Judy Phelan |
Some quotes from Imperial Hubris
Submitted by Aunt Judy on Sun, 2008-11-23 12:10
This is an amazing book. It is written by Michael Scheur. Near the end of the book he poses some questions needing debate. I may not be smart enough to debate some of his ideas but a lot of what he says makes sense. And I don't necessarily agree with everything he says. So these are just food for thought. Here they are (but not in their entirety):
Begin quote:
1. Does unvarying military, economic, and political support for Israel serve substantive--vice emotional--U. S. interests, those that, by definition affect America's survival? Do we totally support Israel because it is essential to our security, or because of habit, the prowess of Israel's American lobbyists and spies, the half-true mantra that Israel is a democracy, the fear of having no control over a state we allowed to become armed with WMD, the bewildering pro-Israel alliance of liberal Democrats and Christian fundamentalists, and a misplaced sense of guilt over the Holocaust? Like America or any state, Israel has a right to exist if it can defend itself or live peacefully with its neighbors; that is not the question. The question is whether U. S. interests require Americans to be Israel's protectors and endure the endless blood-and-treasure costs of that role. Status quo US policy toward Israel will result in unending war with Islam.
2. The question of Israel leads to a much more important question for Americans: that is, in Michael Ignatieff's words, "the difficult questions...of whether their own freedom entails a duty to defend the freedom of others beyond their borders." There is no greater duty today's Americans can perform for their nation and posterity than to finally abandon the sordid legacy of Woodrow Wilson's internationalism--which soaked the twentieth century in as much or more blood as any other "ism"--and recall and instutionalize John Quency Adam's advice that the United States must be "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all..[but] the champion and vindicator only of her own.
3. Beyond below-market oil prices, what do we gain from backing Muslim regimes that are corrupt, repressive tyrannies--be they monarchiacal, military, or family-run--and that use control of oil pricing to extort US protection while using their US and Western-armed militaries to suppress and persecute their own people?
4. Have we the moral courage to defy the alliance of oil companies, hard-line environmentalists, and the political backers of each and install an energy policy leading to self-sufficiency? Today's wars show the direct tie between the West's dependence on Persian Gulf oil and the loss of US lives: the more dependence, the more deaths. In a region where we have no national interest save oil, the question is: How many lives are we willing to pay per thousand barrels of oil?
5. Do we need military and naval bases on the Arabian Peninsula, and do we need to continue occupying Muslim lands?......
6. Does the US security require, and have we the moral right, to aggressively try to install secular, democratic systems in countries that give no hint of wanting them. Is our nation more likely to perish if the rest of the world is not just like us, or if our democracy-making crusade destabilizes much of the world?
End quote.
These are some things to think about. I am not saying I agree/disagree with his slant on things but all of these things are prime areas for improvement and national debate. We really need some smart people in the right positions. In number 2 above we need to be careful. Would we never come to another country's aid? In number 6 above I agree we should not be pushing democracy on anyone. It is another thing if they are fighting for it and have a good infrastructure and just need a little help from the outside. Number 1 above is a biggie. As long as I can remember we have championed Israel. They have always seemed to be the underdog, they have appeared to be smart in their military thinking and protecting themselves while surrounded by enemies. That is a complex issue. If I could get around the concept that Arabs/Muslims just want to eradicate them it would help. Because there have been things done to the Arabs also that should not have been done. That is just so complex. My brain hurts trying to even think about these things! I guess I need to read something that takes the opposite position from this book/man.
»
- Aunt Judy's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 523 reads
Random audio
Recent blog posts
Popular content
Today's:
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.
rww says:
Instead of something that takes the opposite position, read Chapter 2 of Ron Paul's book The Revolution A Manifesto. It covers the topics you mentioned in a very clear and consise way. Paul and Scheuer share many of the same views one of which is a noninterventionist foreign policy. I don't think it has to be complex. It is just common sense. We can't bomb countries into freedom and democracy. I agree we need smart people in the right positions but we missed the boat. Again Chapter 2 of The Revolution A Manifesto. It will make your brain feel better, I promise!
Aunt Judy says:
I read chapter 2 last night. He does a good job of putting some of that in perspective. I had started Ron Paul's book but put it down about 2 pages into chapter 2. So, I guess I should just go ahead and read the whole thing now! Our foreign policy has been lacking for a long time. I hope it gets better. But when you look at some of the things going on in the world, trying to understand them and what is behind them is what is so complex for me. The Arab/Jew conflict is complex. We have a lot of repair work to do as far as how the world sees the USA. Oh, and it was interesting to see that Ron Paul quoted Scheuer in his book. I don't know if my brain feels better; we have such a huge problem! Maybe it does just a little. Thanks, lil brother!
Aunt Judy says:
I finished the Ron Paul book last night. I was so interested in his list of books at the end that have influenced him over the years. There were two on the list that I have already read. One is The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Beureaucrats Are Trampling the Consitittion in the Name of Justice. The other one I read many years ago, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I like the words "Tyranny of Good Intentions". It applies in lots of situations, not just in terms of the Constitution. And not only did he quote Scheuer in his book he lists the two books I am currently reading by him with the books that have influenced him (Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America). I will pour over this list of books and definitely mark some as books to read. Here is a question to ponder:
Why is Ron Paul such a lone crusader?
christopher says:
Some folks would argue he is not alone -- after all, he garnered a million votes in the recent presidential primary; but even so, I think the question is valid.
I think the answer comes in understanding the proper scope of science and philosophy. Very few people seem to separate the two properly. For example, someone who thinks it was wrong to A-bomb Japan, might argue that the scientists who devolved the atomic bomb and perhaps even atomic theory did wrong. And in as much as they intended their work to help kill people, perhaps they were; but, they probably didn't – they were scientists. You see, science only answers the question of can: can I create a huge explosion from a tiny bomb? Philosophy answers the question of should: should I use this powerful bomb to kill a city full of people?
Scientists seek to learn as many things as possible about the world around them while philosophers explore how and when we should or should not use this knowledge.
I'll take foreign policy as an example, as that is a primary concern of Dr. Ron Paul's.
The study of foreign policy as a science will help us understand the outcome of various activities. For example, it might tell us that:
Unprovoked bombing will anger the citizens of the country being bombed, but makes it easier to coerce them.
Supplying resources the the enemy of an adjacent country will sour relations with that adjacent state, but may result in it's ultimate demise.
Maintaining troops in foreign countries costs a lot of money, but makes it easier to quickly deploy troops to the region.
Now, those are just examples, and my point here is not to defend or defeat any particular statement of foreign policy science; but if we temporarily accept these statements as true, we can move on to foreign relations philosophy.
Now, there are probably as many philosophies out there as there are people, but I'll contrast two: the libertarianian and the power-thirstarian.
A libertarian might look at Iraq and think, “wow, they have all that nice oil over there. I'd love to have that;” but as a libertarian the only valid way to get it is by a mutually agreeable transaction – trade. So, she recognizes that she could bomb the daylights out of them and simply take the oil, but she more highly values maintaining her principles and her relationship with the Iraqi people, so no bombs fall.
A power-thirstarian, for lack of a better name, sees all that nice oil and thinks, “boy what's the easiest way to take control?” So, he examines the science of foreign relations and sees, “ah, I can bomb them, and simply take the oil!” He doesn't care about his relationship with the people, so the fact that the Iraqis will hate him does not matter. Note that there is no violation of his philosophy, as he has maintained his primary principle: acquisition of more power (money). So the bombs fall.
Now, back to reality, the folks in Washinton may be well aware of the impact of their actions, but they probably have very different goals from Dr. Ron Paul, or you and I. The actions they take may be the best course of action for achieving their goals – and of course, to maintain power, they can't exactly tell us what their goals are for fear of a revolution.
If folks understood the science of foreign policy and the science of economics, they would NOT believe the government lies about their intentions because their actions betray their real agenda.