FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

American Crusades

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
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail