The Long Road of History?

Programs of world domination by great powers that would have left Napoleon, or even Hitler, aghast are now presented with a straight face as international crusades for freedom, peace, sweetness and light.

So wrote Henry Elmer Barnes, a noted historian, in a volume under his editorship called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace published in 1952. This volume was about the drive towards WW II and FDR's privately pursued though publicly denied policy of involving the United States in that conflict (by provoking a Japanese attack upon US interests thus justifying a declaration of war). The rest, as they say, is history: the Cold War; the military-industrial complex (sort of socialism for the rich and free market competition for the workers and poor); the domination of US-based finance capital. Historically, the crusade against the "Red Menace" began with Woodrow Wilson in the immediate aftermath of the Bolsheviks' coming to power. It just heated up after WW II. A disinterested viewer from the outside might have concluded, from vast evidence, that interference in other countries, the waging of war and the pursuit of domination, was much greater in the capitalist west than in the communist east. And with the demise of the USSR in 1991, this greed for world domination has not lessened; only the need for new enemies has arisen. People familiar with Cheney-Rumsfeld's Project for a New American Century see all too clearly how 9/11 played so well into these imperialistic hopes and dreams.

One might think that religious crusades ended in the Middle Ages; in fact, they did. But Bush and his backers need some tool to whip up hysteria and war support among the home population and "Islamo-Fascism" and a new Caliphate have been chosen to fill the bill. Aside from the disgusting chauvinism involved, this propaganda campaign is downright silly. Obviously the right-wingers know no shame; sometimes they seem to possess no brains either. That the Arc of Instability which Bush wants to dominate contains so much oil and gas is merest coincidence, right? I suppose that in addition to asserting dictatorial powers, Cheney's refusal to release information from his energy task force was likely based on hiding that he and his energy oligarchs were divvying up middle eastern oil even before the Iraq war. Now, that would constitute evidence of a criminal conspiracy (and the conspiracy is about to bear fruit with the proposed new Iraqi Oil law and its PSA's, the law and sharing agreements having been written by the oil industry in the US). The regime, and a compliant Congress, have been only too quick to claim and legalize dictatorial powers and secrecy and exemption from laws and accepted norms. If the Nazis had been perspicacious enough to pass laws exempting themselves from war-crimes prosecutions, might Nuremberg not have happened? Would the victorious powers have thrown up their hands in frustration that they had been cut off at the pass? A silly enormity: now that's an oxy- for all the -morons out there.

And is this murderous drive for domination for the benefit of the home population? If it were, income inequality would be lessening, not growing, high-paying jobs would be increasing, not declining, promises of "wealth beyond the dreams of avarice" would be offered to the people. Roman Legions got to share in the booty; English soldiers sent to Ireland were promised (Irish) land. Average Americans are offered only more lost jobs, more poverty, more crime in the streets. In the State of the Union Bush claimed the United States has the greatest health care in the world. That was a lie, a demonstrable lie. America's people might not be sure what to do to right things but they no longer fall for the propaganda. The problem is they are only offered occasional elections where we get to choose twixt tweedledum and tweedledee and the war goes on. Pressure on the Congress to throw the bastards out and then prosecute them for their crimes is our only short-term option and very few elected representatives have the backbone to do that. Most officials get elected by money from business interests and if business wants to control the world's economy and its resources, well, it's dangerous to bite the hand that feeds you. It takes both brains and courage to jump off the gravy train, and courage, at least, has never been a politician's forte. Such is the current state of leadership.

Meanwhile, back at the "Red Menace" ranch, in Russia, the home of Bolshevism, how has the return to capitalism changed the country? An article in Pravda states that per capita GDP in 2006 is lower than in 1991, that 15% of the population receives 57% of incomes (2005 US stats: 20% get 50%), that industrial output has fallen from 38% to 28% of GDP, that manufacturing is only 45% of 1991 levels, and 40% of the population is officially below the poverty line. Welcome to America, Comrades!

Are They Insane or Just Liars?

The American electorate voted overwhelmingly in November to express their dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. An AP poll released Thursday, January 11, 2 months after the election, shows that only 35% believe the invasion was correct; 60% believe hopes for a stable Iraq are forlorn; 70% oppose sending more troops. Yet Bush is going to send more troops. Many recall, though few mention, how Bush had said that he would take military advice from the generals in charge but when those generals opposed sending more troops he replaced them with more compliant generals. 'Wyatt Earp' Dubya is in charge, being not only the "decider" but seemingly the "knower" as well. For the worriers among us the additional troops are less the concern than the extra naval battle group being sent to the area and the raid against the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq. Some of us fear that Bush-Cheney's response to failure in Iraq is to expand the conflict into war with Iran. For our rulers' eyes are on their prize and that is not freedom and democracy (and certainly not peace) but power and domination.

Bush says explicitly that the Iraqi government is on the clock and that clock is ticking down. Dubya makes it sound as though we were invited into Iraq, that we are there to do the Iraqis a favor. Bush sold us a war premised on lies: that Iraq had WMD and implying Iraqi support for Al Qaeda. These were not only untrue, the junta knew they were untrue. Bush, Cheney, et al, have committed felonies (violations of Title 18 USC), international war crimes (war of aggression, changing laws of occupied country, etc), and many impeachable offenses (NSA spying,etc). Bush and his legion don't believe in government by the people (democracy?) either in the US or Iraq. "We" are there to lock up control over the earth's energy supplies and funnel profits to the energy sector and the weapons makers and investors. (No general has ever met a weapon system he didn't like.) The peoples of the Middle East are grist for our profiteering hegemony; the American people exist only to buy enough products to prop up corporate profits. Peace, harmony, jobs and joy are not in the Bush lexicon. He and his cronies will kill us all rather than cede control. And they may very well succeed.

Even among Bush supporters it's hard to find any who think another 20,000 troops will make a substantive difference. The goal will obviously be to pacify Baghdad and that, realistically, will mean killing many thousands more Iraqis. And that will only further inflame anti-American feelings and behaviors in both Iraq and the wider region. And other than the handful of Congress who would and have voted against the regime most representatives basically support Bush's goals; they simply can't stand the incompetence. If bombing of Iran occurs the internal state within the US will have moved along in a sort of psychedelic way: the covert made overt. It will become next to impossible for politicians to hide behind generalities of supporting "democratic transition" in the Arab world: the boldness and baldness of domination and suppression and mass murder will be manifest to all.

As written before the importance of removing the current junta is not merely payback or justice for past crimes but to prevent future crimes. If Bush widens the war into Iran or Syria more seriously overt anti-war action will occur in the US and that will lead to unleashing the forces of repression at home. At that point sides will be chosen and the war will be much more than just dinner table conversation in the US. Notwithstanding 9/11, the US has thrown its violent weight around for decades with little repercussion at home. Expanding the war wlll incite more "radicals" to attack the US homeland. And most Americans will be torn between supporting the regime because of these attacks (just as in 2001) and opposing the regime because they will have "caused" these attacks. It would behoove Americans to think these things through before such horrid consequences of Bush's policies come home to roost. In 1939, the Hitler regime staged a phony attack on German positions by Polish forces to justify the Blitzkreig against Poland. This fact doesn't make it into too many history books. Five years ago Americans and their elected officials fell for the jingoism of war. It would be best for all if we were better prepared for more sober reactions in the next round, and the clock is ticking down to that next round more quickly than we may like.

What Is A "Long War"?

In the middle of the 12th century a man named Nicholas Breakspear became the first and only Englishman elected Pope of the Catholic Church, Adrian IV. In those days, broadly speaking from the 5th to the 16th centuries, the Catholic Church was invested with both secular as well as religious power. Kings and emperors were chosen and sanctioned by Rome. Well, jolly old Nick issued a Papal Bull giving Ireland to England's Henry II, sealing the deal with a ring containing a large emerald. Thus Ireland became the Emerald Isle, the first colony of the modern world. The Anglo-Norman English landed, officially, on those emerald shores in 1167. Now, 839 years later, the English are still there, controlling the province of Ulster.

Over the centuries of English domination and genocide many millions of Irish died and many millions more were forced to emigrate. To the English the Irish were (are perhaps still?) barbarous and vile. Think of all the nasty, offensive terms of imperialistic chauvinism that the English language contains and have been used in more recent centuries to slander other "colored" peoples of the world: Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Africans. All these had their beginnings in the conquest of Ireland. Policies used in places such as Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where natives were pushed off land to give it to colonists originated in Ireland. Historical records show that Ireland was almost entirely forested. Today there are few trees. The English cut down Ireland's trees to build English ships, to stoke English iron furnaces, to make English barrel staves. The trees that were left were burned to eliminate hiding places for Irish rebels; in those days they didn't have napalm or airplanes. Not until 1920 did (most of) Ireland get its independence. In our current world we're indoctrinated to believe that imperial, racist domination is something that 'whites' (Causasians) do to 'coloreds' (non-Caucasians) but the history of Ireland gives the lie to this view. In the 16th century, after Henry VIII's split with Rome, religion entered the picture as part of the domination. Nothing in contemporary polemics about a "clash of civilizations" can match the invective used by the English in demeaning both the papist Catholics and the Irish in general. And this was limited neither in scope nor duration. As late as WW I English writers and historians spit venom against Irish Catholics. An oddity about all this is that when Henry VIII split from Rome the Church of England retained the beliefs and rituals of Rome; the only thing that changed was to substitute the King for the Pope, and this replication of authoritarian Church rule was seminal in fueling religious dissension in Britain, with the rise of "puritanism" and Presbyterianism and non-Conformists in general. Of courese, whether C of E Kings/Queens ruled or the Puritans with Cromwell, they were united in one thing at least: the Irish were barbaric subhumans who needed to be led to civilization. Irish history is instructive in many ways.

So the English tried for more than 750 years to subdue and civilize the Irish before they mostly gave up and the Irish Free State was proclaimed. But the English still hold Ulster and as recently as two weeks ago Ulster Protestant leaders were refusing to meet with Sinn Fein (Ourselves Alone) leaders over the structure of police forces. 2006 - 1167 = 839 years! Still the "war" goes on. And showing where official US policy lies (and the history of English influence in America) the Irish Republican Army is still considered a terrorist organization! The English can invade and conquer Ireland and slaughter it's inhabitants and that's okay but if the Irish fight back they are murderous terrorists (and Catholics as well!). England versus Ireland is the longest war in history and it's not over yet.

There is a belief current among the Iraqi war lobby that Viet Nam was "lost" because Americans lost heart and gave up, and these warmongers -Bush, Cheney, Bill Kristol, etc.- think the same applies to the Middle East and the newly coined "Long War," a "generational conflict" in which we are currently engaged. To oppose these "new" imperialistic ambitions is to be defeatist and to give aid and comfort to the enemy, the terrorists. This is a profound premise and must be taken seriously. Attritubed to Stalin is the statement that bombs don't win wars, people win wars. Whether the attribution is correct or not the statement is on point. The Irish never accepted English domination and they never gave up. The Vietnamese never accepted foreign domination and fought the Japanese and the French and the Americans till independence was won. "Long wars" are people's wars and eventually the "people" win. And if the neo-con junta, so well-abetted by their clones the Democrats, can't seem to win our allegiance to their imperialistic designs the problem lies not with us, American dissenters, but with our rulers. For we can see that this "long war" is not for liberation but for domination, is creating enemies not friends, and our anti-democratic rulers don't even bother to try to bribe us for our help and acquiescence(the English monarchy and Parliament had to promise land in Ireland to get soldiers and investors). All they can do is insult us as being weak and threaten us with draconian laws of repression.

Long wars are "won" by following the tide of history and history favors independence and liberty and that requires that "we" stop trying to civilize "them" and maybe find some liberty and independence and civility for and in ourselves.