ADVERTISEMENT |
From: "Aisha Khan" <ashkha-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Fw: Imperialism could solve US. problems
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:44:30 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Daily Aztec
San Diego State University
10/23/01
Imperialism could solve US. problems
Benjamin Abel, a political science senior and the senior staff columnist
There may be no greater sin on our campus than to look at a Muslim the wrong way, but the next worst thing is this: to use the word "imperialism." "British imperialism" is OK, perhaps because the British were so fantastically good at it, but saying "American imperialism" is like dousing the third floor of Adams Humanities (home of the "Ethnic" Studies) with Holy Water; you will hear hellish shrieks, and pea soup will be everywhere. What a mess.
This is why we should consider a new role for American imperialism. "Isolationism" (A republic, not an empire) goes only so far, because it is not possible for America to ignore the world's problems. The impulse for humanitarian missions is too great, and will stay with us for some time.
It should be noted, however, that the old argument for imperialism ("For the good of the natives") hasn't gone at all; it has simply been replaced by "For the good of the poor and oppressed." Today's professors laugh at the old slogans while they make up new ones which mean the same thing. Though imperialism can be abused, its purpose is a good one, and even benevolent.
Sept. 11 wasn't the result of our "imperialism"; it was, among other things, a result of our withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. We had been waging a proxy war against the Soviets, but when they left, we left also; our leaving unfortunately allowed the strongest Afghans to take power.
When the Taliban falls, who will we let into power? Will it be another government of anti-Western savages who don't know what a woman is, and who will force another terroristic, extremist brand of Islam upon their citizens? There is hardly a reason to expect anything close to democracy to emerge in Afghanistan unless someone is there to create it. "Islamic democracy" is already such an amusing concept that we should -- barring imperial intervention in Afghanistan -- write it off immediately.
Perhaps the U.S. cannot occupy and rule Afghanistan alone, as Max Boot of the Weekly Standard suggests; but the idea of a nation falling under imperial guidance still exists, notably in East Timor, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Building an Afghani national consciousness based upon universal values would be hardly a step backwards for the oppressed Afghans.
The same for Iraq: If Saddam should happen to die, and Iraq's warring elements lead the country into disaster, America and its allies could hardly sit hoping for an opening of the society; such is beyond the politics of the Middle East. But to make Iraq into a U.S. protectorate, and thus create an acceptably democratic government, would improve the lives of the currently oppressed Iraqi people, and would be a painful example to its neighbors of their democratic failures.
David Reiff writes in The Atlantic Unbound that interventionism has become a secular religion, our next moral campaign after the Cold War. "Without Christianity, without anti-communism, there is a moral and ideological vacuum crying out to be filled." This is so, but it is not all; often, apart from preventing genocide and terrorism, there is little we can do. After all, interventionism is more of an idea than a practice.
The ubiquitous Dr. Kissinger writes that we must only intervene to protect transcendent principles, we must be able to intervene successfully, and our interventions must be supported internationally. We are not in the position to right every wrong, though; Chechnya stands out.
The transcendent purpose, which may be questionable in other places, is plainly visible in Afghanistan and Iraq. In their cases, such intervention would pass U.S. rule on to the U.N., whose protectorate would create a stable, civil, and democratic society. It should be remembered that we are intervening in societies which produce mass-murderers, and which are incapable of self-governance without resorting to extreme violence.
After all, what is it feared we will do -- force our subjects to live long, healthy lives secure from tyranny, arbitrary murder, and starvation?
The examples of American intervention in postwar Germany and Japan come to mind. When we finished, the utter failure of their societies, and their hatred of America, became legendary.
-------
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your holiday gifts!
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
===================================================================
TO SUBSCRIBE or for more Info, please click on the "Subscribe" link on the right side of page: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afghaniyat>
Or
Send an email to: afghaniyat-subscribe-AT-yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
HTML VERSION:
Daily Aztec
San Diego State University
10/23/01
Imperialism could solve US. problems
Benjamin Abel, a political science senior and the senior staff columnist
There may be no greater sin on our campus than to look at a Muslim the wrong way, but the next worst thing is this: to use the word "imperialism." "British imperialism" is OK, perhaps because the British were so fantastically good at it, but saying "American imperialism" is like dousing the third floor of Adams Humanities (home of the "Ethnic" Studies) with Holy Water; you will hear hellish shrieks, and pea soup will be everywhere. What a mess.
This is why we should consider a new role for American imperialism. "Isolationism" (A republic, not an empire) goes only so far, because it is not possible for America to ignore the world's problems. The impulse for humanitarian missions is too great, and will stay with us for some time.
It should be noted, however, that the old argument for imperialism ("For the good of the natives") hasn't gone at all; it has simply been replaced by "For the good of the poor and oppressed." Today's professors laugh at the old slogans while they make up new ones which mean the same thing. Though imperialism can be abused, its purpose is a good one, and even benevolent.
Sept. 11 wasn't the result of our "imperialism"; it was, among other things, a result of our withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. We had been waging a proxy war against the Soviets, but when they left, we left also; our leaving unfortunately allowed the strongest Afghans to take power.
When the Taliban falls, who will we let into power? Will it be another government of anti-Western savages who don't know what a woman is, and who will force another terroristic, extremist brand of Islam upon their citizens? There is hardly a reason to expect anything close to democracy to emerge in Afghanistan unless someone is there to create it. "Islamic democracy" is already such an amusing concept that we should -- barring imperial intervention in Afghanistan -- write it off immediately.
Perhaps the U.S. cannot occupy and rule Afghanistan alone, as Max Boot of the Weekly Standard suggests; but the idea of a nation falling under imperial guidance still exists, notably in East Timor, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Building an Afghani national consciousness based upon universal values would be hardly a step backwards for the oppressed Afghans.
The same for Iraq: If Saddam should happen to die, and Iraq's warring elements lead the country into disaster, America and its allies could hardly sit hoping for an opening of the society; such is beyond the politics of the Middle East. But to make Iraq into a U.S. protectorate, and thus create an acceptably democratic government, would improve the lives of the currently oppressed Iraqi people, and would be a painful example to its neighbors of their democratic failures.
David Reiff writes in The Atlantic Unbound that interventionism has become a secular religion, our next moral campaign after the Cold War. "Without Christianity, without anti-communism, there is a moral and ideological vacuum crying out to be filled." This is so, but it is not all; often, apart from preventing genocide and terrorism, there is little we can do. After all, interventionism is more of an idea than a practice.
The ubiquitous Dr. Kissinger writes that we must only intervene to protect transcendent principles, we must be able to intervene successfully, and our interventions must be supported internationally. We are not in the position to right every wrong, though; Chechnya stands out.
The transcendent purpose, which may be questionable in other places, is plainly visible in Afghanistan and Iraq. In their cases, such intervention would pass U.S. rule on to the U.N., whose protectorate would create a stable, civil, and democratic society. It should be remembered that we are intervening in societies which produce mass-murderers, and which are incapable of self-governance without resorting to extreme violence.
After all, what is it feared we will do -- force our subjects to live long, healthy lives secure from tyranny, arbitrary murder, and starvation?
The examples of American intervention in postwar Germany and Japan come to mind. When we finished, the utter failure of their societies, and their hatred of America, became legendary.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005