Let the Sunshine In
Here are some interesting and scary, though believable and predictable, facts about U.S. foreign policy.
• The US is the world’s largest seller of weapons abroad, arming dictators, militaries, and terrorists that repress or victimize their populations, and fueling scores of violent conflicts around the globe.
• The US is the world’s largest provider of live land mines which, even in peacetime, kill or injure at least several people around the world each day.
• The US has military bases in at least 50 nations around the world, which have led to frequent victimization of local populations.
• The US military has been bombing one Middle Eastern or Muslim nation or another almost continuously since 1983, including Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (almost daily bombings since 1991).
The first part of each sentence seems to be the fact, while the second part is opinion based upon the fact and thus not considered a fact, but commentary on it. Therefore my first sentence was a bit misleading, I should have wrote, “Here are some facts (followed by commentary based on them) about U.S. foreign policy.
But before I go on, I must write that I’m not anti-American or anything like that. This is an easy tag to place upon anyone who seems to criticize America these days. It’s also a very effective weapon to use against those who are against American Imperialism via unjust means. I’m very much a patriot, but the definition of “patriot” means different things to different people. I like Noble Prize winner Albert Camus’ definition of what a patriot (or any other synonym) is: He writes, “The true patriot is one who gives his highest loyalty not to his country as it is, regardless of what it does, but rather to what it can and ought to be.”
What I wonder is if anyone high up in office believes that U.S. foreign policy breeds terrorism? I think so. They have to. Here’s an example, though rather dated, but none-the-less informative. It’s a segment from a Noam Chomsky interview:
“President Eisenhower, in an internal discussion, observed to his staff, and I’m quoting now, “There’s a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people.” The National Security Council discussed that question and said, “Yes, and the reason is, there’s a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it’s difficult to counter that perception because it’s correct. It ought to be correct. We ought to be supporting brutal and corrupt governments which prevent democracy and development because we want to control Middle East oil, and it’s true that leads to a campaign of hatred against us.”
So there’s no question now, I believe, that governments don’t believe that some of their actions are “blowbacks.” But to the extent of this belief, we may never know. Now as far as why lay people believe that the U.S. would never do such an intolerable act, well there’s many easy reasons that are easy to grasp. Obfuscation is one and propaganda is another. Those 2, I believe, may make up 98% of the reasons why U.S. citizens believe what any U.S. president has to say about foreign affairs. Here’s an example by President Clinton in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly:
“Because we are blessed to be a wealthy nation with a powerful military and a worldwide presence active in promoting peace and security, we are often a target. We love our country for its dedication to political and religious freedom, to economic opportunity, to respect for the rights of the individual. But we know many people see us as a symbol of a system and values they reject, and often they find it expedient to blame us for problems with deep roots elsewhere.”
So views, messages, slogans and speeches like this reiterated over and over to the American public, as well as a public school system that nearly refuses to teach up-and-coming students more honest history, is (are) a big reason(s) for the near absence of any speculation of wrong-doing by the U.S. government overseas.
Funny enough, later in this speech, Clinton seems to contradict his “clash of values” idea of the earlier passage.
“Some people believe that terrorism’s principal fault line centers on what they see as an inevitable clash of civilizations. . . . Specifically, many believe there is an inevitable clash between Western civilization and Western values, and Islamic civilizations and values. I believe this view is terribly wrong.”
Yes there’s a clash of civilizations but it’s because of what the U.S. “does” and not because of what it “is.”
Tags: Paradoxes, U.S. Foreign Policy
