From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 11:31:36 MST
Lee Corbin writes
> Steve Davies writes
>
> > The policy adopted [in Iraq after the war] will tell
> > us if it has become the settled policy to pursue a
> > form of liberal imperialism. However... influential
> > figures both [in the U.S. and U.K.], [wrote documents
> > before 2000] such as the "New American Century", put
> > put out by a group of neo-cons including people such
> > as Wolfowitz and Cheney.
>
> Could you describe their vision?
I think their vision is pretty clear, as set out in their various
publications and in journals such as 'Weekly Standard'. Broadly it is that
the US (along with other countries in the Anglosphere and a few others)
represents the values of modernity broadly defined (rationalism, democracy,
rule of law, market economy et al). These face ideological and physical
challenges from several sources but above all from the combination of
militant anti-modernity movements such as Islamic fundamentalism and 'failed
states' such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. The solution cannot be a Pat
Buchanan style withdrawal. Therefore the US has to use the power it has to
'sort out' problematic areas of the world and in some sense has the
responsibility to do so, given the values it espouses and the position it
finds itself in. The underlying belief is that the us has the opportunity
and duty almost to realise the Enlightenment project of a global
civilisation. There is one division among folks who think this way. The
neo-con exponents of this view differ from their New Democrat equivalents in
thinking the US can do this unilaterally, rather than through international
institutions such as the UN. It's Teddy Roosevelt versus Woodrow Wilson
basically. I think myself that after 9/11 the thinking has gone something
like this. "These bastards are after us because they are opposed to our
basic principles. The existence of many failed states and the generally
screwed up nature of the Middle East gives them a steady supply of recruits
and the chance of getting their hands on some really nasty stuff. We can't
depend on corrupt clients to do the work for us - they are part of the
problem anyway. So we have to intervene directly in the ME to lance this
boil and that requires a permanent base in the shape of a country we can
reshape as an exemplar. We also can't trust the Saudis any longer. Lets kill
two birds with one stone and knock off Saddam and use Iraq in this way. We
also have to set an example so that no other state even thinks about
developing WMD, much less supplying them to the bad guys, that requires a
doctrine of preemptive intervention. We can use Iraq as the test case. The
Middle East and militant Islam are the major problem for our values so if we
scotch them the main danger is removed"
> Ron writes
>
> > I confess to not having a clue as to what you are talking
> > about when you use the term "liberal imperialism."
>
> Me too. Would that be different from, say, 20th century
> British administration of India?
>
See my reply to Ron for details. No, British administration in India after
about 1900 (or earlier in the 1840s and 1850s) is a classic example of
liberal imperialism. See also Lugard in Nigeria, Lyautey in Morrocco.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 11:39:04 MST