Still the Reluctant Imperialists

by

Hat tip to Constant Reader Wilfred for this item
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the Bush Doctrine was first introduced, political analysts began debating whether or not it actually indicated that the US was now actively/openly pursuing an imperialist approach to our foreign policy.

Here’s a sampling of articles on the subject (with choice quotes) dating back to 2002:

  • America’s imperial war

    More importantly, the temporary US bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caspian states appear to be putting down roots. US military “tent cities” have now been established in 13 places in the states bordering Afghanistan. New airports are being built and garrisons expanded. In December, the US assistant secretary of state Elizabeth Jones promised that “when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region.”

  • America’s Imperial Dilemma (first 500 words free…good stuff though)

    The United States increasingly looks, walks, and talks like an empire. It should therefore heed the lessons of its predecessors, exercising strong and determined global leadership. At the same time, it must avoid the temptation to meddle when American interests are not at stake. This means, among other things, dropping the doctrine of universal democracy promotion.

  • America’s Imperial Ambition

    America’s nascent neoimperial grand strategy threatens to rend the fabric of the international community and political partnerships precisely at a time when that community and those partnerships are urgently needed. It is an approach fraught with peril and likely to fail. It is not only politically unsustainable but diplomatically harmful. And if history is a guide, it will trigger antagonism and resistance that will leave America in a more hostile and divided world.

More recently, Gary Hart has written an article suggesting we still have a chance to rethink our choices here. We’re not so far along Imperialism Road that we can’t turn back. But we must understand what our choices mean:

If the United States is to become an empire, a warning must be heard: Becoming an empire, we will no longer be a republic.

I have to confess to not understanding immediately why he says that, so I looked up precise definitions of each option:

Empire: A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

Republic: A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

So I guess the reason the United States cannot be both an empire and a republic is that, in order to be both, the citizens of the United States would have to exercise supreme power over the people throughout the extensive territories in the empire. We, the people, would have to make decisions that affect the lives of the people of Iraqi (spare me the “full soveriegnty” bit for a moment please) and Afghanistan (ditto), and wherever the WoT takes us next. Currently, the President makes those decisions, like any emperor would. /snark on/ Given how little interest Americans have in governing their own lives (only an estimated 52% of the eligible population actually voted in 2000), the Republic Empire doesn’t sound like a very workable system. /snark off/ But beyond that, the idea that it’s immoral to make decisions with the full knowledge and intention of impacting the lives of people under one’s rule who don’t get a vote in the matter (i.e., being governed without representation) is what drove us to starting this whole American experiment in the first place. I’m sure Hart is right, and we should reconsider the longer term impacts of what we’re doing here.

53 thoughts on “Still the Reluctant Imperialists”

  2. a small reminder American Samoa and Peurto Rico don’t have the vote.
    Good point. I thought about that when choosing the phrase “actively/openly pursuing an imperialist approach to our foreign policy.” Although I’m not sure that covers it. I’m also sure folks would argue we’re still not “openly” pursuing such an approach, despite the evidence, like that you cite.

  3. Personally I think the congressional republicans lost confidence in the neocon dream when daylight woke them up.
    The admin. may have wanted to but I don’t think it’s politically feasible to even attempt something any longer.
    The fissures and seams are showing among the republican party and the Imperialism goal is just one divisive issue among them.

  4. So. Plan for an extended stay and you’re an imperialist; don’t plan for it and you just didn’t consider the realities of the situation. Do you seriously think we’re negotiating for perpetual hammerlocks on Iraq and Afghanistan?
    If so, we’re doing a piss-poor job of subjugatine either place.

  5. Do you seriously think we’re negotiating for perpetual hammerlocks on Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Yup.

    In December, the US assistant secretary of state Elizabeth Jones promised that “when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region.”

    Seems rather clear to me.

  6. There’s a great gap between “maintaining a presence” and “maintaining a controlling presence. The former is pretty much what we’ve got all over the world. The latter is what you’re claiming we’re headed toward. Look up imperialism, in case you’re confused about what I’m talking about.

  7. There’s a great gap between “maintaining a presence” and “maintaining a controlling presence. The former is pretty much what we’ve got all over the world. The latter is what you’re claiming we’re headed toward. Look up imperialism, in case you’re confused about what I’m talking about.
    I’ve already looked up empire. I think I got it.
    But let’s look at what we’re really talking about here when we suggest we’re only interested in “maintaining a presence”:

    U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer has issued a raft of edicts revising Iraq’s legal code and has appointed at least two dozen Iraqis to government jobs with multi-year terms in an attempt to promote his concepts of governance long after the planned handover of political authority on Wednesday.
    Some of the orders signed by Bremer, which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq’s interim government, restrict the power of the interim government and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country’s democratic transition. Among the most controversial orders is the enactment of an elections law that gives a seven-member commission the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support. [emphasis mine]

    Sounds like a “controlling presence” to me.

  12. Empire light is what we’re going for. I doubt it will last too long, though. Afghanistan will blowup in our faces.

  14. I’ve already looked up empire. I think I got it.
    I second Slarti’s recommendation. “Empire” and “Imperialism” (in its modern form) aren’t as closely related as you might think.

  15. On a serious note, note that Bush now goes further than the original doctrine in his stump speech:
    “The lesson of 9/11 is that you’ve got to deal with threats before they fully materialize.”
    So. Not only does a threat not need to be imminent–it does not need to have “fully materialized.” Or to put it another way, to “exist.”
    Bush/Cheney 2004: Incompetent Imperialism.

  16. When I’m president, we shall deal with threats before anyone has even thought they might materialize.
    The first action of my administration will be to invade Switzerland.

  17. “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure….
    If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us,” but he will say to you, “Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
    –Abraham Lincoln

  18. Can’t beat that Lincoln. Last great Republican President ;p
    imperialism: The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
    I’d say it again: I think I got it.

  19. Edward: Great. Glad we’ve got this straight. Now you need to point out how what we’re doing resembles your definition even loosely.
    Katherine, using the time of Lincoln as counterexample is…inappropriate, to say the least. But if you’re channeling Abe, ask him what he’d do under the present circumstances, ok?

  20. And, once again, the application of limited, political control with a planned transition to self-rule can under no stretch of the definition qualify as imperialism.

  21. “Are we the imperial rulers of Germany? If not, why not?”
    The difference Sebastian, between our current debacle and our foray into Germany is the difference between FDR and W. (if initials don’t spell it out for you, it’s the difference between an Allied campaign in WWII and a Bush pre-emptive Neocon agenda). But then again, if Germany today had Iraq’s oil deposits…. you might be wiping the dust off your Dietrich collection….. Falling in luff again, never vanted toooo, vhat am i too dooooo, khant help ihht!

  22. Germany didn’t attack us, either.
    So, there are similarities. Damn that FDR all to hell! Preemptive war, PLUS violation of the Constitutional rights of thousands of American citizens. Big Brother all over again.

  23. “Germany didn’t attack us, either. So, there are similarities”.
    And they are both speak foreign languages. Wow, i’m really starting to get the drift here! Friggin’ amazing.

  24. Now you need to point out how what we’re doing resembles your definition even loosely.
    Sure.

    The policy of extending a nation’s authority…by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

    First off, let’s not pretend some folks don’t actually advocate American hegemony:

    Anyone who dislikes U.S. hegemony should bear in mind that, instead of a multipolar world of competing great powers, a world with no hegemon at all may be the real alternative to it. This could turn out to mean a new Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic rapine in the world’s no-go zones; of economic stagnation and a retreat by civilization into a few fortified enclaves.

    But that’s just a sidebar. As for your request for how we’re doing this, here are some examples:
    economic example:

    Iraq was in effect put up for sale yesterday when the American-appointed administration announced it was opening up all sectors of the economy to foreign investors…In an unexpected move unveiled at the meeting in Dubai of the Group of Seven rich nations, the Iraqi Governing Council announced sweeping reforms to allow total foreign ownership without the need for prior approval. The initiative bore all the hallmarks of Washington’s ascendant neoconservative lobby, complete with tax cuts and trade tariff rollbacks. It will apply to everything from industry to health and water, although not oil.

    political example:
    This is a repeat of what I posted above…

    U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer has issued a raft of edicts revising Iraq’s legal code and has appointed at least two dozen Iraqis to government jobs with multi-year terms in an attempt to promote his concepts of governance long after the planned handover of political authority on Wednesday. Some of the orders signed by Bremer, which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq’s interim government, restrict the power of the interim government and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country’s democratic transition. Among the most controversial orders is the enactment of an elections law that gives a seven-member commission the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support.

  25. First off, let’s not pretend some folks don’t actually advocate American hegemony:
    If you agree with the assertion that we’re all about hegemony, do you agree that we’re better than the alternatives? Or are you just cherry-picking, here?
    economic example:
    Horrors! Encouraging foreign investment in Iraq! Still, I’m not getting how having OTHER countries investing in Iraq is furthering the evil, imperialist agenda. ‘Splain?
    As for the Bremer bit, I repeat my question: careful guidance toward self-governance is an example of imperialism in what way, exactly?

  27. careful guidance toward self-governance
    A+ for spin Slarti. What you call “careful guidance” others are calling “imposing” but hey…we can trust this Administration, right? They’d never orchestrate things to ensure we get the Iraqi government we want, despite what the Iraqi’s want, right?

  29. Binary to the end, and exteme at that, eh Slarti.
    What about a more considered approach? Like doing what we promised to do. Let Iraq choose its own government.
    You did understand the significance of what Bremer did with his seven-member commission that has the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support, right? Does that sound like a government of Iraq’s choice to you?

  30. What about a more considered approach?
    What makes you believe the more considered approach wasn’t…considered? Look, the best we can do for them is give them an opportunity to govern themselves without inviting the extremists in from the get-go. After that, they’re pretty much on their own.
    Which is…what? A bad thing? Just how quickly would you give them free rein, without any interference whatever? One year ago? Six months ago? Yesterday? For a guy that’s smarter and better-informed than Bremer, you’re coming up with precious little in the way of useful alternatives.

  31. Can’t beat that Lincoln. Last great Republican President
    Thanks Edward will be useful when discussing the Patriot Act.
    On the Iraq for sale issue, Edward, what happened?

  32. You’re not serious. Germany did declare war on us before we took any military action against them in WW2. As well as bombing or invading all our allies, and, well, all of Europe. And committing, as the war was going on and not a decade before, the worst genocide in history. And being an imminent threat apart from any declaration of war.
    The treatment of Japanese Americans was despicable. FDR was one of the best Presidents in history, but he made some huge mistakes.
    The Lincoln quote is what it is. There are all sorts of dissimilarities with the Mexican War, but the dangers of unlimited executive power are sort of a universal. I don’t claim to know what Lincoln would do now, and never did. I’ve never argued, for example, that John Kerry is Lincoln’s heir in any way.

  34. Germany did declare war on us before we took any military action against them in WW2.
    Ah, the declaration of war. There’s no parallel in modern times, is there? Noooo. The whole issue boils down to the difference between “FDR” and “W”.
    Farewell, Katherine. We’ll miss you.

  35. The concept of unlimited executive power and Lincoln, Lincoln as the CiC didn’t struggle with the concept. Thus, bringing up Lincoln in this context is absurd.

  36. My question was intended to get at why maintaining a presence in Germany for 50 years and counting is not imperialism while staying in Afghanistan for so far 2 years is. It must be more than the amount of time. And Afghanistan attacked us every bit as much as Germany did.

  38. You’re not serious. Germany did declare war on us before we took any military action against them in WW2
    Actually Katherine, the USA took military action against Germany in the Atlantic starting in September 1941. That is, our territorial waters now extended all the way to Iceland. The US Navy was authorized to sink German U-Boats (an undeclared state of war between the US and Germany). I could also mention Lend Lease, Atlantic Charter, Three-Power Moscow Conference, net net, the US was no longer a neutral in the war.

  39. You guys are sad.
    The Spanish-American War is more apt than WW2. However, the Spanish-American War does not have all the neat-o and romantic movies to blur the fantasy.
    Remember the Maine/9-11, pretexts for a messianic nation, anyone? Expanding the dreams of our foundinf father as justification for death and good government? We need to kill someone, why not them?

  41. Bucket-o-Links:
    Forget WWII or Vietnam. The real comparison for an invasion of Iraq is the Spanish-American War, when an aimless U.S. presidency and a lazy media looked for redemption.
    Total Casualties Compare to Spanish-American, Mexican and 1812 Conflicts
    Back to the Spanish-American War of 1898?
    Iraq’s Historical Predecessor
    Reality Check, This Is War (Iraq)
    Iraq and the Spanish-American War:
    A Comparison Study
    Business of war / How much of the Iraq mission is about profit?
    The Spanish-American War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War can fairly be described as “discretionary” wars for the United States.
    “When people ask me what I mean by stable government, I tell them ‘money at six percent’.”
    – General Leonard Wood, Military Governor of Cuba, 1900
    RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ:A LESSON OF HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS
    Critical Analysis
    Murdoch helped start war on Iraq, says Turner

  42. I often find that links are better with a short description of why you think they are pertinent. For instance I can’t imagine why you would think the Spanish-American War casualty comparison would be pertinent to this topic at all. Lets keep it simple though.
    Why is staying for 50+ years in Germany not imperialism?
    Why is staying for 30+ years in South Korea not imperialism?
    Why is staying for 2 years in Afghanistan imperialism?
    This compare and contrast comes AFTER you establish that the first two were not imperialism and why. (Or you may of course assert that they are both imperialistic.)
    The thread above makes me think that ‘imperialistic’ is being used as a synonym for ‘bad’. It would be better to just use the word ‘bad’ instead of mucking the debate up with ‘imperialistic’ unless someone other than Michael Moore can establish that Afghanistan was an imperialistic war or that staying there is an imperial act.

  43. J.H.C. I’m in TRO hell (i.e., I’m busy as hell), but I gotta say: I find it impossible to believe that folks are comparing the current conflict in Iraq to WW2 with (presumably) straight faces.* (The comparison between FDR’s arrogance and W’s arrogance is more apt, perhaps, but the comparison between FDR and W on any other level is wholly unconvincing.)
    And, yes, each of the foregoing statements is entirely self-evident and/or should have been known to y’all since grade school.

  44. Imperialism may not always be “bad.” It was always considered a good thing in Europe until recently while Americans always shied away from it, preferring the words “territory” (the American Western outposts) and commonwealth (the territories gained after the Spanish-American war), in place of “colonies”. The territories gained by the United States within Japan and Germany respected (to a greater degree) the autonomy of the surrounding nation. However, this stands in stark contrast to the American Western frontier and Cuba and the Philippines. As an Empire the United States is more willing to respect the authority and autonomy of European (that is White) nations as opposed to territory in “darker” nations. Even Japan seemed to struggle with her “liberator.”
    Are you suggesting Iraq and Afghanistan will be treated like Germany? Korea? Cuba? the Philippines?

  45. I’m suggesting that Iraq will be treated like Germany and Japan. I suspect that Afghanistan will be treated more like South Korea.
    And in neither case do I expect them to be treated like colonies.

  46. I think you are an extraordinarily hopeful person (that’s kinda cute), however I think we will be lucky to get Cuba and/or the Philippines with a strong dose of Lebanon.
    I put the articles in order of importance.

  47. And we will change the name (like when use “territories” or “commonwealth” instead of “colony”) as to avoid the colonial references. Protectorate? But those within those territories will probably not accept the “redefinition” and think it is a neo-pseudo-quasi-or-whatever-colonialism.

  48. I was thinking of all of the US’s territorial concerns, and outside of some small island chains in the Pacific, I couldn’t think of any.

  50. The people of Iraq will end up determining the type of territory the United States is trying to form them into, in spite of our best public relation drives.
    This is the first time since the Spanish-American War that Republicans have put so much faith in the expansion of the state to spread “the love.” I can’t wait to hear their support for universal health care and full employment policies, even if they involve sacrifice and “strength of will.”

  51. “A splendid little war”. (Salon.com)
    Forget WWII or Vietnam. The real comparison for an invasion of Iraq is the Spanish-American War, when an aimless U.S. presidency and a lazy media looked for redemption.
    Where Does Iraq Stand Among U.S. Wars? (Washington Post)
    Total Casualties Compare to Spanish-American, Mexican and 1812 Conflicts
    Back to the Spanish-American War of 1898? (New America Foundation)
    A group of Americans dreamed of creating a U.S. empire. Their opening came with the mass death of Americans in a shocking event. Media sensationalism whipped public outrage into a war frenzy. The resulting war was a success, but the subsequent occupation was a failure. Michael Lind asks: Does this describe the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — or the Spanish-American War of 1898?
    Iraq’s Historical Predecessor
    First, the most obvious similarity would be that Spain was accused of destroying the USS Maine, killing 262 Americans. The ship, blockading Spanish-owned Cuba at the time, was the source of much tension. Likewise, Iraq was accused of sponsoring terrorists, and producing weapons of mass destruction. Today, we understand that the USS Maine was not destroyed by the Spanish, just like today we understand that it is possible Iraq had no connection September 11th, and may not have actually been producing banned weapons, but rather was just in the research-and-development stage. Of course, there will be differences in these comparisons. It is still probable Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and may have had a role in helping Osama Bin Laden. Yet, in both cases, it is obvious that American intelligence gathering capabilities were not up-to-date, leading to unnecessary intelligence failures.
    The second most obvious similarity between the two wars is the question of human rights. In both cases, the American people were greatly moved by talks of human rights violations. And in both cases, it led the United States to accurately predict that the oppressed people would become a treasured ally in the war—and in both cases, led us to underestimate the post-war era. The Spanish forces persecuted the Cuban people. A Spanish minority ran the Cuban majority. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni (a minority) also led over the majorities, which are the Kurds and the Shiites. The people did not defend either regime, leading to quick victories with relatively low casualties than earlier predicted.
    Third, both Cuba and Iraq became protectorates. Rather than being annexed, the United States trumpeted that we would justly return independence to the countries once law and order was established. In both cases, guerilla warfare occurred, and as hostilities continued, the people grew less and less loyal to the American forces. Both Iraq and Cuba in the post-war era were controlled by American influence, while the actual domestic political situation was decided by the peoples themselves. This is a just thing to do, but it does not always bring about the outcome intended.
    Iraq and the Spanish-American War: A Comparison Study (Polemic)
    When one asks, “Why are we in Iraq?” the historical event that is most illuminating is the Spanish-American war. Like the Spanish-American war, the war in Iraq was a “release valve” for the pressures built up in the nation; like the Spanish-American war, ideological “yellow journalists” greased public sentiment to facilitate a conflict of choice, not necessity. The other historical situation that is telling of our current problems is the Western European power’s reaction to Hitler’s saber rattling in the late 1930’s. While today the Europeans are chided for appeasing Hitler, their true folly is not being able to comprehend and prepare for a new kind of enemy capable of fighting a new kind of war. Sadly, our leaders have already made a similar mistake in the fight against terrorism.
    Why Americans May Grow Impatient with the War in Iraq
    How do presidents decide for war? In the March issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, editor George Edwards and I adopted a historical approach, asking experts on various past wars to analyze the decision-making process that preceded each of those conflicts. Five wars were chosen: the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
    The Spanish-American War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War can fairly be described as “discretionary” wars for the United States. In advance of these conflicts, American territory was not attacked or directly threatened, and American lives were endangered only incidentally. By contrast, the two world wars were “non-discretionary,” in that American lives or territory (or both) came under direct attack. For this reason—among others—the Spanish-American War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War generated considerable controversy in the weeks surrounding the president’s decision for war, while American belligerence in the two world wars was comparatively noncontroversial.
    The Uprising
    Strategic Insights, Volume II, Issue 9 (September 2003)
    The American readiness to believe in an Iraqi uprising was undoubtedly driven as much by political as by military considerations. Anyone contemplating the turmoil of the current occupation may well feel that, had the Iraqi people actually risen up against Saddam, some of the problems the United States and its allies now face in restoring order might have been mitigated. Still, one should not be too quick to assume that, had Iraq been liberated by Iraqis and Americans fighting side by side, the results would necessarily have been conducive to mutual trust and understanding. America’s first venture in overseas intervention was conducted on just such a basis, with disappointing results for all concerned.
    In 1898 the United States intervened in a war then underway in Cuba, by which indigenous revolutionary forces sought to wrest control of that island from its colonial master, Spain. Three years of fighting had produced inconclusive results, but significant casualties and much damage to Cuba’s economy. American opinion favored the insurgents, owing to long-standing American dislike of European imperialism, and perhaps an instinctive preference for the underdog in a fight. It would at any rate be on that basis—as a campaign to liberate Cuba from Spain—that war would be justified to the American public. This point of view was embodied in the Congressional declaration of war itself, which included a proviso that affirmed Cuba’s rightful freedom and independence, and disclaimed “any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over [the] island except for the pacification thereof.”
    Murdoch helped start war on Iraq, says Turner
    Mr Turner likened Mr Murdoch to William Randolph Hearst, publisher of newspapers which included the San Francisco Examiner in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
    Hearst advocated the Spanish-American War of 1898.
    ‘Hearst used to like to boast that he started the Spanish-American War with his newspapers,’ Mr Turner said. ‘It’s not hard. All you have to do is fan the flames of hatred.’

  52. Condi’s Lies? Or an Educational Quagmire? (Personal Research)
    I may have spent too much time researching the history for this post, but as a victim of America’s educational quagmire, I rarely begrudge time spent chipping away at my ignorance. This is particularly the case with history, a subject with textbooks so thick and saturated that reading them is like wading through a rice paddy.
    Back in August, both Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld compared the situation in Iraq to that in Germany in 1945. I don’t know if the ensuing controversy is still permeating the Internet or is poised for resurgence, but Steve at Absit Invidia just yesterday noted it, saying (without substantiation), “the Bush propaganda machine constantly tells us that we had similar casulaty problems in post WWII Germany and Japan.”
    Iraq Is Not World War II (CATO Institute)
    We know that the presence of 5,000 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War was one of Osama bin Laden’s stated reasons for engaging in terrorism, including the devastating attacks of September 11 that killed more than 3,000 people. This is precisely why we must remove the nearly 140,000 U.S. troops from Iraq — sooner rather than later, within months, not years, of handing sovereignty back to the Iraqi people at the end of June.
    But isn’t this appeasement? Won’t we be handing the terrorists a victory? What the Bush administration never understood is that they gave the terrorists their victory when the United States invaded Iraq. We confirmed the radicals’ claim that America is invading the heart of Islam. The question is whether we give them an even bigger victory — at greater cost to us — by staying longer.
    We can leave now on our terms and refocus our attention and resources on the real threat to America, al Qaeda. Or we can run the risk of being forced to leave at a later date under conditions that make our defeat inescapable.
    Iraq and Nazi Germany (Personal Research)
    One of the arguments one frequently hears with respect to Iraq is that the world must not make the same mistake that it made back in 1939: it must not appease an evil dictator bent on conquering the world. Apart from the fact that there’s precious little evidence supporting the assertion that Saddam Hussein wishes to conquer the world, and that his purported weapons of mass destruction are certainly not up to the task even if they really exist, the historical comparison fails to agree with historical facts. The world is definitely not doing what it did in the 1930s: it is not appeasing an evil dictator, and it is not ignoring his deeds. Consider the following points:
    The Difference between Germany, Japan, and Iraq (Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy)
    Many people compare reconstruction in post-war Iraq to the post-war reconstruction of Germany and Japan. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is only the most vocal proponent of the idea that we were going to liberate the Iraqis the way we liberated the Axis peoples, especially the Germans, from their own tyranny.
    Would we had liberated Germany and Japan! Instead, we invaded, conquered them, and then we occupied them. The human costs were unbelievable: approximately 3.5 million German soldiers, and 780,000 civilians, killed. The death toll was nearly as great in Asia with an estimated 1.3 million Japanese soldiers, and 672,000 civilians, killed. The prewar German population was 80.6 million; that of Japan in 1940 was just over 73 million. Germany was ground like grain between two great armies that fought through its cities street-by-street and sometimes house-by-house. Japan’s wood and paper cities were attacked with incendiary bombs to cause firestorms because it made a lot of sense to kill skilled workers.
    The Allies insisted on unconditional surrender by the legitimate German and Japanese authorities. This demand forced all who thought the Nazi and Imperial orders were worth defending to fight, and often die, for their beliefs.
    In contrast, the Iraqi government did not surrender, but, like its army, simply crumbled.
    George Bush as Winston Churchill (Comparative History Lessons)
    Adolf Hitler posed a far greater threat to the world than Saddam Hussein. In his book, Mein Kamp, published in 1925, he argued “The external security of a people in largely determined by the size of its territory.” If he won power Hitler promised to occupy neighbouring land so that would provide protection and lebensraum (living space) for the German people. Once he gained power Hitler he moved his armed forces across international borders three times in three years: Rhineland (March 1936), Austria (March, 1938) and Czechoslovakia (October, 1938).
    Saddam Hussein does not pose the same military threat as Adolf Hitler. In 1938 Germany had one of the most powerful armed forces in the world. Iraq armed forces are very poor and had great difficulty defeating its neighbour Iran in the war fought between 1980 and 1988.
    Winston Churchill urged and international coalition (Soviet Union, France, United States, etc.) against Nazi Germany before the outbreak of the Second World War. However, unlike George Bush, he did not advocate a pre-emptive strike.
    Winston Churchill fought in the First World War. George Bush avoiding fighting in Vietnam by enlisting in the Texas Air National Guard.
    President Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ questioned (Associated Press)
    Critics say Bush is exaggerating, that the three would never use weapons of mass destruction because it would ensure their destruction. The top priority of the Iraqi, Iranian and North Korean leaderships is to hold on to power.
    There is strong sympathy around the world for the United States in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and admiration for America’s success in Afghanistan.
    But there are growing fears that Bush’s aims are too broad, the terrorists too elusive to be fought with a conventional war. A global war against terrorism could see the West bogged down in a struggle that only creates more foes then it destroys as anti-Western resistance spreads.
    Bush takes refuge in history (The Guardian)
    At home and abroad, Bush is investing his rhetoric about the “clash of ideologies” and “global war” with historical analogies. On his European visits, Bush will compare Iraq to rebuilding Germany and Japan after the Second World War. He will raise the spectre of the west against communism in the cold war. He will contrast Nazi atrocities to Islamist terrorism. He has even said that he will instruct Europeans that Iraq is like the United States before its constitutional convention: “I will remind them that the articles of confederation was a rather bumpy period for American democracy”. Among the missing, however, are analogous figures to Washington, Franklin and Madison.
    False claim: No new “axis” alliance exists (Some Student)
    They – all three – are weak and unstable, and are in no way comparable to the massive power of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Iran and Iraq are rivals who fought a long war. Iraq is a brutal dictatorship, but Iran has democratic elements and reformers are seeking change. North Korea is probably the most isolated state in the world with no real allies, a paranoid dictatorship with a starving population. But South Korea’s democratic government wants reconciliation with the North.
    To signal out Iran and North Korea alongside Iraq is very surprising and seems to show a lack of understanding about conditions inside Iran and on the Korean Peninsula, as well as of prevailing world opinion. To quote London’s Financial Times (hardly a bastion of crude anti-Americanism): “North Korea and Iran do not belong in the same breath as Iraq. To lump them together is simplistic and will alienate new allies in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.” An invasion of Iraq would be a difficult endeavor: It has potentially desirable effects, but also has potentially negative ones as well.
    Not even this much can be said of Iran and North Korea. The U.S. would receive no support (with the exception of Israel) for military operations in Iran. Iran is considerably better organized, more unified and military stronger than Afghanistan – plus there’s no internal opposition like the Northern Alliance. Iranians would band together to fight a common enemy, potentially bogging down the U.S. in a Vietnam-like scenario.

Comments are closed.