[Mb-civic] The Reality Of Empire And Campaign Rhetoric

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

As the day of reckoning nears, and the nation is on edge....and even as many 
progressives and liberals do whatever they can to promote the hoped for Kerry 
victory....it strongly behooves us to engage in frequent reality checks like this one...


Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-10/20landau.cfm

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

ZNet Commentary
The Reality Of Empire And Campaign Rhetoric October 21, 2004
By Saul Landau 

Try to digest radio blasts of campaign rhetoric amidst nerve-wracking
traffic jams and insistent billboards. In a massive mall parking lot,
designed to divert the brain from human themes, I try to understand my
country's empire. The energy spent involved in avoiding promotional
barrages leaves me with barely enough motivation to parse John Kerry's
convex sentences or George Bush's convolutions. 

Check claims against facts and maybe light will shine through? The
candidates offer to "keep the faith" in Iraq and "fulfill our mission."
What faith? Islam? Bush's faith? What mission? Before invading, Bush
defined his goal as ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, which
Bush's appointed weapons inspectors did not find, and cutting Iraq 's ties
to Al-Qaeda terrorists, which didn't exist before March 2003 but now do. 

Who dictated this mission? Did God, posing as a neo-con, tell Bush to
invade Iraq during a prayer session? Kerry's more historical view warns:
don't repeat the terrible mistakes in Iraq that we made in Vietnam by
denying that we are making them. Thus, sending more troops to Iraq might
make our original mistakes worse, but we cannot simply walk away from the
terrible mistake without making worse the original mistake. 

So, Kerry would or wouldn't send more troops to Iraq to support our troops
there because they do or don't need extra help. Bush would not send more
because they don't need it. Both candidates agree that shouting "support
our troops" is the best support our troops can get. Have I missed
something? 

On Israel , one candidate declares 100% support for whatever she does. The
other contender favors giving full support for all of Israel 's policies.
See the difference? 

The candidates don't object to spending $400 plus billion on "defense."
Neither explains how that money actually defends our country since we have
no likely attackers. Over the last decades, defense money got spent
offensively. Ask the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia,
Grenada, Panama , the former Yugoslavia or nations attacked covertly, like
Chile, Cuba, Brazil, etc. 

The candidates differ about imperial strategy. Bush invaded Iraq without
junior partners -- like France and Germany -- because he could. Kerry would
invade weak countries with allied support because it looks better. What
does "ally" mean after the Soviet monster collapsed? 

Kerry and Bush agree to aggressively pursue the global mission of freedom.
In practice, freedom has meant Halliburton's right to do business with
scum like Saddam Hussein before the United States invaded Iraq and then
make billions repairing the damage done after the invasion; plus feeding,
housing and building latrines for "our troops" (Is that what "supporting
our troops" means?). 

Freedom also embodies Wal-Mart's right to expand globally. The vast
corporation serves as means and ends of vast empire. Monster-sized stores
wage peaceful aggression, seeking to re-conquer indigenous Mexico by
demanding the placement for sale of its weapons (Chinese-made wares) at
the 2,000 year-old Teotihuacan ruins. The globalizing giant has challenged
the Indian gods by building its new superstore under the shadows of the
ancient pyramids.

Ironically, the Spanish built their churches and government edifices on
top of the Aztec civilization they had just conquered. Now, we visit
Mexico and admire the ruins of both old cultures. 

Local residents petitioned the court to stop Wal-Mart, which threatens
small business, distorts the ecology and mocks the ruins. It will decimate
a way of life. Wal-Mart demands freedom to sell. The State Department
denies that Mexican courts have jurisdiction in questions about freedom to
trade. Didn't NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) settle that
issue? 

Indeed, Wal-Mart's freedom to operate megastores defines imperial goals.
Nations that reject Wal-Mart, a symbol of corporate freedom, become
international human rights violators in the media, which doesn't condemn
Wal-Mart, however, for its contempt for labor rights. Instead, the press
offers a "balanced picture" of Wal-Mart's ruthless resistance to
organizing attempts. Political authorities offer the language. 

The media accepts it, without evaluating labels given to enemies:
communism, socialism, nationalism ? or "terrorist regimes." Journalists
assume that these regimes ipso facto violate the human spirit. 

Cuba , the media's arch-typical rogue nation, has suffered forty-five
years of distortion. Reporters have filed tens of thousands of negative
stories about Cuba 's lack of freedom -- along with a handful of "balanced"
tales that praise its health care and education. 

"Communist China" became just China when the ruling Communist Party
switched from state to private sector economics. Ironically, in school we
don't learn that democracy and freedom mean the need to have unrestricted
global access for Wal-Mart or post war contracts for Halliburton. 

Likewise, the candidates don't discuss corporate freedom. Instead, they
intone on how Lincoln and Roosevelt fought for freedom, which the
candidates will adapt to the war against terrorism. The public remains
awash in conflicting facts and messages. The 9/11 Commission presented
evidence that Iraq had no role in the 9/11 attacks. Yet, a Newsweek poll
in September had 42% believing that Saddam Hussein authored the World
Trade Center attacks. Vice President Cheney repeats this myth in his
speeches. Fox, the privatized ministry of propaganda posing as a news
organization, underscores that message. 

The public receives language that conceals both imperial intentions and
the logical outcome of aggression. The torture of Iraqis resulted from an
imperial invasion and occupation. Bush and Rumsfeld at least tacitly
approved the torture, but now blame Abu Ghraib horrors on "a few bad
apples." Yet, according to Heather Wokusch in the September 14 Common
Dreams New Center, prison conditions in Texas under Governor Bush were a
model for US prisons in Iraq . 

Wokush quotes federal Judge William Wayne Justice: "Many inmates credibly
testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison
system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions." 

A September 1996 "videotaped raid on inmates at a county jail in Texas
showed guards using stun guns and an attack dog on prisoners, who were
later dragged face-down back to their cells." Same apples in Iraq ? 

But the public, distracted by consumption and media distortions, move
politically in a fog. Far right Republicans emphasize peripheral issues:
abortion, guns, gay marriages and prayer in school ? not war or the
distribution of wealth and health. 

Kerry himself appears unfocused, almost hypnotized by his own monotone.
Yes, a Kerry victory means better judges and heads of agencies. 

And Kerry wouldn't prematurely ejaculate "Mission Accomplished" as Bush
did after landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. The pilot who
flew Bush to that publicity stunt died in Iraq on August 10. Bush did not
attend Lt. Commander Scott Zellem's funeral ? just one more number in the
1,000 plus Americans who perished in Iraq . 

"We've turned the corner," Bush instead proclaimed (lied). Did this sick
joke refer to 7,000 plus wounded who will no longer turn corners on their
own feet? Did he mean by corner-turning his ability to sell imperial needs
as a "war against terrorism"? Bush holds the presidential record for
launching two wars and occupations in two years. If elected, more military
operations will likely follow since he has apparently convinced tens of
thousands of poor youth on the virtues of giving their lives -- not his --
for causes like "liberating Afghanistan ." 

He omits the thousands of Afghan dead, cities destroyed and the
$400-billion spent on wars that have not yet produced Osama bin Laden.
Foreign troops occupy "liberated Afghanistan ." That country undergoes
extreme poverty, while its opium production soars and instability runs
rampant. In the August 27, 2004 Baltimore Chronicle Jane Stillwater
reported an eyewitness' account: "Since the American takeover of
Afghanistan , the major crops there are now opium, human organs and
children." 

But reality has not pricked the "success and democracy" bubble; nor
assuaged the "security" fears that guide election rhetoric. Kerry whines
about "losing our allies" as if the nearly 55 year old and moribund NATO
alliance served some purpose. New power realities have removed the need
for junior partners (allies). 

One hundred sixty thousand troops occupy Iraq and Afghanistan , fighting
for "freedom" by killing residents who get in their way. No end in sight.
The Democrats have no clear alternative. Let rhetoric ring! 

The Pentagon's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania link " America 's new
imperial lifeline" to bases across Central Asia, Iraq and the Gulf. The
100,000 troops who staff those 700 plus outposts, writes Eric Margolis in
the August 22 Toronto Sun, are "designed to cement Washington 's hold on
the Muslim world and its natural resources." The Pentagon outfits itself
for ?expeditionary warfare', Margolis continues, which the British called
"the 'imperial mission'." 

Kerry also envisions new bases to stage operations in volatile strategic
regions, but cautions against wasting money on "excess bases." 

The bi-partisan militarized foreign policy makes the United States
resemble the British Empire, Margolis concludes, but most Americans
"remain unaware of their government's new imperial plans to rule oil and
the Muslim world, and of the unexpected conflicts that lie in wait for
America's increasingly far-flung expeditionary forces." 

Halliburton and Wal-Mart CEOs understand. After all, it's their profits
that the new armed forces will protect ? no matter who wins in November. 

I'm still voting for John Kerry -- terrible is better than worse. 

Landau's new book is THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA: HOW CONSUMERS 
HAVE REPLACED CITIZENS AND HOW TO REVERSE THE TREND . He 
teaches at Cal Poly Pomona University and is a fellow of the Institute for Policy 
Studies.   www.slandau.net 


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option D 
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options (option A - 
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day) 
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you this email and you 
want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which 
option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041022/ad27c9e2/attachment.html