Posted on 08/13/2003 8:00:07 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Imperial wars, then & now
Posted: August 13, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Having found neither weapons of mass destruction nor a link to 9-11, the White House has retreated into its fallback position. It now defends Operation Iraqi Freedom as a necessary war to rid the Middle East of a brutal dictatorship and replace it with a democracy.
That is, this was a war of democratic imperialism, as some of us said all along. The neocons exploited America's rage after 9-11 and steered the president into invading Iraq, in order to reshape its political system and redirect its foreign policy. Imperialism, pure and simple.
Ahmed Chalabi was the puppet preselected to run the colony.
Now, we are mired in a guerrilla war, with daily dead and wounded, costing $1 billion a week, with no exit strategy and no end in sight.
Yet, it is not the first time a U.S. president, elected on an anti-interventionist platform, was steered into an imperial war, after absorbing a stunning, shocking blow to the nation.
On Feb. 15, 1898, the battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor, killing 268 sailors. This perceived Spanish atrocity, almost surely an accident, was seized upon by Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt to bully President McKinley into calling for a war with Spain for which they had long planned.
In "First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power," ex-ambassador Warren Zimmerman tells the compelling story of how America first became an empire.
Anticipating war, T.R., on the navy secretary's day off, wired Commodore Dewey, commander of the Pacific squadron, to prepare to attack the Spanish fleet. As soon as war was declared, Dewey sailed for Manila Bay, caught the Spanish ships in the harbor and sank or burned all seven, losing but a single man.
The U.S. North Atlantic Squadron did the same to the Spanish fleet sent to protect Cuba. The Spanish warships were bottled up in Santiago harbor by U.S. battleships with superior firepower. In a heroic but doomed breakout on July 3, 1898, every Spanish ship was scuttled or sunk. Madrid surrendered.
After our "splendid little war," a ferocious debate erupted. It was between T.R.-Lodge imperialists – who believed that for America to be secure in a world of empires, she must become an empire and annex the Philippines – and anti-imperialists, or "goo-goos," who wanted to give the Filipinos their independence.
Arguments for and against annexation were both strategic and racist. Said industrialist Andrew Carnegie, "As long as we remain free from distant possessions, we are impregnable against serious attack."
Added progressive Carl Schurz, "Show me a single instance of the successful establishment and peaceable maintenance for a respectable period of republican institutions, based upon popular self-government, under a tropical sun."
McKinley had promised Schurz, "You may be sure there will be no jingo nonsense in my administration." But he was won over by the imperialists. He ordered the Army to occupy Manila and crush Filipino rebels, who were stunned to discover their liberators had decided to replace their former colonial masters.
For three years, U.S. soldiers and Marines fought, with 4,000 dying in combat, several times as many as had been lost in Cuba. Filipino combat losses were 20,000 with 200,000 civilian dead, many of disease. Yet, a recent New York Times Almanac does not even list the Filipino insurrection as a major U.S. conflict.
Was it worth it – annexing the Philippines?
In the war to secure the islands, atrocities were committed on both sides, and as a result of that war, we became ensnared in the great power politics of Asia, out of which came Pearl Harbor, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. By annexing the islands, writes Zimmermann, America "took on a security commitment in Asia that it found difficult to defend. In the Philippine case, the founders of American imperialism may have made a costly mistake."
One year after the war to avenge the sinking of the Maine in Havana, we were in an imperial war 10,000 miles away. Now, two years after Sept. 11, we are fighting a guerrilla war in a nation 6,000 miles away, that had nothing to do with 9-11.
President Bush was misled about what to expect when Baghdad fell. And those who misled him now reassure him that our occupation is going well and we are mopping up the resistance.
Perhaps. But, like William McKinley, George Bush may prove to be a well-intentioned president who embroiled us in decades of wars in a part of the world that was never vital to America.
The Middle East isn't vital to America? That's a new one on me.
Right, Pat.
If we hadn't been in the Philippines in 1898, none of the rest would have happened.
Sure.
Give Pat credit on this one. I predicted this would be the case even before the war began, based only on my conversations with people with family contacts in the Middle East. Every one of these people indicated that they were in favor of the war, and for no other reason than that "Saddam Hussein has to be removed from power."
In fact, I should buy a beer for the one fellow who pointed out months ago that the U.S. would find itself with no friends either inside Iraq or among its neighbors -- "Once the job is done and Saddam Hussein is gone, those people will want to throw the Americans out right after him."
Actually he didn't say the Middle East.
George Bush may prove to be a well-intentioned president who embroiled us in decades of wars in a part of the world that was never vital to America.
He was referring specifically to Iraq.
Saddam was demonstrably linked to funding suicide bombers in Israel, and too many Americans were killed in those attacks, alone.
That, among myriad other reasons, was always enough for me to want to take out that psycho-sexual maniac and his depraved family and regime.
Gee, we're alone.
GOOD!
Muslim charities right here in the U.S. have also been linked to these suicide bombings in Israel, and the Bush Administration has gone out of its way to avoid shutting these charities down. The government of this country has a vested interest in convincing people that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the U.S. than our own Islamic population is.
That, among myriad other reasons, was always enough for me to want to take out that psycho-sexual maniac and his depraved family and regime.
How badly did you want to do this? Enough to enlist and do it yourself, or only enough to sit at a computer and mouth off about it?
Well, I'm a Vietnam combat veteran who also wrote the Department Of The Army on 29 SEP 2001 volunteering to return to service, but was essentially told I'm too old.
How would you know what else I might do?
I said myriad other reasons and I mean it.
There. I've "mouthed off" again.
Americans were not specifically targeted by these bombers of which you speak. They happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their deaths, though tragic were not an act of war against us.
If an American visited London in 1940 and was killed in a German air raid one could hardly say the Germans attacked America. The hypothetical American in my example voluntarily and knowingly went into a war zone.
But I am curious about one thing -- In light of the disgraceful, incompetent manner in which the civilian leadership of the United States carried out the Vietnam War, I would think a Vietnam combat veteran of all people would be more hesitant than most to see the U.S. wage a "war" like we've seen in Iraq. If anything, the U.S. action in two areas of the Middle East stand in stark contrast to each other (Afghanistan and Iraq) in terms of how to "do it right" and how to "do it wrong."
When America decided it had to be a great power of the European model and have overseas possessions we set ourselves up for conflict where none existed before. Deciding we needed bases to project force into the Pacific we annexed Hawaii, picked a fight with Spain on the pretext of human rights violations in Cuba and used that to grab the Philippines, the Marianas, etc. Already with a presence in China we became "players" and felt compelled to instruct foreign powers how to behave on foreign lands. I am not condoning Japanese expansion but if it weren't for our overseas holdings we would not have been on a collision course with the rising sun. Those who warned against Imperialism back in 1898 knew what they were talking about - it costs a lot of blood and treasure to maintain.
FMCDH
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.