FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

American Crusades

by C. G. Estabrook

A generation ago the US launched wars against poor countries in Southeast Asia and killed millions; Americans were told that it was a necessary step in the crusade against communism. Now in the midst of a war against a poor county in Southwest Asia, we are told that it is a necessary step in what the president called a “crusade against terrorism.”

Mr. Bush was quickly taken aside and told, perhaps without explanation, that that term would not do. But he was undoubtedly right in connecting the two crusades, as he has now done several times. And he has extended the parallel to the campaign against fascism, the account of which by the Supreme Commander, Dwight Eisenhower, was called CRUSADE IN EUROPE. Our president has gone so far as to connect the crusades on the level of personal psychology, and it’s difficult not to hear a reference to his own family in this careful plant in USA TODAY: “Bush has told advisers that he believes confronting this enemy is a chance for him and his fellow baby boomers to refocus their lives and prove they have the same kind of valor and commitment their fathers showed in World War II.”

Terrorism has clearly taken over that pride of place that communism occupied for so long in American propaganda. And not a moment too soon: ten years ago, with the fall of the Soviet Union, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blurted in a moment of unwonted candor, “Think hard about it. I’m running out of demons. I’m running out of villains!”

In another peculiar and revealing comment, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld replied to a reporter’s question in the immediate aftermath of September 11. How, he was asked, will we know when a victory over terrorism is achieved? “I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that’s going to be over in a month or a year or even five years.”

American policy makers clearly think that they have found something that they can comfortably crusade against for some time, something that is as fearful as communism. In doing so they are following a time-honored tradition in US politics. After the Second World War, Senator Arthur Vandenberg advised President Truman (secretly) that it would be necessary to “scare hell out of the American people” in order to accomplish his policies. The communist menace was the way to do it.

Of course there were communists to crusade against then, as there are terrorists now. The authoritarian society of the USSR was a model for anti-colonial struggles in the Third World, including China, and a pattern for how to conduct rapid industrialization. Although the USSR observed carefully the dividing line established with the US and UK at the close of the Second World War, harsh Soviet control of the governments of Eastern Europe mirrored (on a much smaller scale) the world-wide economic control exercised by the US.

All admit now that the US never feared Soviet military conquests — it was rather the principles that the communists said they stood for, economic justice and workers’ rights, that the US government feared would be attractive in Europe and the Third World. The view of the American economic elite was spelled out quite candidly in a study from the mid-1950s headed by a Harvard professor of government. It pointed out that the real threat of communism was the transformation of governments that adopted it “in ways which reduce their willingness and ability to complement the industrial economies of the West.”

How US planners actually saw the world was set out by the leading liberal figure in the post-WWII State Department, George Kennan. In 1948 he produced the (secret) Policy Planning Study 23, in which he wrote

…we have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population … In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity … To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives … We should cease to talk about vague and … unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

Of course the “idealistic slogans,” suitable for a crusade, would be the way the matter would be presented to the public. Meanwhile, from Guatemala to Vietnam, “straight power concepts” would mean the deaths of millions in the next decades as the result of a policy that might be summarized in the oft-repeated words of George Bush: “You’re either with us or against us.”

Had we understood the last crusade at the time, we might not have agreed to kill so many innocent people. Perhaps we should try to understand the present one. CP

Carl Estabrook teaches at the University of Illinois and is the host of News From Neptune, a weekly radio show on politics and the media. He writes a regular column for CounterPunch.

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
Charles R. Larson
A Review of Mary Roach’s “Grunt”
David Yearsley
Stuck in Houston on the Cusp of the Apocalypse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail