working on the Cheney gang

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Sat Oct 5 09:42:53 PDT 2002


At 10:19 PM -0700 10/4/02, Alec Ramsdell wrote:
>>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?
>
>Well, to start one could toe the H&N line and say
>police action aims at maintaining an internal order;
>war, at either an order's imperial encroachment (the
>Mexican War) or, as in the Great Wars, politics
>carried on by other means between the Great Powers.

Who defines what's internal and external to the United States? Take a look at:

* the Monroe Doctrine (2 December 1823) -- "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as _dangerous to our peace and safety_," (emphasis added, <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/monroe.htm>);

&

* the The Roosevelt Corollary (6 December 1904) -- "Within the Nation the individual has now delegated this right to the State, that is, to the representative of all the individuals, and it is a maxim of the law that for every wrong there is a remedy. But in international law we have not advanced by any means as far as we have advanced in municipal law. There is as yet no judicial way of enforcing a right in international law. When one nation wrongs another or wrongs many others, there is no tribunal before which the wrongdoer can be brought. Either it is necessary supinely to acquiesce in the wrong, and thus put a premium upon brutality and aggression, or else it is necessary for the aggrieved nation valiantly to stand up for its rights. Until some method is devised by which there shall be a degree of international control over offending nations, it would be a wicked thing for the most civilized powers, for those with most sense of international obligations and with keenest and most generous appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, to disarm. If the great civilized nations of the present day should completely disarm, the result would mean an immediate recrudescence of barbarism in one form or another. Under any circumstances a sufficient armament would have to be kept up to serve the purposes of _international police_; and until international cohesion and the sense of international duties and rights are far more advanced than at present, a nation desirous both of securing respect for itself and of doing good to others must have a force adequate for the work which it feels is allotted to it as its part of the general world duty," (emphasis added, <http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030162/Common/Handouts/POTUS/TRoos.html>).

Starting in the 19th century and beginning with the Western Hemisphere, the US power elite began to conceive of its role as "international police." The development in the last couple of decades is nothing new. As the economic, political, and military power of the United States grew, the US power elite merely expanded the region over which it would act as "international police" from the Western Hemisphere (Monroe) to the entire world (GW Bush).

At 10:19 PM -0700 10/4/02, Alec Ramsdell wrote:
>What advantage would war on Iraq bring the US over
>other great powers?

The war on Iraq would not benefit ordinary US citizens. Imperialism, in general, has never been a practice in the interest of workers at imperial centers, be they American, English, or whatever. In the very short term, the war on Iraq won't even benefit US capitalists, except those who stand to gain from higher oil prices. Imperialism exacts sacrifice from nearly everyone, with a view to long-term maintenance of the world order congenial to the power elite's conception of capitalism. There will be reactions to imperialism, though, unexpected as well as expected: imperialism may spawn its own grave-diggers yet.

At 10:19 PM -0700 10/4/02, Alec Ramsdell wrote:
>I wouldn't say there are no frontiers left at imperialism's reach.

There is much room left for its lateral expansion: Russia, China, India, Venezuela, etc. -- gigantic territories with huge populations. There is also much room left for its further vertical penetration in nations where US troops are already stationed and/or whose economic policy is at the mercy of the Washington consensus. -- 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