perspective in Iowa City Press-Citizen about American Imperialism

[tucker342]

I was wondering what people thought of this perspective in the local paper
http://www.press-citizen.com/opinion...erspective.htm


War with Iraq: The beginning of new American empire?

‘The Project for the New American Century is just thinly veiled imperialism’

By Resa Aslan

In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered the following justifications for the war against Iraq:

• Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction against numerous U.N. resolutions requiring it to disarm

• Saddam Hussein's contempt for international standards of human rights

• The Iraqi president's ties to terrorist organizations in general and to al-Qaida in particular

Many critics of the administration, both here and abroad, have noted the massive inconsistencies in Bush's argument for war, however.

Inconsistencies

First, while Iraq may be concealing biological and chemical weapons, they are neither an immediate threat to the United States (especially while U.N. weapons inspectors are combing through the country), nor even the greatest obstacle to global peace. There are far more dangerous and far more unstable countries that possess far greater weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, for instance, not only has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the United States, but has even threatened to do so.

Secondly, while Hussein's human rights violations may be a casus belli, we must remember that some of the most egregious violators of human rights receive an enormous amount of American financial and military aid.

The Saudi family runs a Taliban-like reg-ime in Saudi Arabia, yet sells the United States some 60 percent of our foreign oil. Egypt, which has used a nearly permanent application of its Emergency Laws over the past 30 years to detain, torture and execute political opponents and democratic activists, receives more than $2 billion a year of American taxpayer money. Israel, in violation of countless U.N. resolutions against the illegal settlement activity in the occupied territories, receives more than $3 billion a year. The point is that while the issue of human rights is certainly important, it is being unequally applied in U.S. foreign policy.

This brings us to the linchpin in the administration's argument for war: Iraq's support of terrorism. Despite that the CIA and British Intelligence have both stated there exists no evidence of a link between Hussein and bin-Laden, despite that al-Qaida and the Baath Party are fierce ideological enemies and bin-Laden himself has called Hussein an infidel who must be overthrown, despite that since Sept. 11 some 170 al-Qaida arrests have taken place in Europe and Middle East, none with any ties to Iraq, the president has referred to Iraq's secular armed forces as "Saddam's holy warriors" and insisted that an attack on Iraq is "the next logical step in the fight against terrorism."

Astounding justification

The inconsistencies in the Bush argument have led to an even more astounding justification for military strikes against Baghdad, presented by Mr. Bush in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute: that the toppling of Hussein could bring about a wholesale change for the better in the political, cultural and economic climate of the Middle East. According to Bush advisor Fouad Ajami, Iraq only would be the starting point of a reformist project to transform the Arab landscape.

Here is what that project would look like: A post-Hussein government in Iraq not only will be a model of democracy for the rest of the Middle East, but it will push the reform movement in Iran to rise up against the tiny clerical minority that rules the country. The inevitable regime change in Iran will force it to end its support for "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah, whose political role in Lebanon and Syria will be dramatically reduced. Lebanon will become a full-fledged ally of the United States, while Syria, now surrounded by the pro-American forces, would be pressured to stop its support of Hamas and Islamic jihad on its way to its own democratic regime change.

With its regional allies bowing to American pressure, the Palestinian Authority would have no choice but to renounce terrorism, reform democratically and surrender to peace with Israel (most likely on Israel's terms). Best of all, with Iraq's massive oil reserves under American control, Saudi Arabia no longer would be the United States' only major source of oil, putting an end to what has been an increasingly uncomfortable relationship between the two countries.

There is no question Saddam Hussein is a madman who should be removed from power. I can think of few intelligent people who would disagree with that proposition. But what the president is now suggesting is no longer simply regime change or Iraqi disarmament or even "nation building." What Richard Cheney, Donald Rums-feld, Paul Wolfowitz and other ultra-conservatives are calling "The Project for the New American Century," is a not just a new kind of foreign policy but a radical imperialist ideology.

The problem with this vision, however, is that it is predicated on an ignorance of history and a misguided perception of America's image in the Middle East. It is foolish to think that the power vacuums in the region will be naturally filled by liberal, democratic elements open to American interests. It is far more likely that anti-Americanism and terrorism will further destabilize the region, and rather than opening their arms to an Amer-ican, secular, forced democracy, the people of the Middle East will do what they did the last time they were confronted with this kind of "Civilizing Mission" (a.k.a. colonialism): re-spond with radical and violent fundamentalism.

Yet, the president seems oblivious to the consequences of his new imperialist ideology.

Unconcerned with U.N.

It is no wonder, then, he is unconcerned with the future of multinationalist organizations like the United Nations. Although the president initially was praised for taking the case against Hussein to the Security Council, his speech to the United Nations amounted to little more than blackmail when he compared the organization to the defunct and ineffectual League of Nations and warned the council to either support his war plans or risk the "danger of irrelevance" when the United States goes to war anyway.

The administration followed this threat by sending diplomats to Security Council members - poor countries like Angola, Cameroon, and Chile - warning them of "dire consequences" if they did not vote with the United States for war. The truth is the United Nations and its Security Council never were relevant in Bush's mind.

This is how imperialism begins: first with the usurping of multilateral organizations with the unilateralist interests of a single hyper-power; then the militarization of that foreign policy, and finally with a military presence in hostile regions.

Welcome to the New American Century.

Resa Aslan teaches religion and politics in the Middle East at the University of Iowa.

[astralhaze]

New American imperialism?

[Airhog]

I have to agree with about 99% of this article. hit the nail on the head so to speak...

[mrskippy]

By Resa Aslan

What's wrong with that name? Sounds Middle Eastern to me. Possibly Persian/Iranian. What was the Shah's first name? Damn ... a little bias never hurt anyone.

Horrible column. Absolutely ridiculous.

Iraq is very dangerous. Put it this way. If China sold him a ICBM nuke... the bastard Saddam would use it without question ... making him far more dangerous than North Korea.

North Korea will be dealt with next, after this war is over.

I have to agree with about 99% of this article. hit the nail on the head so to speak...

The correct word here is column, not article. And this is an op/ed piece, not a news story. And I take issue with what is written.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
[b]

What's wrong with that name? Sounds Middle Eastern to me. Possibly Persian/Iranian. What was the Shah's first name? Damn ... a little bias never hurt anyone.

Mr. Skippy. What's wrong with that name? Sounds American to me. What was Nixon's first name? Damn...a little bias never hurt anyone.

Horrible column. Absolutely ridiculous.

Why is that?

The correct word here is column, not article. And this is an op/ed piece, not a news story. And I take issue with what is written.

Well, it may be incorrect, but it has more logic and fact, in my eyes, than your average David Horowitz column.

[Tarkus]

Actually Aslan is a Middle Eastern name meaning "lion". Isn't the internet great?

Tarkus

[astralhaze]

Also, it is Reza Aslan. I even saw his picture. And yes, he is arabic.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Also, it is Reza Aslan. I even saw his picture. And yes, he is arabic.

Nuff said!!!

[mrskippy]

And I searched Google ... he is Iranian

[astralhaze]

Do you think Americans have bias?

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Do you think Americans have bias?

Uh, yeah, duh!!!

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Uh, yeah, duh!!!

So, Reza Aslan's opinions are invalid because he is Iranian, and therefore biased, but American's opinions are biased, yet still valid? I do agree that everyone's opinions are biased, but I don't think the fact that Reza Aslan is Iranian makes everything he says automaticaly untrue.

[sterlingice]

You people have got to be f'ing kidding me? You're completely dismissing an article just because it's written by an Arab?!?

It's no wonder I keep feeling this urge to just read hattrick threads and the dynasty board. I swear, one isolated terrorist attack in New York over a year and a half ago and people shut down their brains to reason.

I mildly disagree with this war. I object the same way, I disagree with most fiscally conservative decisions and most socially liberal ones. Yet, to disagree with this political decision, yes, a political decision is tantamount to treason here. Pages of energy have been spent not disagreeing with, but calling for the heads of, that stupid Dixie Chick and Michael Moore for saying something that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would either nod in agreement or ignore and move on.

Debate is good, argument is healthy. But if you're just going to haul off and say something stupid like "I don't like Michael Moore because he's fat and thus he's wrong" or "slaughter every last one of those taliban sonsovbitches" - save your time and energy and keep writing about football or baseball or whatever. It's not productive, it's not intelligent and it keeps lowering the discourse of conversation on this board.

I'm not saying to disagree is wrong, in fact I'm saying it's good. I'm not saying every post you make must be intelligent or well thought out: we've all had our share of fun and stupid comments. I am saying that if you want to argue a serious topic and be in a serious argument about it then "Bush sucks. afk" is not a good argument. Back it up with some thought or just don't hit the reply button at all.

EDIT:

(For the record: I am a supporter of the war and feel it is the right thing to do. I am also very open-minded and find other's points of view interesting. So if you have no better response than a "America, love it or leave it" then please don't attack me.)

How bad is it when we start finding disclaimers at the start of threads because they're afraid of being verbally(is that the term for saying it online?) assaulted? Isn't it time some of you back away from the keyboards with the "either you agree with us or you're a pinko CommieNazi mofo who doesn't deserve to live unless you have sharp objects jabbed underneath your fingernails for eternity"? This has gone too far and needs to stop.



SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think this column and sterlingice's post pretty much sums up my opinions on the situation. Well done.

[Bee]

Good post sterlingice. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

[Fidatelo]

This is the best thread I've seen in weeks. Thanks Tucker342 and Sterlingice.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Debate is good, argument is healthy. But if you're just going to haul off and say something stupid like "I don't like Michael Moore because he's fat and thus he's wrong" or "slaughter every last one of those taliban sonsovbitches" - save your time and energy and keep writing about football or baseball or whatever. It's not productive, it's not intelligent and it keeps lowering the discourse of conversation on this board.

I'm not saying to disagree is wrong, in fact I'm saying it's good. I'm not saying every post you make must be intelligent or well thought out: we've all had our share of fun and stupid comments. I am saying that if you want to argue a serious topic and be in a serious argument about it then "Bush sucks. afk" is not a good argument. Back it up with some thought or just don't hit the reply button at all.

Just more jibberjabber from the post smart or don't post club.

[albionmoonlight]

Every day I come to this board and read about the international situation.

The more I read the posts condemning the war and condemning Bush, the more I am slightly persuaded in that direction.

More importantly, the more I read posts by people supporting Bush, supporting the war, and dismissing/attacking those who disagree with the war or are Muslim, the more I become very afraid about what is driving this war for most Americans.

If the hawks on this board are representative (and I do not know if they are) of American opinions in general, then--as much as I believe that the world would be a better place without the Iraqi regime in it-- I feel I need to be against the war because, despite what America may be saying on the surface, this war is actually motivated by revenge, xenophobia, imperialism, and impatience.

I won't bother pulling representative hawk quotes to "prove" my point because I am not trying to make a point--I'm just letting you know how you are changing my mind--for how much or how little that is worth.

[John Galt]

Very good posts sterlingice and albionmoonlight.

Racism is sadly alive and well in America as skippy has once again demonstrated.

[CamEdwards]

Of course racism is alive and well in America, but that doesn't mean that everyone supporting our president, our troops, and this military action is racist and/or xenophobic.

I have two kids from my wife's first marriage who are biracial. And I'll tell you right now that as racist as America might be, I would rather they be raised here than any other place on earth.

Those who support this war out of hatred and intolerance for Arabs and or Muslims are just as wrong as those who march for peace with knives, tasers, and clubs. They're just as wrong as those who use ignorance as their main argument.

In this country, freedom of speech isn't restricted just to the intelligent. Idiots can have opinions too, and to be persuaded because of the intolerance and ignorance of one side, while being blind to the intolerance and ignorance of the other side is being shortsighted, in my opinion.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by astralhaze
So, Reza Aslan's opinions are invalid because he is Iranian, and therefore biased, but American's opinions are biased, yet still valid? I do agree that everyone's opinions are biased, but I don't think the fact that Reza Aslan is Iranian makes everything he says automaticaly untrue.

I do.

Tarkus

[Fritz]

I love the outcry of racisim from the intellectual elitists.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Of course racism is alive and well in America, but that doesn't mean that everyone supporting our president, our troops, and this military action is racist and/or xenophobic.

I have two kids from my wife's first marriage who are biracial. And I'll tell you right now that as racist as America might be, I would rather they be raised here than any other place on earth.

Those who support this war out of hatred and intolerance for Arabs and or Muslims are just as wrong as those who march for peace with knives, tasers, and clubs. They're just as wrong as those who use ignorance as their main argument.

In this country, freedom of speech isn't restricted just to the intelligent. Idiots can have opinions too, and to be persuaded because of the intolerance and ignorance of one side, while being blind to the intolerance and ignorance of the other side is being shortsighted, in my opinion.

My post wasn't meant to generalize to all pro-war supporters (and I think skippy has proven himself to be a special case on many occasions), but I think their is something to be sad for knowing who your bedfellows are. Believe it or not, I used to be very right-wing on most issues (I was a self-identified libertarian). One of the most significant factors that changed my mind on many race issues (especially affirmative action) was seeing all the hate and racism on "my side." It made me rethink the way I viewed society and recognize that color-blindness is often a substitute for white privilege. While I'm not sure that is the case here, I always try to question myself when the bigots of the world actually agree with me.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by tucker342
This brings us to the linchpin in the administration's argument for war: Iraq's support of terrorism. Despite that the CIA and British Intelligence have both stated there exists no evidence of a link between Hussein and bin-Laden, despite that al-Qaida and the Baath Party are fierce ideological enemies and bin-Laden himself has called Hussein an infidel who must be overthrown, despite that since Sept. 11 some 170 al-Qaida arrests have taken place in Europe and Middle East, none with any ties to Iraq, the president has referred to Iraq's secular armed forces as "Saddam's holy warriors" and insisted that an attack on Iraq is "the next logical step in the fight against terrorism."

I'll admit I'm bothered by the author's implied assumption that Al Qaida is the only terrorist organization in the world. This seems like at best an oversight, and at worst an intentional misdirection.

[ice4277]

Part of the problem with U.S. policy over the last twenty or thirty years is that it has often been far too short-sighted. Many times we have supported regimes that can only be described as the "lesser of two evils", only to basically blow them off when their usefulness has gone. We are now seeing the effects of that policy in places such as the Middle East. I fear the same thing may happen in Iraq. Democracy will be a very, very, very difficult thing to bring to a country that has never had a taste of it, and my worst fear is that our support for a post-war Iraq will gradually fade away as people become less and less concerned about what happens there. We need to follow this through to the end if we want to make any permanent, lasting, positive changes in the middle east.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
I'll admit I'm bothered by the author's implied assumption that Al Qaida is the only terrorist organization in the world. This seems like at best an oversight, and at worst an intentional misdirection.

Actually I'm sure he thinks the Palestinian Authority, Abu Nidal, Hamas, Hizballah, The Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al-Aqsa Brigade, and Tanzim are all totally legitimate organizations with legitimate political goals.

Tarkus

[panerd]

Originally posted by Tarkus
Actually I'm sure he thinks the Palestinian Authority, Abu Nidal, Hamas, Hizballah, The Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestine Liberation Front, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Al-Aqsa Brigade, and Tanzim are all totally legitimate organizations with legitimate political goals.

Tarkus

Because he is an Iranian and against the war? Give me a break! I will assume you are a white American? I guess you are planning on blowing up a midwestern federal building, since you are pro-military and white.

[albionmoonlight]

Good points Cam. I know that if I were a perfect decision maker, I would base all of my opinions on the kernels of well reasoned opinions that manage to fall from all sides of the discussion. I am, however, human, and I have to admit that the "chaff" of bad justifications for the war on the board overwhelms the "wheat" of good justifications and does have an effect on me.

I am an optimist at heart, and it distresses me to see so many narrow views expressed here. I thought that we were past many of these issues.

For reasons I don't quite understand, liberal narrowmindedness ("Bush just wants to kill Iraqi babies") annoys me, but conservative narrowmindedness ("Let's bomb Mecca") really offends me--that's why my post read the way it did.

I don't want to come off as elitist, but this is one of the most significant international events of my lifetime, and it's hard for me to understand how people can be stuck on their "Let's get those bastards back for 9/11" v. "Bush wasn't really elected and America just wants to kill people for oil" debates.

I'm posting while I am somewhat emotional, and that's probably a bad thing.

[mrskippy]

I'm not racist!!! I know many Arabs and most are good people.

But many, many Arabs also hate Israel -- even Arab-Americans. They also are against any military action in their homeland. There also tends to be a spirit of Arab-Islamic nationalism in there.

Put it another way ... While many Arab-Americans are proud of their freedom here and while we have many allies in the Arab Middle East, you have to remember something ...

We are infidels!!! According to the Quran, if you don't believe in their system -- you're an infidel. And the Quran makes it clear what happens to infidels.

[John Galt]

skippy,

Believe it or not, racists normally don't call themselves "racists." It is not a label that has a lot of appeal. And the vast majority of racists have Arab, black, hispanic, asian, etc. friends. When you start discounting people based entirely on their ethnic origins, you are being a racist.

[mrskippy]

Call me what you will.

I'll add this ... what was written ... has been written by white people as well. But there is a little more sting when it comes from someone like this ...

ever heard of Arab Nationalism/Imperialism???

[sachmo71]

I just wish people would stop and read over their posts they are going to make before they hit the submit button. Take a moment to cool down if you are upset. I wish I had followed this advice many, many times in the past. Since this issue is bound to get even more emotional before it long, I feel I have to make this request.

[Fritz]

fucking texans

[sterlingice]

by Fritz: Just more jibberjabber from the post smart or don't post club.

Yeah, it did end up digressing into that- I was getting tired and needed to finish up the post. Still, I think I do raise quite a few valid points: you say something stupid in a post about who is the hottest woman, no big deal, but if you start seeing really racist stuff it just pisses me off.

by albionmoonlight:The more I read the posts condemning the war and condemning Bush, the more I am slightly persuaded in that direction.

More importantly, the more I read posts by people supporting Bush, supporting the war, and dismissing/attacking those who disagree with the war or are Muslim, the more I become very afraid about what is driving this war for most Americans.
...
I won't bother pulling representative hawk quotes to "prove" my point because I am not trying to make a point--I'm just letting you know how you are changing my mind--for how much or how little that is worth.

This is the exact quandry I'm finding myself in. I dislike Bush greatly but I feel the war is a just war even if Bush is not necessarily doing it for just reasons. But each ignorant post I read in favor of the war (not to say that there aren't good compelling posts supporting both bush and the war), it pushes me more towards the side opposed to the war.

from CamEdwards: Those who support this war out of hatred and intolerance for Arabs and or Muslims are just as wrong as those who march for peace with knives, tasers, and clubs. They're just as wrong as those who use ignorance as their main argument.

In this country, freedom of speech isn't restricted just to the intelligent. Idiots can have opinions too, and to be persuaded because of the intolerance and ignorance of one side, while being blind to the intolerance and ignorance of the other side is being shortsighted, in my opinion.

Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I can't get too excited about "protesting" this war. I see the protesters here in Lawrence who protest just to protest because it's trendy. It's almost as harmful as the people who want to bomb the hell out of someone just because of their skin color. But, if you're going to kill people, you'd better be damn sure you're doing the right thing so I prefer to err on the side of caution in something like this.

from Fritz:fucking texans

Hey! I'm from texas

SI

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Hey! I'm from texas

WWJWD?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
I love the outcry of racisim from the intellectual elitists.

Intellectual elitists? Please explain.

[lurker]

Originally posted by mrskippy
We are infidels!!! According to the Quran, if you don't believe in their system -- you're an infidel. And the Quran makes it clear what happens to infidels.

I can't believe I'm actually replying to this -- to be honest, I have tried to avoid looking at the board for a while now, since some of the statements I have read have been so extremely frightening and irrational. But I had some time today and I just have to correct this statement, since no one else has yet. [edit -- there were LOTS of things I wanted to say in reply to other comments, but others have already replied and expressed themselves much better than I could have.]

The Quran does not say anything of the kind. There are many quotes from it which express the opposite sentiment, in fact.

If by "we" you mean Christian Americans (which I assume you are), this quote contradicts your statement:

"Surely, those who believe and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians - whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah [God] and the Last Day and does good deeds, shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon then nor shall they grieve." (2:63)

Obviously, the violent terrorists aren't following the Quran, so please don't refer to it when talking about their motivations.

And note that I've tried to be civil; please don't attack me unreasonably simply because I disagree with you.