. On this view the U.S is
central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of
international power and sovereignty, termed “Empire”
The controversy regarding the issue of US cultural imperialism is largely separate
from the debate about US military imperialism however some critics of imperialism
argue that cultural imperialism is not independent from military imperialism.
Edward Said, one of the original scholars to study post–colonial theory argues
that, “So influential has been the discourse insisting on American special ness,
altruism and opportunity , that imperialism in the United States as a word or
ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States
culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and
culture in North America, and in particular in the United States is astonishingly
peculiar.

He believes non-US citizen, particularly non-Westerners, are usually thought of

within the US in a tacitly racist manner, in a way that allows imperialism to be
justified through such ideas as the White Man’s Burden.
`A “ social-democratic” theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the
products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and
government- the arms industry in alliance with military and political
bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance a combination
often referred to as the “ military industrial complex”. The complex is said to
benefit from war profiteering and the looting on natural resources often at the
expense of the public interest. The proposed solution is typically unceasing
popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure. The left–leaning Johnson
holds a version of this view other versions are typically held by conservative
anti-interventionists, such as Beard, Bacevich, Buchanan, Raimondo, and most
notably, journalist John T, Flynn and Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler
who wrote.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during the period
I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall
Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I
helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.
I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues. I helped in the raping a dozen Central American republics for
the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for International Banking
House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic
for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the
American fruit companies in 1903, In China in 1927 helped see to it that Standard
Oil went in its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone
of few hints; the best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents.”

A "Leninist" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the

products of the unified interest of the predominant sectors of U.S. business,
which need to ensure and manipulate export markets for both goods and capital
Business, on this Marxist view, essentially controls government, and international
military competition is simply an extension of international economic competition,
both driven by the inherently expansionist nature of capitalism. The proposed
solution is typically revolutionary economic change the theory was first
systematized during the World War I by Russian Bolsheviks Vladimir Lenin and
Nikolai Bukharin, although their work was based on that of earlier Marxists,
socialists, and anarchists. Chomsky, Foster, Kolko, Lens, Williams, Zinn, Marxist
anthropologist David Harvey, and, most notably, Indian writer Arundhati Roy each
hold some version of this view, as does Adam Smith himself.
American foreign policy officials almost never use the word "hegemony" in
their public discourse. When Henry Kissinger did so at his first press conference
after being named President Richard Nixon's special assistant for national
security affairs in 1968, puzzled reporters scurried to their dictionaries for
help. Presidents and their advisers prefer more positive terms such as "global
leadership" or "indispensable nation" to describe America's role in the world, yet
"hegemony," because it is less loaded, better captures the essence of recent U.S.
strategy. The ancient Greeks understood "hegemony" to mean preponderant
international influence or authority, and preserving such preponderance has been a
fundamental goal of all post–Cold War administrations power and influence
constituted "global hegemony," and American leaders, as well as those of a
surprisingly large number of foreign nations, wished to preserve it. But domestic
divisions surfaced about whether it could best be accomplished unilaterally or by
working closely with allies and international organizations. This debate began in
the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War and by the millennium remained unresolved.
President George H. W. Bush envisioned America's role as that of benevolent
hegemon, protecting the growing "zone of democratic peace" against regional
outlaws, terrorists, nuclear proliferators, and other threats to world order.

It would do so in concert with others, if possible, as in the Gulf War, or

unilaterally, if necessary. And today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the
world witnesses the effort by the imperial government of the United States of
America to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Moslem states and peoples,
surrounding central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the pretext of fighting a war
against international terrorism or eliminating weapons of mass destruction or
promoting democracy which is total nonsense. At the dawn of the third millennium
of humankind's parlous existence, nothing has changed about the operational
dynamics of American imperial policy. And we see this today in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Palestine and what appears to be an illegal attack upon Iran.

Unlike the Romans or the British, Americans are simultaneously the supposed
guarantors of a system of international law and doctrine. It was on American
initiative that every member nation of the United Nations was obliged to subscribe
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Innumerable treaties and
instruments, descending and ramifying from this, are still binding legally and
morally. Thus, for the moment, the word "unilateralism" is doing idiomatic duty
for the word "imperialism," as signifying a hyper-power or ultra-power that wants
to be exempted from the rules because—well, because it wrote most of them.
Interestingly enough, George Bush gave clear expression to this feeling during the
2000 electoral campaign. He consistently opposed what he called "nation-building"
as an American responsibility and called for more "humility" in US relation to the
rest of the world, striking an isolationist chord that has been perennial in US
tradition. Many have noted how much 9/11 changed Bush’s views. But even after
laying out in September 2002 the most explicit blueprint in history for American
world domination in the document "The National Security Strategy of the United
States of America," Bush could tell a group of veterans that America has "no
territorial ambitions. We don’t seek an empire. Our nation is committed to freedom
for ourselves and for others.

" In spite of the fact that with respect to the word "empire" Bush is apparently
still in a state of denial, his National Security document is nothing if not a
description of empire: America will strike any nation or any group that it deems
dangerous, whenever and however it feels necessary, and regardless of provocation
or lack thereof. America invites allies to join in these ventures but reserves the
right to act with or without allies. No nation will be allowed to surpass or even
equal American military power, and indeed other nations are advised to limit or
destroy any "weapons of mass destruction" they may have, and that includes Russia,
China and India. Only the U.S. will have large reserves of weapons of mass
destruction, apparently because only we can be trusted to use them justly. How can
we understand this peculiarly American approach to empire? Part of the answer lies
in understanding west dissenting Protestant tradition. The dissenting Protestants
who founded America were suspicious of government. They thought people should do
things for themselves through voluntary societies. They were also deeply
moralistic. Opposed to the established churches, which happily included saints and
sinners, they regarded their own churches as churches of the saved. They tended to
see society and the world as split between the righteous and the unrighteous. In
that tradition, the desire to triumph over evil can trump the aversion to power.
If evil is loose in the world, it is up to US to put a stop to it.
Splitting the world into good and evil is a general human propensity; I don’t want
to claim that the U.S. has a monopoly on this activity, only that US do it more
than other Western nations. And even though I see dissenting Protestantism as one
source of this tendency, as my reference to superheroes suggests, this tendency is
now secularized and pervasive in US popular culture, disseminated by movies,
television and video games. At a deeper level, US infatuation with technology
plays into this idea, But 2005 is not 1945, and the United States, despite
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney's assertions,
is not liberating Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way that U.S. forces liberated
Germany and Japan it is not reconstructing Iraq or the former Yugoslavia as it did
when it rebuilt war torn western Europe with the Marshall Plan.

The United States, with its thinly stretched military and deficit-laden economy,
does not possess the means to do so today. Instead, the United States is simply
depleting the developing world's natural resources, compelling the rest of the
developed world to remain dependent on American management of the global economy.
When the war ends, no matter how well or badly for the United States, so long as
the government is in control of the oil fields and refineries, and so long as
Washington controls Baghdad, the oil companies will thrive. This will happen even
if thousands of bodies are stacked up outside of the oil wells. So long as the
pipelines remain intact and the crude flows, all will be hunky-dory.
The recolonisation of the periphery constitutes the political face of imperialist
economic domination. It is based on the growing association of the local dominant
classes with their northern equivalents. This intertwining is the consequence of
financial dependence, the surrender of natural resources and the privatization of
strategic sectors in the region. The loss of economic sovereignty has given the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) a direct grip over macro-economic management and
the US State Department a similar influence on political decisions. Today no Latin
American president would dare to take any significant decision without consulting
the US Embassy. Military aggression is the imperialist response to the
disintegration of states, peripheral economies and societies, provoked by the
growing US domination over this periphery. That is why the current ’war on terror’
has some similarities with old colonial campaigns. Again, the enemy is demonized
to justify the massacres of the civilian population on the front line and
restrictions on democratic rights in their homeland. However, the more the
destruction of the ’terrorist’ enemy advances, the more one witnesses a political
and social dislocation. The generalized state of war perpetuates the instability
provoked by economic pillage, political balkanization and the social destruction
of the periphery
The official position of the United States in its “war against terror” is not
imperialist. It is something worse. In fact, we need a new word to describe it –
and a new set of understandings to see our way out of it.

If you read President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, you will discover its
foundation. According to President Bush, “We are led, by events and common sense,
to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the
success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the
expansion of freedom in the entire world.”
As to whether Bush’s policy signifies “imperialism,” it clearly does not fit the
definition – though it comes very close. Bush was not advocating “the extension of
control, dominion or empire….” He was advocating the extension of popular control
through “democratic” institutions. In accomplishing this “popular control” the use
of American ground forces becomes necessary in order to suppress non-democratic
elements. Now that this is supposedly accomplished in Iraq, the American forces
are set to leave. Once again, this is not imperialism. In fact, it is liberalism
run amok History always repeats itself twice,” wrote Karl Marx. “The first time as
tragedy, the second time as farce.” When the world compares Bush to Hitler, they
ought to make use of Marx’s formula – turning it back on itself. A farce is a
comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations. When President
Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the world did not mobilize against him. There
was no Battle of Stalingrad, no holocaust, no raving Fuhrer in an isolated bunker,
and no “bomb plot” by disgruntled military officers. Instead, Bush ended his
campaign with a press conference at which shoes were hurtled at his head by an
“Iraqi journalist,” who shouted to the president: “This is farewell … you dog!”
With youthful agility the president ducked both projectiles and smiled into the
camera: “That was a size ten shoe he threw at me, you may want to know.” Bush
later described the encounter as proof of victory. In a democracy, he explained,
people wave at you without showing all their fingers. So Bush claimed victory,
saying: “We made good progress.” And America’s enemies are repressing giggles.
Like Hitler’s blitzkrieg, George W. Bush’s blitzkrieg initially appeared
unstoppable, victorious, sweeping all before it; but like Hitler, he overextended,
became bogged down, found himself at odds with his generals, issuing a “no
retreat” order in the face of collapsing morale.

While Hitler filled the concentration camps and exterminated “undesirables” in

conquered territory, Bush was determined to fill voting booths and elect the
undesirables.
When the Gestapo captured insurgents, they were brutally tortured; when the
Americans captured insurgents, they were forced to wear women’s underwear. Hitler
attacked the Russians because of their treachery. Bush invited his treacherous
Russian “partner” to a barbecue at his dad’s house. Facing the end, Hitler married
an actress and promptly shot himself. George W. Bush, on the other hand, shook
hands with his African-American successor and smiled at the prospect of
retirement.
Here is the face of American imperialism as it ducks an incoming size ten shoe:
“We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation,”
Bush said in his Second Inaugural: “The moral choice between oppression, which is
always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that
jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and
servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies
America is no Third Reich. Though its military knows the technique of blitzkrieg,
the politicians don’t know what to do with the resulting “victory.” The American
people are not an imperialist people. They do not particularly like foreign
adventures, or telling other people what to do. The “war on terror,” therefore,
tends toward farce. It is not imperialism, but misguided philanthropy in which
many people are killed.
The axis of evil doctrine coined by the west has totally based on discrimination
set rules. One can argue why one thing which is so important for west is harmful
and an act of devilish attitude, this discrimination again abstracted the future
scenario while dealing axis of evil west never opted for any military action
against any non Muslim country rather it amassed all its efforts to word Islam an
abstract with in the abstract. Let us see why the west has taken so pain in
creating new enemies rather making other cultures friendly.

After the demise of the USSR their remained only one super power the USA to keeps
he military advancement going and to keep its own people in some kind of
xenophobia USA needed some body and it trimmed first the axis of evil phenomenon
and than further advanced to create Islam as the ultimate culprit responsible for
the repression in world on this pretext does it not look likely the 9-11 incident
was a fabricated and well rehearsed drama of the west to show one hand the
Muslims as the enemies of world peace and secondly to put their own people in a
xenophobic fear of course the west succeed in attaining it both goals , so when J
W Bush declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan he named them the crusade clearly
meaning that this was not against any particular community its is against Islam
and the fearful west came to believe this idea where as the intention was
altogether different. The Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking the real reason of
war is to prevent further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. In order to
pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geostrategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd
largest proven oil reserves.
Given America’s disproportionate military and economic superiority, there is now
temptation to try to revise the world and “universalize both peace and the
institutions of freedom” by extending an American imperium across the planet.
Kaplan, for example, says, The subsuming of the Warring States under the Confucian
value system of the Han emperors was a good thing: its global equivalent can now
only be achieved by the United States.” Mallaby says: “A new imperial moment has
arrived, and by virtue of its power America is bound to play the leading role. The
question is not whether the United States will seek to fill the void created by
the demise of European empires but whether it will acknowledge that this is what
it is doing.” To which Boot would add, “America should not be afraid to fight ‘the
savage wars of peace’ if necessary to enlarge the ‘empire of liberty.

’” In the early 1990s, a triumphant American commentator argued that the Bush
administration’s war against Iraq “marks the dawning of the Pax Americana” and
that U.S. grand strategy should strive to lock in America’s post–Cold War hegemony
“to secure the ‘new world order’ that has been the goal of American policy since
President Woodrow Wilson.” With U.S. “world leadership assured another commentator
says,” today’s military midgets will be content to stay that way. National
security with maintaining what some people have called “the functional equivalent
of global containment,” the emergence of balance-prone powers threatens a hegemon
implicitly. As such, a hegemon must take escalating steps to both ward off
potential challenges and persuade security dependents that they are still
protected. The chief danger here is strategic overextension because the
maintenance of what is in essence a military protector ship is open-ended and
requires an empire to continually enlarge the geographic scope of its security
responsibilities. Indeed, stabilizing one region logically necessitates the
stabilization of the neighboring region to safeguard the first. For example, much
of the impetus for the U.S.-led war in Kosovo was to protect investment in the
fragile peace that the West imposed in Bosnia. The process of strategic
overextension becomes self-reinforcing because, each time a hegemon expands its
perimeter new potential threats are encountered that demand further expansion. As
political scientist Robert H. Johnson explains, political “uncertainty leads to
self-extension, which leads in turn to new uncertainty and self extension”.
Maintaining empire, in other words, requires perpetually widening commitments.
Afghanistan is already an obvious example of this process of self-extension. The
fate of Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul, it is argued, now requires Washington
to stabilize Central Asia, disentangle the Kashmir conflict, and resolve conflicts
in the Middle East. Even more fundamental, today’s advocates of empire dodge the
central foreign policy question facing U.S. policymakers in the post–September 11
world. What should America’s priorities be?

Because everything is a priority under the strategy of empire, there are no

conceptual brakes to prevent the United States from engaging in a sweeping
activism that saps both its resources and credibility. Thus Kaplan may invoke Sun-
Tzu’s maxim that “the side that knows when to fight and when not to fight will
take the victory. There are roadways not to be travelled, armies not to be
attacked, walled cities not to be assaulted... But that logic presumes that states
will be lastingly indifferent to the fluid nature of politics and inherent
uncertainty about the future. As political scientist Joseph Grieco notes, however,
because states worry that today’s ally can become tomorrow’s rival,” they pay
close attention to how cooperation might affect relative capabilities in the
future.”
Howard Zinn was right; there is a threat out there to which US have to respond-
including the use of non-state actors against the US." The war on terrorism has
logic of its own. There is a logic the present administration is pursuing that
dovetails with the view of more conservative sections of the ruling class. Their
logic is: "We are now way ahead of any of the other powers in the world. We have
to maintain that superiority." That is: If anyone appears to be developing a
potential threat we need to knock it out now. It was in the context of discussions
of Asia that U.S. planners said that any emerging threat needs to be taken out now
in order to guarantee U.S. superiority in the future. And that it is the beginning
of a doctrine that any perceived threat anywhere needs to be taken out. It's
considered a part of a pre-emptive war in which the goal is the maintenance of the
U.S. as the chief power in the world.
Why Iraq? What's it all about? We need to look at Iraq in the context of September
11. The administration and Paul Wolfowitz, one of its ideologues, had Iraq in
their sights well before September 11. We need to understand that it isn't simply
terrorists attacking the U.S., but any state sponsoring terrorism, or that isn't
seen as accepting the discipline of the U.S., must itself be disciplined.

It isn't only that they are ideologically preoccupied with Iraq. They are, of
course. But the point is that Iraq clearly stands out as one of the states that
stand in the way of the U.S. ability to rule the world. That’s what we're talking
about, the drive by the U.S. to determine the fate of the world in its own
interests. Therefore, the administration has decided that Iraq must be taken out.
Not only for Iraq's sake, but read for Iraq, "Saudi Arabia"; read for Iraq,
"Iran"; read for Iraq, "China"; read for Iraq, "the first step." If they don't get
Iraq, why should anyone listen to what the U.S. says? It is one thing to launch a
multinational operation into Kosovo. It is another thing to say, "US intend to set
the agenda for the world, and you are either with us"-and this is the connection
with September 11-"or against us." With the new doctrine, the question becomes
whether the U.S. will be able to carry this program through, whether or not they
are overstepping their capabilities. That’s also the key to understanding the
debate between the multilateralists and the unilateralists. All of these people-
Scowcroft, Kissinger, all who hung onto the last breath as unilateralists in
Vietnam-these born-again coalition-builders are now arguing, "Let's not go it
alone." But there is actually now, with the war against terrorism, a new basis for
unilateralism since the U.S. has interests that are not necessarily shared with
Middle East allies, the European powers, or others. There is a basis on which
unilateral interests lead them to pursue Iraq to the end.
What does it mean in terms of the war? It means U.S has an uphill battle to win
over the rest of the world. It doesn't rule out getting the acquiescence from the
rest of the international powers. There are all kinds of problems, but it seems
clear that they will still go ahead with the war-that they intend to get all their
ducks in a row. Its guess work about the timetable, but the timetable in terms of
getting approval seems to be accelerating. We will have to do a lot more to
explain the apparent contradictions of American imperialism, which is that they
don't seem to give much thought to what the effects will be on "the street" in the
Middle East. They are playing with notions like "International stability"-the
hallmark of Cold War imperial ideology-"is secondary to the needs to impose the
rights and authority of the U.S.

Part of their logic can be attributed to the fact that they do not face the kind
of anti-imperialism that they faced in the past. When they say "in the street"
they mean inchoate opposition that repression can take care of, and that's why the
right wing is strong here. They don't see the same kind of political movements
that emerged 20 or 30 years ago that had a nationalist or anti-imperialist
direction.
What is the prognosis? We have to understand that American imperialism feels
emboldened, but that even with a couple of victories under its belt it does not
have a free ride. Even if it is able to get approval for this war, it will unleash
a set of events despite itself, which include a number of new contradictions. For
example, how do you settle the war? Who gets Iraq? Who gets the second largest
reserves of oil in the world? They are talking about an occupation of years. Now
most of the countries say they will cut a deal with France and Russia to get
frozen money and contracts. What about the rest of the world? The rest of Europe?
Japan? That's just one question. What happens when the Middle East is thrown into
turmoil, let alone the development of an anti-imperialist movement in the heart of
the beast?
A couple of things about the character of the opposition movement we need to
build. Anti-imperialism is no longer a given in the movement. We have to explain
why activists should be anti-imperialist-in some cases with arguments about the
past history of American intervention, but we also need to develop arguments about
the present character of American imperialism. What is wrong with regime changes?
What is wrong with pre-emptive strikes? We have to be versatile in being able to
argue the case against the administration. We also have to offer an alternative,
but not only of anti-imperialism. We need to develop socialist propaganda that
ties opposing the war to changing the system that produces war.
In order to accomplish this uphill task following are recommended:-

1. America should Stop the so called war on terrorism, that needs first to
define terrorism universally because world is looking terrorism as one enraged by
non state actors and other by states.
2. America should arrange broad base dialog among the Muslims and west in order
to clarify the mistrust prevailing among the two.
3. Should withdraw all it forces from all Muslims states in order to give them
a positive message of friend ship. Should stop interfering in the autonomy of
other and let others decide there goals in the face of Globalization.
4. In order to stop capitalist imperialism a new currency for international
trade should be introduced as China has demanded in G-20 conference
5. All government should allow democracy in their countries so that a awareness
of fundamental rights can inculcate among the masses
6. Rich countries specially the OPEC countries and China stop buying US
security bond if America did not abide by the fundamental right of freedom
7. A universal agreement of not allowing their territory for any kind of
aggression and not to provide bases to such powers should be introduced.

The ongoing turmoil is leading towards a horrific future where peace is a distant
story it is up to west and especially America to design a broad base policy of
tolerance among all tiers of globe and start on looking the situation in true
retrospect especially the Muslim world which presently is in direct firing line of
the west, west should think seriously that ongoing policy is not in favour of
anybody rather it is complicating the issues in all spheres, to gain more benefits
from the resources of Muslim and third world a dynamic and just policy is the need
of the day from which both east and west can be benefited failing in this regard
is catastrophic and world as terrorist paradise is the order of the day.