perfidy

Did you know there's a war on?

Huh.

Did you also know that there are many regimes out there just as crazy as Iraq's?

Huh.

Did you know that it is now a proven fact that one can turn Godwin's Law on oneself? Check out this stirring proclamation from Robert "Big Fun" Mugabe! In response to the BBC's comparing him to Hitler, Crazy Bob had the following reply: ''This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. 'If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold.''

You fucking wish, asshole. You're going to die like a dog in the mud, and the sooner the better.

Mike, thank you for the thoughtful posts. You know how I can tell you're an historian, and a recent veteran of class discussions? You embedded the counter-arguments to your argument right there in your argument.

Speaking of academics, how do you like that fuckwit at Columbia who called for "a million Mogadishus" and said "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military"? I wish I could believe that such beliefs were exceedingly rare. At least Eric Foner (a sponser of the rally this guy spoke at) finally found the stones to disavow this bloodthirsty idiocy.

A good friend of mine from Boston reports that this Saturday's antiwar demonstration on Boston Common was sponsored by a coalition formed in direct opposition to the tapeworms in A.N.S.W.E.R. Good.

As the days pass, I am more and more solidly convinced that the invasion of Iraq was not a brilliant idea. Yet, I don't go to peace rallies, mainly because I haven't even the slightest iota of patience for giant puppet heads, freeing Mumia, die-ins, saving the tasty, tasty whales, overthrowing capitalism, or any of the rest of that filthy hippie shit. If, as it appears, a new vocabulary of protest is in the offing, I will rejoice as this may mean never hearing "kumbyah" ever again.

The New York Times has a pretty good write up of the competing forces in antiwar protests (thanks to Bootsy and Nat):

Returning to Johno's previous question about what to do about student athletes, I'd say it is a problem. It's a problem for student athletes in Division 1 in that athletics does take a lot of time away from academic study. It makes studying and completing assignments much more difficult. The seasons are long, especially for basketball, and it consumes a lot of a student's year. So what are the options? Well, obviously, seasons could be shorter. Of course, universities might carp about this because tournament play and bowl games are advertising opportunities and money-makers. But they can still have their post-regular season play, just limit the amount of time it takes. If that means fewer games have to played during the NCAA tournament, so be it. It might also help to return to more geographically restricted divisions. That would reduce time on the road for college athletes.

The other problem occurs with economically disadvantaged athletes. Universities kind of pull a bait and switch, in my opinion, with some athletes. Universities offer a free ride on tuition in exchange for participation in sports. Well, that's good for disadvantaged athletes who might not have otherwise have the opportunity for higher education. But when they're broke, they are tempted to take gifts that the NCAA does not permit. In some cases it might well be greed. But a friend of mine recently mentioned a story about one college athlete, who came from a very poor family, and didn't even own a jacket. A booster apparently bought the kid a jacket, the NCAA said that was not permitted, and I don't remember if the kid had to leave the team, lost his scholarship, or anything like that. But for the kid to even get in trouble because someone bought him a jacket so that he wouldn't be so cold outside is screwy.

So, disadvantaged student athletes with scholarships get free tuition, but free tuition doesn't cover everything. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to grant disadvantaged student athletes stipends, if circumstances justified it. But that might be unfair to disadvantaged students on other scholarships without stipends. That problem might not have a solution. But at the very least, the NCAA could reduce the length of seasons and the amount of geographic travel to give student athletes more time to be students.

At this stage, only a fool would insist that the United States military waging the war on Iraq wants to kill civilians at this stage. But as the lines between civilian and combatant become increasingly blurred, such as in the recent news of a suicide bombing that killed four American troops, there is no guarantee that will continue. We, that is, American citizens on the home front, cannot be assured that American troops will never attack Iraqi civilians, thinking them guerillas, as they did in Vietnam. Are we sure that there will not be a Mai Lai (sp?) massacre in Iraq? We cannot be sure that it will not happen, we cannot be sure that it will happen. It is useless to debate mights and maybes. Suffice to say, the possibility for higher civilian casualties exist if the U.S. military decides that everyone is a combatant. But that has not happened yet as far as we know, and it might not happen at all. The possibility, however, is something of which to be aware. 

As to the civilian casualties that have occurred, I am uncomfortable with a shrugging of shoulders. To argue that there were only four civilian casualties after the first air attacks on Baghdad is problematic. I seriously doubt that the living relatives of those four dead Iraqi civilians shrugged their shoulders, and said, "Oh, well, my father/mother/brother/spouse whatever is dead, but hey, it's only four people." The reality is that this war has and will continue to kill Iraqi civilians. Granted, the U.S. military is trying to avoid those casualties, certainly in high numbers. There have not been high numbers of civilian dead, but there have been and will be more civilian dead. I disagree that Americans should pat themselves on the back because they've only killed a few people and not a lot of people. Death is always a tragedy, in numbers large or small. 

The counter-argument to my counter-argument may be that a small number of Iraqi civilians have died to prevent another great loss of life in the United States. But there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein himself was at all involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001. The vast majority of participants were Saudi Arabians, who were religious fundamentalists that despise and detest Hussein's secular Ba'ath government. Has the CIA or even the FBI established any coherent links between Hussein and the 11 September 2001 attacks? I have heard President Bush insist that there are strong links between the al Qaeda network and Hussein, but people can just say anything. I reiterate a previous question: exactly what threat did Iraq pose to the United States? My opinion is that we have probably made it more likely, with the invasion of Iraq, that the United States risks further large-scale attacks. Now even more people of the near east are mad at the United States, and others may be radicalized. 

It would be fair to ask, "but Mr. Windy Mike, if there are no solid links between Hussein and al Qaeda, how has the U.S. subjected itself to greater risk?" There are a few scenarios. For example, near easterners who found al Qaeda's fundamentalism distasteful might now be convinced that al Qaeda was right when they accused the United States of trying to occupy the whole of the Middle East. Military action often results in the radicalization of moderates. To draw a parallel, after the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972, the ranks of the provisional Irish Republican army swelled, and people lost faith in the Northern Irish Civil Rights movement, because moderates were radicalized. Some people in the north of Ireland became convinced that it was impossible to deal with Britain. Apparently, the only thing the British understood was the power of the gun. 

Perhaps, moderate near easterners who have requested fair dealing with United States will similarly become convinced that moderation is useless. Maybe moderate near easterners, who have requested a fair hearing on the Palestinian question, who have asked that the United States withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, will decide that Uncle Sam is either deaf or ignorant. "If Americans march in with guns," says the moderate near easterner, "maybe guns are all they understand, and maybe guns are the only way to convince them of our position." As I said before mights and maybes are just that, but it is clear that the vast majority of near easterners probably dislike the United States and its Middle Eastern foreign policy intensely. They won't like us more now that the United States has invaded and attacked another Middle Eastern country, Ba'athist secular government notwithstanding. Once more, did that Ba'athist secular government pose a significant threat to the United States? How? To my knowledge, none of these weapons have mass destruction have yet been found by U.S. forces. 

So, exactly why is this war being fought, and exactly why did those four Iraqi civilians have to die, in addition to others? A small number of civilian casualties, and not a large number of civilian casualties, sanitizes the fact that people who probably never even once considered attacking an American have died by American hands. Just because the numbers are small and not big does not change the fact that people have died. Saying, "Oh, well we only killed a few people and not a bunch," is nothing to be proud of. To be fair, Mr. Steyne did not write that he was proud of civilian deaths in small numbers. But for the living relatives and friends of those Iraqi citizens who died, relative numbers don't mean a damn thing. They only know that someone they loved died in a war.

"In so far as the enemy has a strategy, it's to use their own people as hostages. The "pockets of resistance" in the southern towns have been able to make mischief because they blend in with the local populations. They know that Washington and its allies are concerned above all to avoid casualties among Iraqi civilians and, indeed, among your typical Iraqi conscripts. In other words, everything the Baath regime does is predicated on the moral superiority of their foe."

(Emphasis mine) and: 

"When I say the allies are concerned above all to avoid not just civilian but pretty much any enemy casualties, I mean it. Washington has taken a decision to expose its forces to greater danger in order to all but eliminate collateral damage. Hence, the policy of simply bypassing towns rather than seizing them to secure flanks and rears; and of giving every Iraqi the benefit of the doubt, including the fake surrenderers who ambushed the US marines at Nasiriyah. If you can get to a rooftop, you can fire rocket-propelled grenades at the Brits and Yanks with impunity; under the most onerous rules of engagement you could devise, they won't fire back just in case the building you're standing on hasn't been completely evacuated. This is the operational opposite, one should note, of Bill Clinton's Kosovo campaign. A lot of analysts over here are disturbed by this excessive deference to non-military considerations, especially with rumours that the Baathists in their death throes are planning to go chemical. But it's working out swell for the Iraqis. On the first night of "Shock and Awe" in Baghdad, the TV boys' preferred line was, "it looks like Dresden." The next day, the Iraqi foreign minister announced a civilian death toll of ...four. Four? You mean, four thousand? But no. Single figures. Not exactly Dresdenesque, and a long way from the anti-war movement's thoughtful projections. "Thousands will die as - collateral damage,"’ declared Yahya Ibrahim in the New Straits Times. "Tens of thousands will die and the Middle East be plunged into chaos and bloodshed," warned George Galloway. "Why do hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have to die when they're no threat to us?" asked Margo MacDonald in the Edinburgh Evening News. "The United States is about to destroy an entire country and kill 20 per cent of its people," wrote Nicholas Oshukany in Monday's Kitchener Waterloo Record in Canada. That would be just shy of five million dead Iraqis. What a mound of corpses! But the Yanks will have to pick up the pace a bit. Right now, there are so many civilian casualties that, as my compatriot Andrew Coyne puts it, Robert Fisk can personally visit them all.’

I think a lot of people need to take some stress tabs, so that we can talk about things reasonably.

Those most recent statments from Osama Bin Laden praising Iraq for its resistance to coalition troops and calling for all Islam to rise up as one against the infidel oppressors really have me worried.

Oh wait... I forgot... HE'S DEAD.

Please accept this link to Motorhead's official site as a fitting counterbalance to the posts about...um...You Know Who.

That will be my last post, ever, about Celine Dion.

A friend of a friend, who hates Celine Dion like all thinking people should, had this trenchant observation about Celine's latest haircut.

Oh, I saw "the cut". . .and I couldn't believe my eyes.........whoever is responsible for that travesty needs to rethink their career.

I'm sure the people at Caesar's Palace are probably saying, "Hey, we didn't pay $90 million for this bull-dyke." If I'm gonna shell out $150 to see her perform, I want some hair. I want some whip action as she's banging her chest. If I wanted to see Billy Idol.......I'd pull out my Best of MTV collection.

F*** her and her dumb baby.

In the words of Glenn Reynolds... indeed.

Amen to this post at Chicagoboyz. The Eyeliners are the saviours of Rock, now that the Donnas have gone major label (not that there's anything wrong with that!). And now I'm gonna do the thing I hate. Aaaaas I commented over there at Chicagoboyz,

[The Eyeliners] are responsible for the only true, pure rock moment I've witnessed on stage in the last few years. It was at the Paradise, in Boston, about five songs into a blistering set opening for the Donnas. The skinny one who plays guitar (names, schnames), right in the middle of ripping off a solo, leaned back, back....back...until she was on her knees in the approved Nuge position... cocked her head, grinned at the crowd, and blew a big, perfect bubblegum bubble. It was awesome.

I mean, it was awesome. 
 

Five!

Three, sir!

Three!

Wait... that includes the three of us, doesn't it?

Our five readers will be devastated.

Which means I can't post, at least not right now. I've been slammed at work, and still must devote mucho time to preparing the new hacienda. But I've been thinking... (and yes, Johno, it does make my brain hurt) and hopefully will have some interesting thoughts up soon. I'm not going to argue with Mike's history mojo on the origins of fascism and communism, but I think there's a lot to say about how they fit in now. Also, I have some bones to pick on the empire thing - just can't let it die.

As for opposition to the war - it doesn't make you puking, filthy, Stalinist, anti-Bush, ill-informed, blinkered, one-worlder, giant-puppet wielding, anti-Capitalists. There are two groups of people against the war - people like you and Mike, and people like the asshatted fuckwits at DU. But even those idiots are not traitors; there is a clear difference between dissent and treason. Treason is more like Taliban Johnny - actively fighting for our enemies, not merely opposing the war inside the U.S. If they were sabotaging military installations, or hiding Al Quaida operatives in the SanFran area, then they should be hung from the neck until dead, dead, dead. Until then, they are free to make complete asses of themselves on national TV.

Was, curiously, also on April 30 - five years earlier when the U.S. Embassy in Saigon was evacuated by Helicopter. Operation "Frequent Wind."

First, the boys at CalPundit are writing about fundamentalism in all its forms as the enemy of progress, in the context of American politics. Great stuff, including a call for a new political party to appeal to the squishy center. Yes, please, and quickly!!

Second, an interesting discussion about the end of history. That is, what is the first political event you remember, before which everything is history to you, and after which everything is current events? For me personally, it was watching Walter Cronkite's daily tally of the Iran Hostage Crisis with my father. I distinctly remember day 179, so history for me ended on April 30, 1980.

Now this is just weird. The US military is using specially trained and equipped dolphins to locate mines in the Persian Gulf.

I feel two ways about this.

1. THIS IS SO DAMN COOL I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE IT. This reaction is mainly the result of this story by William Gibson, which features a dolphin who is modified and trained by the army to sniff out mines, addicted to smack for the sake of incentive, and then let go to seed as a junkie war veteran entertaining kids from his swim tank in a run-down carnival. Awesome story. The future is here.

2. OH MY GOD WHAT THE HELL HAVE WE BECOME? We're a volunteer army. Humans can volunteer. Flipper can't. The argument could be made that these dolphins are in a similar position to draft animals in wars before 1950, but something about this development strikes me as somehow more inhumane and profoundly creepy.

Mike, your description of American empire, as it were, as driven by corporations strikes me as apt. Two associations come to mind: Emily Rosenberg's theis of US diplomacy in the Wilson era being driven and facilitated by corporate interests, and the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, whizzing through the galaxy, artificially accelerating civilizations' development in order to cultivate new markets.

In fact, I think one of the major, major, problems that other nations have with us is not that we act imperialistically, but rather that through successful marketing and plain appeal, US products and corporations transform indigenous ways of life.

This is the root of our hegemony, not our military might.

However, even though this force allows us the latitude to act that we currently enjoy, the transformations societies go through when buying US products or harboring US companies are not without severe drawbacks. These drawbacks can, of course, breed resentment. For examples, see the way Coca-Cola is damn tasty and safer than the water, but it wrecks your teeth. Or the debacle over Nestle's marketing of baby formula in Latin America, claming it was all a baby needed, nutrition-wise. Or how DOW mis-handled the Bhopal disaster horribly. Let's not forget the Nike shops in Thailand Mike mentioned, whose employees, thought they often make good money, still can't afford the Nikes they spend all day making. Good corporate policy rarely makes for good foreign policy, yet it is the main shaper of the US' activities and perceptions abroad.

Part of what Islamic terrorists rail against is the inexorability of this force, and it is part of the reason behind their attempts at judging us as "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."

Well, I guess we know where The Onion stands on this war thingy.

The Boston Globe reports that "[a] study released Monday showed that 10 of the schools in this week's round of 16 have failed to graduate even half of their players in recent years."

I'd like to open up discussion about the role of college atheletics in education. Obviously, top-shelf college atheletes are not really "amateurs" by any stretch of the imagination, no matter what the NCAA might claim. I've seen it argued recently (sorry-- no link!) that student atheletes should get credit for their participation in sports, as the time devoted to atheletics takes the place of academics in their education-- this would then make them true 'student atheletes'. I've also seen it argued that NCAA schools should be able to pay their players to compensate for the time that sports monopolizes from their schedule. Many argue that student atheletes deserve extra consideration because winning teams bring loads of money into universities. What do you lot think? Or do you not care?

From Yahoo News: "The Justice Department lifted a requirement Monday that the FBI ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information about criminals and crime victims before adding it to the country's most comprehensive law enforcement database."

Well, that's just great. Hypothetically, some asshat gives his name as "Johnny Two-Cents" to the Effa Bee Eye, and suddenly I'm a criminal. Way to go, DoJ. Would you like a crack at those pesky habeas corpus laws next? Oh, wait...

[update: from the world's tiniest violin department] I should point out that, according to the story, the accuracy rule has been lifted due to FBI claims that they can no longer manage the massive flow of information they now have coming in. Oh, forgive me if I'm not overly sympathetic.

Buckethead, my typo is duly noted, and my post on McCain now reflects his stance for the war. Apologies. I'm working on a long piece about the portrayal by the internet punditocracy (viz. The Emperor Misha in your post below) of the anti-war movement as uniformly stupid, and it's tainting the other things I write.

The best argument I can come up with on that front is, if I'm agin' it, and Windy City Mike is agin' it, does that mean that we too are puking, filthy, Stalinist, anti-Bush, ill-informed, blinkered, one-worlder, giant-puppet weilding, anti-Capitalists? Um.... I doubt it.

Granted, puke-ins, shit-ins, giant puppet heads, ANSWER, and the rest of the usual suspects cheapen the debate incredibly, but so do folks who suggest that, now that the war is on, that the unitarians, college students, and patriots in the anti-war crowd are somehow committing treason and providing aid and comfort to the enemy by exercising our right to dissent and (for some) gather peacably. More on this later.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

The Franco-American dispute falling out over the best approach way to disarming Iraq take away Iraq's weapons has resulted in perhaps the highest level of anti-French feeling in the United States Lands since 1763. 

A French-owned hotel innkeeping firm, Accor, has taken down the tricolor three-hued flag. In the House of Representatives Burghers, the chairman leader of the Committee Body on Administration Running Things has renamed named anew French fries "freedom fries" and French toast "freedom toast" in House restaurants eating rooms. 

To which the question asking arises: Why stop with Evian, Total gasoline, and the Concorde (just only the Air France flights)? Let's get to the heart of the matter thing: A huge big percentage of the words in modern today's English are of - gasp! - French origin beginnings. What if, as a result of the current diplomatic dispute today's falling out between lands, the French demand ask for their words back? We could all be linguistic hostages captives. 

It is time for English-speaking peoples folk to throw off this cultural imperialism lording-it-over-others and declare say our linguistic freedom. It is time to purify clean the English language tongue. It will take some sacrifices hardship on everyone's part to get used to the new parlance speech. But think of the satisfaction warm feeling inside on the day we are all able to can all stare the Académie Française in the eye and say without fear of reprisal injury: "Sumer is icumen in...."

Just think how hard this would be to do with Arabic. 
 

Informal empire, or hegemony, if you will, is maintained not as much through government (if at all) but through corporations. American informal empire/hegemony is achieved through American corporate enterprise.

1) Stupendous Idiocy
Yeah, pretty naive alright. As someone of middle eastern descent myself, if only 25%, I can still clearly state that there are plenty of middle easterners, just like American white folks, who are none too fond of people of sub-Saharan West African descent. That is intentionally opaque.

2) Republicanism
Okay, fine, but we should move toward as democratic a government as possible. Is this a Clinton dig? If so, bear in mind, he was the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

3) Expectations
Okay, more media than guv'ment. Fair enough.

4) Patience
Bring your A game on that one. You're in my house ... yo. Ain't nuttin but a H thang.

The McCain quote that Johno posted below exactly describes my views on the current and historical (well, last century, anyway) uses of American power, and why we aren't an empire. I always liked McCain, and even my liberal mom said she would have voted for him in 2000 had he been the Republican candidate. But I don't remember him coming out against military action in Iraq, and the article would seem to suggest that he supports it.

I have been very busy. I am, even now, composing a reply to your fascism thingie. However, while I'm doing that, your one sentence comment on Empire didn't answer the one question I asked for which I was most curious to hear your reply: "If we have an informal empire, a halfway state between empire and not empire, how does it work?" How are we creating, maintaining and administering this empire.? I truly don't see evidence of anything that I would describe as empire - even an informal one. Exerting influence, yes; playing politics, yes; even military action, yes - but I don't see that we are actively trying to control other countries, or peoples, on any kind of systematic basis.

Also, in regard to the expectations for the war 

No official of this government, or in the military has ever said that the war would be over in days, or that the Iraqis would surrender en masse right at the beginning. Granted, they want the war over as quickly as possible - but Bush regularly said that we should be prepared for a long, difficult fight. And for that, he was accused by the media of putting on the spin, to lower expectations. But consider, there are still only a handful of combat casualties after nearly a week of fighting. And, we are less than fifty miles from Baghdad - it took six weeks to get this far in '91. This is the fastest armored assault in military history. The only army that ever moved faster (toward the enemy) is the Mongol Hordes. And given the logistical hurdles that we have and 'Ol Genghis didn't, that's pretty remarkable. We were hoping for a coup, not counting on it. Likewise with the Turks. The plan that Gen. Franks and his staff has come up with is audacious, but not ill considered. And it is going very, very well by any historical standard. 

Do I have to bring out my republic stick again? 

Gore lost the election because we have a republic and not a direct democracy. It was decided by constitutional procedures. Rule of law is more important than democracy, and that would be the greatest gift we could give the Iraqis. Rule of law leads to civil insititutions that can support democracy, it doesn't work the other way around, as many third world nations have found to their sorrow. (And remember, Bush got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton did both times he was elected.)

From the website Democratic Underground:

HappyLibLady (1155 posts): The "coalition" POWs
"It was interesting to see the interviews being held with a few of the POWs captured by the Iraqis.

I noticed that the interviewers spoke in calm, comforting voices, and I saw how one of them put a gentle hand on the shoulder of the young African-American female. Her eyes seemed to express a terrible fear, and that is likely because she was trained/brainwashed by the US miltary to believe all Iraqis are blood-thirsty murderers.

I have faith that the experience of these POWs will leave them non-plussed and very confused. I expect that they will be given good treatment, decent food and clean quarters during their confinement, and that they will be released, unharmed when the time comes.

Maybe I'm just dreaming, but it is my hope that the POWs will discover that they were treated better by the Iraqis than they have ever been treated by the very people who are supposed to be protecting them on the battlefield. And, in the case of the African-American woman, she may find that people in the Middle East, unlike too many of the folks back home, do not consider her a second-class human being because of her dark brown skin!"

I am shocked, shocked that someone could be this completely naive. Although I shouldn't be, because everytime I visit that website, I see something equally stupid. (And she uses scare quotes, too.)

Mike, I believe that John McCain, screwball that he is, is also one of the most forthright people in national politics. In the words of John Shaft (in the 2001 remake), "Do you think that makes me less dangerous... or more dangerous?" He has been against the war [correction] for the liberation of Iraq from the start, and unlike my illustrious Senators Teddy Kennedy or John Kerry has remained steadfast and articulate in his convictions. I know that at least Buckethead is going to try to beat me like a drum for sayin' this, but Democratic candidate Howard Dean (Gov. Vt.) reminds me favorably of a liberal McCain in that regard. I tend to respond well to straight shooters, even the crazy ones.

As for the President's legitimacy, of course Bush lost the popular vote. That tends to happen all the time-- you know as well as I do that the Electoral College is really what elects the President (and it's also why we're in no way a direct Democracy). Besides, if you want to get technical about it, every President since whenever has really lost the popular vote in the sense that only about 30-35% of voters vote-- meaning that a mandate of the people is really concretely a mandate of 17.5% of the people. As with you, my real issue is that the Supreme Court decided the election given all the irregularities that kept being unearthed in Florida, and I'm not just talking about chads.

If you want a really fake election though, just look at 1876, or for that matter, 1824.

I agree with you-- the volte-face attempted by the big dogs as they try to claim that a long war was always the plan is pretty funny, and deeply sad. On that, you're right. Aside from the political issues though, I think I'm rather less pessimistic than you about how the war is going. As Outkast said, "you can plan a pretty picnic, but you can't predict the weather." Forget Turkey-we are on the outs with them on a monthly basis, and at this point, with Turkish troops attempting incursions into Northern Iraq, their help would be more hindrance in the long term. Now that it's on, I just want it all over fast.

McCain has an interesting perspective truly. It occurs to me that politicians might not be so confident of their decision for war if they are still trying to sell the war to the people. If that's not it, then just what is McCain up to? 

It also appears as though this war is not living up to the expectations of said politicians. My, my, but the Iraqis are not all surrendering in mass numbers. Did they really expect Hussein to just give up? The administration has made errors in judgment here. First, they should not have counted on a coup, because it's not going to happen. Two, they should not have counted on Turkey permitting passage to open a northern front. At the moment, most of the armor that would have gone through Turkey hasn't even made it ashore due to rerouting. Proper planning prevents poor performance, and so far the command structure might well have dropped this ball. For the sake of uniformed Americans, this should have at least waited until the armor arrived. Of course, the whole deal was a mistake in my opinion. 

Back to McCain, I say Americans have a lot of nerve thinking they can tell Iraqis how to run a democracy. The current president lost the popular vote and the election was decided in the courts. That doesn't sound democratic to me. Perhaps contest entries will consider a Constitutional amendment to rectify the situation, hmm? 

Steve, any thoughts on my explanation of Communism and the origins of Fascism and Nazism? I was expecting more discussion. 

Talking to hear my head rattle, WCM 
 

John McCain is just great. In this op-ed from last Friday's Washington Post, McCain touches on "empire." Well of course he does. Please read the whole thing-- it's a remarkable essay about why he believes America is great and doing the right thing. Here's the money quotes for us:

Critics who deem war against Saddam Hussein's regime to be an unprecedented departure from our proud tradition of American internationalism disregard our history of meeting threats to our security with both military force and a commitment to revolutionary democratic change. The union of our interests and values requires us to stay true to that commitment in Iraq. Liberating Iraqis from Hussein's tyranny is necessary but not sufficient. The true test of our power, and much of the moral basis for its use, lies not simply in ending dictatorship but in helping the Iraqi people construct a democratic future. . . . This is what sets us apart from empire builders: the use of our power for moral purpose. We seek to liberate, not subjugate.

Fair enough, and beautifully said. It's about the use of our power for moral purpose. 

But it's also about the oil (but not in the way many people think). 

Let the flames begin!! 
 

[updated] Limit one coupon per family per visit. May contain nuts or nut fragments. Close cover before striking. Offer void in Oceania. Long live Eurasia!

Design your own constitutional amendment, and win the undying admiration of the ruling troika of this webpage. The entry picked as winner will receive good karma in vast quantities, and a Chinese fortune cookie (only half eaten, fortune still included.) The rules:

1) It can't be an amendment that is already in the Constitution. 

2) Your amendment cannot change the laws of physics. 

3) Try to solve a real problem with your amendment, and not guarantee plentiful dogfood for every canine in America, or annex Norway or something. 

4) Write your amendment like you thought it might actually go in the Constitution with all the other clearly and beautifully written amendments.

After entries are recieved, we will post interesting ones, and declare a winner. Tell your friends! 

UPDATE: Submit entries to gustavus-at-juno-dot-com, and put "amendment" in the subject line. Any complaints can be sent to johnnyisasmartass-at-yahoo-dot-com. 
 

As a conservative, I often have difficulties with elected Republican officials. The Federalism issue is one of the most frequent. It would be nice to have an honest to god conservative president, but I don't think that is terribly likely, given the lip service that must be paid to big government by any candidate standing for election.

Listening to the radio on the way back from Ohio, I heard translations of a statement from the Iraqi Propaganda Minister. The thing that kept popping into my head was what the aliens said when they landed in Springfield on the Simpsons:

"Your superior weapons are no match for our feeble intellect!"

Actually, I have nothing agin the herring munching surrender monkeys of the north. It's really a cover for my racist feelings toward the powerful swedes, who are quick to anger and too dangerous to provoke openly.

Buckethead, can you please explain what exactly the hell is your problem with Norway? Starting to creep me out, man!

Buckethead: Dingdingdingding! Right answer! You're right, I am a diehard Federalist, which is funny, because our federal government is, apparently, no longer federalist. This is especially ironic since we have a Republican president. 

Wow... if the Democrats are drifting rudderless after accepting the leadership of Cap'n Clinton, the Republicans are no better off. They no longer even pay lip service to 'limited' federal government. 

Hence the paradox that frosts my flakes. Issues like education, which, with a Republican prez, should see more responsibility, latitude(, and yes, funding), devolving upon the states, are instead being swallowed by the bureaucratic beast in Washington. 

But whatever. I'm not exactly a whiz on education reform, gun control, or any other major policy issue. What the hell do I know? 

My cat's breath smells like catfood. 
 

Well, so far, TV coverage of the Iraq war has been tactless, banal, near-pornographic, and hysterical, as if the war is really the first season of Survivor.

"In Um Qasr today, the Mogogo tribe bested the Wolodok tribe 4 to 3 in the giant obstacle course race, but the greater number of athletic teammates should help the Mogogos in tomorrow's feats of agility. Both teams say they are hungry, and have not yet figured out how to fashion local vines and twigs into fishing tackle. According to George, de facto leader of the Wolodoks, a coalition is forming to vote Mogogo member Saddam off the island next. Stay tuned for more!"

Yesterday, several coalition soldiers were killed, and others were taken hostage, and the TV press spun themselves into a frenzy of babble and pie charts. May I point out that the number of soldiers shot by Iraqis is still just about countable on fingers and toes? After all, there is a war on. Yet the press treats every show of resistance by Iraqi soldiers as a horrendous deviation from plan. What do you imagine would happen if the fight were to become truly bloody, like Verdun, Normandy, Iwo Jima? God forbid that happens, but if the American press ramps up to report individual casualties, what will they do if the war turns into a War?
Just one frivolous reason to ardently wish for a speedy end to the conflict.

Gulf War II: The Clone Wars

Did anyone else notice how young and fit Saddam is looking now that the war's on? Bombings and mortal terror seem to be just the thing to put some color back in his complexion! Just last week he looked so old, tired, gray, and-dare I say-wizened. But somehow, in the last week, in between the bombings, the fires, and the regime change, he has found the time to get a facelift, a chintuck, slap some Grecian Formula into the hair and 'stache, and hit the treadmill. Lookin' good, Saddam! Kudos to you and your stylist!

Flogging

Mike... thank you for the lengthy analysis. I'm signing off on the empire debate. Your kung fu is the best.

If the term hegemony is more acceptable than empire, I'll let it go at that. The United States has a hegemony rather than informal imperialism. But I'll make my final statement on this that American hegemony looks an awful lot like British informal imperialism. 

I have previously conceded that some parts of the world voluntarily adopt aspects of American culture. I was not insisting that western European nations have had McDonald's forced on them. I hope I've made that clear. 

Communism and the Origins of Fascism and Nazism 

Steve, you can read this when you get back from the shower. I'm sure you'll survive. I'm going to get fairly specific with this, so here it is. This is going to be quite extensive, but I'll ask you to please read it in its entirety when you have the time. I might suggest printing it out in lieu of reading it onscreen. 

According to strict Marxist letter of the law, the Bolsheviks in Russia could not be socialist because they had not yet experienced the bourgeois overthrow of the feudal aristocrats and the institution of a market economy. Lenin realized this, and instituted the New Economic Policy, which was essentially a market economy. It was still in place when Lenin suffered his stroke, thus he never instituted a socialist economy. Stalin later abandoned Marxist doctrine whole hog when he declared the legitimacy of socialism in one state. According to Marx, the worker's revolution that achieved the final stage of the dialectic had to be global. Anything less was not Communism. Since the global worker's revolution never happened, Communism never happened. Leaders who referred to themselves as Communist were liars. 

Economic planning in the Third Reich was not exactly centrally planned. Having worked as a Teaching Assistant on the second half of western civilization courses (C. 1700-present) twice, and having taught the course myself as an adjunct once, not to mention the slew of European, German, and Russian history courses I've taken as a college student and graduate student, this is what I've found. Adolf Hitler followed Benito Mussolini's economic strategy, known as Corporatism. Corporatism organized similar branches of industry into cartels, hence there was a steel cartel, an automobile cartel, a railway cartel, etc. Under Corporatism, the Fascists and Nazis maintained private ownership of the means of production, which flies in the face of Marxist doctrine. According to Marx, ownership of the means of production is transferred to the workers after the global revolution. Stalin and his ilk were fake communists because they transferred the means of production to the state, not the workers. "All power to the Soviets [worker's councils]" was a mantra of the Russian Revolution, upon which the Bolsheviks and later Stalin never made good. Corporatism also maintained that goods produced by cartels were dictated by the Party and thus the national leadership, whereas Marx asserted that the workers would have complete control over the means of production, including what goods were produced. This is as centrally planned as the Fascist/Nazi economies ever got. 

As to the comparisons you have drawn between Nazis and Communists, who I deem fake Communists, I must respectfully point out that they are partially on and partially off the mark. Nazis hated Jews not only because they were not German, but also because Nazis were crazy. I’m sure you accept this and even implied it. But fake Communists claimed that they hated Jews because Jews engaged in bourgeois nationalism that was antithetical to the spirit of internationalism required by socialism and Marxist doctrine. This is a case of fake Communists paying lip service to Marxist doctrine, when in fact they hated Jews, like the Nazis, because they were crazy and as a holdover of Tsarist era Russian/Georgian/Belorussian, etc. anti-semitism There were actual Communists who remained committed to global revolution, such as Leon Trotsky, however, who were opposed to Jewish identity because it represented bourgeois nationalism. Trotsky, whose mother named him Lev Davidovitch Bronstein (I'm sure you can do the math), epitomized this position. In 1903, when questioned by Vladimir Medem, "You consider yourself either a Russian or a Jew?" Trotsky responded, "No, you are wrong. I am a Social Democrat and only that." (Nora Levin, The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917, volume 1, 10). 

Fake Communists believed that everyone should become Communist then die. I prefer the Soviet uniforms because the Nazi culture of death emblazoned on their SS uniforms creeps me out. 

I must respectfully disagree with your father, who is certainly a most eminent historian who I was honored to meet, on the subject of Fascism/Nazism as an evolution from the left. I'm sure you'll understand that even upstart historians such as myself often disagree with established, eminent historians such your father. In this case, it is not done from vitriol or malice but purely professional. 

Fascism and Nazism grew out of several factors. They include but are not necessarily limited to disaffected populations who lost faith in humanity, those who were disgusted by the hedonism of inter-war popular culture, the collective shell-shock of Europe following the trauma of World War I, the economic dislocation of the inter-war years, the yearning for stability among Italian and German people, and the weakness of the Italian monarchy and Weimar republic. To say that Fascism and Nazism are a result of socialism, I respectfully submit, is monocausal. I have yet to hear a monocausal explanation that I deem valid, and that includes the Marxist interpretation of history. Perhaps it was not intended as a monocausal explanation, but it is certainly an oversimplification. 

Perhaps your father's position stems from the fact that many argue Mussolini was a Socialist. I must respectfully disagree. He was a member of the party, but did not believe in what the Socialists believed. Mussolini was a Syndicalist, not a Socialist. He was dismissed from his position as editor of Avanti!, a Socialist newspaper, in 1914, and dismissed because he supported an international war, specifically the Great War, of course. As Marx argued, war between nations is illegitimate; it does not advance the proletariat in their struggle to achieve control. International war benefits only the bourgeois masters of the Proletariat. Thus, class war is the only just war. I submit, Mussolini was a nationalist Syndicalist, not an international socialist. 

Hitler was no Socialist. I reiterate, the presence of the word Socialist in the National Socialist German Worker's Party was due to its founding members, the Strasser brothers, who were left of center. When Hitler seized control of the party he left the word Socialist in the title, but eventually expelled all left of center members of the party. He also molded the party according to his own vision, which consisted of a Corporatist, not Socialist economic strategy. I reiterate again, as Socialism is international, the title National Socialist is mutually exclusive. 

It is actually easier to describe Fascism and Nazism as what they were not, rather than what they were. Fascism was anti-Socialist, anti-Communist, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-international free trade capitalism and banking.So, how could Fascism and Nazism have been Socialist/Communist anti-Socialists and anti-Communists? Nazis battled Socialists and Communists in the streets of Weimar Berlin. Mussolini ordered his Squadristi to attack Socialists and Communists, and destroy their offices, newspapers, and homes. 

The base of support for both Fascism and Nazism, in addition, did not come from Socialist or Communist sympathizing urban proletariat, rural agricultural laboring classes, or even left-wing intellegentsia, but from people who feared and hated Socialism and Communism. Fascism and Nazism were supported by traditionally right-wing people who weren't reactionary monarchists, such as violent war veterans, disaffected members of the middle classes and highly skilled laborers, wealthy people who feared Socialism and Communism as threats to their wealth, and yeoman farmers. Thus, the base of support for Fascism and Nazism came not from Socialists but from traditionally conservative (as opposed to reactionary monarchist) elements of the German and Italian populaces. 

But the Nazis and Fascists were not really right-wing, or even just conservative either. All this is prologue to the argument of another established historian, Robert O. Paxton. In his work, Europe in the Twentieth Century, Paxton argued that Fascism, while erroneously considered a right-wing political and economic practice. Paxton wrote that, Fascism was not simply the far right. The terms right and left were first applied to politics during the French Revolution. They belong to the political vocabulary of nineteenth-century struggles over popular sovereignty, individual liberties, and property. With fascist movements, we find ourselves in a strange landscape where familiar signposts like right and left do not give very precise directions (232). 

I therefore refute the thesis that Fascism was an outgrowth of Socialism. That is not the case. I will follow this post with a brief bibliography of sources I have consulted. While many of them are convenient surveys, they are nonetheless quite reliable. The Otto Friedrich is a bit dodgy on some things, but fairly reliable as to the Nazis, and I have corroborated what he wrote with other sources. I will add that my last 10 years in dogged efforts to learn this information has assisted immeasurably. Many thanks to historians Glenn Sharfman, PhD, Hiram College; Bernard Weiss, PhD, Duquesne University, and Steven Vardy, PhD, Duquesne University. 

Bibliography 

De Jonge, Alex. Weimar Chronicle: Prelude to Hitler. New York: New American Library, 1978. 

Flood, Charles Bracelen. Hitler: The Path to Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Press, 1989. 

Friedrich, Otto. Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s. New York: Perennial, 1995 (reprint). 

Levin, Nora. Paradox of Survival: The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917, Volume 1. New York: New York University Press, 1988. 

Paxton, Robert O. Europe in the Twentieth Century. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997. 

Stromberg, Roland N. Europe in the Twentieth Century. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992. 

Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

I am driving out to Ohio, for tomorrow I must endure...

...A baby shower.

Johno endorses Federalism.

The Bolsheviks crushed the trade unions in Russia, too, and they didn't stop being socialist. Economic planning in the Third Reich was still centrally controlled, was it not? Sadly, I know too little about the early years of the Nazis. But my dad (blatant appeal to authority: eminent Russian historian) says that Fascism grew out of the left; and if I remember correctly, in Europe the right was all the wacky ancien regime monarchist reactionary types.

Saying that workers and farmers in both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia lived under feudal conditions is unkind to serfs. From my vantage point in 21st century America, I can only discern three critical differences between the Nazis and the Commies.

1) Nazis hate Jews because they're not German, Commies hate Jews because they're rich.
2) Nazis believed that everyone who is not German must die, to make room for Germans. Commies believed that everyone should become commie, then die.
3) Nazis had far cooler uniforms.

Well, Johno and I seem to agree that there is a distinct difference between Empire and Hegemony. Although I have issues with the term "American Global Hegemony," it is largely due to the people who usually use the phrase. Mike has chimed in with a scenario where other cultures borrow from and become derivative of another culture, without that culture engaging in imperialism. 

Why don't we, for our own convenience, establish some terms, so that we can argue more effectively? If an Empire is political and military ownership of other nations/territories/cultures, and acts that further expand an empire are Imperialism, we can distinguish this behavior from Cultural Hegemony, which is the economic, cultural and technological dominance of one nation over others. 

Now, wars can be fought without imperialistic aims. A war of defense, for example would not have imperialistic aims. WWII was not a war of Empire for the United States. Imperialism could be considered naturally aggressive, though the effects of imperial rule would range from sadistic to benign. But one key factor in an Empire is that subject territories always remain subject territories, used for the benefit of the nation at the center of the Empire. 

There is certainly no rule that says that empires are ruled by emperors. Most of the territory eventually ruled by the Roman Empire was conquered by the Roman Republic. Democratic Athens created an Empire. Britain had an empire, but was ruled by a Parliament and Prime Minister. But India never sent ministers to Parliament. America has never exactly been an Empire - conquered territories are either integrated directly into the nation itself, or eventually granted independence. We conquered California from the Mexicans, but in no sense is California a subject territory of a separate United States. 

Now cultural influence - here is where it gets more interesting. Mike cites several examples where cultures have voluntarily borrowed from another civilization. This, he says, is not cultural imperialism, or hegemony. The United States is the most influential part of the most influential civilization on Earth. To what extent are other nations or cultures voluntarily borrowing from our culture? Does cultural hegemony require an analog of the aggressiveness of imperialism? Are we forcing our culture on others, are are they voluntarily adopting Levis, Michael Jordan basketball Jerseys, Rock and Roll and Rap music, McD's hamburgers, watching Hollywood movies and so on? 

I would argue that China's impact on Japan was larger than America's impact on much of non-Western civilization today - maybe just because it operated over a longer period - but if that isn't cultural hegemony or informal empire, then what do we have? We are clearly a daughter culture of England, western Christendom, Rome and Greece. Of those, only England survives, and we are now having more impact on them than they are on us. We have overtaken our parent culture. We influence the whole world, not just because we have more money, and thus more guns. Our technology, freedom and cultural dynamism are what effects everyone. Our military impacts only a small part of the world. We aren't forcing people to buy into our culture. 

If we have an informal empire, a halfway state between empire and not empire, how does it work? Rome in republican times had a dual empire - parts were directly controlled, others were client states who had local autonomy but had no control over external affairs. Various territories often moved from the latter status to the former over time. Is this an informal empire? We have trade agreements, but they are that - agreements. We negotiate them. We do not have client states. 

Our companies, and industry, and so on have subsidiaries in other nations. But they have been nationalized in the past, or lost money and closed, or whatever - we don't force nations to open McD's. The Thais who work for Nike, or for third world employees of just about any American company not run by Kathy Lee Gifford generally make more money than their counterparts in local industries. Sure, they are paid less than an American worker, but the cost of living is vastly lower as well. The South Koreans leveraged participation in the lower rungs of the American and Japanese economies into growing prosperity, and their per capita wages are now higher than much of Europe. Is this a voluntary adoption of a American cultural ideas, and fitting them into their existing culture to make a better life for themselves, or is it rapacious and arrogant US economic imperialism compounded by showing them a vision of heaven while denying them admittance? 

The Japanese and South Koreans were exposed to American culture more than most nations in the last fifty years. American soldiers were the primary vector for this infection. In the first case, our troops remained after WWII for our security interests due to the recent phenomenon of Japanese militarism. South Korean and, later, Japanese bases were maintained to protect those nations (and us) from communist aggression. These two nations have borrowed more from our culture than most. Their cultures do not seem in imminent danger of disappearing. They are also the two richest non-western nations in the world. Are they part of our Hegemony, or our informal empire? 

Or is it only voluntary adoption when ethnically similar cultures borrow from each other? Are we victims of Chinese cultural imperialism because we have Chinese restaurants, manned exclusively by ethnic Chinese waitresses and cooks, and there are Kung Fu schools in every village across the land? American Ecofreaks (sorry, environmentalists) in the US dream longingly of the unspoiled rainforests where earthy people live in harmony with Gaia. Tribesman in Borneo and elsewhere dream of getting to America where they can have a house and a car and big screen TV. Which if these people did American Cultural Hegemony brainwash? 

Well, a final (at last!) point. Johno asked, "Is cultural hegemony like empire? By its own lights, it is not. But, if empire implies achieving dominance via force, and hegemony implies achieving dominance via way of life, what do you call it when we go kick some ass for the sake of asserting (and, arguably, protecting) our way of life?" 

That depends.

Hey guys, 

Many thanks to the Bucketman for opening a debate on the present and discussion of the past viz-a-viz empire. Thanks to Johnny for keeping it going. 

The first question is, does China in the fifteenth century constitute an empire because of its cultural influence elsewhere in Asia? This brings in the matter of derivative civilizations. The way I see it, Korea and Japan constituted derivative civilizations of Chinese civilization in that they were the product of East Asian peoples ethnically related to the Chinese, who voluntarily adopted aspects of their culture. Hence, they are derivative civilizations, not a product of cultural imperialism. The fifteenth century is too soon, tenth at the latest. As I am oriented toward European, British, Irish, American, and American ethnic history, I'll provide the testimony of an expert in support of my argument. I'll offer two quotations. According to Edwin O. Reischauer's Japan: The Story of A Nation, 

Japan nonetheless is culturally a daughter of Chinese civilization, much as the countries of North Europe are the daughters of Mediterranean culture. The story of the spread of Chinese civilization to the peoples of Japan during the first millennium after Christ is much like the story of the spread of Mediterranean civilization to the peoples of North Europe during the same period. But the greater isolation of the Japanese from the home of their civilization and from all other peoples meant that in Japan the borrowed culture had more chance to develop along new and often unique lines (7). 

I'll add that Highland Scottish culture is derived in an even more direct fashion from Irish culture. Highland Scots are the product of migrants from Ireland to Scotland. Even as late as the sixteenth century Gaelic and Gallic were so similar it is roughly analogous to a present-day American conversing with a present-day English person. Currently Ulster Gaelic and Scottish Gallic retain a high degree of similarity. The Irish were not engaging in imperial adventures against the Scottish, but Highland Scots and their culture are derivative of the Irish and their culture. Rome itself was in many ways a Hellenistic culture derived from Greece, and that occurred less through imperialism than voluntary admiration. Athens had colonies in Sicily, but not on the boot. These examples possess similarities with the situation in regards to China and other Asian cultures. 

So back to Japan. As to the origins of the Japanese themselves, Reischauer asserts that, “

the Japanese are closely related to their neighbors in Korea and China; but like all modern peoples, they are the product of extensive racial mixture (9). 

Thus, I take the position that the Japanese voluntarily adopted Chinese culture. You could argue that for the U.S. in many cases as well; Europeans constantly mimic American popular culture while simultaneously criticizing us for being boorish louts with no sense of culture. But in other cases, American cultural imperialism is a product of American economic imperialism. People in Thailand making Nikes for 3 cents a day are presented with a picture of American prosperity that they cannot themselves achieve, but American companies urge them to buy American products. Continuing the Thai example, corporate insensitivity was so much that Pepsi mis-translanted their slogan, "Choice of a new generation," to "Pepsi resurrects your dead ancestors."

I'll help Johnny out a bit with the admittedly opaque statement, if that's alright. Nations can have empires, nations can refrain from imperial exercises, but nations can also engage in imperialistic exercises that exist outside the realm of formal empire through cultural or economic rather than political and military dominance. Rome possessed such an empire, but the world has changed a great deal since the classical period, and definitions must be adjusted to incorporate change over time. Britain possessed an empire both formal and informal. If this assertion is doubted, I will carry out my previous threat to supply a bibliography. America possesses an empire that is more informal in nature than formal. We have thus seen change over time. Anachronistic definitions do not suit the present; the present is different than the past. That is not to say that formal imperialism has vanished, but it is growing increasingly archaic and atavistic. 

Finally gentlemen, thank you for reminding me that I still love history, despite the best efforts of the forces of evil in academia (IE postmodernists) to crush my spirit and swallow my soul.

...It's alllll about the Right Hon. James Traficant. (Courtesy The Smoking Gun.)

...what the hell that last thing was about, I direct your gaze here, and here.

Zig now for great justice!

Hey! Look what I found on slashdot.org!

In A.D. 2003
War was beginning...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A series of large explosions rocked Iraq's capital sending plumes of smoke and fire into the skies over Baghdad as the intense coalition air assault got underway.

Saddam: What happen?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Saddam: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Saddam: It's You!!
Bush: How are you gentlemen!!
Bush: All your oil are belong to us.
Bush: You are on the way to destruction.
Saddam: What you say!!
Bush: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Bush: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Saddam: Take off every 'Scud'!!
Operator: You know what you doing.
Saddam: Move 'Scud'.
Saddam: For great justice.

Calvin Klein bikini briefs (aka 'banana hammocks') are really comfortable.

In Sawfan, in southern Iraq, American troops were welcomed by residents. "Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free." Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!" "No Saddam Hussein!" one young man in headscarf told Gurfein. "Bush!" It looks as though the Arab street, at least in Iraq, will not be rising up against us.

Mike, Thank you for coming to my rescue. 

It occurs to me that what you just described sounds a whole lot like the orthodox definition of Gramscian Hegemony. Was that intentional, you big postmodernist, you? 

That leads to the question: is cultural hegemony like empire? Putting aside the fact that Gramsci was a Marxist, I think this concept goes a long way toward describing the US's position in the world. Whereas empire means dominance achieved via military means, hegemony denotes dominance achieved via social, economic, and cultural means. 

Buckethead argues that empire is only dominance through use of force. WCM argues that there can exist derivative civilizations, not brought about by cultural imperialism (is that the same as hegemony?). I, predictably, stand in the middle and stammer like a moron. 

I think the three of us are arguing from this playbook, and we're getting lost in the thicket of distinctions. 

Is cultural hegemony like empire? By its own lights, it is not. But, if empire implies achieving dominance via force, and hegemony implies achieving dominance via way of life, what do you call it when we go kick some ass for the sake of asserting (and, some would argue, protecting) our way of life?