OK, so let me get this straight. The
revolutionaries we supported in Libya are now attacking our consulate
in Benghazi, and the revolutionaries we supported in Egypt are
attacking our embassy in Cairo. Not only that, but the Benghazi
contingent has actually managed to kill four of our diplomatic
personnel. And all, presumably, over some sort of movie or video on
YouTube? A convenient excuse, I call it. They were just waiting to
bite the hand that fed them.
Well, I know, maybe things aren't quite
that simple. But when is our government going to figure out that
politics in the Arab/Islamic world are beyond the comprehension of us
infidels, and simply refuse to take sides in any conflict over there,
regardless of how compelling the “evidence” seems to be? We are
more or less keeping our distance in the case of Syria, at least – but we went
into Libya in a ham-handed way and now look at what's happened. And
in the case of Egypt, we apparently decided that one of our favorite
dictators had reached retirement age, so didn't object when he was
toppled from the pinnacle of power. Whatever happened to our old
“pragmatism”, where we would support any dictator or tyrant who
seemed to prefer our friendship to that of the Soviets? Oh yeah, the
Soviet Union broke up – and with it the crystal-clear,
black-and-white sort of landscape that the simpletons in the State
Department are so fond of. If there is any realism to be found in
the area of foreign affairs, it probably resides in the CIA, which
is, it seems to me, the least ideological entity in the government.
Some would say they are all game-playing cynics... but in these times
I would almost prefer a good dose of healthy cynicism to the
nationalistic delusions that infect Congress and the State
Department.
At any rate, we have preferred, of
late, to support “democratic revolutions” against long-time
dictators who were also, in most cases, our allies – or at least
“tamed” a bit in Qaddafi's case. We have a knee-jerk response to
the word “democratic”, as if it is the magic potion that cures
all ills – so the minute a political or armed revolutionary
movement labels itself “democratic”, we shower money and
diplomatic support on the parties involved. The agenda behind it is,
of course, that any country that is “truly democratic” will
naturally gravitate in our direction, and become our ally – i.e.
part of the American Empire. The problem is that we have yet to
focus on that other variable, namely religion – and the reason for
this is obvious. We take great pride in our hallowed “wall of
separation between church and state”, and find it incomprehensible
– not to mention upsetting – when not all other countries on the
planet agree with us on this matter. Talk about “clinging” to
religion! We, of course, know better – the ideal government being
one in which congregation, sect, religion, and spiritual
considerations in general have no part. We were designed to be a
secular humanist nation, and have successfully held off any and all
attempts to make it otherwise. Except, of course, for the unwritten
rule that no Catholic can ever be president – violated only once –
and the fact that our foreign policy is dominated by Evangelical
Protestants. You know, minor stuff like that. But otherwise, we are
blessedly free of “superstition” and all the other old-world
handicaps to enlightened government that religion brings.
So when we encounter an enemy for whom
faith/religion/creed is the primary motivator, we don't know what to
do. We are metaphysically helpless, one might say. All we can do is
fight back in an irrational way with brute force, since the realm of
ideas has been closed off. They don't understand our ideals, and we
don't understand their faith. Much better to be in conflict with a
nation, or other entity, that agrees with us that religion is of no
use or relevance in the modern age. Better, therefore, to be
fighting the Nazis, or the Soviets, or the Chinese Communists than
the Islamists. Warfare between believers (in anything) and
non-believers has to be the ultimate in “asymmetrical warfare”. For one thing, they truly believe in sacrifice at the individual level, whereas we're only willing to made collective sacrifices. Problem is, there are no political or economic systems in foxholes -- only actual people.
So what happens when we let our
favorite dictators be toppled and Islamists take their place in the
name of democracy? Simply that we trade the devil we know (and can
make a deal with) for the devils we don't know, don't want to know,
and generally despise – and the feeling is mutual. And yet there
they are, large and in charge – and, predictably, attacking our
embassies and consulates. See, they are nobody's fools. They know
who supported their oppressors all these years, and they know that
we're no more than hypocrites when it comes to supporting their
cause. For all our lip service about democracy, it's seldom only
about that – it's also about oil or other resources, international
finance, and above all supporting Israel.
But again, it makes no sense. We allow
leaders who have come to some sort of detente with Israel to be
thrown out, and people who think Israel is the Little Satan (the
Great Satan being ourselves) to attain power. Whose interests are
served by all this? Let's go back to my favorite Fearsome Foursome –
the cabal that, in my opinion, is running the show when it comes to
our foreign policy. They are (1) the armaments makers; (2) the
Evangelicals; (3) Israel and the Israeli lobby; and (4) the neocons.
For the armaments makers, the answer is easy – the more wars the
better, regardless of cause or justification. The Evangelicals have
a motto, “Israel uber alles”, so when we help replace a
pro-Israel or neutral government with one that is overtly
anti-Israel, one has to wonder what their reaction is going to be.
Did they lose Obama's phone number? Likewise, Israel and the Israeli
lobby must be marveling at the rate with which we aid and abet the
“Arab Spring”, only to find ourselves worse off than before. And
as to the neocons, well – their top priority is the spread of the
American Empire, so they have to be seeing events like these as a
set-back. (And oh, by the way, any foolish notion that the
Democratic victory in 2008 put the neocons out of power in D.C. is
woefully in error.)
So with three of the four cabal
members' interests not being served, one has to wonder at our
consistently picking the wrong winner throughout the Arab/Islamic
world. But perhaps I've been too quick to judge when it comes to the
neocons. They are all about “democracy”, as long as it's done
their way. So they would be ardent supporters of the Arab Spring and
other spring-like movements. Perhaps they see events like those in
Cairo and Benghazi as no more than growing pains – awkward,
teenager-type stumblings on the road to true democracy. If so, they
should go back and study the history of Iran since the Shah was
exiled to Egypt. Might as well wait around for a country that has
had a communist revolution to convert (peacefully) to capitalism. It
can and does happen, but “bring a lunch”, as they say.
What I suspect is that we are seeing a
genuine clash between American idealism and the various agendas of
latter-day agents of influence. After all, the neocons have not
always been with us, nor have the Israelis. War industries, on the
other hand, are as old as the republic, and proto-Evangelicals have
been part of our religious landscape since the first Pilgrims stubbed
their toes on Plymouth Rock.
To all of which, some pragmatist might
say, why can't we just make up our minds? What's more important?
What are our priorities as a nation? And the answer is, we don't
know, we never have known, and we never will know. Granted, there
are long-term historical and political trends, economic vectors,
social movements, and so on – but if you expect our foreign policy
in the long run (or even in the short run) to be a seamless garment,
think again. Living by ideas while at the same time “embracing
diversity” is a plan that simply will not work; somebody – which
means some group, some world view – has to be dominant at any given
time. But even the ideas by the dominant political/social classes
get compromised now and then.
And above all, we want to be friends.
Yes, friends – buddies, comrades, “homies” -- to the rest of
the world. We don't want to be that armored warrior in the Roman
helmet and the unshaven face that the cartoonists favor. No, we want
to be G.I. Joe tossing Hershey bars to the kiddies from the top of
the tank as it rumbles through their humble village. But... at the
same time we want to conquer the world.
No wonder we're neurotic.
No comments:
Post a Comment