Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mburbank
...to what is essentially as whitewash (pardon the pun) of American Empire.
|
Ok, Geggy.
For an imperial nation, we have a long history of being extremely bad at it. Is France in our Empire? Germany, Italy or Japan? Serbia? Turkey? Russia? Czech Republic? The Pacific Rim? The Phillipines?
Maybe you were referencing Guam or Puerto Rico. Yep, we sure are lording it up over those guys. We really made them our bitch states, didn't we?
Sorry to be so empirical and facetious... I'm really pretty sure you meant we are overtaking other countries economically, forcing them to eat McDonald's food and wear Levis, right? "Empire" is a sloppy way of describing such a system of control. See, empires control other areas of the globe in order to utilize their resources. Maybe you were implying that we are stabilizing Iraq in order to control their oil?
Then again, I'm sure you are already familiar with where we get most of our oil, and that that's not generally the Middle East. While it's true that Israel will benefit from freer access to Kurdish oil supplies, the main beneficiary of a secure flow of oil and natural gas out of the Middle East will be, curiously enough, China and Eastern Asia.
It is that region's dramatically increasing demand for petroleum that should be spurring any wars for oil. Why would the American Empire use it's Death Star to aid Communist China become a better trade competitor? Shouldn't Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney be looking for monkey wrenches to throw into the Chinese economic engine, since all indicators show their emerging trade machine to be outpacing our own within twenty years or so?
Either Bush is just a terrible emperor, or maybe, just maybe, there's a better explanation of current events.
We know and exemplify the benefits of economic and social freedoms better than any other country in the world. America is the poster boy of globalization. It's not just an economic term anymore, and it includes much more of the planet these days than just "the West." To be truly hooked up to and fully benefit from the global marketplace requires much more of a nation than just trade. Globalized countries such as Brasil, Chile, South Africa and India can show you that.
To be globalized means to appear inviting to foreign investment. Condi hit the high points well. Social, political and economic freedoms must be secure before the money faucet gets turned on. Since WWI, Americans have been the main exporter of the security required by nations alll over the world wishing to make these improvements. That comment is an observation made with the benefit of hindsight, of course. We didn't really see the bigger picture until just recently.
What we have been doing is filling the role of a global freedom firefighter. Whenever a political, social or economic blaze breaks out somewhere in the world, we have considered it within our national interest to put out the fire, providing a secure environment in which freedom can be repaired and strengthened. We have given tirelessly and selflessly of our nation's blood and treasure to increase freedom all over the world, building globalized economies along the way.
Unfortunately, as I said, we only recently came to understand the larger picture of our activity in this regard. In the 90's, 95% of our 140 or so military actions... our firefighting jobs... took place in the non-globalized third of the world. Simply providing security was not enough, but there was no push in our government to find out why, much less what it would take to pro-actively "fireproof" the chronically chaotic and opressed regions of the unconnected world.
The War on Terror symbolizes America's transformation from globalization's firefighter to it's policeman. Everywhere globalization has spread, the people of those regions have benefitted greatly. The world grows politically, socially and economically more free daily. The spread of globalization is due to the efforts of the already globalized through the WTO and the World Bank. Those nations that choose to globalize are guided through the necessary reforms and trade, income and quality of life increases almost overnight.
Some parts of the world, howver, are run by folks that would rather keep things as they are. They benefit from tyranny and the lack of freedom, and would prefer that the rest of the world simply write off the few million people they oppress for profit. The principles of liberalism require us to aid people like those of Iraq, even if doing so means be a little impatient with assholes like Saddam.
Just like cops and robbers, the rules of society are enforced with guns. There is not a military force on the planet right now that could stand a chance against even our Coast Guard, so if you can agree that the cause is just and understand that resistance is inevitable, I would ask you Condi's question: "If not us, who?"
Grandaddy Rice aside, I'm glad to hear the Bush administration is finally getting on the stick and doing the PR job they've so far failed so miserably at. I am personally convinced that aiding the spread of globalization to the people governed by those that resist it's freedoms is nothing but the rest of the world's moral duty, and I truly believe that is the intent of the WOT. It's about fucking time, if you ask me, that speeches like this are being made in an effort to explain what is at stake and what is to be gained by whom.