Idiocy of the Imperial Liberals, Part 2

Continued from Part 1:

What the imperial liberal believes is that the United States military could in some theoretically possible way actually do “good” or “help” some situation in the world. If this is the case, even if only in theory, it absolves them from having to face facts about exactly whose interests are being served by the military and exactly what types of crimes are being committed by that military and the power structure it serves.

The Kosovo War is usually used as an example by the imperial liberals. It was also used as a precedent by the Bush gang, especially when persuading liberals to support the invasion of Iraq. Clinton wasn’t able to get U.N. Security Council authorization but attacked Serbia anyway. Since the Kosovo War had what could be seen as a “good” outcome, and since there were no U.S. casualties, and since it was undertaken with a broad coalition, it is held dear by the imperial liberals as an example of the possibility of the beneficial application of attacks by the U.S. military.

But again, this absolves them in their minds from examining carefully the lead up to that war. What did the U.S. and NATO demand from Serbia in their ultimatum? Basically that Serbia or the former Yugoslavia open up their economy completely for exploitation by Western capitalism, that they allow complete access as well to NATO countries’ security and intelligence operations, among other things. Basically, they were asked to give up their sovereignty.

It also absolved them from looking behind the news media’s interpretation of the casus belli, the story of the evil, genocidal Serbs (not that Milosevic wasn’t evil or genocidal—I believe he was) and the innocent, victimized Kosovo muslims. It was more of an evil vs. evil dispute, as the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo after the war has proven. It was also a power grab by NATO, who took complete control over a region that was divided between Russian (Soviet) and NATO influence after World War II, with the majority of influence given to the Soviet side.

Back to Iraq, when Donald Rumsfeld had to testify in Congress recently, there was an amazing exchange with Senator Robert Byrd which went completely unreported in the mainstream press.

"Mr. Secretary, I've watched you with a considerable amount of amusement . . . I don't think I've ever heard a secretary of defense who likes to lecture the committee as much as you. You may not like our questions, but we represent the people . . . We ask the questions that the people ask of us whether you like it or not . . . The problem is we didn't ask enough questions at the beginning of this war that we got into, Mr. Bush's war . . . I don't mean to be discourteous [but] I've just heard enough of your smart answers to these people here who are elected . . . So get off your high horse when you come up here." Rumsfeld could not summon up a reply.

The media usually likes such drama. It certainly sounds like something that would made good television. But it didn't appear. This goes to show that the media is completely behind the war and behind the undemocratic assumptions behind it. Why? According to Barry Grey:

Why are the New York Times and the Democratic Party so intent on continuing the war? Because they speak for a political establishment that supports the project of global hegemony. Whatever disagreements emerge between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, they are always over tactics, not aims. They all believe that the economic and political viability of American capitalism depends on US domination of the world’s strategic resources—such as oil—as well as international markets and sources of cheap labor.

They fear, moreover, that a Vietnam-style defeat would profoundly discredit the existing social and political order in the eyes of the American working class, with far-reaching and dangerous consequences.

The lineup of all factions of the American political establishment behind the war—and against the majority of Americans who oppose it—demonstrates that the struggle against the war is inseparably bound up with a struggle against the entire social and political system. Just as it is not possible to discuss “where we go from here” in Iraq outside of a discussion of the origins of the war, it is not possible to seriously oppose the war without opposing the capitalist system which gave rise to it, and the American financial oligarchy which authored it and in whose interests it is being waged.

The starting point for a struggle against the war must be the demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops. The US government must pay full reparations for the destruction it has wreaked in Iraq, and reparations to the families of US soldiers killed in the war, as well as to soldiers wounded in the fighting.All those involved in the criminal conspiracy that produced the war must be held accountable both politically and legally. They must be placed before an independent tribunal and tried for war crimes.