Memo to Fred Thompson: America Has an Empire
At ABC's debate last Saturday night, Fred Thompson asked Ron Paul whom the United States had invaded before Iraq and Afghanistan. The other candidates and the audience were having a grand time at Paul's expense. He had said terrorists attacked the US not because we are rich and free but because of the way the most powerful nation on earth treats other people.
So Fred, how about this as a short list to answer your question:
- Invasion, occupation and annexation of numerous sovereign Native American nations.
- Invasions of Canada in 1775 and 1812.
- Invasion, occupation and annexation of 52% of Mexico, comprising today's Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California and parts of Wyoming in 1848.
- Invasion and occupation of the Philippines from 1898-1942.
- Occupation and annexation of Hawaii 1893-1898.
- Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1918.
- LBJ's invasion by ground troops of Vietnam in 1965.
- LBJ's invasion of the Dominican Republic one month later in 1965.
- Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1982.
- Reagan's laughable invasion of Grenada two days after 241 American marines were killed in Beirut in 1983.
- Bush Sr.'s invasion of Panama in 1989.
As I said, that's the short list. It doesn't mention CIA-backed coups overthrowing democracies in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. It's been the reverse of 1776: overthrowing democrats to install monarchs and dictators.
Thompson was specifically asking what invasions had taken place in the Middle East that riled up extremists to take revenge on the U.S., as Paul was alleging. First off, many Middle Eastern extremists are not as narrowly focused on their region as Thompson thinks. Osama bin Laden has more than once referred to American involvement in Vietnam as a motivation. Secondly, Paul told Thompson the reaction was to Middle East dictators the U.S. had propped up against the interests of their peoples.
It does not always take invasion and occupation to exercise control. Nor is invasion always the preferred method. The Romans, British and other great empires lacked the resources to invade and directly run every territory under their control. They sometimes relied on surrogate leaders drawn from local populations such as King Herod in Roman Palestine and King Faisal in British Iraq.
That's how the US has run most of its interests abroad: installing and maintaining dictators in Latin America, Africa and Asia, though at times invasion and direct rule has been deemed necessary. Afghanistan and Iraq are only the latest examples.
Ron Paul is wrong on a lot of issues, but not this one. He had the guts to face a ridiculing audience and panel of candidates to try to deliver a basic history lesson to people who need it. The derision with which he was met was a bad sign of how far we have to go for these historical facts to be accepted as a legitimate debating point.
Americans do seem to have a hard time coming to terms with empire.
A few months ago I had a conversation with Gore Vidal about this. I will be posting my interview with him soon on the Huffington Post.
In the book I am writing with former Senator Mike Gravel, that will be published by Seven Stories Press in May, we confront Americans' reluctance to recognize the effects of U.S. power abroad by providing a detailed history of the interconnected growth of U.S. territory, presidential power and the American arms industry from the beginning of the Republic until today.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog here on the 100th anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt's launching of the Great White Fleet. It was a so-called "peace mission" of white battleships bristling with cannon calling into ports on every continent except Antarctica in a circumnavigation of the globe. The U.S. sailors were feted everywhere they went. Why? Was it from fear of what America could do to these nations, or hope for what the U.S. could do for them? Perhaps that hadn't been delineated yet, despite the ongoing brutal repression of the lingering Philippines insurgency at the time.
I suggested in the blog that some American political and business leaders may not have focused solely on the promise of great riches and power in store for America's impending global empire, but may have submerged their naked ambition in the enterprise into the myths of American progress and democracy on offer for the world, perhaps to assuage their conscience.
Some readers thought I had given America's early imperial leaders a break and should have nailed them for their naked aggression. Seen objectively there is little doubt that the altruistic slogans of spreading Christianity or democracy -- from the Philippines to Vietnam to Iraq -- seem like covers for brute economic and political interests.
But it is presumptuous to know what goes on in an individual's mind. Listening to Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain ridiculing Ron Paul at that ABC debate it occurred to me they may be ignorant enough of history to delude themselves into believing that America is an exception: that its scouring of the world for resources, markets and political power is somehow different from the British or the Romans or countless other empires. They are wrong, but how do we know for sure they know that?
We do know that Ron Paul deserves credit for bringing up the obvious in a hostile environment. Maybe some day historical fact will seep into the mainstream and at least be seriously debated.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's have all the candidates appear on Jeopardy and be quizzed about American History.
Category: Western Hemisphere for $500, Alex.
Answer: The US forced Columbia to grant independence of this land because business interests wanted a canal built there.
Question: What is the isthmus of Panama?
The majority of college and high school age people have no idea that we have almost 1000 military bases in over 150 countries around the world. It's something left out of textbooks and the discussion of the US global position in general.
Honest question (I'd really like to know):
How many other countries maintain foreign bases, what is their location, and how many are there?
Thinking ones know Ron Paul was correct. The ignoramuses who got their sense of history from the same place Fred "big shot A-list hollywood movie star" Thompson, Ronald Reagan and the current oval office occupier in the clown suit did, Hollywood, will one day have a rude awakening when they realize what dummies they are...that is, IF they ever wake up at all.
The Mexican government invited people to move to Texas to serve as a buffer between their population and the Comanche tribes. The Mexican government then limited the number of people moving into Texas because of concerns white influences on their culture. St. Anna did his thing and the Texans rebelled, much like the original colonies rebelled against England. the result was a sovereign nation that existed for 10 years until the Texan government applied for statehood. While I do not dispute the US government is imperialistic, you damage your own argument when you throw out easily documented misrepresentations.
Outstanding article, Mr. Lauria. I eagerly await your forthcoming book with Sen. Gravel, whom I respect immensely.
As a Ron Paul supporter, I suggest that we anti-imperialists put our differences aside for the time being, and focus on what really matters: ending the military invasions, occupations, and interventions in the affairs of other sovereign nations, as well as the stranglehold that the military-industrial complex has over our federal government. I think that most of us know this is BY FAR the gravest threat to our country and our way of life, as well as to world peace.
Go Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, the only authentic anti-imperialist candidates.
America has NO empire. We have no colonies, and don't want any. McDonald's resutraunts don't count.
Just a further word about Grenada and Panama. We didn't invade Panama until they gratuitusly and formally DECLARED WAR on us. AS to Grenada, Cuba had murdered the prime minister, replaced him with a puppet dictator and was going around shooting innocent people.
So unless you're willing to defend the murder of Prime Minister Bishop, leave Grenada out of it.
The canard about Texas and the southwest is just that, a canard. Is it America's fault that Santa Anna decided to shred the Mexican constitution and declare himself dictator for life? Were the people of Mexico WRONG to revolt in favor of democracy? Did thousands of women and children in Zapotecas and Cheohla DESERVE to be massacred by the Mexican army? How about the Maya in the Yucatan? They broke away too and weren't reconquered until the 1890s. The Texans were fully justified.
The American Empire is a myth.
Economike has it right... The Republicans like most Americans don't seem to grasp history, or are hellbent to forget what is inconvenient. They are dinosaurs for the most part.
I believe a new face among the Dems. will sweep the nation.
MOST AMERICANS KNOW THAT THE U.S.AIRFOR
You forgot Libya, twice: as in the Marine Chorus: From the Halls of Montezuma (Mexican-American War) to the Shores of Tripoli.
Here - someone else's website - is a list of US Military Interventions. Be warned: it's a long list.
http://www
The GOP candidates and those like them are aging dinosours. As they grow more senile, they become more irrelevant. On the other hand perhaps the Britney Spears generation might be waking up... we can only hope.
Nobody should be surprised by the ridicule that is heaped on Ron Paul over the issue of American imperialism. Those who have decried American imperialism and foreign military intervention have been ridiculed from as far back as the Mexican War of 1848. Thompson and the others are not ignorant of this. Since they are firm believers in the American Empire, they must suppress all dissent at every opportunity. The American ruling class will always find a reason for constant warfare. If not the Commies, the Muslims will suffice. And if Al Queda miraculously dissappeared, a new foreign threat would turn up to fuel the MIC, e.g. China. I applaud Ron Paul but his efforts, like all those before him, are wasted on an ignorant population that is, for the most part, not able to understand what he is saying and how his positions are connected.
These are very, very important points, Joe. History isn't always pleasant but it's always fascinating. Most of it you never did hear during all your days in "Mr. Slowbone's History Class" way back in high school. You certainly don't hear any of it in the current show: "I Wanna Be A Political Campaign."
No, history isn't popular, but we have to learn from it. We're not the first country to reach this "decision point," but we seem to be lurching into our decisions quite blindly. And there are plenty of quite-ruthless politicos who are eager to take advantage of that ignorance; to punish it with war.
And my favorite endorsement, Jim Cramer!
http://www
I apologize for hi-jacking this thread.
Thanks for the article.
http://www
http://www
http://www
Do you need any more?
Now, let us compare his opposition's economic platforms.
Yeah, right, I thought so....
Nothing. Status quo until we're completely
broken down.
You are a fool if you think economics, preemptive war, health care, immigration issues,
and taxes aren't related.
It's politics people. Who's got the power and who controls the money. Plain and simple.
TruthOUT:
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
