To look inside the mind of Brookings Institution Scholar Robert Kagan is to look into the minds of the most powerful and dangerous people on the planet. Kagan has many influential followers including John McCain, Mitt Romney and generally the who's who of right wing hawks. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are also disciples of his. In fact, in 2012, Obama was waving one of Kagan's works around telling the world that this is clear justification for his apparent fetish for endlesswar. The name of Obama's prize article is, “Not Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline”.
In his 2012 election campaign Obama stated, “The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe…. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease, from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies, to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” Obama drew his new bold face from the article. He was impressed enough that he discussed the article at length with journalists in the midst of the election campaign against Mitt Romney while Kagan was an advisor to Mitt Romney.
Kagan's views of the USA and the world are extremely dangerous due to both their content and most especially to who is influenced by him. The fact that this man and his ideas are gospel to both Democrats and Republicans on the highest levels should get our attention. He is also married to Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Asia, Victoria Nuland, the woman that betrayed America's involvement in Ukraine as they pushed Russia into a deep and dangerous corner. This all reflects a realm of insiders, realpolitik, and conspiracy.
Obama's Gospel – The Article
The article itself is surprising in its weak base, unsupported assumptions, and its flawed logic. At its very base it assumes supreme sovereignty for all all nations belongs to the United States of America. That base is not a base but reflects Obama's cavalier attitude when to comes to law, especially international law.
The question leading into this article: “Is the United States in decline, as so many seem to believe these days? Or are Americans in danger of committing pre-emptive superpower suicide out of a misplaced fear of their own declining power?” Kagan's answer is that the current liberal world order, a creation of American foreign policy, could end up on the ash heap of history but with a correct view and through constant vigilance the current world order will be maintained.
Kagan cites three measures that may help us analyze the current condition of America's power in the world. They are, the size and influence of the nation's economy, the magnitude of its military, and, redundantly, the degree of political influence it has internationally. Kagan points to the perception that recent problems with the economy or foreign policy indicate the decline of the greatest superpower the world has known. Kagan compares this with the British Empire at the end of the 19th century. His easy juxtaposition of current American world domination and the British Empire does not go so far as replace the term 'superpower' with 'empire', it's merely implied. This starting point is telling. And the fact that it the starting point in the minds of many that have control of the American state indicates contempt for other nation's sovereignty and rule of law. Kagan exposes an unapologetic militarist and authoritarian world view.
His view is about power and not much else. Kagan points out that relative to other economies in the world the USA is holding its position, more or less. He argues that the rapid rise of the Chinese economy is not a crucial factor pointing out the “sheer size” of a given economy isn't a good measure of a nation's position in the world. China can be contained with effort. He points out that China will remain well behind both the US and Europe in terms of per capita GDP.
While the importance of an economy is important to Kagan and presumably anybody that aims to control the world, military strength is vital. He points out that military strength underpins hegemony. This point isn't consistent with the mainstream narrative however; that the USA intervenes in other parts of the world for the benefit of those that are attacked. While the notion of humanitarian intervention is obviously aimed to curry domestic and international support for its many wars, the calculations in Washington's back rooms are adjusted to the metrics of power, not to the wishes of the UN. Kagan's point here is that when it comes to military expenditures, the USA is in another league altogether, vastly outspending everybody else. And there is no doubt about that.
Kagan seems to be oblivious to economic considerations that are not related to military spending. He downplays the importance of a healthy economy and does not relate the economy's poor health to military expenditures. To detach the inconceivable sums that are military spending from the faltering nation's economy is not a simple blind spot. It is one of several of America's Achilles heels.
On the relative rise of other economies such as Brasil and China, he points out, “just because a nation is an attractive investment opportunity does not mean it is a rising great power”. What he does not mention however is the importance of manufacturing to a given domestic economy. These investment opportunities have shifted much of America's substantial tax base offshore. His assuredness that this simple opening of investment opportunities in other nations has no impact at home reflects a serious disconnect.
He points out the decline of the British Empire was not a result of poor economic performance. The British economy grew as it's global status shrank and that was due, in part, to the comparative rising strength of the American economy. It wasn't economic performance but militarily strength that diminished the standing of the United Kingdom. Kagan points to growing German military strength as they aimed for European supremacy as the reason for the British Empire's decline. He fails to say why. Perhaps it is because to Mr. Kagan, relative military strength is the supreme consideration; that on it's own is the measure of measures.
The article points out that as friendly nations rise, they pose no threat to America's position in the world. They are strategic partners and, as Kagan alluded earlier, under the umbrella and protection of American hegemony. Kagan identifies the growing Chinese economy and its concomitant capacity to grow its military as the only realistic threat to American dominance.
Kagan writes at length about the false nostalgia in notions of American popularity and superiority in the 1950s and 60s. Opposition to American imperialism was strident both at home and abroad. He points to a number of colossal failures in the 70s regarding American foreign policy and its economic standing in the world. These were bleak times and prophets like Henry Kissinger and Paul Kennedy were foretelling the demise of American dominance. Back then Kennedy suggested “imperial overreach” and military spending as Achilles heels that would cripple American power in the world. Kagan assert they were wrong pointing to America's overall consistency in terms of America's share of the world's GDP remaining steady. Kagan's overall point here is that much of the sense of American decline is based in nostalgic illusions of power and influence the USA has in the world that it simply didn't have; the subtext being, we are in a better position now than ever.
In the past, detractors that were critical of America's reach in Europe and throughout the world suggested that the USSR and not the USA was in a better position to win over global governments and populations. The USA, in competition with the USSR, was forced to maintain alliances, many of them strained. The USSR just had to wait them out. Kagan points to victory here for the USA and is attributing its expensive strategy of “containment” (of the USSR) as the crucial item.
Kagan's implication in this article that China is America's natural enemy is shocking. Fortunately, this article and its adherents do not see China as an immediate threat but they see continued containment of China as the reason why it isn't. The United States dominates China's backyard and Kagan points out that the USA has China surrounded with military bases. Even if China wanted to be a regional hegemon, it would need to remove Taiwan from America's pocket and they would need to usurp the USA from all the other nations surrounding China.
Kagan questions the notion of 'overreach' by comparing numbers of military personnel today with other times when the numbers were higher. His implicit suggestion is, we have capacity for much more. On the economic side of military spending, he quotes former budget czar Alice Rivlin, “the scary projections of future deficits are not “caused by rising defense spending,” much less by spending on foreign assistance.” Kagan asserts it is “runaway entitlement spending” that is compromising America's future. Presumably, boatloads of money being funneled into defense contractors bank accounts is not entitlement spending.
Kagan lists costs that the USA would incur should American taxpayers cut back on defense spending. They are, the costs associated with unraveling the economic order built and maintained by the American military, costs associated with insecure water routes kept open by the American military machine, costs associated with wars that would break out if the USA didn't keep nations from waging war against each other, costs associated with American allies that have lost the protection of the American military, and costs associated with “the generally free and open nature of the international system”.
Kagan is suggesting a 'pay now or pay later' scenario. This open and shameless display of circular logic has to be either a display of audacity or idiocy. There is no third option.
Kagan warns that world domination is a choice and a choice Americans themselves must make. Failure to maintain dominance would compromise its capacity to emerge from crisis to emerge stronger and healthier than other nations (as it has in the past). Americans may feel compelled, Kagan asserts, to back away from its “moral and material burdens” that have weighed on the USA since World War 2. To agree with diminished military spending is to believe the present 'world order' would persist without American dominance. To maintain the benefits of the current world order with its “widespread freedoms, its general prosperity, its absence of great power conflict”, requires American leadership and commitment.
Again, his presupposition that the status quo are the alpha and omega, that any risk to American dominance in the world is a disaster is utterly baseless and the platform for much of the logical failures that energize this article.
To finish off, Kagan again alludes to the term 'empire' and argues that while all empires do die, the question of when is key. The USA may have hundreds of years to go.
Conclusion
This article, touted by the President of the United States as justification for more war and increased militarism does not bode well for our collective futures. The article is dated and does not address recent sword rattling in the wake of Putin's disobedience dealing with Snowdon, Syria, the Ukraine and so on. Since that article was written, Russia may have replaced China as Robert Kagan's long term project. And since that time, Obama has turned to bay with the dogs of war. Probably as a result of Kagan's influence scores of human beings are now dead in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and other places. And the more and the longer people like him enjoy the influence they do, the more people will die needlessly.
One thing is for sure. The United States has war on its mind and many human beings are not alive today as a result, many more will be dead tomorrow. That consideration however isn't even hinted at. As we read an article like this, as influential as it has been, it is devoid of humanity. Its as if Kagan and Obama are sitting in front of a board game like Risk and human considerations are not part of it. To them power and position on the game board and winning are all that count. Deaths and disabilities, human catastrophe and displacement, the health of other nations are not factors in Kagan's metrics. They would only factor in if they had some impact on power.
It is not the article on its own that is alarming. Kagan isn't alone in his lust for world domination. The fact that the Democratic President of the United States even takes this article seriously is crucial. It suggests that the President of the United States is not very intelligent and worse, he is as affected by whatever psychological condition is affecting Kagan. That condition shows an indifference to human suffering, glib charm, lack of sincerity with an ability to lie seamlessly, grandiose self worth, poor judgment, no consideration of consequences for other people, utilizing human beings as if they are objects and so on. They indicate a serious mental health issue.
Wouldn't it be remarkable if we found those with the most power and influence in this world are not there because they are smart or humane or wise, they are there because they are utterly ruthless. Wouldn't it be remarkable if we discovered that this world, at the very top, is run by psychopaths?
This blog is an archive of articles I've published in MWC News, Indymedia, and on Newsgroups.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Remembrance Isn’t Enough
On November 11th Canadians commemorate the fallen, the lost lives of the men that have been killed in service to the nation in World War 1 as well as wars since then. We thank them for what they have done in their efforts to preserve freedom and democracy.
Remembrance on its own however isn’t enough. It isn’t enough because the mentality that has pushed millions of men into trenches to mindlessly slaughter each other 100 years ago is still in place. Moreover, the war to end all wars has started pretty much every war since that time; World War 2 included.
In 2014 We need to become more objective and critical when it comes to war. Through history, the individual fought on the side he or she was born on, more or less. The state demands it.
World War 1 was not about either freedom or democracy. It was about power and wealth. In fact, Germany had universal male suffrage at the time. Britain qualified about 40% of males to vote. At that time, the United Kingdom brutally ruled the globe at the point of a gun. This is not to suggest German imperialism was better or worse; both were employed by very wealthy people aiming to maximize profit and this factor is war's genesis; it is the reason why all this carnage occurred and still occurs. The nature of empire is a nature of violence and oppression and to the extent we bolster that tradition and mentality with Remembrance Day celebrations, we should examine and analyze these processes very carefully. If Remembrance Day ceremonies militarize the population and shore up future support for offensive war against other nations, we need to critically examine what we are doing. If it is truly about reflecting on the deaths of so many, then we should do so.
Remembrance Day must be more than a day to support unquestioned support for the state, for the powers that make war happen. Unquestioning the motives of the state is more than dangerous, it is immoral. This should be a day to actually remember and analyze the mistakes of the past to not repeat them. If waging war is a mistake that results in the deaths of thousands or millions of human beings, it is not merely a mistake. It is a crime of the highest order and we, the cannon fodder for future wars, must do the analysis. The people that actually send us to war will not.
Bush’s apparent mistake by waging war in Iraq occurred in a climate of nationalist jingoism and insecurity after 9 11. Mistakes like that may occur when a population is in fear, when a population is desensitized to the plight of foreign individuals, and when popular media notes all the reasons for going to war while burying the myriad of reasons not to. Although Bush’s push to war was not as much a mistake as it was a planned and thought out bid for oil control as well as America’s strategic placement on the world map, it was a mistake in the analysis of the population. Otherwise, popular opposition may have interfered with war planning and possibly stopped an invasion. This venture has only resulted in far more instability and carnage than could have been possible otherwise. As we can see in 2014, that war is far from ending.
One Thread of Legacy
With an upheaval as massive as World War One, it would be impossible to list the threads of legacy that have spun from that carnage. Perhaps the most relevant one that is impacting people today is the ongoing Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. That legacy runs this way: the Balfour Declaration in 1926 set scaffolding for the Israeli state, the Treaty of Versailles set up a frightened and dangerous mood in Germany. Germany, under Hitler, killed 6 million Jews and many more including communists, socialists, gypsies, gays and so on. Naturally, the Jewish people wanted their own state and security for themselves as a people. Today, the people of Israel do not feel secure; they are not.
War feeds on insecurity and fear and in turn, creates more of the same. World War 1 created acute insecurity among the German people; a very dangerous condition. Germans became suspicious and frightened of everybody and xenophobia ran high. Conditions like this empower the state to its dangerous and violent extremes.
Jewish people had been living in Palestinian lands prior to 1948 and the creation of the state of Israel. They lived with some tension with local Arabs but both populations managed to get along. Western powers callously created a state that is based on religious or ethnic attributes necessarily creating a society of exclusion as opposed to working toward inclusion and peace. The exclusion or lowering of the status of the local people that had been living there all along is itself is an act of violence, of war. As a result, the people of Israel live in a sea of hatred where individuals and groups of individuals would like to eradicate the state of Israel and individuals living as Jewish people in Israel. It is an extremely volatile and ongoing situation and it is directly tied to the war to end all wars; World War 1.
The current bombing of ISIS may not tie as directly to World War 1 but the artificial drawing of boundaries throughout the Middle East by Western powers has set up conditions for conflict and mutual distrust. This, along with a widespread acceptance of dominance by imperial powers is a certain recipe for disaster. The latter point is a crucial in terms of remembrance. It is the end we collectively hold up.
What is it we bring to mind when we remember? The reality is; not much. If we did we would stop repeating the same mindless carnage over and over and over again. Today, in 2014, Western powers, led by the USA are dropping bombs on ISIS after the USA intervened in Iraq and upon their departure, set up certain civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia by stripping power and wealth from one population and handing it over to the other. The British did exactly the same thing to Protestant and Catholic populations in the British Isles.
The West and NATO have attacked and bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya in recent years with an aim to overthrow those dictatorships. A kind and forgiving attitude toward Western intervention would need to admit, at least, that these regime change ventures have created more terrorists and have increased hatred against the West and against Israel. They have boxed many millions of ordinary Muslim citizens into a corner where they have little choice but to fight against violent domination by foreign forces. We are creating not only terrorism but turning whole populations against the West. This reaction will extend to an unknown extent to include antipathy toward Western style democracy, individual freedom, and legal frameworks based in rationality. We are not only perverting modernity, we are turning people against it and against ourselves as people in the existing unwieldy climate of fear and violence.
Cavalier About War
Unlike Europeans and much of the world, North Americans have not seen war directly on American or Canadian soil in living memory. Perhaps this explains the cavalier attitude about war that fills media and political circles. That same attitude is well established within the population. And from North America, war is pushed through the world. Allies are pressured to take part, to join in with what Washington calls, ‘the community of nations’.
Unlike 1914, war today is directed toward civilian populations. The dropping of bombs in settled areas is the ultimate act of cowardice, not unlike terrorist bombings of civilians. It is meant to collectively punish disobedient or resistant populations. The Sunnis in Syria and Iraq are the latest enemy suffering under this ongoing war crime. ISIS are slaughtering innocent people that even hint at defiance. Civilians have paid a heavy price as a result of vague targeting of leaders of Taliban, Al Qeada, ISIS; collateral damage is the euphemism intended to sterilize indiscriminate carnage. The Western Frankenstein known as ISIS advertise their brutality like a badge of honour. They are not unique in this regard.
The commencement of bombing on CSIS is met with the same apathy as when Libya was attacked by NATO. Stephen Harper starts a war and it barely raises an eyebrow. Obviously we are not remembering much. We are at a point where the start of a war is received with a collective shrug of the shoulders or, a cheer reminiscent of a great sports event. Then on November 11th we stand in parks and monuments to remember. The world is getting ugly and we are at a point where we need to ask ourselves: What are we remembering?
Do we remember 158 Canadians that have died in Afghanistan? Those that know them remember them but what about the rest of us? What is it we are supposed to remember?
Perhaps when we remember those that died, we also remember political mistakes or planned conspiracies to start wars. We must remember the death and carnage and the destruction of whole societies. We remember the lies that have been delivered to us through media and political sycophants. We should remember the way war veterans have been treated and the way they continue to be treated. We must remember the millions of lives lost on and off the battlefield and we should remember that armies have lined up against each other for thousands of years with a willingness to kill those born on the other side of the border should some Dear Leader demand it. Maybe we are not above the barbarians we aim to kill. Perhaps if we really remember, we will put an end to it.
Remembrance on its own however isn’t enough. It isn’t enough because the mentality that has pushed millions of men into trenches to mindlessly slaughter each other 100 years ago is still in place. Moreover, the war to end all wars has started pretty much every war since that time; World War 2 included.
In 2014 We need to become more objective and critical when it comes to war. Through history, the individual fought on the side he or she was born on, more or less. The state demands it.
World War 1 was not about either freedom or democracy. It was about power and wealth. In fact, Germany had universal male suffrage at the time. Britain qualified about 40% of males to vote. At that time, the United Kingdom brutally ruled the globe at the point of a gun. This is not to suggest German imperialism was better or worse; both were employed by very wealthy people aiming to maximize profit and this factor is war's genesis; it is the reason why all this carnage occurred and still occurs. The nature of empire is a nature of violence and oppression and to the extent we bolster that tradition and mentality with Remembrance Day celebrations, we should examine and analyze these processes very carefully. If Remembrance Day ceremonies militarize the population and shore up future support for offensive war against other nations, we need to critically examine what we are doing. If it is truly about reflecting on the deaths of so many, then we should do so.
Remembrance Day must be more than a day to support unquestioned support for the state, for the powers that make war happen. Unquestioning the motives of the state is more than dangerous, it is immoral. This should be a day to actually remember and analyze the mistakes of the past to not repeat them. If waging war is a mistake that results in the deaths of thousands or millions of human beings, it is not merely a mistake. It is a crime of the highest order and we, the cannon fodder for future wars, must do the analysis. The people that actually send us to war will not.
Bush’s apparent mistake by waging war in Iraq occurred in a climate of nationalist jingoism and insecurity after 9 11. Mistakes like that may occur when a population is in fear, when a population is desensitized to the plight of foreign individuals, and when popular media notes all the reasons for going to war while burying the myriad of reasons not to. Although Bush’s push to war was not as much a mistake as it was a planned and thought out bid for oil control as well as America’s strategic placement on the world map, it was a mistake in the analysis of the population. Otherwise, popular opposition may have interfered with war planning and possibly stopped an invasion. This venture has only resulted in far more instability and carnage than could have been possible otherwise. As we can see in 2014, that war is far from ending.
One Thread of Legacy
With an upheaval as massive as World War One, it would be impossible to list the threads of legacy that have spun from that carnage. Perhaps the most relevant one that is impacting people today is the ongoing Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. That legacy runs this way: the Balfour Declaration in 1926 set scaffolding for the Israeli state, the Treaty of Versailles set up a frightened and dangerous mood in Germany. Germany, under Hitler, killed 6 million Jews and many more including communists, socialists, gypsies, gays and so on. Naturally, the Jewish people wanted their own state and security for themselves as a people. Today, the people of Israel do not feel secure; they are not.
War feeds on insecurity and fear and in turn, creates more of the same. World War 1 created acute insecurity among the German people; a very dangerous condition. Germans became suspicious and frightened of everybody and xenophobia ran high. Conditions like this empower the state to its dangerous and violent extremes.
Jewish people had been living in Palestinian lands prior to 1948 and the creation of the state of Israel. They lived with some tension with local Arabs but both populations managed to get along. Western powers callously created a state that is based on religious or ethnic attributes necessarily creating a society of exclusion as opposed to working toward inclusion and peace. The exclusion or lowering of the status of the local people that had been living there all along is itself is an act of violence, of war. As a result, the people of Israel live in a sea of hatred where individuals and groups of individuals would like to eradicate the state of Israel and individuals living as Jewish people in Israel. It is an extremely volatile and ongoing situation and it is directly tied to the war to end all wars; World War 1.
The current bombing of ISIS may not tie as directly to World War 1 but the artificial drawing of boundaries throughout the Middle East by Western powers has set up conditions for conflict and mutual distrust. This, along with a widespread acceptance of dominance by imperial powers is a certain recipe for disaster. The latter point is a crucial in terms of remembrance. It is the end we collectively hold up.
What is it we bring to mind when we remember? The reality is; not much. If we did we would stop repeating the same mindless carnage over and over and over again. Today, in 2014, Western powers, led by the USA are dropping bombs on ISIS after the USA intervened in Iraq and upon their departure, set up certain civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia by stripping power and wealth from one population and handing it over to the other. The British did exactly the same thing to Protestant and Catholic populations in the British Isles.
The West and NATO have attacked and bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya in recent years with an aim to overthrow those dictatorships. A kind and forgiving attitude toward Western intervention would need to admit, at least, that these regime change ventures have created more terrorists and have increased hatred against the West and against Israel. They have boxed many millions of ordinary Muslim citizens into a corner where they have little choice but to fight against violent domination by foreign forces. We are creating not only terrorism but turning whole populations against the West. This reaction will extend to an unknown extent to include antipathy toward Western style democracy, individual freedom, and legal frameworks based in rationality. We are not only perverting modernity, we are turning people against it and against ourselves as people in the existing unwieldy climate of fear and violence.
Cavalier About War
Unlike Europeans and much of the world, North Americans have not seen war directly on American or Canadian soil in living memory. Perhaps this explains the cavalier attitude about war that fills media and political circles. That same attitude is well established within the population. And from North America, war is pushed through the world. Allies are pressured to take part, to join in with what Washington calls, ‘the community of nations’.
Unlike 1914, war today is directed toward civilian populations. The dropping of bombs in settled areas is the ultimate act of cowardice, not unlike terrorist bombings of civilians. It is meant to collectively punish disobedient or resistant populations. The Sunnis in Syria and Iraq are the latest enemy suffering under this ongoing war crime. ISIS are slaughtering innocent people that even hint at defiance. Civilians have paid a heavy price as a result of vague targeting of leaders of Taliban, Al Qeada, ISIS; collateral damage is the euphemism intended to sterilize indiscriminate carnage. The Western Frankenstein known as ISIS advertise their brutality like a badge of honour. They are not unique in this regard.
The commencement of bombing on CSIS is met with the same apathy as when Libya was attacked by NATO. Stephen Harper starts a war and it barely raises an eyebrow. Obviously we are not remembering much. We are at a point where the start of a war is received with a collective shrug of the shoulders or, a cheer reminiscent of a great sports event. Then on November 11th we stand in parks and monuments to remember. The world is getting ugly and we are at a point where we need to ask ourselves: What are we remembering?
Do we remember 158 Canadians that have died in Afghanistan? Those that know them remember them but what about the rest of us? What is it we are supposed to remember?
Perhaps when we remember those that died, we also remember political mistakes or planned conspiracies to start wars. We must remember the death and carnage and the destruction of whole societies. We remember the lies that have been delivered to us through media and political sycophants. We should remember the way war veterans have been treated and the way they continue to be treated. We must remember the millions of lives lost on and off the battlefield and we should remember that armies have lined up against each other for thousands of years with a willingness to kill those born on the other side of the border should some Dear Leader demand it. Maybe we are not above the barbarians we aim to kill. Perhaps if we really remember, we will put an end to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)