Make a case against American Imperialism

Great Debates
1

I think this is a subtly different question than addressed in the several other Iraq debates. I have been thinking that we might as well attack Iraq, topple Hussein, and install a puppet government. What costs exceed the benefits?

As benefits, we would eliminate an overtly hostile actor, and in the process dissuade others from adopting a similar tone. Meanwhile, we would guarantee ourselves a steady flow of cheap oil. The fact of the matter is, we are the sole superpower. Why have the power if you aren’t going to use it, or derive specific benefit from it. In the meantime, what do we gain from all the current dithering?

What benefit do we derive from NOT invading Iraq? What other countries will act more favorably towards us if we don’t act? What terrorists will cease to target us? Something appeals to me about being up front about the benefits of being our friend, and the potential costs of being our enemy.

I hear people talk about the ill-will such action would generate in the international community, but it doesn’t seem to me as tho we enjoy universal respect as it is.

And Iraq is easy pickings. Just the type of terrain where our military can wheel and deal. The live ammo war game to end all. And when it’s over, we’ll have that oil!

The one potential cost I see is Russia and China perhaps following our lead and pursuing empires of their own. But maybe we could get away with - say - one invasion a decade or so. If it looks like we will have to pay the piper down the line, we can always say, “Oops! Our bad.” And then get off with a withdrawal and payment of some reparations.

Disclaimer, I strongly opposed the Gulf War, and generally favor defining our national interests extremely narrowly. I disfavor interference in other countries’ internal affairs, bordering on isolationism. I personally would advocate huge increases in the costs of energy, and believe too much of American culture is wasteful and aimed at the acquisition of consumer goods.

But deep inside me is a feeling that we should shit or get off the pot. I hope some of you out there might magnanimously help convince me of the irrationality of this feeling.

2

You sound irrational, consider that eventhough U.S.A is the most powefull country in the world a) it is only one of many countries and more importantly b) Nothing last for ever.
I think America’s best service to the world and to itself considering it is part of this planet (despite bushes opinion) is to create a new world order were no country can do the savages thing you mentioned. Call me stupid or idealist but in order to survive we need to create a world order. Egoist policies will lead us to the graveyard.

3

Yeah, you sound irrational–you sound like they’re tinkering with your meds again. :smiley:

How would we go about establishing a puppet government in a country twice the size of Idaho, with about 24,000,000 people, 97% of whom are Moslem? In other words, how are 23,280,000 Moslems going to feel about having a Christian Uncle Sam ruling over them?

Stuff like this should go over real good.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/24/palm.sunday.kandahar/index.html

Yeah, but do the Muslims and Jews get flyovers during their services? I think not.

And if both the invaders (us) and the invadees (the people of Iraq) are praying to God to protect them, how does He decide who to root for?

I submit that the resultant mess would make Vietnam look like a minor domestic disturbance.

Keep taking the pills, Dinsdale–the doctor only wants to help you…

4

Duck, I hope you realize the ‘flyover’ was normal air activity at the largest American base in Afghanistan, not some ‘3 Cheers for Christ!’ airshow…

5

And the reason I know it’s the meds is because first you say, “Let’s conquer Iraq so we can have cheap oil”, and then you say, “Let’s have more expensive oil”, and first you say, “Let’s conquer Iraq” and then you say, “I’m against interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.”

So, what are you on, anyway?

:smiley:

6

The CNN article’s context made it sound like it was laid on special for Palm Sunday. Go look.

7

No it didn’t. It made it sounds like they were holding during the course of normal operations.

At an airport.

Methinks you are trying to hard to make it sound discriminatory when it actually isn’t, Duck.

8

The USA is indeed the lone super-power. One of the reasons for its rise to power and the key to its endurance is that it is not an empire builder. In fact the USA, despite its faults, errors and sometime questionable foreign policies, is head and shoulders the most benign superpower in the history of civilisation. Past Empires that have embarked on expansionary conquest backed by military superiority have ultimately fallen as a result of spreading their influence too thinly to deal with inevitable insurrection.

America’s position of power certainly entails responsibilities but acquiring territory and resources by force is not one of them. America is reviled by much of the world for its excess and perceived arrogance. If she were to start throwing her weight around in an aggressive, acquisitive manner this would only serve to bolster resentment and consolidate her enemies. In addition, the international community would find this no more acceptable that Iraq invading Kuwait and the risk is that America would lose friends rapidly. She may feel capable of dealing with any immediate threats but it is a policy that would certainly lead to defeat in the long run.

In any event, I find it hard to imagine the American public accepting the sacrifice of its young men and women to make Iraq, Iran or North Korea part of the United States, whatever prized resources are available.
As an aside, I would also take issue with your comment that Iraq is ‘easy pickings’. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that the US would achieve its objectives. Invasion of Iraq would not be a Gulf War style turkey shoot at retreating, demoralised conscripts. While his offensive capabilities are unquestionably weakened, Saddam Hussein is a much tougher prospect defending his home turf. Even if he does not resort to non-conventional warfare, casualties are likely to be high on both sides. In and around Baghdad, the Republican Guard will be well dug in, protected by civilian interests and hard to shift. Even with air superiority, targeting will be difficult and invading forces will be engaged in bitter urban warfare. What of the 5 million residents of Baghdad? Will they welcome American troops with open arms as a liberating force, or will they fight tooth-and-nail to defend their city (like the residents of Stalingrad who faced execution by their own side for dissent or desertion)? SH is an expert at self-preservation and he may prove just as elusive as Bin Laden. Alternatively, when cornered and facing defeat he may escalate by deploying non-conventional weapons against an advancing invasion force or Israel (if he has delivery capability), the consequences of which would be very hard to predict.

9

Well, that’s definitely the worst-case scenario, and I’ve been saying the same thing - if Saddam manages to keep his most loyal troops with him, and defends a city, it’ll be ugly.

But that really is the worst-case. I think a more likely outcome is that as soon as the Iraqi soldiers are certain that Saddam’s government is finished and they and their families won’t suffer reprisals, you’ll see a mass laying down of arms.

And I believe the Iraqi people will welcome the Americans, by and large. Saddam has kept the people there in squalid conditions and repressed under this brutal thumb for decades. If our experience with other brutal dictators is any guide, the people will sing the praises of Saddam and tell the world how much they love him and how opposed they are to America as long as Saddam tells them to say that and has the ability to punish them if they don’t. But if he was killed and his body found, I’ll bet it would be dragged through the streets to choruses
of cheers, and the Americans will be treated as liberators.

10

Sam, no question, the best case scenario (and I sincerely hope for it) is a swift capitulation of the Iraqi forces in the face of overwhelming superiority but that is a big and dangerous assumption. I wasn’t suggesting that the worst case scenario will unfold but pointing out that swift victory is not a foregone conclusion as the OP and many others seem to be suggesting.

There is no doubt that Saddam’s regime is as cruel and repressive as that which presided in Stalinist Russia. I agree that many Iraqis will be pleased to see the back of SH but I don’t think it automatically follows that they will welcome Americans (a subject for another thread I think). It is quite possible however, that he will be elusive and remain in command for some time (if not indefinitely). I think it’s safe to assume that while he does, the call to arms will be issued universally to the Iraqi people under threat of brutal reprisals.

11

We certainly succeeded in setting up puppet governments that led to free and open democracies in Japan and in Germany after WW II. We (i.e., the UN) are trying to do that right now in Afghanistan. Success is by no means guaranteed, but there’s reasonable hope. Iraq should be easier than Afghanistan, because it has an educated citizenry.

12

Machiavelli said:

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. "

Bolding mine, of course.

13

>> it is much safer to be feared than loved

Except that contradicts recent history where repressive regimes have fared much, much worse. People who are inspired will work harder and are willing to sacrife more than people who are just fearful of their government.

At any rate, thinking the US can control the entire world by fear is pure idiocy. Iraq may be just an evil enemy to the US but it has strong ties to China, Russia and other countries who are not so keen to see the US unilaterally invading Iraq. So, invading Iraq unilaterally would carry a big price in relations with many other countries

14

Unless an imperialist employs the jackboots of repression (which I believe the US wouldn’t do), an imperialist hegemony would be so damned powerful that dissenters would have to choose the only means of attack available to them: terrorism. It’s a dreadfully bad idea.

15

Thanks for the responses.

As I tried to convey through the admitted contradictions in my OP, I really disfavor an aggressive approach. But it seems to me that a case for invasion is more persuasive if based on blatant self interest. (You’re a Prince, Doghouse)

Could the US offset fear with excessive generosity on the other hand. If you’re with us, you will prosper with us. But if you’re agin us, look out!

Yesterday evening I read an essay in the Skeptical Inquirer, presenting a skeptical response to 9/11. I thought it presented several persuasive points of how our actions after 9/11 can be viewed as out of proportion with the injury we suffered on that date. And how the resources we have brought to bear in the past year could have been better directed. Along the lines with a discussion in another thread, where someone was (rightfully IMO) called on the carpet for declaring Iraq the primary concern of our nation at this time.

I strongly oppose the idea of invading Iraq. As I opposed Operation Just Cause, etc., ad infinitum. In the end, I guess I have to appreciate that the inefficiencies created by the type of debate currently underway is one of the costs and glories of democracy.

16

I disagree. Guys like Mao Zedong started out trying to “inspire” people, and then turned to tactics of fear once that stopped working. I think the American experience shows that people work hardest who are allowed to work for themselves and enjoy the rewards. But note that some extremely harsh penalties await those people who harm other peoples’ ability to do the same. Couldn’t we argue that the people at Enron were insufficiently fearful of their government?

I bet you love and are inspired by PBS, and dislike and are in fear of the IRS. To which body are you more careful in submitting your “contributions” on time?

Turning to the OP, the US has always had certain policies based on instilling fear–witness Mutually Assured Destruction as well as the clear signals sent to Saddam last time that any use of WMDs–chemical, biological, or nuclear–would be met with a potentially annihilating nuclear response on our part. Fear appears to have legitimate applications.

BTW, here’s an interesting Washington Times editorial on the subject: The Imperial Era Begins. It mentions a rumor that I hadn’t heard before: that in addition to applying pressure, the US is also offering a carrot to allied nations in return for their cooperation: a share of soon-to-be-captured Iraqi oil.

17

I have to agree with Somnambulist. Sam Stone quibbled with some of the specifics regarding the outcomes of an invasion of Iraq, but no one has addressed the key point.

For the US to succeed long term, it must be seen as lending a hand, not weilding a weapon. To suggest that our foreign policy ought to be governed by the philosophy of Machiavelli is ludicrous, and will surely lead us to eventual ruin. Choosing between fear and love is the fallacy of the false dilemma. Influence gained through respect will be far more enduring.

The OP fails to recognize the shortcomings of previous US foreign policy with regards to supporting “reconstructed” nations. Americans tend to have short memories, and when the going gets tough, we often leave our allies in the lurch. Even if Iraqi’s cheer for their liberation this year, will we be there supporting them in two, five, or ten years? If our motives are strictly internally focused (oil, national security, or just fear of SH), don’t you believe the rest of the world will recognize that they must be responsible for themselves, and can’t rely on American self-interest to address their own?

Until we, as a country, recognize that our self interest is to grab the third world by the bootstraps, and help them achieve prosperity, the types of troubles we now face in the world will continue. To simply ignore that, and abuse our superpower status, will only lead us to the fate of Marie Antoinette.

Funny how this point draws many parallels to the current thread titled, “Scylla on Global Warming”.

I read the Washington Post opinion piece that was linked by Doghouse Reilly. The article implies that we (the US) have gotten our way by “pressuring” other countries to do what is in our interest. This assertion ignores the fact that we have bought such actions, using our wealth as leverage. Take Pakistan as an example. Do you think they have cooperated with the US recently because they felt “pressured” and fearful, or were there other reasons? It’s amazing what a few billion will buy you these days.

So, that’s the gist of my case against American Imperialism.

Now let’s look at your case for American Imperialism.

Eliminating SH, by itself, has little value. Ever played “whack-a-mole”? (no relation to Whack-a-mole of SDMB fame, btw). There are thousands of aspiring SH out there. Knock him down, and another will pop up, considering the vast amount of distrust we will generate in the international, and particularly arab and Muslim, countries. Cheap oil ain’t the issue, let the market figure that out. We can use our power as leverage to get to the table, but to arrogantly throw our “might is right” mindset brings back images of the great Roman empire.

The benefit we gain is by not further eroding our already depressed reputation in the international community*, by acting unilaterally by what we believe, but have yet to prove, is in our best interests. And we may not prevent current terrorists from targeting us, but we may head off thousands more that will become terrorists if we do invade unilaterally.

Duh. Don’t you see the value of improving it, versus ignoring it and let it crumble further? Or would you say, “Let them eat cake!”?

Wholly shit. I would love to hear you try and convince Colin Powell of this. Vietnam didn’t look too formidable either.

Yeah, it work so well for Hitler…

Teddy Roosevelt said, “Walk softly, and carry a big stick”. I suggest that that policy would go much further than the more macho, “Get in their face, and wave your big dick”.

  • If we can make the case that SH represents a threat to the international community, and we can go in a pursue “regime change” with broad international support, the case changes entirely.
18

Iraq, Iran and Turkey have sizeable Kurdish minorities living around the common borders. When the US invades, the Iraqi Kurds may make use of this opportunity to set up their own government of independent Kurdistan. Though not a bad thing in itself, the setup of a new country in the Middle East, and the increased fervor of Kurds about Kurdistan may throw southeast Turkey into quite a lot of turmoil - not fatal, but very messy and very difficult to control. This could add on to the Mid East crisis.

Anyway, neighbouring countries wouldn’t like this possibility of their Kurdish populations involved in an uprising. The invasion of Iraq, and the setting up of Kurdistan (if any), could mean repression of the Kurds elsewhere – something that freedom-loving and liberty-pursuing Uncle Sam wouldn’t like.

19

Sort of. Except the influence gained through respect is no influence at all. Everyone I know respects Canada, yet they have no influence on global affairs. Same with Sweden, Costa Rica and many others. Sorry, but it’s just naivete to suggest that the US can have the same level of influence, just by being “respected.” The philosophy of Machiavelli is actually the best philosophy to use here…unfortunately, not many people understand what Machiavelli was arguing. True Machiavellian policy would be to force through a regime change in Iraq and then stick with it and rebuild Iraq. Something that most people would support, although few have faith that this admnistration (or any administration, really) would actually follow through on.

I agree that the US frequently leaves its allies in the lurch, though. There is no doubt in my mind that had, say, the Lloyd’s building been destroyed in London on 9/11 by, say, the IRA that the US would not have stood as steadfastly as Britain has for us. This really does have to stop.

I agree…to a point. A world-wide Marshall Plan is unfeasible. However, a bit by bit Marshall Plan would work nicely. For instance, start with Mexico, especially since they are a member of NAFTA and could be a nice market, to boot. Europe could start with Northern Africa. Once those areas are self-sufficient, move on to others. It will take time, but in my opinion will be more effective since it will (hopefully) gain strength exponentially.

Of course, this really isn’t a case against American Imperialism. It’s a case FOR American Imperialism, since the methods used would probably also require military force to stabilize some third world countries along the lines of the European occupation after WWII. Not only that, those countries being lifted would inevitably end up looking very capitalist and very secular… and so would face so-called cultural imperialism.

Don’t be ignorant. Invading one country per decade would have worked quite nicely for Hitler. In fact, had Hitler stopped after annexing Austria and invading Czechoslovakia for a while, things would have been ok for him. His problem was that he tried for too much, too fast.

So essentially, if the rest of the world tells us it’s ok to go to war, we can do so? Please.

Oh yes, as for the Cronkite interview…what a load of horse manure. It isn’t the poor in Africa or Asia or Central/South America attacking the US. It is educated men from relatively wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia. To say that this is some sort of global class revolution is just moronic.

20

Neurotick, let me start off where we agree. A “bit by bit” Marshall plan would be a better approach than a worldwide plan. However, I think we would need all (or at least most) “first world” countries to help sponsor it, it couldn’t (shouldn’t) be just the US. And Mexico would be a good place to start, for us. I’m not sure I like the term “cultural imperialism”, but essentially agree with the concept. I don’t believe that we would necessarily have to impose our culture in order to help bring properity to the third world. It would likely end up looking capitalist and secular, but I think culture is much broader than that.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Perhaps we are only arguing a matter of degrees, but the brutal dictatorship would never have successfully enveloped peoples that were already accustomed to living in free states. He might have been OK after Austria and Czechoslovakia, but even decades later, he wouldn’t have been able to hold France, Belgium, the UK, or even eventually the US.

With regards to respect, I disagree with you. Your point is valid, but perhaps I wasn’t clear on my point. Let me attempt an analogy. I’ve always had a bit of problem respecting authority figures. Well, not exactly, but I did have problems respecting authority figures that expect respect simply due to their authoritative position. If they earned my respect, we had no troubles at all.

That is to say: Respect, when combined with authority (such as superpower status grants), does provide influence. So do dollars, btw. Influence gained through force and coercion is fleetly, and only generates distrust and ill will.

Ridding SH of WofMD does have broad international support. But where we go off the deep end is in discussions of “regime change”. Who are we to tell another sovereign nation who their leadership should be, or how they are selected? It’s one thing to “strongly recommend” that the leadership be changed - like with Arafat - its another entirely for the US, unilaterally, to dictate or force how that change will take place.

With broad international support, the perception changes. It is no longer the US dictating, through its military might, the leadership of another country, but the demands of the world. It is no more “right”, but it doesn’t cost us the perception that the US is imposing its will through force.

And I think you missed Cronkite’s point, or at least that your view is too narrow to see it. When you suggested that America was attacked by relatively educated and wealthy men from Saudi Arabia, I assume your are refering to 9/11. We are talking about Iraq here, and the connection is not well established.

Nonetheless, you still miss the point. Even with regards to 9/11, while the financial support of al Qaida mostly comes from wealthy Saudis, including Bin Laden, the power base comes from thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions, in terms of “moral” support) of disenfranchised Muslims. Without that power base, al Qaida wouldn’t be much of a threat.

With regards to Iraq, unilateral action will only force additional disenfranchised peoples to the groups like al Qaida. We simply make the situation worse, not better.

In a truly global view, Cronkite is on target. Much of the US’s problems overseas is based on this fear of imperialism, even particularly cultural imperialism. We have to find a better way.

And finally, do you think your post attempted to make the case for American imperialism? Or did you undertake the debating tactic to simply attack the opposing position, without actually taking a position yourself?