Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Shadow of the U.S. Footprint

(Inter Press Service) It was neoconservative pundit Charles Krauthammer who, in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, inaugurated Washington's unipolar moment.. ...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(Inter Press Service)

It was neoconservative pundit Charles Krauthammer who, in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, inaugurated Washington’s unipolar moment.

"America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome," he wrote then, before the Afghan and Iraq wars, before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

But the U.S. "moment" as an unchallenged superpower was just that–a moment, a finite period of time, 30 or 40 years to "reshape norms" and "alter expectations." In this new age of empire, Washington would "create reality."

How? "By unapologetic demonstrations of will," wrote Krauthammer.

Five years after President George W. Bush declared "mission accomplished" aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln—and no apologies later—Washington’s hegemony in the Middle East has deteriorated, and along with it, the president’s popularity.

The neoconservatives’ utopian fantasies of a democratic Iraq have evaporated, as have notions of U.S. military invincibility. And as the U.S. policy crumbles, allies and "enemies" gather to pick up the pieces.

Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to two U.S. presidents, conceded about Iraq in 2007, "We are being wrested to a draw by opponents who are not even an organized state adversary."

To understand how the United States arrived at its present condition, how things related and not became part of the same "axis of evil," and how neoconservatives’ "unapologetic will" morphed into Bush’s hubris and subsequent political failures, it behooves us to "keep the past in mind."

Especially as we look towards an uncertain future.

And that is exactly what Tom Engelhardt—of the popular blog TomDispatch.com—does. When it comes to the recent past, Englehardt tries "not to forget the remarkable record of the Bush administration in its various wars."

His most recent offering, titled The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire, is a collection of essays culled from the site over several years. It offers a striking portrait of the limitations of U.S. power in the post-9/11 world.

This collection is a factual rebuttal of the neoconservative argument for unilateral action and interventionism and will certainly ruffle the feathers of an administration and its supporters with an historical sense of the world, or one that extends—selectively—only to Pearl Harbor.

In this new age of empire, it is essential to read between the lines of political rhetoric. As Engelhardt writes in the introduction, "Despite much talk of ‘democracy’ and ‘liberty,’ a Hellfire-missile-armed Predator drone would perhaps be the truest hallmark of the early-twenty-first-century American civilization they presided over."

As author and editor, Engelhardt has provided the reader with sophisticated political analysis that includes essays, letters, correspondence, and dispatches by celebrated authors and intellectuals. It is accessible and poetic, unshackled by the turgid writing that keeps most academics on the fringe of mainstream discourse.

Whether he is scouring the Internet for statistics and buried news reports of U.S. air strikes, or searching for historical accounts on microfiche hidden in the recesses of the New York Public Library, Engelhardt digs deep. And in doing so, he sheds light on the sobering reality of the new age of empire, and its painful contradictions.

In a May 2006 essay, titled "The Billion Dollar Gravestone," he considers the Ground Zero memorial, the Freedom Tower to be built in the footprint of the original World Trade Center towers that is expected to reach exactly 1,776 feet into the sky.

The project, meant as a memorial to those who died on that fateful day, will cost anywhere between $500 million and $1 billion, a sum exponentially greater than any other U.S. war memorial.

In May 2006, when the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq exceeded 2,700, he asked, "Who thinks that the United States will ever spend $500 million, no less $1 billion, on a memorial to the ever-growing numbers of war dead from those two wars?"

Who thinks the United States will spend that much, now that more than 4,600 have died?

As the author writes, "What was built on Ground Zero will mainly memorialize a specific America that emerged from the rubble of 9/11."

Engelhardt’s work—and those items he selects from the blog—read like poetry. In the rapid-fire blogger world, he breaks the mold by sticking to the old ways: he writes essays. And his work has been strengthened by the addition of other fine contributions.

In one, celebrated intellectual and war critic Noam Chomsky asks, "What if Iran had invaded Mexico?" As he writes, a new study using "government and Rand Corporation data" reveals that, as of March 2007, the Iraq War has already led to a "sevenfold increase in terror," a statistic that invalidates the Bush administration’s claims to the contrary.

But most crucially, Chomsky turns mainstream discourse on its head, critiquing notions of objective truth and underscoring the limits of acceptable U.S. public debate. "The cruder of two systems leads, naturally enough to disbelief," he writes. "The sophisticated variant gives the impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the party line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe."

Another essay, written by Chalmers Johnson and titled, "Smash of Civilizations," details the looting of antiquities in Baghdad, and the U.S. failure to stop it. "Our occupation forces were letting perhaps the greatest of all human patrimonies be looted and smashed," writes Johnson. (The editors and authors have dedicated a portion of the royalties from the book to the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage.)

And the discussion extends beyond the Middle East. Other essays deal with U.S. plans in the Far East; the rearmament of "pacifist" Japan to offset Chinese interests; pseudo-states; the "tri-border" area in Latin America, where al Qaeda is rumored to be, but where the lack of evidence suggests it is not; gunboat diplomacy; personal accounts from Hamra Street in Beirut during the Israeli siege of Lebanon in the summer of 2006; comparisons between the U.S. discourse used to prosecute the "global war on terror" and, more than a century earlier, the American Indian wars.

Engelhardt and the other contributors to this book detail the Bush administration’s supersized response to the 9/11 attacks, reminding us of the past, providing a fuller picture to analyze America’s "moment."

On the night of the terrorist attacks, the president warned the citizenry of the United States that "our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there." With the U.S. footprint looming large over the world, does it make us any safer?

"Don’t be ridiculous," writes Engelhardt.

Khody Akhavi writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Khody Akhavi , "The Shadow of the U.S. Footprint," Right Web, with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4935.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share