The use of the word imperial provides no useful insight into American motivations or intentions.
The problem with that formulation, Paul, is that few of the "colonial powers", when pressed, would so admit. But when the intent of US actions is to act militarily to manage oil prices from the Gulf, to the benefit of the US, it's hard to call it otherwise. And when that intent is backed up by troops on the ground, what else would you call it? And when that intent is backed up by an intent to topple a regime (yes, Iraq), what else would you call it?
Friedman makes a nice point when he says that the US could claim to be acting in the interests of the global economy if we coupled our Iraqi actions with other actions that reduced the demand for oil; but when we do not do so, how can it be read than other than doing it for our own self indulgence? It would still be the actions of an imperial power but they might be a bit more defensible if they carried the full, visible intent of benefitting other countries.
As for claiming I have failed to make an accurate assessment of Iraq, then you will need to say what you think would be so.
Your arguments are so reflexively anti-American (note: anti- and un- are not the same prefix) that they don't even imagine that there is a valid American perspective or that American interest is worthwhile at all.
Actually, Paul, you are doing what you do all too frequently, you are jumping to conclusions. I have yet, in any of those sentences, characterized the fact of American imperialism as something that runs counter to American interests. That is a serious and complicated discussion and I would love to have it with you. If you would engage in it without jumping to conclusions. There are arguments why some of the things the US does are, frankly, not in its long term interest, and may not be in its short term interests; others for why they are in short but not long term; and some for both. And, there are counter arguments. And, one must not forget there are other constituencies involved here, not only the US.
As for the French and the British having interests in the oil fields, of course they do. The US has presented itself, however, as being above all this, as preparing the grounds for a new kind of state in the ME, one that is secular, democratic, and one that would use the oil resources for the Iraqi people. That's a very, very high bar to get across. It appeals to the US public, definitely. But is that what we will do? This particular administration has been very adept at doing one thing and saying another. We'll just have to see how they handle the Iraqi future. |
