Worth a Thousand Words

I've made this argument in the past, but this old campaign poster for William McKinley's 1900 re-election campaign makes the point better than anything I could say. What you see here -- "the American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for HUMANITY'S SAKE" -- would be perfectly recognizable as a neoconservative slogan. And yet, it comes from the period we now think of as involving precisely the effort to plant the American flag to acquire more territory, specifically colonies in Puerto Rico and the Philippines plus informal empire elsewhere.

And there's the rub; the much-vaunted "idealism" of the neocons is nothing new. And, indeed, I don't even think we should view it -- or the rhetoric of a William McKlinley -- as necessarily insincere. Rather, it's an example of the boundless human capacity for self-justification and self-deception. If you decide that military domination is the policy you want, you'll swiftly find a way to convince yourself that military domination is best for the world. Kipling called it the white man's burden, the French called it la mission civilitrice, and it's all equally meaningless however you want to phrase it.

Comments

I don't know if you'd call it terrorism, but surely McKinley's assassination represents a high point in the utility of violence as a tool of governance.

Posted by foolishmortal | November 7, 2007 9:56 AM

I totally agree with "the boundless human capacity for self-justification and self-deception". Spot on.

I did some reading on imperialism and colonialism recently and I do get the sense that while the altruistic motive was the rationale sold to domestic opinion and the rest of the world, whether it was Britain or France or the US, there were typical rent-seeking interest groups that pushed for imperialism.

That's important because there's a reason rent-seeking and organized groups succeed in democratic polities; they are better organized. Moreover, since we are talking about the realm of foreign affairs, one reason it's been rare to recognize rent-seeking phenomena because of the arbitrary distinctions in Political Science. IR theory operates under the pretension that domestic politics don't matter.

Speaking of which, this is the most powerful criticism against Walt and Mearsheimer: Their work on the Israeli Lobby invalidates the neorealist theories for which they became renowned and acclaimed.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 7, 2007 9:59 AM

I totally agree with "the boundless human capacity for self-justification and self-deception". Spot on.

I did some reading on imperialism and colonialism recently and I do get the sense that while the altruistic motive was the rationale sold to domestic opinion and the rest of the world, whether it was Britain or France or the US, there were typical rent-seeking interest groups that pushed for imperialism.

That's important because there's a reason rent-seeking groups succeed in democratic polities; they are better organized. Moreover, since we are talking about the realm of foreign affairs, one reason it's been rare to recognize rent-seeking phenomena because of the arbitrary distinctions in Political Science. IR theory operates under the pretension that domestic politics don't matter.

Speaking of which, this is the most powerful criticism against Walt and Mearsheimer: Their work on the Israeli Lobby invalidates the neorealist theories for which they became renowned and acclaimed.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 7, 2007 9:59 AM

I don't think the causality is so clear cut. People don't necessarily start out wanting military domination, and then latching onto an idealogy that makes this seem morally good.

Maybe there are a lot of people who want to do good, but want to do it in a tough, macho, way. None of this mamby pamby humanitarian relief stuff for them. So, they latch onto an idealogy that ties militarism to do-goodism together.

Posted by Jim W | November 7, 2007 10:02 AM

Nick Kaufman,

You misunderstand neorealist theory; recognizing that domestic factors matters doesn't invalidate the theory.

Matt,

Are you implying that the good intentions of many imperialists didn't (or don't) matter? I can think of many good things that came out of imperialism - think of the ban on widow-burning in India. One of the striking differences though, is that in contrast to French and British imperialists, the American neocons are just so damn bad at it.

Posted by Norway | November 7, 2007 10:09 AM

Maybe there are a lot of people who want to do good, but want to do it in a tough, macho, way. None of this mamby pamby humanitarian relief stuff for them. So, they latch onto an idealogy that ties militarism to do-goodism together.

It's not about military domination; it's about economic domination. It's not about doing good; it's about economic domination. It's not about doing good in a tough, macho, way; it's about economic domination. It's not about ideology; it's about economic domination.

It's always about money. Iraq War? Imperialism? Cui bono?

Posted by Bill | November 7, 2007 10:11 AM

"If you decide that military domination is the policy you want, you'll swiftly find a way to convince yourself that military domination is best for the world. Kipling called it the white man's burden, the French called it la mission civilitrice, and it's all equally meaningless however you want to phrase it."

Is this what's happening in Afghanistan? I don't think the isolationists are clear on this. Does Ron Paul believe that liberal statists are using the common man's taxes to build empire in Afghanistan?

No doubt isolationist Ron Paul wanted nothing done about genocide in Bosnia. Who cares about foreigners? We have problems at home!

Posted by Peter K. | November 7, 2007 10:14 AM

But there are different types of imperialisms. Compare American imperialism towards the Philippines with the Japanese version.
I think most Filipinos were grateful that the U.S. did its part to save them from Japanese imperialism. If we had had no history (or colonial interests) in the region, I'm not sure we would have devoted as much resources to the endeavor.

Posted by hmmm | November 7, 2007 10:18 AM

Agreed as to the dead-onness of self-deception. You see it in criminal trials, as well as on the pages of the Weekly Standard. People convince themselves that their actions and morals are pure, and that the rest of the world is irrationally out to get them.

As to what motivates neoconservatives, for the old guard, I really believe it was a visceral reaction to leftward political extremism among intellectuals. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz have more or less said as much (self-link).

Of course, noting that the Soviet Union is bad isn't really cutting edge anymore. There's a Japanese folk tale about a guy who met a demon in his travels. The demon, in his life as a human, had held a ferocious grudge against a rival family-- that's why he became a demon. He murdered all of the rival clan, but years later, he was still filled with the same rage.

As to the new generation, they're just born into it, like running a hardware store.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 7, 2007 10:23 AM

re: Norway/Kaufman:
This bears on my theory on why M-W fucked up their argument as badly as they did: they started from a neorealist position. They (correctly) saw the war in Iraq as irrational. How could a rational and unitary actor (the U.S.) fail to act in its own interests? The only answer is another rational and unitary actor(state) distorted its preferences! There's actually a small but existent body of research on ethnic lobbies (Armenian et al), but M-W didn't bother with that, as that would acknowledge the relevance (gasp) of constructivism. For all the accusations of bias levelled against M-W, none of them identified the correct one: neorealism.

Posted by foolishmortal | November 7, 2007 10:25 AM

Dear Norway,

When the main tenet of your theory is to explain international relations according to a state's position in the international structure which provides a state with an objective set of interests she should follow and then you write a treatise that sees the independent variable that explains the foreign policy of a state to a domestic interest group, I say there's a pretty big discrepancy that I am not simply misunderstanding.

Now, I am well aware that some international relation theorists have recognized the role domestic factors play -Morgenthau for instance- but to recognize that public opinion or some other domestic factor is a constraint or a parameter to take into account is very different than having that variable to be the independent one. Very different.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 7, 2007 10:28 AM

Is this what's happening in Afghanistan? I don't think the isolationists are clear on this. Does Ron Paul believe that liberal statists are using the common man's taxes to build empire in Afghanistan?

Great job, Peter K.

Wielding a true historian's broad perspective, you assess the NATO presence in Afghanistan as purely a product of the events of this decade.

But nobody ever said military domination was always wrong on the merits in any given case. Our first forays into Afghanistan were in the 80s of course, back when the world watched its two great empires vie for hegemony -- and maybe it would have behooved us to be *more* imperialist once the Soviets were expelled. But however you justify occupying Afghanistan today, it doesn't mean it isn't a form of imperialism. Of course it is. When you invade another country, occupy it, and oversee the implementation of its new government, guess what, you're being imperial. And you want military domination. I think it's basically a good idea to just, you know, recognize that this is the dynamic at play, instead of pretending we're just some benign reactionary force in the world, whose imperialist actions somehow always take place in a vacuum.

Posted by Bill | November 7, 2007 10:29 AM

Re: "As to what motivates neoconservatives, for the old guard, I really believe it was a visceral reaction to leftward political extremism among intellectuals."

I think what really motivates people does not get enough attention. In my opinion, it rarely comes down to just money, or power. Ideas have power due to their emotional attraction.

Posted by Jim W | November 7, 2007 10:29 AM

Kipling called it the white man's burden, the French called it la mission civilitrice, and it's all equally meaningless however you want to phrase it.

FDR called it the Four Freedoms.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear.

. . . or there's Bill Clinton:

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 10:31 AM

"I think most Filipinos were grateful that the U.S. did its part to save them from Japanese imperialism. If we had had no history (or colonial interests) in the region, I'm not sure we would have devoted as much resources to the endeavor.

Posted by hmmm | November 7, 2007 10:18 AM"

This is like saying that Israelis should have been grateful for French complicity in the Holocaust because France became Israel's major backer before the 1970's. In the Philippines, we deliberately targeted Muslims for not being Christian. Just because the Japanese invaded a few decades later and were also crazy doesn't exactly cut in the US's favor. That's like the episode of "The Office" where Steve Carrell tried to take credit for saving his employee's life when after he ran her over, the hospital realized she had rabies.

Posted by Reality Man | November 7, 2007 10:31 AM

The U.S. wars against North & South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were different from many preceding colonialist and imperialist operations because they prompted huge and significant public reactions.

Just yesterday I was trying to decide if we are now more like the classic heydays of US invasions of Latin America, say, from the McKinley era to the 1960s, where US troops continually invaded, occupied, overthrew nations and it wasn't a huge public controversy.

Posted by El Cid | November 7, 2007 10:33 AM

I think most Filipinos were grateful that the U.S. did its part to save them from Japanese imperialism. If we had had no history (or colonial interests) in the region, I'm not sure we would have devoted as much resources to the endeavor.

We drove Japan out of the Philippines, our colony, yes; but also out of Korea, Taiwan, Mainland China, and a lot of Pacific Islands on which we had no prior claim.

I don't think I've seen an informed discussion of whether we'd have intervened in response to a more limited Japanese onslaught in late 1941 - say, if they took Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Philippines but did not strike Hawaii. But once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor it was entirely predictable (and predicted) that we would drive them from all of their holdings and back into their home islands. Our ties to the Philippines had little to do with it. I don't even think it's clear that the regime we supported in the Philippines after WWII was significantly better than those we backed in other formerly Japanese-occupied territories, notably Taiwan or South Korea.

So, yes, American colonialism in the Philippines (or economic hegemony in Cuba) could have been a lot worse, and others indeed did worse in comparable circumstances. There were some intended and some unintended positive effects. Doesn't make it right, though.

Posted by Warren Terra | November 7, 2007 10:36 AM

Luckily, McKinley-Roosevelt imperialism led to a dead end. America did not turn into a French or a British imperial power. Intellectual opposition to the brutality of the Philippine war resonated with popular opposition to wars of foreign entanglement. Which, of course, was all upended by Wilson's completely stupid decision to take the country to a war we had no business fighting in in 1917.

Again, we have a situation in which bungling, amoral or immoral imperialists are enacting a criminal policy that has bogged the U.S. in an interminable and expensive disaster. And we have a democratic party that refuses to take advantage of the mood in the country and rethink our policy of foreign entanglements. Except this time, the Wilsonian option of trying to patrol the middle east is going to have a much greater negative effect on the well being of this country. What is scary is how set the elite in both parties are on serving their self interests at the expense of morality, common sense, and the interests of the country.

Posted by roger | November 7, 2007 10:36 AM

Dude, I think you mean the French called it "la mision civilisatrice." (Sorry I don't know how to add diacriticals.)

Posted by Jim M | November 7, 2007 10:39 AM

Excellent post.

Posted by Will | November 7, 2007 10:39 AM

Karl Rove has said that McKinley was his favorite President.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | November 7, 2007 10:41 AM

And yet, it comes from the period we now think of as involving precisely the effort to plant the American flag to acquire more territory

Why is it that "we now think" this? Could it have anything to do with what the people who write the history - academics, and thus left wingers - tell us to think? It is no different than, e.g., "we now think" that the manifest destiny is a genocidal campaign against the Indians, I mean Native Americans.

Posted by Al | November 7, 2007 10:42 AM

FDR called it the Four Freedoms.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear.

Great stuff, call it the Doctrine of Unrestrained Liberalism. Anything that unreservedly idealistic in the hands of a great power can't avoid being imperialist, rightly or wrongly. Replace the above Four with, say, the Five Tenets of Islam, and throw in a really committed attitude, and you'll probably get much the same geopolitical impact, at least in terms of scale. Especially freedom from want, with all its outward-spiraling ramifications. Well, we knew the neocons are ex-liberals.

As for Bill Clinton:

Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

(when it's in our economic interest to do so, surely he meant)

Posted by Bill | November 7, 2007 10:42 AM

Kipling called it the white man's burden, the French called it la mission civilitrice

Today we call it "the campaign against global warming".

Posted by Al | November 7, 2007 10:44 AM

Gotta love the carbon-emitting extravaganza on the "Republican" side of the campaign poster, right above the shoulder of noted proto-environmentalist Teddy Roosevelt. I suppose this might be construed as Republican prescience in global-warming denial.

Posted by James Gary | November 7, 2007 10:44 AM

southpaw-- please be advised that Clinton and FDR fought against ongoing aggression. Neither advocated preemptive war.

Were the US omnipotent and omniscient, I would support preemptive war by the US. I trust us more than any other would-be great power of the moment. Plus I live here, so why not root for the US to win, just like I root for the Red Sox.

But alas, foreign policy is complicated, and wars produce unintended consequences.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 7, 2007 10:47 AM

You know, Republicans circa 1900 had much more in common with Democrats circa 2000 than the Democrats of 1900 did. Just saying.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 7, 2007 10:48 AM

"Kipling called it the white man's burden, the French called it la mission civilitrice

Today we call it "the campaign against global warming".

Posted by Al | November 7, 2007 10:44 AM"

As someone whose family suffered under "the white man's burden" go fuck yourself Al.

Posted by Reality Man | November 7, 2007 10:50 AM

southpaw-- please be advised that Clinton and FDR fought against ongoing aggression. Neither advocated preemptive war.

Elvis,

Please follow the link I provided and get back to me.

Thanks.

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 10:51 AM

MC Hammer called it 'too legit to quit'.

my people we don't know defeat we crush the strong and
percolate the weak daily (everyday) we make our moves to
improve our groove because we love to rule

Now picture a shirtless J-Pod in harem pants grabbing himself onstage at AEI.

Posted by joejoejoe | November 7, 2007 10:55 AM

Foolishmortal,

That is just silly.

Nick Kaufman,

I am quoting Waltz, who founded neoreaism in 1979, and on whose works Walt and Mearsheimers thinking are at least based:

"The state in fact is not a unitary and purposive actor. I assumed it to be such only for the purpose of constructing a theory."

"Structures shape and shove. They do not determine behaviours or outcomes"

"The bothersome limitations of systemic explanations arise from the problem of weighing unit-level and structural causes. To what extent is an effect to be ascribed to one level or the other? … The difficulty of sorting causes out is a serious, and seemingly inescapable, limitation of systems theories of international politics."

And most importantly:

"[Structure explains] a small number of big and important things", but not everything.

(All quotes from Waltz 1986: "Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics")

True, Mearsheimer is more dogmatic than Waltz, but Walt is certainly not. Anyways, none of them to my knowledge has ever claimed that states always behave rationally or that they are never influenced by domestic factors.

Posted by Norway | November 7, 2007 10:55 AM

That was the weakening of a past aggressor, under UN sanctions, by bombing military and security targets.

See if you can spot the difference between that action and the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

Thanks.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 7, 2007 10:56 AM

It is no different than, e.g., "we now think" that the manifest destiny is a genocidal campaign against the Indians, I mean Native Americans.

Yeah, now the lefties all call it genocide, whereas at the time it was just a policy of getting rid of them all.

Posted by Njorl | November 7, 2007 11:01 AM

ah, so now it's not "ongoing aggression" but a "past aggressor," and we're only "weakening" him like the UN wants. . .

let's go back to clinton, same speech:

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 11:02 AM

southpaw's example reminds me of another one. I've heard a lot of people defend Bush's invasion of Iraq by saying that Clinton also acted sort-of unilaterally in Kosovo. Its just bad luck that Bush's action ended up so badly and Clinton's ended up so well.

The idea that there are different levels of intervention that are appropriate at different times is just too subtle for these boneheads.

Also, just because preemptive war makes sense in the abstract doesn't it should be a stated (and often acted upon) policy of the US....just too subtle.

As for roger's comment above: I agree with most of it, but I don't understand how the elites in the Democratic party are particularly well served by our intervention in Iraq. In the long term, I don't think the Republican elites have been well-served at all.

Posted by Jim W | November 7, 2007 11:03 AM

I hasten to add that I'm not actually drawing an equivalence between Clinton's reasonably competent execution of his foreign policy and the outright disaster of the Iraq war.

I'm just trying to point out that incompetence really is the best explanation for why the Bush administration has so signally and uniquely failed. And I think the presence of that devastating incompetence should stand in the way of pushing the analysis further, as MY tries to do in this post, to undermine an assumption about American foreign policy that has been embraced by both parties--when they held power--for over a century.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 11:06 AM

Re Elvis's last post, I'd agree that there seems to be a teeny difference between a 4-day series of air strikes and a full-scale invasion with toppling of the government and then a Bremer-style proconsulship. Dontcha think?

Re MY's post and the comments here, I think we're losing some of the moral force of the cruel paradox here. In the Philippines then and in Iraq now, we imposed military domination on peoples who didn't want us, resulting in the particularly brutal deaths in both cases of tens of thousands of civilians. And we did this in the name of civilization, humanity, progress, etc. I'd go farther than MY here. Rather than find this some amusing or interesting example of self-deception, I'd find this a disgusting and corrupt example of utter moral blindness. Contemptible.

Posted by scott | November 7, 2007 11:09 AM

It depends how you define incompetence. It was incompetent to even seriously entertain the idea of invading Iraq in 2003. The ensuing invasion and occupation were, of course, also pursued with the typical Bushian level of incompetence.

Posted by Jim W | November 7, 2007 11:09 AM

@ Edward: 10:41AM:

It shouldn't be a surprise that Karl Rove would consider William McKinley as a particularly apt model/template for the GW Bush Presidency: the parallels between the two Presidents are amazingly apt.

Like Dubya, McKinley was a professional mediocrity: a Republican wheelhorse with a so-so record and an incurious intellect: who nonetheless had the full-faith-and-credit backing of the national Republican Party behind him in his campaign in 1896 (not to mention a stable of wealthy backers).

At first little-interested in foreign affairs or expansionism (except for the Hawaii imbroglio), McKinley front-ran the call for war in 1898 - he and his handlers skillfully exploiting the public outrage over the sinking of USS Maine (the "9/11" of its day); and then, as the 1900 campaign poster shows, reaping the credit for that "splendid little war" - and, naturally, the rampant prosperity which happened to have occurred on the GOP's watch.

Of course, the Phillipine Insurrection turned into quite a mess: but in 1900, that was still pretty much an off-the-radar conflict (or would have been, had they had radar in 1900).

Posted by Jay C | November 7, 2007 11:20 AM

Jim, it depends on what, after all, serves the interests of elites. I think it is much too reductive to make the bind too tight between money and interest - money has always been a very strong incentive, but it is hardly the only symbol of prestige.

Now, it is often said - by D.C. pundits - that there was a huge, popular rejection of the Democractic party's McGovernite side, so that the incentive for Democrats is to go all hawkish to appeal for votes. As a matter of fact, I think that D.C. Pundit explanation is the inverse of what actually happened. The great foreign policy deficit for the Dems was the Vietnam war. As in, LBJ's massive amplification of a policy of intervention there. It wasn't dovishness, but hawkishness that drove down the Democratic vote totals. Nixon, one should remember, campaigned on a promise to bring peace - not, as Hilary Clinton apparently plans to do, on a promise to think hard about expanding the war to Iran.

If the explanation isn't a monetary interest, and it isn't votes, then I have to think it is some form of symbolic prestige that flatly rules out a more 'humble' foreign policy. It is a sincere and dangerous ethos of American greatness that has the benefit of elevating the egotistic value of its promoters and administrators. Where prestige (and dollars, and power) are expressed and accrued, here, is in that quite narrow forum created by the overlap of politics, media and think tankery, all of which which is hard to capture with any one word or phrase. C. Wright Mills called it the Power elite, but that is a bit too generic.

Posted by roger | November 7, 2007 11:20 AM

southpaw, Clinton's rhetoric is a far cry from engaging in a preemptive war with the intention of occupying a country, installing a US-friendly government, and, at least aspirationally, changing the culture of a region.

Of course we've always notionally supported democratization, in rhetoric and in other ways.

But we'd never before engaged in a jihad to make the world in our image.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq were radical and unique, at least for the post-WWII US. As MY's post points out, we've sorta tried this thing before. It didn't go well.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 7, 2007 11:23 AM

Norway,

I don't have the quotes handy here, but Waltz' goal with neorealism was to find a parsimonious theory that explains the international system on its own terms.

So when you say that he recognizes domestic factors or that the state is not a unitary actor, it's true, but the explicit purpose of the theory is to explain reality without having to take into into account domestic factors and by assuming that the state is a unitary actor.

Just so I make it clear neorealism is useful and Waltz one of the most significant political scientists of the day. And if I may correct myself, maybe saying that the Israeli lobby invalidates neoralism is too strong.

However the discrepancy on the theory level they re supposed to operate because they are "serious" and well known scientists is there, it's gaping and most importantly doesn't explain significant events. It's not only the Iraq policy that's not explained by neorealism, it's the whole security structure of the Middle-East. Shouldn't that be accounted for?

Last but not least, the most important point I would like to make is that discounting domestic factors which can explain significant phenomena like imperialism are an error which is cause by the bureaucratic organization of academia. To a large extent the separation between International Relations, Political Theory and Comparative Politics is arbitrary; there is crucial knowledge lost because of that arbitrary division; moreover ideally (and parsimoniously!) there should be theories that can explain political phenomena across disciplines. That to me is the big whale of social sciences.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 7, 2007 11:32 AM

southpaw, Clinton's rhetoric is a far cry from engaging in a preemptive war with the intention of occupying a country, installing a US-friendly government, and, at least aspirationally, changing the culture of a region.

Of course we've always notionally supported democratization, in rhetoric and in other ways.

But we'd never before engaged in a jihad to make the world in our image.

This is fine, but you're moving the goalposts. The post--as well as my first comment--is primarily about the rhetoric, not specific actions or their scale. I said Democrats had used the same rhetoric. You said Democrats only deployed that rhetoric against ongoing agression . . . then past aggressors . . . or only notionally. Again, that's fine.

But I don't think it undermines my point. The rhetoric--the belief--in expanding liberty around the world, when coupled with wisdom, restraint, and competence, has served us well through a century. The lapses of the Bush administration used that rhetoric, but they were not born of it. Instead, recklessness and incompetence explain the sorry results of the Bush years.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 11:41 AM

gah, the first three paragraphs of my post above should be italicized, not just the first one. sorry.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 11:43 AM

southpaw: We agree that we've notionally supported democratization.

But I think we can also both agree that invading and changing the governments of other countries, on the grounds that this is the job of Americans/white people/the civilized, is a few degrees removed from asserting that Iraqis would be better served by a non-Saddam government.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 7, 2007 11:51 AM

The other obvious point to be made is that the words may say "for humanity's sake" but the side pictures make clear it's "for our economy."

Posted by John DE | November 7, 2007 11:52 AM

But I think we can also both agree that invading and changing the governments of other countries, on the grounds that this is the job of Americans/white people/the civilized, is a few degrees removed from asserting that Iraqis would be better served by a non-Saddam government.

We can agree that invasions for regime change on those grounds would never be appropriate.

I'm just not sure that the internationalists will ever make their arguments that transparently fallacious. They're more likely to say that we should overthrow throw an oppressive regime and replace it with a democracy because (a) it's in our interests, (b) we have the means, (c) the oppressed inhabitants are unable to free themselves, and (d) there's a reasonable chance of success. I'm still willing to consider such an argument, though obviously I'll be a lot more skeptical as a result of the Iraq experience.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 12:06 PM

You know, southpaw, I will be willing to consider that argument too, but only through many, many, many layers of skepticism.

Skepticism about our capabilities, the receptivity of the benighted savages to liberation by the US, the damage to our reputation and the international order by our actions, etc.

Sneer at the UN all you like-- and there are many valid reasons for criticism of it-- but it doesn't take a genius to see that a doctrine of preemptive war could be misused by bad US governments, much less Russians, Iranians, Chinese, and whoever else.

(BTW-- would it be fair for the Iranians preemptively to attack US troops in Iraq on the grounds that it is the stated policy of the US to consider attacking Iran? That's not unlike our rationale for invading Iraq, only it makes a lot more sense. Or am I missing something?)

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 7, 2007 12:31 PM

"As someone whose family suffered under "the white man's burden" go fuck yourself Al"

This reminds me of a quote from a recent Hitchens essay in Vanity Fair:

""In late 1967, Britain’s rule in Yemen ended, bringing an end to its centuries of presence “East of Suez.” On the very last evening, the Labour defense minister Denis Healey shared a nostalgic sundowner with the British governor. As the shadows lengthened over the great harbor at Aden, the governor said that he thought the British Empire would be remembered for only two things: “the game of soccer and the expression ‘fuck off.’ ”

Of course, you wouldn't be posting here in English or have access to a computer if it weren't for the "white man's burden". For that matter, your people would still be burning widows alongside the pyres of their dead husbands, selling their children into slavery etc., so it couldn't have been all bad. I think you'd have a tough time arguing that India would be better off today had it had not been colonized by Britain. That's probably true of most of the countries colonized by Britain.

Posted by Fred | November 7, 2007 12:38 PM

See also: "Our Dedicated Boys Keep the Peace in Newly Annexed Canada."

Posted by Julian Elson | November 7, 2007 12:44 PM

would it be fair for the Iranians preemptively to attack US troops in Iraq on the grounds that it is the stated policy of the US to consider attacking Iran? That's not unlike our rationale for invading Iraq, only it makes a lot more sense. Or am I missing something?

All's fair in this particular game. I think a rational calculation of Iran's interests would prompt them to attempt to try covertly to undermine our forces in Iraq. There's an obvious disadvantage, given our relative strengths, for Iran to engage in an overt and unambiguous act of war against us because that would risk turning our threats into real action. But to the extent they can reduce our forces in the region without being found out, I don't see why they wouldn't. (In the same vein, when it was in Iran's interests to assist us in overthrowing the Taliban, they did.)

Not being a partisan for the Iranian form of government, of course, I hope they don't succeed in hurting us. But I'll concede that undermining our forces is rational, given the state of US-Iranian relations since the revolution.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 12:47 PM

Re Elvis's last post, I'd agree that there seems to be a teeny difference between a 4-day series of air strikes and a full-scale invasion with toppling of the government and then a Bremer-style proconsulship. Dontcha think?

Re MY's post and the comments here, I think we're losing some of the moral force of the cruel paradox here. In the Philippines then and in Iraq now, we imposed military domination on peoples who didn't want us, resulting in the particularly brutal deaths in both cases of tens of thousands of civilians. And we did this in the name of civilization, humanity, progress, etc. I'd go farther than MY here. Rather than find this some amusing or interesting example of self-deception, I'd find this a disgusting and corrupt example of utter moral blindness. Contemptible.

Posted by scott | November 7, 2007 11:09 AM

=================================================

So let's see, NATO air forces bombed Serbia from March 24 to June 10, 1999. And how many US and NATO troops are still stationed in the Balkans?

And people always seem to forget that FDR and Congress had decided in 1934 to grant Philippine independence effective 1946.

Posted by Campesino | November 7, 2007 12:49 PM

Fred, actually, you wouldn't have a tough time at all. The amount of suttee committed in India pales in comparison to the eleven to thirteen million victim of famines in India, which - oh, the coincidences! - seem oddly parallel to the famine in Ireland when Britain, in full classic liberal mode, was governing the place. Funny, the last major famine in India was ... in 1943. Churchill's gift to the ungrateful natives. Since then, there has been nothing on that scale. Really, you should read Niall Ferguson's Empire, which strenously tries to make a claim for some benefit to India, and fails - the statistics simply aren't there. If the Indian war of independence in 1857 had overthrown the British, India would undoubtedly have been better off - all possible "improvements' to India from those generous Brits (always willing to close down competing textile manufacturers in the name of free trade) had been accrued by that point.

The real question is: where would Britain have been without Indian wealth? No railroads for that foggy little country - no industrial revolution without the money that poured in from the nabobs, combined with the slave money from Africa and the plantations in the West Indies and the textile plants in Liverpool that had gotten rid of their cheaper world competitor. It would have been ... Denmark.

It is always funny to hear a world historical robber defended because its heists were so beneficial to the peoples it stole from. Especially from someone who benefited massively from the throwing off of the british yoke in 1776. But the right, in America, has always been deeply, deeply against the very principle that made America independent, so no surprise there.

Posted by roger | November 7, 2007 12:53 PM

And lord knows technological advancement can only happen if accompanied by slavery and colonialism! Otherwise, capitalism doesn't work! Good point, Fred. You're a fine scholar of Marxism.

Posted by anonymous | November 7, 2007 1:01 PM

The amount of suttee committed in India pales in comparison to the eleven to thirteen million victim of famines in India, which - oh, the coincidences! - seem oddly parallel to the famine in Ireland when Britain, in full classic liberal mode, was governing the place. Funny, the last major famine in India was ... in 1943.

Whatever the merits of Empire, the non-incidence of famine might have had something to do with this American.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 1:02 PM

Posted by Peter K:
"Is this what's happening in Afghanistan? I don't think the isolationists are clear on this. Does Ron Paul believe that liberal statists are using the common man's taxes to build empire in Afghanistan?"

Afghanistan was clearly seen by the Bush administration as an unfortunate 'gotta do it', which was only in the way of their desired war of conquest in the Middle East. The whole 9/11 thing was, of course to them only a neat excuse for their desired war, but the American people had some funny thing about getting actual revenge for 9/11. It was shorted of men and other resources from spring 2002 at the latest (probably more like November 2001).

Posted by Barry | November 7, 2007 1:05 PM

Holy shit, Fred. I have a whole new perspective on just how much of a dumb fuck you are.

Posted by Bill | November 7, 2007 1:06 PM

Wait, "non-incidence" of famine isn't quite right. In 1966, there was a near miss--averted in part by the shipment of 900,000 tons of grain from the USA.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 1:07 PM

What Barry said. Notice, Peter K, that Afghanistan was essentially dropped as soon as the Taliban ran to the hills, so that Bush could get on to the real business of imperial expansion. A political necessity, which conveniently stopped short of capturing the person the Bush admin could dangle over everyone's heads for the next 7 years.

Posted by Bill | November 7, 2007 1:09 PM

Argh... I meant to post this Fallout intro, not the one I linked to above.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 7, 2007 1:45 PM

Southpaw, the point, of course, isn't that India became an autarky. In point of fact, the British averted a famine in Bengal in the 1860s - just as the americans did in your example - and the British Indian office administrator who did that was severely reproached for wasting money. Famine sometimes requires international effort, and the British did as much as they could to impede that - re Churchill's problem with Roosevelt about the 40s Bengal famine. So the point not only stands, but your example is proof that independence, rather than colonial status, would have done India good.

Really: first the lesson that torture is bad, now the lesson that independence is good - are we going to have to re-learn the whole enlightenment agenda all over again?

Posted by roger | November 7, 2007 1:49 PM

yeah, I'm on your side roger. Liberty good . . . torture bad . . . war bad . . . empire bad . . .

I was just indulging my nationalism in what I hope was a fairly innocuous way.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 1:52 PM

Oh, and as a ps - to point to advantages of independence - and independent Iraq, for instance, could extradite Andrew Moonen, Blackwater guard and murderer, for the murder of Raneem Khalif from the U.S. It could put pressure on the U.S. to bring various people in the state department on trial for accessory to murder. It could credibly ally itself more closely with Iran, its natural economic partner, and form a mutually advantageous block in OPEC. Just in the same way, an independent U.S. was able to trade with the French after 1787. The advantages of casting off the colonial yoke are multifarious.

Posted by roger | November 7, 2007 1:54 PM

Southpaw seems a bit insincere as a Clinton cheerleader. -
Anyway - Matt you should read some of the Mister Dooley essays from that era. They sound pretty current.

Posted by Comment | November 7, 2007 2:39 PM

Southpaw seems a bit insincere as a Clinton cheerleader

I mean, sure, I'm not in the tank for Clinton. Still, the guy didn't go around losing wars and torturing people. It's a pretty low bar, but he definitely cleared it.

Posted by southpaw | November 7, 2007 3:06 PM

Re: India and the British Empire

I learned from a University of California professor that Britain made tons of money on India, which paid for the net losses Britain accrued from running the rest of the empire, so it all came out as a wash. I don't know if his analysis took into account gains from trade from more (forced) open markets though.

Posted by pjgoober | November 7, 2007 4:49 PM

I learned from a University of California professor that Britain made tons of money on India, which paid for the net losses Britain accrued from running the rest of the empire...

Yes, but it's wrong to treat the situation as if "Britain" (or even "India" for that matter) was some sort of unified economic entity.

The "costs" of most imperial endeavors was heavily borne by the public, while the profits & riches went to the kinds of people and institutions which regularly get profits & riches.

As Michael Parenti (roughly) said, "The rich and powerful will spend any amount of your money in order to protect or further their money.

I.e., the current war & occupation in Iraq may be costing "the USA" (meaning, you and me) a lot of money, but it certainly isn't impoverishing the people to whom the contracts are going (i.e., Halliburton, Blackwater, et al), nor is it exactly turning major oil companies into paupers.

Posted by El Cid | November 7, 2007 5:04 PM

Okay. Last try to post the one I meant to post all along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE

Posted by Julian Elson | November 7, 2007 11:34 PM