working on the Cheney gang

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Oct 4 20:29:48 PDT 2002


At 7:19 PM -0700 10/4/02, Alec Ramsdell wrote:
> > The "war on terrorism" is just the thing. Even
>> better than the "war
>> on drugs" and the "war on crimes," you can bring the
>> "war on
>> terrorism" _everywhere you want to_ and keep it
>> going _as long as you
>> need to_, especially as social upheavals are bound
>> to engulf many
>> nations and bring many states down in the
>> deflationary world (as they
>> have already in many parts of the world), providing
>> many fantastic
>> pretexts and even some actually existing terrorists.
>> --
>> Yoshie
>
>The implication I get from Doug's question is that War
>in the sense of Great War no longer fits global
>geopolitical coordinates. Doesn't what you, Yoshie,
>describe here be more accurately called police action?
> "War" in this case is both a kind of blustery
>sloganeering and semiotic detritus.

Most imperial uses of military force to which the US government resorted before and after World Wars 1 & 2 wouldn't fit into your image of "Great Wars." Think, for instance, of the Mexican War (1846-1848), the Spanish-American War, the Philippines campaign to suppress nationalist insurgents, the dispatches of US Marines to crush the Boxers Rebellion, the occupation of Haiti, the occupation of the Dominican Republic, etc., etc. Were they wars or police actions or both?

***** New York Times 4 October 2002

Who Says We Never Strike First?

By MAX BOOT

...Nevertheless, as Congress and the American people debate war against Iraq, there is unease that pre-emptive war, even to eradicate weapons of mass murder, runs against the American grain. The presumption of those, like Dick Armey, the House majority leader, who have made this argument is that Americans are a generally pacific people who will put down their ploughshares and take up swords only if attacked first. Leave aside the question of whether we can afford for the enemy to strike the first blow when that blow might leave millions dead. What about the historical accuracy of this idea that we are a nation animated by the spirit of Cincinnatus?

As support for this proposition one can cite the defensive justifications offered for major American wars, from the attack on Fort Sumter to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But some supposed provocations do not stand up to much scrutiny - as critics at the time pointed out.

Mexico attacked United States troops in 1846 because they had moved into disputed border territory; President James Polk used this as a convenient casus belli, but he was preparing a war message for Congress even before the attack. A half century later there was no credible evidence (there still isn't) that the Spanish sank the Maine in Havana harbor; Congress declared war anyway to liberate Cuba and flex American muscle. And the United States entered Vietnam not to avenge two attacks on American warships in the Gulf of Tonkin (one of which didn't occur) but because President Lyndon B. Johnson wanted to prevent the spread of Communism.

This is not to suggest that the United States was necessarily wrong to enter these wars; the Mexican War, Spanish-American War and Vietnam War all had large elements of moral purpose. The point is simply that we have often sought out battle, not waited for it to come to us. Many such interventions have been undertaken as part of America's long-standing commitment to act as a global policeman. Between 1800 and 1934 Marines staged 180 landings abroad. Some were in response to attacks on United States citizens or property but many were launched before such attacks had occurred.

In the 20th century, these interventions often became quite prolonged. Woodrow Wilson sent Marines to occupy Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 1915 and 1916, respectively. They wound up staying for 19 years in the former, 8 years in the latter. In neither case had there been a direct attack on the United States. Wilson acted for a variety of motives, but probably uppermost in his mind was a concern that Germany might exploit the political instability on Hispaniola to establish a naval presence that might threaten the Panama Canal.

Are these pre-emptive interventions a relic of bygone imperial days? Not quite. Witness the United States landings in the Dominican Republic in 1965 and Grenada in 1983. What were these if not pre-emptive assaults?...

<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/opinion/04BOOT.html> *****

See, that's the sort of war -- in the past, present, and future -- that the US power elite have in their minds -- wars waged on little nations, often with a view to gaining advantages vis-a-vis other great powers. What Hardt & Negri have us think of as a novel development of post-USSR history is in fact quite old.

World Wars 1 & 2 -- the model of "Great Wars" in most people's minds -- have been exceptional in the history of imperialism. -- Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list