Mendacity

Gabriel Kolko is said to be the leading historian of war. A current article of Mr. Kolko's from Antiwar.com is The Empire's Dilemma and the Empire's Demise. Gabe tells us of America's 50 year dilemma. Of America's and Europe's belief that they would control the world. He tells us the "U.S. dilemma … is that its expensive military power is largely useless as an instrument of foreign policy."

Useless? Not if you’re a card carrying member of the empire's elite club. Expensive and expansive military power has always been "foreign policy" for dominating wealthy nations. The military is how nations become rich and expand. Not useless at all for some members. Kolko states the "basic problem the world confronts today is American ambition, an ambition based on the illusion that its great military power allows the U.S. to define political and social trends everywhere it chooses to do so." Hmmm, is this new information, or an epiphany for this writer? For eons "ambition" by nations to use military power to define the world has been the "basic problem."

Kolko's says in this paragraph : "Iraq was not at the top of the Bush administration's agenda when it came to power in 2001. It was committed, however, to a "forward-leaning" foreign policy, to use Rumsfeld's words, and greater military activism. Had Sept. 11 not occurred, it is more likely that it would have confronted China, which has nuclear weapons but which this administration deems a peer competitor in the vast East Asia region. It still may do so, although Iraq has been a total disaster for it – militarily and geopolitically – and has greatly alienated the U.S. public (faster than Vietnam did)."

A lot of bull in that paragraph; giving BushCo a "not guilty" of eyeballing Iraq at all until after 9/11, while reinforcing the hair-frizzing scenario of a nuke-off with China. Nor at this point in time can anyone say (other than psychics) with absolute certainty that Iraq is a total disaster for the US.

Iraq has been at the top of the elite agenda for decades; the Anglo world has drooled over Middle East oil for decades. Saddam was set up by Daddy Bush years ago to eventually fall, and Boy Bush installed to accomplish the mission (Mission Accomplished). Perhaps Kolko hasn't heard of PNAC or that access to ME oil has been a "security imperative" from the beginning, or that we needed only a "Pearl Harbor" type event. Perhaps he hasn't noticed that all US funded puppets of color are eventually brought down, and sometimes even white ones as in Hitler's case. There's not a nation on earth not watching for knives in their back when dealing with US or UK.

Kolko is stating with a straight face "more likely that it (US "military activism") would have confronted China." With 400 of the FORTUNE 500 having made direct investments in China it's hard to imagine the multinational coporatocracy wanting a confrontation with China. Not to mention we're outnumbered, and nukes or not, troops are still the preferred method of war for defense contractors, investors, and government without jobs for the masses. A major war or long-term smaller one has multiple benefits to the few, and none for the many.

Perhaps the West is simply securing that access to oil for the business boom they're moving to China. Perhaps, as with WWI and II, they're just setting up the chess board. Afterall, today's spawn is from the same pond that devised WWI and II; the Western elite, European bluebloods, stock exchangers, bankers, weapons and chemical makers. Man is either a planter/gatherer or one of the raiders.

Kolko claims the "world is escaping American control." He doesn't say who the world escapees are, unless he's referring to south of the border, down on the pampas, in the highlands where leftist socialist leaders are straining against their "imperialist" chains. But he's wrong on control being "American." World control has never been an American monopoly – but a collusion with Euro-Western royalty and business.

Writers like Kolko are honest on certain points. Yes, America is destructive, seeking hegemony, yadayada, everyone knows that. But like most he suggests we have "to root out the historic, global illusions that led to its aggression." But offers no definition of what illusions we're to look for, or how the unwashed should root around to get rid of these illusions. That's a hollow way to end an article so the writer appears to know what he's talking about without talking about it. It's not "illusions that lead to aggression." It's greed, and not illusory at all. Leaders don't care if the empire's HQ is in Beijing, Brussels, Zug, or Rio, but it's easier to sell mass murder to the peons disguised as God and country, queen mom or apple pie, good vs. evil, or as defending the "way of life" of good people.

Kolko, like so many today, write what the disgruntled politically minded class wants to hear. This class is always disgruntled, so Kolko lists the usual abstract sins and suspects of the nation state leading the pack.

Kolko says Iraq has been a "total disaster for America." That the US may go bankrupt, is wrecking itself politically and economically. All very well possible. But it's not due to any cabalistic illusion of empire; it's business as usual. Nor is it unique - as long as the serfs fund the crown, the money handlers and investors will shift from one region to the next, to maximize profits. Globalization is not new. It's euphemism for the old control of trade routes which has long been a catalyst for war. Leech out one artery, move to the next.

Writers like Kolko persuade the average political reader to believe he/she has grasped the truth and the solution is there : The US (current empire) has to stop its warring ways and be nice. He reinforces the thinking of "activists," that if they can convince the bully nation to behave "we can all just get along." Each generation fed the same peace diet : If they can stop the tyranny of the current hegemonic leader everything will be okay. Kilko has said the US must be isolated and contrained, as if that has worked in the past. As if we topple tyrants all the time through isolation and constraint.

So keep lighting candles with a song and some day the world will live as one. I'd like to teach the world to sing, and buy the world a Coke and keep it company. Whatever you do, bring this change about through nonviolence because it proves the superiority of the peace seekers and nonviolence has two rewards for those in charge: it doesn't change anything in their world and as you're not a threat they don't have to massacre your asses.

What few writers tell is that the world will go on dying and killing as long as a fraction of mankind feels it deserves the bulk of the planet's wealth. Deserving only because you are convinced this fraction has a right to control and sell you cheap products, contaminated medicines, tainted food, senseless entertainment, education of no value. And all that profitable shoddiness is maintained by conflict/war. War is the dynamic force moving labor and resources from one area to supply markets in another, not in search of reasonable profit, but massive concentrated wealth at the expense of humanity. Keep dying in Iraq and buying made in China.

The "dilemma" is the ruling few are afraid of new ideology. Nowhere and at no time have the masses willingly lived under capitalism, a euphemism for oligarchy. It's done by force, brainwashing, or both. For all the genius mankind credits itself with man can only come up with two economic ideologies – socialism/communism and capitalism. Thousands of years and millions of thinkers and an "either/or" is the best man can dream. The "demise" is only one empire replacing another – and the necrotic "war as foreign policy" never changes.

That's the reality, whether Kolko and ilk know it and tell it or not. Writers such as this are like salve to a sore. Spread a little traditional dissenting bombast around and the wound feels better for a while; apply on every generation or whenever it hurts.