perfidy

The vehemence-- nay, venom-- with which Bush's opponents speak of him brings to mind another Republican President, a President whose intellect was ridiculed by many, who was accused of not having a grasp on the niceties of policy, whose administration was heralded as a new direction and a road to hell, who sometimes demonstrated an offhand callousness about matters he didn't care about or fully appreciate, who took it upon himself to face down a global menace threatening the lives and liberty of freedom-loving peoples everywhere.

"I know Ronald Reagan, and you sir, are no Ronald Reagan!"

I think these days "empire" can be construed more broadly than the American Heritage Dictionary tells it. Though I'm going to have to think more on this: If going into a nation halfway around the world and removing a leader who is repugnant to us, if not actually an act of empire, does not comprise at least sidling up to empire's hot sister at a party and trying to hook up with her, how so? 

Apologies for that last sentence there. I had sugar packets at lunch. 

Also, I'm a cultural historian, not some fancy-pants political scientist like Buckethead. 
 

I posted a poll on my friend's website - it was still there as of this morning - asking, "what is the most ruthless empire in world history?" I included as one choice, "American Global Hegemony." Right now, the response (from an admittedly small pool of respondents) is down to 28%. But for the first several days, half of the votes were going to America. I found this shocking but not surprising. Does America have an empire? Or even imperialistic aims? 
 

Empire, n. 1.

a. political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. b. The territory included in such a unit.

2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire. 

3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control 

(From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

While we have fought wars, we have not annexed conquered nations. (Okay, we did in the Spanish-American War, but they are all independent, or have voted to remain part of the U.S.) We occupied Europe, but as France and Germany proved recently, we do not control them or dictate to them. Naturally, we have a great deal of influence. But the last six months in the UN shows that it is not infinite. We can create an empire, but we haven't and we won't. America's position in the world is nothing like the British, French, Roman, Persian, Chinese or other historical empire. As for decline, I know nothing lasts forever. But I don't see the U.S. going down in flames anytime soon. Not in the next fifty years, probably not for a while yet. 

Something like imperial overstretch is a serious concern, but remember that our relative military power is going through the roof as military expenditures as a percentage of GNP are declining. We are becoming more powerful with less effort - we are not sacrificing economics to maintain our power, as many empires in the past have done. While we worry about other potential rivals - Japan and East Asia are in the shitter, economically, Europe has been in the doldrums for decades, Russia is a third world nation, and China could be on the verge of complete collapse in ten years. Who is going to give us the payback? And why would they? If Iraq, liberated from Saddam, becomes more prosperous and free, they are not going to be gunning for us. Remember how the people of Afghanistan celebrated after we destroyed the Taliban. There will be some resentment for our power and success, but I don't see your scenario coming to pass. 

I have painted an optimistic picture, to be sure. But the problem is not from plans not surviving contact with the enemy. Militarily, we include that in the plan. We have the flexibility to adjust to the situation as it evolves. We're good at that. And even a moderate success is still, well, a success. As far as military conflict goes, I don't think you'll see major resistance from anything other than the Special Republican Guard, perhaps 13,000 troops. As for the people, Saddam rules a totalitarian state - all segments of the population have been set against each other to allow Saddam's small tribe from Tikrut to maintain power. There won't be a Baathist resistance movement. 

Finally, in a representative democracy, or Republic, we elect officials to make decisions. We don't have plebiscites on every issue like Athens in 500bc. If we are unhappy, we bitch and we moan, and then elect someone else next time. So no, we don't have direct control over the government minute to minute, but the existence of an unhappy electorate will definitely affect the actions of our public servants. And we have the ultimate power to remove those who displease us - though we may have to wait a couple years. I was deeply unhappy with our leadership for most of the nineties, but I never said I lived in a "republic." (BTW, I'm really getting frustrated with "scare quotes." This mode of expression has gotten a lot more common over the past few years. Sure it fits in with our ironic mode of existence, but imaging the speaker twitching the two first fingers of both hands beside his head as he speaks is getting to me.)

Well, that's nice. CNN is reporting that the "Office" of "Homeland" "Security" are considering ... wait for it... ....wait for it.... adding another level to the Great Rainbow Fear-O-Meter. 
 

"The debate is not over whether to add a new color [to the terror threat alert system], sources said. Instead, a slightly higher warning level may be added within orange. 

Currently the highest level of alert is for a "severe" risk of terrorist attack, indicated by the color red. Below red is orange, meaning a "high" risk of attack exists. 

For now, each level of risk has its own color. Yellow, blue and green follow orange and stand for "elevated," "guarded" and "low" risks of attack, respectively. Sources said the current discussion was prompted by the belief of some in the government that if the U.S. takes military action against Iraq the threat level should be raised above orange to indicate an even greater risk of retaliation against Americans and U.S. targets overseas. But there is fear that raising the risk to the ultimate warning level would do serious harm to an already-shaky economy, the sources said."

Oh holy God. THIS is what the government is spending billions of dollars on? Orange is no longer.... orange enough?? I certainly hope they plan to have several briefings about how to distinguish between Pumpkin Alert, Tangerine Dream Alert, and Kiss' o' Citron Swirl Alert. Without their on-the-spot attention to bureaucratic minutia, I am left dangling, unsure how much time each day to allot to stricken whimpering and existential angst! But wait, there's more important information here!! The article goes on to describe the kinds of suspicious behaviors terrorists engage in, the better to know when to swing to Raw Umber Alert status!

"Sources say the kinds of activity they would consider suspicious include people taking pictures at bridges and subway entrances, and people sitting on train platforms who appear to be monitoring the timing of arrivals and departures."

Because, as we all know, Japanese tourists and lonely old people are the biggest threats of all. I imagine a terrorist would just pick up a schedule from the information kiosk, but I'm not a highly-trained terrorism expert like the geniuses at the "Office" of "Homeland" "Security." 

The OHS is an insulting waste of time and money, and will be remembered as an embarrassing black mark on the administration of Bush the Younger.

Bucket, I'm not sure that painting European leaders as pimps and Clintons is exactly constructive, or apt. I mean, I'm on your side in this, and the worst that can be said about Chirac or Schroeder is that they are dim, small-minded calculating opportunists. And in the sucking-up-to-tyrants department, let's not forget that Boston College recently gave a visiting professorship to a former dictator, with more to come.

If "the Jews" really ran the world, don't you think they'd give themselves better PR? This crap with Moran and Buchanan is just utterly, weepingly, stupid. As the WaPost puts it:

There are plenty of good reasons to be against bombing Baghdad. But to portray President Bush's heartfelt desire to rid the world of a dictator and his weapons of mass destruction as part of a Jewish conspiracy is, somehow, insulting.

Damn straight.

As someone who does have misgivings about the Iraq portion of "America's New War" (thanks, CNN!), it gets harder and harder to defend those misgivings when one batch of crazies is bent on making everything about Oil, Stalin, and Hitler, and another batch of crazies is willing to blame some "International Jewish Conspiracy." I believe in Buckethead's words that makes them all 'mendacious f*ckwits.'

Sounds about right.