Naked Imperialism

Copyright©2006byjohnBellamyFoster

Allrightsrescn'cd

LibraryolCongrcssCat:tloging—in-PublicationData

Foster,_]ohnBellamy.

Nakedimperialism:theU.S.pursuitofglobaldominance/_]ohnBellamyFoster. p.cm.

ArticlesoriginallypublishedinMonthlyreview. Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. ISBNl-58367-131-5(pbk.)—ISBN1-58367-132-3(cloth) ISBN978-158367131-3

1.UnitedStates--Foreignrelations—200l-2.Imperialism.3.September11Terrorist Attacks,200l—In[luence.4.WaronTerron'sm,2001-5.IraqWar,2003-6.World poIitics—l995—2005.7.Balanceofpower.1.Title. E902.F532006 973.931—dc22 2006000007

MonthlyReviewPress 146West29thStreet,Suite6W NewYork,NYl000l www.n1onthlyreview.org

PrintedinCanada 109876543

l.’reface

lobalwarfare,putativelyagainstterrorismbutmorerealisticallyinthe serviceofimperialism,isthedominantpoliticalrealityoftheopening decadeofthetwenty-firstcentury.Glorificationofempirebyleading US.pundits,politicians,andcorporateleadersisasgreatasatanytimeinhistory.TheinfluentialwriterRobertKaplan,acorrespondentfortheAtIrml1.'(: 1l'l(JIl//If)’,proudlyproclaimsontheopeningpageofhis2005booklmjierinl Cm-M15:T/IfAmerim'n,MihitrzryontheGromtd:“Bytheturnofthetwenty—first centurytheUnitedStatesmilitaryhadalreadyappropriatedtheentireearth,and wasreadytofloodthemostobscureareasofitwithtroopsatamoment’snotice.” Kaplangoesontopraisewhathecallsthe“idealistic”contentofRudyard Kipling’sracistpoem“TlieWhiteMan’sBurden,”writtentojustifyU.S.conquestandcolonizationofthePhilippinesfollowingtheSpanish-AmericanWar of1898.AndhelaudstheUS.militarytnapdividingtheentireplanetintofive distinctunifiedcommandzones,comparingittoasimilarntapfirstintroduced bytheGermangeopoliticaltheoristandNaziideologueKarlHaushoferwhose viewsofconquestandLelmmmmi.directlyinfluencedHitler.“TheUnited States,havingvanquishedGermany’sbuddingworldempireinWorldWarII,” Kaplantellsus,“nowhadoperationalrequirementsformaintainingitsown AmericanEmpire.”'

SuchbcllicoseviewscouldbetnoreeasilyignorediftheUnitedStateswere notengagedinanewperiodofnakedimperialism—onethathaseng'entle-reda periodofdisorderandtraumaalllictingtheentireworld.Thusfarmainstream socialscienceintheUnitedStateshashadlittlesuccessinexplainingthesedevelopments.Withfewexceptions,theterroristattacksofSeptemberl1,2001are

treatedasiltheyliterally“felloutoltheskies”orelseemanatedfromtheheadof oneman—OsamaBinLaden.Noserioustreatmentolthehistoricroleol'imperialisminthedevelopmentolU.S.capitalismandinitsstruggleforglobalpolitical, economic,andmilitaryhegemonyisevidentinthedominantmainstream accounts.TheinvasionofIraq,ostensiblyinsearchofnon—existentweaponsof massdestruction,isfrequentlycharacterizedasapoliticalaberrationbasedona failureofintelligencecoupledwiththemost“idealistic”ofintensions.The expandingU.S.EmpireisopenlyexhibitedasasourceolprideforAmericans, whoareofferednoseriousunderstandingoftheconsequences,orolihowthisis viewedbytherestoftheworld.

Itisnotthepurposeolthissmallbooktoprovideanexplanationforthesefailuresofcomprehension.Rathermyintentistoshowthatanentirelydifferent approach,rootedinthecritiqueoliniperialisniandemanatingfromMarxistand radical-leftthoughtgenerally,ollersamuchmoreconsistent,powerful,andrevealingperspectiveonthesehistoricaldevelopments.Inordertodemonstratethisas concretelyaspossibleIhavefollowedtheleadofLeoHuberman,PaulSweezy, andHarryMagdolfintheirclassicaccount,Vietnam:TheEndlessWar(1970)by deliberatelyavoidinginthisbookallargumentfromhindsight.Thethirteen chaptershereconsistofeditorialstatements(knownas“ReviewsoftheMonth”) publishedinMonthlyReviewbeginninginNovember2001(writtenshortlyafter theterroristattacksofSeptember2001)andendinginjanuary2005.Inaddition, anintroductionwritteninthepreparationofthisbookandpublishedinMonthly ReviewinSeptember2005isincludedhere.Nochangesofsubstance—beyond technicalediting—havebeenintroducedinanyofthethirteenchapters.

Alloftheessaysthatcomposethisvolumewerewrittenindirectresponseto thedevelopingcourseofU.S.imperialismsinceSeptember2001,usuallytimed inrelationtospecificevents.Sincethechaptersarearrangedchronologically,a storyunfoldsthroughoutthebook.Althoughtheargumentbuilds,itdoessoin responsetorapidhistoricalchanges,manyofwhichconstitutedturningpoints. Unfortunately,theemergingglobaltragedyalreadyclearlypointedtointhelirst chapterisplayedoutinthechaptersthatfollow.Noneofthiswastrulyinevitable. Aspotentialagentsofhistorywehavetheabilitytoact.Aconcertedglobalresistance,inwhichprotestwithintheUnitedStatesitselfiscrucial,canstopthis processinitstracks—amessageconveyedinonewayoranotherattheendof nearlyeverychapter.

Allol‘theessaysinthisbook—withtheexceptionoli“TheEmpireof Barbarism,”co-authoredwithBrettClarl<—werceitherwrittensolelybymeor weredraftedprimarilyl)ymeandco—authoredwithmyMont/LlyReviewco-eclitors,HarryMagtlollianclRobertW.McCltesney(whoservedasMont/ilyReview co-editorfromApril2000toJune2004).ToHarryandBobIoweeverything. Thisbookisin.1veryrealsensetheirsaswellasmine.Othersalsoreadandgave inputintheconstructionofalloftheseessays,includingjohnMage,]ohnSimon, MichaelYates,ClaudeMisukiewicz,VictorWallis,FredMagdoll,andBrett Clark.Thereisnotachapterherethatdoesnotreflectthefeedbackoftheseindivi(luals.AtMonthlyReviewPressAndrewNash,MartinPaddio,andRenee Pendergrasshelpedtohringthebooktofruition.

Ifweliveinanageofimperialism,itisallmorenecessarytoberemindedthat webelongtoaworldwherebasichumanityisalsoevident.Ithankmychildren SaulandIdaFosterforwhattheysharewithmeeveryday.

IdedicatethisbooktomywifeCarrieAnnNaumolTinrecognitionofour sharedcommitmentsandherownstrugglesoverherlifetimeforaworldofpeace, justice,andhumancommunity.

/','I/gr‘//(',()/‘(tgvi/I ,\nu('//I//1'/"_/()(}."7

heglobalactionsoftheUnitedStatessinceSeptember11,2001,are oftenseenasconstitutinga“newmilitarism”anda“newimperialism.”

Yet,neithermilitarismnorimperialismisnewtotheUnitedStates, whichhasbeenanexpansionistpower—continental,l1CllllSPl1Cl'lC,andglobalsinceitsinception.Whathaschangedisthenakednesswithwhichthisisbeing promoted,andtheunlimited,planetaryextentofU.S.ambitions.

MaxBoot,aseniorlellowattheCouncilonForeignRelations,insiststhatthe “greatestdanger”facingtheUnitedStatesinIraqandaroundtheworld“isthat wewon’tuseallolourpowerforfearofthe‘I’word—imperialism.Giventhe historicalbaggagethat‘imperialism’carries,there’snoneedfortheU.S.governmomtoembracetheterm.Butitshoulddefinitelyembracethepractice.”The UnitedStates,hesays,shouldbe“preparedtoembraceitsimperialruleunapologetically.”llWashingtonisnotplanningon“permanentbasesinlraq.they shouldbe.IfthatraiseshacltlesaboutAmericanimperialism,sobeit.”‘

Similarly,DeepakLal,Professorol‘InternationalDevelopmentStudiesatthe UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngcles,states:“TheprimarytaskofaPaxAmericanamustbetolindwaystocreateaneworderintheMiddleEastItisaccusinglysaidbymanythatanysuchrearrangementofthestatusquowouldbeanact ofiniperialismandwouldlargelybemotivatedbythedesiretocontrolMiddle Easternoil.Farfrombeingobjectionable,iniperialismispreciselywhatisneeded torestoreorderintheMiddlel3asl.”’

Theseviews,althoughemanatingfromncoconservatives,arefullywithinthe mainstreamolU.S.foreignpolicy.Indeed,thereislittledissentinU.S.rulingcir­

,3\\kl-Zl)I\ll'I-Zltl-\l.l$\l clesaboutcurrentattemptstoexpandtheAmericanEmpire.ForIvoDaalder andjamesLindsay,seniorlellowsattheBrookingsInstitution,“therealdebate isnotwhethertohaveanempire,butwhatkin(l.""MichaelIgnatiell,director ofHarvardUniversity’sCarrCenterforHumanRightsPolicyatthejohnF. KennedySchoolofGovernment,statesunequivocally:“Thisnewimperialism ishumanitarianintheorybutimperialinpractice;itcreates‘subsovcreignty,‘ inwhichstatespossessindependenceintheorybutnotinfact.Thereasonthe AmericansareinAfghanistan,ortheBalkans,alterall,istomaintainimperial orderinzonesessentialtotheinterestoftheUnitedStates.Theyarethereto maintainorderagainstabarbarianthreat.”As“theWest’slastmilitarystate”and itslast“remainingempire,”theUnitedStateshasaresponsibilityfor“imperial structuringandordering”in“analogytoRome.Wehavenowawakenedto thebarbarians.Retributionhasbeenvisitedonthebarbarians,andmorewill follow?”

AllofthisreflectstherealitiesofU.S.imperialpower.Inhispreambleto theNrztionalSec1n‘ityStrategyoftheUnitedStates,releasedinfall2002,President GeorgeW.BushdeclaredthatsincethefalloftheSovietUniontherewasnow“a singlesustainablemodelfornationalsuccess:freedom,democracyand[iceenterprise,”asembodiedconcretelyinU.S.capitalism.Anysocietythatrejectedthe guidanceofthatmodelwasdestinedtofail—andwould,itwasimplied,be declaredasecuritythreattotheUnitedStates.Themainbodyofthedocument thatfollowedwasanopendeclarationofWashington’sgoalofstrategicdominanceovertheentireplanetfortheindefiniteFuture.ItannouncedU.S.intentions ofwaging“preemptive”(orpreventive)waragainstnationsthatthreatenedorin thefuturecouldconceivablythreatenU.S.dominancedirectly—orthatmightbe consideredathreatindirectlythroughdangerstheyposedtoU.S.friendsorallies anywhereontheglobe.Preventiveactionswouldbetaken,thenewNational SecurityStrategyemphasized,toensurethatnopowerwouldbeallowedtorise uptorivaltheUnitedStatesinmilitarycapabilitiesanytimeinthefuture.On April13,2004,PresidentBushproclaimedthattheUnitedStatesneededto“go ontheoffensiveandstayontheolfensive,”waginganunrelentingwaragainstall thoseitconsidereditsenemies.

SinceSeptember11,2001,theUnitedStateshaswagedwarsinAfghanistan andIraq,expandedtheglobalreachofitsmilitarybasesystem,andincreasedthe levelofitsmilitaryspendingtothepointthatitnowspendsaboutasInuchonthe militaryasallothernationsoftheworldcombined.GloryingintheU.S.blitzkrieg

inlraq.__journalistGregEasterbrooltproclaimedintheNewYin‘/t'/YumthatUS. militaryforcesare“thestrongesttheworldhaseverknownstrongerthanthe Wehrmachtinl.‘)40.strongerthanthelegionsattheheightofRomanpower.”"

NtnnerouscriticsontheU.S.le|'thaverespondedbydeclaring,inellect.“l.et’s throwthebastardsout.”TheU.S.governinentundertheBushadministration,so theargumentgoes,hasbeentakenoverbyaneoconservativecabalthathas imposedanewpolicyol"militarismandimperialism.Forexample,sociologist MichaelMannarguesattheendolihislm-nlu-milEmjiirrthat“aneoconservative chicken-hawkcoupseizedtheWhiteHouseandtheDepartmentofl)elcnse” withGeorgeW.Bush’srisetothepresi(lency.ForManntheendsolutionissimplyto“throwthemilitaristsoutolollice.”“

Theargumentadvancedherepointstoadillerentconclusion.U.S.militarism andimperialismhavedeeprootsinU.S.historyandthepolitical-economiclogic ofcapitalism.AsevensupportersofU.S.imperialismarenowwillingtoadmit,the UnitedStateshasbeenanempirefrontitsinception.“TheUnitedStates,”Boot writesin“Americanlmperialism?,”“hasbeenanempiresinceatleast1803,when Thomas_]e[TersonpurchasedtheLouisianaTerritory.Throughoutthe19thcentury,wliatjeflersoncalledthe‘empireofliberty’expandedacrossthecontinent.”7 LatertheUnitedStatesconqueredandcolonizedlandsoverseasintheSpanishAmericanWarof1898andthebrutalPhilippine-AmericanWarthatimmediately lollowed——_justiliedasanattempttoexercisethe“whiteman’sburden.”Afterthe SecondWorldWartheUnitedStatesandothermajorimperialiststatesrelinquishedtheirformalpoliticalempires,butretainedinformaleconomicempires backedupbythethreatandnotinfrequentlytherealityofmilitaryintervention. TheColdWarobscuredthisneocolonialrealitybutneverentirelyhidit.

ThegrowtholempireisneitherpeculiartotheUnitedStatesnoramereoutgrowthol'thepolicies0|"particularstates.Itisthesystematicresultoftheentire historyandlogicofcapitalism.Sinceitsbirthinthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturiescapitalismhasbeenagloballyexpansivesystem—onethatishierarchicallydividedbetweenmetropoleandsatellite,centerandperiphery.Theobjective oftheimperialistsystemoftodayasinthepastistoopenupperipheral economicstoinvestmentfromthecorecapitalistcountries,thusensuringbotha continualsupplyofrawmaterialsatlowprices,andanetoutllowofeconomic surplusfromtheperipherytothecenteroftheworldsystem.lnaddition,the thirdworldisviewedasasourceofcheaplabor,constitutingaglobalreserve armyoflabor.Economiesoftheperipheryarestructuredtomeettheexternal

needsoftheUnitedStatesandtheothercorecapitalistcountriesratherthan theirowninteritalneeds.Thishasresulted(withafewnotableexceptions)in conditionsofunendingdependencyand(lebtpeonageinthepoorerregionsof theworld.

llthe“newmilitarism”andthe“newimperialism”arenotsonewafterall,but inlinewiththeentirehistoryofU.S.andworldcapitalism,thecrucialquestion thenbecomes:WhyhasU.S.imperialismbecomemorenakedinrecentyearsto thepointthatithassuddenlybeenrediscoveredbyproponentsandopponents alike?Onlyafewyearsagosometheoristsofglobalizationwithrootsintheleft, suchasMichaelHardtandAntonioNegriintheirbookEmpire,werearguing thattheageolimperialismwasover,thattheVietnamWarwasthelastimperialistwar.“Yet,today,imperialismismoreopenlyembracedbytheUS.power structurethanatanyt.imesincethe1890s.Thisshiftcanonlybeunderstoodby examiningthehistoricalchangesthathaveoccurredinthelastthreedecades sincetheendoftheVietnamWar.

WhentheVietnamWarfinallyendedin1975theUnitedStateshadsuffered amajordefeatinwhat,ColdWarideologynotwithstanding,wasclearlyanimperialistwar.Thedefeatcoincidedwithasuddenslowdownintherateofgrowthof theU.S.andworldcapitalisteconomyintheearly1970s,asthesystem’sold nemesisofsecularstagnationreappeared.ThevastexportofdollarsabroadassociatedwiththewarandthegrowthofempirecreatedahugeEurodollarmarket, whichplayedacentralroleinPresidentRichardNixon’sdecisiontode-linkthe dollarfromgoldinAugust1971,endingthedollar-goldstandard.Thismarked thedeclineofU.S.economichegemony.TheenergycrisisthathittheUnited StatesandotherleadingindustrialstateswhenthePersianGulfcountriescut theiroilexports,aspartofageneralOPECpriceincreaseandinresponseto WesternsupportforIsraelintheYomKippurWarof1973,exposedtheU.S.as vulnerableduetoitsdependenceonforeignoil.

Whatconservativeslabeledthe“VietnamSyndrome”—orthereluctanceof theAmericanpopulationtosupportU.S.militaryinterventionsinthirdworld countries—prevcntedtheUnitedStatesinthisperiodfromrespondingtothe worldcrisisbysettingitsgargantuanmilitarymachineinmotion.U.S.interventionswereconsequentlyreducedandbrealtawaysli'omtheimperialistsystem spreadrapidly:Ethiopiain1974,Portugal'sAfricancolonies(Angola; Mozambique,andGuineaBissau)in1974-75,Grenadain1979,Nicaraguain 1979,Iranin1979,andZimbabwein1980.

ThemostseriousdefeatexpenencedbyU.S.imperialisminthelate1970swas theIranianRevolutionofI979thatoverthrewtheShahofIran,whohadbeena lynchpinofU.S.militarydominanceoverthePersianGnlfanditsoil.Inthewake oftherevolution,andtheenergycrisis.theMiddleEastbecameanoverridingconcernofU5.globalstrategy.lnjanuaryI980President_|inmiyCarterissuedwhat cametoheknownastheCarterDoctrine:“Anattemptbyanyoutsideforcetogain controlofthePersianGulfregionwilll)eregardedasanassaultonthevitalinterestsoftheUnitedStates0fAmetica,andsuchanassaultwillberepelledbyany meansnecessary,includingmilitaryforce."Thiswaswordedsoastoparallelthe MonroeDoctrine,whichhadestablishedU.S.claimstodominanceoverthe Americas,andhadbeenemployedasaputative“legalprinciple"withwhichto_justifyU.S.militaryinvasionsofothcrstatesinthehemisphere.TheCarterDoctrine said,inelfect,thattheUnitedStatesclaimedmilitarydominanceoftheI’ersian Gulf,whichwasI0bebroughtfullywithintheAmericanempire“byanymeans necessary."’ThisassertionofU.S.powerintheMiddleEastwasaccompaniedby theonsetoftheCIA-sponsoredwaragainstSoviettroopsinAfghanistan(the largestcovertwarinhistory),inwhichtheUnitedStatesenlistedfundamentalist IslamicforcesincludingOsamaBinLadeninaholywarorjihadagainstSoviet occupyingforces.Theblowbacltfi'omthiswarandthesubsequentCuIfWarwas toleaddirectlytotheterroristattacksofSeptember11,2001.

DuringtheReaganerainthe19805theUnitedStatesexpandeditsollensive, renewingtheColdWararmsracewhileatthesamet.imeseekingtooverturnthe revolutionsofthe19705.Inadditiontoprosecutingthecovertwaragainstthe SovietsinAfghanistan,itprovidedmilitaryandeconomicassistancetoSaddam Hussein’sIraq,supportingitintheIraq-IranWarof1980-1988,increasedits directmilitaryinvolvementintheMiddleEast(interveningunsuccessfullyin Lebanonintheearly1980sandwithdrawingonlyafterthedevastatingI983 bombingofthemarinebarracks),andsponsoredcovertoperationsdesignedto subvertunfriendlystatesandrevolutionarymovementsthroughouttheglobe. MajorcovertwarswereinstigatedagainsttheSandinistasinNicaraguaand againstrevolutionaryforcesinGuatemalaandElSalvador.In1983theUnited StatesinvadedthetinyislandofGrenada,andunderReagan’ssuccessor, PresidentGeorgeH.W.Bush,itinvadedPanamainDecember1989aspartofa campaigntoreassertcontroloverCentralAmerica.

ButitwasthecollapseoftheSovietblocinI989thatrepresentedtherealsea changeforU.S.imperialism.AsAndrewBacevichwroteinA1nericrmEmjii-re,

“justasvictoryin1898[intheSpanish-AmericanWar]transformedthc CaribbeanintoanAmericanlake,sotoovictory[intheColdWar]in1989 broughttheentireglobewithinthepurviewoftheUnitedStates;henceforth Americaninterestsknewnobounds."”Sud(|enly,withtheSovietUnionwithdrawingfromtheworldstage(soontocollapseitselliinthesummerof1991),the possibilityofafull-scaleU.S.militaryinterventionintheMiddleEastwas openedup.ThisoccurredalmostimmediatelywiththeCull‘War,commencing inthespringof1991.TheUnitedStates,althoughawareinadvanceofthe impendingIraqiinvasionofKuwait,didnotstronglyopposeituntilafterithad takenplace.'"TheIraqiinvasionofferedtheUnitedStatesapretextforafullscalewarintheMiddleEast.Between100,000and200,000Iraqisoldierswere killedintheGulfWarandatleast15,000IraqiciviliansdieddirectlyfromU.S. andBritishbombingoflraq."Commentingonwhathebelievedwasoneofthe chiefgainsofthewar,PresidentBushdeclaredinApril1991,“ByGod,we’ve lickedtheVietnamSyndrome.”

Nevertheless,theUnitedStatesatthetimechosenottopursueitsadvantage andinvadeandoccupyIraq.Althoughtherewereundoubtedlynumerousreasonsforthatdecision,includingthefactthatitwouldprobablynothavebeen supportedbytheArabmembersoftheGulfWarcoalition,theprimaryonewas thegeopoliticalshiftresultingfromthecollapseoftheSovietbloc.Bythenthe SovietUnionitselfwastottering.UncertaintyaboutthefutureoftheSovietUnion andthegeopoliticalsphereithadcontrolledwassuchthatWashingtoncouldnot thenaffordthecommitmentoftroopsthatacontinuingoccupationofIraqwould haveentailed.TheendoftheSovietUnioncameonlymonthslater.

Duringtheremainderofthe1990stheUnitedStates(chieflyunder DemocraticPresidentBillClinton)wastoengageinmajormilitaryinterventions intheHornofAfrica,theMiddleEast,theCaribbean,andEasternEurope.This culminatedin1999withthewarinYugoslavia(Kosovo)inwhichtheUnited States,leadingNATO,bombedforelevenweeks,followedbytheinsertionof NATOgroundtroops.Purportedlycarriedouttostop“ethniccleansing,”the warintheBalkanswasgeopoliticallyabouttheextensionofU.S.imperialpower intoanareaformerlywithintheSovietsphereofinlluence.

AlreadybythecloseofthetwentiethcenturythepowereliteintheUnited Stateshadthereforemovedtowardapolicyofnakedimperialismtoadegreenot seensincetheopeningyearsofthecentury—withtheU.S.empirenowconceived asplanetaryinscope.Evenasamassiveantiglobalizat.ionmovementwasemerg­

l\'l‘ltt)|)llI'l'l()\I7

ing,notablywiththeSeattleprotestsinNovember1999,theUS.establislnncnt wasmovingenergeticallytowardanimperialismforthetwenty-lirstcentury;one thatwouldpromoteneolil)eralglobalizationwhilerestingonU.S.worlddominance.“Thehiddenhandol‘themarket.”ThomasFriedman,thel’nlit'/.er-prizewinningNewYnrlr'Tinnrscolumnist,opined,“willneverworkwithoutahidden list—McDonald"scannotllourishwithoutaMcDonnellDouglas,thebuilderoi‘ theF-15.AndthehiddenlistthatkeepstheworldsaleforSiliconVa|lcy’stechnologiesiscalledtheUnitedStatesArmy,AirForce,NavyandMarine(‘.orps.”” The“hiddenfist,”however,wasonlypartlyhidden,andwastobecomeevenless sointheensuingyears.

Tol)esure,theshifttowardamoreopenlymilitaristicimperialismoccurred onlygradually,instages.Formostofthe1990stheU.S.rulingclassandnationalsecurityestablislnnenthadwagedadebatebehindthescenesonwhattodo nowthattheSovietUnion’sdisappearancehadlefttheUnitedStatesasthesole superpower.Naturally,therewasneveranydoubtaboutwhatwastobethemain economicthrustoftheglobalempireruledoverbytheUnitedStates.The1990s sawthestrengtheningofneoliberalglol)alization—theremovalofbarrierstocapitalthroughouttheworldinwaysthatdirectlyenhancedthepoweroftherich capitalistcountriesatthecenteroftheworldeconomyvis-a-visthepoorcountriesoftheperiphery.AkeydevelopmentwastheintroductionoftheWorld TradeOrganizationtoaccompanytheWorldBankandtheInternational MonetaryFundasorganizationsenforcingthemonopolycapitalistrulesofthe game.Fromthestandpointofmostoftheworld,amoreexploitativeeconomic imperialismhadraiseditsuglyhead.Yetforthepowersthatbeatthecenterof theworldeconomyncoliberalglobalizationwasregardedasaresoundingsuccess,notwithstandingsignsofglobalfinancialinstabilityasrevealedbytheAsian financialcrisisof1997—98.

U.S.rulingcirclescontinuedtodebate,however,themannerandextentto whichtheUnitedStatesshouldpushitsultimateadvantageanduseitsvastmilitarypowerasameansofpromotingU.S.globalsupremacyinthenew“unipolar” world.Ifneoliberalismhadariseninresponsetoeconomicstagnation,transferringthecostsofeconomiccrisistotheworld’spoor,theproblemofdeclining U.S.economichegemonyscentedtorequireanaltogetherdillerentresponse—t|ie reassertiono['U.S.powerasmilitarycolossusoftheworldsystem.

ImmediatelyalterthecollapseoftheSovietUniontheDefenseDepartment undertheadministrationofCeorgel-l.W.BushinitiatedareconsiderationofU.S.

nationalsecuritypolicyinlightofthechangingglobalsituation.Thereport,conipletedinMarch1992an(lknownastheI)¢frnsel’launingGuidamr,waswritten underthesupervisionofPaulWolfowitz,thenundersecretaryofpolicyinthe DefenseDepartment.Itindicatedthatthechiefnationalsecuritygoalofthe UnitedStatesmustbeoneof“precludingtheemergenceofanypotentialglobal competitor.”"’TheensuingdebatewithintheU.S.establishmentoverthe19903 focusedlessonwhethertheUnitedStateswastoseekglobalprimacythan whetheritshouldadoptamoremultilateral(“sheriffandposse,”asRichard Haassdubbedit)orunilateralapproach.Someofthedominantactorsinwhat wastobecometheadministrationofGeorgeW.Bush,includingDonald RumsfeldandPaulWolfowitz,weretoorganizetheProjectfortheNewAmerican Century,whichinanticipationofBushwinningtheWhiteHouse,issued,atthen vice-presidentialcandidateDickCheney'srequest,aforeignpolicypaper,entitledRebuildingAmerica’:Ddevtses,"reaffirmingtheunilateralandnakedly aggressivestrategyoftheDefensePlanningGuidanceof1992.FollowingSeptember11,2001,thisapproachbecameofficialU.S.policyinTheNationalSecurity StrategyoftheUnitedStatesof2002.Thebeatingofthewardrumsforaninvasion ofIraqcoincidedwiththereleaseofthisnewdeclarationonnationalsecurityeffectivelyadeclarationofanewworldwar.

Itiscommon,aswehavenoted,forcriticstoattributethesedramaticchanges simplytotheseizureofthepoliticalandmilitarycommandcentersoftheU.S. statebyaneoconservativecabal(broughtintopowerbythedisputed2000election),which,whencombinedwiththeaddedopportunityprovidedbytheterroristattacksofSeptember11,2001,ledtoaglobalimperialoffensiveandanew militarism.Yet,theexpansionofAmericanempire,inthewakeoftheSoviet Union’sdemisewas,astheforegoingargumenthasdemonstrated,alreadywell advancedatthattimeandhadbeenabipartisanprojectfromthestart.Underthe ClintonadministrationtheUnitedStateswagedwarintheBalkans,fonnerly partoftheSovietsphereinEasternEurope,whilealsoinitiatingtheprocessof establishingU.S.militarybasesinCentralAsia,formerlypartoftheSoviet Unionitself.Iraqinthelate1990swasbeingbombedbytheUnitedStatesona dailybasis.WhenjohnKerryastheDemocraticpresidentialcandidateinthe 2004electioninsistedthathewouldprosecutethewaronIraqandthewaron terrorismifanythingwithgreaterdeterminationandmilitaryresources—and thathedifferedonlyonthedegreetowhichtheUnitedStatesadoptedalone vigilanteasopposedtoasheriffandpossestance—hewasmerelycontinuing

whathadbeentheDemocraticstanceonempirethroughoutthe19S)()sand beyon(l:anallbutnakedimperialism.

Fromthelongerviewolleredbyahistorical-materialistcritiqueofcapitalism,thedirectionthatwouldbetakenbyU.S.imperialismfollowingthefallof theSovietUnionwasneverindoubt.Capitalismbyitsverylogicisaglobally expansivesystem.Thecontradictionl)etweenitstransnationaleconomicaspirationsandthefactthatpoliticallyitremainsrootedinparticularnationstates isinsurmountableforthesystem.Yet,ill-fatedattemptsbyindividualstatesto overcomethiscontradictionarejustasmuchapartofitsfundamentallogic.In presentworldcircumstances,whenonecapitaliststatehasavirtualmonopoly ofthemeansofdestrnction,thetemptationforthatstatetoattempttoseizefullspectrumdominanceandtotransformitselfintothedefactoglobalstategoverningtheworl(leconomyisirresistible.AsthenotedMarxianphilosopher IstvzinMészarosobservedinSocialismorBarlm.-ris7n.?—written,significantly, l)eforeGeorgeW.Bushbecamepresident:“[W]hatisatstaketodayisnotthe controlofaparticularpartoftheplanet—nomatterhowlarge—puttingatadisadvantagebutstilltoleratingtheindependentactionsofsomerivals,butthe controlofitstotalitybyonehegemoniceconomicandmilitarysuperpower, withallmeans—eventhemostextremeauthoritarianand,ifneeded,violent militaryones—atitsdisposal.”""

Theunprecedenteddangersofthisnewglobaldisorderarerevealedinthe twincataclysmstowhichtheworldisheadingatpresent:nuclearproliferation andhenceincreasedchancesoftheoutbreakofnuclearwar,andplanetaryecologicaldestruction.ThesearesymbolizedbytheBushadministration’srefusalto signtheComprehensiveTestBanTreatytolimitnuclearweaponsdevelopment an(lbyitsfailuretosigntheKyotoProtocolasafirststepincontrollingglobal warming.AsformerU.S.SecretaryofDefense(intheKennedyand_]ohnson administrations)RobertMcNamarastated:“TheUnitedStateshasnever endorsedthepolicyof‘nofirstuse,’notduringmysevenyearsassecretaryor since.Wehavebeenandremainpreparedtoinitiatetheuseofnuclearweaponsbythedecisionofoneperson,thepresident—againsteitheranuclearornoimuclearenemywheneverwebelieveitisinourinteresttodoso."'“Thenationwith thegreatestconventionalmilitaryforceandthewillingnesstouseitunilaterallyto enlargeitsglobalpowerisalsothenationwiththegreatestnuclearforceandthe readinesstouseitwheneveritseeslit—settingthewholeworldonedge.The nationthatcontributesmoretocarbondioxideemissionsleadingtoglobalwarm­

ingthananyother(representingapproximatelyaquarterofthcworld’stotal)has becomethegreatestobstacletoaddressingglobalwarmingandtheworld’sgrowingenvironmentalproblems—raisingthepossibilityofthecollapseofcivilization itselfifprescnttrendscontinue.

TheUnitedStatesisseekingtoexercisesovereignauthorityovertheplanet duringaLimeofwideningglobalcrisis:economicstagnation,increasingpolarizationbetweentheglobalrichandtheglobalpoor,weakeningU.S.economichegemony,growingnuclearthreats,anddeepeningecologicaldecline.Theresultisa heighteningofinternationalinstability.Otherpotentialforcesareemerginginthe world,suchastheEuropeanCommunityandChina,whichcouldeventually challengeU.S.power,regionallyandevenglobally.Thirdworldrevolutions,far fromceasing,arebeginningtogainmomentumagain,exemplifiedbyVenezuela’s BolivarianRevolutionunderHugoChavez.U.S.attemptstotightenitsimperial gripontheMiddleEastanditsoilhavehadtocopewithafierce,seemingly unstoppable,Iraqiresistance,generatingconditionsofimperialoverstretch.With theUnitedStatesbrandishingitsnucleararsenalandrefusingtosupportinternationalagreementsonthecontrolofsuchweapons,insofarastheylimititsown power,nuclearproliferationiscontinuing.Newnations,suchasNorthKorea,are enteringorcanbeexpectedsoontoenterthe“nuclearclub.”Terroristblowbaek fromimperialistwarsinthethirdworldisnowawell-recognizedreality,generatingrisingfearoffurtherterroristattacksinNewYork,London,andelsewhere. Suchvastandoverlappinghistoricalcontradictions,rootedinthecombinedand unevendevelopmentoftheglobalcapitalisteconomyalongwiththeU.S.drive forplanetarydomination,foreshadowwhatispotentiallythemostdangerous periodinthehistoryofimperialism.

ThecourseonwhichU.Sandworldcapitalismisnowheadedpointstoglobalbarbarism—orworse.Yetitisimportanttorememberthatnothinginthedevelopmentofhumanhistoryisinevitable.Therestillremainsanalternativepaththeglobalstruggleforahumane,egalitarian,democratic,andsustainablesociety. Theclassicnameforsuchasocietyis“socialism.”Sucharenewedstrugglefora worldofsubstantivehumanequalitymustbeginbyaddressingthesystem'sweakestlinkandatthesametimetheworld’smostpressingnceds—l)yorganizinga globalresistancemovementagainstthenewnakedimperialism.

\r/t'('/II//('1'200/ hereislittlewecansaydirectlyabouttheSeptember11terroristattacks ontheWorldTradeCenterinNewYorkandthePentagonin Vl/ashington,D.C.—exceptthatthesewereactsofutter,inhumanviolence,indefensibleineverysense,takingadeepandlastinghumantoll.Suchterrorismhastoberidfromthefaceoftheearth.Thedifficultyliesinhowtoaccomplishthis.TerrorismgeneratescounterterrorisniandtheUnitedStateshaslong beenapartytothisdeadlygame,asperpetratormoreoftenthanvictim.

TheU.S.strategyofretaliationintheformofaglobalwaronterrorismalreadycommencingonOctober7withmilitarystrikesinAfghanistan—-iscertain tocompoundthistragedyinthemonthsandyearsahead.Forthisreasonitisnow moreimportantthaneverthattherealitiesofU.S.militarismandimperialismbe broughttolight,alongwiththeroleofpropagandainremovingthemfromthe scrutinyofthedomesticpopulation.

/I/I//"I11/‘iv//Ir//Ir/I/..S'.('u/;/In//'.\'//I ThattheUnitedStatesisthedominantglobalempire—themodernRome—is crystalclear.Sincethe19405,ifnotearlier,theUnitedStateshasbeenengagedin astruggletomaintainandevenexpanditspositionastheworld’sforemostniili— tary,economic,andpoliticalpower.TodaytheUnitedStatesaccountsforabouta thirdofallworldmilitaryexpenditures.ltistheworld’sleadinginternationalarms

seller.Anditishasraineddeathanddestructiononmorepeopleinmoreregions oftheglobethananyothernationintheperiodsincetheSecondWorldWar. Considerthefollowing.TheUnitedStateshasemployeditsmilitaryforcesin othercountriesoverseventytimessince1945,notcountingiimumcrable instancesofcounterinsurgencyoperationsbytheCIA.IntheMiddle East/Islamicworldalone,overthelasttwentyyearstheU.S.military:

shotdownLibyanjetsin1981;

-sentmilitarypersonnelandequipmenttotheSinaiaspartofamultinationalforcein1982;

0sentmarinestoLebanonin1982;

-dispatchedanAWACSelectronicsurveillanceplanedirectedagainstLibya toEgyptin1983;

0usedAWACSelectronicsurveillanceaircrafttoaidSaudiArabiainshootingdownIranianfighterjetsinthePersianGulfin1984; -firedmissilesatandbombedLibyain1986; -shotdownLibyanfightersin1989; 0escortedKuwaitioiltankersduringtheIraq-Iranwar; -foughttheGuIfWaragainstIraqin1991; 0firedmissilesandcarriedoutbombingstrikesagainstIraqonnumerous occasionsinthelastdecade; -carriedoutmilitaryexercisesinKuwait(aimedatIraq)in1992; -deployeditsarmedforcesinSomaliain1992; -demolishedoneofthefewpharmaceutica.lplantsinSudaninamissile attackin1998; -firedsixtycruisemissilesequippedwithclusterbombsatOsamabin LadeninAfghanistanin1998. -commencedwaroperationsinAfghanistanin2001.‘

MorethanahundredthousandIraqicivilianswerekilledintheGulfWar,and asmanyasahalfinillionchildrenhavediedasaresultofU.S.—imposedsanctions sincethewar.U.S.supportforIsraelinthefonnofbillionsofdollarsofinilitary aideachyearcoupledwithitsrefusaltoreininIsrael’sterritorialambitionshave madeitaprincipalpartytothewarofterrorinflictedonthePalestinianpeople.

Whatexplainsthisimperialistthrust?U.S.capitalismhasbeendependent sincetheSecondWorldWaronlargeinfusionsol'militaryspendingbothtosupportitsimperialinterestsabroadandtopropuptheeconomy.Inthisrespectthe endoftheColdWarwiththecollapseolltheSovietUnionhadnegativeaswell aspositiveconsequencesfortheU.S.rulingclass.Howwasthehugemilitary budgetofhundredsolbillionsofdollarsayeartobejustiliedwiththedisappearanceofthe“evilempire”?TiedupwiththiswerethegrowingchallengestoU.S. economicpowerfromrivalcapitaliststates,whichduringtheColdWarperiod hadgenerallysubmittedtoU.S.interestswithinthecontextol‘thebroadCold Waralliance.

IntheyearsthathaveintervenedsincethelalloltheSovietUnion,theU.S.rulingclasshasthusbeenseekingasubstitutefortheColdWarwithwhichto_justifyitsimperialdesigns.Variousalternativeshavebeenollered:awaronterrorism; thestruggleagainst“roguestates";a“clashofcivilizations”(IslamandChinavs. theWest,asproposedbySamuelHuntington);awarontheglobaldrugtrade; andhumanitarianinten'ention—allofthemuptonowseenasunsatisfactory,but sullicienttokeepthemilitarybudgetfromshrinkingdrasticallyaftertheCold War.Fortunately,agodsendappearedintheformofSaddamI-Iussein’sinvasion ofKuwaitin1990.ButtherapidvictoryoverIraqiforcesintheCu|fWarwasso completeandsodevastatingthatI-Iusseincouldnolongerserveasthecredible threatneededtojustifyU.S.worldwidemilitarycommitments.AsGeneralColin Powellvoicedtheproblemin1991,“Thinkhardaboutit.I’mrunningoutof demons.I’mrunningoutofvillains.””

ThereisnodoubtthatthiswasviewedasaninsolubledilemmawithinthecorridorsofpowerintheUnitedStates.Onlyweeksago,atthiswriting,itlookedlike PresidentBush’sproposaltoexpandU.S.militaryspendingthroughthecreation ofananti—rnissiledefensesystem(abandoningtheABMtreatyforgedwiththe SovietUnion)wasgoingtohavesomestilloppositioninCongress—althougb mostoftheBushprogramwouldnodoubthavebeenadoptedintheend,since bothRepublicanandDemocraticpartieshavecontinuallysupportedincreasing militaryexpenditures.

TheterroristattacksontheWorldTradeCenterandthePentagonhave nowchangedallofthat.TheUnitedStatesisgearingupforwhatisbeingtoutedasthelirstwarofthemillennium.ForaWallStreetsulleringfromeconomiestagnationandgrowinguncertainty,theonebitofreallygoodnewsisthe skyrocketingvirtuallyovernightofU.S.militaryexpenditureswithmore

increasestobeexpectedintheverynearfuture,sendingthestocksofniilitary contractorssoaring.

Notwithstandingtheshockandhorrorassociatedwiththeterroristattacks,the U.S.nilingclasswasquickenoughtograspthisasanilninediateopportunityfor anewglobalmilitarycrusadeofascopeapproximatingthatoftheColdWar;hence itwastednotimeinfanningtheflamesofwar.Themilitaristicresponsewascastin stonebeforethenorthtoweroftheWorldTradeCenterfelltotheearth.In

PresidentBush’smajorspeechtothenationonSeptember20,2001,heindicted OsamaBinLadenandhisterroristnetworkfortheattacksandissuedthreatstothe Talibangovernmentin/\fghanistan,indicatingthattheytoowereatargetforhavingharboredtheenemy.Buthedidnotstopthere.Healsodeclaredthat“thereare thousandsoftheseterroristsintnorethansixtycountries....Everynationinevery regionnowhasadecisiontomake.Eitheryouarewithus,oryouarewiththeterrorists.Fromthisdayforward,anynationthatcontinuestoharbororsupportterrorismwillberegardedbytheUnitedStatesasahostileregime.”TheUnited Stateswasenteringinto“alengthycampaignunlikeanywehaveseen,”which wouldincludedramaticmilitarystrikesandcovertactions.Groundtroopswould becommittedandlossescouldbeexpected.TheUnitedStateswouldutilize “everynecessaryweaponofwar”(thestatementpurposelydidnotexcludetheuse ofnuclearweapons)againsttheseenemies.“Cod,”Bushexclaimed,“isnotneutral,”evokingthefamiliarChristiannotionofdivineretributionagainstsinners. Butbehindthisspeechisastillmorefrighteningreality.Congress,withonly onedissenter(RepresentativeBarbaraLeefromCalifornia),hastumedoverto thePresidentthepowernotonlytoconductthisill~definedwarashepleasesbut alsotodefinetheenemyitself,whichisalreadybeingprojectedasofworldwide scope.Awaristobefought,Bushandhisadministrationmadeclear,anditisto takeplaceinmanydifferentcountries—extendingtowholenations(whichmake bettertargetsthanhardtoEndterrorists).Yet,theU.S.publicisstillleftinthe darkastowhotheseadditionalenemiesare—outsideofOsainabinLadenand theTalibaninAfghanistan—orwheretheUS.militarywillchoosetostrikenext afterAfghanistan.Bush’sspeechthusestablishesthebasisforaseriesofmilitary interventionswithoutdefinitegeographicalboundariesormoralrestraintsonthe weaponstobeused,andwithoutanylimitsonthenumbersortypesofenemies tobeencountered.Ontopofthisisaplanforgreatlyexpandedfederalpowersfor themaintenanceofinternalsecurity,includingthecreationofacabinet—level OfficeofHomelandSecurity.

\l-"l‘|-'.ll'|‘|t|-‘.\'l'|'\(‘.|\2.

ItispossiblethatgiventimetheUS.rulingclasswillsplitoversomeoltliesc issues:theextentolthemilitarizati0n:_theiminbcrollcountriesthatwillhetargetedinthiswar;andtheinfringementsonthelreedomofU.S.citizens.Therewill probablybepressurefromalliednat.ionstotemperthemilitarism.Buttheseare questionsofdegree.TheU.S.powereliteappearssolidlybehindaglobalexpansionoftheU.S.militaryroleandsevereglobalretaliationlortheattacks.There canbenodoul)tthattheworldislacingwhatlstvauMészarosinhisS0n'(Ih'.m1or Iinrlm-rimi.hascalled“thepotentiallydeadliestphaseofimperialism"resulting fromtheglobal-imperialprojectionofU.S.power.-"

7'/H‘/’I‘o/m;_-"(I/H/HQ/'/','m/)/r("'

Acoretensionincapitalistsocietieshamperedbyuniversaladultsuffrageis howtoreconcileinegalitarianeconomieswithformallyegalitarianpolitics.For thoseinpower,theconcernisanage—oldone:howtokeepthepropertyless manyfromabridgingtheprivilegesofthewealthyfew.Underdemocracy,only inatimeofacrisisofthesystemcanthesolutionbeoneofbruteforce.More generallythesolutionmustbefoundintherealmofideologyorpropaganda. Thepointistodepoliticizethemassesordeludethemsotheywillnotactin theirowninterests.

Theproblemisevengreaterwhenthedemocraticcapitalistsocietyisalsoa majorempire.Themassofthepopulationmustbepersuadedtosubsidizethe expenseofempire,thoughitsbenelitsarehardtolocate.Andwhentheinevitable warcomesthemassesmustbeconvincedtofightanddiefortheempire.Under conditionsofdemocracy,tobefrankandhonestaboutthepurposeandnatureof imperialismwouldbecounterproductivetotheseaims.HenceinBritain,empire wasjustiliedasabenevolent“whiteman'sburden."AndintheUnitedStates, imperialismdoesnotevenexist;“we”aremerelyprotectingthecausesoffreedom,democracy,andjusticeworldwide.

IthasproventobeadillicultjobintheUnitedStatestoenlistpopularsupport forforeignwarandempire.SincethelatenineteenthcenturytheU.S.government Iiasworkedaggressivelytoconvincethecitizenryol‘thenecessityofgoingtowar innumerousinstances.IncasesliketheFirstWorldWar,Korea,Vietnam,andthe GulfWar,thegovernmentemployedsophisticatedpropagandacampaignstowhip thepopulationintoasuitablefury.Itwaswellunderstoodwithintheestablishment atthetinie—an(lsubsequentlyverifiedinhistoricalexaminations—thatthegovern­

mentneededtolieinordertogainsupportforitswaraims.Themediasystem,in everycase,provedtoheasuperiorpropagandaorganformilitarismandempire.

ThisisthecontextforunderstandingthemediacoveragesinceSeptember11. Thehistoricalrecordsuggestsweshouldexpectanavalancheofliesand half—truthsintheserviceofpower,andthatisexactlywhatwehavegotten.The U.S.newsmedia—whichlovenothingmorethantocongratulatethemselvesfor theirindependencefromgovernmentcontrol—didnotsomuchasblinkbefore theybecametheexplicitagentsoftnilitaristandimperialistpropaganda.

Onewaytograsptheextentofthepropagandabarrageistoaskhowademocraticsocietywithatrulyindependentandfreepresswouldrespondtoevents likethoseofSeptember11.Inmomentsofcrisis,ademocraticmediasystem needstogeneratefactualaccuracyoneverythingrelevant.Itneedstobeskeptical towardthoseinpowerandthosewhowishtobeinpower.Anditneedstoprovidethebasisforawiderangeofdebateoverpolicyproposalstoaddressthecrisis,includinghistoricalbackgroundandcontextsothatcitizenscanmakesense oftheproblemsanddeterminethebestpossiblesolution.Suchafreepresswould “servethegoverned,notthegovernors,”asSupremeCourtjusticeHugoBlack onceputit.

Evenallowingforthesuddennessandmercilessnatureoftheattack,noneof theseresponses,whichonecouldreasonablyexpectofafreeandindependent press,wereevidentintheU.S.mediasystemintheweeksfollowingSeptember11.

Tothecontrary,theManieheanpictureconveyedbythemediawasasfollows: Abenevolent,democratic,andpeacelovingnationwasbrutallyattackedbyinsane evilterroristswhohatetheUnitedStatesforitsfreedomsandaflluentwayoflife_ TheUnitedStatesmustimmediatelyincreaseitsmilitaryandcovertforces,locate thesurvivingculpritsandexterminatethem;thenprepareforalong—termwarto rootouttheglobalterroristcanceranddestroyit.ThosewhodonotaidtheU.S. campaignforjustretribution—andlogically,thiswouldmeandomesticallyaswell asinternationally—aretoberegardedastheaccomplicesoftheguiltyparties,and maywellsufferasimilarfate.

Thereasonsforthisgrosslydistortedcoveragegobeyondnotionsofconspiracy,andreflecttheweaknessesofprofessionaljournalismasithasbeenpracticed intheUnitedStates,aswellasthecontrolofourmajornewsmediabyaverysmall numberofverylargeandpowerfulprofit—scekingcorporations.

Professionaljournalismemergedaroundonehundredyearsago,propelledby theneedofmonopolynewspaperownerstoolTeracredible“non—partisan”_jour­

nalismsothattheirbusinessenterpriseswouldnotbeundermined.Toavoidthetaintolipartisanship,[)l’0li3SSl0IlIlliSlllmakesollicialorcreclentialedsourcesthe basisfornewsstories.Reportersreportwhatpeopleinpowersay,andwhatthey debate.Thistendstogivethenewsanestablishmentbias.Whena‘journalist reportswhatelitesaresaying,ordebating,sheisprofessional.Whenshesteps outsidethisrangeoliollicialdel)atetoprovidealternativeperspectivesortoraise issueselitesprefernotto(liscuss,sheisnolongerbeingprofessional.Most‘jour— nalistshavesointernalizedtheirprimaryroleasstenographersforollicialsources thattheydonotrecognizeitasaproblemlordemocracy.

lnadditiontothisrelianceonollicialsources,expertsarealsocrucialto explaininganddebatingpolicy,especiallyincomplexstorieslikethisone.Aswith sources,expertsaredrawnalmostentirelyfromtheestablishment,giventhattheir mainpurposeistoexpresstheconsensusofthoseinpower.SinceSeptember11, therangeof“expert”analysishasbeenlimitedmostlytothemilitaryandintelligencecommunitiesandtheirsupporters,withtheirclearself—interestinthe iInposit.ionofmilitarysolutionsrarelyacknowledgedandalmostnevercritically examined.SincetherehasbeenvirtuallynodebatebetweentheDemocratsand Republicansovertheproperresponse,themilitaryapproachhassimplybeen ollcredastheonlyoption.Theobviousquestion,whichshouldhavebeenthe firstoneolTofanyself—respecting_journalist’stongue,wasbeyondthepale:on whatgroundsarewetobelievethatspendingtensofbillionsmoreonthemilitary andCIA—thesamepeoplewhofailedtostoptheSeptemberattackswiththeir existingbloatedbudgets—willsolvethisproblem?

Itispossibleintheweeksandmonthstofollowthattherangeofdebatemay broadeninelitecircles.Itislikelythatsomewillassumethe“liberal”and“internationalist”positionthattheUnitedStatesshouldputthebrakesonthe lul|—t|irottlemilitarismandjingoismasthatwouldprovetobecounterproductive tolong—termU.S.aimsintheMiddleEastandtheworld.Thoseadoptingthis approachwillinevitablyarguethattheUnitedStatesneedstowinthe“heartsand minds"ofpotentialadversariesthroughmoresophisticatedpeacefulmeasures,as wellashavinganunmatchedmilitary.ButfundamentalissueswillremaindecidedlyolT—limits.Theroleol'themilitaryastheultimatesourceofpowerwillnotbe questioned.ThenotionthattheUnitedStatesisauniquelybenevolentforcein theworldwillbeundisputed.ThepremisethattheUnitedStatesandtheUnited Statesalouc—unlessitdeputi'/.esanationlikelsrael—hasarighttoinvadeany countryitwantsatanytimeitwisheswillremainundebateable.Andanyconcerns

thatU.S.militaryactionwillviolateinternationallaw—whichitalmostcertainly will—willberaisednotonprinciple,butonlybecauseitmightharmU.S.intereststobeperceivedbyothernationsasalawbreaker.

HereweshouldrecallthemediacoverageoftheU.S.invasionofVietnamin the19605and19703.FromthetimetheUnitedStateslauncheditsgroundinvasioninearnest,in1965,untillate1967orearly1968,thenewscoveragewasa classicexampleofthe“biglie”ofallwarpropaganda.Thewarwasgoodandnecessaryforfreedomanddemocracy;thosethatopposeditweretrivialized,marginalized,distortedorignored.By1968,thecoveragebegantotakeamorecharitablestancetowardantiwarpositions.Butwhileitreflectedgrowingpublicoppositiontothewartoacertaindegree,thiscoveragewasinfluencedmuchmoreby thebreakthatemergedinU.S.eliteopinionbythistime:someonWallStreetand inWashingtonrealizedthatthecostofthewarwasfartoohighforanyprospectivebenefitsandfavoredgettingout.Thenewscoverageremainedwithintheconfinesofeliteopinion.TheUnitedStatesstillhada“007”righttoinvadeany nationitwished;theonlydebatewaswhethertheinvasionofVietnamwasa properuseofthatpower.ThenotionthattheveryideaoftheUnitedStatesinvadingnationslikeVietnamwasmorallywrongwasoff-limits,althoughsurveys revealedthatsuchaviewwasnotuncommoninthegeneralpopulation.

Anotherflawofestablishmentjournalismisthatittendstoavoidcontextualizationliketheplague.Thereasonforthisisthatprovidingmeaningfulcontext andbackgroundforstories,ifdoneproperly,willtendtocommitthejoumalistto adefinitepositionandinvitetheveryfreeandopendebatethatprofessionaljournalismisdeterminedtoavoid.Soitisthatonthosestoriesthatreceivethemost coverage,liketheMiddleEast,theU.S.populationtendstobeeverybitas,ifnot more,ignorantthanonthosesubjectsthatreceivefarlesscoverage.Thejournalismismorelikelytoproduceconfusion,cynicism,andapathythanunderstandingandinformedaction.Coveragetendstobeabarrageofdisconnectedfacts—a perfectprescriptionforparalysis.Whatlittlecontextualizationprofessionaljournalismdoesprovidetendstoconfomitoelitepremises.

ThelackofcontextinthejournalismsinceSeptember11hasbeenastonishingbyalmostanystandards.Therehavebeennumerousdetailedreportson OsamabinLadenandhisterroristnetwork,andrelatedinvestigationsoffactors concerningthesuccessorfailureofaprospectivemilitaryinvasionin Afghanistan,butotherwisethecupboardisbare.Considerthefollowing:There hasbeenablackoutonthesubjectoftheroleoftheUnitedStatesasarguablythe

leadingterroristloreeintheworld.In1998,lorexample,AmnestyInternational releasedareportwhichmadeitclearthattheUnitedStateswasasresponsiblefor extremeviolationsolihumanrightsaroundtheglobe-—includingthepromotionol tortureandterrorismandtheuseolstateviolence——asanygovernmentororganizationintheworld."TheU.S.roleinproppingupcorruptregimesinSaudi ArabiaandKuwaitanditsappallingrecordolisupportingandhankrollingthe IsraeliassaultonthePalestiniansareoutsidethepurviewolimostU.S.residents. EvenrelevantinformationaboutOsamabinLaden,suchasthefactthathelormerlyt'cceivedsupportfromtheCIAviaPakistanintheno—holds—barreclwar againsttheSovietsinAfghanistan,israrelymentionedandneverhighlighted.Few individualsintheUnitedStateshaveobtainedanycluefromtheirnewsmedia abouttheheterogeneousnatureoflslantandtheArabworld—asidefromthesimplisticdistinctionbetween“moderatestates”and“Islamicextremists.”

Beyondtheprofessionalcode,U.S.mediacorporationsexistwithinaninstitutionalcontextthatmakessupportforU.S.empireseeminglynatural.Thesegiant linnsareamongtheprimarybeneficiariesofbothneoIil)eralglobalization(their revenuesoutsidetheUnitedStatesarerapidlyincreasing)andtheU.S.roleasthe preeminentworldpower.Indeed,theU.S.governmentistheprimaryadvocate fortheglobalmediafirmswhentradedealsandintellectualpropertyagreements arebeingnegotiated.Fortheselinnstoprovideanunderstandingoftheworldin whichtheU.S.militaryandcapitalismarenotbenevolentforcesmightbepossibleintheory,butitisincongruouspractically.

Insum,thegovernment,themilitary,andthecorporatemediaareallinoverdrivetosellthenecessity,inevitability,andvirtuesofawaronterrorismwithfew boundaries,tobecarriedoutbythemostpowerfulmilitaryforceontheplanet. Theyneedpopularsupportbutcannotaflordtotellthesimple,disarmingtruths. MuchoftheU.S.population,toitseverlastingcredit,isskepticalaboutsucha militaristicresponse;hencetheneedforpropaganda.

ForthosewhoseektoopposeU.S.militarismandimperialismandtopromote peaceinthesedirecircumstances,theroadaheadisclear.Weneedtodebunkthe militaristicliesandbuildabroadcoalitionthatwillbeabletoturnbackthewar campaign.Ifwe[alterandWashington'swarlordsarenotstopped,historyshows thatthecosttohumanitywilleontinttetomount—tobepaidmainlyintheblood oltheinnocentinthepoorestmostexploitedregionsoltheglobe.

Imperialismand“Empire”

/)('('(‘IH/)(‘I'200/

nlyalittlemorethanamonthagoatthiswriting,beforeSeptember11, themassrevoltagainstcapitalistglobalizationthatbeganinSeattlein November1999andthatwasstillgatheringforceasrecentlyasGenoa in_]uly2001wasexposingthecontradictionsofthesysteminawaynotseenfor manyyears.Yetthepeculiarnatureofthisrevoltwassuchthattheconceptof imperialismhadbeenalll)utellaced,evenwithintheleft,bytheconceptolglob— alization,suggestingthatsomeoftheworstformsofinternationalexploitation andrivalryhadsomehowabated.

Agrowingfashionontheleftinthetreatmentofglobalization—oneequally attractivetorulingcirclesjudgingbytheattentiongivenitbythemassmedia—is exemplifiedinanewbookbyMichaelI-lardtandAntonioNegri,entitledE1n.[n'-re. PublishedlastyearbyHarvardUniversityPress,thisbookhasreceivedunstimingpraiseinsuchplacesasTheNewYorkTimes,Timemagazine,andtheLonrlon. ()bsm1/er,andhasledtoaguestappearancebyI-lardtontheChnxrl-ieRoseShow andanop-edpieceinTheNew'l?n'l:‘Timur.ltsthesisisthattheworldmarket undertheinlluenceolthcinformationrevolutionisglobalizingbeyondthecapacityolnationstatestoallectit.Thesovereigntyofnationstatesisvanishing,andis beingreplacedbyanewlyemergingglobalsovereigntyor“Einpire”arisingfront thecoalescenceoli“aseriesolnationalandsupranationalorganismsunitedunder asinglelogicolrule,”withnoclearinternationalhierarchy.‘

SpacedoesnotallowIIICtodealwithallaspectsolthisargumenthere.Rather Iwillcommenton_justoneissue:thesupposeddisappearanceofimperialism.

Theterm“Empire”inI-IardtantlNegri‘sanalysisdoesnotrefertoimperialist dominationoftheperipherybythecenter,buttoanall-encompassingentitythat recognizesnolimitingterritoriesorboundariesoutsideofitself.Initsheyday, “imperialism,”theyclaim,“wasreallyanextensionofthesovereigntyofthe Europeannation-statesbeyondtheirown|)ountlaries.""Imperialismorcolonialisminthissenseisnowdead.ButHardtandNegrialsopronouncethedeathof thenewcolonialism:economicdominationandexploitationbytheindustrial powerswithoutdirectpoliticalcontrol.Theyinsistthatallformsofimperialism, insofarastheyrepresentrestraintsonthehomogenizingforceoftheworldmarket,aredoomedbythatverymarket.Empireisthusboth“postcolonialand postimperialist."-"“Imperialism,”wearetold,“isamachineofglobalstriation, channeling,coding,andterritorializingthe[lowsofcapital,blockingcertain[lows andfacilitatingothers.Theworldmarket,incontrast,requiresasmoothspaceof uncodedanddeterritorialized_flo1us...im.1)eria.li.smwouldhavebeenthedeathof capitalhaditnotbeenovercome.Thefullrealizationoftheworldmarketisnecessarilytheendofimperialism.”"

Conceptssuchascenterandperiphery,theseauthorsargue,arenowallbut useless.“Throughthedecentralizationofproductionandtheconsolidationof theworldmarket,theinternationaldivisionsandflowsoflaborandcapitalhave fracturedandmultipliedsothatitisnolongerpossibletodemarcatelargegeographicalzonesascenterandperiphery,NorthandSouth.”Thereare“nodifferencesofnature”betweentheUnitedStatesandBrazil,BritainandIndia,“only differencesofdegree”"’

AlsogoneisthenotionofU.S.imperialismasacentralforceintheworld today.“TheUnitedStates,”theywrite,“doesnot,andindeednonation-statecan today,formthecenterofanimperialistproject.Imperialismisover.Nonation willbeworldleaderinthewaymodernEuropeannationswere.”““TheVietnam War,”HardtandNegristate,“mightbeseenasthefinalmomentoftheimperialisttendencyandthusapointofpassagetoanewregimeoftheConstitution.”7 ThispassagetoanewglobalconstitutionalregimeisshownbytheGulfWar, duringwhichtheUnitedStatesemerged“astheonlypowerabletomanage internationaljustice,notasafunctionofitsown.nationalmotivczsbutinthename ofghibalrig/tt.TheU.S.worldpoliceactsnotinimperialistinterestbutin imperialinterest[thatis,intheinterestofdeterritorializedEmpire].Inthissense theGulfWardidindeed,asGeorgeBushclaimed,announcethebirthofanew worldorder.”"

Empire,thenametheygivetothisnewworldorder,isaproductofthestringglcoversovereigntyan(lconstitutionalismatthegloballevelinanageinwhicha newglobal.]cfl"ersonianism——theexpansionoftheU.S.constitutionalforminto theglobalrealm—hasbecomepossible.LocalstrugglesagainstEmpireare opposedbytheseauthors,whobelievethatthestrugglenowissimplyoverthe formglobalizationwilltake—andtheextenttowhichEmpirewillliveuptoits promiseofbringingtofruition“theglobalexpansionoftheinternalU.S.constitutionalpro_ject."”‘Theirargumentsupportstheeffortsofthe“multitudeagainst Empire"—thatis,thestruggleofthetnultitudetobecomeanautonomouspoliticalsubject—yetthiscanonlytakeplace,theyargue,within“theontologicalconditionsthatEmpirepresents.”"’

Somuchfortoday’smorefashionableviews.Iwouldnowliketoturntothe decidedlyunfashionable.IncontrasttoEmpire,IstvzinMészziros’newbook SoafahlrmorBa1'bari.mi,representsinmanywaystheheightofunfashionability— evenontheleft."Insteadofproniisinganewuniversalismarisingpotentiallyout ofthecapitalistglobalizationprocessifonlyittakestherightform,Mészziros arguesthattheperpetuationofasystemdominatedbycapitalwouldguarantee preciselytheopposite:“Despiteitsenforced‘globalization,’capital’sincurably iniquitoussystemisstructurallyincompatiblewithuniversalityinanymeaningful senseoftheterm....therecanbenouniversalityinthesocialworldwithoutsubstantivecquality.”'2

ForMészaros,theruleofcapitalisbestunderstoodasasocialmetabolic processakintothatofalivingorganism.Itthushastobeapproachedasembodyingacomplexsetofrelations.Whatevercapitalismachieveswithregardto“horizontal”liberationisnegatedbythedominant“vertical”orderingthatalwaysconstitutesitsdecisivemoment.Thisoverridingantagonismmeansthat“thecapital systemisarticulatedasajungle-likenetworkofcontradictionsthatcanonlybe moreorlesssuccessfullyzrzanagmlforsometimebutneverdefinitivelyoverc07n.e””Amongtheprincipalcontradictionsthatareinsurmountablewithincapitalismarethosebetween:(1)productionanditscontrol;(2)productionandconsumption;competitionandtnonopoly;(4)developmentandunderdevelopment(centeran(lperiphery);(5)worldeconomicexpansionandintercapitalist rivalry;(6)accumulationandcrisis;(7)productionanddestruction;(8)thedoininationoflaboranddependenceonlabor;(9)employmentandunemployment; and(10)growthofoutputatallcostsandenvironmentaldestruction."“Itisquite inconceivabletoovercomeevenasingleoneofthesecontradictions,”Mészziros _.___...-_.;-.u..—.-.-ix:-—c.Au;-Inaanzl

observes,“letalonetheirinextricablycombinednetwork,withoutinstitutinga radicalalternativetocapita|’smodeofsocialmetaboliccontrol."”’

Accordingtothisanalysis,theperiodofcapitalism‘shistoricascendancehasnow ended.Capitalismhasexpandedthroughouttheglobe,butinmostoftheworldit hasproducedonlyenclavesofcapital.Thereisnolongeranypromiseoftheunderdevelopedworldasawhole“catching-up”economicallywiththeadvancedcapitalistcountnes——orevenofsustainedeconomicandsocialadvanceinmostofthe periphery.Livingconditionsofthevastmajorityofworkersaredecliningglobally. Thelongsuucturalcrisisofthesystem,sincethe1970s,preventscapitalfromelfectivelycopingwithitscontradictions,eventemporarily.Theextraneoushelpoffered bythestateisnolongersuflicienttoboostthesystem.Hence,capital's“destructive uncontrollability”—itsdestructionofprevioussocialrelationsanditsinabilitytoput anythingsustainableintheirplace—iscomingmoreandmoretothefore.'"

AtthecoreofMésza’ros’argumentisthepropositionthatwearenowliving withinwhatis“thepotentiallydeadliestphaseofimperialism”(thetitleofthesecondchapterofhisbook).Imperialism,hesays,canbedividedintothreedistinct historicalphases:(1)earlymoderncolonialism,(2)theclassicphaseofimperialismasdepictedbyLenin,and(3)globalhegemonicimperialism,withtheU.S.as itsdominantforce.ThethirdphasewasconsolidatedfollowingtheSecond WorldWar,butitbecame“sharplypronounced”withtheonsetofcapital’sstructuralcrisisinthe19705.”

Unlikemostanalysts,MészarosarguesthatU.S.hegemonydidnotendinthe 19705,thoughby1970theU.S.hadsufferedadeclineinitsrelativeeconomic positionvis5vistheotherleadingcapitaliststateswhencomparedwiththe 19505.Rather,the1970s,startingwithNixon’sabandonmentofthedollar-gold standard,markthebeginningofamuchmoredeterminedeffortonthepartofthe U.S.statetoestablishitsglobalpreeminenceineconomic,militaryandpolitical terms—toconstituteitselfasasurrogateglobalgovernment.

Atthepresentstageoftheglobaldevelopmentofcapital,Mészarosinsists,“it isnolongerpossibletoavoidfacinguptoafundamentalcontradictionandstructurallimitationofthesystem.Thatlimitationisitsgravefailuretoconstitutethe stateofthecapitalsystemassuch,ascotnplementarytoitstransnationalaspirationsandarticulation.”Thusitisherethat“theUnitedStatesdangerouslybent onassumingtheroleofthestateofthecapitalsystemassuch,subsumingunder itselfbyallmeansatitsdisposalallrivalpowers,”entersin,astheclosestthingto a“stateofthecapitalsystem.”'"

ButtheUnitedStates,whileabletobringahalttothedeclineinitseconomic positionrelativetotheotherleadingcapitaliststates,hasbeenunabletoachieve sullicienteconomicdominancebyitselltogoverntheworldsystem——whichis,in anycase,ungovernable.Itthereforeseekstoutilizeitsimmensemilitarypowerto establishitslobal)reeminence."’“Whatisatstaketo(la”Mészziroswrites, 55IY»

...isnotthecontrololaparticularpartolitheplanet—nomatterhowlarge—putting atadisadvantagebutstilltoleratingthein(lependentactionsofsomerivals,butthe controlofitstotalitybyonehegemoniceconomicandmilitarysuperpower,withall means—-eventhemostextremeauthoritarianand,ifneeded,violentmilitaryonesatitsdisposal.Thisiswhattheultimaterationalityofgloballydevelopedcapital requires,initsvainattempttobringundercontrolitsirreconcilableantagonisms.

Thetroubleis,though,thatsuchrationality—whichcanbewrittenwithoutinvertedcommas,sinceitgenuinelycorrespondstothelogicofcapitalatthepresenthistoricalstageofglobaldevelopment—isatthesametimethemostextremeirrationalityinhistory,includingtheNaziconceptionolworlddomination,asfarastheconditionsrequiredforthesurvivalofhumanityareconcemed.‘"

Theclaimthattoday’simperialism,representedaboveallbytheUnitedStates, issomehowlessenedbythefactthatthereislittledirectpoliticalruleofforeignterritories,simplyfailstounderstandtheproblemsfacingus.AsMészarospointsout, Europeancolonialismactuallyoccupiedonlyasmallpartoftheterritoryofthe periphery.Nowthemeansaredifferent,buttheglobalreachofimperialismiseven greater.TheU.S.currentlyoccupiesforeignterritoryintheformofmilitarybases insomesixtycountries—anumberthatiscontinuingtoincrease.Further,“the multiplicationolthedestructivepowerofthemilitaryarsenaltoday—especiallythe catastrophicpotentialofaerialweapons——hastosomeextentmodifiedtheformsof imposingimperialistdictatesonacountrytobesubdued[groundtroopsand directoccupationarelessnecessary]butnottheirsul)stance.”‘“

WiththecollapseoftheSovietUnionandtheendoftheColdWar,ithas becomenecessaryforimperialismtotakeonnewclothes.TheoldColdWar_justilicationforinterventionsnolongerworks.SaddamHussein,Mészarosobserves, providedsuchanewjustilication,butonlytemporarily.EventhentheUnited Stateswascompelledtopresentitswarmaltingintheguiseofauniversalalliance intheinterestolglobalright,albeitwiththeUnitedStatesactingthepartofboth judgeandexecutioner.

Amongthedisquietingdevelopmentsthat.5'urirIIi.wunrllm'Imri.smpointsto are:theenomioustollinIraqicivilianeausalitiesduringtheGulfWarandthe deathofmorethanahalfmillionchildrenasaresultofsanctionssincethewar; themilitaryonslaughtonandoccupationoftheBalkans;theexpansionofNATO totheEast;thenewU.S.policyofemployingNATOasanollensivemilitaryforce thatcansubstitutefortheUnitedNations;US.attemptstofurthercirctnnvent andundenninetheUnitedNations;thebombingoftheChineseembassyin Belgrade;thedevelopmentofthejapan-U.S.SecuritytreatyaimedatChina;and thegrowthofanaggressiveU.S.militarystancewithregardtoChina——increasinglyseenastheemergingrivalsuperpower.Overthelongerruneventhepresent apparenthamionybetweentheUnitedStatesandtheEuropeanUnioncannotbe takenforgranted,astheUnitedStatescontinuestopursueitsquestforglobal domination.Noristhereananswertothisproblemwithinthesystematthisstage inthedevelopmentofcapital.Globalization,Mészarosargues,hasmadeaglobal stateimperativeforcapital,buttheinherentcharacterofeapital’ssocialmetabolicprocess,whichdemandsapluralityofcapitals,makesthisimpossible.“The potentiallydeadliestphaseofimperizilism”thushastodowiththeexpandingcircleofbarbarismanddestructionthatsuchconditionsareboundtoproduce.

Howdothesetwoviewsofglobalization/imperialism—theincreasinglyfashionablconefocusingontheemergenceofglobalsovereignty(called“Empire”) andthedecidedlyunfasltionableviewpointingto“thepotentiallydeadliestphase ofimperialism"—looktoday,followingtheeventsofSeptember11andthecommencementinAfghanistanofaglobalwarontenorism?

ItmightperhapsbearguedthattheanalysisofEm1)ireisconfirmedsinceit wasnotanationstatethatofferedachallengetotheemergingsystemofglobal sovereigntybutinternationalterroristsoutsidetheEmpire.Inthisviewthe UnitedStatescouldbeseenascarryingouta“worldpolice”actionin Afghanistan“notasafunctionofitsownnationalmotivesbutinthenameofglobalright”—asHardtandNegridescribedtheU.S.actionsintheGulfWar.Thisis moreorlessthewayWashingtondescribesitsownactions.

SocialismorBarbarism,however,wouldappeartosuggestanaltogetherdifferentinterpretation,onethatseesU.S.imperialismascentraltotheterrorcrisis. Inthisview,theterroristsattackingtheWorldTradeCenterandthePentagon werenotattackingglobalsovereigntyorcivilization(itwasn’ttheUnitedNations inNewYorkthatwasattacked)—muc|ilessthevaluesoffreedomanddemocracy asclaimedbytheU.S.state—butweredeliberatelytargetingthesymbolsofU.S.

linancialan(lmilitarypower,an(lthusoliU.S.globalpower.Asttnjtistilialileas theseterroristactswereineverysense.theynonethelessbelongtothelargerhistoryol’U.S.imperialismandtheattemptol‘theUS.toestablishgloballiegcinony——partieularlytothehistoryoliitsinterventionsintheMiddleEast.l"urthc-r,the Unite(lStatesrespondednotthroughaprocessoliglobalconstitutionalism,norin thelhrmol'amerepoliceaction,butimperialisticallybyunilaterallydeclaringwar oninternationalterrorismandsettinglooseitswarmachineontheTalibangovernmentinAfghanistan.

InAfghanistan,theU.S.militaryisseekingtodestroyterroristforcesthatitonce playedaroleincreating.Farlromadheringtoitsownconstitutionalprinciplesin theinternationaldomaintheU.S.haslongsupportedterroristgroupswheneverit serveditsownimperialistdesigns,andhasitselfcarriedoutstateterrorism,killing civilianpopulations.Itsnewwaronterrorism,Washingtonhas(leclared,may requireU.S.militaryinterventioninnumerouscountriesbeyondAfghanistan~ withsuchnationsasIraq,Syria,Sudan,Libya,Indonesia,Malaysia,andthe Philippinesalreadysingledoutaspossiblelocalesforfurtherinterventions.

Allofthis,coupledwithaworldwideeconomicdownturnandincreased repressionintheleadingcapitaliststates,seemstosuggestthatcapital’s“destructiveuncontrollability”iscomingmoreandmoretothefore.Imperialism,inthe processofblockingautocentricdevelopment—i.e.,inperpetuatingthedevelopmentofunderdevelopment—intheperiphery,hasbredterrorism,whichhas blownbackontheleadingimperialiststateitself,creatingaspiraloldestruction withoutapparentend.

Sinceglobalgovernmentisimpossibleundercapitalism,butnecessaryinthe moreglobalizedrealityoftoday,thesystem,Mészarosinsists,isthrownincreasinglyuponthe“extremeviolentruleofthewholeworldbyonehegemonicimperialistcountryonapermanentbasis:an...absurdandunsustainablewayoIrunningtheworldorder?“

Tenyearsago,followingtheCulfWar,MonthlyRevieweditorsHarryMagdofl andPaulSweezyobserved:

TheUnitedStates,itseems,haslockeditsellintoacoursewiththegravestimplicationsforthewholeworld.Changeistheonlycertainlawoftheuniverse.Itcannot bestopped.Ifsocieties[ontheperipheryofthecapitalistworld]arepreventedfrom tryingtosolvetheirproblemsintheirownways,theywillcertainlynotsolvethem inwaysdictatedbyothers.Andiftheycannotmoveforward,theywillinevitably

movebackward.Thisiswhatishappeninginalargepartoftheworldtoday,and theUnitedStates,themostpowerfulnationwithunlimitedmeansolieoercionatits disposal,seemstobetellingtheothersthatthisisalatethatmustbeacceptedon painofviolentdestruction.

AlfredNorthWhitehead,oneofthegreatestthinkersolthepastcentury,once said:“Ihaveneverceasedtoentertaintheideathatthehumanracemightrisetoa certainpointandthendeclineandneverretrieveitself.Plentyofotherformsoflife havedonethat.Evolutionmaygodownaswellasup."Itisanunsettlingbutbyno meansFar-l'etche<lthoughtthatthefonnandactiveagencyolithisdeclinemaybetakingshapebeforeourveryeyesintheseclosingyearsolthetwentiethcenturyAD.

Thisisofcoursenottosuggestthatirreversible(leclineisinevitableuntilithappens.Butitistosuggestthatthewaythingshavebeengoingforthelasthalfcentury,andespeciallyforthepastyear,holdsthatpotential.Anditisalsotorecognizethat we,theAmericanpeople,haveaspecialresponsibilitytodosomethingaboutitsince itisourgovemmentthatisthreateningtoplaySamsoninthetempleofhumanity.‘-*

Thelasttenyearshaveonlyconfirmedthegeneralvalidityofthisanalysis.By anyobjectivestandard,theUnitedStatesisthemostdestructivenationonearth. Ithaskilledandterrorizedmorepopulationsaroundtheglobethananyodicr nationsincetheSecondWorldWar.Itspowerfordestructionisseeminglyunlimited,annedasitiswitheveryconceivableweapon.Itsimperialinterests,aimedat globalhegemony,arevirtuallywithoutlimits.Inresponsetotheterroristattacksin NewYorkandWashington,theU.S.governmenthasnowdeclaredwaronterroriststhatitsaysresideinmorethansixtycountriesandisthreateningmilitaryaction againstthegovernmentsthatharborthem.Inwhatispresentedasmerelythefirst stageinalongstruggleithasunleasheditswarmachineinAfghanistan,already takingafiightfiilhumantoll,includingthosewhoareperishingforwantoffood.

Howarewetoviewthesedevelopmentsexceptasthegrowthofimperialism, barbarism,andterrorism—eachfeedingontheother—inanageinwhichcapitalismseemstohavereachedthelimitsofitshistoricascendance?Whatremaining hopethereisforhumanity,underthesecircumstances,lieswiththerebuildingof socialismand,moreimmediately,withtheemergenceofapopularstrugglecenteredwithintheUnitedStates—topreventWashingtonfromcontinuingitsdeadlygameofSamsoninthetempleofhumanity.Neverhavethewords“socialismor barbarism,”onceeloquentlyraisedbyRosaLuxemburg,takenonmoreglobal urgencythaninthepresentday.

./m///z//_')"_/()()Z

eliveatatimewhencapitalismhasbecomemoreextreme,andis morethaneverpresentingitselfasaforceofnature,whichdemands suchextremes.Globalization—thespreadoftheself-regulatingmarkettoeverynicheandcrannyoftheglobe—isportrayedbyitsmainlyestablishmentproponentsasaprocessthatisunfoldingfromeverywhereatoncewithno centerandnodiscerniblepowerstructure.AstheNewYorkTimesclaimedinits July7,2001issue,repeatingnowfashionablenotions,today’sglobalrealityisone of“afluid,infinitelyexpandingandhighlyorganizedsystemthatencompasses theworld’sentirepopulation,”butwhichlacksanyprivilegedpositionsor“place ofpower?”

EventherevolutionaryfigureofKarlMarxhasbeenenlistedinsupportofthis viewofinexorableglobaldestiny,whichseeminglydetermineseverything,but whichhasnomanifestagentofchange.ThustheWorldBankquotedfromThe Con:.mu11i5tMmufestoontheopeningpageofits1996WorldDcvalofmzent Refmrl,arguingthatthetransitionfromplannedtomarketeconomiesandthe entirethrustofneoliberalglobalizationwasaninescapable,elementalprocess, lackinganyvisiblehandbehindit:

Constantrevolutionizingofproduction,uninterrupteddisturbanceofsocialconditions,everlastinguncertaintyandagitation.Alllixcd,lastfrozenrelations, withtheirtrainolancientandvenerableprejudices,andopinions,aresweptaway,

allnew-fomiedonesl)ecomeantiquatedbeforetheycanossify.Allthatissolid meltsintoair‘

Gone—spiritedawaybycllipses—wereMarxandEngels’allusionsinthesame passageto“thebourgeoisepoch"andtheirsubsequentreferencetohow“the needforaconstantlyexpandingmarketforitsproductschasesthebourgeoisie overthewholesurfaceoftheglobe."

Itisnodoubtlargelyinresponsetothisatmosphereofinevitability,inwhich globalizationisdivorcedfromallagency,thatthemovementagainsttheneoliberalglobalprojecthaschosentoexaggeratetheroleofthevisibleinstrumentsof globalizationattheexpenseofanyseriousconsiderationofhistoricalcapitalism. RadicaldissentersfrequentlysingleouttheWTO,theIMF,theWorldBank,and multinationalcorporations—andevenspecificcorporationslikeMcDonalds——for criticism,whiledeemphasizingthesystemanditsseeminglyinexorableforces.

Thesetwodistortedviewpoints,onegenerallyinsupportofglobalization,the othergenerallyopposed,aremutuallyreinforcingintheirunreality.Thosewho wishtointerveneintheseprocessesarethusleftwithnorealmaterialbasison whichtogroundtheiractions.Bothperspectiveshaveincommonanemphasison thedeclineofnationstatesovereignty.AdamSmithdescribedcapitalisminthe lateeighteenthcenturyasasystemthateliminatedallneedforasovereignpower intheeconomicrealm,replacingthevisiblehandoftheabsolutistormercantilist statewiththeinvisiblehandofthemarket.“TheSovereign,”hewrote,“iscompletelydischargedfromaduty”withrespecttothemarket.”Nowwearetoldthat thisinvisiblehandhasbeenglobalizedtosuchanextentthatthesovereignpower ofnationstatesovertheirterritorialdomainsthemselveshasbeenvastlydiminished.ForNewYbr/tTimesforeignaffairscolumnistThomasFriedman,authorof TheLexusandtheOliveTree,globalizationisanewtechnological-economicsystembasedinthemicrochipandruledbyan“electronicherd”offinancial investorsandmultinationalcorporations,freefromanynationstateorpower structure,andbeholdentonone.‘

Thoseseekingtodispelsuchviewsmightreplythatcapitalismwithallofits contradictionsremains.Buttnostcurrentconceptionsofcapitalismaretoolackinginhistoricalspecificityandconcreteness,andtoowrappedupinthenotion ofunfetteredcompetition,tobeusefulincounteringthisdominantideology. Indeed,theveryideaofcapitalismisbeingshornofalldeterminateelements.The notionofglobalfreemarkethegemonywithoutthenationstateandwithoutdis­

\lH\t)I’t)l.\('\|’Il'\|_\\ll'Iil|I".\l".\\lLI,UI|\|.|/.\|‘lt)\'n|

cerniblecentersofpower(onlyhighlyvisibleinstruments:Ulilllttmarket)meansa conceptofcapitalismthathasbecomevirtuallysynonymouswithglobalization. Thereis._itisproclaitncd._noalterttativebectntsethereisnothingoutsidethesystem,andnocenterwithinthesystem.

Theideologicalfogthatpervadesallaspectsoftheglobalizationdebateis boundtodissipateeventually,asitbecomesclearthatthecontradictionsol"capitalism.whichhaveneverbeensurmounted,arepresentinmoreuniversaland moredestructivefortnthaneverbefore.Forthoseseekingtopenetratethisfogat presentandtounderstandtheconstellationofforceslllthew0rl(ltodaywhatis neededaboveallisaconcreteandhistoricallyspecilicconceptionofcapitalism thatwillallowitstoseethroughsuchissuesasglobalization.WithinMarxistn suchananalysiswasprovidedinthetwentiethcenturybythetheoryoftnonopolycapitalism.

'/'/It’()I'I'_v_-'1'/I.vq/';|/mm/)0/_;'(,'n/)iI(I/'/'/ten/fy‘

Thetemi“monopolycapitalism”hasbeenwidelyusedwithinMarxianeconomicstorefertothestageofcapitalismdominatedbylargecorporations.Thisstage ofcapitalistdevelopmentoriginatedinthelastquarterofthenineteenthcentury andreachedmaturityaboutthetitneoftheSecondWorldWar.Marx’sCapital, liketheworkoftheotherclassicalpoliticaleconomists,hadassumedthatthe marketsystemwascharacterizedbyconditionsoffreecompetition,inwhichcapitalistenterprisesweresmall,mainlyfamily-runfirms.Classicalpoliticaleconomy neverincludedsuchabsolutefantasiesas“perfect”or“pure”competition,which weretobeimportedintoeconomicsinitslaterneoclassicalstage.Nevertheless,it assumedinitsbedrocktheoryoffreecotnpetitionthatpricecompetitionwas fierce,andthatnoindividualcapitalistorfirmhadthepowertocontrolasignificantportionofthemarket."’

InthecaseofMarx,asdistinctfromtheotherclassicalpoliticaleconomists, however,capitalismwasahistoricalsystem,an(lthusdynamicincharacter,passingthroughvariousstages.AlthoughMarxhimselfdidnotpresentatheoryof monopolycapitalism,hedidpointtotheconcentrationandcentralizationofcapitalasafundamentaltendencyofaccumulationundercapitalism.Thewhole developmentofthecreditsystemandthestockmarketwasforMarx“anewand terribleweaponinthebattleofcompetitionandisfinallytransformedintoan enormoussocialmechanismforthecentralizationofcapitals.”"Inpreparing

Volumes2and3ofCapitalforpublicationtwotlecatleslater.Engelsemphasized thefactthatfreecompetitionhadreached“theendofitsroad."’Marxand Engels,however,werepronetoseethesedevelopmentsassignsofnewconditionsofsocializationofproductionthatwouldhelpusherinanewmodeofproduction—notasindicationsolianewstageofcapitalism.

Itremainedforlaterthinkers,therefore,toanalyzewhatthesedevelopments meantforcapitalism’slawsofmotion.ThefirsttodosowastheheterodoxU.S. economistThorsteinVeblen,whoinTIMT/m7r_voffliuiurssEulerpriseandsubsequentworks,chartedtheeconomicimplicationsoftheriseofbigbusiness, andthetransfonnauonsincredit,corporatelinancc,andformsofsalesmanship thatwentalongwithit.ButVeblen‘sinlluencconeconomicsdidnotextend beyondtheUnitedStates.WithintheMarxisttradition,thencenteredin Germany,thefirstimportanttheoristofmonopolycapitalismwastheAustrian economistRudolfHilferdingwhoseFinanceCaf)ilal:TheLatestPhaseof CapitalismwassoonfollowedbyLenin’sImperialism:TheI-lights!Stageof Capitalism.

Hilferdingpointedtothetendencyofconcentrationandcentralizationofcapitaltogenerateagreaterandgreaterconsolidationofcapital,pointingeventually toonebigcartel—anoverlysimplisticviewthatfailedtoperceivesomeofthe countervailinginfluencesatwork.Hesawthesechangesasmainlyquantitativein character,andthoughhisworkwasfullofimportantinsights,hedidnotexplore thequestionofqualitativealterationsinthelawsofmotionofcapitalism. Hilferding’sperspectivedid,however,inspireLenintoconnectimperialismwith themonopolystageofcapitalism,andtoperceivethegrowthofgiantcapital thereforeasintegrallyrelatedtoboththeexpansionofcapitalontheworldstage, andthestrugglebetweennationstatesforsharesoftheworldmarket.ButLenin, likeHilferdingbeforehim,didnotpursuethequestionofhowcapitalism’sbasic lawsofmotionmightbemodifiedinthemonopolystage.TheconceptofmonopolycapitalismwastoremainaxiomaticforSovieteconomistsinthe1920sand 1930s,duringwhichsomeimportantnewdepartureswerebegun.Butbythelate 1930sithadbeenreducedtoameredogmawithintherigidorthodoxythatprevailedunderStalinism.

Inthe19308intheWest,meanwhile,mainstreamacademiceeonomists—particularlyJoanRobinson,EdwardChamberlain,andtheyoungPaulSweezyfinallybegantodealwithmonopoly.Yetthetheoryof“imperfectcompetition" thatwastoemergefromtheiranalyseshadafonnalcharacterthatwasusually

\||)\t)|‘u)|_\Ij\I'I'|'\|.\\|)l'llli\I".\\l§|.Hll\l.I7.\'|'lH\' .\ divorcedfromrealhistoricalprocesses.Norwasitintendedasmorethanaminor qualificationtothetheoryofperlectcompetition,whichcontinuctltobeconsideredthegeneralrule,andprevailetlovereconomicsasawhole.

Bythe19305Marxianeconolnicscouldbesaidtohavethreestrands:(I)the theoryofcapitalacctnnulationandcrisis;(2)thebeginnings0|"atheoryof monopolycapitalistn(basedonMarx'sconceptol'thcconcentrationandcentralization0|‘capital);and(3)thetheoryofimperialism.Thesecondandthird strands—growingmonopolizationandimperialism—ha(lbeenlinkedtoeach otherbyLenin.But,paradoxically,therewasnotheoreticalanalysisthatlinked thesecondstrandtothelirst—thatis,noconnectionwasdrawnbetweengrowing concentrationandcentralizationofcapitalandtheformsoliaccumulationantlcrisis.ThedebateoneconomiccrisisinMarxiantheory,whichintheearlytwentiethcenturycenteredonMarx’sfamousreproductionschemesinCnfiilal,Volume 2,tookplaceinacontextthatwascompletelyseparatefromtheanalysisofthe growthofmonopoly.

Historicaldevelopments,however,werepointingtosuchaconnection.Since theturnofthecenturyintheUnitedStatestherehadbeenagroundswellofpop— ularagitationagainstthegiantmonopoliesandtrusts.Thegreatmergerwaveat thebeginningofthetwentiethcenturywaswidelyviewedasrepresentingaqualitativelynewreality.Ithasbeenestimatedthatbetweenaquarterandathirdofall U.S.capitalassetsunderwentconsolidationinmergersbetween1898and1902 alone.Themammothmergeroftheperiod,theformationofU.S.Steelin1901 underthefinancialguidanceoftheinvestmentbankinghouseofMorgan,fused 165separatecompanies.Theresultwasamonopolisticcorporationcontrolling about60percentofthetotalU.S.steelindustry.In1936,ArthurR.Burnswrote hisclassicstudy,TheDeclineofCompelitinn:AStudyoftheEvolutionofAmerimn lnrluslry.“AndinthecontextoftheGreatDepressionofthe1930sitwasfrequentlycontendedwithinheterodoxeconomiccircles,especiallyamongthose undertheinfluenceol"Vel)|en,thatthestagnationwasworsenedbythegrowthof giantcorporationswithalargedegreeofmonopolypower.Oneoftheobjectsof theTemporaryNationalEconomicCommitteeestablishedbytheRoosevelt administrationduringtheGreatDepressionwastoinvestigatethisquestion (thoughtheresultsthattheycameupwithintheendwerequitemeager).

Yet,despiteallofthis,_]ohnMaynardKeynes’GeneralTheo-IyqfEmf)Ioy1n.ent, /1i.terrJtandMoney,whichtraiislbriiiedmacroeconomicsinresponsetothe depression,remainedroote(lintheage-oldassumptionsofatomisticcompetition.

Thefirsteconomisttoconnectthetheoryofcrisistothetheoryofmonopoly wasthePolisheconomistMichalKalecki,whodrewhisinspirationfromMarx andRosaLuxemburg.Kalecki’sworkintheearly1930shaddeveloped,accordingto_loanRobinsonandothersinthecircleofyoungereconomistsaround Keynes,themainelementsofthe“Keynesian"revolution,inanticipationof Keyneshimself.KaleckimovedtoEnglandinthemid~l930swherehehelped furtherthetransfomtationineconomicanalysisassociatedwithKeynes.Therehe developedhisconceptofthe“degreeofmonopoly,"whichstoodfortheextentto whichafimiwasabletoimposeapricemark-uponprimeproductioncosts (workers’wagesandrawmaterials).Inthisway,KaleckiwasabletolinkInonopolypowertothedistributionofnationalincome,andtothesourcesofeconomic crisisandstagnation.Kaleckialsoexploredthemoregeneralhistoricalconditions afiectinginvestment.IntheclosingparagraphsofhisTheoryofEconomic Dynamicsheconcluded:“Long-rundevelopmentisnotinherentinthecapitalist economy.Thusspecific‘developmentalfactors’arerequiredtosustainalong-run upwardmovement."~"

ThisanalysiswascarriedforwardbyjosefSteindl,ayoungAustrianeconomistwhohadworkedcloselywithKalecltiinEngland.AccordingtoSteindl’s MaturityandStagrmtitrninAmericanCapitalism,giantcorporationstendedto promotewideningprofitmargins,butwereconstantlythreatenedbyashortageof effectivedemand,duetotheunevendistributionofincomeandresultingweaknessofwage-basedconsumption.Newinvestmentcouldconceivablypickupthe slack.Yetsuchinvestmentresultedinnewproductivecapacity,thatis,anenlargementofthepotentialsupplyofgoods.“Thetragedyofinvestment,”Kaleclti wrote,“isthatitisusefi.il.”'”Giantfirms,abletocontroltoaconsiderableextent theirlevelsofprice,output,andinvestment,wouldnotinvestiflargeportionsof theirexistingproductivecapacitywerealreadystandingidle.Confrontedwitha downwardshiftinfinaldemand,monopolisticoroligopolisticfirmswouldnot lowerprices(asintheperfectlycompetitivesystemassumedinmosteconomic analysis)butwouldinsteadrelyalmostexclusivelyoncutbacksinoutput,capacityutilization,andnewinvestment.Inthiswaytheywouldmaintain,towhatever extentpossible,existingpricesandprevailingprofitmargins.Thegiantfirm undermonopolycapitalismwasthuspronetowiderprofitmargins(orhigher ratesofexploitation)andlargeramountsofexcesscapacitythanwasthecasefor afreelycompetitivesystem,therebygeneratingastrongtendencytowardeconomicstagnation."

\lH\tII'I)l,\<.\I'I‘I'\I.\\|)‘|'|I|-'.\I-:\\«;I.uIi\I.I7.\'I‘In\4:.

I/mm/m[)'(‘(1/i/In/.'In/'.iv.\'n_)'rm

//H’lIH(’I‘Ii(‘(HI/','mmmII'¢'rIII4/.\'n('I}I/()/'(/w'

Theappearancein1942ofPaulSweezy’sclassicstudyTheT/I('0I:)'Q/i(.'a[n'Ia/11¢! I)r:urIo];nu-11!,oneofthegreatworksinMarxianeconomics,markedthebeginnings ofadistinctivetraditionofMarxiananalysiswithintheUnitedStates—onethatwas latertobecomeassociatedwiththemagazineMon!/i/yRevinu,whichSweezy foundedin1949alongwithhistorianandjournalistLeol-lubennan.ln'1‘/MTlmiry of(7nfn'Iah'.rII)(rvcIofm:(.-MI,SweezydrewonMarx’stheoryofrealizationcrisis——— showingthecloseconnectionbetweenthatandKeynes’theoryofellective (lemand—anddevelopedasophisticatedanalysisofeconomicstagnation.The 7‘/urmyofCapilalilrtDrrvrlofmunttalsoextendedtheMarxiananalysisofmonopolization.Butthesetwoelementsremainedseparateinhiswork."ItwasthiscriticismthatSteindlpresentedinalongdiscussionofSweezy’sbookinMaturityand SIagm1.fioninAmm‘imn.Capitalism.Steindlwentontoarguethatamoreunified theorycould“beorgmiicallydevelopedoutof...Marx”basedonKalec|<i’smodel ofcapitalistdynamics,whichhadconnectedthephenomenonofrealizationcrisis totheincreasing“degreeofmonopoly”intheeconomyasawhole.”

SweezywasimmediatelyimpressedbySteindl’sargument,aswasPaulBaran, professorofeconomicsatStanford,andaclosefriendandassociateofSweezy andMont/Ll}Revimu.In1957,BaranpublishedThePoliticalEconomyofGrowth, whichadaptedthetheoryofmonopolycapitalismarisingfromKaleckiand Steindl,whilealsoanalyzingtheroleofiniperialisminreinforcingtheeconomic underdevelopmentofcountriesincapita]ism’sthirdworldperiphery."

Withrespecttothelatterpartofhisargument,Baranmadeabigdeparture fromorthodoxeconomics.Ratherthanfollowingthecommonpracticeofassumingthatthepoorereconomiesoftheperipheryhadalwaysbeenrelatively“backward,”Baranapproachedtheissuehistorically.“Thequestionthatimmediately arises,”hewrote,“iswhyisitthatinthebackwardcountriestherehasbeenno advancealongthelinesofcapitalistdevelopmentthatarefamiliarfromthehistoryoliothercapitalistcountries,andwhyisitthatwhatforwardmovementthere hasbeeniseithersloworaltogetheral)sent?"""Theanswer,hesuggested,wasto befoundinthewayinwhichcapitalismwasbroughttotheseregionsduringthe periodofwhatMarxcalled“primitiveaccumulation,”characterizedby“undisguisedlooting,enslavementandmurder,"andinthewayinwhichthisvery processhasservedto“smotherfledglingindustries”inthecolonizedsocieties.”

ltwasthustheEuropeanconquestandplunderingoftherestoftheglobethat generatedthegreatdividebetweenthecoreandperipheryofthecapitalistworld economythatpersiststothisday.Inillustratingthis,BaranhighlightedthedifferentwaysinwhichIndiaandjapanwereincorporatedintotheworldeconomyas aresultoftheglobalizingtendenciesofcapitalism:thefirstasadependentsocial fonnationcarryingtheunfortunatelegacyofwhatAndreCunderFrankwaslater tocall“thedevelopmentofunderdevelopment“;thesecondrepresentingthe exceptionalcaseofasocietythatwasneithercolonizednorsubjectforlongto unequaltreaties,andthat,retainingcontroloveritsowneconomicsurplus,was freetodevelopalongtheautocentricliliesofthecoreEuropeanpowers.The implicationofthisanalysiswasclear:incorporationonanunequalbasisintothe peripheryofthecapitalistworldeconomyisitselfthemaincauseoftheplightof theunderdevelopedcountries.

ForBaran,imperialism,inthissense,wasinseparablefromcapitalism.[Lscentralunderpinningsweretobefoundinthemodeofaccumulationoperatinginthe advancedcapitalistworld.Aninternationaldivisionoflaborhadevolveddiat gearedtheproductionandtradeofthepoorcountriesintheperipherymuch moretowardtheneedsoftherichcountriesinthecenterofthesystemthantothe needsoftheirownpopulations.

Notreatmentofcontemporaryimperialismwascomplete,however,thatdid nottakeaccountofthelawsofmotionofmonopolycapital.InThePolitical EconomyofGrowth,Baranappliedtheconceptofeconomicsurplustoanalyze notonlythedevelopmentofunderdevelopmentintheperiphery,butalsoto throwlightontheproblemofaccumulationandstagnationwithintheUnited Statesandotherleadingcapitalistnations.Thisargumentwasfurtherextended inMonopolyCapital:AnEssayontheAmericanEconomicandSocialOrder,coauthoredwithPaulSweezyandpublishedin1966twoyearsafterBaran’sdeath.” Between1966and1974MonopolyCapitalwastranslatedintosixteenlanguages andwas“adoptedalmostimmediatelyasastandardtext"oftheNewLeft.”

Thebasicdilemmaofaccumulationundermonopolycapitalismwaslaidout inKaleckianterms.Workers,thevastmajorityofthepopulationintherichcountries,hadlittleornoaccesstoeconomicsurplusintheformsofprofit,interest, andrent.Workers’incomewasalmostexclusivelywageincome.Mostworking peoplelivedfrompaychecktopaycheck(thoughsometimesabletomakelarge purchasesoncredit),andhadnosavingstospeakof.Workersthereforespent whattheygotonnecessities,orwhateconomistssometimescalledwagegoods.

Capitalists,incontrast.hadaccesstoeconomicsurplusandhadastheirmain goalaccunmlationolicvengreatersurplus.Theyspentasmallportionoftheir totalincomeonluxurygoodsfortheirprivateconsumption.butmainlysoughtto ensuretheenhancementoftheirwealtltthroughinvestmentincapitalgoods—newproductivecapacity.Buthereadilcnnnaenteredin:iliallinvestment-seeking surpluswasinvestedinnewproductivecapacity(newplantandequipment),that newcapacity,onceitcameonstream,wouldresultinatotalcapacitytoproduce goodsthatmightwellexceedlinaldemand,leadingtooverprodttction,declining pricesandrapidlyfallingprolits.lllordertopreventsuchasituationfrom(levelopingandinor(lcrtopreventpricereductionsthatwouldthreatenprolitmargins,monopolycapitalhelddownproductionlevels,increasingthenormal amountolidleproductivecapacityandcarefullyregulatinginvestment.Yetallof thismeantthatthesurplusthatthesystemwasactuallyandpotentiallycapable0|‘ producingnonnallyexceededthecapacitytoabsorbthatsurplus.Theresultwas atrendrateoleconomicgrowthwellbelowthepotential.

Monopolization,thistheoryargued,wasnottheonlyhistoricalelementservingtoslowdowncapitalaccumulation.Alsoimportantwasthephenomenonof “niaturity""emphasizedbyKeynes’leadingU.S.followerAlvinHansenduringthe debatesonsecularstagnationinthe19305.Investment,inthisperspective,hadto beviewedhistorically.Mostnewindustrieswentthroughahighlycompetitive shakedownphaseinwhichpricestende(ltofallandinvestmenttookahighly dynamiccharacter.Butoncesuchindustrieshad“matured,”withmoreproductivecapacitybuilt—upthantheycouldnormallyutilize—andoncetheseindustries hadalsofallenundertheswayofthreeorfourmonopolisticoroligopolistic lirms—investmenttendedtofalloff.Whatinvestmenttookplacewassupplied increasinglyoutofdepreciationfundswithrelativelylittlenewnetinvestment. Moreover,thenatureofindustrializationwassuchthatinthehighlydeveloped economiesalargerandlargerportionofindustrywouldconsistofmatureniarketsinthissense.

Theoveralltheorythussuggestedthatthestagnationthathadcharacterized the19305wasnotsimplyananomaly,butreflectedconditionsdeeplyembedded inthelawsofmotionolcapitalisminitsmonopolystage.Yet,theinnnediaterealityatthetimethatMonojmlyCapitrtlwaswrittenwasnotstagnationbutrapid economicgrowth.AsBaranandSweezywroteintheintroductiontotheirbook: “TheGreatDepressionofthe1930'saccordedadmirablywithMarxiantheory, anditsoccurrenceofcoursestrengtlienedthebelielthatsimilarcatastrophiceco­

/:8:\\K|'I|)l\|I'l-Zlll-\l.lS.\l nomicbreakdownswereinevitableinthefuture.Andyet,muchtothesurpriseof manyMarxists,twodecadeshavepassedsincetheendoftheSecondWorldWar withouttherecurrenceofseveredepression.”'”

lfamonopolycapitalisteconomywaspronetoeconomiccrisisandstagnation,howhadtheU.S.economymanagedtoexpandfortwodecadeswithouta majorcrisis?ThiswasthequestionthatMonopolyCafnfalsoughtaboveallto answer.BaranandSweezysingledoutanumberofcountervailingfactorsthathad servedtopropuptheeconomy:(1)theepoch-makingstimulusprovidedinthe 19505byasecondgreatwaveofautomobilizationintheUnitedStates(whichwas tobeunderstoodasalsoencompassingtheexpansionofthesteel,glass,rubber, andpetroleumindustries,thebuildingoftheinterstatehighwaysystems,andthe stimulusprovidedbysuburbanization);(2)ColdWarmilitaryspending,includingtworegionalwarsinAsia;(3)thegrowingwastefulpenetrationofthesales effortintoproduction(apointfirstemphasizedbyVeblen);and(4)thevast expansionoffinancialsuperstructureofthecapitalisteconomy,totheextentthat itevenbegantodwarfproductionitself.(Thislastelementwasmentionedin BaranandSweezy’sanalysis,butgivenmuchmoreemphasisinSweezy’slater writingsthaninMonopolyCapitalitselfThroughthesemeanstheU.S.economymanagedtoabsorbsurplusandthustostaveoffasevereeconomiccrisis.

Allofthesecountervailingfactors,however,wereeitherself-limiting,orproducedadditionalcontradictionsformonopolycapitalistsociety.Automobilization representedashiftintheentiregeographicalbasisoftheeconomy;andonce theseeffectshadbeenachievedtheprocesssloweddown.Moreover,nonew epoch-makinginnovationonthesamescaleseemedtobeonthehorizon—even thedigitalrevolutioninrecentdecadeshasbeensmallincomparisoninitseffect onoverallinvestment.TheemphasisonmilitaryspendingcommittedtheUnited States,whichnowaccountsforroughlyathirdofallmilitaryspendinginthe world,toglobalmilitarismandimperialism—andtothesearchfornewjustificationsforalargeandexpandingamisbudgetoncetheColdWarhadended.The penetrationofthesaleseffortintotheproductionprocessmeanttheproduction ofhugeamountsofwaste(unnecessarypackaging,uselessproducts,throwaway goodsandproductobsolescence).Naturally,thiswasnotwithoutitseffectson businesscostsandcompetition.Theskyrocketinggrowthofthefinancialsuperstructureofthecapitalisteconomyatthesametimeastherelativestagnationofits productivebasecouldonlycontributetotheuncertaintyandinstabilityofcapitalisteconomiesworldwide.

Mnnofm//\'Cr:-pi/rtldealtwiththechangingnatureofcompetition,themo(lilicationsinaccumulation,andthegrowingmilitarismandimperialistnundermonopolycapitalism.ltlargelyignored,however,aquestionattheheartofMarx’scritiqueofcapitalism:thelaborprocessitself,an(ltheexploitationofworkers.This topicwastakenupbyHarryBraverman,directorofMonlhlyReviewPressanda formerskilledmachinistinthemetal-workingindustries,inhistnagnumopus, LaborandMonopolyCapital.‘TlurDogrrzdatio-u.ofWorkin[/16'1immIieI/t Cenhtr)-.‘-"'Braverman,whilerootinghisanalysisinMarx’sCrlflffflf,appliedthis tothegrowthofscientiftcInanagementorTaylorism,whichhadetncrgedalong withthegiantcorporationatthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Heshowed thattheforcesdirectedattheextractionofevergreateramountsofsurplusfrom thedirectproducersbymeansoftherelentlessdivisionandsubdivisionoflabor, andhencethedegradationanddehumanizatjonofwork,hadonlyintensified undermonopolycapitalism.Atthesametime,the“universalizationofthemarltet,”tothepointthatallaspectsofsocialexistencebecamedependentuponit, representedthehiddensetofchainsbehindthemuch-celebratedgrowthof“consumersociety.""“

Anotherextensionofthetheoryofmonopolycapitalismwasprovidedinthe workofHarryMagdoff—whoin1969,followingLeoHuberman’sdeath, becamecoeditorwithSweezyofMonthlyReview.MagdolT’sTheAgeof In:f;eriol1'snt:TheEconomicsofU.S.ForeignPolicyhadasitsobjectnothingless thantherediscoveryofthelongsuppressedtopicofU.S.imperialism.“‘-'It demonstratedthattheUnitedStateshadanempire,althoughonedifferentfrom theempiresofBritainandFrancethathadprecededit.This,evenmorethanthe contestwiththeSovietUnion,wasthecontextinwhichtheVietnamWar,then takingplace,hadtobeunderstood.Arguingagainstthewidespreadviewthatthe U.S.economyhadverylittleinvolvementintheworldeconomy,Magdofl‘ emphasizedtheflowofforeigndirectinvestmentabroadanditseffectincreatingacumulativestockofinvestmentgeneratingareturnflowofearnings.He criticizedthecommonerrorofsimplycomparingexportsortheforeigninvestmentofmultinationalcorporationstothegrossdomesticproduct.Rather,the importanceoftheseeconomicflowscouldonlybegaugedbyrelatingthemto strategicsectorsoftheeconomy,suchasthecapitalgoodsindustries;orbycomparingtheearningsonforeigninvestmenttotheprofitsofdomesticnonlinancial corporations.Earningsfrontoverseasinvestments,Magdolfpointedout,had grownfrom10percentofafter-taxprofitsforU.S.nonfmancialcorporationsin

50-.V\K|'Il)I-.\|l'|'Zl\|.'\|.l.\'.\l

1950,toover20percentin1964.“Inanswertothequestion“IsImperialism Necessary?”Magdolfinsistedthatimperialismwastheglobalfaceofcapitalism——asfundamentaltothesystemasaccumulationitself."

TheformationoftheGeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade,the InternationalMonetaryFund,andtheWorldBankaltertheSecondWorldWar facilitated,Magdoffargued,thedevelopmentofaninternationalorderinwhich theUnitedStatesassumedahegemonicposition.HeemphasizedtheinternationalfinancialexpansionofU.S.capital,basedonthedol|ar’shegemonicpositionin theworldeconomy,andthegrowthatthesametimeofadebttrapinthethird world.IntheclosingpagesofTheAgeofIm.f)eriali.mt,Magdoffwrote:

Thetypicalinternationalbusinessfirmisnolongerlimitedtothegiantoilcompany.ltisaslikelytobeaGeneralMotorsoraGeneralElectric—with15to20percentofitsoperationsinvolvedinforeignbusiness,andexercisingalleffortsto increasethisshare.Itistheprofessedgoaloftheseinternationalfmnstoobtainthe lowestunitproductioncostsonaworld-widebasis.Itisalsotheiraim,thoughnot necessarilyopenlystated,tocomeoutontopinthemergermovementinthe EuropeanCommonMarketandtocontrolaslargeashareoftheworldmarketas theydooftheUnitedStatesmarket.”

'/'/Ic/VewStageQ/'G/0/;(I/r'z(/lion

ThetheoryofmonopolycapitaldevelopedbySweezy,Baran,Magdolf,and Bravennan,onfoundationslaidbyMarx,Veblen,Hilferding,Lenin,Kaleclti,and Steindl,thuspointedearlyontomanyofthephenomenathatarenowcommonlyassociatedwith“globalization.”Butinthisperspective,capitalismhadbeena globalsystemfromthestart.Althoughonecouldrefertoa“newstageofglobalization,”itwaspartofalonghistoricalprocess,inseparablefromimperialism.“ Capitalism,asSweezystressed,hademergedinthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies.Fromitsearliestinfancythesystemhadbeenconstitutedas“adialectical unityofself-directedcenteranddependentperiphery.”Further:

Thefactthatcapitalismhasfromthebeginninghadthesetwopoles—whichcanbe variouslydescribedbysuchtermsasindependentanddependent,dominantand subordinate,developedandunderdeveloped,centerandperiphery—hasatevery stagebeencrucialfortheevolutionofitsparts.Thedrivingforcehasalwaysbeen

theaccumulationprocessinthecenter.withtheperipheralsocietiesbeingmoltletl byacombinationofcoettionandmarketI-oru-stoconformtotherequirt‘tnt'nts.mtl servetheneedsofthecenter.“

WithinthisglobalsystemInuchhigherratesofexploitationweretobefound intheperipherythaninthecenter;andatthesametitnesurpluswassiphonedolf fromtheperipherytomeetthedevelopmentneedsofthecenter.Consequently, thegapinincomeandwealthbetweenthecenterandtheperipheryasawholehas tendedtoincrease,despitedevelopmentinsomeperipheralcountries.(Ioullict betweencenterandperipherywasthereforeinevitable,oftentimestakingtheform ofrevolutionandcounterrevolutiou(thelatterinvariablysupportedbythe UnitedStatesandotherimperialpowersinthecenterofthesystetn,sometimes throughdirectmilitaryintervention).

Thestruggleoverimperialism,however,didnotsimplyoccurbetweenNorth andSouth.AsLeninhadargued,thegrowthofmonopolycapitalwasinseparablefromrivalryamongtheadvancedindustrializednationswithinthecenterof theworldsystem,takingtheformoftradeandcurrencyconflicts,strugglesarisingoutofthepromotionoftheirrespectivenationalcorporations,andevenleadingtowar(asintheFirstandSecondWorldWars).Muchofthisimperialistrivalrywasdirectedatspheresofinfluenceandcontrolintheperiphery,witheachof thegreatpowerslayingprimaryclaimtocertaindependentregions.

Concentrationandcentralizationofcapital,stagnationtendenciesinthecenter,imperialistexploitationintheperiphery,globalizationoffinance,andimperialrivalrybetweentheadvancedcapitalistcountries—togethermadeupthegenera]pictureoftheworlddevelopedbymonopolycapitaltheory.Thisgeneratedan approachtothelatestphaseofglobalizationentirelydifferentfromthosetnost commonlyencounteredtoday.Nationalsovereigntyinthecenterofthesystem(as opposedtotheperiphery),accordingtotheperspectiveofmonopolycapitaltheory,wasnoteroded.Theworldeconotnywasseenneitheraschaotic,inthesense ofalackofpowerfulorganizingforces,nor,assomecontended,asgivingrisetoa newinternationalofcapitalledbytheWTOandothersupranationalorganizations.“Forthesakeofperspective,”Magdolfexplainedinhistreatise, Glolmlizn.tiow.—T(zW/mtEnd?:

itisworthrecognizingthattherecentsplurgeinglobalizationispartofanongoing processwithalonghistory.Tobeginwith,capitalismwasbornintheprocessofcre­

atingaworldmarket,andthelortgwavesofgrowthinthecorecapitalistcountries wereassociatedwitltitscenturies-longspreadbyconquestandeconomicpenetration.Inthepastasinthepresent,competitivepressures,theincessantneedforcapitaltokeeponaccumulating,andtheatlwtntagesolicontrollingrawmaterialsources havespurredbusinessenterprisetoreachbeyonditsnationalborders.Whilethe expansionofcapitalismhasalwayspresupposedandindeedrequiredcooperation amongitsvariousnationalcomponents...tlicrehasneverbeenatimewhenthese samenationalcomponentsceasedtostruggleeachforitsownprelermentand advantage.Centrifugalandcentripetalforceshavealwayscoexistedattheverycore ofthecapitalistprocess,withsometimesoneandsometimestheotherpredominating.Asaresult,periodsolpeaceandharmonyltavealternatedwithperiodsofdiscordandviolence.Generally,themechanismoi‘thisalternationinvolvesbotheconomicandInilitaryfonnsofstruggle,withthestrongestpoweremergingvictorious andenforcingacquiescenceonthelosers.Butunevendevelopmentsoontakesover, andaperiodofrenewedstruggleforhegemonyemerges.“

The“strongestpower”atpresentremainstheUnitedStates,whichhasmanagedtomaintainaglobalhegemonicimperialismsince1945.Thishegemony hasbeenunderchallengefromotherleadingcapitalistcountriessincethe 1970s.TheUnitedStateshassoughttomaintainitspreeminentpositionat everyopporrunity—throughanexpansionofitsroleastheleadingmilitary power,andbywieldingitseconomicandfinancialmight.“ThefactthatU.S. hegemonicimperialismprovedtobesosuccessful,andstillcontinuestoprevail,”IstvanMészaroshasexplained,“doesnotmeanthatitcanbeconsidered stable,letalonepermanent.Theenvisaged‘globalgovernment‘underU.S. managementremainswishfulthinking,likethe‘AllianceforDemocracy’andthe ‘PartnershipforPeace,’projected—atatimeofmultiplyingmilitarycollisions andsocialexplosions—asthesolidfoundationofthenewestversionofthe‘new worldorder?”Insteadwhatisemergingisthe“potentiallydeadliestphaseof imperialism”evidentin:(1)growingrivalrybetweentheUnitedStates,Europe andJapan;(2)increasingconcernwithinU.S.rulingcirclesaboutthepotential threatrepresentedbyChina,viewedasanemergingsuperpowerrival;and(3) aggressiveU.S.attemptstopreemptsuchchallengesbyextendingthegeopoliticalsphereofitshegemony.2”Allthetalkaboutglobalizationhavingintegrated theworldanddisintegratedallcenters,eliminatingallsovereignpowers,is largelyillusion.NationstatesovereigntyandU.S.itnperialismhavenotgone

\|H\Hl'Hl.\t}\|'|'|\I.\\I)'|'|ll'l\|“.\\l.|.t)I|\|.l7\'l'|H\I-"l

awaybutcontinuetoexistinthisnewphaseolicapitalislglolJali'I.atiouinan explosivemixture.

Globalizationolicapitalinthepresentstageofcapitalismisthusinseparable fromincreasingmonopolization,thatis,theconcentrationandcentralizationol' capitalonaworldscale—\vhichnecessarilyproducesbiggercontradictionsand crises.“Thethreemostimportantunderlyingtrendsintherecenthistoryolicapitalism._theperiodbeginningwiththerecessionof1974-75,"Sweezyarguedin Mmit/tlyRrvinzuin1997,were:‘‘(I)theslowingdownoftheoverallrateoli growth,(2)theworldwideproliferationofmonopolistic(oroligopolistic)multinationalcorporations,and(3)whatmaybecalle(lthelinancializationol‘thecapitalaccumulationprocess.”Alloftheseunderlyingtrendswereaproductolithc drivingforceofcapitalism,thecapitalacctnnulationprocessitself,ratherthan arisingfromglobalization—whichwastobeseenasaprocessthathasbeengoing onaslongascapitalism,butwhichcouldonlybeunderstoodintermsofthelatter.Nevertheless,allthreeofthese“underlyingtrends,”associatedwithcapital accumulation,Sweezywastoemphasize,mustbeseenastakingplacein“acontextofcontinuingglobalizationwhichputsitsimprintonthewaythevarious processesplaythemselvesout.””°

V\’hatisperhapsmostevidentisthatstagnation,monopolization,linancialization,andthenewphaseofglobalization,allcombinetogeneratequitenewand highlyvisiblepowermechanisms.AsBritishpoliticaleconomistMichaelBarratt BrownwroteinhisModelsinPoliticalEconomy,“thesystemofproductionfor prolitinthemarketisstillwhatorganizesproduction.Butthehandisnolonger invisible,decisionsarenolongerunplanned.Itisincreasinglyobviousthatthe handisthehandofthemanagersofafewgiantcompaniesplayingthemarketand planningtheuseoftheworld’sresourcestomakemoneyratherthantomeet wants.Moreandmorepeoplecanseethisisso.”"“

Ratherthanrepresent.ingtherealizationofAdamSmith’sinvisiblehandona globalsca|e—aseeminglyinexorablemechanisticrealityagainstwhichthereisno recourse—capitalismismoreandInoreacontestedsphere,inwhichconcentrationandcentralizationofproductiononaworldscaleandhenceincreasingly globalcompetitionbetween[innshasitscounterpartintheglobalizationoli exploitation.Strugglesovernationstatehegemonyhavenotdisappearedinthis newstageofglobalization,butcontinuallyresurface,ofteninmorepotentform.

Globalizationastheendo['history,astheendofnationstatesovereignty,asa newworldorder,astheintegrationol'allpeoples,orasarealityforwhichthereis

noalternative,areallmythscarefullycultivatedinourtime.Toseethroughthese establishmentmyths—alongwiththe“progressive”myththatwecanopposethe instrumentsofneoliberalglobalizationwithoutopposingthesystemitself—itis necessarytounderstandthehistoricalchangesassociatedwiththedevelopment ofmonopolycapitalonanincreasinglyglobalscale.Neithercapitalism’smonopolistictendenciesnoritsimperialistdivisionsareinanywaysurmountedbythe newglobalization.Atmostthesecontradictionssimplyassumemoreuniversal fonns.Morethaneverbeforeaworldofglobalizedmonopolycapitalandhegemonicimperialism,ledbytheUnitedStates,presentsuswithastarkchoice: betweenadeadlybarbarismorahumanesocialism.

U.S.MilitaryBasesandErnpire

|/m'r//2()().Z

'/'/u‘/)'(I.\‘(‘.\'Q/-/Sill!/)I./'(‘ mpiresthroughouthumanhistoryhavereliedonforeignmilitarybasesto enforcetheirrule,andinthisrespectatleast,PaxAmericanaisnodilTerentthanPaxRomanaorPaxBritannica.“Theprincipalmethodbywhich Romeestablishedherpoliticalsupremacyinherworld,”wrotehistorianArnold TovnbeeinhisAmericaandtheWorldRevolution,

wasbytakingherweakerneighborsunderherwingandprotectingthem againstherandtheirstrongerneighbors.Rome’srelationwiththeseprotégéesolherswasatreatyrelation._]uridicallytheyretainedtheirpreviousstatusolsovereignindependence.ThemostthatRomeaskedoftheminterms ofterritorywasthecessation,hereandthere,ofapatchofgroundforthe plantationolaRomanFortresstoprovideforthecommonsecurityolRome’s alliesandRomeherself.

AtleastthisisthewayRomestartedout.Butastimepassed,“thevastterritories oll{omc’sone-timeallies,”originallysecuredbythissystemofRomanmilitarybases, “l)ecamejustasmuchapartoftheRomanEmpireasthelessextensiveterritoriesof l(ome’sonetimeenemieswhichRoutehaddeliberatelyandovertlyannexed.”'

Britain,initsheydayastheleadingcapitalistpowerinthenineteenthcentury, ruledoveravastcolonialempiresecuredbyaglobalsystemofmilitarybases.As Robertl-larkavyhasexplainedinhisimportantwork,GreatPowerCo-rn:[;eh.'t1'o1tfor Ovrzrsez/.9Imm,theseweredeployedin[ournetworksalongseacorridorsdominat­

edbyBritishnavalpower:(1)theMeditemineanthroughSueztoIndia;(2)South Asia,theFarEast,andthePacific;(3)NorthAmericaandtheCaribbean;and(4) WestAfricaandtheSouthAtlantic.AttheBritishempire-‘speakthesemilitarybases werelocatedinmorethanthirty-fiveseparatecountriesorcolonies.AlthoughBritish hegemonydeclinedrapidlyintheearlytwentiethcentury,itsbaseswereremittedas longastheempireitselfcontinued,anditsbasesystemevenexpandedbrieflyduring theSecondWorldWar.Intheimmediatealtennathofthewar,however,theBritish Empirecmmbled,andthegreatmajorityofbaseshadtoberelinquished.”

ThefalloftheBritishempirewasaccompaniedbytheriseolianother,asthe UnitedStatestookBritain‘splaceasthehegemonicpowerofthecapitalistworld economy.TheUnitedStatesemergedfromtheSecondWorldWarwiththemost extensivesystemofmilitarybasesthattheworldhadeverseen.AccordingtoJames Blalter,fomierSeniorAdvisortotheViceChaimianofthejointChiefsofStalf,this overseasbasingsystemattheendoftheSecondWorldWarconsistedofoverthirty thousandinstallationslocatedattwothousandbasesitesresidinginaroundonehundredcounuiaandareas,andstretchingfromtheArcticCircletoAntarctica.U.S. militarybaseswerespreadoverallthecontinentsandtheislandsinbetween.“Next totheU.S.nuclearmonopoly,”Blakerwrites,“therewasnomoreuniversallyrecognizedsymbolofdienation’ssuperpowerstatusthanitsoverseasbasingsystem?“

TheofficialstanceoftheUnitedStatestowardthesemilitarybasesafterthe warwasthattheyshouldberetainedtowhateverextentpossible,andfurther basesshouldbeacquired.AtthePotsdamConferenceonAugust7,1945, PresidentHan'yTrumandeclared:

ThoughtheUnitedStateswantsnoprofitorselfishadvantageoutofthiswar,we aregoingtomaintainthemilitarybasesnecessaryforthecompleteprotectionofour interestsandofworldpeace.BaseswhichourmilitaryexperLsdeemtobeessential forourprotectionwewillacquire.Wewillacquirethembyarrangementsconsistent withtheUnitedNationsCharter.‘

Nevertheless,thedominanttrendfromtheendoftheSecondWorldWar untiltheKoreanWarwasthereductionofthenumberofU.S.overseasbases. “Halfthewartimebasingstructure,”accordingtoBlaker,“wasgonewithintwo yearsofV-_]Day,andhalfofwhathadbeenmaintaineduntil1947hadbeendismantledby1949.”"’Thispostwarreductioninthenumberofoverseasbases, however,endedwiththeKoreanWarwhenthequantityofsuchbasesincreased

|_\\ll|.|'|i\lI\l|\.\l"..\\\H|‘L\I|'IIl|’.57

micemore,l})llowedbyliurthcrincreasesduringtheVietnamWar.Onlyalterthe VietnamWardidthenumberofU.S.overseasbasesitesbegintolallonceagain. By1988,thesebasesnumberedslightlylessthanattheendoftheKoreanWar, butrcllectcdaverydillerentglobalpatternthanatthebeginningol‘thepostSccondWorldWarperiod,withthesharpestdeclinesinSouthAsiaandMiddle East/Africa(seeTable1).

'l':tblt*I-l:I..\'.UtW:ww.\‘«'/'})I1'/flu/it/.\‘(-.\‘//_t‘/I'(’;‘~"iu/I./977/.‘/88

1947I94919531957I967I975I988

Europe,Canado, &NorthAtlantic506253446566673633627

Pacilic& SoutheastAsia34323529l256271183I21

LatinAmerica& theCaribbeanI13596|46554039 MiddleEast&Alrico7423l7l5l597 SouthAsiaH33200000

Totall,l39532315833l,0l4B65794

Source;JamesR.Bloker,UnitedStatesOverseasBasing(NewYork:Proeger,1990),TableI2

Historically,baseshaveoftenbeenacquiredduringwars.Forexample,the U.S.navalbaseinGuantanamo,Cuba,wasobtainedintheaftermathofthe SpanishAmericanWar.Althoughthatbaseistechnically“leased,”theleaseis permanent.Accordingtothetreaty,U.S.jurisdict.ionoverthebasecanbeterminatedonlybythemutualconsentofbothCubaandtheUnitedStatesaslongas nominalannualpaymentsaremade—g'ivingtheUnitedStates“rights”tothispart ofCubainperpetuity,regardlessoftheviewsoftheCubangovernmentandpeople.SincetheCul)anRevolution,thechecksissuedonbehalfoftheUnitedStates topayfortheleasingofthebasehavebeencashedonlyonce(inthecaseofthe lirstsuchcheckpaidaftertherevolution).Allsubsequentcheckshavesimply beenheldbyCuba,withoutbeingcashed,inlinewithCuba'sdemandthatthe baseberemovedfromitsterritory.

ManycurrentU.S.baseswereacquiredinsubsequentwars—theSecond WorldWar,theKoreanWar,theVietnamWar,theGulfWar,andthewarin Al'g|ianistan.U.S.militarybasesinOkinawa,formallypartofjapan,arealegacy oftheU.S.occupationofjapanduringtheSecondWorldWar.

58\'.\kl'Il)I.\II'l'Ill|\l.|S.\l

Likeallempires,dieUnitedStateshasbeenextremelyreluctanttorelinquish anybaseonceacquired.Basesobtainedinonewarareseenasforwarddeployment positionsforsomefuturewar,ofteninvolvinganentirelynewenemy.Accordingto aDecember21,1970,reportissuedbytheSubcommitteeonSecurityAgreements andCommitmentsAbroad,U.S.SenateCommitteeonForeignRelations,

OnceanAmericanoverseasbaseisestablishedittakesonalifeofitsown.Original missionsmaybecomeoutdatedbutnewmissionsaredeveloped,notonlywiththe intentionofkeepingthefacilitygoing,butoftentoactuallyenlargeit.Withinthe govemtnentdepartmentsmostdirectlyconcerned—StateandDefense—wefound littleinitiativetoreduceoreliminateanyoftheseoverseasfacilities."

Inthe1950sand19605theUnitedStatesarticulatedaspecificdoctrineof “strategicdenial“thatarguedthatnowithdrawalshouldbemadefromanybase thatcouldpotentiallybeacquiredthereafterbytheSovietUnion.Themajorityof U.S.baseswerejustifiedas“ringing”and“containing”Communism.Yet,upon diecollapseoftheSovietUnion,theUnitedStatessoughttoretainitsentirebasingsystemonthegroundsthatthiswasnecessaryfortheglobalprojectionofits powerandtheprotectionofU.S.interestsabroad.

/l_/Zerl/l(.’Co/r/Wm­

Clasnostandperestroikainthelate1980s,followedbythecollapseoftheSovietdominatedregimesinEasternEuropein1989andthedemiseoftheSoviet Unionitselfin1991,generatedastrongexpectation,particularlyamongthose whohadswallowedtheclaimthatU.S.basesweresimplytheretocontainthe Sovietthreat,thattherewouldbearapiddismantlingoftheU.S.basingsystem. Yet,theDepartmentofDefenseinsistedinitsannualReportoftheSec-retmyqf Defensein1989thatthe“powerprojection”oftheUnitedStatesnecessitated such“forwarddeployments.”7

OnAugust2,1990,PresidentGeorgeHerbertWalkerBushissuedastatement indicatingthat,whiletheU.S.overseasbasingsystemshouldremainintact,by1995 U.S.globalsecurityrequirementsmightbemetbyanactiveforce25percentsmallerthanin1990.OnthatsamedayIraqinvadedKuwait.Themassiveintroduction ofU.S.troopsintotheMiddleEastduringtheGulfWarledtotheproclamationof aNewWorldOrderrootedinU.S.hegemonyandU.S.militarypower.“ByGod

we"vekickedtheVietnamSyndromeonceandforall,"Bushdeclaretls‘NewmilitarybasesintheMiddleEastwereestablished,InostnotablyinSaudiArabia,where thousandsofU.S.troopshavebeenstationedformorethanadecade.

AlthoughtheClintonadministrationwastoinsistmorestronglythantheBush administrationthatprecededitontheneedto(liminishU.S.foreignmilitary coimnitments,noattemptwasmadetodecreasetheU.S.“forwardpresence” abroadrepresentedbyitsfar-llungmilitarybases.Themainshiftratherwasto reducethenumberoftroopspennanentlystationedoverseasbydeployingtroops morefrequentlybutforshorterstays.AsreportedintheL0:Angela:Ti1n.es:

A1999Army\VarCollegestudyfound,“Whilepermanentoverseaspresencehas decreaseddramatically,operationaldeploymentshaveincreasedexponentially."‘...lnearliertimes,membersofthearmedforceswereroutinely“stationed" overseas,usuallyfortoursofseveralyearsandoftenaccompaniedbytheirfamilies. Nowtheyare‘‘deployed,’'withthelengthoftourmoreuncertainanddependents almostneverallowed.Thedeploymentsarebothfrequentandlengthy,however. OnanygivendaybeforeSeptember11,accordingtotheDefenseDepartment, morethan60,000militarypersonnelwereconductingtemporaryoperationsand exercisesinabout100countries.WhilethemammothEuropeaninstallationshave beencutback,DefenseDepartmentrecordsshowthatthenewoperationalmode callsmilitarypersonnelawayfromhomeabout135daysayearfortheArmy,170 daysfortheNavyand176daysfortheAirForce.FortheArmy,eachsoldiernow averagesadeploymentabroadonceevery14weeks.”

Inadditiontosuchfrequent,periodicdeployments,basesweretobeusedfor pre-positioningequipmentforpurposesofrapiddeployment.Forexample,the UnitedStateshaspre-positionedaheavybrigadesetofequipmentinKuwait,and haspre-positionedtheequipmentforasecondheavybrigadealongwithatank battalionsetofequipmentinQatar.”

The1990sclosedwithU.S.militaryinterventionintheBalkansandextensive U.S.supportforcounterinsurgencyoperationsinSouthAmericaaspartof“Plan Colombia.”FollowingtheSeptember11,2001terroristattacksontheWorld TradeCenterandtheonsetofthe“WaronTerrorism,”arapidincreaseinthe numberandgeographicalspreadofU.S.militarybasescommenced.

AccordingtotheDefenseDepartment’sBaseStruct-uxreReport,2001,the UnitedStatescurrentlyhasoverseasmilitaryinstallationsinthirty-eightcountries

Cou/II/'/(:9(I/Ir/Sc/)1:/71/0'/('5/'/'/'IuI'/(:s'inW/u'(.-/1U.S./1/[I'//'((I/_'y'[1’n.s'(-sarcl.oc(m’.(/ {//I('//Ir/avU.S./’().\'.s'(e.s'.w'0/I5)

1.Afghanistan12.Canada23.Guam 2.AmericanSamoa13.Colombia24.Honduras

3.Antigua14.Cuba25.HongKong 4,Aruba15.Curacao26.Iceland 5.Australia16.Denmark27.IndianOcean 6.Austria17.Ecuador(DiegoGarcia) 7.BahamaIslands18.ElSalvador28.Indonesia 8.Bahrain19.France29.Italy 9.Belgium20.Germany30.Japan 10.Bosnia21.Greece31.JohnstonAtoll 11.Bulgaria22.Greenland32.Korea

Sources:U.S.DepartmentofDefense,BaseStructureReortFiscalYear200i;Los AnelesTimes,Jan.6,2002;NewYorkTimes,Jan.9,200,'JohnLinsa-Poland,"U.S. MiitaryBasesinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean,"ForeinPolicyinocus(October 2001)toreignpolicyintocusong;GlobemasterLinks,Baselineirectory,‘aviationTop100" wwwglobemaster.de/base|in|<s.htrn|.MapbyCiaudeMisukiewicz.

andseparateternior1'es.lfmilitar_\'basesinUS.territoriesandpossessionsoutsidetheliftystatesandtheDistrictofColumbiaareadded,itrisestoforty-four. Thisnumberisextremelyconservative,however,sinceitdoesnotincludeimportantstrategicfonrartlbases,evensomeoflhoseinwhichtheUnitedStatesmaintainssubstantialnumbersoftroops,suchasSaudiArabia,Kosovo,andBosnia. NordoesitincludesomeofthemostrecentlyacquiredU.S.bases.ThroughPlan Colombia—aimedprincipallyatguerrillaforcesinColombiabutalsoagainstthe lessthanservilcgovernmentofVenezuelaandthemassivepopularmovement opposingneolibcmlisminEcuador—theUnitedStatesisnowintheprocessof expandingitsbasepresenceintheLatinAmericanandCaribbeanregion.Puerto Ricohasreplacedl’anamaasthehnl)fortheregion.MeanwhiletheUnitedStates hasbeenestablishingfournewmilitarybasesinManta,Ecuador;Aruba; Curacao;andComalapa,ElSalvador-—allcharacterizedasforwardoperating locations(F015).SinceSeptember11,theUnitedStateshassetupmilitarybases housingsixtythousandtroopsinAfghanistan,Pakistan,Kyrgyzstan,Uzbekistan, andTajikistan,alongwithKuwait,Qatar,Turkey,andBulgaria.Alsocrucialinthe operationisthemajorU.S.navalbaseatDiegoGarciaintheIndianOcean.All told,theUnitedStatesnowhasoverseasmilitarybasesinalmostsixtycountries andseparateterritories(seeMap1)."

Insomewaysthisnumbermayevenbedeceptivelylow.Allissuesofjurisdictionandaudioritywithrespecttobasesinhostcountriesarespelledoutinwhat arecalledstatusofforcesagreements.DuringtheColdWaryearsthesewerenormallypublicdocuments,butarenowoftenclassifiedassecret—forexample, thosewithKuwait,theUnitedArabEmirates,Oman,andincertainrespects SaudiArabia.AccordingtoPentagonrecords,theUnitedStatesnowhasformal agreementsofthiskindwithninety-threecountries.”

Imperialismabhorsavacuum.ApartfromtheBalkansandtheformerSoviet RepublicsofCentralAsia,whichwerepreviouslywithintheSovietsphereof influenceorpartoftheSovietUnionitself,theforwardbasesthatarenowbeing acquiredareinregionswheretheUnitedStateshadexperienceddrasticreductionsinitsnumberofbases.In1990,priortotheCulfWar,theUnitedStateshad nobasesinSouthAsiaandonly10percentasmanyintheMiddleEast/Africaas in1947.InLatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanthenumberofU.S.baseshad declinedbyabouttwo-thirdsbetween1947and1990.Fromageopolitical/geomilitarystandpoint,thiswasclearlyaproblemforaglobaleconomicandmilitary hegemonsuchastheUnitedStates,evenintheageoflong-rangecruisemissiles.

TheappearanceofnewbasesintheMiddleEast.SouthAsia.andLatinAmerica andthe(IarihbeansinceI990asaresultoftheGulf\Nar.thewarinAfgli.inislan. andl'lanColombiathereforecanbeseenasareassertionofdirectU.S.military andiiuperialpowerinareaswherethishadtosomeextenteroded.

Militarydoctrineinsiststhatthestrategicsignilicanceofaforeignmilitarybase goesbeyondthewarinwhichitwasacquired,andthatplanningforotherpotentialmissionsusingthesenewassetsmustbeginalmostinnnetliately.Forthisreasonthebuild-upofhasesinAfghanistan,Pakistan,andthreeoftlieformerSoviet republicsofCentralAsiaisinevitablyseenbyRussiaandChinaasconstituting additionalthreatstotheirsecurity.Russiahasalreadyindicateditsdispleasureat theprospectofpermanentU.S.militarybasesinCentralAsia.AsforChina,asthe Cvmrdimi(London)notedonjanuary10,2002,thebaseatManasinKyrgyzstan, whereU.S.planesarelandingdaily,“is250milesfromthewesternChineseborder.WithU.S.basestotheeastinjapan,tothesouthinSouthKorea,and Washington’smilitarysupportforTaiwan,Chinamayfeelencircled.”

TheprojectionofU.S.militarypowerintonewregionsthroughtheestablishmentofU.S.militarybasesshouldnotofcoursebeseensimplyintermsofdirect militaryends.TheyarealwaysusedtopromotetheeconomicandpoliticalobjectivesofU.S.capitalism.Forexample,U.S.corporationsandtheU.S.government havebeeneagerforsometimetobuildasecurecorridorforU.S.-controlledoil andnaturalgaspipelinesfromtheCaspianSeainCentralAsiathrough AfghanistanandPakistantotheArabianSea.ThewarinAfghanistanandthecreationofU.S.basesinCentralAsiaareviewedasakeyopportunitytomakesuch pipelinesareality.TheprincipalexponentofthispolicyhasbeenUnocalcorporation,asindicatedbyitstestimonytotheHouseCommitteeonInternational RelationsinFebruary1998.”OnDecember31,2001PresidentGeorgeW.Bush appointedAfghan-bornZalmayKhalilzadfromtheNationalSecurityCouncilto bespecialenvoytoAfghanistan.KhalilzadisaformeradviserforUnocalinconnectionwiththeproposcdtrans-AfghanpipelineandlobbiedtheU.S.governmentforamoresympatheticpolicytowardtheTalibanregime.Hechangedhis positiononlyaftertheClintonadministrationfiredcruisemissilesattargetsin Afghanistan(aimedatOsamabinLaden)in1998(Pravda,January9,2002).

DuringthepresentwarinAfghanistan,theU.S.mediahavegenerallybeen quietaboutU.S.oilambitionsintheregion.Nevertheless,anarticleinthebusinesssectionoftheNewKn‘/r.Times(December15,2001)notedthat,“TheState Departmentisexploringthepotent.ialforpost-Talibanenergyprojectsinthe

ti/u\\kI-1|)I\|l'I-'.||l-\|.l.\‘.\| region,whichhasmorethan6percentoftheworld'sprovenoilreservesand almost40percentofitsgasreserves."lnanOp-EdpieceintheNrtuYbrk'l'i1n.cs (january18,2002),RichardButler,oftheCouncilonForeignRelations, acknowledgedthat,“Thewarinr\fghanistan...hasmadetheconstructionofa pipelineacrossAfghanistanandPakistanpoliticallypossibleforthefirsttime sinceUnocalandtheArgentineancompanyBrid-ascompetedfortheAfghan rightsinthemid-19905.”Needlesstosay,without3|strongU.S.militarypresence intheregion,throughtheestablislnnentofbasesasaresultofthewar,theconstructionofsuchapipelinewouldalmostcertainlyhaveprovenimpracticable.

/1’/mv/mrvl‘

HistoryteachesthatforeignInilitarybasesareadouble-edgedsword.Themost obviousindicationofthetruthofthispropositionisthepresent“Waron Terrorism.”Therecanbelittledoubtthatattacksoverthelastdecadeormore directedagainstbothU.S.forcesabroadandtargetsintheUnitedStatesitself havebeenaresponseinlargeparttothegrowingU.S.roleasaforeignmilitary powerinregionssuchastheMiddleEast,wheretheUnitedStateshasnotonly engagedinmilitaryactions,evenfull-scalewar,butalsosince1990hasstationed thousandsoftroops.TheestablishmentofU.S.basesinSaudiArabiawasregardedbysomeSaudisasanoccupationoftheholiestlandofIslam,toberepelledat virtuallyanycost.

TheperceptionofU.S.militarybasesasintrusionsonnationalsovereigntyis widespreadin“host”countriesforthesimplereasonthatthepresenceofsuch basesinevitablytranslatesintointerferenceindomesticpolitics.Asthe1970 reportbytheSubcommitteeonSecurityAgreementsandCommitmentsAbroad oftheSenateForeignRelationsCommitteenoted:“Overseasbases,thepresence ofelementsofUnitedStatesarmedforces,jointplanning,jointexercises,or excessivemilitaryassistanceprograms...allbutguaranteesomeinvolvementby theUnitedStatesintheinternalaffairsofthehostgovernment.”"Suchcountries becomemoreandmoreenmeshedintheU.S.empire.

U.S.overseasmilitarybasesthusfrequentlygiverisetomajorsocialprotestsin thesubjectcountries.UntilthewithdrawalofU.S.forcesin1992,theU.S.bases inthePhilippineswerewidelyregardedinthatnationasalegacyofU.S.colonialism.LikenearlyallU.S.militarybasesoverseas,theybroughtwiththemahostof socialproblems.ThetownofOlongaponexttotheU.S.baseatSubicBaywas

l\\lll.l'|'\Il\l|\.\|'Z.\\\I)I-',\|l'|llI'.lift devotedentirelyto“restandrecreation”forU.S.troopsandltotisetlmorethan liltythousandprostitutes.

U.S.basesinOkinawa,whichl)ecatncthehubfortheU.S.overseasbasingsysteminthePacilicfollowingthelossol‘thebasesintltel’hilippines,existatodds withthepopulation.AccordingtoChalmersJohnson,theislandol‘Okinawa,a prelectureofjapan,“isessentiallyamilitarycoloityol'thel’entagon’s,aInigosale bousewhereCrecnBeretsandtheDefenselntelligenceAgency,nottomention theairforceandMarineCorps._candothingstltcywouldnotdaredointhe UnitedStates.ItisusedtoprojectAmericanpowerthroughoutAsiaintheserviceola(lefactoU.S.grandstrategytoperpetuateorincreaseAmericanhegemonicpowerinthiscrucialregion.""”

lnI995,anti—baseprotestsbrokeoutinOkinawainresponsetotherapeol'a twelve-year-oldgirlbythreeU.S.servicemen,whohadrentedacarforthepurpose,sothattheycouldtakehertoaremotelocationandrapeher;andin responsetothecallousview0fAdmiralRichardC.Macke,commanderofallU.S. forcesinthePacific,whotoldthepress:“Ithinkthat[therape]wasabsolutely stupid.Forthepricetheypaidtorentthecar,theycouldhavehadagirl.”The widespreadprotests,ledbyanorganizationcalledOkinawaWomenActAgainst MilitaryViolence,werenot,however,_justinresponsetothissinglerape,brutal thoughitwas.Between1972and1995,U.Sservicemenwereimplicatedin4,716 crimes,nearlyoneperday,accordingtotheNikonKeizaiShimbmz,aconservativejapanesenewspaper.The_]apan—U.S.agreementthatgovernstheOkinawa baseallowsU.S.authoritiestorefusejapaneserequestsformilitarysuspects,and fewindeedhavesufferedanyinconveniencefortheircrimes.

Thecontinuation,despitemassivepopularprotests,oflandbombingbythe U.S.militaryinVieques,PuertoRico,wheretrainingisgivenforbombingruns latertobecarriedoutinplaceslikethePersianGulf,isanindicationofPuerto Rico’scontinuingcolonialstatus.BesidesthelandbombingrangeinVieques,the Pentagonoperateswhatiscalledan“outerrange”ofalmost200,000squaremiles inwatersnearPuertoRico,thatencompassesanunderwatertrackingstationfor submarinesandanelectronicwarfarerange.TheseareusedbytheNavyandby variousmilitarycontractorstotestweaponssystems.'“

ThecurrentuseoftheGuantanamonavalbaseinCubatoimprisonandinterrogateprisonersoftheU.S.warinAfghanistan,underconditionsthathavegeneratedglobaloutrageandinthefaceol'Cubanoppositiontothewar,isstillanothercrudeinstanceofU.S.assertionofiniperialpowerthroughsuchbases.

TheUnitedStates,aswehaveseen.hasbuiltatchainofmilitarybasesandstagingareasaroundtheglobe,asameansofdeployingairandnavalforcestobeused onamoment"snotice-allintheinterestofmaintainingitspoliticalandeconomichegemony.Thesebasesarenot,aswasthecaseforBritaininthenineteenthand earlytwentiethcenturies,simplyintegralpartsofacolonialempire,butrather takeonevengreaterimportance,“intheabsenceofcolonialism.””TheUnited States,whichhassoughttomaintainanimperialeconomicsystemwithoutformal politicalcontrolsovertheterritorialsovereigntyofothernations,hasemployed thesel)asestoexertforceagainstthosenationsthathavesoughttobreakoutof theimperialsystemaltogether,orthathaveattemptedtochartanindependent coursethatisperceivedasthreateningU.S.interests.WithouttheworldwidedispersionofU.S.militaryforcesinthesebases,andwithouttheU.S.predisposition toemploytheminitsmilitaryinterventions,itwouldbeimpossibletokeepmany ofthemoredependenteconomicterritoriesoftheperipheryfrombreakingaway.

U.S.globalpolitical,economic,andfinancialpowerthusrequirestheperiodicexerciseofmilitarypower.Theotheradvancedcapitalistcountriestiedinto thissystemhavealsobecomereliantontheUnitedStatesasthemainenforcerof therulesofthegame.ThepositioningofU.S.militarybasesshouldthereforebe judgednotasapurelymilitaryphenomenon,butasamappingoutoftheU.S.dominatedimperialsphereandofitsspearheadswithintheperiphery.Whatis clearatpresentandbearsrepeatingisthatsuchbasesarenowbeingacquiredin areaswheretheUnitedStateshadpreviouslylostmuchofits“forwardpresence,” suchasinSouthAsia,theMiddleEast/Africa,andLatinAmericaandthe Caribbean,orinregionswhereU.S.baseshavenotexistedpreviously,suchasthe BalkansandCentralAsia.Therecanbenodoubt,therefore,thatthelastremainingsuperpowerispresentlyonacourseofimperialexpansion,asameansofpromotingitspoliticalandeconomicinterests.Thepresentwaronterrorism,which isinmanywaysanindirectproductoftheprojectionofU.S.power,isnowbeing usedtojustifythefurtherprojectionofthatpower.

Forthosewhochoosetoopposethesedevelopmentsthereshouldbenoillusion.Theglobalexpansionofmilitarypoweronthepartofthehegemonicstate ofworldcapitalismisanintegralpartofeconomicglobalization.Tosaynotothis fomiofmilitaryexpansionismistosaynoatthesametimetocapitalistglobalizationandimperialismandhencetocapitalismitself.

ThePtediscoveryofImperialism

\()t'(’/II/I('I'2002

heconceptof“imperialism”wasconsideredoutsidetheacceptable rangeofpoliticaldiscoursewithintherulingcirclesofthecapitalist worldformostofthetwentiethcentury.Referenceto“imperialism” duringtheVietnamWar,nomatterhowrealistic,wasalmostalwaysasignthatthe writerwasontheleftsideofthepoliticalspectrum.InhisImperialism.-Fromthe Co/o~in'n.IAgetothePramtt,HarryMagdoffnoted,“Asarule,politeacademic scholarsprefernottousetheterm‘imperialism.’Theylinditdistastefuland unscientific.”'

Todaythisissuddenlynolongertrue.U.S.intellectualsandthepoliticalelite arewannlyembracinganopenly“imperialist”or“neoimperialist"missionforthe UnitedStates,repeatedlyenunciatedinsuchprestigiousprintmediaastheNflu l’m‘/rTimesandForeigvtAffairs.ThisimperialistfervorowesmuchtotheBush administration’sWaronTerrorism,whichistakingtheformoftheconquestand occupationofAfghanistanand—ifitsambitionsarefulIilled—alsoIraq. AccordingtotheBushadministration’sNn.t1.'on/1.1Scott-MySt1'ategy,thereareno recognizedlimitsorboundariestotheuseofmilitarypowertopromotetheintereslsoftheUnitedSuites.Inthefaceofthisattempttoextendwhatcanonlybe calledtheU.S.Empire,intellectualsandpoliticalfiguresarenotonlyreturningto theideaofirnperialism,butalsototheviewofitpropoundedbyitsearliernineteenthcenturyproponentsasconstitutingagrandcivilizingmission. ComparisonsoltheUnitedStatestoImperialRomeandImperialBritainarenow

connnonwithinthemainstreampress.Allthatisneededtomakeitcompletely sewiceahleistoridtheconceptolitsoldMarxistassociationsofeconomichierarchyandexploitation-nottomentionracism.

AccordingtoMichaellgnatiell,writingintheNew}?n'I:.7'1.'m.r.tMagazine, “[l]mperialismusedtobethewhiteman’sburden.Thisgaveitabadreputation. Butimperialismdoesn’tstopbeingnecessarybecauseitispoliticallyincorrect.” lnreferringtoU.S.waroperationsinAfghanistanhewrites:

...theSpecialForcesarcn’tsocialworkers.Theyareanimperialdetachment, advancingAmericanpowerandinterestsinCentralAsia.Callitpeacekeepingor nation-building,callitwhatyoulike,imperialpolicingiswhatisgoingoninMazar. Infact,America’sentirewaronterrorisanexerciseinimperialism.Thismaycome asashocktoAmericans,who(lon’tliketothinkoltheircountryasanempire.But whatelsecanyoucallAmerica'slegionsofsoldiers,spooksandSpecialForces suaddlingtheglobe?’

G._]ohnIkenberry,ProfessorofGeopoliticsandGlobaljusticeatGeorgetown UniversityandaregularcontributortotheCouncilonForeignRelationspublication,ForeignAflain,writes:

IntheshadowsoftheBushadministration’swaronterrorism,sweepingnewideas arecirculatingaboutU.S.grandstrategyandtherestructuringoftoday'sunipolar world.TheycallforAmericanunilateralandpreemptive,evenpreventative,useof force,facilitatedifpossiblebycoalitionsofthewilling—butultimatelyunconstrainedbytherulesandnonnsoftheinternationalcommunity.Attheextreme, thesenotionsformaneoimperialvisioninwhichtheUnitedStatesarrogatesto itselftheglobalroleolsettingstandards,determiningthreats,usingforce,andmetingoutjustice.’

Forlltenberry,thisisnotmeantasacriticism:“America'simperialgoalsand modusoperandi,”hetellsus,“aremuchmorelimitedandbenignthanwerethose ofage-oldemperors.”

Otherinfluentialmainstreampoliticalandintellectualfiguresarenolesslashionablyforthrightintheirsupportforneoimperialism.SebastianMallaby,a WashingtonPostcolumnistandself-styled“reluctantimperialist,”writingin ForeignAffairs,explainsthat“thelogicofneo-imperialismistoocompellingfor

llll,|l|'Il)|.\tT1)\I’.ll\HI"|\|l'I’.|ll\l,l.\\l15'.)

thellushadministrationtoresist."Maxlloot,aHill!S!rrrI_7(mrIm/columnist, observesin“The(Iase[orAmericanI1_.lI||)iI'C:”“.‘\mericanowlacestheprospect olimilitaryactioninmanyofthesamelandswheregenerationsol‘Britishcolonial soldierswentoncampaigns.TheseareallplaceswhereWesternarmieshadto quelldisorder.:\lglianistanandothertroubledforeignlandsCryoutforthesort ofenlightenedforeignadministrationonceprovi(le(lbysell‘-confident linglisluneninjodhpursandpithhelmets.”AflmrtirMaul/ll}essayistRobert Kaplaifslatestbook,WarriorPolitics,arguesforaUS.crusade“tobringprosperitytodistantpartsoftheworldunderAmerica‘ssoftimperialinfluence.” PresidentCarter’sNationalSecurityAdvisorZbigniewBrzezinskiconten(lsthat themaintaskoftheUnitedStatesinthepreservationolitsempireis“toprevent collusionandmaintaindependenceamongthevassals,keeptributariespliantand protected,andtokeepthebarbariansfromcomingtogether."StephenI’eter Rosen.headoftheOlinInstituteforStrategicStudiesatHarvardUniversity,has writtenintheI-lrrnmrdReview(May—_]une2002):“Ourgoal[thatofthe Americanmilitary]isnotcombatingarival,butmaintainingourimperialposition,andmaintainingimperialorder.”HenryKissingeropenshisDoesAmerica NeedaForeignPolicy?withthewords“[T]heU.S.isenjoyingapreeminence unrivaledbyeventhegreatestempiresinthepast.”“

Therearerules,however,tothisre-engagementwiththeconceptsof“empire” and“imperialism”withinestablishmentdiscourse.Theuniquelybenevolent motivesoftheUnitedStatesmustbeemphasized.Proponentsofthenewimperialismmustcarefullyconfinethemselvestothemilitaryandpoliticalconceptsof empireandimperialism(avoidinganysenseofeconomicimperialism).Andthey musteschewallradicalnotionsthatconnectimperialismtocapitalismand exploitation.

7'/ur/'.'(.'um)II//1.‘/)’(I.wivof'//Ir/)(.-/'1}:/z'.s'/II

Thebirthplaceofthenotionofeconomicimperialism,asopposedtoimperialism moregenerally,wastheUnitedStatesalittlemorethanacenturyago.Inhisessay, “TheEconomicBasisofImperialism,”firstpublishedintheNnrt/rAm.en.'c(m Reviewin1898,atthetimeoftheSpanish-ArnericanWar,CharlesA.Conant arguedthatimperialismwasnecessarytoabsorbsurpluscapitalinthefaceola shortageoi"prolitableinvestmentoutlets—inotherwords,torelievewhathe calledtheproblemof“congestedcapital.”ForConant,

WhethertheUnitedStatesshallactuallyacquireterritorialpossessions,shallset-up captain-generalshipsandgarrisons,whethertheyshallatloptthemiddlegroundof protectingsovereigntiesnominallyindependent,orwhethertheyshallcontent themselveswithnavalstationsanddiplomaticrepresentativesasthebasisfortheir rightstothefreecommerceoltheEast,isamatteroltletail.Thewriterisnotan advocateof“in1|)crialism"fromsentiment,butdoesnotlearthenameifitIneans onlythattheUnitedStatesshallasserttheirrighttolreemarketsinalltheoldcountrieswhicharebeingopeneduptothesurplusresourcesolthecapitalistcountries andtherebygiventhebenefitsofmoderncivilization.Whetherthispolicycarries withitthedirectgovernmentofgroupsofhall-savageislandsmaybeasubjectfor argument,butupontheeconotnicsideofthequestionthereisbutonechoiceeithertoenterbysomemeansuponthecompetitionfortheemploymentof Americancapitalandenterpriseinthesecountries,ortocontinuetheneedless duplicationofexistingmeansofproductionandcommunication,withtheglutof unconsumedproducts,theconvulsionsfollowedbytradestagnation,andthe steadilydecliningreturnuponinvestmentswhichanegativepolicywillinvolte.5

Conflictamongthegreatpowersattheendofthenineteenthandthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,overthepartitionofAfrica,theSino-JapaneseWar (1894-1895),theSpanish-AmericanWar,theSouthAfrican(Boer)War,andthe Russo-JapaneseWar,signaledtheriseofanewimperialism,associatedwith monopolycapitalism,thatwasqualitativelydifferentfromthecolonialismthat hadprecededit.Thisledtoaneconomictheoryofimperialismonthepartofthe proponentsofimperialism—whonolongervieweditasmere“sentiment,"as emphasizedinConant’sanalysis.Thechangesinimperialismalsosoongaverise toamorethoroughgoingcriticalanalysisbeginningwithjohnA.Hobson'sclassicImf)erialiJm.'AStudy,firstpublishedin1902.HobsonwasaleadingBritish criticoftheBoerWarandoutofthisdevelopedhiscritiqueofimperialism.Ina famouschapterofhisbookentitled“TheEconomicTaprootofImperialism“ Hobsonobserved:

Everyimprovementofmethodsofproduction,everyconcentrationofownership andcontrol,seemstoaccentuatethetendency[toimperialistexpansion].Asone nationafteranotherentersthemachineeconomyandadoptsadvancedindustrial methods,itbecomesmoredillicultforitsmanufacturers,merchants,andfinanciers todisposeprofitablyoftheireconomicresources.Everywhereappearexcessive

I’lII-L|l|".l)l.\tit)\I-;It\Ht-'I\ll'l-‘.|||\I.l.\\I7|

powersofproduction,excessivecapitalinsearcholiinvestment.ltisadlnittedbyall businessmenthatthegrowthofthepowersofproductionintheircountryexceeds thegrowthinconsumption,thatmoregoodscanbeproducedthancanbesoldata profit,andthatmorecapitalexiststhancanlindremunerativeinvestment.ltisthis economicconditionofallairsthatformsthetaprootofImperialism.“

l-lol)son’sworkwasnotsocialist.Hebelievedthatimperialismwasduetothe dominanceofcertainconcentratedeconomicandfinancialinterestsandthatraclv iealreformsthatdealtwithmaldistril)uLionofincotneandtheneedsofthedomesticeconomycouldbringtoanendtheimperialistimpulse.Yethisworkwasto takeonamuchlargersignificancethroughtheinfluenceitexercisedonMarxist analysesofimperialism,whichwereemergingatthistime.Themostimportantof thesewasLenin"s]’IIIr[)€I'fflffJ‘III,theHig/tartStage0fCa[)ita/.is7n,firstpul)lishedin 1916.TheInainpurposeofLenin'sanalysiswastoexplaintheinterimperialist rivalryamongthegreatpowersthathadledtotheFirstWorldWar.Butinthe processofdevelopinghisanalysisLeninlinkedimperialismtomonopolycapitalism,arguingthatinits“briefestpossibledefinitionimperialismisthemonopolystageofcapitalism.”7Heexploredinthatcontextasetofeconomicfactors thatwentwel.lbeyondmaldistributionofincomeortheprofit-seekinggoalsof particularInonopolisticcorporations.Monopolycapitalismwasseenasanew stage,beyondcompetitivecapitalism,inwhichfinancecapital,analliance betweenlargefirmsandbankingcapital,dominatedtheeconomyandthestate. Competitionwasnoteliminatedbutitcontinuedmainlyamongarelativelysmall numberofgiantfirmswhowereabletocontrollargepartsofthenationaland internationaleconomy.Monopolycapitalism,inthissense,wasinsepamblefront interimperialistrivalry,manifestedprimarilyintheformofastruggleforglobal markets.TheresultingdivisionoftheworldintoimperialspheresandthestrugglethatthisentailedleddirectlytotheFirstWorldWar.Lenin’smorecomplex perspectiveonimperialismwentbeyondanargumentthatfocusedsimplyonthe necessityoffindinginvestmentoutletsforsurpluscapital.Healsoplacedemphasisontheimpetustogainexclusivecontrolofrawmaterialsandtightercontrolof foreignmarketsthataroseoutoftheglobalizingconditionsofthemonopolystage ofcapitalisni.

LaterMarxist(andradical,non-Marxist)analysesweretofocusmorethan LemnhimselfhadonSOIIICofthemoregeneralfeaturesofimperialism,characteristicofcapitalisminallofitsstages,suchasthedivisionbetweencenterand

periphery,anissuethathadbeenbroachedbyMarx.ButLenin'ssenseofanew, moredeveloped,formofimperialism,associatedwiththeconcentrationandcentralizationofcapitalandthebirthofthemonopolystage,hasretainedmuchOfits significanceinourage—characterizedbymonopolycapitalismatanadvanced phaseofglobalization.Indeed,itwastheverysuccessofMarxisttheoriesofimperialism,uncoveringcapitalism’ssystematicexploitationoftheperipheryandthe conditionsofinterimperialistrivalryingreatdetail—sothattheemperorwasseen inallofhisnakedness-«thatresultedintheterm“imperialisni”becomingbeyond thepalewithinmainstreamdiscourse.AslongastheSovietUnionexistedanda strongtideofanti—imperialistrevolutionswasevidentintheperiphery,therewas nopossibilityofcapitalismopenlyembracingtheconceptofimperialisminthe nameofthepromotionofcivilization.U.S.militaryinterventionsthroughoutthe thirdworldtocombatrevolutionsortogaincontrolofmarketswereinvariably accountedforwithinollicialdiscourseintheUnitedStatesintermsofColdWar motives,notintermsofimperialends.

'/'/I('Agt‘Q]'///I/he/'I'(I/(Cm: HanyMagdoff’s77zeAgeofImperialism,publishedin1969,hadthedistinction ofbeingthemostinfluentialdirectattempttocounterthedominantviewofU.S. foreignpolicyduringtheVietnamWarperiodthroughanempiricaltreatmentof theeconomicsofU.S.imperialism.

Magdoff’sworkcouldnotbeeffectivelydismissedasmereideology,because itaimedatstrippingawaytheclothingofU.S.imperialismbylookingatitseconomicstructureinthemoststraightforwardmannerpossible—usingU.S.economicstatistics.Itthereforedrewconsiderablefirefromtheestablishmentaswell asgivinginspirationtomanyofthoseprotestingagainstthewar.

TheAgeofImperialismrepresentedthereturntoprominenceofthecritique ofimperialismwithintheU.S.left.Addressingwhatwaswidelyviewedasan anomalyintheU.S.relationtotherestoftheworld,arisingfromtheexistence ofaninterventionistforeignpolicyaccompaniedbyaseemingly“isolationist economy,”MagdoffdemonstratedthattheU.S.economywasinfactanything butisolationist.Inthisconnection,Magdoffprovideddatashowingthatearningsonforeigninvestmentshadmorethandoubledbetween1950and1964risingfromabout10percentofallafter-taxprofitsforU.S.domesticnonfmancial corporations.“

Thisworkwasalsonotablelbritsargttmentsontlteinternationallinancial expansionofU.S.capital,basedonthedo||ar’shegemonicpositioninthe \\'orl(‘leconomyandonthegrowtholiadebttrapinthethirdworld.Itwashere thatMagrlollprovitledhislirstexplanationolithe“reversellowprocess”inherentinthecontinttousrelianceonforeign(lebt.“Ifacountryborrows,say,a $l000ayear,"’hewrote,“beforelongtheservicepaymentsonthedebtwillbe largerthantheinllowofmoneyeachyear.”Assumingthesitnplecasetil‘an annualloattoli$l000at5percentinterest“toberepaidinequalinstallments over20years,”itfollowsthatinthelil'thyearalmostliftypercentol'theannual loanwillgotosewicingthedebt;inthetenthyearapproximatelyninetypercentolthenewloanmoneywillbedevotedtodebtservice;inthelilteenthyear, theoutllowforinterestandamortizationwillbegreaterthanthecapitalinllow; andinthet\ventiethyear“theborrowerispayingoutmorethan$1.50onpast debtforevery$1.00ofnewmoneyheborrows.”"

Woulditnotbepossible,Magdoflasked,foracountrytoavoidthistrapbynot borrowingyearafteryear,btttinsteadusingtheborrowedmoneytodevelop industrytoprovidetherevenuetodispensewithborrowingandevenpayollthe debt?Alargepartoftheanswerwastobefoundintherealitythatsincetherepaymenthastooccurinthecurrencyofthecreditornation,thedebtcouldonlybe repaid(irrespectiveoftherateofgrowth)iftherewereenoughexportstoprovide theneededforeignexchange.Evenasearlyas1969,longbeforethethirdworld debtproblemwasdeemedcritical,Magdollobservedthat“thegrowthinservice paymentsonthedebtoftheunderdevelopedworldhasincreasedmuchmore rapidlythanhasthegrowthinitsexports.Hencetheburdenofdebtltasbecotne moreoppressiveandthefinancialdependencyontheleadingindustrialnations andtheirinternationalorganizationssuchastheWorldBankandthe InternationalMonetaryFundhasincreasedaccordingly.”'"

MostoftheessaysinMagdolps1978book,Imjierialinrt:From.theColonial AgetothePresentdealtwithmisconceptionsaboutthehistoryofitttperialisnt.Of chielimportanceinthisrespectwasMagdolT'sresponsetothequestion:“Is ImperialismNecessary?”Inanswertothecommoncontentionthatcapitalism andimperialismwerecompletelyseparatecategories,andthatthelatterwasnot necessarilyanattributeoftheformer,hearguedthatcapitalistnhadbeenfromthe startaworldsystemandthatitnperialistexpansioninthebroadsensewasjustas muchapartofthesystemasthesearchforprolitsitself.Healsoarguedagainst thoseontheleftwhosoughttogenerateananalysisofmodernimperialism

throughaparticulartheory0|‘economiccrisisorthenecessityoftheexportof capital,ratherthanrecognizingthatimperialismwasintrinsictocapitalism’s globalizingtendenciesfromtheverystart.Despitetheimportanceofeconomic lawsofmotionofcapitalismingeneratingtherealityofmodcrnimperialism,any simple,mechanical,narrowlyeconomicexplanation(separatedofffrompolitical, military,andculturalfactors)wastobeavoided.Rathertheultimatesourceswere tobefoundinthehistoricaldevelopmentolcapitalisrnsincethesixteenthcentury.“Theeliminationofimperialism,”Magdollconcluded,“requirestheoverthrowofcapitalism."“‘

/’n/mill,-.;'//I('('oIIc'(‘/HQIi/III/)('I‘I.(I/liS‘lIl

Themainstreamrespondedtotheseandrelatedargumentsbyplacingthetemi “imperialism”(insofarasitwaslinkedtocapitalism)moreandmoreoutsidethe realmofacceptablediscourse—characterizingitasapurelyideologicalterm.At thesametimetherewereattemptstoisolatetheconceptof“economicimperialism”specifically,bydisassociatingit,inthenarrow,compartmentalizingmethod ofmainstreamsocialscience,frompoliticalimperialism,culturalimperialism, etc.,andsettingitupforspecialcriticism.”ThisattackonMandstandradical approachestoimperialismsucceededsoeffectivelythatby1990PrabhatPatnaik wroteanarticleforMonthlyReviewentitled“WhateverHappenedto Imperial.ism?,"inwhichheraisedthequestionofthealmostcompletedisappearanceofthetennfromleftanalysisintheUnitedStatesandEurope.Itwas particularlyastonishingthatthishadoccurredinthefaceofU.S.militaryinterventions(bothovertandcovert)incountriessuchasNicaragua,ElSalvador, Guatemala,Grenada,andPanamaanddespitetherapaciousroleofmultinationalcorporationsaroundtheworld(forexampleinIndia,whereUnionCarbide killedthousands)”

“YoungerMantists,”Patnaikwrote,“lookbemusedwhenthetermismentioned.Burningissuesofthedayarediscussedbutwithoutanyreferenceto imperialism.ThetopichasvirtuallydisappearedfromthepagesofMarxist journals,especiallythoseofalatervintage.”"‘Thehistoryandtheoryofimperialism,henoted,isnolongerdiscussed.

Thehistoricalsignificanceofthiscanbeseeninanideologicalsplitthat occurredinresponsetothestruggleoverglobalizationandthenewBalkanWars, andlaterinrelationtotheSeptemberI1attacksontheWorldTradeCenterand

thePentagonandthesubsequentWaronTerrorism.Ontheonehand,mainstreatnintellectuals,particularlyinthelaceoi‘thewideningmilitaryoperations oftheUnitedStatesandNATObutalsoinresponsetosuchissuesasU.S.supportolitheWorldTradeOrganization,becamemorewillingtoreappropriatethe conceptoliimperiallsmasawayofputtingalargerglossonwhatwaspresented asthebcnclicialhegemonyor“softimperialism"oltheworld’sonlysuperpower.Ontheotherhand,post-Marxistanderstwliileradicalthinkersoftentookon theroleofcriticizinganyuseoltheconceptolirnperialisminitsclassicalMarxist sense,detachingitfromcapitalisrn._globalexploitation,an(leconomicimperialism,andarguingthatsincethetermwastmacceptableinpolitediscourseit shouldbediscarded.

AnexampleofthelatterisanarticlebyTomBarry,entitled“AReturnto lnterventionism,”appearingonlineinForm'g‘nPolicyinFocusonMarchl1,2002, ostensiblyrespondingtotheSeptemberllattacksandtheWaronTerrorism. Barry,whoinhisearlierwritingsinthe1970shadnothesitatedtoeml)racethe conceptofimperialism,arguedin“AReturntolnterventionism”that:

Forsortie,especiallyinthenewandoldLeftthis[theVietnamera]wasthe“Ageof lmperialism,"anerawhentheU.S.wassecuringitsholdontheresourcesandthe statesofthe“developing”world.Therewereanalyticalweaknesseswiththisantiimperialismcritique,mainlybecauseitdidn'texplainwellwhytheU.S.wasso deeplyinvolvedinplacesofseeminglysolittleeconomicconsequence,suchas SouthVietnam.NorwastheimperialAmericacritiquehelpfulinexplainingthe idealistsideol'America’sinterventionism—theWilsoniancompulsiontobringfreedomanddemocracytotherestoftheworld.lftheaimwastoreformU.S.foreign policy,criticizingtheU.S.asarunawayimperialpowerjustdidn‘tlly,eitherwith U.S.policymakersorthepublic.Whatdidseemtoworkasawaytofilteroutthe tendenciesinU.S.foreignpolicythatsupportedrepressionandmilitaryinterventioninthethirdworldwasthehumanrightscritique.

Inthisview,thefactthat“U.S.policymakers,"thatis,therepresentativesof thedominantsystemofpower,werenotdrawntotheconceptofimperialism (plusthefactthananindoctrinatedpopulationsawthetermashavingnorelationtoU.S.history)wasreasonenoughtodismisstheconceptaltogether.After alldidnottheUnitedStatesprimarilyseek,exceptforafewlapseshereand there,to“bringfreedomanddemocracytotherestoltheworld”?Yet,atthevery

timethatthisarticleappeared,theU.S.militarywasengagedinwaroperations inAfghanistan,buildingbasesthroughoutCentralAsia,andlaunchinginterventionsinthePhilippinesandelsewhere.Atthesamemomentthatthenotionof the“Ageoflniperialisnf’wasbeingcriticizedontheU.S.left,mainstreampunditsandpoliticalfigureswereextollinganewageofimperialismledbythe UnitedStates.

Amoreinfluentialleftcriticismofthenotionofimperialismwaslaunchedby MichaelHardtandAntonioNegriintheirbookEmfiire.AccordingtoHard!and NegriitnperialismendedwiththeVietnatnWar.The1991CulfWar,inwhichthe UnitedStatesunleasheditsmilitarypoweronlraq,was,accordingtothese authors,carriedout“notasafunction.of[theUnitedStates’]ownnational motivesbutinthenameofglobal-rig/tt....TheU.S.worldpoliceactsnotinimperialistinterestbutinimperialinterest[thatisintheinterestofEmpirewithouta centerandwithoutboundaries].InthissensetheGulfWardidindeed,asGeorge Bush[senior]claimed,announcethebirthofanewworldorder.”Elsewherein theirbooktheydeclared:“TheUnitedStatesdoesnot,andindeednonation-state cantoday,formthecenterofanimperialistproject.”'-"

Itwaspreciselythisposition—thatdeniedarelationshipbetweentheUnited Statesandimperialismintheclassical,exploitativesense,butwhichalsosawthe extensionofU.S.sovereigntyandpowerasreflectiveof“empire”andacivilizing “imperial”role(theextensionoftheU.S.Constitutiontotheglobalstage)—that wasemphasizedintheunstintingpraiseofHardtandNegri’sbookthatpoured outinsuchplacesastheNewYorkTimes,Timemagazine,theLondonObserver, andForeignAflairs.

Morerecently,ToddGitlin,aformerpresidentoftheStudentsfora DemocraticSocietyandnowProfessorof_]ournalismandSociologyatColumbia, wroteintheNewliar/tTimes:

TheAmericanleft...haditsversionofunilateralism.Responsibilityforthe [SeptemberI1]attackshad,somehow,toliewithAmericanimperialistn,because allresponsibilityhastoliewithAmericanimperia|ism—aperfectechooftheright’s ideathatallgoodpowersareandshouldbesomehowAmerican.lntellectualsand activistsonthefarleftcouldnotbetroubledmuchwithcompassionordefense.

KnowinglittleaboutAlQaeda,theyfileditunderAnti-Imperialism,andAmerican attacksontheTalibanunderVietnamQuagmire.Forthem,notflyingtheflag becameanurgentcause.Post-Vietnamliberalshaveanopeningnow,

\l\| 'l‘|I|'LIll-l|)l.\'(‘.l)\lillfiUI"|.\Il’lilt|\l.I>\I

freedofour60’s[laganxietyandourreflexivenegativity,toembracealiberalpatriotismthatisunapologeticanduncowed.'“

ForCitlin—writinginanestablishmentmediaoutletthathadbeenpublishingpiecesstraightforwardlyextollingasupposedlybenignAmerican“imperialism"—thewholechargeof“Americanimperialism"wassortiesortofextreme distortionintroducedbytheleft.NevermindthatitwasthelocationofU.S.militarybasespemianentlyinSaudiArabiaasaresultoftheU.S.waragainstlraq in1991thatinducedtheIslamicfundamentalistscomingoutofSaudiArabia (includingAlQaedaiLself)toturnontheUnitedStates.NevermindthatOsama l)inLadengothisterroristtrainingthroughtheU.S.-sponsoredwarofIslamic fundamentalistsagainsttheSovietsinAfghanistan.NevermindthatSaddam HusseinwasafomierU.S.imperialclientatthetimeofthelraq-IranWar(and indeeduptotheverymomentofhisinvasionofKuwait).Andnevermindthat SaudiArabiaandIraqarefirstandsecondintheworldintheirknownoil reserves,orthefactthatAfghanistanisthedoorsteptoCentralAsia,oneofthe richestareasofpetroleumandnaturalgasreservesintheworld.Finally,never mindthattheUnitedStatesnowhasmilitarybasesthroughoutCentralAsiaand intendstostay.Somehow,despiteallofthisanddespitethefactthatAmerica’s "supposedimperialism”isnowbeingpraisedwidelywithinthemainstream,the leftisnotallowedtoraisetheissueofAmericanimperialismaspartofacritique ofU.S.foreignpolicy.Ifimperialismisbeingrediscovereditisonlywithincertaincircumscribedideologicallimim.

'/'/Ir‘(,'/n/)(I//l'i('//([1?!/t’/(.'//(.'/;I/I(.’(,'/r;/m/Pm)/'(.'(.'l/’(m/'(*I"7

Anessentialaspectoftherediscoveryofimperialismwithinthemainstreamisto justifyU.S.militaryandpoliticaldominancewhileremovingthisfromany notionofarisinggapbetweenrichandpoornat.ions—ofthekindemphasizedin Marxisttheoriesofimperialismandhighlightedbythenewantigl0balization/ anticapitalistmovement.Asignoftheimpactofthisnewglobalanticapitalist movementistheextenttowhichtheglobalestablishmentanditsallieshave founditnecessarytodefendtheirrecord.Alargepartofthisdefenseistheclaim thattheantiglobalizersdon’tknowwhattheyaretalkingabout.[ftheAmerican imperiumisseeminglymoredominantthaneverithasnothingtodo,weare told,witheconomicexploitation.

AcaseinpointisanAugust15,2002articleintheNewl’nrlr.TirmzsbyVirginia Postrcl,oneofitsstableofeconomiccolumnists.Giventhecatchyheading,“The RichGetRicherandthePoorGetPoorer.Right?Let’sTakeAnotherLook,”this articlewasunitedtoappearjustpriortotheWorldSummitonSustainable DevelopmentheldinjohannesburginAugustandSeptember2002.Theobject ofPostrel’sarticlewastorefuteNoamChomsky,whowasquotedassaying, “Inequalityissoaringthroughtheglobalizingperiod—withincountriesand acrosscountries."AccordingtoPostrel,notonlywasChomsky(leadwrong,so wasthe1999UnitedNationsHnmasn])evclo1nnen(Ref)o1‘lthatreachedthesame conclusionbasedonU.N.organizeddata.

WhatiswrongwiththeclaimsofChomsl(yandtheUnitedNations,according toPostrelandotherdefendersofglobalizationandliberalization?Thedata,they insist,arellawed.“TheUnitedNationsreportandotherslookedatgapsin incomeoftherichestandpoorestcountries-—notrichandpoorindividuals.That meansthatfomierlypoorcitizensofgiantcountriescouldbecomealotricherand stillbarelyshowupinthedata.”

Heretheneoliberaldefendersoftheglobalsystemintermingleandconfuse twoseparatequestions—thegapsbetweencountriesandtheunequaldistribution intheincomeoftheworld’spopulation.Thereisindeedalegitimatedifference betweenthetwo.Countrysizeisirrelevantinexaminingthegapsbetweencountries.Theworldeconomyworksthroughdifferentstates.Thehistoryofcapitalismisdistinguishedbyagrowinggapbetweenrichandpoorstates—agapdistinguishedbythefactthattherichstatesgrowinlargepartbyexploitingother nations.Sometimes,itisalargestateexploitingagroupofsmallerstates.Inother cases,itisasmallstateextractingthesurplusofmuchlargerstates.Thinkofthe presentU.S.EmpireandthefomierBritishEmpire.

Theideologistsofglobalcapitalism,dedicatedtodemonstratingthebenign characterofAmericanimper1'alism,insistthatglobalizationandliberalizationwill leadtoeconomicequalityamongnations,bigandsmall.Thefactsshownbythe UnitedNations,however,proveconclusivelythatthisdidnothappen.Onthe contrary,thegapbetweenstateshaswidened.

StilltheNew761'/cTimesisnotinterested.Itcaresaboutthepeople.Postrcl writes:

Overthelastthreedecadestheworld’.-Itwolargestcountries,Chinaandlndia, haveracedaheadeconomically.SohaveotherAsiancountrieswithrelativelylarge

lP)0ulations.Theresultisthat2.5billion)cUplehaveseentheirstandardsullivin riseto\\1Irt'lthoseolthebillionpeopleinthealreadydevelopedcountries—tlet'reaitingglobalpovertyandincreasingglobalequality.Fromthepointolviewol'individuals,economicliberalizationhasbeen.1hugesuccess.

Butwhatexamples!Letuslooltatlndia‘scontributiontothedecreaseinglobalpoverty.AccordingtothelatestWorldBankreport,86-fm‘cmtrflrtrlirrfr[mimIatinnlivesonlessthan$2(1.tin}."‘lnI983,thetop10percentolineomeearners inlndiaaccountedfor26.7percentofhouselioldincome/expenditures,byI992, theirsharewas28.4percent,andby1997,ithadrisento33.5percent.Hardlya Signolincreasingequality!”

Now,consi(lertheexampleofChina.ThreedecadesagoChinawasthemust equalnationintheworld.Thenthepoliticalleaderstookanotherroadinpursuingtheirgoals.Insteadoftheearlierpriorityofequality,thecitizensweretoldthat itwasgoodtogetrich.Privateenterprisewasencouraged,thedoortoforeign invesmtentwaswidened,theChinesestatebecamecozywithU.S.ntultinationals, globalizationwaswelcomed,theWorldBankentered,andChinarecentlybecame aInemberoltheWTO.

Theresultwasexactlytheoppositetowhattheprevailingdogmawouldlead onetoexpect.,andthatPostrelandotherdefendersofneoliberalgloba|i'/,ation simplyassumetobetrue.China,oncedistinguishedbyitsdevotiontoequality becameincreasinglyunequal.Somuchsothatbytheendofthenineties,China's distributionofincomecloselyresembledthemaldistributionofincomeinthe UnitedStates(seeTable1).

‘Dependingonthedata,WorldBanlceconomistswillcalculatethedistributionolincomeby eitherrevnueorconsumption.

Source:WorldBank,WorldDevelopmentReport2000/2001,US.dataarelotI997; China[or1998.

Thereexists,infact.asolidset0|‘dataontheworldwidedistributionul income.TheinlomiationwasdevelopedthroughanexhaustiveandhighlycorripetentstudymadebyBrankoMilanovic,aneconomistattheWorldBanlt.He burrowedintotheincredibleamountol‘statisticaldataburiedintheWorld Banlt"scomputers.Hisstudycameupwiththestoryonthedistributionofthe world°sincomein1988and1993.Itdemonstratesthat,infact,inequality increasedduringthoseyears(seeTable2).

Table5-2:WorldIncomeDistribution: CumulativePercentageofPopulationandIncome CumulativepercentCumulativepercentofworldincome

Source:BrankoMilanovic(WorldBank,DevelopmentResearchGroup),"TrueWorld IncomeDistribution,l9BBandl993:FirstCalculationBasedonHouseholdSurveys Alone.’TheEconomicJournal,ll2(January2002),pp.51-92.

Notethatthetop1percentreceivedalargershare(9.5percent)oftheworld’s incomein1993thanthebottom50percent,whilethetop5percentin1993had anincomesharefarexceedingthatofthebottom75percentandbeginningto approachthatofthebottom85percent.(Milanovicexploredthedataingreater detailthanshownhereandconcludedthatthetop1percenthadthesameincome asthebottom57percentofthepeopleonthisearth.)Thesefiguresareexactly whatonewouldexpectfromthewholehistoryofcapitalism,whichprospers throughwideningthegapbetweenrichandpoor—alawofthesystemthatnow hasaglobalfieldofoperation.Suchglobalexploitationisthecoreofimperialism,

whichisasbasictocapitalism,andasinseparable.asaccumulationitsell‘.Butthis ofcourseisnotthewholeofimperialism,whichrepresentsacomplexhistory withpolitical,military,andcultural(racial)factorstiedintoit.IntheMarxist approach,economicimperialismisnotreallyseparatefromtheseotherfeatures, whichareequallyapartofglobalcapitalistdevelopinentjustasthesearchfor profitsisthemantraoftheAmericanimperiuin,soisitsmilitaryandpolitical poweraimedatextendingthissearchandexpandingitsswayonaworldbasisallthetimeplacingfirstandforemosttheinterestsofU.S.corporationsandthe U.S.state.

Therediscoveryofimperialisniwithinthemainstreamonlymeansthatthese processesarenowbeingpresented,especiallybyrulingcirclesintheUnited States,asinevitable—arealityfromwhichthereisnoescape.Therevoltagainst thisnewphaseofimperialism,however,hasclearlyonlyjustbegun.Mostofthe populationoftheworldknowswhatU.S.punditsconvenientlyforget,thatU.S. imperialismresemblestheexploitativeempiresofthepast,andwilllikelysull'er thesamefateaspastempires—growingrevoltfromwithinand“barbarians”at thegates.

US.ImperialAmbitionsandIraq

/)(‘('('/ll/)('I‘2002

lliciallyWashington’scurrentpolicytowardIraqistobringabouta “regimechange”—eitherthroughamilitarycoup,orbymeansolia U.S.invasion,_justiliedasa“preemptiveattack”againstaroguestate bentondevelopinganddeployingweaponsofmassdestruction.’ButaU.S. invasion,shouldittakeplace,wouldnotconfineitsobjectivestomereregime changeinBaghdad.ThelargergoalwouldbenothinglessthantheglobalprojectionofU.S.powerthroughassertionofAmericandominanceovertheentire MiddleEast.Whattheworldisnowfacingthereforeistheprospectofama_jor newdevelopmentinthehistoryofimperialism.

Theimperialismoftodayisdefinitelynotthesameasthatofthelatenineteenthcentury.Intheearlydaysofthemoderneraofimperialism,severalpowers-—notal)lyGermany,japan,andtheUnitedStates—cameonthesceneto challengel3ritain’shegemonyinvariouspartsoftheglobe.Therewereanumbcrolnotablefeaturesofimperialismduringthisperiod:thescrambleamong theEuropeanpowerstodivideupAfrica;heigliteneclcompetitioninEurope foreachother’smarkets;thegrowingCermanchallengetoLondonasthecore oftheinternationalmoneymarket.Atthesametime,theUnitedStateswas attemptingtoenterthecompetitionformarketsinEuropeandwasdeveloping itsowncoloniesandspheresofinlluenceinLatinAmericaandAsia.ThepriniarycausesoftheFirstWorldWarincludedboththebittercompetition amongthegreatpowersforcoloniesandmarketsandtheCermaiiattemptto eliminateBritainasthecenteroliinternationalmoneyandcommoditymarkets.

TheperiodaltertheFirstWorldWarrepresentedasecondphaseoltiloclcrtt imperialism.TheTreatyofVersailleswasaprocessofthewinnersdividingthe gains,withaunitarygoal—thedefeatofBolshevism.ThorsteinVeblenwrote thatwipingBolshevismoilthemapwasnotsimplyasecretclauseintheTreaty ofVersailles,itwasthevery“parchment”oftheTreaty.’However,theplanto isolateandbringdowntheSovietUnionwasinterruptedbytheGreat DepressionandbytheSecondWorldWar,whichdevelopedoutolthestruggles oftheaxispowers,Germany,ltaly,andjapan,tocarveoutlargerspaceswithin theworldsystem.

AthirdphaseofimperialismemergedafterWorldWarII.Duringthewar,tl1e UnitedStates,asthenewhegemonicstatewithinthecapitalistworld,haddevelopedaplanforgainingcontrolofwhatitconsideredtobethestrategiccenters oltheworldeconomy—anatnbitionthatwasthenonlylimitedbytheexistence oftheSovietsphereofinfluence.WritinginthisspaceinNovember1981, NoamChomskydescribedtheformationofU.S.geopoliticalstrategyinthis periodasfollows:

ThegeneralFrameworkofthinkingwithinwhichAmericanforeignpolicyhas evolvedsincetheSecondWorldWarisbestdescribedintheplanningdocuments producedduringthatwarbytheStateDepartmentplannersandtheCouncilfor ForeignRelationswhometforasix-yearperiodintheWarandPeaceStudies Program,1939-45.Theyknew,certainlyby1941-42,thatthewarwasgoingtoend withtheUnitedStatesinapositionofenonnousglobaldominance.Thequestion arose:“Howdoweorganizetheworld?"

TheydrewupaconceptknownasGrandAreaPlanning,wheretheGrand Areaisdefinedastheareawhich,intheirterms,was“strategicallynecessaryfor worldcontrol.”Thegeopoliticalanalysisbehinditattemptedtoworkoutwhich areasoftheworldhavetobe“open"—opentoinvestment,opentotherepatriation olprofits.Open,thatis,todominationbytheUnitedStates.

InorderfortheUnitedStateseconomytoprosperwithoutinternalchanges(a crucialpointwhichcomesthroughinallofthediscussionsinthisperiod),without anyredistributionofincomeorpowerormodificationofstructures,theWarand PeaceProgramdetertninedthattheminimumareastrategicallynecessaryforworld controlincludedtheentireWesternhemisphere,theformerBritishempirewhich theywereintheprocessoldismantling,andtheFarEast.Thatwastheminimum, andthemaximumwastheuniverse.

SomewherebetweenthetwocatnethemnceptoltheCrantlArea—andthrtask ofhowtoorganizeitintemtsoflinancialinstitutionsandplanning.Thisistltt’ frameworkthatremainedconstantthroughoutthepostwarperiod."

TheliberationofEurope'scoloniesandthedefeatol"]apan'sall|l)l[ltIl|.‘lin thePacificallowedU.S.capital._backedupbyUS.tnilitarypower.tobeginto penetratemarketsthatwerepreviouslyinaccessible.WhiletheBrcttonWoods Agreementprovidedaneweconomiclratneworltfortheimperialistpowers. U.S.militarymightandcovertoperationswereprojectedaroundtheglobewith increasingfrcquency—warsinKoreaandVictnatn,theoverthrowofgovernmentsinIran,Guatemala,andChile,theattetnptedoverthrowoftheCuban govermnent,andinterferenceinnumerouscivilwarsinCentralAmericaand Africa.

CrucialtothewholeconceptionoltheGrandAreawascontroloftheMiddle East,whichwasregardedaspartoftheoldBritishEmpire,andabsolutelyessentialfortheeconomic,military,andpoliticalcontroloftheglobe—notleastofall becauseitwastherepositoryofmostoftheworld’sprovenoilreserves.The UnitedStatesthusbeganalongseriesofovertandcovertinterventionsinthe regioninthe1950s,theforemostofwhichwasthe1953overthrowofthedemocratieallyelectedMossadeghgoverntnentinIran,whichhadnationalizedforeignownedoilcompanies.ThesuccessoftheU.S.drivewasclear.Between1940and 1967,U.S.companiesincreasedtheircontrolofMiddleEasternoilreservesfrom 10percenttocloseto60percentwhilereservesunderBritishcontroldecreased from72percentin1940to30percentin1967.‘

ThelongdelayedmeaningfulintegrationofWesternEurope,partially causedbytheellectsofeconomicstagnation,meantthatitwasnotableto becomethebulwarkagainstU.S.intereststhatEuropeanleadershadhoped. WithaweakEuropeandjapanunabletomountaseriouschallengetoU.S.interestsinAsia,thedefeatofactuallyexistingsocialisminEuropebytheearly1990s pavedthewayforarenewedperiodofU.S.hegemony,whichhadpartlyFadedin the19703andl980s.

Viewedfromthestandpointofthehistoricalevolutionofimperialism,itisclear thattherealmotivebehindWashington’scurrentdrivetostartawarwithlraqis notanygenuinemilitarythreatfromthatcountry,butratherthegoalof(lemonstratingthattheU.S.isnowpreparedtouseitspoweratwill.AsjayBooltman, deputyeditorialpageeditoroftheAl/mtm-]o-ur:t(r.lConstitutionobserved:

TheollicialstoryonIraqhasnevermadesense.It[thethreatenedinvasionof Iraq]isnotaboutweaponsofmassdestruction,orterrorism,orSaddam,orUN resolutions.Thiswar,shoulditcome,isintendedtotnarktheoflicialemergenceof theUnitedStatesasaFull-lledgedglobalempire,seizingsoleresponsibilityand authorityasplanetarypoliceman.Itwouldl)etheculminationofaplanl0yearsor moreinthemaking,carriedoutbythosewhobelievethattheUnitedStatesmust seizetheopportunityforglobaldomination,evenifitmeansbecomingthe “/\men'canimperialists"thatourenemiesalwaysclaimedwewereRomedidnot stooptocontainment;itconquered.Andsoshouldwe.-"

'/'/Ic/)(;/("n.s‘('Q/I/_'.'/II/)I-I'(.‘

Warsofimperialexpansion,howeverunjustifiabletheymaybe,alwaysdemand somekindofjustilication.Oftenthishasbeenaccomplishedthroughthedoctrine ofdefensivewar.Inhis1919essay,“TheSociologyofImperia.lisms,”joseph SchumpeterwroteofRomeduringitsyearsofgreatestexpansion:

Therewasnocomeroftheknownworldwheresomeinterestwasnotallegedtobe indangerorunderactualattack.lftheinterestswerenotRoman,theywerethoseof Rome’sallies;andifRomehadnoallies,thenallieswouldbeinvented.Whenitwas utterlyimpossibletocontrivesuchaninterest—why,thenitwasthenationalhonor thathadbeeninsulted.Thefightwasalwaysinvestedwithanauraoflegality.Rome wasalwaysbeingattackedbyevil-mindedneighbors,alwaysfightingforabreathingspace.Thewholeworldwaspervadedbyahostofenemies,anditwasmanifestly Rome’sdutytoguardagainsttheirindubitablyaggressivedesigns.“

Thepretensethatanendlessseriesofdefensivewarswasneededtocheck evil-mindedforcesbentonaggressionineverycorneroftheknownworlddidnot diewiththeRomanEmpire,butwaspartoftherationalefortheexpansionof BritishimperialisminthenineteenthcenturyandAmericanimperialisminthe twentieth.’ThissamementalitypervadesthenewNatioitalSecurityStrategyof theUnitedStates,recentlytransmittedfromtheexecutivebranchtoCongress." ThisdocumentestablishesthreekeyprinciplesofU.S.strategicpolicy:(1)the perpetuationofunrivaledU.S.globalmilitarydominance,sothatnonationwill heallowedtorivalorthreatentheUnitedStates;(2)U.S.readinesstoengagein “preemptive”militaryattacksagainststatesorforcesanywhereontheglobethat

areconsideredathreattothesecurity0!‘theUnitedStates,itsforcesandinstallationsabroad,oritsfriendsorallies;an(l(3)theinnnttnityol’U.S.citizenstoprosecutionbytheInternationalCriminalCourt.CommentingonthisnewNalinmll SmtrifyS/rnlegv,SenatorEdwardM.Kennedydeclared,“Theadministration's doctrineisacallfor21stcenturyAmericanimperialismthatnoothernationcan orshouldaccept?”

Washington"sambitiontoestablishaglobalempirebeyondanythingthe worldhasyetseenismatchedonlybyitsparanoidfearofinnunterableenemies ltirkingineverypocketoftheglobereadytothreatenthesecurityofthe“homeland"itself.Theseexternalthreatsonlyservetojttstify,initseyes,theextension ofU.S.power.ThetargetedenemiesoftheUnitedStatesatpresentareconvenientlylocatedinthethirdworld,wherethepossibilitiesforoutrightexpansion ofU.S.imperialismaregreatest.

IraqunderthebrutaldictatorshipofSaddamHusseinispresentedastheforemostroguestate,globalenemynumberone.AlthoughIraqisnotyetarmedwith themostfearedweaponsofmassdestruct.ion—nuclearweapons—itisclaimedby theBushadministrationthatitmaysoonobtainthem.Moreover,becauseofthe purporteduttermadnessofitsleader,Iraqissaidtobesoirrationalastobe immunetonucleardeterrence.Asaresult,thereisnochoice,wearetold,butto strikethisevilregimequickly,evenbeforeitobtainsthefearedweapons.TheUN inspectionprocessislargelyuselessatthisstage,theBushadministrationhas insisted(thoughoverruledinthisrespectbytheotherSecurityCouncilmembers).SaddamHussein,itiscontended,willalwaysfindawaytohidehismost criticalweaponsoperationssomewhereintheextensivecomplexesdedicatedto hispersonalsecurity,whichwillnotbeopenedfullytoUNinspectors,however muchIraqmayagreetounconditionalinspections.Thereisnorealchoicethen but“regimechange”(installingapuppetregime)throughexerciseofforceeitherbymilitarycouporinvasion.

ItisbyinstillingfearinthiswayinanAmericanpublicalreadyprimedbythe eventsol'Septemberll,2001thattheadministrationhassoughttopullthecountryandtheworldtowardwar.IfaU.S.presidentandhisadministrationcanstand updayalterdayandinsistthattheUnitedStatesisvulnerabletoanimminent attackbyweaponsofmassdestruction(raisingthequestionofasurpriseattack involvinga“mushroomcloud”eveninacasewherethenationconcernedhasno suchweaponscapabilities),alargepartofthepopulationisboundtobecarried along.Theceaselessrepetitionofthesedirewarningsundersomethinglikethe

biglieprinciple,coupledwiththeechochamberprovidedbythemassmedia, graduallywearsawayatpopularskepticism.“lllpublicsupportisweakattheoutset,”DefenseSecretaryDonaldRumsleldhaswrittenwithrespecttoconvincing thepopulationtobackanunpopularwar,thenthe“US.leadershipmustbewillingtoinvestthepoliticalcapitaltomarshalsupporttosustaintheellortforwhateverperiodoft.imemayberequired.”'"

SocrazedhavebeentheclaimsemanatingfromtheOvalOllice,initsellorts toconcoctthemercstshredsofajustilicationforaninvasion,thatnoneotherthan CIADirectorGeorge].Tenethasbeencompelledtostepoutandchallengethe falseassertionsofthepresident.ThusTenethasopenlycontradictedthepresident’sclaimthatIraqconstitutesaninunediatenuclearthreattotheUnited States,point.ingoutthatitwouldtakelraquntilthesecondhalfofthedecadeat theveryleasttoproduceenoughfissilematerialforasinglenuclearweapon.The administrationhasattemptedtogetaroundtheweaknessofitscasewithrespect tonuclearweaponsbyplacingmoreemphasisonthechemicalandbiological weaponsthreatsofIraq.InaspeechdeliveredinCincinnationOctober7,2002, thepresidentsaidthatBaghdadmightattemptatanytimetoattacktargetsinthe UnitedStateswiththeseweaponsifaidedandabettedbyterroristnetworksin deliveringtheweaponstotheirtargets.YettheCIA,inalettertoCongresssigned byTenetthatsameday,contradictedsuchanassessment,arguingthatIraqshows nosignsofdevelopingchemicalandbiologicalweaponsexceptforpurposesof deterrenceandthatitcouldbeexpectedtorefrainfromsponsoringterrorist attacksintheforeseeableFutureiftheUnitedStatesdoesnotattackitfirst. “Baghdadfornowappearstobedrawingalineshortofconductingterrorist attackswithconventionalorC.B.W.[chemicalandbiologicalweapons]against theUnitedStates,”theletterread.However,“shouldSaddamconcludethata U.S.—ledattackcouldnolongerbedeterred,”thelettercontinued,“heprobably wouldbecomemuchlessconstrainedinadoptingterroristactions.”"

ThefactisthatIraqtodayprobablydoesnotpossessfunctionalchemicaland biologicalwarcapabilitiessincethesewereellectivelydestroyedduringtheUN inspectionprocessin1991-1998.Itsearliercapabilitiesinthisrespectdateback tothe1980swhenIraqunderSaddamHusseinwasanallyoftheUnitedStates. During1985-1989,overlappingwiththeIraq-IranWarof1980-1988,andafler

ImqisI451‘Qfr‘/trrIIir/1/mm/musagainstIranin1984,US.companies,withthe approvaloftheReaganandthefirstBushadministrations,sentnumerousfatal biologicalcultures,includinganthrax,toIraq.Eightshipmentsofcultureswere approvedbytheDepartinentofCommercethatwerelaterclassifiedbythe CentersforDiseaseControlashaving“biologicalwarfaresignificance.” Altogether,Iraqreceivedatleastseventy-twoshipmentsofclones,germs,and chemicalswithchemicalandbiologicalwarfarepotentialfrotntheU.S.inthese years.”TheUnitedStatescontinuedtoshipsuch(leadlysubstancestoIraqrum. nflrrlraqreportedlyusedchemicalweaponsagainsttheKurdsinnorthernIraq in1988.

ItisnosecretthattheUnitedStatesisthecountrythathasbyfarthelargest weaponsofmassdestructioncapabilitiesandthemostadvancedtechnologyin thisarea.ItishardlysurprisingthereforethatWashingtonisviewedbymuchof theworldasoperatingwithdoublestandards,whenconfrontingnationssuchas Iraq.AsformerchiefweaponsinspectorfortheUnitedNationsinIraq,Richard Butler,haspointedout:“MyattempttohaveAmericansenterintodiscussions aboutdoublestandardshavebeenanabjectfailure—evenwithhighlyeducated andengagedpeople.IsometimesfeltIwasspeakingtotheminMartian,sodeep istheirinabilitytounderstand.”InButler’sview,“WhatAmericatotallyfailsto understandisthattheirweaponsofmassdestructionarejustasmuchaproblem asarethoseoflraq.”Theviewthatthereare“goodweaponsofmassdestruction andbadones”isfalse.AsaUNarmsinspector,Butlerfoundhimselfconfronted withthiscontradictioneveryday:

AmongstmytoughestmomentsinBaghdadwerewhentheIraqisdemandedthatI explainwhytheyshouldbehoundedfortheirweaponsofmassdestructionwhen, justdowntheroad,Israelwasnot,eventhoughitwasknowntopossesssome200 nuclearweaponsIconfess,too,thatIflinchwhenIhearAmerican,Britishand Frenchfulminationsagainstweaponsofmassdestruction,ignoringthefactthat theyareproudownersofmassivequantitiesoftheseweapons,unapologetically insistingthattheyareessentialfortheirnationalsecurity,andwillremainso. Thisisbecausehumanbeingswillnotswallowsuchunfairness."

Farfromconsistentlyopposingtheproliferationofweaponsofmassdestruction,theUnitedStates,whichhasagreatervestedinterestinsuchweaponsthan anothercount:hasfrecuentlblockedinternationalattem)tstolilnitthem. YYaIYI

ForexampleinDecember2001,twomonthsaltertheSeptember11attacks, PresidentBushshockedtheinternationalcommunitybykillingtheproposed enforcementandverificationmechanismfortheBiologicalandToxinWeapons Conventiononthespuriousgroundsthatifbiologicalweaponsinspectionswere tobecarriedoutintheUnitedStatestheycouldthreatenthetechnological secretsandprofitsofU.S.l)iotec|icompanies.

Washington’sobjectivesinIraqintheyearsfollowingtheGulfWarwere inconsistentwiththeUNinspectionanddisarmamentprocess,whichwasaimed atriddingthatcountryofweaponsofmassdestruction.AccordingtoScottRitter, aformerUNweaponsinspectorinIraqin1991-1998,thiswasevidentthrough U.S.unilateralsubversionoftheinspectionprocess."By1998,90-95percentol theproscribedweaponscapacityestimatedtobeinIraqwasaccountedforand hadbeendestroyedasaresultoftheUNinspectionprocess.Thestickingpoint intheinspectionsrelatedtotheextensivesetofstructuresdevotedtoSaddam Hussein'spersonalsecurityandthesecurityoftheBaathParty.Aprocedure, knownas“ModalitiesforSensitiveSiteInspection,”wasthereforeagreedupon throughwhichfourUNinspectorscouldenterimmediatelyandsearchthose facilities.Yet,inthecaseoftheinspectionofaBa’athPartyheadquartersin BaghdadinDecember1998,theUnitedStates,ratherthansimplyallowingthe UNtosendinitsfourinspectors,actedonitsown,byinsistingonsendingin additionalintelligenceofficers.ThegoalwastopenetrateI-1ussein’ssecurity apparatus,unrelatedtotheinspectionofweaponsofmassdestruction—andto provokeaninternationalincident.Thewholeoperation,accordingtoRitter,was directedbytheU.S.NationalSecurityCouncil,whichgaveordersdirectlyto RichardButler,whowasthentheheadoftheUNinspectionteam.

IraqprotestedagainstthisgrossinfringementoftheModalitiesforSensitive SiteInspectionandtheUnitedStatesusedthisasthepretext,inRitter’saccount, fora“fabricatedcrisis,”orderingtheUNinspectorsoutandtwodayslaterinitiatingaseventy-two-hourbombingcampaign,knownasOperationDesertFox, directedatSaddamHussein’spersonalsecurityapparatus.IntelligenceonBaatli PartyhidcoutsobtainedthroughU.S.violationsoftheUNweaponsinspection processwasusedtoguidethebombings.AlterthatIraqrefusedtoreadmit inspectorstosensitivesites,objectingthattheseinspectionswerebeingusedto spyontheIraqigovernment,andtheUNin'spectionprocessfellapart.

Inthisway,WashingtonellectivelytorpetloedthefinalstageoftheUNinspectionprocessandmadeitclearthatitsrealgoalwas“regimechange”ratherthan

disannament.IthadusedtheinspectionprocessasaTrojanhorseinitsattempts todestroytheIraqiregime.

()i///(“1,"t’III()II_;'

Military,political,andeconomicaspectsareintertwinedinallstagesolimperialism.aswellascapitalismingeneral.However,oilisthesinglemostimportant strategicfactorgoverningU.S.ambitionsintheMiddleEast.Inadditiontothe profitpotentialolallthatoilforlargecorporations,thefactthattheUnitedStates, withabout2percentoltheknownoilreservesintheworld,uses25percentofthe world‘sannualoutputgivesitanaddedimpetustoattempttoexertcontrolover supplies.TherecanbenodoubtthattheUnitedStatesseekstocontrolIraqioil productionandthesecondlargestsetofprovenoilreservesintheworld(nextto thoseofSaudiArabia),consistingofover110billionbarrels,or12percentof worldsupply.TheMiddleEastasawholecontains65percentoftheworld’s provenoilreserves(seemap).Ofseventy-threefieldsdiscoveredinIraqsofar, onlyaboutathirdareproducingatpresent.TheU.S.EnergyDepartmentestimatesthatIraqalsohasasmuchas220billionbarrelsin“probableandpossible” reserves,makingdieestimatedtotalenoughtocoverU.S.annualoilimportsat theircurrentlevelsforninety-eightyears.ItiscalculatedthatIraqcouldraiseits oilproductionFromthreemilliontosixmillionbarrelsadaywithinsevenyears altertheliftingofsanctions.MoreoptimisticfiguresseeIraqioilproductionrisingtoasmuchastenmillionbarrelsaday.""

TheU.S.DepartmentofEnergyprojectsthatglobaloildemandcouldgrow fromthecurrent77millionbarrelsadaytoasmuchas120millionbarrelsaclayin thenexttwentyyears,withthesharpestincreasesindemandoccurringinthe UnitedStatesandChina.Atpresentabout24percentofU.S.oilimportscomefrom theMiddleEastandthisisexpectedtoriserapidlyasalternativesourcesdryup. OPECundertheleadershipolSaudiArabia,however,haskeptoilsupplieslowin ordertokeeppricesup.MiddleEastoilproductionhasstagnatedoverthelast twentyyears,withoverallOPECproductioncapacity(despitemassivereserves) lowertodaythaninl980.'“ForthisreasonthesecurityandavailabilityoloilsupplieshasbecomeagrowingissueforU.S.corporationsandU.S.strategicinterests. Asright-wingpunditandYaleprofessor,DonaldKagan,hasstated:“Whenwehave economicproblems,it'sbeencausedbydisruptionsinouroilsupply.Ifwehavea forceinIraq,therewillbenodisruptioninoilsupplies".‘7AlreadyU.S.oilcorporationsarepositioningthemselvesforthedaywhentheywillbeabletoreturnto

IraqandIran.AccordingtoRobertAllison_]r.,chairmanoftheAn.ularltu I’:-tmlt-um(Iorporation,“WeboughtintoQatarandOmantogetalimtlmlilinlllt‘ Mitltlleliast.WeneedtopositionourselvesintheMiddleEastlorwhenIraqand Iranbecomepartofthefamilyolnationsagain.”"“Atpresentthel“l‘t‘|I('l|oilgiant 'l‘ulall"inalf.llhasthelargestpositioninIraq,withexclusivenegotiatingrightsIn developlieldsintheMajnoonandBinUlnarregiotis.Thebiggestdealsalterthat havebeenexpectedtogotoFaninItaly,an(laRussianconsortittniledbyl.uk(lil. ll‘U.S.armedforcesenterandestablisheitherapuppetgovernnietitoraU.S.mission,allofthisisbroughtintoquestion.Whichcountry'soilcompaniesshotiltlwe thenexpecttodothenegotiatingfornewcontracts—aswellasobtainingahealthy shareol‘theoilnowownedbytheFrenchandothernon-Ainericancoinp'.mies':'

Ilowever,directU.S.accesstooilandtheprolitsofU.S.oilcorporationsart.notenoughbythemselvestoexplainoverridingU.S.interestsintheMiddle East.RathertheUnitedStatesseesthewholeregionasacrucialpartolitsstrategyofglobalpower.TheoccupationofIraqandtheinstallationofaregime imderAmericancontrolwouldleaveIran(itselfanoilpoweran(lpartol'llusli‘s “AxisofEvil”)almostcompletelysurroundedbyU.S.militarybasesin(Zentral Asiatothenorth,TurkeyandIraqtothewest,Kuwait,SaudiArabia,Qatar,and ()mantothesouth,andPakistanandAfghanistantotheeast.Itwouldmakeit easierfortheUnitedStatestoprotectplannedoilpipelinesextendingfromthe CaspianSeainCentralAsiathroughAfghanistanandPakistantotheArabian Sea.ItwouldgiveWashingtonamuchmoresolidmilitarybaseintheMiddle East,whereitalreadyhastensofthousandsoftroopslocatedintencountries.ll wouldincreaseU.S.leverageinrelationtoSaudiArabiaandotherMiddle lia.-sternstates.Itwouldstrengthentheglobalsuperpower‘sellortstolorceterms liivorabletoIsraeliexpansion,andthedispossessionofthePalestitiiatis,onthe entireMiddleEast.ItwouldmaketherisingeconomicpowerofChina,along withEuropeand_]apan,increasinglydependentonaU.S.dominatedoilregime intheMiddleEastfortheirmostvitalenergyneeds.Controloloiltlironglimilitaryforcewouldthustranslateintogreatereconomic,political,andmilitary power,onaglobalscale.

/IU/H’/)0/(Ir|l/o/'/r/ littheearly1070s,asaresultofthelossofeconomicgroundtoEuropeand_|apini overthecourseofthepreviousquarter-century,andduetothedelinltingolthe

‘M\‘\Kl‘Il)l\ll'|'Il\|-\l.|S.\l dollarfromgoldinl97l._itwaswidelybelievedthattheUnitedStateswaslosing itspositionasthehegemoniccapitalistpower.However,inthe19905thecollapse oftheSovietUnion,whichlefttheUnitedStatesasthesolesuperpower,and fastergrowthintheUnitedStatesthanirtEuropeandjapan,suddenlyrevealeda verydifferentreality.TheideaaroseinU.S.strategiccirclesofanAmerican empirebeyondanythingseeninthehistoryolcapitalistttoroftheworld,atrue PaxAmericana.U.S.foreignpolicyanalystsnowrelertothisastheriseofa “unipolarworld."Theconsolidationofsuchaunipolarworldonapermanent basishasemergedastheexplicitgoaloftheBushadministrat.ionayearafterthe September11attacks.InthewordsolC.,]ohnlkenberry:

Thenewgrandstrategy[initiatedbytheBushadministration]beginswithafiandamcntalmtnmiunenttomaintainingaunipolarworldinwhichtheUnitedStates hasnopeercompetitor.NocoalitionolgrcatpowerswithouttheUnitedStateswill beallowedtoachievehegemony.BushmadethispointthecenterpieceofAmerican securitypolicyinhisWestPointcommencementaddressin_]une:“Americahas,and intendstokeep,militarystrengthsbeyondcha]lenges—therebymakingthedestabilizingarmsracesofothereraspointless,andlimitingrivalriestotradeandotherpursuitsofpeace"...TheUnitedStatesgrewfasterthantheothermajorstatesduring thedecade[ofthel990s],itreducedmilitaryspendingmoreslowly,anditdominatedinvestmentinthetechnologicaladvancementofitsforces.Today,however,the newgoalistomaketheseadvantagespennanent—afaitaccomplithatwillprompt otherstatestonoteventrytocatchup.Somethinkershavedescribedthestrategyas “breakout,”inwhichtheUnitedStatesmovessoquicklytodeveloptechnological advantages(inrobotics,lasers,satellites,precisionmunitions,etc.)thatnostateor coalitioncouldeverchallengeitasgloballeader,protectorandenforcer.”

Suchagrabforunlintitcdimperialdominanceisboundtofailinthelongrun. Imperialismundercapitalismhascentrifugalaswellascentripetaltendencies. Militarydominancecannotbemaintainedwithoutmaintainingeconomicdominanceaswell,andthelatterisinherentlyunstableundercapitalism.Theimmediatereality,however,isthattheUnitedStatesismovingveryrapidlytoincreaseits controlattheexpenseofbothpotentialrivalsandtheglobalSouth.Thelikely resultisanintensilicationofexploitationonaworldscale,alongwitharesurgenceofimperialistriva|ries—sinceothercapitalistcountrieswillnaturtllyseekto keeptheUnitedStatesfromachievingits“breakout”strategy.

ThegoalofanexpandingAmericanempireisseenbytheadministrationnot onlyasastrategyforestablishingtheUnitedStatespermanentlyastheworld’s paramountpower,butalsoasawayoutofthenation'seconomiccrisisthatshows nosignsatpresentofgoingaway.Theadministrationclearlybelievesitcanstimulatetheeconomythroughmilitaryspendingandincreasedarmsexports.But enhancedmilitaryspendingassociatedwithawarmayalsocontributetoeconomicproblems,sinceitwillundoubtedlycutfurtherintospendingForsocial programsthatnotonlyhelppeoplebutalsocreatethedemandforconsumer goodsthatbusinessneedsbadlytostimulateeconomicgrowth.Historically, attemptstouseimperialexpansionasawayaroundneededeconomicandsocial changesathomehavenearlyalwaysfailed.

IntheendwhatwemustunderstandisthatthenewU.S.doctrineofworld dominationisaproductnotofaparticularadministration(muchlesssomecabal withintheadministration),butrathertheculminationofdevelopmentsinthe mostrecentphaseofimperialism.Reversingthedrivetogreaterempirewillnot beeasy.ButthewillofthepeoplecanplayacriticalroleinhowfarWashingtonis abletoproceedwithitsimperialambitions.Forthisreason,mobilizationofthe populationbothintheUnitedStatesandabroadinamilitantstruggleagainst bothwarandimperialismisoftheutmostimportancetothefutureofhumanity.

“ImperialAmerica"andWar

I/(ti‘'_/()().'i

nNovember11,2000,Richardl-laass—amemberoftheNational SecurityCouncilandspecialassistanttothepresidentundertheelder Bush,soontobeappointeddirectorofpolicyplanninginthestate departmentofnewlyelectedPresidentGeorgeW.Bush—deliveredapaperin Atlantaentitled“ImperialAmerica.”FortheUnitedStatestosucceedatitsobjectiveofglobalpreeminence,hedeclared,itwouldbenecessaryforAmericansto “re-conceivetheirrolefromatraditionalnation-statetoanimperialpower.”

Haasseschewedtheterm“imperialist”indescribingAmerica’srole,preferring “imperial,”sincethelonnerconnoted“exploitation,normallyforcommercial ends,”and“territorialcontrol.”Nevertheless,theintentwasperfectlyclear:

Toadvocateanimperialforeignpolicyistocallforaforeignpolicythatattemptsto organizetheworldalongcertainprinciplesalleetingrelationsbet\veenstatesand conditionswithinthem.TheUS.rolewouldresemblel.9thcenturyGreatBritain.

Coercionandtheuseollorcewouldnormallybealastresort;whatwaswritten byjohnGallagherandRonaldRobinsonaboutBritainacenturyandahallago,that “Theliritishpolicyfollowedtheprincipleolextendingcontrolinformallyifpossihleandlormallyifriecessary,”couldbeappliedtotheAmericanroleatthestartof thenewcentury.’

Theexistenceol'anAmericanempireisnosecret.ltiswidely,evenuniversally,recognizedinmostpartsoftheworld,thoughtraditionallydeniedbythe

powersthatbeintheUnitedStates.WhatHaasswascallingfor,however,wasa muchmoreopenacltnowledgementofthisimperialrolebyWashington,infull viewoftheAmericanpopulationandtheworld,inordertofurtherWashington's imperialambitions.“Thefundamentalquestionthatcontinuestoconfront Americanforeignpolicy,"heexplained,“iswhattodowithasurplusofpower andthemanyandconsiderableadvantagesthissurplusconfersontheUnited States.”Thissurplusofpowercouldonlybeputtousebyrecognizingthatthe UnitedStateshadimperialinterestsonthescaleofl3ritaininthenineteenthcentury.TheworldshouldthereforebegivennoticethatWashingtonispreparedto “extenditscontrol,”infonnallyifpossibleandformallyifnot,tosecurewhatit considerstobeitslegitimateinterestsacrossthefaceoftheglobe.ThefinalsectionofHaass’papercarriedtheheading“ImperialismBeginsatHome."Itconcluded:“thegreaterriskfacingtheUnitedStatesatthisjunctureisthatitwill squandertheopportunitytobringaboutaworldsupportiveofitscoreinterests bydoingtoolittle.Imperialunderstretch,notoverstretch,appearsthegreater dangerofthetwo.”

Thereiseveryreasontobelievethatthe“ImperialAmerica”argument espousedbyHaassrepresentsinbroadoutlinethenowdominantviewofthe U.S.rulingclass,togetherwiththeU.S.statethatprimarilyservesthatclass.After manyyearsofdenyingtheexistenceofU.S.empire,receivedopinioninthe UnitedStateshasnowadoptedapositionthatgloriesinthe“Americanimperium,”withits“imperialmilitary,”and“imperialprotectorates.”Thisshiftinexternalposturefirstoccurredattheendofthe1990s,whenitbecameapparentthat notonlywastheUnitedStatesthesoleremainingsuperpowerfollowingthe demiseoftheSovietUnion,butalsothatEuropeandjapan,duetoslowdownsin theirratesofeconomicgrowthrelativetothatoftheUnitedStates,werenowless abletorivaliteconomically.NordidEuropeseemtobeabletoactmilitarilywithouttheUnitedStatesevenwithinitsownregion,inrelationtothedebacleofthc Yugoslaviancivilwars.

AfterWashingtonlauncheditsglobalWaronTerrorism,followingSeptember I1,2001,theimperialdimensionsofU.S.foreignpolicywereincreasinglyobvious.U.S.empireisthereforenowportrayedbypoliticalpunditsandthetnain~ streammediaasanecessary“burden”fallingontheUnitedStatesasaresultofits unparalleledroleontheworldstage.TheUnitedStatesissaidtobeatthehead ofanewkindofempire,divorcedfromnationalinterest,economicexploitation, raeistn,orcolonialism,existingonlytopromotefreedomandhumanrights.As

Michaellgnatielfproclaimedinthe.M:'w1?)!‘/r7fIIl(JMzlgnziur,“AIucriea’sempire isnotlikeempiresoftimespast,builtoncolonies.conquestandthewhiteman’s burden.The21stcenturyimperiumisanewinventionintheannalsofpo|iticalscience,anempirelite,aglobalhegemonywhosegracenotesarefreemarkets, Immanrightsanddemocracy,enforcedbythemostawesomemilitarypowerthe worldhaseverl<nown.”"

Suchhigh-soundingwordsaside,whatInakesthis“2lstcenturyimperium" anoverridingconcernforhumanitytodayisWashington'sincreasedreadinessto useitsunrivaledmilitarypowertoinvadeandoccupyothercountrieswhenever itdeemsthisabsolutelynecessarytoachieveitsends.Yet,asIndianeconomist PrabhatPatnaikobservedmorethanadecadeago,“NoMarxisteverderivedthe existenceofimperialismfromthefactofwars;onthecontrarytheexistenceof warswasexplainedintermsofimperialism.”Oncetherealityofimperialismhas beenbroughtbacktotheforefrontofworldattentionasaresultofsuchwarsitis importanttosearchoutitsunderlyingcauses.

(,'/(I.s'.s'I.'(.'./G/II/)(.‘I'I'(I/I-Sill

OneofthemostinfluentialmainstreamhistoricalaccountsofBrit.ishinipenalisin inthenineteenthcenturywaspresentedinanarticleentitled“TheImperialism ofFreeTrade,”writtenahalf-centuryagobyeconomichistorians_]ohnGallagher andRonaldRobinson.ApartofthisanalysiswasutilizedbyI-laasstoadvancehis “ImperialAmerica”argument.ThecentralthesisofGallagherandRobinson's articlewassimple:imfmrialismisacontinuousrealityofeconomicexfiavisioii.in moderntimes.Thosewhoassociatedimperialismprimarilywithcoloniesand colonialism,andwhothereforetookthescrambleforAfricaandlatenineteenth centurycolonial.expansionasthebasisforageneralmodelofimperialism,were wrong.Britishimperialismthroughoutthenineteenthcenturyremainedessentiallythesameinitsinnerlogicdespitetheconcentrationonexpandingfreetrade inoneperiodandonannexingcoloniesinanother.AsGallagherandRobinson elaborated(inthesamepassagefromwhichHaassquoted):

Britishpolicyfollowedtheprincipleofextendingcontrolinformallyifpossibleand formallyifneeessary.Tolabeltheonemethod‘anti-imperialist’andtheother‘imperialist,’istoignorethefactthatwhateverthemethodBritishinterestsweresteadily safeguardedandextended.Theusualsummingupofthepolicyofthefreetrade

empireas‘tradenotrule'shouldread‘tradewithinfonnalcontrolifpossible;trade withrulewhennecessary.‘Despite...attemptsat‘imperialismonthecheap,’the foreignchallengetoBritishparamountcyintropicalAfrica[inthelatenineteenth century]andthecomparativeabsencethereoflarge~scale,strong,indigenouspoliticalorganirationswhichhadsewedinfonnalexpansionsowellelsewhere,eventuallydictatedtheswitchtoformalrule.‘

ForthoseseekingtocomprehendBritishimperialisminthenineteenthcentury,thisargumentsuggested,itisthe“imperialismoffreetrade”andnotcolonialismthatshouldbetheprimaryfocus.Onlywhentheeconomicendsof Britaincouldnotbesecuredbyinformalcontroldiditresorttoformalimperialismorcolonization—thatis,directandcontinuinguseofmilitaryandpolitical control—toachieveitsends.[fithasoftenbeensaidthat“tradefollowedthe flag,"itwouldbefarmorecorrecttosaythattherewas“ageneraltendencyfor Britishtradetofollowtheinvisible[lagofinfomialempire.”The“distinctivefeature”ofthe“Britishimperialismoffreetradeinthenineteenthcentury,”these authorsargued,wasthatitsuseofitsmilitaryforceandhegemonicpoweringeneralwereprimarilylimitedtoestablishingsecureconditionsforeconomicdominanceandexpansion.

TheclearestexampleofsuchinformalimperialismwastheBritishrolein SouthAmericainthenineteenthcentury.Britainmaintaineditscontrolinthe regionthroughvariouscommercialtreatiesandfinancialrelationshipsbackedby Britishseapower.AsBritishForeignMinisterGeorgeCanningputitin1824: “SpanishAmericaisfree;andifwedonotmismanageouraffairssadlysheis Englis/1."Atalltimes,GallagherandRobinsonstate,Britishinfluencewasexercisedsoastoconvertsuch“areasintocomplementarysatelliteeconomies,which wouldproviderawmaterialsandfoodforGreatBritain,andprovidewidening marketsforitsmanufactures.”Whenleftwithnootherwayofenforcingitsdominance,Britainwasalwaysreadytoresorttoactiveinterventions—asitdidrepeatedlyinLatinAmericainthenineteenthcentury.

AsthedistinguishedGermanhistorianWolfgang].Mommsennotedinhis Theoriesoflmf;eriali.rm,thesignificanceofthisconceptofinformalimperialism wasthatittendedtobridgethegapbetweennon-MarxistandMarxistapproaches,sinceitstressedthehistoricalcontinuityofimperialismasamanifestationof economicexpansion(notconfusingitsimplywithitsmoreformalpolitical-militaryoccurrences):

llyrecognizingthattherearentimerousinformaltypesofiinpcrialisldomination whichprecedeoraccompanytheestablislunentofformalrule,orevenmakeit unnecessary,Western[non-Marxist]thinkingonthesubjectofimperialismhas drawnclosertoMarxisttheory.Generallyspeaking,mostnon-Marxisttheoreticiansadmitnowadaysthatdependencyofanimperialistsortmaywellresultfrom themostvariedkindsofinfonnalinfluence,especiallyofaneconomicnature. lmperialistforcesatthecolonialperipherywerebynotneansohligedconstantlyto resorttotheactualuseofpoliticalpower:itwasgenerallyquiteenoughtoknowthat theimperialistgroupscouldcountonsupportfromthemetropolitanpowerinthe eventofacrisis.Formalpoliticalrulethusappearsonlyasthemostspecific,butnot thenormaltypeofimperialistdependence."

Ironically,GallagherandRobinsondistingiiishedtheirapproachfromthe classicaccountsol'_]ohnHobsonandLeninbyassociatingbothHobson’sand Lcnin’sviewswithanarrowerspectrumofcasesinvolvingformalcontrolorcolonialism.Byidentifyingthelastquarterofthenineteenthcentury,whencolonial aimexationswereattheirheight,asaqualitativelynewstageofcapitalism—the monopolyorimperialiststage—Lenininparticular,theseauthorsargued,had cometoassociateimperialismwithformalratherthaninformalcontrol.

However,thiscriticismfellwideofthemark,sinceLeninhimselfhademphasizedthatimperialismdidnotnecessarilyinvolveformalcontrol,aswitnessed especiallybyBritishimperialisminLatinAmericainthenineteenthcentury. “Thedivisionoftheworldinto...colony-owningcountriesontheonehandand coloniesontheother,”heobserved,didnotexhaustthecore-peripheryrelations betweennationstates.IndeedLeninpointedto“avarietyofformsofdependent countries;countries,which,ollicially,arepoliticallyindependent,butwhichare, infact,enmeshedinthenetoffinancialanddiplomaticdependencethesemicolony,”includingcaseslikeArgentina,whichwassodependentfinanciallyon Londonthatitwasavirtualcolony."’

Therealityofaninformalimperialismoffreetrade(orimperialismwithout colonies)wasneveranenigmatoMarxisttheory,whichviewedimperialismasa historicalprocessassociatedwithcapitalistexpansion——onlysecondarilyallectedbytheparticularpoliticalformsinwhichitmanifesteditself.Thereasonfor characterizingthelastquarterofthenineteenthcenturyastheimperialiststage intheworkofLeninandmostsubsequentMarxisttheorists,didnothavetodo mainlywithashiftfrominformaltoformalimperialism,orthemerefactofwide­

spreadannexationswithintheperiphery,butratherwiththeevolutionofcapitalismitself,whichhaddevelopedintoitsmonopolystage,creatingaqualitativelynewtypeofimperialism.Itwasthishistoricallyspecificanalysisofiniperialismasamanifestationofcapitalistdevelopmentinallofitscomplexity(economic,political,andmilitary)thatwastogivetheMarxisttheoryofimperialismits importanceasacoherentwayofunderstandingthedeeperglobalizingtendenciesofthesystem.

Inthisinterpretation,therewasasenseinwhichimperialismwasinherentin capitalismfromthebeginning.Manyofthefeaturesofcontemporaryimperialism, suchasthedevelopmentoftheworldmarket,thedivisionbetweencoreand periphery,thecompetitivehuntforcoloniesorsemi-colonies,theextractionof surplus,thesecuringofrawmaterialstobringbacktothemothercountry,etc.are partofcapitalismasaglobalsystemfromthelatefifteenthcenturyon. Imperialism,inthewidestsense,haditssourcesintheaccumulationdynamicof thesystem(asbasicasthepursuitofprofitsitself),whichencouragedthecountriesatthecenterofthecapitalistworldeconomy,andparticularlythewealthy interestswithinthesecountries,tofeathertheirownnestsbyappropriatingsurplusandvitalresourcesfromtheperiphery—whatPierrejaléecalled“thepillage ofthethirdworld.”Byavarietyofcoercivemeans,thepoorersatelliteeconomies weresostructured—beginningintheageofconquestinthelatefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies—thattheirsystemsofproductionanddistributionservednotso muchtheirownneedsasthoseofthedominantmetropoles.Nevertheless,the recognitionofsuchcommonalitiesinimperialisminthevariousphasesofcapitalistdevelopmentwasentirelyconsistentwiththeobservationthattherehadbeen aqualitativechangeinthenatureandsignificanceofimperialismthatcommenced inthelastquarterofthenineteenthcentury,sufficienttocauseLenintoassociate thiswithanewstageofcapitalism.

Mantistshavethereforeoftendistinguishedbetweenanolderimperialismand whatwascalledthe“newimperialism"thatbeganinthefinaldecadesofthenineteenthcentury.Whatdistinguishedthisnewimperialismwereprimarilytwo things:(1)thebreakdownofBritishhegemonyandincreasedcompetitionfor controloverglobalterritoriesbetweenthevariousadvancedcapitaliststates;and (2)theriseoflnonopolisticcorporations—large,integratedindustrialandfmancialfirms—asthedominanteconomicactorsinalloftheadvancedcapitalisl states.Thenewmammothcorporationsbytheirverynaturesoughttoexpand beyondnationalboundsanddominateglobalproductionandconsumption.The

drivetomonopolycontrolwithinlargeran(llargerspheresisbasictobusiness. Monopolisticlirmsengagedinthisimperialstrugglewerefrequentlylavuredby theirownnationstates.TheMarxisttheoryolthenewitnperialistn.withitslocus ontheriseofthegiantlinns,thuspointedtothechangedglobaleconomiccircumstancesthatweretoemergealongwithwhatlatercametobeknownasmultinationalorglol)alcorporations.Allofthisbecatnethecontextinwhicholder phenotnena,suchastheextractionofsurplus,theraceforcontrolol‘rawmaterialsandresources,thecreationoleconomicdependenciesintheglobalperiphery andtheunendingcontestamongrivalcapitalistpowers,manifestedthemselvesin newandtransformedways.

Itwasthisunderstandingofimperialismasahistoricalrealityofcapitalist development,onethattookonnewcharacteristicsasthesystemitselfevolved, thatmostsharplyseparatedtheMarxistapproachfrommainstreaminterpretations.Thelatterfrequentlysawimperialismasamerepolicyandassociateditprimarilywithpoliticalandmilitaryactionsonthepartofstates.Inthentorewidely disseminatedmainstreamview(fromwhichrealisteconomichistorianslike GallagherandRobinsondissented),imperialismwaspresentonlyinovert instancesofpoliticalandterritorialcontrolusheredinbyactualmilitaryconquest.InthecontrastingMarxistview,imperialismoccurrednotsimplythrough thepoliciesofstatesbutalsothroughtheactionsofcorporationsandthemechanismsoftrade,linance,andinvestment.Itinvolvedawholeconstellationolclass relations,includingthenurturingoflocalcollaboratorsorcompradorelementsin thedependentsocieties.Anyexplanationofhowmodernimperialismworked thusnecessitatedadescriptionoftheentiresystemofmonopolycapitalism. Informalcontrololeountriesontheperipheryofthecapitalistworldsystemby countriesatthecenterofthesystemwasasimportant,inthisview,asformalcontrol.Strugglesoverhegemonyandmoregenerallyrivalriesamongtheleading capitaliststateswerecontinuous,buttookonchangingformsdependingonthe economic,political,andmilitaryresourcesattheirdisposal.

“//n/)('/'/u//lmwrirw"inI//('/’n.v/-('n/I/ll/(Irll/or/d Ilthemaindistinguishingfeatureol'modernimperialism,intheMarxistview,was associatedwiththerisetodominanceol‘thegiantcorporations,theorderingof powerwithinthesystem,asrellectedintherelativepositionofvariousnation states,nonethelessshiftedconsiderablyovertime.Inthelatenineteenthandearly

twentiethcenturytheprincipalglobalrealitywasthedeclineinBritishhegemonyandtheincreasedrivalryamongtheadvancedcapitaliststatesthatfollowed, leadingtotheFirstandSecondWorldWars.TheriseoftheSovietUnioninthe contextoftheFirstWorldWarposedanexternalchallengetothesystemeventuallyleadingtoaColdWarstrugglebetweentheUnitedStates,thenewhegemonicpowerofthecapitalistworldeconomyfollowingtheSecondWorldWar,an(l theSovietUnion.Thefallofthelatterin199]lefttheUnitedStatesasthesole superpower.Bytheendofthe19905theUnitedStateshadgainedonitsmain economicrivalsaswell.Theresultofallofthisbythebeginningofthenewcentury,asHenryKissingerdeclaredin2001,wasthattheUnitedStateshad achieved“apre-eminencenotenjoyedbyeventhegreatestempiresofthepast.”“

Thisnaturallyledtothequestion:whatwastheUnitedStatestodowithits enomtous“surplusofpower”?Washington’sanswer,particularlyafter9/lI,has beentopursueitsimperialambitionsthroughrenewedinterventionsintheglobalperiphcry—onascalenotseensincetheVietnamWar.Inthewagingofits imperialWaronTerrorismtheU.S.stateisatonewiththeexpansionarygoalsof U.S.business.AsBusinessWeekOnline,inearlyFebruary2003,expressedthe economicbenefitstobederivedfromaU.S.invasionofIraq:“SincetheU.S.militarywouldcontrolIraq’soilandgasdeposits[thesecondlargestknownreserves intheworldafterSaudiArabia]forsometime,U.S.companiescouldbeinline foralucrativesliceofthebusiness.Theymaysnagdrillingrightstoo.”7 Companiesintheoilserviceindustry,whichisdominatedbytheUnitedStates, might“feeljustasvictoriousastheU.S.SpecialForces.”Indeed,themainobject ofsuchmilitaryinvasionsisregimechangeandthesubsequentrestructuringof theeconomyofthe“roguestate”—so-calledbecauseitstandsoutsidetheimperialorderdefinedprimarilybytheUnitedStates—tomakeitconfomitothedominantrequirementsofthecapitalistworldeconomy,whichincludeopeningupits resourcestomoreextensiveexploitation.

RichardHaass(whoseresponsibilitiesinthepresentadministrationwere extendedtoincludethoseofU.S.coordinatorofpolicyforthefutureof Afghanistan)pointedoutthatregimechangeoftencanonlybeaccomplished throughafull-scalemilitaryinvasionleavingtheconquerednationinruinsand necessitatingsubsequent“nation-building”:

Itisdilliculttotargetspecificindividualswithmilitaryforce.U.S.effortstouse forcetobringaboutchangesinpoliticalleadershipfailedinthecasesofQaddafiin

Libya.Saddaminlraq,andAideedinSomalia.Forcecancreateacontextinwhich politicalchangeismorelikely,butwithoutextraordinaryintelligenceandmorethan alittlegoodfortune,forcebyitselfisunlikelytobringaboutspecilicpolitical changes.Theonlywaytoincreasetheliltelihoodolsuchchangeisthroughhighly intrusivelonnsolintervention,suchasnation-building,whichinvolveslirsteliminatingalloppositionandthenengaginginanoccupationthatallowsforsubstantial engineeringofanothersociety.“

Sucha“nation-building”occupation,l-laassstressed,involves“defeatingand tlisanninganylocaloppositionandestablishingapoliticalauthoritythatenjoysa monopolyornear-monopolyofcontroloverthelegitimateuseofforce.”(Thisis MaxWeber"swell-luiowndefinitionofastate—thoughimposedinthiscasebyan invadingforce.)Itthereforerequires,asHaassobservedquotingoneforeignpolicy analyst,anoccupationof“imperialproportionsandpossiblyofendlessduration”" llISpreciselythiskindofinvasionof“imperialproportions”anduncertain durationthatnowseemstobethemainagendaofWashington’sWaron Terrorism.Intheoccupationand“nation-building”processesfollowinginva. SIOIIS(35IntheCaseofAfglianistan),explicitcolonialism,inthemostbrazennineteenthcenturysense,Wlllbeavoided.Noformalannexationwilltakeplace,and atleastapretenseoflocalrulewillbeestablishedfromthebeginning,evenduringdirectmilitaryoccupation.Nevertheless,acentralgoalwillbetoachievesome ofwhatcolonialisminitsclassicformpreviouslyaccomplished.AsMagdoll pointedout,

Colonialism,consideredasthedirectapplicationofiiiilitaryandpoliticalforce,was essentialtoreshapethesocialandeconomicinstitutionsolnianyolthedependent countriestotheneedsofthenietropolittincenters.Oncethisreshapinghadbeen acconiplislicdeconomiclorces—thcinternationalprice,marketingandfinancial systenis-werebythemselvessullicienttoperpetuateandindeedintensifytherelationshipoldominanceandexploitationbetweenmothercountryandcolony.lu thesecircumstances,thecolonycouldbegrantedlorinalpoliticalindependence withoutclianginganythingessential,andwithoutinterferingtooseriouslywiththe interestswhichhadoriginallyledtothecunrpiestolthccolony.'“

Sometliiiigol‘thissortisoccurringinAfgliaiiistaiiandisnowbeingenvisionedforlrac.Onceacounthasbeencomaleteldisarinedand“resha)ed"’to l'7

fittheneedsofthecountriesatthecenterofthecapitalistworld,“nation-build ing”willbecompleteandtheoccupationwillprestunablycometoanend.Butin areasthatcontainvitalresourceslikeoil(orthataredeemedtobeofstrategicsignificanceingainingaccesstosuchresources),ashiftbackfromformaltoinformal imperialismafteraninvasionmaybeslowtotakeplace—orwilloccuronlyinvery limitedways.“Informalcontrol”orthemechanismofglobalaccumulationthat systematicallyfavorsthecorenations,constitutesthenormalmeansthrough whichimperialistexploitationoftheperipheryoperates.Butthisrequires,on occasion,extraordinarymeansinordertobringrecalcitrantstatesbackintoconfomiitywiththemarketandwiththeinternationalhierarchyofpower.

Atpresent,U.S.imperialismappearsparticularlyblatantbecauseitislinked directlywithwarinthisway,andpointstoanendlessseriesofwarsintheFuture toachieveessentiallythesameends.However,ifwewishtounderstandtheunderlyingforcesatwork,weshouldnotletthisheightenedmilitarismandaggression distractusFromtheinnerlogicofimperialism,mostevidentintherisinggapin incomeandwealthbetweenrichandpoorcountries,andinthenettransfersof economicsurplusfromperipherytocenterthatmakethispossible.Thegrowing polarizationofwealthandpovertybetweennations(apolarizationthatexistswithinnationsaswell)isthesystem'scrowningachievementontheworldstage.Itis alsowhatisultimatelyatissueinthestruggleagainstmodernimperialism.As MagdoffarguesinImpmialismwit/toutColonies,thereisan“essentialoneness”to economic,political,andmilitarydominationundercapitalism."

Thoseseekingtoopposethemanifestationsofimperialismmustrecognize thatitisimpossibletochallengeanyoneofthemeffectivelywithoutcallinginto questionalltheothers-andhencetheentiresystem.

TheNewAgeofImperialism

.////vi"lu_-_ru.\‘I2(I()_'m’ mperialismismeanttoservetheneedsofarulingclassmuchmorethana nation.Ithasnothingtodowithdemocracy.Perhapsforthatreasonithas oftenbeencharacterizedasaparasiticphenomenon—evenbycriticsas astuteas_]ohnHobsoninhis1902classic,I7n[)eriali.rm:AStudy.‘AndFromthere itisunfortunatelyalltooeasytoslideintothecrudenotionthatimperialistexpansionissimplyaproductofpowerfulgroupsofindividualswhohavehijackeda nation’sforeignpolicytoservetheirownnarrowends.

NumerouscriticsofthecurrentexpansionoftheAmericanempire—bothon theU.S.leftandinEurope—nowarguethattheUnitedStatesundertheadministrationofGeorgeW.Bushhasbeentakenoverbyaneoconservativecabal,led bysuchliguresasPaulWolfowitz(deputysecretaryoldefense),LewisLibby(the vicepresident’sehielofstall"),andRichardPerle(oftheDefensePolicyBoard). ThiscabalissaidtohavethestrongbackingofSecretaryofDefenseRumsfeld andVicePresidentCheney,and,throughthem,PresidentBush.Theriseto prominenceoftheneoconservativehegenionistswithintheadministrationis thoughttohavebeenbroughtonbytheundemocratic2000election,inwhichthe SupremeCourtappointedBushaspresident,andbytheterroristattacksof SeptemberII,2001,whichsuddenlyenlargedthenationalsecuritystate.Allof thishascontributed,wearetold,toaunilatcralistandbelligerentforeignpolicy atoddswiththehistoricU.S.roleintheworld.AstheEcortoritistmagazineasked: “Sohasacabaltakenovertheforeignpolicyofthemostpowerltilcountryinthe world?Isatinygroupofideologuesusingunduepowertointerveneintheinter­

nalaffairsofothercountries,createanempire.trashinternationallaw—anddamn theconsequences?”"’

TheEronomisfsownanswerwas“Notreally."Rightlyrejectingthecabaltheory,itarguedinsteadthat“theneo—consarepartofabroadermovement”andthat a“near-consensus[amongU.S.policyelites]isfoundaroundthenotionthat Americashoulduseitspowervigorouslytoreshapetheworld.”ButwhatismissingfromtheEconomistandfromallsuchmainstreamdiscussionsistherecognitionthalimperialisminthiscase,asalways,isnotsimplyapolicybutasystematicrmhtyarisingfromtheverynatureofcapitalistdevelopment.Thehistorical changesinimperialisin,associatedwiththeriseofwhathasbeencalleda“unipolarworld,"defyanyattempttoreducecurrentdevelopmentstothemisguided ambitionsofafewpowerfulindividuals.Itisthereforenecessarytoaddressthe historicalunderpinningsofthenewageofU.S.imperialism,includingbothits deepercausesandtheparticularactorsthatarehelpingtoshapeitspresentpath.

'/'/ie/1gr:Q/'//rt/)6/1'(I/I13‘!/I

ThequestionofwhethertheUnitedStatesinengaginginimperialistexpansion hasalloweditselftobecomepreytotheparticularwhimsofthoseatsociety’s politicalhelmisnotanewone.HarryMagdoffaddressedthisthesisonthevery firstpageofhis1969book,TheAgeofImperialism:TheEconomicsofU.S. ForeignPolicy—aworkthatcanbesaidtohavereintroducedthesystematicstudy ofimperialismintheUnitedStates.“Isthe[Vietnam]warpartofamoregeneral andconsistentschemeofUnitedStatesexternalpolicies,”heasked,“orisitan aberrationofaparticulargroupofmeninpower?“Theanswerofcoursewas thatalthoughtherewereparticularindividualsinpowerwhowerespearheading thisprocess,itreflecteddeep-seatedtendencieswithinU.S.foreignpolicythat hadrootsincapitalismitself.Inwhatwastoemergeasthemostimportant accountofU.S.imperialisminthe19603,Magdolfsetaboutuncoveringthe underlyingeconomic,political,andmilitaryforcesgoverningU.S.foreignpolicy.

TherulingexplanationatthetimeoftheVietnamWarwasthattheUnited Stateswasengagedinthewarinorderto“contain"Communism—andhencethe waritselfhadnothingtodowithimperialism.Butthescaleandferocityofthewar seemedtobelieanyattempttoexplainitintermsofmerecontainment,sinceneithertheSovietUnionnorChinahadshownanyglobalexpansionarytendencies andthirdworldrevolutionswerequiteobviouslyindigenousaffairs.‘Magdolf

rejectedboththedominanttendencyintheUnitedStatestoseeUS.interventionsinthethirdworldasaprodttctol'theColdWar,andtheliberalpenchantto seethewarasanaberrationofaTexanpresidentandtheadviserssurrounding him.Insteadhistoricalanalysiswasrequired.

Theimperialismofthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturieswas(listingttishedtnainlybytwofeatures:(1)thebreakdowninBritishhegemony,and (2)thegrowthofmonopolycapitalism,oracapitalistiidominatedbylargelirms, resultingfromtheconcentrationandcentralizationolproductioti.Beyondthese featuresthatdistinguishedwhatLeninreferredtoasthestageofimperialism (whichhesaidcouldbedescribedinits“brielestpossibledelinition”as“the monopolystageolcapitalisin”),thereareanumberolotherelementsthathaveto beconsidered.Capitalismisofcourseasystemuniquelydeterminedbyadriveto accumulate,whichacceptsnoboundstoitsexpansion.Capitalistnisontheone handanexpandingworldeconomycharacterizedbyaprocessthatwenowcall globalization,whileontheotherhanditisdividedpoliticallyintonumerouscompetingnation-states.Further,thesystemispolarizedateverylevelintocenterand periphery.Frontitsbeginninginthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,and evenmore50inthemonopolystage,capitalwithineachnation-stateatthecenter ofthesystemisdrivenbyaneedtocontrolaccesstorawmaterialsandlaborin theperipltery.Inthemonopolystageofcapitalism,moreover,nation-statesand theircorporationsstrivetokeepasmuchoftheworldeconomyaspossibleopen totheirowninvestments,thoughnotnecessarilytothoseoftheircompetitors. Thiscompetitionoverspheresofaccumulationcreatesascrambleforcontrolof variouspartsofthcperiphery,themostfamousexampleofwhichwasthescrambleforAfricainthelatenineteenthcenturyinwhichalloltheWesternEuropean powersofthedaytookpart.

Imperialism,however,continuedtoevolvebeyondthisclassicphase,which endedwiththeSecondWorldWarandsubsequentdecolonizationinovetnent,and inthe19505and19605alaterphasepresenteditsownhistoricallyspecificcharacteristics.TlteiitostimportantolthescwastheUnitedStatesreplacingBritainas liegemonofthecapitalistworldeconomy.Theotherwastheexistenceofthe SovietUnion,creatingspaceforrevolutionarymovementsinthethirdworld,and helpingtobringtheleadingcapitalistpowersintoaColdWarmilitaryalliance reinforcingU.S.hegemony.TheUnitedStatesutilizeditshegemonicpositionto establishtheBrettonWoodsinstitutions—theGeneralAgreementonTarillsand Trade,theInternationalMonetaryFund,andtheWorldBanlt—withtheintention

ofconsolidatingtheeconomiccontrolexercisedbythecenterstates,andthe UnitedStatesinparticular,overtheperipheryandhencetheentireworldinarltet.

InMagdolFsconception,theexistenceoliU.S.hegemonydidnotbringtoan endthecompetitionbetweencapitaliststates.Ilegctnonywasalwaysunderstoodby realisticanalystsashistoricallytransitoty,despitetheconstantreferencestothe “Americancentury.”Theunevendevelopmentofcapitalisiiimeantcontinualinterimperialistrivalry,evenifsoniewhathiddenattimes.“Antagonismbetweenunevenlydevelopingindustrialcenters,”hewrote,"isthehubofthein1pcrialistwhee|.""'

U.S.militarism,whichinthisanalysiswenthandinhandwithitsimperialrole, wasnotsimplyorevenmainlyaproductoftheColdWarcompetitionwiththe SovietUnion,bywhichitwasconditioned.Militarismhaddeeperrootsinthe needoftheUnitedStates,asthehegemonicpowerofthecapitalistworldeconomy,tokeepthedoorsopenforforeigninvestmentbyresortingtoforce,ifnecessary.Atthesametime,theUnitedStateswasemployingitspowerwherepossible toadvancetheneedsofitsowncorporations—asforexampleinLatinAmerica whereitsdominancewasunquestionedbyothergreatpowers.Notonlydidthe UnitedStatesexercisethismilitaryroleonnumerousoccasionsthroughoutthe peripheryinthepost—SecondWorldWarperiod,butduringthatperioditwas alsoabletojustifythisaspartofthelightagainstCommunism.Militarism,associatedwiththisroleasglobalhegemonandalliance-leader,cametopermeateall aspectsofaccumulationintheUnitedStates,sothatthetermindustrial“militaryindustrialcomplex,”introducedbyEisenhowerinhisdepartingspeechaspresident,wasanunderstatement.Alreadyinhisdaytherewasnomajorcenterof accumulationintheUnitedStatesthatwasnotalsoamajorcenterofmilitaryproduction.Militaryproductionhelpedpropuptheentireeconomicedificeinthe UnitedStates,andwasafactorholdingoffeconomicstagnation.

Inmappingcontemporaryimperialism,MagdolT’sanalysisprovidedevidence demonstratinghowdirectlybeneficialimperialismwastocapitalwithinthecore ofthesystem.Thesiphoningofsurplusfromtheperiphery(andmisuseol'what surplusremainedduetodistortedperipheralclassrelationscharacteristicof imperialdependencies)wasamajorfactorinperpetuatingunderdevelopinent. Uniqueandlessnoticed,however,weretwootheraspectsofMagdo[T’sassessment:awarningregardingthegrowingthirdworlddebttrapandanin—depth treatmentoftheexpandingglobalroleofbanksandfinancecapitalingeneral.ll wasn’tuntiltheearly1980sthatanunderstandingofthethirdworlddebttrap reallysurfacedwhenBrazil,Mexico,andotherso-called“newindustrializing

economies”weresuddenlyrevealedtobeindefault.Andthefullsignificanceof thelinancializationoftheglobaleconomydidnotreallydawnonmostobservers ofimperialismuntillateinthe19805.

Inthissystematichistoricalapproachtothesubjectofimperialism,U.S.militaryinterventionsinplaceslikeIran,Guatemala,Lebanon,Vietnam,andthe DominicanRepublic,werenotabout“protectingU.S.citizens”orlightingthe expansionoftheCommunistbloc.RathertheybelongedtothelargerphenomenonofimperialisminallofitshistoricalcomplexityandtotheU.S.roleasthe hegemonicpowerofthecapitalistworld.

However,thisinterpretationwasdirectlyopposedbyliberalcriticsofthe VietnamWarwritingatthesametime,whosometimesacknowledgedthatthe UnitedStateshadbeenengagedintheexpansionofitsempire,butsawthis,inline withthewholehistoryoftheUnitedStates,asacaseofaccidentratherthandesign (asdefendersoftheBritishEmpirehadarguedbeforethem).Americanforeign policy,theyinsisted,wasmotivatedprimarilybyidealismratherthanmaterial interests.TheVietnamWaritselfwasexplainedawayastheresultof“poorpoliticalintelligence”onthepartofpowerfulpolicymakers,whohadtakenthenation offcourse.In1971,RobertW.TuckerwroteTheRadicalLog]?andA1n.e-ricmi FnmigvtPolicy,inwhichhearguedthatthe“savinggrace”fortheUnitedStatesin Vietnamwasthe“essentiallydisinterestedcharacter”withwhichitapproached thewar.“Tucker’sperspectivewasthatofaliberalopponentofthewarwho nonethelessrejectedradicalinterpretationsofU.S.militarismandimperialism.

Tucker’smaintargetsinhisbookwereWilliamApplemanWilliams,Gabriel Kolko,andHarryMagdolf.Magdoffwasattackedspecificallyforarguingthat controlofrawmaterialsonaglobalbasiswascrucialtoU.S.corporationsandthe U.S.statethatservedthem.Tuckerwentsofarastoclaimthattheerrorof Magdoff’sviewwasshownwheretheissueofoilarose.IftheUnitedStateswere trulyimperialistinitsorientationtothirdworldresources,heargued,itwould attempttocontrolPersianGulfoil.Defyingbothlogicandhistory,Tucker declaredthatthiswasnotthecase.Asheputit:

Giventheradicalview,onewouldexpectthathere[intheMiddleEast],ifanywhere, Americanpolicywouldfaithfullyreflecteconomicinterests.Thereality,asiswell known,isotherwise.Apartfromtheincreasingandsuccessfulpressuresoilcountries haveemployedtoincreasetheirroyaltyandtaxincome(pressureswhichhavenot provokedanynotablecountenneasures),theAmericangovernmenthascontributed

tothesteadydeteriorationolthela\'oral)lcpositionAmericanoilcompaniesonce enjoyedintheMiddleEast.A.rVcwlfrrk'I’i'mr.rcorrespondent,JohnM.Lee,writes: “Thereniarltalilethingtomanyol)serversisthattheoilcompaniesandoilconsiderationshavehadsuchlittleinlluenceinAmericanIorcignpolicytowardIsrael.”

ThecaseofPersianGulfoil,then,accordingtoTucker,disprovedMagdolI’s insistenceontheimportanceofcontrollingrawmaterialstotheoperationofU.S. imperialism.TheU.S.politicalconnnitmenttoIsraelwascountertoitseconomic interests,buthadoverriddenallconcernsofU.S.capitalismwithrespecttoMiddle Eastoil.Todayitishardlynecessarytoemphasizehowabsurdthiscontention was.NotonlyhastheUnitedStatesrepeatedlyintervenedmilitarilyintheMiddle East,beginningwithIranin1953,butithasalsocontinuallysoughttopromoteits controloveroilandtheinterestsofitsoilcorporationsintheregion.Israel,which theU.S.hasamiedtotheteethandwhichhasbeenallowedtodevelophundreds ofnuclearweapons,haslongbeenpartofthisstrategyofcontrollingtheregion. Fromthefirst,theU.S.roleintheMiddleEasthasbeenopenlyimperialistic, gearedtomaintainingcontrolovertheregion’soilresources.Onlyananalysisthat reducedeconomicstocommoditypricesandroyaltyincomewhileignoringthe politicalandmilitaryshapingofeconomicrelations—nottomentiontheflowsof bothoilandprofits—couldresultinsuchobviouserrors.

'/'/wNewAgeQ/'//II/)6/'I'(1//ls‘/II

NothinginfactsorevealsthenewageofimperialismastheexpansionoftheU.S. EmpireinthecriticaloilregionsoftheMiddleEastandtheCaspianSeaBasin. U.S.powerinthePersianGulfwaslimitedthroughouttheColdWaryearsasa resultoftheSovietpresence.TheIranianRevolutionof1979,towhichthe UnitedStateswasseeminglyhelplesstorespond,wasthegreatestdefeatofU.S. imperialism(whichhadreliedonShahofIranasasecurebaseintheregion) sincetheVietnamWar.Indeed,priorto1989andthebreakupoftheSovietbloc, amajorU.S.warintheregionwouldhavebeenalmostcompletelyunthinkable. ThisleftU.S.dominanceintheregionsignificantlyconstrained.The1991Gulf War,whichwascarriedoutbytheUnitedStateswithSovietacquiescence,thus markedthebeginningol‘anewageofU.S.imperialismandexpansionofU.S. globalpower.ItisnomereaccidentthattheweakeningoftheSovietUnionled almostimmediatelytoafull-scaleU.S.militaryinterventionintheregionthatwas

thekeytocontrollingworldoil,themostcriticalglobalresource,andthuscrticial toanystrategyofglobaldomination.

Itisessentialtounderstandthatin1991whentheGull‘Warocctirredthe SovietUnionwasgreatlyweakenedandsubservienttoU.S.policy.Bu!itwasno! yr!dead(thatwastooccurlaterotithatyear)andtherewasstillthepossibility, altliotiglidim,oliacouporupsetandaturnaroundinSovietallairsunfavorableto U.S.interests.AtthesatnetimetheUnitedStateswasstillinapositionwhereit hadlosteconomicgroundtosomeofitsmaincompetitorsandhencetherewasa widespreadsensethatitseconomichegemonyhadseriouslydeclined,limitingits courseofaction.AlthoughtheadministrationofGeorgeH.W.Bushdeclareda “NewWorldOrder”nooneknewwhatthismeant.ThecollapseoftheSoviet blochadbeensosuddenthattheU.S.rulingclassandtheforeignpolicyelites wereunsureofhowtoproceed.

DuringthefirstCulfWartheU.S.elitesweresplit.SomebelievedthattheU.S. shouldgoonandinvadeIraq,astheWall.Streetjournaladvisedatthetime. OthersthoughtthataninvasionandoccupationofIraqwasnotthenfeasible. OverthecourseofthenextdecadethedominanttopicofdiscussioninU.S.foreignpolicy,aswitnessed,forexample,bytheCouncilonForeignRelationspublication,Fo1‘ei.'g'nAflaiis,washowtoexploitthefactthattheUnitedStateswas nowthesolesuperpower.Discussionsofunipolarity(atermintroducedbythe neoconservativepunditCharlesKrauthanimerin1991)andunilateralismwere sooncoupledwithopendiscussionsonU.S.primacy,hegemony,empire,and evenimperialism.Moreover,asthedecadeworeon,theargumentsinfavorofthe UnitedStatesexercisinganimperialrolebecamemoreandmorepervasiveand concrete.Suchissueswerediscussedfromthebeginningoftheneweranotin termsofendsbutintermsofelficacy.Aparticularlynoteworthyexampleofthe callforanewimperialismcouldbefoundinaninlluentialbook,entitledThe Inifieiml‘Kemfitrtlion,againbyRobertW.Tucker,alongwithDavidC. Hendricltson.AsTuckerandHendricksonforthrightlyexplained:

TheUnitedStatesistodaythedominantmilitarypowerintheworld.Inthereach andellectivenessofitsmilitaryforces,Americacomparesfavorablywithsomeolthe greatestempiresltnowntohistory.Romereachedbarelybeyondthecompassofthe MediterraneanwhereasNapoleoncouldnotbreakoutintotheAtlanticandwent ,. .v'.'.'_)todefeatinthevastRussianspaces.Duringtheheighttilthesocalledlax BritannicawhentheRoyalNavyruledtheseas,llismareltreiiiarltedthatifthe

BritishannylandedonthePrussiancoasthewouldhaveitarrestedbythelocal police.TheUnitedStateshasanaltogetherInoreformidablecollectionofforces thanitspredecessorsamongtheworld‘sgreatpowers.lthasglobalreach.ltpossessesthemosttechnologicallyadvancedarms,commandedbyprofessionals skilledintheartofwar.Itcantransportpowerfulcontinentalamiiesoveroceanic distances.ltshistoricadversariesareinretreat,brokenbyinternaldiscord. Underthesecircumstances,anage-oldtemptation—theimperialtemptation—may provecompellingfortheUnitedStates.Thenationisnotlikelytobeattracted tothevisionsofempirethatanimatedcolonialpowersofthepast;itmaywellfind attractive,however,avisionthatenablesthenationtoassumeanimperialrolewithoutFulfillingtheclassicdutiesolimperialrule."

The“imperialtemptation,”theseauthorsmadeclear,wastoberesistedless becauseofthefactthatthiswouldhaveconstitutedarenewalofclassicimperialism,butbecausetheUnitedStateswasonlywillingtogohalfway,unleashingits militaryforcebutneglectingtotakeonthemoreburdensomeresponsibilitiesof imperialruleassociatedwithnationbuilding.

Proceedingfromanation-buildingperspectivereminiscentofKennedy-style ColdWarliberalism,butalsoattractivetosomeneoconservatives,Tuckerand HendricltsonpresentedthecasethattheUnitedStates,havingfoughttheGulf War,shouldhaveimmediatelyproceededtoinvade,occupy,andpacifyIraq, removingtheBa’athPartyfrompower,thusexercisingitsimperialresponsibility. “Theoverwhelmingdisplayofmilitarypower,”theywrote, ...wouldhaveprovidedtheUnitedStateswithtimetofomiandrecognizeaprovisionallraqigovernmentconsistingofindividualscommittedtoabroadlyliberal platfonn.Thoughsuchagovernmentwouldundoubtedlyhavebeenaccusedof beinganAmericanpuppet,therearegoodreasonsforthinkingthatitmighthave acquiredconsiderablelegitimacy.ltwouldhaveenjoyedaccess,underUNsupervision,tolraq’soilrevenues,whichsurelywouldhavewonitconsiderablesupport fromthelraqipeople.”

TuckerandHendrickson—inspiteofTuckcr’sargumentdecadesearlier againstMagdoll,thatthefailuretoseizecontrolofPersianGulfoilwasevidence thattheU.S.wasnotanimperialistpower—wereundernoillusionsaboutwhyan occupationoflraqwouldbeinU.S.strategicinterest,inoneword:“oil.”“There

isnoothercommodity,”theywrote,“thathasthecrucialsignificanceofoil;there isnoparalleltothedependenceofdevclopcdanddevelopingeconomiesonthe energyresourcesoftheGulf;theseresourcesareconcentratedinanareathat remainsrelativelyinaccessibleandhighlyunstable,andpossessionofoilalfords anunparalleledfinancialbasewherebyanexpansionistdevelopingpowermay hopetorealizeitsaggressiveambitions.”'"TheneedfortheUnitedStatesto achievedominationovertheMiddleEastwasthereforenotindoubt.lfitresortcdtoforceundertheseexceptionalconditions,itshoulddosoresponsibly—l)y extendingitsruleaswell.

Thisargumentcomesoutofthelil)eralratherthanconservative(orneoconservative)sideoftheU.S.foreignpolicyestablishmentandrulingclassdiscussions.Thedebatewithintheestablishmentisnarrow,withmanyliberalforeign policyanalysts,becauseoftheirpenchantfornationbuilding,muchclosertoneoconservativesan(lmorehawkishinthisrespectthanmanyconservatives.For TuckerandHendricksonimperialismisamatterofchoicemadebypolicymakers;itisamere“imperialtemptation.”Itcouldberesisted,butifitisnot,thenit isnecessarytotakeontheliberaldreamofnationbuilding—tore-engineersocietiesonliberalprinciples.

Indeed,aremarkableconsensusonunderlyingassumptionsandgoals emergedwithintheU.S.powereliteinthe19905.AsRichardN.Haass, observed:“Liberatedfromthedangerthatmilitaryactionwillleadtoconfrontationwitharivalsuperpower,theUnitedStatesisnowmorefreetointervene.”In accountingforthelimitationsofU.S.powerHaassdeclared,“theUnitedStates candoanything,_justnoteverything.’”'Hisanalysiswentontodiscussthepossibilityofnation-buildinginterventionsinIraqandelsewhere

MoreimportantwasHaass’argumentonhegemony,whichpointeddirectlyto themaindifferenceswithintheestablishmentontheU.S.assertionofglobal power.AccordingtoHaass,theUnitedStatesclearlywasthe“hegemon"inthe senseofhavingglobalprimacy,butpermanenthegemonyasanobjectofforeign policywasadangerousillusion.InMarch1992,adraftoftheDds-usePlmming Guidance,alsoknownasthe“PentagonPaper,”wasleakedtothepress.This secretworkingdocumentauthoredbytheelderBush’sDefenseDepartment underthesupervisionofPaulWolfowitz(thenundersecretaryforpolicy) declared:“Ourstrategy[afterthefalloftheSovietUnion]mustnowrefocuson precludingtheemergenceofanypotentialfutureglobalcompetitor.”"’ QuestioningthisstrategyinhisbookTheReluctantS/tertfl,I-Iaassclaimedthatit

wasillconceivedforthesimplereasonthattheUnitedStatesdidnothavethe capacitytopreventnewglobalpowersli'ornemerging.Suchpowersemergealong withthegrowthoftheirmaterialresources;greateconomicpowerswillinevitably havethecapacitytobecomegreatpowersgenerally(alongafullspectrum),and theextenttowhichtheyemergeasfullmilitarypowers“willdependmostlyon theirownperceptionofnationalinterests,threats,politicalculture,andeconomicstrength.""Theonlyrationallong-termstrategy,sincetheperpetuationof hegemonyorprimacywasimpossible,waswhatMadeleineAlbrighttemied “assertivemultilateralism”orwhatI-laasstcnneda“sheriffandposse"approach, withthesherifldcfinedastheUnitedStatesandtheposseasa“coalitionofthe willing."Thesherilfandtheposseeneednotworrymuchaboutthelaw,henoted, butmustnonethelessbewaryofcrossingoverintovigilantism."

ByNovember2000,justbeforehewashiredtobeheadofpolicyplanningin ColinPowell’sStateDepartmentintheadministrationofPresidentGeorgeW. Bush,HaassdeliveredapaperinAtlantacalled“ImperialAmerica,”inwhichhe arguedthattheUnitedStatesshouldfashionan“imperialforeignpolicy"that makesuseofits“surplusofpower”to“extenditscontrol”acrossthefaceofthe globe.Whilestilldenyingthatlastinghegemonywaspossible,Haassdeclaredthat theUnitedStatesshouldusetheexceptionalopportunitythatitnowenjoyedto reshapetheworldinordertoenhanceitsglobalstrategicassets.Thismeant taryinterventionsaroundtheworld.“Imperialunderstretch,notoverstretch,"he argued,“appearstobethegreaterdangerofthetwo.”'5By2002,Haass,speaking foranadministrationpreparingtoinvadeIraq,waspronouncingthatafailedstate, unabletocontrolterrorismwithinitsownterritory,hadlost“thenomialadvantages ofsovereignty,includingtherighttobeleftaloneinside[its]ownterritory.Other governments,includingtheU.S.,therighttointervene.Inthecaseofterrorism thiscanevenleadtoarightofpreventive,orpreemptory,self-defense.""‘

InSeptember2000,twomonthsbeforeHaasspresentedhis“Imperial America”paper,theneo-conservativeProjectfortheNewAmericanCenturyhad issuedareportentitledRebuildingAmerica’:Ddlemes,drawnupattherequestof DickCheney,andincludingamongitssignatoriesDonaldRumsfeld,Paul Wolfowitz,GeorgeW.Bush’syoungerl)rother_]eb,andLewisLibby.Thereport declaredthat“atpresenttheUnitedStatesfacesnoglobalrival.America‘sgrand strategyshouldaimtopreserveandextendthisadvantageouspositionasfarinto thefutureaspossible."ThemainstrategicgoaloftheUnitedStatesinthetwen~ ty-firstcenturywasto“preservePm:Anm'imna."Toachievethisitwasnecessary

toexpandthe“Aniericansecurityperimeter”byestablishingnew"overseas l>ases""andforwardoperationsthroughouttheworld.Onthequestionofthe PersianGulf,lt’cbu.i'ldi'1igAmerica’:I)qfcn.srswasnolessexplicit:“TheUnited StateshasfordecadessoughttoplayamorepennanentroleinGull‘regionalsectirity.WhiletheunresolvedconflictwithIraqprovidestheinnnediate_iustilicalion. theneedforasubstantialAmericanforcepresenceintheGulftranscendsthe issueoftheregimeofSaddamHussein.”'7

EvenbeforeSeptember11,therefore,therulingclassanditsforeignpolicy elites(includingthoseoutsideneoconservativecircles)hadmovedtowardsan explicitpolicyofexpandingtheAmericanempire,takingfulladvantageolwhal wasregardedasthelimitedwindowbroughtonbythedemiseoftheSoviet Union—andbeforenewrivalsofscalecouldarise.The1990ssawtheU.S.economy,despitetheslow-downintheseculargrowthtrend,advancemorerapidly thanthatofEuropeandjapan.Thiswasparticularlythecaseinthebubbleyears ofthelatterhallofthe19905.TheYugoslaviancivilwarsmeanwhiledemonstratedthatEuropewasunabletoactmilitarilywithouttheUnitedStates.

Hence,bytheendofthe19905,discussionsofU.S.empireandimperialism croppedupnotsomuchontheleftasinliberalandneoconservativecircles, whereimperialambitionswereopenlyproclaimed.”FollowingSeptember200l, thedispositiontocarryoutmassivemilitaryinterventionstopromotetheexpansionofU.S.power,inwhichtheUnitedStateswouldonceagainputits“bootson theground,”asneoconservativepunditMaxBootexpresseditinhisbookThe SavageWars0fl’eace,becamepartofthedominantrulingclassconsensus.‘-"The administration’sNationalSecurityStrategystatement,transmittedtoCongressin September2002,promotedtheprincipleofpreemptiveattacksagainstpotential enemiesanddeclared:“TheUnitedStatesmustandwillmaintainthecapability todefeatanyattemptbyanenemytoimposeitswillontheUnitedStates,our allies,orourfriends.Ourforceswillbestrongenoughtodissuadepotential adversariesfrompursuingamilitarybuild-upinthehopeolsurpassing,orequaling,thepoweroftheUnitedStates.”

InAtWarwithOurselves:W/LyAmericaisSquaudcriugitsC/l(l.'Il(.'t.’toIiuilzla HalterWorld,MichaelHirsli,senioreditorforNewsweelt’sWashingtonbureau, presentstheargumentofpoliticalliberalsthatwhileitisproperfortheUnited Statesasthehegemonicpowertointervenewherefailedstatesareconcerned,and whereitsvitalstrategicinterestsareatstake,thishastobecoupledwithnation buildingandacommiunenttobroadertnultilateralism.However,inrealitythis

mayonlyl)ea“unipolaritywelldisguisedasniultipolarity."’“Thisisnota debateaboutwhethertheUnitedStatesshouldextenditsempire,butrather whethertheimperialtemptationwillbeaccompaniedbytheassertionofimperial responsibility,inthetnannerraisedbyTuckerandHendrickson.Commentingon nation—buildinginterventions,Hirshdeclares“Thereisno‘czar’forfailedstatesas thereisforhomelandsecurityorthewarondrugs.Perhapsthereshouldbe.”2'

Whathavebeencalled“nation—buildinginterventions,”originallyrejectedby theBushadministration,arenolongerinquestion.Thiscanbeseeninthe CouncilonForeignRelationsreport,Iraq:TheDayA_/ler,publishedshortly beforetheU.S.invasion,andaddressingnationbuildinginIraq.Oneofthetask forcemembersinthedevelopmentofthatreportwasjamesF.Dobbins,Director oftheRandCorporationCenterforInternationalSecurityandDefensePolicy, whoservedastheClintonadministration’sspecialenvoyduringtheinterventions inSomalia,Haiti,Bosnia,andKosovoandalsoasspecialenvoyfortheBush[I administrationfollowingtheinvasionofAfghanistan.Dobbins,anadvocatefor “nation-buildinginterventions”—thediplomacyofthesword—inboththe ClintonandBushadministrations,declareddefinitivelyintheCouncilonForeign Relationsreport:“Thepartisandebateovernation—buildingisover. AdministrationsofbothpartiesareclearlypreparedtouseAmericanmilitary forcestoreformroguestatesandrepairbrokensocieties.”‘*2

The(,'(I/;a/'/'/mo/_'y'(m(//III/)cri'(I//f(.‘(l/Iill-(,’.S' AllofthisrelatestothequestionthatMagdoffraisedmorethanathirdofacenturyagoinTheAgeofImperialismandthatismorethaneverwithustoday.“Is the[Vietnam]war,"heasked,“partofamoregeneralandconsistentschemeof UnitedStatesexternalpoliciesorisitanaberrationofaparticulargroupofmen inpower?”-"Thereisnowageneralagreementwithintheestablishmentitselfthat objectiveforcesandsecurityrequirementsaredrivingU.S.expansionism;thatit isinthegeneralinterestofthehighcommandofU.S.capitalismtoextenditscontrolovertheworld—asfarandforaslongaspossible.AccordingtotheProject fortheNewAmericanCenturyreport,RebuildingAnm‘ica.’sDqfmses,itisnecessarytoseizethe“unipolarmoment.”

Thewiderleft’stendencyoverthelasttwoyearstofocusonthisnewimperialistexpansionasaneoconservativeprojectinvolvingasmallsectoroftheruling classnotreachingbeyondtherightwingoftheRepublicanParty—restingonpar­

ticularexpansiveinterestsinthemilitaryandoilsectorsisad.tngctousillusion. AtpresentthereisnoserioussplitwithintheUS.oligarcliyortheloretgnpolicy establishment,thoughthesewillundoubtedlydevelopintheluturt-asaresultol lailuresdowntheroad.Thereisnocabal,butaconseusttsrootedinrulingclass needsandthedynamicsolimperialistn.

Thereare,however,divisionsbetweentheUnitedStattrsandotherleading states—intercapitalistrivalryremainsthehuholdieitnpt-rialislwlnrel.llowcottld itbeotherwisewhentheUnitedStatesistryingtoestablishitsellasthesurrogate worldgovcnnnentinaglobalitnperialorder?AlthoughthelluiuulSlatesis attemptingtoreassertitshegemonicpositionintheworlditremainslarweaker economically,relativetootherleadingcapitaliststates,thanitwasatthebeginning olthepost—SecondWorldWarperiod.“Inthelatel!M()s,whentheUnitedStates produced50percentoftheworld’sgrossnationalproduct((§Nl’),"_|amcs DobbinsstatedinIraq:TheDayAfter,

...itwasabletoperlomithosetaslts[olmilitaryinterventionandnationbuilding] moreorlessonisown.Inthel990s,intheaftermatho|'theColdWar,Americawas abletoleadmuchbroadercoalitionsandtherebysharetheburtlenolnationbuildingmuchmorewidely.TheUnitedStatescannotallbrdanddoesnotneedtogoit aloneinbuildingafreeIraq.Itwillsecurebroaderparticipation,however,onlyi|'it paysattentiontothelessonsolthc19903aswellasthoseolithe|SMl)s.‘""

Inotherwords,forastagnatingU.S.economythatdespiteitsrelativeeconomicgainsinthelate1990sisinamuchweakereconomicpositionvis-a-visitsmain competitorsthanintheyearsfollowingtheSecondWorldWar,outrightliegenionistnisbeyonditsmeans:itremainsdependenton“coalitionsol'thewilling." Atthesametime,itisclearthatinthepresentperiodolglobalhegemonicimperialismtheUnitedStatesisgearedabovealltoexpandingitsimperialpowerto whateverextentpossibleandsubordinatingtherestofthecapitalistworldtoits interests.ThePersianCullandtheCaspianSeaBasinrepresentnotonlythebulk ofworldpetroleumreserves,butalsoarapidlyincreasingproportionol‘total reserves,ashighproductionratesdiminishreserveselsewhere.Thishasprovided muchofthestimulusfortheUnitedStatestogaingreatercontrolofthese rcsourees—attheexpenseofitspresentandpotentialrivals.ButU.S.imperial ambitionsdonotendthere,sincetheyaredrivenbyeconomicambitionsthat knownobounds.AsMagdolfnotcdintheclosingpagesofT/It?/lg:Q/'Im.-fm':'ahl\‘1It.

in1969,“itistheprofessedgoal”0fU.S.multinationalcorporations“tocontrolas largeashareoftheworldmarketastheydooftheUnitedStatesmarket,”andthis hungerforforeignmarketspersiststoday.Florida-basedWackenhutCorrections CorporationhaswonprisonprivatizationContractsinAustralia,theUnited Kingdom,SouthAfrica,Canada,NewZealand,andtheNetherlandsAntilles.”-" PromotionofU.S.corporateinterestsabroadisoneoftheprimaryresponsibilities oftheU.S.state.ConsiderthecasesofMonsantoandgeneticallymodifiedfood, Microsoftandintellectualproperty,BechtelandthewaronIraq.Itwouldbe impossibletoexaggeratehowdangerousthisdualexpansionismofU.S.corporationsandtheU.S.stateistotheworldatlarge.AslstvanMészarosobserved,the U.S.attempttoseizeglobalcontrol,whichisinherentintheworkingsofcapitalismandimperialism,isnowthreateninghumanitywiththe“extremeviolentrule ofthewholeworldbyonehegemonicimperialistcountryonapermanentbasis anabsurdandunsustainablewayofrunningtheworldorder.”2“

ThisnewageofU.S.imperialismwillgenerateitsowncontradictions, amongstthemattemptsbyothermajorpowerstoasserttheirinfluence,resorting tosimilarbelligerentmeans,andallsortsofstrategiesbyweakerstatesandnonstateactorstoengagein“asymmetric”fomisofwarfare.Giventheunprecedenteddestructivenessofcontemporaryweapons,whicharediffusedevermorewidely,theconsequencesforthepopulationoftheworldcouldwellbedevastating beyondanythingeverbeforewitnessed.Ratherthangeneratinganew“Pax Americana"theUnitedStatesmaybepavingthewaytonewglobalholocausts.

Thegreatesthopeinthesedirecircumstancesliesinarisingtideofrevoltfrom below,bothintheUnitedStatesandglobally.Thegrowthoftheantiglobalization movement,whichdominatedtheworldstagefornearlytwoyearsfollowingthe eventsinSeattleinNovember1999,wassucceededinFebruary2003bythe largestglobalwaveofantiwarprotestsinhumanhistory.Neverbeforehasthe world’spopulationrisenupsoquicklyandinsuchmassivenumbersinthe attempttostopanimperialistwar.Thenewageofimperialismisalsoanewage ofrevolt.TheVietnamSyndrome,whichhassoworriedthestrategicplannersof theimperialorderfordecades,nowseemsnotonlytohaveleftadeeplegacy withintheUnitedStatesbutalsotohavebeencoupledthistimearoundwithan EmpireSyndromeonamuchmoreglobalscale—somethingthatnoonereally expected.Thismorethananythingelsemakesitclearthatthestrategyofthe AmericanrulingclasstoexpandtheAmericanEmpirecannotpossiblysucceed inthelongrun,andwillprovetobeitsown—wehopenottheworld’s—undoing.

Kipling,the“Whitel\'flan’sBLll'(.lCl1,”

andU.S.Imperialism

\r)t'(’III/)(’l'2003

earelivinginaperiodinwhichtherhetoricofempireknowsfew bounds.Inaspecialreporton“AmericaandEmpire”inAugust,the London-basedEconomistmagazineaskedwhethertheUnitedStates would,intheeventof“reg'imechangeseffectedpeacefully”inIranandSyria, “reallybepreparedtoshoulderthewhiteman’sburdenacrosstheMiddleEast?”

Theansweritgavewasthatthiswas“unlikely”—theU.S.commitmenttoempire didnotgosofar.Whatissignificant,however,isthatthequestionwasaskedatall.

CurrentU.S.warsinAfghanistanandIraqhaveledobserverstowonder whethertherearen’tsimilaritiesandhistoricallinkagesbetweenthe“new”imperialismofthetwenty-firstcenturyandtheimperialismofthenineteenthandearly twentiethcenturies.As_]onathanMarcus,theBBC’sdefensecorrespondent,cornmentedafewmonthsback:

Itshouldbercnlcmberedthatmorethanonehundredyearsago,theBritishpoet RudyardKiplingwrotehisfaniouspoemaboutwhathestyledas“thewhiteman's l)urden”—awarningabouttheresponsibilitiesofempirethatwasdirectednotat LondonbutatWashingtonanditsnew-foundimperialresponsibilitiesinthe Philippines.ItisnotclearifPresidentGeorgeW.Bushisareaderofpoetryorof Kipling.ButKipling’ssentimentsareasrelevanttodayastheywerewhenthepoem waswrittenintheaftermathoftheSpanish-American\M1r.'

Anumberofotherinodern-dayproponentsofimperialismhavealsodrawn conncct.ionswithKi)|inr‘smenu.whichhe"inswiththelines: l1:fl.

TakeuptheWhiteMan‘sburden­

Sendforththebestyebreed—

Beforediscussingthereasonsforthissuddenrenewedinterestinl(ipling’s “WhiteMan’sBurden,"itisnecessarytoprovidesomebackgroundonthehistoryofU.S.imperialisminordertoputthepoemincontext.

/"rumI/I(‘.8‘/mIII'.v/rlIIll'I'I'(‘(III||’u/'In//I(’/’/M‘/1'/)/)/m’-/Imt’/'/('rmll//I/' IntheSpanish—AmericanWarof1898theUnitedStatesseizedtheSpanish coloniesintheCaribbeanandthePacific,emergingforthefirsttimeasaworld power.’AsinCuba,SpanishcolonialruleinthePhilippineshadgivenrisetoa nationalliberationstruggle.ImmediatelyaftertheU.S.navalbombardmentof ManilaonMay1,1898,inwhichtheSpanishfleetwasdestroyed,Admiral DeweysentagunboattofetchtheexiledFilipinorevolutionaryleaderEmilio AguinaldofromHongKong.TheUnitedStateswantedAguinaldotoleada renewedrevoltagainstSpaintoprosecutethewarbeforeU.S.troopscouldarrive. TheFilipinosweresosuccessfulthatinlessthantwomonthstheyhadallbut defeatedtheSpanishonthemainislandofLuzon,bottlinguptheremaining SpanishtroopsinthecapitalcityofManila,whilealmostallofthearchipelagofell intoFilipinohands.Injune,FilipinoleadersissuedtheirownDeclarationof IndependencebasedontheU.S.model.WhenU.S.forcesfinallyarrivedatthe endof_]unethe15,000SpanishtroopsholedupinManilaweresurroundedby theFilipinoamiyentrenchedaroundthecity—sothatU.S.forceshadtorequest permissiontocrossFilipinolinestoengagetheseremainingSpanishtroops.The SpanishamiysurrenderedManilatoU.S.forcesafteronlyafewhoursoflighting onAugust13,1898.InanagreementbetweentheUnitedStatesandSpain, Filipinoforceswerekeptoutofthecityan(lwereallowednopartinthesurrender.Thiswasthefilialbattleofthewar._]ohnl-lay,U.S.ambassadortoBritain, capturedtheimperialistspiritofthetimewhenhewroteoftheSpanish-American Warasawholethatitwas“asplendidlittlewar.”

WiththefightingwithSpainover,however,theUnitedStatesrefusedto acknowledgetheexistenceofthenewPhilippineRepublic.InOctober1898the

McKinleyadministrationpubliclyrevealedforthefirsttimethatitintendedto annextheentirePhilippines.lnarrivingatthisdecisionPresidentMcKinleyis reportedtohavesaidthat“(Ind/\lmighty"’hadorderedhimtomakethe Philippines:1U.S.colony.WithindaysofthisamiouncementtheNewEngland Anti-lmperialistLeaguewasestablishedinBoston.ltstnetnbershipwasto includesuchluminariesasMarkTwain,Williamjaines,CharlesFrancisAdams, andAndrewCarnegie.Nevertheless,theadministrationwentaliea(landconcludedtheTreatyofParisinl)ecetnber,inwhichSpainagreedtocedethePhilippines tothenewimperialpower,alongwithitsotherpossessionsseizedbytheUnited Statesinthewar.

ThiswasfollowedbyafiercedebateintheSenateontheratificationofthe treaty,centeringonthestatusofthePhilippines,which,exceptforthecityof Manila,wasunderthecontrolofthenascentPhilippineRepublic.OnFebruary 4,1899,U.S.troopsunderorderstoprovokeaconflictwiththeFilipinoforces ringingManilaweremovedintodisputedgroundlyingbetweenU.S.and Filipinolinesontheoutskirtsofthecity.WhentheyencounteredFilipinosoldierstheU.S.soldierscalled“l-lalt”andthenopenedfire,killingthree.TheU.S. forcesimmediatelybeganageneraloffensivewiththeirfullfirepowerinwhat amountedtoasurpriseattack(thetopFilipinoofficerswerethenawayattending alavishcelebratoryball),inflictingenormouscasualtiesontheFilipinotroops. TheSanFranciscoCallreportedonFebruary5thatthemomentthenews reachedWashingtonMcKinleytold“anintimatefriendthattheManila engagementwould,inhisopinion,insuretheratificationofthetreatytomorrow.”

ThesecalculationsprovedcorrectandonthefollowingdaytheSenateratiliedtheTreatyofParisofliciallyendingtheSpanish-AmericanWar—ceding Guam,PuertoRico,andthePhilippinestotheUnitedStates,andputtingCuba underU.S.control.ItstipulatedthattheUnitedStateswouldpaySpain20milliondollarsfortheterritoriesthatitgainedthroughthewar.Butthisdidlittle todisguisethefactthattheSpanish-AmericanWarwasanoutrightseizureof anoverseascolonialempirebytheUnitedStates,inresponsetotheperceived needofU.S.businessjustrecoveringfromaneconomicdownturnfornew globalmarkets.

TheUnitedStatesimmediatelypushedforwardintheoffensivethatithad beguntwodaysbefore—inwhatwastoprovetobeoneofhistory’smorebarbaricwarsofimperialconquest.TheU.S.goalinthisperiodwastoexpandnot onlyintotheCaribbeanbutalsofarintothePacific—andbycolonizingthe

PhilippinelslandstogainadoorwayintothehugeChinesemarket.(lu1900 theUnitedStatessenttroopsfromthePhilippinestoChinatojoinwiththe otherimperialpowersinputtingdowntheBoxerRebellion.)Kipling’s“White Man‘sBurden,”subtitled“TheUnitedStatesandthePhilippineIslands,”was publishedinMcClure’:Magnzinrinl"ehruat‘yl899.“ltwaswrittenwhenthe debateoverratificationoftheTreatyofPariswasstilltakingplace,andwhile theanti-imperialistmovementintheUnitedStateswasloudlydecryingtheplan toannexthePhilippines.KiplingurgedtheUnitedStates,withspecialreferencetothePhilippines,to_joinBritaininthepursuitoftheracialresponsibilitiesofempire:

Yournew-caughtsullenpeoples, Halfdevilandhalfchild.

ManyintheUnitedStates,includingPresidentMcKinleyandTheodore Roosevelt,welcomedKipling’srousingcallfortheUnitedStatestoengagein “savagewars,”beginninginthePhilippines.SenatorAlbertBeveridgeof Indianadeclared:“GodhasnotbeenpreparingtheEnglish-speakingand Teutonicpeoplesforathousandyearsfornothingbutvainandidleself-contemplationandself-admiration.Hehasmadeusadeptingovernmentthatwe mayadministergovernmentamongsavageandsenilepeoples.”Intheendmore than126,000oflicersandmenweresenttothePhilippinestoputdownthe Filipinoresistanceduringawarthatlastedolliciallyfrom1899to1902butactuallycontinuedmuchlonger,withsporadicresistanceformostofadecade.U.S. troopslogged2,800engagementswiththeFilipinoresistance.Atleastaquarter ofamillionFilipinos,mostofthemcivilians,werekilledalongwith4,200U.S. soldiers(morethantentimesthenumberofU.S.fatalitiesintheSpanishAmericanWar).‘

FromthebeginningitwasclearthattheFilipinoforceswereunabletomatch theUnitedStatesinconventionalwarfare.Theythereforequicklyswitchedto guerrillawarfare.U.S.troopsatwarwiththeFilipinosboastedinapopular marchingsongthattheywould“civilizethemwiththeKrag”(referringtothe Norwegian-designedgunwithwhichtheU.S.forceswereoutfitted).Yetthey foundthemselvesfacinginterminablesmallattacksandambushesbyFilipinos, whooftencarriedlongknivesknownasbolos.Theseguerrillaattacksresultedin combatdeathsofU.S.soldiersinsmallnumbersonaregularbasis.Asinallpro­

longedguerrillawars,thestrengthoftheFilipinoresistancewasduetothelact thatithadthesupportoftheFilipinopopulationingeneral.AsGeneralArthur MacArthur(thefatherofDouglasMacArthur),whobecamemilitarygovernorof thel’hilippinesin1900,confidedtoareporterin1899:

WhenIfirststartedinaainsttheserel)clsll)elievedthatA'uinaldo’stroo)5re)3a8 resentedonlvafaction.l(lidnotliketobelievethatthewhole)0yulalionof ll Luzon—thenativepopulationthatis—wasopposedtousandouroffersofaidand goodgovemtnent.Butafterhavingcomethisfar,afterhavingoccupiedseveral townsandcitiesinsuccessionlhavebeenreluctantlycotnpclledtohclievcthat theFilipinomassesareloyaltoAguinaldoandthegovernmentwhichheheads."

Facedwithaguerrillastrugglesupportedbythevastmajorityofthepopulation,theU.S.militaryrespondedbyresettlingpopulationsinconcentration camps,burningclownvillages(Filipinosweresometimesforcedtocarrythe petrolusedinburningdowntheirownhomes),masshangingsandbayonetingsofsuspects,systematicrapingofwomenandgirls,andtorture.Themost infamoustorturetechnique,usedrepeatedlyinthewar,wastheso-called “watercure.”Vastquantitiesofwaterwereforceddownthethroatsofprisoners.Theirstomachswerethensteppedonsothatthewatershotoutthreefeet intheair“likeanartesianwell.”Mostvictimsdiednotlongafterwards. GeneralFrederickFunstondidnothesitatetoannouncethathehadpersonallystrungupagroupofthirty-fiveFilipinocivilianssuspectedofsupporting theFilipinorevolutionaries.MajorEdwinGlennsawnoreasontodenythe chargethathehadmadeagroupofforty-sevenFilipinoprisonerskneeland “repentoftheirsins”beforebayonetingandclubbingthemtodeath.General JacobSmithorderedhistroopsto“killandburn,"totarget“everythingover ten,”andtoturntheislandofSamarinto“ahowlingwilderness."General WilliamShafterinCaliforniadeclaredthatitmightbenecessarytokillhalfthe Filipinopopulationinordertobring“perfectjustice”totheotherhalf.During thePhilippineWartheUnitedStatesreversedthenormalcasualtystatisticsof war—usuallymanytnorearewoundedthankilled.Accordingtoofficialstatistics(discussedinCongressionalhearingsonthewar)U.S.troopskilledfifteen timesasmanyFilipinosastheywounded.Thislitwithfrequentreportsby US.soldiersthatwoundedandcapturedFilipinocombatantsweresunnnarilyexecutedonthespot.

7'//(Al/o/'1)_:l/(I.\'.rrI('/'(',Ll/(IIT/I.‘l,I.‘)()()' source:www.boondocltsnet.com/ai/ailtcxts/mm_featarms.html

ThewarcontinuedafterthecaptureofAguinaldoinMarch1901butwas declaredolliciallyoverbyPresidentTheodoreRooseveltonjuly4,1902—inan attempttoquellcriticismofU.S.atrocities.Atthattime,thenorthernislandshad beenmostly“pacified”buttheconquestofthesouthernislandswasstillongoing andthestrugglecontinuedforyears—thoughtheUnitedStatesfromthenon characterizedtherebelsasmerel)andits.

InthesouthernPhilippinestheU.S.colonialarmywasatwarwithMuslim FilipinosorMoros.In1906whatcametobeknownastheMoroMassacrewas carriedoutbyU.S.troopswhenatleastninehundredFilipinos,including womenandchildren,weretrappedinavolcaniccraterontheislandoli_]oloand shotatandbombardedfordays.AlloftheFilipinoswerekilledwhiletheUS. troopssulleredonlyahandfulol‘casualties.MarkTwainrespondedtoearly reports(whichindicatedthatthosemassacredtotaledsixhundredratherthan ninehundredmen,women,andchildrenaslaterdetermined)withbittersatire:

Withsixhundredengagedoneachside,welostlilteenmenkilledoutright,andwe hadthirty-twowounde(l—countingthatnoseandthatelhow.TheenemytllllIll)Cl't.'(l sixhundred—includingwomenandcl1ildren—andweabolishedthemutterly,

leavingnotevenababyalivetocryforits(leadinollier.TIN‘!isiiir0m]mrriM)'I/Ir girritrslvirIrn:vI/mlwascum‘rieliicvcdbyHi:C/irislimisoldier:Off/l(UiiiinlSI(Ifr.r."

ViewingawidelydistributedphotothatshowedU.S.soldiersoverlookingpiles ofFilipinosdeadinthecrater,W.E.B.DuBoisdeclaredinalettertoMoorlield Storey,president0|‘theAiiti-[inperialistLeague(andlaterfirstpresidentofthe NAACP),thatitwas“themostilluminatingthing1haveeverseen.Iwantespeciallytohaveitframedandputuponthewallsoliinyrecitationroomtoimpressupon thestudentswhatwarsandespeciallyWarsol'Conquestreallymean.”7

PresidentTheodoreRooseveltimmediatelycommendedhisgoodfriend GeneralLeonardWood,whohadcarriedouttheMoroMassacre,writing:“Icongratulateyouandtheollicersandmenofyourcommanduponthebrilliantfeatof armswhereinyouandtheysowellupheldthehonoroftheAmericanllag.”Like Kipling,Rooseveltseldomhesitatedtopromotetheimperialistcauseortoforwarddoctrinesofracialsuperiority.

YetKipling’snovels,stories,andversesweredistinguishedbythefactthatto manyindividualsinthewhiteworldtheyseemedtoevokeatranscendentand noblecause.Atthesametimetheydidnotfailtoreachoutandacknowledgethe hatredthatthecolonizedhadforthecolonizer.InpresentingtheNobelPrizein LiteraturetoKiplingin1907theNobelCommitteeproclaimed,“hisimperialism isnotoftheuncompromisingtypethatpaysnoregardtothesentimentsolothers."’“ItwaspreciselythisthatmadeKipling’s“WhiteMan’sBurden”andother outpouringsfromhispensoeffectiveasideologicalveilsforabarbaricreality.

TheyearKipling’spoemappeared,1899,markednotonlytheendofthe Spanisli-AniericanWar(throughtheratificationoftheTreatyofParis)andthe beginningofthePhilippine-AiiiericanWar,butalsothebeginningoftheAngloBoerWarinSouthAfrica.Thesewereclassicimperialistwarsandtheygeneratedanti-imperialistmovementsandradicalcritiquesinresponse.ItwastheAngloBoerWarthatgaverisetoHobson’sl7iix[m‘iali.nn,A.S‘tu(ly,whichargued “Nowhereundersuchconditions”—relerringspecilicallytoBritishimperialism inSouthAlrica—“isthetheoryofwhitegovernmentasatrustforcivilization madeVandysaTheopeningsentenceoliLenin’sI'ni.fu:ri'rI.li.r1ii,UH‘I-li'g/irstStageif Cri.fn'trili.i-m,writtenin1916,statedthat“especiallysincetheSpanisli-American War(1898),andtheAnglo-BoerWar(l899—l.‘)0‘2),theeconomicandalsothe politicalliteratureol'thetwohemisplieresliiiiimoreandmoreoftenadoptedthe ----..,.mi term‘imperialism’inordertodefinethepiesenteta.‘

KI‘/)/I'IIg'.\'I/('.\‘.mk«_:1"Io/III/)('I'l.(I/Ii\‘I.\‘3|,/I'('r()II('//IlII(/I'('(/l'('(Ir.t

Althoughimperialismhasremainedarealityoverthelastcentury,thetermitself wasbrandedasbeyondthepalewithinpoliteestablislnnentcirclesformostolthe twentiethcentuty—sogreatwastheanti-imperialistoutragearisingoutofthe Philippine-AmericanWarandtheAnglo-BoerWar,andsoeffectivewasthe Marxisttheoryofimperialisminstrippingtheveilawayfromglobalcapitalist relations.Inthelastfewyears,however,"imperialism”hasonceagainbecomea rallyingcryforneoconservativesandneolibcralsalike.AsAlanMurray, WashingtonBureauChiefofCNBC,recentlyacknowledgedinastatementdirectedprincipallyattheelites:“Weareall,itseems,imperialistsnow.”"

IfoneweretodoubtforamomentthatthecurrentexpansionofU.S.empire isbutthecontinuationofacentury-longhistoryofU.S.overseasimperialism, Michaellgnatiellhastnadeitasclearasday:

ThelraqoperationmostresemblestheconquestofthePhilippinesbetween1898 and1902.Bothwerewarsofconquest,bothwereurgedbyanideologicaleliteon adividedeounu'yandbothcostmuchmorethananyonehadbargainedfor._]ustas inIraq,winningthewarwastheeasypart.Morethan120,000Americantroops weresenttothePhilippinestoputdowntheguerrillaresistance,and4,000never camehome.llremainstobeseenwhetherIraqwillcostthousandsofAmerican lives—andwhethertheAmericanpublicwillacceptsuchaheavytollasthepriceof successinlraq."

Withrepresentativesoftheestablishmentopenlyespousingimperialistambitions,weshouldn'tbesurprisedattherepeatedattemptstobringbackthe“white man’sburden”argumentinoneformoranother.Intheclosingpagesofhisprizewinningbook,TheSavageWarsofI’e(tce,MaxBootquotesl(.ipling'spoem:

TakeuptheWhiteMan’sburden—

Andreaphisoldreward:

Theblameofthoseyebetter, Thehateofthoscyeguard­

BootinsiststhatKiplingwasright,that“colonistseverywhere,usually receivedscantthanksafterward.”Nevertheless,weshouldbeencouraged,hetells us,bythefactthat“thebulkofthepeopledidnotresistAmericanoccupation,as theysurelywouldhavedoneifithadbeennastyandbrutal.ManyCubans,

llailians,Dominicans,andothersmaysecretlyhavewelcomedU.S.rule."Boot's mainimplicationseemsclearenough—theUnitedStatesshouldagain“Takeup theWhiteMan"sburden.”HisbookendsbyarguingthattheUnitedStates shouldhavedeposedSaddamHusseinandoccupiedlmqatthetimeoltheI991 CuIlWar.Thattask,heimplied,remainedtobeaccomplished.”

ThetitleofTheSavageWarsofPmrewastakenstraightlromalinein Kipling"s“WhiteMan"sBurden.”Boot’s428-pageglorificationofU.S.imperialistwarsreceivedtheBestBookof2002AwardfromtheWashingtonPost. Ch.11'.rtianSn'en.ccMonitor‘,an(ltheLa:AngclrsTimesandwonthe2003General WallaceM.Greene_]r.AwardforthebestnonfictionbookpertainingtoMarine Corpshistory.BootcontendsthatthePhilippineWarwas“oneolthemostsitecessliilcounterinsurgencieswagedbyaWesternarmyinmoderntimes"and declaresthat,“bythestandardsofthe(lay,theconductofU.S.soldierswasbetterthanaverageforcolonialwars.”

TheU.S.imperialroleinthePhilippines,thesubjectol‘Kipling’s“White Man’sBurden,”isthusbeingpresentedasamodelforthekindofimperialrole thatBootandotherneoconservativesarenowurgingontheUnitedStates.Even beforethewarinIraq,Ignatieffremarked:“Imperialismusedtobethewhite man’sburden.Thisgaveitabadreputation.Butimperialismdoesn‘tstopbeing necessarybecauseitispoliticallyineorrect”—apointthatmightwellbereadas extendingtothe“whiteman’sburden”itself."

ThePhilippine-AmericanWarisnowbeingrediscoveredastheclosest approximationinU.S.historytotheproblemstheUnitedStatesisencountering inIraq.Further,theUnitedStateshastakenadvantageoftheSeptember11,2001 attackstointervenemilitarilynotjustintheMiddleEastbutalsoaroundthe globc—includingthePhilippineswhereithasdeployedthousandsoftroopsto aidthePhilippinearmyinlightingMoroinsurgentsinthesouthernislands.In thisnewimperialistclimateNiallFerguson,ProfessorofHistoryattheStern SchoolofBusiness,NewYorkUniversity,andoneoftheprincipalatlvocatesof thenewimperialism,hasaddressedKipling’spoem“TheWhiteMan'sBurden" inhisbookEmffire.“Noone,”Fergusontellsus,

woulddareusesuchpoliticallyincorrectlanguagetoday.Therealityisnevertlieless thattheUnitedStatesbas—whetheritadmitsitornot—takenupsomekindof globalburden,_justasKiplingurged.ltconsidersitselfrespuusiblenotjustli1rwagingawaragainstterrorismandroguestates,butalsoforspreadingthebenclitsol

I'll):\’-\KI".l)|;\|l'l‘IllI.\|.|.\V.\|

capitalismanddemocracyoverseas.AndjustlikethellritishEmpirebeforeit,the AmericanEmpireunfailinglyactsinthenameoliliberly,evenwhenitsownselfinterestismanifestlyuppcnnost.'5

DespiteFerguson’sclaimthat“noonewoulddare”tocallthis“thewhite man'sburden”todaysinceitis“politicallyincorrect,”sympatheticreferencesto thistermkeeponcroppingup—andinthemostprivilegedcircles.Bootisagood example.LikeFergusonhimself,hetriestoincorporatethe“whiteman'sburden" intoalonghistoryofidealisticintervention,downplayingtherealitiesofracism andimperialism:“Intheearlytwentiethcentury,”hewrites,“Americanstalkedof spreadingAnglo-Saxoncivilizationandtakingupthe‘whiteman’sburden’; todaytheytalkofspreadingdemocracyanddefendinghumanrights.Whatever youcallit,thisrepresentsanidealisticimpulsethathasalwaysbeenabigpartin America’simpetusforgoingtowar.”

Today’simperialistsseeKipling’spoemmainlyasanattempttostiffenthe spineoftheU.S.rulingclassofhisdayinpreparationforwhathecalled“thesavagewarsofpeace.”Anditispreciselyinthiswaythattheynowalludetothe “whiteman’sburden“inrelationtothetwenty-firstcentury.Thusforthe EconomistmagazinethequestionissimplywhethertheUnitedStatesis“preparedtoshoulderthewhiteman’sburdenacrosstheMiddleEast."

AsananalystofaswellasaspokesmanforimperialismKiplingwasheadand shouldersabovethisinthesensethatheaccuratelyperceivedtheloomingcontradictionsofhisowntime.HeknewthattheBritishEmpirewasoverstretchedand doomed—evenashestruggledtoredeemitandtoinspiretherisingUnitedStates toentertheimperialstagealongsideit.Onlytwoyearsbeforewriting“TheWhite Man’sBurden”hewrotehiscelebratedverse,“Recessional”:

Far-called,ournaviesmeltaway; Onduneandheadlandsinksthelire; Lo,allourpompofyesterday lsonewithNinevehandTyre! JudgeolNations,spareusyet, Lestweforget—lestweforget!

TheUnitedStatesisnowleadingthewayintoanewphaseofimperialism. Thiswillbemarkednotonlybyincreasedconllictbetweencenterandperiphery

—rationali-/.e(lintheWestbyveiledandnot—so-veiledracism—butalsoby increasedintercapitalistrivalry.Thiswilllikelyspeedupthelong-rundeclineol theAmericanEmpire,ratherthanthereverse.Andinthissituationatcalll'orat closingoftheranksbetweenthoseofEuropeanextraction(Samuell-luntingtnn’s “clashofcivilizations”argumentorsomesubstitute)islikelytobecomemore appealingamongU.S.andBritishelites.ItshouldberememberedthatKipling’s “WhiteMan‘sBurden”wasacallforthejointexploitationoftheglobebywhat Dulloiswaslatertocall“thewhitemastersoltheworld”inthefaceoftheebbing olllritishfortunes."‘

Atnotime,then,shouldweunderestimatethethree-foldthreatofmilitarisin, imperialism,andracism-orforgetthatcapitalistsocietieshavehistoricallybeen iclentilieclwithallthree.

nindicationofjusthowbadthingshavebecomefortheU.S.invaders andoccupiersofIraqisthatcomparisonswiththeVietnamWararenow commonplaceintheU.S.media.Inadesperateattempttoputastopto this,PresidentBushintimatedonApril13,inoneofhisrarepressconferences, thatthemerementionoftheVietnamanalogyinrelationtothepresentwarwas unpatrioticandconstitutedabetrayalofthetroops.Yetthequestionremainsand seemstohaunttheU.S.occupationofIraq:TowhatextenthasIraqbecome another“Vietnam”forAmericanimperialism?

Itistruethatanydirectcomparisonofthetwowarspointstotheenormousdifferencesbetweenthem.InIraqtheUnitedStatesisnotopposed,asinVietnam, byanationalliberationmovementarisingoutofmorethanacenturyofrevolu— tionarystruggleagainstFrenchandthenAmericanimperialism.Thescaleofthe US.militaryinterventioninIraqismuchsmallerthaninVietnamandthenumberofcasualtiesmuchsmalleraswell.TheColdWarislongover.Thegeography olthcwarisdillererit.

Nevertheless,Iraq,likeVietnaminthepreviouscentury,iscomingtostandfor thelimitsol'Americanpower.TheUnitedStatesisthesoleremainingsuperpower,thegreatestmilitarypoweronearth.Yctitsclaimtoomnipotenceisnowbeing shakenonceagainbypopularresistanceforcesan(lhatredoftheinvaderinathird worldcountry.InAprilaloneU.S.combatdeathsinIraqexceededthosefromthe beginningoftheAmericaninvasionollraqtothefallofBaghda(l—theperiodthat

wassupposedtohaveconstitutedthefulldurationofthewar.Nostablepolitical solutioninIraqthatisacceptabletotheUnitedStatesrulingclassseemspossible. Amilitarysolutiontotheconflictdoesnotexist.AndtheUnitedStates,itisfrequentlyobserved,has“noexitstr.itegy”—ifindeeditintendstoexitfullyatall. Underthesecircumstancesthequestionofdefeatonceagainarises,paralleling Vietnam.Althoughtheworldsituationhaschangeddramaticallyonecannothelp butberemindedofthelinesoftheChinesePmpIr’sDmbin1966:“Themore forcesUnitedStatesimperialismthrowsintoAsia,themorewillitbebogged downthereandthedeeperwillbethegraveitdigsforitself.”'Thereisnodoubt thattheU.S.rulingclassisacutelyawareoftheVietnamanalogyandconcerned thatU.S.imperialismisfacinganotherdisaster,whichwillonlygetworsethe longeritremainsinIraq.AtthesametimethereisanenomiousmomentumdrivingtheUnitedStatestowardacontinuationandescalationofthewar.OnApril2, 1970,atacriticalpointintheVietnamWar,Senator].WilliamFulbright,chairmanoftheSenateForeignRelationsCommittee,declaredthattheenemy“cannot driveusoutofIndochina.Buttheycanforceonusthechoiceofeitherplunging inaltogetherorgettingoutaltogether.”’Thisdescribesthemaindilemmathatthe UnitedStatesexperiencedthroughouttheVietnamWar.Itwasabletoplungein deeperanddeeperanddid.Buteventuallyitwascompelledbyitsfailuresinthe faceofanimplacableresistancetogetoutaltogether—aresultthatwasalso encouragedbythegrowthofamassiveantiwarmovementathome.Asimilar unpalatablechoicefacestheUnitedStatesinIraqtoday.Amajorescalationis unacceptabletothemassoftheworld’spopulationincludingthepopulationsof themajorU.S.allies,andismostlikelyunacceptabletothemassoftheU.S.populationitself.However,gettingoutaltogetherisunacceptabletotheU.S.ruling class,whichhasrealspoilsofwartoloseandisworriedaboutthecredibilityof U.S.power.Underthesecircumstancesanescalationofthewarappearslikely despitetheglobalpoliticalfalloutthiswillentail.

ThegeneralviewoftheU.S.powerelitecanbeseeninareportentitledIraq: OnelfzarLaterreleasedinMarchbytheCouncilonForeignRelations.The report’staskforcewasco-chairedbyJamesSchlesinger,formersecretaryof defenseunderNixonandFord,andbyThomasPickering,formerUS.ambassadortoRussiaandundersecretaryforpoliticalaffairsintheClintonadministration.ThetaskforceasawholeincludedtopfiguresintheU.S.foreignpolicy establishment,notablyformerU.S.representativetotheUnitedNationsand memberofRonaldReagan’sNationalSecurityCouncil,jeanneKirkpatrick,and

RandCorporationpeacekeepingexpert(appointedbytheClintonandllush adniinistrationsasaspecialenvoytohelpsupervise“nation-building”inSomalia, Haiti,Bosnia,Kosovo,and/\fgIianistan),_]amesF.Dobbins.Thereportinsisted ontheneedoftheUnitedStatestomaintaitiitsstrategic“commitinent"toIraq eveninthecontextofa“transferofauthority”inorderto:(I)preventinterference bylraq’sneighbors,(2)guarantee“long-termstabilityintheproductionandsupplyofoil,”block“theemergenceofafailedstatethatcouldolferahaventoterrorists,”and(4)avoi(laU.S.“policyfailure”withthe“attendantlossofpowerand inlluenceintheregion”."AsSchlesingerandPickeringwroteinanop-edpiece intheLosA11g('lc.sTimes,entitled“KeepIraqAbovePolitics,”boththe RepublicanandDemocraticpartiesshould“staythecourse”fortheseverysame reasons.AboveallIraqmustbekeptoutofpresidentialpolitics:apointdirected principallyat_]ohnKerryastheDemocraticcandidate.‘

Themainlessonthattherulingclassseemstohavedrawnfromthewarsofaris thatamuchlargermilitaryforceisneededtomaintaintheoccupation.Accordingto BrzsrnrssVVcel:,“theU.S.holdonIraqremainsweak.Stayingontrackwillrequire twothings:moretroopstomaintainsecurity,supplementedbyacraftierpolitical strategy.”-"InthewordsofBruceNussbaum,BusinessWecIt’seditorialpageeditor:

Thereisadenial[inWashington]thatthemilitarystrategygoingintoIraq, theRutnsfeldDoctrine,isafailure.ThebesthopeleftofestablishingastableIraqidemocracyistoreplacethatdoctrine,whichemphasizessmall, light,andfastmilitaryoperations,withitsrival,thePowellDoctrine,devised bythenChairmanofthejointChiefsofStallColinPowell.ThePowell Doctrinecallsforoverwhelmingforceshapedbyveryclearpoliticalgoals andaspecificexitstrategy,twothingslackingtodayinIraq.Thefailureof theRumsfeldDoctrineinIraqisalltooclear—toofewbootsontheground, toolittlelegitimacyforAmericaanditshandpickedGoverningCouncil,too manyshiftinggoals,andnoclearexitstrategy.Theresultinrecentweekshas beenacycleofltidnappings,ambushes,counterstrikes,death,anddestructionthatincreasinglyechoesthedisasterinVietnam.Whatistobedone now?AreturntothePowellDoctrinewouldaccomplishanumberofkey goals.Significantlyhighertrooplevelswouldcrush,Iinally,BaathistresistanceandprovidemoresecuritytoIraqis.TherealpolitikofthePowell DoctrinewouldalsoforceWashingtontolimititsgoalsandmakeitsexit strategyclear.“

SuchareversiontothePowellDoctrinewouldmeanamassiveescalationof theInilitaryforceinIraq.TheUnitedStatescurrentlyhas135,000troopsin Iraqandmorethan150,000intheentireIraqitheatreofoperations,which includesKuwaitandotherneighboringcountries.Othercoalitionforces,about halfofwhichareBritish,havecontributedanother25,000troopstotheoccupation.Nevertheless,BttsiricssWrrkwritesthat“analysts,suchasRandCorp. peacekeepingexpertandformerStateDepartmentspecialenvoyJames Dobbinssaythatasmanyas400,000troopsareneededtomatchthepeacekeepingcloutusedinothervolatilecountries.The250,000IraqistheU.S. hopestohaveinuniformwillhelp,butthesecurityservices’recentrefusalto fightfellowIraqisshowstheyaren'ttiptothetask—andwon’tbeforatleasta year.”Thistranslatesintoademandforstepped-updeploymentofU.S.soldiers.Wherearealloftheseadditionaltroopstocomefrom?Initially,according toB1uinr.ssWeek,thiscanbeaccomplishedbyrotatingbackunitsthathave alreadydoneserviceinIraq.Lateronsomeothersolutiontothelackof“militarymanpower”mustbefound.

Otherestablishmentoutletsagreethatamajorescalationiscalledfor.TheNew KirkTimessaid,“Thisisnotthemomentforretreatanditcertainlyisnotthe momentforhalfmeasures.”Manymoretroopsthanpresentadministrationplans callforareneededaccordingtothatpublication:

Sendingmoretroopswillcausefurtherpaintoanalreadystrainedmilitary anditmeansacknowledgingthatunitsnowbeingrotatedhomeshouldbe sentbacktoIraq.Butthereseemstobenootherchoice.MuchofthecurrenttroublecouldhavebeenavoidediIMr.Rumsfeldhadnotbeensodeterminedtodisprovethedoctrinenamedforhisrival,SecretaryofStateColin Powell,whichpositsthatforce,ifitistobeusedatall,shouldbeoverwhelming.TheUnitedStatesshouldhavehadamuchlargermilitaryforce readytoactuallyoccupyIraqandrestoreorder.’

Themomentumoftheoccupationthuspointstoasubstantialescalationof U.S.forcelevelsinIraqatleastintheshortterm.AmajorgoaloftheUnited StatesistocreatealargeIraqimilitaryforcethatcanconfrontthoseIraqinationalistscurrentlyfightingtheAmerieanoccupation.Butsofartheellbrtstocreate anewIraqiamiyonwhichtheUnitedStatescoulddependtohelpsuppress IraqiresistancehaveprovenincIl"ectual.AlthoughtheUnitedStateshasallocat­

ed$l.8billiontothenewIraqiarmysofarithasmanagedtotrainlessthan 4,00t)outofaplanned40,000soldiers.Halfofthelirstbattalionofthenewarmy quitlatelastyearonthegroundsthatthepaywasinadequate.Whenthesecond battalionwascalledintohelplighttheIraqiresistanceinI7allu_jahinAprilmany soldiersrefused,sayingthattheyhadsigneduptolightIraq'sforeignenemies notfellowIraqis.”

OneofthemostseriousproblemsforU.S.imperialismisthatitvic\vsmostof theIraqipopulationaspotentialenemiesofU.S.strategicinterestsinIraq,and hasnoproimperialsectorofthepopulationtorelyonforsupport.Thiscontrasts withVlclmnn.WhereItCenturyofFrenchcolonialismhadleftbehindaconsiderableurbanmiddle-andupper-classpopulationthatallieditselfwiththeUnited StatesoncetheFrench(leparted.TheUnitedStatesdi5b;mdc(|the[mqiarmyat theverybeginningoftheoccupation,sinceitdidnottrustitsIlaathistelements. Y,intheethnicandreligiouscontextofIraqtheUnitedStateshadnonatural constituencytowhichitcouldturntofillthepoliticalandmilitaryvacuumthus CT°3‘¢‘l-Theshill“'“".l°"l‘)’I5CVCIIlessacceptablepoliticallytotheUnitedStates thantheSunnisWllhlhelrBaathistconnections,sincetheShiitesareclosely linkedtothefundamentalistIslamicstateinIran.TheKurdsaremostlyconfined tothenorthernPartOfthecountry,areisolatedfromtherestoflraqisociety,and haveconflictswiththeUnitedStatesoveroilandwithregardtoTurkey.Without ‘lcel’f°°l5‘"3")’'“3J0t‘Sectorofthepopulation,U.S.imperialismisfindingit ¢X”°'“°l)’‘I'll-'C“ll[0findthebasisforanewIraqiarmytobackupandultimatelysubstituteforU.S.forces.

AllofthIS|)0II1tStothefactthatthebiggestmilitaryobstaclethattheUnited StatesfacesinitsoccupationofIraqisanacuteshortageoftroops.Heretoothe comparisonwithVietnamcannotbeavoided.AsMonthlyRe,-vim»editorsl-larry MagdolfandPaulSweezywroteinthisspaceinDecember1959;

ItisextremelyimportanttounderstandthatU.S.iinperialistn‘sgreatest weaknessispreciselyashortageofmilitarymanpower.TheVietnamwaris showingthattheonce—widespreadhopeofbeingabletosubstitutetechnologyformanpowerinlightingcounter-revolutionarywarsisanillusion.The UnitedStateshasabout3.5millionmeninthearmedservicesatthepresentLime(thelargestmilitaryestablislnnentintheworld),andofthisinunberatleastaliftharedirectlyorindirectlytieddownbyawarinonesmall countrylitanythousandsofmilesawayfromhome.Muchofthereinaintler

isspreadthinovermorethan250militarybaseslocatedinsome30countriesaroundtheglobe.ConsideringthefactthattheUnitedStateshasarrogatedtoitselftheroleofworldpolicemanthepresentextremedissipationofmilitaryresourcesbroughtaboutbytheVietnamwarandtheworldwidesystemofbasesleavesaperilouslysmallstrategicrest-wefordeploymentinanynewcrisisareas.”

Inearliercapitalistempires,particularlythoseoftheBritishandFrench,it waspossibletoconqueran(|maintaincontroloverfar-lltmgglobalpossessions withoutrecoursetoconscriptarmiesfromtheInothercountry.Thechiefreasonsforthisweretheweaknessofcolonialresistancemovements,theirlackof accesstomodernweapons(asHilaireBellocsaid,“Whateverhappens,wehave got/TheMaximGun,andtheyhavenot"),andtherecruitmentofsoldiersfrom amongsttheunemployedandunderemployedintheadvancedcapitalistcountries(coupledwithnativearmiesdrawnfromcolonialterritories).Bythetimeof theVietnamWar,however,theUnitedStateshadnooptionbuttorelyonconscriptstocarryoutitsimperialobjectives.Nolongerwerethirdworldresistance movementspoliticallyincohesive,theircapacitytoobtainmodernweaponry sufficienttofightaguerrillawarhadincreased,andapoolofunemployedinthe UnitedStatesadequatetomaintainavolunteerarmyonthescalerequireddid notexist.Still,theUnitedStatesshiedawayfromuniversalmilitaryserviceasa meansofmaintainingitsempire.AftertheVietnamWar,whichhadshownthe dangersofrelyingonconscriptstofightanunpopularimperialistwar,the UnitedStatesturnedtoasmallerall-volunteermilitary(madepracticableby:1 largerreservearmyoflaborinaperiodofstagnation),undertherenewedbelief thattechnologycouldlimittheneedfortroopsontheground.

InonlyayearIraqhasdemonstratedthistoheanillusion.TheentirevolunteerarmyschemeformaintainingtheU.S.empireisintatters.TheU.S.ruling classisdemandingmorecombattroopsforIraqandtherearenoforcesavailable,giventhattheUnitedStates,eagertomonopolizethespoilsofwar,chose tointerveneinIraqvirtuallyalone,withsignificantsupportonlyfromitsnmch smallerBritishpartner.Theextremityofthesituationwasforeshadowedbya CongressionalBudgetOffice(CBO)reportsubmittedastestimonybeforethe ArmedServicesCommitteeoftheU.S.HouseofRepresentativesonNovember 5,2003.Thatreportindicated“theactiveArmywouldbeunabletosustainan occupationforceofitspresentsizebeyondaboutMarch2004ifitchosenotto

keepindividualunitsdeployedtoIraqforlongerthanoneyearwithoutrelief." Tomaintaina“steadystate”or“in(lelinite"occupationunderpresentconditions,theCBOreportstressed,trooplevelswouldhavetofalltothe33.()()Oto 64,000level.TheonlyotheroptionswerefortheUnitedStatestoalterrotation patterns(taxingthestrengthofitsvolunteerarmyantlgoingagainstthebasison whichrecruitmentandretentionoccurs);drawinglteavilyonMarine,National Guard,andspecialforcesunits;usinglinancialincentivestotrytogetsoldiers toacceptanothertourofduty;reducingitsmilitarydeploymentsintheSinai Peninsula,Bosnia,andKosovo;andfindingwaystoprivatizemanymilitary activities,therebyfreeingupmoresoldiersforcombat.(ThegrowthofmercenaryforcesintheformofprivatemilitarycontractorsinIraq,nowamountingto some20,000privatesoldiers,whodomanyofthethingsthattheregularmilitaryusedtodo,isaproductofthisprivatizationstrategy.)Evenifitsexisting forceswerestretchedtotheirutmost,includingmuchheavieruseoftheMarine, specialforcesandNationalGuardunitsforcombatdutyinIraq,theCBOstill estimatedthatforcesavailablefortheIraqitheatreonasteady-statebasis~withoutbreakingthepromisetothetroopstokeeptheirserviceinIraqdownto12 monthsandwithoutdepletingforcecommitmentselsewhere—wouldnotbe overtwo-thirdsofthepresentlevelatbest.Thefactthattheadministrationin earlyMayannouncedthatitwouldbekeepingtensofthousandsoftroopsin Iraqlongerthanoneyear,rotatingsomeunitsback,isareflectionofthedepth ofthiscrisisintheavailableforcesfortheoccupation.

ItisinthesecircumstancesofanacuteshortageofsoldiersthatCongressis onceagainsendingsignalsthatthedraftwillhavetobereinitiatedintheUnited States,despiteitsenormousunpopularity.Thisispresentedasacaseoffairness designedtoequalizetheclassburdenofthewar,whichrightnowisfallingentirelyontheworkingclass—orinestablishmentparlancethemiddleandlowerclasses,representingordinaryworkingpeopleandthepoor.“Who’sdoingallthe lighting?”RepublicanSenatorChuckHagelofNebraskaaskedontheNBC TodayshowinlateApril.AccordingtoHageltheWaronTerrorismispossibly“a generational,probably25yearwar”andthusshouldfallonallclassesinthesociety.Onthesamepr0graIn_]oeBiden,DemocraticsenatorfrotuDelaware,declared thattheU.S.militaryistoosmallandprobablycouldnotbebroughtuptoits neededstrengthexceptonaconscriptbasis.CharlesRangel,aDemocraticeongressmanfromNewYork,hasalsocomeoutstronglyinfavorofaresurrectionof thedraft.RalphNaderhaswarned:

Today,enlistmentsintheReservesandNationalGuardaredeclining.The Pentagonisquietlyrecruitingnewmemberstofilllocaldraftboards,asthe machineryfordraftinganewgenerationofyoungAmericansisbeingquietlyputintoplace.YoungAmericansneedtoknowthatatrainiscoming,and itcouldrunovertheirgenerationinthesamewaythattheVietnamWardevastatedthelivesofthosewhocameofagcinthe'60s.'"

GiventhattheIraqWarhasturnedagainsttheUnitedStatesevensupportersof thewararenowdemandingthattheUnitedStateshaveaclearexitstrategy.That strategyinsofarasitcanbesaidtoexistnowrevolvesaroundaUN-brokeredplan forwhatisbeingcalled“atransferofpower”toIraqiauthoritiesbyJune30. Nevertheless,theBushadministrationhasindicatedthattheyintendtokeepIraqi sovereignty“limited“inanysuchtransferofpower.CurrentU.S.plans,forwhichit isseekingUNSecurityCouncilapproval,woulddenythenewIraqicaretakergovernmentanyauthoritytoenactnewlawsortoalterexistinglaws.Hence,thenew Iraqigovernmentwouldbeprecludedfrommakinganychangesinthelawsputin placesincetheAmericanoccupationbegan.Thecaretakergovernmentwouldalso bedeniedanyauthorityoverIraqiarmedforces.U.S.commandersaretobein chargeofbothUS.andIraqitroops.Thenewgovernmentwillalmostcertainlybe deniedcontrolovertheIraqimoneysupplyanditsoilrevenues.Intestimonybefore theSenateForeignRelationsCommitteeonApril27,_]ohnD.Negroponte,the administration’snomineeforambassadortoIraq,assuredCongressthatthecaretakerIraqigovernmentwouldhavenoauthoritytosignlong-termoi.lcontracts.

Adisturbingsigninallofthisisthatwhileitissupposedlyworkingonsetting upacaretakergovernmenttheUnitedStatesistryingtorecruitthousandsofformerBaathistmilitaryollicersinordertocreatethenucleusofanIraqiarmythat canbeusedtosuppressthenationalresistance,andpossiblyconstructthebasis forapowerblocwithinthecountrythattheUnitedStatescancounton.Thisis likelytoundermineanyattempttocreateapoliticalprocessandgovermnent acceptabletothemajorityShiites,callingintoquestionthecentralityofanysemblanceofthedemocraticprocessintheAmericanstrategy.U.S.commitmentto democracyisfurthercalledintoquestionbyscandalsarisingfromthetortureand degradationoflraqisinAbuGhraibprisonandelsewhere,underminingwhatfew tracesoflegitimacytheU.S.occupationmayhavehadinIraq.AsovereignIraqi governmentcapableofean'yingoutitsowninvestigationsintosuchatrocitiesis clearlyoutofthequestionforUS.imperialism.

WhatisobviousfromallofthisisthatWashingtonishopingtodelayanysubstantialtransferofpoliticalcontroltoIraqisbydenyingthecaretakergovernnient anyrealsovereignpowers.U.S.political,economic,andinilitar)’goalsareinterrelated.PursuitoftheeconomicandmilitaryobjectivesoliU.S.imperialismpreclutles anyquicksolutionofthepoliticalcrisisinIraq.Theprimarypurposeolilhecaretakergovernment,wearetold,willbetosettipthel)asisforelectionsleadingtothe installationolasupposedlygeiniineIraqigovernmentnextyear.Inthemeantime anddoubtlessforsometimetocollietherealpowergoverningIraqwilllietheU.S. inilitaiy.AccordingtoexistingplansaU.S.withdrawalisstillyearsawayatbest.

Propagandanotwithstanding,theU.S.invasionofIraqwasnotmeanttostop IraqFromusingweaponsofmassdestruction(whichitturnedoutnottohave),nor wasittocreateademocracyinthatcountry.Therealmotivesofthewarwereto extendU.S.controloverIraqioilsupplies—thesecondlargestreserveofoilinthe world—andtocreateamajorU.S.militarypresenceinIraq,probablytakingthe formofpermanentmilitarybasesthatwouldincreasetheU.S.holdovertheentire MiddleEast.ThepresenceofU.S.imperialisminIraqwasalsosupposedtohelpit toprojectitspowerbeyondtheMiddleEastintoCentralAsia,withitsenonnotis suppliesofoilandnaturalgas.Thesearetherealspoilsofwarandhaveclearlybeen theprimaryconcemsgoverningtheU.S.interventionfromthestart.Anyoutcome thatdoesnotleadtocontinuingU.S.control—byacombinationofeconomic,political,andmilitarymeans—oftheIraqioilreserveswillbedeemedafailurebyU.S. capitalism,sincesuchcontrolandthegeopoliticalpowerthatitrepresentswasa majorobjectiveoftheinvasion.ThusGeneraljayGarner,theformerheadofthe Iraqoccupationauthority,declaredinaninterviewonBBCtelevisiononMarch19, 2004,thatprivatizationofoilandthepromotionofaneoliberaleconomicmodelin Iraqhadtakenprecedenceintheadministrationplansoverallelse,includingnot onlypoliticalchangesbutalsorestoringIraqielectricityandwatersupplies.

AccordingtoGeneralGarner,themodelusedwhenhetookoverinIraqsaw theU.S.imperialroleinthatcountryasanalogoustothePhilippines,whichin U.S.geopoliticalstrategyintheearly20thcenturyhadbeen“inessenceacoaling station”forthenavy(gainedthroughtheSpanisli-AmericanWarandthe Philippine-AniericanWarthatfollowed),allowingtheU.S.militarytoprojectits powerfarintothePacificandintoAsia.InGarner'swords:

Ithinkit’sabadanalogy,butlthinkweshouldlookrightnowatIraqas oureoalingstationintheMiddleEast,wherewehavesomepresencethere

anditgivesasettlingeffectthere.anditalsogivesusastrategicadvantage there,andIthinkweoughttojustacceptthatandtakethatforaperiodof time,aslongastheIraqipeoplearewillingtoallowustobeguestsintheir country."

Suchspoilsofwar,viewedasmeanstotherestorationofU.S.globalhegemony,willnotbereadilyabandoned.Thereiseveryreasontobelievethereforethat theUnite(lStateswillattempttomaintainitsho|(lonIraqkeepingitwithinthe U.S.Empirethroughacombinationofmilitary,economic,andpoliticalmeans. ThereisafurtherreasonfortheUnitedStatestocontinuetoprosecutethewar inIraq.Anythingthatwouldappeartobeadefeatwouldbringbackthe“Vietnam Syndrome.”TheIraqWarwassupposedtohavemarkedthefinalrecoveryfrom this“syndrome”andthefullrestorationofU.S.imperialpower.Nowsuddenly memoriesofthemostdisastrousaspectsoftheVietnamWarfromthestandpoint ofU.S.imperialism(frequentguerrillaambushes,unrelentingpopularresistance, flag-dmpedcoffins,andU.S.atrocities)arefloodingback.Thislossofcredibility forU.S.imperialpowerisrightlyregardedbythoseatthetopofU.S.societyas thegreatestdangerraisedbythepresentwar.ItalsorepresentstheultimatereasonthattheU.S.warmachinefindsitdifliculttowithdraw,unlessitcanfindsome face-savingfonnula.Allofthisproducesamomentumforacontinuationandeven escalationofthewar.

Yet,therearealsoforcesdrivingintheotherdirection.Themostimportantof theseisthegrowingIraqiresistance.Anotheristhenegativeresponsewithwhich U.S.alliesarelikelytogreetanyescalationofthewar.Finally,thereisthediminishingsupportforthewarintheUnitedStatesitself,whichcouldtranslateeventually,iffurtherescalationoccurs,intoapowerfulantiwarmovement.Atthatpoint theVietnamWaranalogywouldbeinescapable.

Sr/;/1'/I:/u'/‘.?(IHf

n_|uncI0,l9(i3.PrcsitlentJohnF.Kennedydeliveredacommenc¢-mentaddressatAmericanUniversityinWashington,D.C.,inwhichhe declaredthatthepeacethattheUnitedStatessoughtwas"notaPM AmericanaenforcedontheworldbyAmericanweaponsofwar.”Hisremarks werearesponsetocriticismsoftheUnitedStatesadvancedinarecent|_vpithlishedSoviettextonmilitarystrategy.Kennedydismissedtheclraigethat "Americanimperialistcircles"were“preparingtounleashdillcrentltindsof wars"including“preventivewar."TheSoviettext,hepointedout,hadstatetl. “Thepoliticalaimsol'Americanimperialistswereandstillaretoenslaveeconomicallyandpoliticallytheliuropeanandothercapitalistcountriesand,alterthelatteraretranslormedintoohedienttools,tounil'ytheminvariousmilitary-political blocsandgroupsdirectedagainstthesocialistcountries.Themainaimofallthis istoachieveworlddomination."InKennedy'swords,thesewere“whollylr.uIr~ lessandincredibleclaims,“theworkoi‘Marxist“propagandists."“TheUnited States,astheworldltnows,willneverstartawar.‘”

Despitesuchhighleveldenials.thenotionol'a“l’axAmericana"enliircedh_\‘ Americanarmswastobecomethepreferreddesignationforthosenttetnptingto justifywhatwasportrayedasllhencvnlcntU.S.Empire.Thus,inhiswitlolytrad book,PrzxAnm-im.-n.n,lirstpnhlishedinI967duringtheVietnamWar.llonaltl Steelwroteof“thebenevolentimperittlismofPartAmericana"cliaracteriscdhr

“empire-buildingfornobleendsratherthanforsuchbasenlotivesasprofitand influence.”AchapterofSteel’sbookonforeignaidasan“elementofiniperialism”wasentitled“TheWhiteMan'sBurden,”hearkeningbacktoRudyard Kipling’scelebratedpoemcallingontheUnitedStatestoexerciseanimperialist roleinthePhilippinesfollowingtheSpanish—AmericanWarofI898.2Such explicitimperialviews,largelysuppressedintheUnitedStatesaftertheU.S. defeatinVietnam,havenowresurfacedinapost-ColdWarworldmarkedbyU.S. warsinAfghanistanandIraqandbyapermanentU.S.-led“WaronTerrorism.” Onceagainwehearestablishmentcallsforthe“defenseofI’axAmericana"and evenrenewalsoftheoldcrytotakeup“theWhiteMan’sBurden.”

KennedyhaddepictedtheglobalmilitaryexpansionoftheUnitedStatesasan attempttocontainCommunism.TodaytheColdWarisover.TheSovietUnion isnomore.Yetatthebeginningofthetwenty-firstcenturytheUnitedStatesis viewedmorethaneverbytheworldpopulationasanimperialistpower,enforcingitswillunilaterallybyforceofarms.SincethefalloftheSovietUnionwehave seenthelargestmilitaryinterventionsbytheUnitedStatesinEuropesincethe SecondWorldWar.TheU.S.warmachinehaswagedfull-scaleconventionalwars intheMiddleEast.TheUnitedStatesnowhasmilitarybasesinlocalessuchas CentralAsiathatwerepreviouslybeyondthereachoftheU.S.Empire.Inthe 2003invasionofIraq,WashingtonmadeitclearthatitwasconductingapreventivevrarinlightofthepotentialthreatrepresentedbyweaponsofmassdestructionthatcouldbeusedagainsttheUnitedStates.Thefactthattherewasnoevidenceofdieexistenceofsuchweaponspriortothewardidnotseemtomatter becauseadeclarationbytheadministrationthatsuchweaponsexistedwas deemedsuflicient.Nordiditseemtomatterafterthewarthatnosuchweapons werefoundsinceoncetheinvasionhadtakenplacethenewrealityontheground inIraqdictatedall.Inthiswayimperialismprovideditsownjustification.

RatherthanbreakingwithearlierU.S.historythesemostrecentmilitary actionsrepresentthecontinuationandaccelerationofanoldpattern—-goingback atleasttothesecondhalfofthe19405.MajorU.S.interventions,bothovertand covert,include:China(1945),Greece(1947-49),Korea(1950-53),Iran(1953), Guatemala(I954),Indochina(1954-73),Lebanon(1958),theCongo (I960-64),Cuba(1961),Indonesia(I965),theDominicanRepublic(I965-66). Chile(1973),Angola(1976-92),Lebanon(1982-84),Grenada(1983-84), Afghanistan(1979-1989),ElSalvador(1981-92),Nicaragua(I981-90),Panama (1989-90),Iraq(1991),Somalia(1992-94),I-Iaiti(1994),Bosnia(1995).

\'ngoslavia(I999),Algltatiistaii(200l-preseiit).andll1l|(2003present).Tl..('llnn1l0tlSscaleull?.S.militaryengagementisevidentinthefactthatitsmilitary basesgirdtheglobe.As('.ltalItten_]olntsonhaswritten:

Asrlistindfromotherpeoplesonthiseanh.mostAnicricansdonotit-mgttiar»-or ..._T''. donotChoosetorrrogtnzcthattheLmtedStatesdominatestheworldthroughits militarypower.Duetogownmtetttsecrecv.lhevareoftenignorantofthefartthat ‘l"5l"fi""°"""°'“K"“3“"3lllcglobe.Theydonotrealizetlnnavastnetworkof Americanmiliu-ha.--'-r)anonuerymntinenthttt.‘\l|l£|l'(‘llt‘Riirtttatllyconstitutesa newformnfcmpirt.‘

Tlc)rinia')l."".­

'l'3l-'.‘3‘0fU--NImperialismhavealwaysbeentoopentipinvest|'"~"“"Pl’°"“"‘l‘-l°~‘10U-5-Corporationsandtoallowsuchcorporationstogain preferentialaccesstocrucialnaturalresources.InasmuchassuchexpansionpromotesU.S.hegemonyittendstoincreasetheinternationalcoinpetitivenessof U5‘finmandwePmfilsthey°".l°)’-AlthesametimeUSimperialismpromotes theinteresLsoftheothercorestatesandofcapitalismasawholeinsofaras[he-tic arcinaccordWilliU.S.requirements.Suchgoalshoweverfrequentlyputtlte 79 UnitedStatesill1-‘0||llJ'ClWilliOlllcrimperialstatessinceanempireby(lelinitioit ll‘35Pl‘°"°°r°-"l’l°ll3'-l0||inwhichasingleimperialpowerplaysthedontinant '°l°-M°'°°"°'=ll“?l°3l°°r°'“Pl'eniilitatesagainstallattemptstochangethestatusquointheperipheryofthesystem——ifnotinthecenteraswell.

FortllcscFCIISOIISmililarisiiiandimperialismareinseparableforU.S.capitalism,astheyareforcapitalismasawhole.Althoughspendingalntostastnticlion themilitaryasallotherstatescombined,theUnitedStateslindsitsellconstantly inneedofmorearmaments,morenewweaponssystems,andmoresoldiers.Asit rcliesincreasinglyonthemilitarytomaintain,andwherettecessaryrestore,its economicandpoliticalhegemonyonaglobalscaletheprobletiioliinperialoverstretchbecomeschronicandinsunnountable.

BytheendoftheVietnatnWarthemaskhadbeentornoiltheU.S.Empire.ltt I970SteelissuedarevisededitionofFaxAmericanawithanewfilialchapter entitled“NoMoreVietnants?"Themainthrustofthisnewchapter,writtenina periodmarkedbytheloomingU.S.defeatinVietnam,wasentirelyopposedto thechaptersthatprecededit.“AfterVietnam,theDominicanRepublic,andthe Creeltjunta,”Steelwrote,“itisnotsoeasyforanAmericanPresidenttospeak withastraightlaceofthenation’sforeignpolicybeingbasedonthe‘liberationof

man‘orthe‘survivalofliberty.’”‘PaxAmericanawasrevealedasimperialismpure andsimple.

Nonetheless,theAmericanItnperiumdidnotfadeawaywiththislossol“face." Themomentumbehindsuchimperialismremained.Washingtonheldontoits empireawaitingnewopportunitiesforexpansion.Theempirestruckbackinthe late1970sand’80sunderCarterandReagan.Therapiddeclineandfallofthe SovietUnionatthebeginningoltheI990sopenedupthewaytoafull-scaleU.S. militaryinterventionintheMiddleEastforthefirsttime,withtheonsetofthe 1991GulfWarbetweentheUnitedStatesandIraq.Nolongersimplyintervening againstrevolutionarymovements,theUnitedStates,nowthesolesuperpower, gavenoticetotheworldthatasubstantialdeparturefromtheglobalstatusquoin anydirectionwouldbemetwithoverwhelmingforce.Notingthis,HarryMagdoll andPaulSweezywroteinajuly-August1991articleentitled“PoxAmericana”

TheUnitedStates,itseems,haslockeditselfintoacoursewiththegravestimplicationsforthewholeworld.Changeistheonlycertainlawoftheuniverse.Itcannotbe stopped.Ifsocietiesarepreventedfromtryingtosolvetheirproblemsintheirown ways,theywillcertainlynotsolvetheminwaysdictatedbyothers.Andiftheycannotmoveforward,theywillinevitablymovebackward.Thisiswhatishappeningin alargepartoftheworldtoday,andtheUnitedStates,themostpowerfiilnationwith unlimitedmeansofcoercionatitsdisposal,seemstobetellingtheothersthatthisis alatethatmustbeacceptedonpainofviolentdestruction.’

WiththerisingdeathtollofbothIraqisandU.S.soldiersduringstillanother warandoccupation,withtheatrocitiesandtortureinflictedbytheUnitedStates inAbuGhraibprisonandelsewhereleadingtoprotestsacrosstheglobe,withthe barbarismoftheU.S.interventioninIraqinallofitsaspectsincreasinglyevident, itismoredilficultthanevertomaintaintheillusionofthe“benevolentimperialismofPaxAmericana.”TheAmericanEmpirehastrulybecomeaPoxAmericana intheeyesoftheworld,andexposureolitsinnerworkingshasbecomeanurgent necessity.IftheUnitedStatesseemsbent,asMagdoITandSweezysuggestedmore thanadecadeago,onplaying“Samsoninthetempleofhumanity”atleastnow thereisagrowingworldawarenessofthatfact.“

Theimmediatetaskistodeepenthiscriticalunderstandinginwaysthatwill helpequiphumanityforthemajoranti-imperialiststrugglesthatlieahead.

EmpireofBarbarisn'1'

/)('(‘('/H/1(’I'2007

‘Cnewageofbarbarisrnisuponus.”Theseweretheopeningwordsol'an editorialintheSeptember20,2004,issueofBu.s1.'nes:Wee/rclearly dcsirnedtostoketheflamesofanti-terroristhsteria.Pointintothe E murderofschoolchildreninRussia,womenandchildrenkilledonbusesin Israel,thebeheadingofArneriean,Turkish,andNepaleseworkersinIraq,andthe killingofhundredsonaSpanishcommutertrainandhundredsmoreinBali, BusinmWee}:declared:“America,Europe,Israel,Egypt,Pakistan,andgovernmentseverywhereareunderattackbyIslamicextremists.Theseterroristshave butonedemand—thedestructionofmodernsecularsociety?"Westerncivilizationwasportrayedasstandinginoppositiontothebarbarians,whodesireto destroywhatisassumedtobethepinnacleofsocialevolution.

Altogetherabsentfromthisestablishmentviewisthepredatoryroleplayedby US.andEuropeanilnperialisln.Itistruethatwearelivingina“newageolibarIiarisrn.”Howeverthishasitsrootsnotinreligiousfundarncntalisrnbutinwhat MarxsawasthebarbarisrnaccompanyingbourgeoiscivilizationandwhatRosa Luxemburgoncecalled“theruinsofimperialisticbarbarism.“Weneedtolookat globalcapitalismandbeyondthatatwhattheUnitedStatesandBritainaredoing inIraq,theprincipalzoneofirnperialistconllictatpresent,ifwearetopltnnbthe fulldepthsofthebarbarisrnthatcharacterizesourtime.

'CoauthoredwithBrettClark

Theconceptof“barl)arism"hasalong,complexlineagewithinsocialthoughtin generalandsocialisttheoryinparticular.TheGreekwordbtlrlmrosoriginally referredtoanyonewhodidn’tspeakCreek.TheGreekslikeallancientcivilizationsportrayedthemselvesaslivingatthecenteroftheworldan(lallothersas residinginageographicalandculturalperiphery(orsemi-peripliery).Afterthe CreektriumphinthePersianWarsallbarbarianswereviewedasinferior.ThedistinctionbetweensuperiorcivilizedpeoplesatthecenteroftheworldandinferiorharbariansontheperipherywasthusbasictoGreekandLatinthought.Plato presentedadoctrineofnaturalslaveryinwhichhetookitforgrantedthatitwas rightforGreekseithertorenderdeathuntothebarbariansortoenslavethem.‘

ThemostdevelopedversionofthedistinctionbetweenbarbarismandcivilizationintroducedbytheGreeksandRomanswastobefoundintheworkofthe CreekgeographerStrabo(circa64BC—AD24).StrabohadstudiedinRomeand reflectedaRomanizedviewoftheworld.Hisseventeen-volumeGeographypresentedbarbarismasrepresentinganinvertedworld,incontrasttotheGreeksand Romans,whohadadopted“modesoflife[production]thatarecivil.”Inhistheoryofbarbarismandcivilizationthegeographicaldifferencewasassociatedwith differentmodesofproduction.’Civilizedpeopleslivedonthemostfertilesoils wheresettledagriculturewasfeasible.Standingopposedtocivilized,bread-eatingpeoples,whowereprincipallycity-dwellers(andfarmerswholivedinclose proximitytocities),werebarbarianswhowerenomadicfighterslivingonmeat anddairyandpermanentlyunderarms.Barbarianswereseenaspreferringforce andlivingundercircumstanceswheretheyhadnorecourseotherthanmaraudingandthieverysinceconfinedtothewildernessandremovedfromarablelands.

Thenotionofbarbarismthustookontwomeaningsrelatedtotwoconceptionsofcivilization.Insofarascivilizationmeantcity-dweller,barbarismmeant non-city-dweller,andparticularlythoselivingontheperiphery.Insofarascivilizationstoodfortheruleoflawandculture,barbarismstoodforthelackof bothandthedominanceofbrutality.Barbarianswereknownforcarryingout unconventionalwarfare.ConfrontedbytheorganizedRomanarmy,“thebarbarians,”Strabowrote,“carriedonguerrillawarfareinswamps,inpathless forests,andindeserts?"

Nevertheless,thekeyaspectdividingcivilizationandbarbarism,accordingto Strabo,wasthedifferingmodeofproductionofeach.Thiswasprincipallyaffect­

edbygeography,withthemorebarbaricpopulationslivinginlesslertile,more mountainousregionsfurthernorththatborderedtheocean.Straboallowedlor someculturaldevelopmentamongbarbarianpopulationsastheylearnedtocultivatemorecivilizedmodesolproduction.Infact,hedescribedhowsomebarbarianswere“nolongerbarbarians”butwere“ti'aI1slorine(ltothetypeolthe Romans”whenintroducedtoRoman“modesoliliving”(production)?Inparticular,oncethebarbariansstartedproducingmeatsandotherrawmaterialsforthe RomanEmpire,theywereseenasmorecivilized.

IfinGreekandLatinliteraturecivilizationversusbarbaristnwasformed aroundanotionofcenterandperiphery,earlysocialists,whoviewedthefeudalismthatsucceededtheRomanEmpireinWesternEuropeasconstitutingathousandyearsoluniversalbarbarism,sawbarbarismasastageofdevelopmentnot simplyconfinedtotheperiphery.ForFrenchutopiansocialistCharlesFourier barbarismwasthestagethatprecededcivilization.Barbarismwasdelinedby forceandtheabsoluteenslavementofwomen.Itcametoitsclimaxwiththerise oflarge-scaleslavery.Followinginbarbarism’swake,civilization,whichhesawas typifiedbymonogamousmarriageandcivillibertiesforthewifeandasintroducinglarge-scaleindustryandtheclassstruggleassociatedwithit,wasjustasbrutalinmanywaysasbarbarismbutmorecunninginfomi.Infact,Fourierargued thatcivilizationentailedtheexploitationoftheworld'spopulationandan increaseinarmedconflict:

Warsandrevolutionsdevastatesuccessivelyeverypartoftheglobe.Politicalstorms, foramomentlulled,breaklorthanew,multiplyingliketheheadsofthehydra beneaththeblowsofHercules.Peaceisbutadelusion,amomentarydream,and Industry,sinceanislandofcommercialmonopolistsandspoliatorshasembarrassedtheintercourseofnations,discouragedtheagricultureandmanufacturesof twocontinents,andtransferredtheirworkshopsintonurseriesofpauperism, Industry,Isay,hasbecomethescourgeofthetoilingmillions.Thecommercial spirithasopenednewfieldstofraudandrapine,spreadingwaranddevastation overthetwohemispheresandcarryingthecorruptiousofCivilizedcupidityeven intoSavageregions.OurshipscircumnavigatetheglobeonlytoinitiateBarbarians andSavagesintoourvices,ourexcesses,andourcrimes.ThusCivilizationis becomingmoreandmoreodiousasitapproachesitsend.Theearthpresentsonly afrightfulpoliticalchaos,andinvoltesthearmofanotherHerculestopurgeitfrom thesocialabominationswhichdisgraceit.“

Theconsequenceoftliisglobalizingandinasensestillbarbaricmodeofproductionwaspovertyandstarvationforthevastmajorityoftheworld’spopulation andtheenrichmentofasmallsegmentoftliepeoplewithincivilizednations.

.l/(lI‘.I'nm///It‘/for/m/'i.wnq/'/)’uI1/‘,2,-'1-rm‘('iu-//I'M//"rm

Marx’streatmentofbarbarism,whilescatteredinhiswritings,wascomplexand rellectedthenumerouscontradictionsembeddedincivilizationorcapitalismin hisconception,whichraisedthepossibilityofdegenerationaswellasprogress (towardcommunism).Hemadereferencestobarbarismbothinrelationtoastage ofdevelopmentandtoissuesofcenter-periphery.Marxalsousedtheterm“barbarism”torefertotheroleofforceandbrutalityinhistoryandincapitalism specifically(thusreferringto“thebarbarismwithincivilization”)—bothatthe levelsoftheclassstruggleandimperialism.InhisEt/znologicalNotebooks,written attheveryendofhislife,hetookovertheconceptofbarbarismasastageof humandevelopmentfromtheworkofLewisHenryMorgan.InhisAncient SocietyMorg-anidentifiedlowerbarbarismwiththemanufactureofpottery;middlebarbarismwithdomesticationofanimalsintheEasternhemisphere,irrigation andtheuseofadobe-brickandstoneinarchitectureintheWesternhemisphere; andupperbarbarismwiththemanufactureofironandtheinventionofthephoneticalphabet.MuchofMorgan’santhropologicalschema,includinghistreatmentofbarbarismasastagelyingbetweensavageryandcivilization,wastaken overbyEngelsinTheOriginqftheFamily,PrivateProfmrtyandtheState.Butit isMarxandEngels’smoregeneraluseofthetermbarbarisminrelationtocivilizationandnotthespecificanthropologicalconceptlatertakenfromMorganthat mostconcernsushere.

Marxsawexploitationundercapitalismasfrequentlyoccurringunderconditionsthatwerebarbaric,orthatreflectedthepredatorynatureofbourgeoiscivilization.Referringtothedegradationandpollutionoflifethatensuedwiththe riseofcapitalism,hewroteintheEconomicandPlzitosophicalMaimscriptsof 1844:“Thecrudestmodes(andi.'nstrmn.m.ts)ofhumanlabourreappear[under capitalism];forexample,thetread-rnillusedbyRomanslaveshasbecomethe modeofproductionandmodeofexistenceofmanyEnglishworkers.”Inhis 1847speechonwagesMarxmetaphoricallyreferredtotheuseofthetreadmillin moderncapitalistproduction(andprisonsystems)asadisease.“Thetreadmill,” heobserved,hadreemerged“againwithincivilization.Barbarismreappears,but

createdinthelapofcivilisationitselfandbelongingtoit;hencelcprousbarbarism,barbarismasleprosyofcivilisation.“

TounderstandthesignificanceofMarx’scritiqueitisimportanttorecognize therolethatthetreadmilloccupiedasameansofterrorizingandtorturingworkerswhowereconsignedtoitforavarietyofoffenses.Thusinl8l8William CubbitreintroducedEnglishprisonerstothetreadmill,which,accordingtoa descriptionintheOctober1971ScimthficA1nm‘1'c(r1o.,employedmenin“grinding grainorinprovidingpowerforothermachines.Eachprisonerhadtoclimbthe treadmillatotalverticaldistanceof8,640feet(2,630meters)insixhours.The featwastheequivalentofclimbingthestairsoftheWashingtonMonument16 times,allowingabout20minutesforeachtrip.’’”

ForMarxthisreintroductionofthetreadmillstoodforthetortuous,life-sappingfonnsofexploitationfrequentlyemployedbybourgeoiscivilization.The treadmillwasa“leprosyofcivilisation”becauselikethatdiseaseitateawayatthe body,andbecauseleprosy,whichhadbeenprevalentinEuropeduringtheageof medievalbarbarism,servedasametaphorforthereappearanceofmedievalbarbarisminthelapofbourgeoiscivilizationitself.LikewiseinhisEconomic Man.u.scn.'f)tof1861-63MarxquotedapassagefromtheRussianeconomist HeinrichFriedrichvonStorchthatpointedtothedegradationoftheworking conditionsandtheunderminingofthehealthofwageworkersasareflectionof theregressiontobarbarismthatfrequentlyaccompaniedthegrowthofbourgeois civilization.

Marxalsoreferredtobarbarisminthesenseofbeingoutsidethecultureofcivilization,isolatedfromthelifeofthecitiesandfrontsocialandpoliticalintercourse.InthissensehesawtheFrenchpeasantry,whichplayedareactionaryrole insupportingBonapartism,astheclassthatrepresented“barbarismwithincivilization.”Theperiodicbreakdownofeconomicprogressundercapitalism,and thepovertyandhardshipthatthisentailed,wasitselfakindofregression,and henceMarxandEngelsreferredinpart1ofTheCo1n1nit1ii5lMarrzfestotoeconomiccrisisas“astateofmomentarybarbarism.”"’

ThemoreglobalwayinwhichMarxandEngelsutilizedtheconceptofbarbarism,however,wasinthetreatmentoftherelationbetweencenterandperipheryofthecapitalistworldeconomy.Intheirpanegyrietothebourgeoisiethat comprisedmuchofpart1ofTheComrrm-mlrlManifestotheyremarkedhowthe bourgeoisie“hasmadebarbarianandsemi-barbariancountriesdependentonthe civilizedones,nationsofpeasantsonnationsofbourgeois,theEastontheWest.”

Likewisetheyrefen‘edtothefactthat“thecheappricesofits[thebonrgeoisie’s] commoditiesaretheheavyartillerywithwhichitbattersdownallChinesewalls, withwhichitforcesthebarbarians’intenselyobstinatehatredofforeignersto capitulate.”MarxviewedTsaristRussia,onthesemi-peripheryofEurope,asa bastionofbarbarismthreateningrevolutionarymovementsintheWest.

ButinhiscritiqueofcolonialismMarxwassoontoinverthistreatmentof barl)arism,whichcametostandforwhattheInodernbourgeoisofthecapitalist West“makesofhimselfwhenhecanIno(leltheworldaccordingtohisown imagewithoutanyinterference.”“Theprofoundhypocrisyandinherentbarbarismofbourgeoiscivilization,”Marxwrotein“TheFutureResultsofthe BritishRuleinIndia,”“liesunveiledbeforeoureyes,turningfromitshome, whereitassumesrespectableforms,tothecolonies,whereitgoesnaked.”Inhis laterwritings,MarxbecameevermorecriticalofBritishimperialisminIndiaas hebecameawareofwhatMikeDavishasrecentlylal)eled“Victorianholocausts”:thecoincidenceoftheimperialisticexpropriationofthesurplusof Indiansocietywithvastfaminesandtheimpositionofstarvationwageson Indianworkers.(TheTemplewagethattheBritishprovidedforworkers engagedinhardlaborinMadrasinIndiain1877hadacaloricvaluethatwas lessthanwhattheNaziswerelatertoprovidetoworkersforcedtodohardlabor intheBuchenwaldconcentrationcampin1944)."MarxnotedthatBritish expansionwasdevastatingIndia’sindustry,spreadingmiseryanddegradation, whilereducingthecountrytoaproducerofagriculturalrawmaterialsfor Britain.Infact,Britishimperialismsewedasaforceofdestruetion,demolishing India’sproductiveforcesandcausingunderdevelopmentevenasitintroduced theforcesofmodernindustryintoIndiansociety.Inhistreatmentof“The GenesisoftheIndustrialCapitalist”inCapital,volume1,MarxquotedapprovinglyfromWilliamHowitt’sColonizationmzdC/tristimtily,inwhichHowitthad written:“Thebarbaritiesanddesperateoutragesoftheso-calledChristianrace, throughouteveryregionoftheworld,anduponeverypeopletheyhavebeen abletosubdue,arenottobeparalleledbythoseofanyotherrace,however fierce,howeveruntaught,andhoweverrecklessofmercyandofshame,inany ageoftheearth.”'“

Acommoncriticismol'Marx’sthoughtisthathesawhistoryasinherentlyprogressive.TheworkthatismostwidelytakenasreflectingthisextremeprogressivismisTheComrmmistManifesto.Yet,attheverybeginningoftheMamfesto MarxandEngelsnoted,withrespecttotheclassstrugglesthathadgovernedthe

historyofallhithertoexistingcivilization,that“opprcssorandoppressed.stood inconstantoppositiontooneanother,carriedonanuninterrupted.nowhidtlen. nowopenfight,afightthateachtimeendedeitherinarevolutionaryreconstitutionofsocietyatlarge,orinthecommonruinofthecontendingclasses."Thefall oftheRomanEmpire,whichhadsuccumbedtoa“commonruinofthecontendingclasses”(andbarbarismbothwithinandwitltout)wasfollowedintheWestby alongperiodofmedievalbarbarism.NeitherMantnorEngelsuntlerestimated theroleofforceinhistory,oritsregressiveinfluertee.Historycouldtherefore moveforwardtowardsocialismorbacltwardtowardbarbarism—-orworsepromoteamoresystematic,capitalistformofbarbarism,nakedinitsirnperialistic relations.

Marx’sanalysisofecologicaldestructionwroughtbycapitalisrn——themetabolicrift—it_selfpointedtothepossibilityofhistoricalregression,asrupturesinthe naturalsystemscausedenvironmentalcrisesforsociety.Byrobbingthesoiland pollutingthecitieswithwastescapitalismunderminedthematerialconditionsof existence.Allofcivilization,hepointedout,leftdesertsinitswake.Inthesatire passageintheEconomicandPhilosophicalMmm.tcri1Jtsof1844inwhichhe referredtothereintroductionofthetreadmill,Marxalsoreferredtothepollution generatedintheindustrialcitiesofBritainandtheecologicaldestructioninllietedbycapitalism:

Therefinementofneedsandofthemeansoffulfillingthemgivesrisetoabestial degeneration....Eventheneedforfreshairceasestobeaneedfortheworker.Man revertsoncemoretolivinginacave,butthecaveisnowpollutedbytheInepliitic andpestilentialbreathofcivilization.Light,air,ete.—thesimplestanimalcleanliness—ceasestobeaneedforman.Dirt—thispollutionandputrefaetionofman, thesewage(thiswordistobeunderstoodinitsliteralsense)ofcivilizationbecomesanekmcnlafhfcforhim.

Engels—inThePartPlayedbyLaborinthe'Tran.sfo-nnatimtfromA1):to Mrm—wroteofthehumandestructionofthenaturalenvironmentandtheunderminingofcivilizationthatthisentailed.Humanbeings,henotedinhisecological writings,hadincreasedthetemperatureoftheearthinregionswhereforestshad beenextensivelydestroyed.Noneofthiswascompatiblewithasimpleprogressivistvision,suggestingratherthatcivilizationcarriedakindofreversiontobarbarismwithinitasonepotentiallineofevolution.‘-"

/,II.1.'e/II/)1:/gr(III(/“(/10/fl/I/trQ]'///I/it-/'1}:/is//i‘/1m‘/mr/.wu" ltwasRosaLuxemburgwhowastopromotethisaspectol'Marx’sdialecticinthe contextofglobalimperialistexpansion,thecrisisol'CermanSocialDemocracy, theFirstWorldWar,andtheriseofprolo-fascism.lnl)ecember1918,amonth beforeshewasmurderedfollowingthedefeatoftheSpartacistuprising, Luxemburgwroteanarticleentitled“WhatDotheSpartacistsWant?”She declaredthatachoicepresenteditself:“Socialismorbarbarism.”lfthelattcr—the continuationofcapitalistrelations—persisted,thefuturewouldentailnewwars, famine,anddisease.Thedominantclassesthroughouthistory“allshedstreams ofblood,theyallmarchedovercorpses,murder,andarson,instigatedcivilwar andtreason,inordertodefendtheirprivilegesandtheirpower.”Theongoing developmentofimperialisticbarbarismpromisedtobemorebrutalandtreacherous,threateningtoturnmuchoftheworld“intoasmokingheapofrubble.”

“Socialism,”Luxemburgcontended,“hasbecomenecessarynotmerely becausetheproletariatisnolongerwillingtoliveunderconditionsimposedby thecapitalistclassbut,rather,becauseiftheproletariatfailstofulfillitsclass duties,ifitfailstorealizesocialism,weshallcrashdowntogetherinacommon doom.”"ThefatethatbarbarismrepresentedwasthusMan<’s“commonruinof thecontendingclasses."

Inherfamous]1miu5Pam};/Llcl(TheCrisisinGerm./mSocial-Dernocrmy), writtenafewyearsearlierwhileshewasimprisonedforprotestingtheFirstWorld War,Luxemburgpointedtoreactionarytendenciesandthehorrificpossibilities ofasecondworldwarthatwouldbeevenmoredevastatinginitsimplications. Already,capitalistswereprolitingfromthedestruction,as“citiesareturnedinto shambles,wholecountriesintodeserts,villagesintocemeteries,wholenations intobeggars.”Capitalismgoesforthintotheworld“wadinginbloodanddrippingwithfilth.Asaroaringbeast,asanorgyofanarchy,asapestilential breath,devastatingcultureandhumanity—[and]soitappearsinallitshideous nakedness.”The“triumphofimperialism”involved“thedestructionofallculture,and,asinancientRome,depopulatiou,desolation,degeneration,avast cemetery.”Itwasinthiscontextthatshereferredto“theruinsofimperialisticbarbarism.”Socialismincontrastolleredthepossibilityofanewworld.""

Luxemburgpointedespeciallytothedestructionleveledontheperipheryin Africa,theMiddleEast,andChina——regionsthathadbeentargetedforconquest byEuropeanimperialists.“Alltherichesulitheearth”wouldbesub_jugatedtocap­

italandtheworld’spopulationconvertedintowageslaves.The“civilizedworld,” whichsheproperlyplacedinquotes,hadturnedintotheliercest,mostbrutalform ofbarbarismtheworldhadeverseen—annedasitwaswithweaponsoffearsotnc destructionandpropelledforwardbyaninsatiableurgeforeconomicexpansion:

The“civili7.e(lworld"thathadstoodcalmlybywhen...imperialismdoomedtensof thousandsofhcroestodestruction,whenthedesertofKalaharishuddcredwiththe insanecryofthethirstyandtherattlingbreathofthe(lying,wheninl’utnmayu, withintenyears,fortythousandhumanl)eingsweretorturedtodeathbyabandof Europeanindustrialrobber-barons,andtheremnantsofawholepeoplewereheatenintocripples,wheninChinaanancientcivilizationwasdeliveredintothehands ofdestructionandanarchy,withfireandslaughter,bytheEuropeansoldiery,when Persiagaspedinthenooseoftheforeignruleofforcethatclosedine.xoral)lyabout herthroat,wheninTripolitheArabsweremoweddown,withfireandsword, undertheyokeofcapital,whiletheircivilizationandtheirhomeswererazedtothe ground-—thiscivilizedworldhasjustbeguntoknowthatthefangsoftheimperialistbeastaredeadly,thatitsbreathisfrightfulness,thatitstearingclawshavesunk deepintothebreastsofitsownmother,Europeanculture.AndthisbelatedrecognitioniscomingintotheworldofEuropeinthedistortedformofbourgeois hypocrisy,thatleadseachnationtorecognizeinfamyonlywhenitappearsinthe uniformoftheother.TheyspeakofCermanbarbarism,asifeverypeoplethatgoes outfororganizedmurderdidnotchangeintoahordeofbarbarianslTheyspeakof Cossackhorrors,asifwaritselfwerenotthegreatestofallhorrors.'“

InspiredbyLuxemburg’sanalysis,theSriLankanMarxistG.V.S.deSilva furtherdevelopedtheconceptofbarl)arism.InhisbookTheAlternatives: SocialismorBarlxarism,hearguedthatthetraditionalMarxistnotionofmodes ofproductionevolvingfromcapitalismtosocialismtocommunismneededtobe revised.Capitalismdidnotnecessarilyleadtosocialismorsocialismnecessarily tocommunism.Ratherbothcapitalismandsocialismcoulddegenerateintoharbarism,whichpresentedabrutalalternativetocommunism.Barharisminde Silva’sconceptionwastobedefinedasasocietyrelyingsimultaneouslyon:force; ideologicalcontrolonthescaleofOrwell’s1984;thedestructionofallcountervailingpowersothateconomicinterestscanruledirectlywithaminimalstate; “inducedconsumptionofuselessproducts”designedtodistractthepopulation; andtheextremedmninationofnatureinallofitsaspects.Shortol'arevolutionary

changeinthequalitativedimensionsoftheglobaleconomyandanendtocapitalistexploitationofnature,thespecterofbarbarismwouldcontinuetohaunt humanity.Thus,deSilvaconcludedominously:“Barbarisminoneortwopowerfulcountrieswilloverwhelmtherestofhumanity.”

TodaytheworldisfacingwhatdeSilvafcare(l—abarbarismemanatingfroma singlepowerfulcountry,theUnitedStates,whichhasa(lopte(ladoctrineofpreemptive(orpreventive)war,andisthreateningtodestabilizetheentireglobe.In thelatetwentiethcenturythefurthergrowthofmonopolycapitalledtoaheavy reliance,particularlyfortheUnitedStatesasthehegemonicstateoftheworldsystem,onmilitaryspendingandimperialistintervention.Withthewaningofthe ColdWarthisdependenceoftheimperialsuperpoweronthemostbarbaric meansofadvancingitsinterestsandcontrollingthesystemhasonlyincreased. ThecontinuingdeclineofU.S.economichegemony,occurringalongsidedeepeningeconomicstagnationincapitalismasawhole,hasledtheUnitedStatesto turnincreasinglytoextraeconomicmeansofmaintainingitsposition:puttingits hugewarmachineinmotioninordertopropupitsfalteringhegemonyoverthe worldeconomy.The“GlobalWaronTerror”isamanifestationofthislatestlethal phaseofU.S.imperialism,whichbeganwiththe1991GulfWarmadepossible bythebreakingupoftheSovietblocandtheemergenceoftheUnitedStatesas thesolesuperpower.

AftertheterroristattackonSeptember11,2001,theempirecouldpresentitself asatwarwithbarbarismandindefenseofcivilization.“Thebarbarianshavealready knockedatthegates,”declaresNiallFerguson,NewYorkUniversityprofessorof historyandleadingdefenderofBritishandU.S.imperialism.Buttoday'sbarbarians,hecharges,areIslamicfundamentalists,andliberalimperialismbecomesaway ofinoculatingtheworldagainstsuchIslamicterrorism.Whiletheknockonthe gatesrepresentsacleardangertotheU.S.-dominatedimperialorder,theseexternal terroristgroups,Fergusoncontends,willnotbringaboutthedeclineoftheU.S. imperiumdirectly.Instead,theprincipalthreattothepositionoftheUnitedStates intheglobaleconomyisinternal.Itisrootedinanunwillingnessonthepartofthe U.S.statetomakeaHillclaimtoitspositionattheheadoftheglobalempire.

Ferguson,whobelievesthattheBritishEmpireofoldshouldbeemulated—albeitinaformworthyofthetwenty-firstcentury—arg'uesthattheworldneeds

anempire.ManynationswouldbebetterollidominatedbythellmtedStatesthan havingfullindependence.TheUnitedStates.heclaims.“is1gunsandbutter cmpire”-—oncthatrepresentsnotjusttheruleoffnreebuttheadvanceoftbeprinciplesofliberalempireandliberalbounty.thusyieldingamoretletnocraticand prosperousworldorder.ItisnomerecoincidencethatFerguson.onenfthemost influentialestablishmenthistorianstoday.explicitlycallsforanupdatingofthe old“WhiteMan"sBurden”(tobereplacedbyanewideologyof“fnnctional"' empire)whilewltilewashingoneofthemostbarbaricwarsofmodernintperi‘.tlism:thePliilippinc-Amet1'canWaratthebeginningofthetwentietltcentury."

l7erguson’s“gunsandbutterempire"isnowatransparentobjectiveofU.S. policy.WiththefalloftheSovietUnion,aslstvfinMészarosexplained,theUnited Statesbegantoassume“theroleofthestateofthecapitalsystemassuch,subsumingunderitselfbyallmeansatisdisposalallrivalpowers"."‘Withits immensemilitarypoweranditswillingnesstouseforce,theUnitedStateshopes toltcepallpotentialcompetitorspennanentlyincheck—astrategythatislikelyto spellglobaldisasterinthelongrun(ifnotsooner).

Inattemptingtopreventrevolution(orindeedanywayoutforpopulationsin theperiphery),theUnitedStatesisseekingtotranscendtheonlycertainlawofthe universe:change.Intheprocess,ithasgivenbirthtodictators,supportedterrorists,andthreatenedtheworldwithviolentdestruction.IntheMiddleEastthe UnitedStateshasnurturedaregressive,fundamentalistpoliticalIslam(usefulin theCIA-directedwaragainsttheSovietsinAfghanistanandinclosingoffallprogressiveoptionsintheMiddleEast)thatinsofarasitturnsbackandbitesthehand thatfedit—theUnitedStatesanditsallies——isbrandedasa“newbarbarism.”

7'//<'(.'(IIt'.t'Q/'//v//mrf)/xw Twoyearsago,AmrMoussa,headoftheArabLeagueandfonnerEgyptianforeignminister,predictedthat“thegatesofHell"wouldbeopenediftheUnited StatesinvadedIraq.InCairothisfallhereprisedthisview,observingthatnow “thegatesofHellareopeninIraq.”Althoughhewas“scolded"bysomeforhis statementtwoyearsago,thistimearound,accordingtoUSATbday“therewasno dissent.”"’ItisclearthattheU.S.invasionandoccupationhascreatedab.loodbathinIraqthatwillcontinueforyears,giventheferociousguerrillawarthat Iraqishavelaunchedinresponse.TheU.S.positioninIraqisdeteriorating.The occupyingforceshavelostcontroloverwholesectionsofthecountry.InOctober,

bombingsoccurre(llorthelirsttimeinthehighlylortiliedGreenZonein Baghdad,theimperialconnnandcenterinthatcountry.OverthreedozenIraqi citiesare“no-go"zonesunderthecontroloftheIraqiresistance.Inthethirty daysendingonSeptember28thereweremorethan2,300attacksbyresistance forcesagainstU.S.,coalition,andIraqigoverntnenttargetsinallareasofthe country.“Thetypeofattacksranthegamut:carbombs,timebombs,rocket-propelledgrenades,handgrenades,small-armslire,mortarattacksandlandmines." IraqiresistanceforceslatmchedInorethan3,000mortarattacksaloneinBaghdad betweenAprilandtheendol‘September.""

U.S.andBritishairstrikesonIraqicentersofresistanceaccountforthepreponderanceoltheviolentdeathsamongthe100,000civilians,mostlywomenand children,whohave(liedsofarinthewar—accordingtoastudycarriedoutinIraq byU.S.andBritishpublichealthexpertsandpublishedintheleadingBritish medicaljournal."Yetdespitesuchfearsomeattacks,whichhavetargetedhomes, hospitals,andmosquesandunleasheduntoldlevelsofbloodshedanddestruction,theIraqiresistanceseemsonlytobegaininginstrength.

ItisnowwellrecognizedbytherulingelementsintheUnitedStatesthatthe numberofU.S.troopsengagedinIraqisnotsullicienttoaccomplishthemission ofsubduingthepopulation.IraqisarereluctanttoenlistintheIraqiarmyand police,andthosewhohaveenlistedaredesertingindroves.Lackinganinternal forcetoconductitsbidding,theUnitedStatesdespiteitsvast,state-of-the-artmilitaryarsenalisshort-handed.WorkinginsupportofU.S.occupationoperations isdeadly,asmorethan700Iraqipoliceofficersaidingtheoccupationhavebeen killed.Ontopofthis,insurgentsareinflictingwoundsthatstrikeattheveryheart oltheU.S.rulingclassasoilpipelinesarebeingtargetedfordestruction.Thesituationfortheoccupyingforcesisbleak:“Thebottomlineis,atthismomentwe arelosingthewar,”statesAndrewBacevich,formerArmycolonelandprofessor ofinternationalrelationsatBostonUniversity.Yet,hecontinues,“Thatdoesn’t meanitislost,butwearelosing?”All0|"thishasresurrectedtheVietnam ghost—theseeminglyinescapal)lesymbolofU.S.defeatinimperialistwars.

Barbarisrnhasalwaysbeenassociatedwithtorture.Marx’scommentsonthe treadmillwereaimedattherolethisinstrumentofproductionplayedintorturing workerswhilereinforcingbourgeoissocialrelations.I-Ieexploredthesystematic useoftorturebyBritishcolonialisminIndiainhisarticle“Investigationsof TorturcsinIndia”andsawtheoutragesofthe“revoltedSepoysinIndia"asa “historicalretribution”forsuchactsbytheirBritishoppressors.Thesystematic

useoftorturebytheUnitedStatesinAbuChraibinIraq,inAfghanistan,andon itsbaseinGuantanamoBay,(Dubaiisnowgeneratingthroughouttheworldastill deeperhatredof/\mericanimperialism.lnthePhilippinesatthebeginningofthe twentiethcenturyU.S.troopsemployedatorturetechniqueknownasthe“water cure,”inwhichwaterwaspumpeddownthethroatsofthedetaineesandthen theirstomachssteppedontoforcethewateroutuntiltheyconfessed—usually resultingindeathshortlyafterwards.OneofthetorturesusedrecentlyonahighlevelterroristsuspectbyU.S.intelligenceistheinfamousteclmiqueknownas “‘water-boarding,’inwhichaprisonerisstrappeddown,forciblypushedunder waterandmadetobelievehemightdrown.”'“Morestandardisasetofslowerbut highlyeffectivetorturetechniques:isolation,long-termdeprivationofsleep, removalfromlightandsound,exposuretoextremecoldandheat,forcingprisonerstoremainnaked,useofblackhoods,makingthemstandorstoopinstress positions,beatings,threateningdetaineeswithguarddogs,twenty-four-hour interrogation,etc.AccordingtotheFinalReport0}’thehtdefmtdentPanelto ReviewDoDDetmtiovt0pm‘at17om,alsoknownasTheSchlesingerRejwrtafterthe chairofthelndepen(lentPanel,formerU.S.SecretaryofDefenseJames Schlesinger,Americaninterrogatorshavetorturedatleastfiveprisonerstodeath, andtherearetwenty—threeothersuspiciouscasesofdetaineedeathsstillunder investigation.2*Muchofthiswasgivenaspurious“legal”basisbytheU.S.government’srefusaltograntterrorsuspectsdetainedinGuantanamoandelsewhere thestatusofprisonersofwar,thussuspendingtheGenevaConvention.Allofthis setthestageforthebarbarictreatmentofprisoners.""

Thegatesofhellareopeninanotherrespect.Weliveinamaterialworld, whereland,water,andairsupportlife.Thehumaneconomyandnaturalprocessesareinseparablyinterconnected.Todayalloftheecosystemsontheeartharein jeopardy.Ofparticularconcernisglobalwarming,whichisliterallypointingthe earthtowardaninfernoofourownmaking.Thescientificconsensusonglobal warmingsuggeststhatatleasta60-80percentreductioningreenhousegasemissionsbelowthe1990levelsisnecessaryinthenextfewdecadesinordertoavoid catastrophicenvironmentaleffects(risingsealevelsleadingtolossofislandsand coastalareas,increasingdroughtsanddesertification,extremeweatherevents, acceleratedspeciesextinction,lossoffoodcrops,etc.)overthecomingcentury. Yet,theUnitedStateshassteadilyincreaseditscarbondioxideemissionssince 1990.Itleadstheworldinoverallemissions,withpercapitaemissionsatoverfive timestheworldaverage,andshowsnosignsofreversingthistrend,regardlessof

thedevastatingconsequencesthismayhave[orothercountriesparticularlyinthe tropicsorforfuturegenerations.ThewarinIraq,whichisaboutthecontrolof oilasameanstoworlddomination,isitselfamanifestationoftheU.S.refusalto changedirectionregardlessoftheconsequencesfortheplanet.This"‘A17r(‘;smoiIc de’lnge."’philosophy,asMarxintimatedatonepoint,constitutestheveryessence ofbarbarism.“

'"/'/It’/r(I(/is|l/I'//(fol'/'irr'(/Q/'(}(*lIi/lg‘K///(W"—/lIlIII.\_'/l'/(/ AsBusivtessWeekdeclared,“Anewageofbarbarismisuponus."Butitisamistaketoattributesuchbarbarismsimplyorinthemaintosocialforcesand nationsintheperiphery._]ustasMarxcametoinvertthehistoricaltreatmentof barbarismashecondemnedthecolonialsystemsofhisday,weneedtorecognizethebarbarismofthestrongandtheirculpabilityincreatingthisnewage. SecretaryofDefenseDonaldRumsfeld,thevoiceofthenewbarbarism,recentlystated:“AtsomepointtheIraqiswillgettiredofgettingl<illed.”’7Presumably hewasreferringtoIraqiskilledbysuicidebombers.Nevertheless,hisstatement remainsinhumaninitsimplicationsinthecontextoftheU.S.invasionandoccupationoflraq.

Onceithasbeendeclared,thereisnoendto“TheGlobalWaronTerror," whichoughttobecalledtheGlobalWarofTerror.Onlythetranscendenceof capitalism,inthedirectionofsocialism,offersthepossibilitytoescapefromthe currentstateofbarbarismthatispavingthewaytonewglobalholocaustsanda worseningecologicalcollapse.DanielSingerwroteattheendofhisWhose Millennium?“Socialismmaybeahistoricalpossibility,orevenizccassarytoeliminatetheevilsofcapitalism,butthisdoesnotmeanthatitwillinevitablytakeits place.”2”Weshouldheedhiswarning.Thechoicethatweconfrontandthatwe willultimatelydecidethroughourstrugglesiswhether“socialism"or“theruins ofimperialisticbarbarism”istoconstitutethefutureofhumankind.

TheFailureofEmpire

./I/um/If)'‘_/(l()5

heUnitedStatesisfacingtheprospectolamajordefeatinIraqthatis likelytoconstituteaserioussetbackintheongoingcampaigntoexpand theAmericanempire.Behindthepervasivewarpropagandaasevidenccdinthe“victorious”attackonFallu_jahliestherealityofaU.S.warmachine lightingafutilebattleagainstgrowingguerrillaforces,withlittlechanceforastablepoliticalsolutiontotheconflictthatcouldpossiblymeetU.S.imperialobjectives.Nevertheless,theU.S.rulingclass,thoughnotunawareofthedangers,is currentlyconvincedthatithasnochoicebutto“staythecourse”—aslogan adoptedbybothpoliticalpartiesandacceptedbyvirtuallytheentireeconomic, political,military,andcommunicationsestablishment.Thereasonforthisseeininglyirrationaldeterminationtostickitoutatallcostscanonlybeunderstood throughananalysisofthelogicandlimitsolcapitalistempire.

Capitalismisbyitsverynatureagloballyexpandingsystemgearedtoaccumulationonaworldscale.Sinceitsbeginningsinthelilteenthandsixteenthcenturies ithasbeenaworldeconomywithaninternationaldivisionollaborruledoverby competingnation-states.Cuttingacrossthisglobalsystemisastructureof inequalityvariouslydescribedascenter-periphery,metropolis-satellite,developed-underdeveloped,North-South—allol‘whichpointtothewidegapthat

existsbetweenstatesatthecenterandthoseintheperipheryofthesystem.From theoutset,theleadingcapitaliststatesengagedinanoutward,imperialisticmovement.PrecapitalistsocietiesintheAmericas,Africa,andAsiawerepillaged,their populationscnchained,andtheplundersentbacktoEurope.Whereverpossible, noncapitalistsocietiesweredestroyedandtransformedintocolonialdependencies.Meanwhile,thegreatpowersfoughtovertheterritoriesandspoils.AsMarx wrotein“TheGenesisoftheIndustrialCapitalist”involumeIolC(tfn'l(zl:

ThediscoveryofgoldandsilverinAmerica,theextirpation,enslavementand entombmentinminesoftheindigenouspopulationofthatcontinent,thebeginningsoftheconquestandplunderoflndia,andtheconversionolAfricaintoapreserveforthecommercialhuntingofblacksltins,areallthingswhichcharacterizethe dawnoftheeraofcapitalistproduction.Theseidyllicproceedingsarethechief momentsofprimitiveaccumulation.Hardontheirheelsfollowsthecommercial waroftheEuropeannations,whichhastheglobeasitsbattlefield.Itbeginswiththe revoltoftheNetherlandsfromSpain,assumesgiganticdimensionsinEngland’s Anti-JacobinWar,andisstillgoingonintheshapeoftheOpiumWarsagainst China,etc.‘

BytheendoftheNapoleonicWars,Britain,whichledthewayintheindustrialrevolution,hademergedasthehegemonicimperialpowerofthecapitalist worldeconomy.InthisperiodtheEuropeanpowersdivideduptheworld,either exercisingdirectpoliticalruleovertheircoloniesor,wherethiswasnotpracticable,creatingconditionsforthesubordinationofperipheralstatestotheneedsof thoseatthecenterbymeansofunequaltreaties.Britain'smostimportantcolonial possession,thejewelofitsempire,wasIndia.ButBritainalsoexercisedinfomial economiccontrolinareasthatwerenotfomialcolonies,asinLatinAmerica. Wealthextractedfromthesecolonialdomains[lowedintothecollersofthecentercapitalistnations,enrichingthemandenhancingtheirpower.Britishhegemonyovertheworldeconomycameun(lerincreasingchallengeintheearlytwentiethcentury,particularlyfromGermany,andcollapsedasaresultoftheFirstand SecondWorldWars,tobereplacedintheaftermathoftheSecondWorldWarby AmericanhegemonyastheUnitedStatesrosetodominanceovertheworldcapitalistsystem.

IntheimmediatepostwarworldtheUnitedStateswas,intermsofthesheer materialforceatitsdisposal,themostpowerfulnationthattheworldhadever

seen.Itaccountedforabouthalfoftotalworldoutputand60pertentofitsmanufacturingandhadamonopolyovernuclearweapons.Inplaceoftheearliergold standard,theBrettonWoodsAgreementenshrinedtheU.S.dollarasthemain internationalcurrency,whichwasbacltedupbyWashington’sagreementto redeemdollarsheldbytheoenu-albanltersofothercountriesforgold.U.S.militarybasesinthethousandsstretchedacrosstheglobe.U.S.multinationalcorpomionsseizedcontrolofwholeeconomiesinthethirdworldand,althoughdoing soonthebasisofso-called“freetrade."werebackedupintheireconomicoperationsandinteresLswhenevernecessarybyU.S.militarypower.

ButinmanywaysU.S.powerwasconstrained.TheexistenceoftheSoviet Union,whichhadarisenoutofasocialistrevolutioninthemidstol'theFirstWorld War,meantthattherewasanothermilitarysuperpower,whiclt,ifnowherenearas powerfulastheUnitedStates,nonethelesscouldconstrainU.S.actions,placing certainregionsofl‘-limitstoimperialistexpansion,andollcringmaterialsupportto thirdworldrevolutions.Still,therealthreattocapitalismasawholeandtoU.S. globaldominancecamenotfromdieSovietUniondirectlybutfromthewavesof revolutiontakingplacethroughoutthetwentiethcenturyaspeoplesinLatin America,Africa,andAsiasoughttobreakloosefromcolonialismorneocolonialism,i.e.,fromthepositiontowhichtheyhadbeenrelegatedintheimperialistdivisionoflabor.AstheUnitedStatessurroundedtheSovietUnionandChinawith militarybasesandalliancesandatthesametimesoughttocounterrevolutions throughoutthethirdworlditfounditselfupagainstthegloballimitsolitspower.

Virelum/I(Im/I/I(.'/,/II/iI.s'Q/'l'.'IIt/ii/'('

NowherewerethelimitsofU.S.powermoreevidentthanintheVietnamWar.In thatwartheUnitedStatestooltoverwhathadbeenacolonialwaronthepartof theFrench,blockedelectionsfromtaltingplacethroughoutthecountryasestablishedbytheGenevaAgreementsof1954,anddividedVietnaminhalf,creating apuppetregimeintheSouth.Inthe19605amassivebuildupofU.S.troopstook placeinwhatamountedtoaninvasionandoccupationofthesouthernpartof Vietnam.Unabletowininaguerrillawar(despiteexpendingmorethantwiceas muchexplosivepowerasithademployedintheentireSecondWorldWarand despitemillionsofVietnamesedead)andunabletosucceedat"nationbuilding” inSouthVietnam,whereitsoughttopropupacorruptregimeofitsowncreation,theUnitedStateswascompelledbygrowingdissensionamongsttheU.S.

civilianpopulationandbysignsofrebellionwithinthelowermilitaryranksto withdrawunderthecoverofthe“Vietnamization”ol"thewar.Thedistortionsin theU.S.balanceofpaymentsinthisperiodcontributedtothediminishingliegemonyolthedollarasaworldcurrencyandtheendofthedollar-goldstandard. FordecadesaftertheUnitedStatesbeganitspull-outfromVietnam,theU.S. capacitytointervenemilitarilywasseverelylimitedbywhatconservativeslabeled “theVietnamSyndrome.”

TheWarinVietnam,likeothermajorimperialwars,revealedthelogicand limitsolcapitalistempire.ItisoftensaidthattheUnitedStateshadnosignificant economicinterestsinVietnamthatwouldhavejustilieditsmajorintervention there.NiallFergusondeclaresinhisnewbook,Colossus:ThePriceofAmerica’: Emfiirc,that“TheUnitedStateslostface[inVietnam].Thatwasaboutallit lost.”“SuchviewstendtoreinforcetheideologythatsincetheUnitedStateshad nothingmaterialtoloseinVietnamitmusthavebeentherefornootherreason thantopromotefreedomanddemocracy.InrealityU.S.objectivesinVietnam werededicatedtothemaintenanceofimperialismasasystem.Inthebroadest sense,thisinvolvedstrategicgoalsthathavebeenclassicallyunderstoodunder therubricof“geopolitics,”inwhichthepolitical,economic,andmilitaryrequirementsofempireareplacedwithinastrategiccontextthattakesintoaccountthe geographic,demographic,andnaturalresourcecharacteristicsofparticular regions.Suchageopoliticalunderstandingofinipelialexpansionanddefenseis ofcoursecompletelyinaccordwiththenecessityofthegreatestpossibleexpansionofthecapitalistworldeconomy.

TheVietnamWarillustratesperfectlytheimportanceofsuchgeopoliticalgoals. TheobjectoftheU.S.interventionwastocontrolthePacificRimandtosurround and“contain”Chinaaspartofamoregeneralgeopoliticalstrategyofglobaldominanceofthe“rimlands”ofEurasia—thatis,WesternEurope,thePacificRim,and theMiddleEast.ItwastheserimlandsthatwerethemainfocusofU.S.globalmilitaryalliances;anditisherethattheUnitedStatesdevotedthemostresourcesto establishingandmaintainingamilitarypresence.Theyrepresentedinfactthebordersoftheimperialistsystem,inwhichtheUnitedStateswasthehegemonic p0wer—thusthebordersofalooselyconstructedAmericanempire.”

Viewedinthisway,theenormousconnnitmentol'theUnitedStatestosecuringVietnamaspartofitsimperialsphere—acommitmentmaintainedoverlive successivepresidenciesol"bothpartics—wasnotsimplyirrationalbutpartofa largerglobalstrategy.FortheU.S.rulingclassanditsmilitaryandforeignpolicy

strategiststhedefeatinVietnatnisremetnberedasamajorfailurein(lcfentling U.S.interests.Inthe1970stheworldcapitalisteconomyenteredalong—termcrisisorstagnationthatcontinuestohauntitseverystep.InthesatneperiodU.S. econotnichegemonyslipped.ThispartialwithdrawaloftheUnitedStatesfrom theworldstageaftertheVietnatnWarasitstnilitaryinterventionswerecurtailed despitegrowingrevolutionarymovementsinthethirdworld,wasoftenseenby thoseatthetopofU.S.societyandinthetnilitaryasasourceofthegeneralsicknessormalaiseaffectingtheU.S.order.

'/'/H’/t(*Iur/IInll/(Ir

Sincethelate19705Washingtonhassoughttoreconstructitscapacitytoengage inimperialistwars.CovertwarsinAfghanistanandCentralAmericawerefollowedbythedirectexerciseofAmericanmilitaryimperialisminLebanon, Grenada,andPanama.WiththefalloftheSovietblocandthedemisetwoyears lateroftheSovietUnionitself,theUnitedStatesmovedtofillthevacuumof worldpower,carryingoutmilitaryinterventionsintheMiddleEast,theHornof Africa,andthefomierYugoslaviathatwouldhavepreviouslybeenunthinkable. FollowingtheattacksofSeptember2001,theU.S.invasionsandoccupationsof AfghanistanandIraqandtheconstructionofmilitarybasesintheformerSoviet republicsofCentralAsiaconstitutedavastexpansionoftheAmericanempire intohithertoinaccessibleregions.SuchextensionofU.S.imperialpowerwas partlyenabledbyeconomicgains—althoughofatransitorynature—thatthe UnitedStateshadmadeinthe19905relativetoitsleadingcapitalistcompetitors. Itwasthisthathelpedgivethe“antiterrorist”hawksintheadministrationof GeorgeW.BushtheconfidencetoexploitthefearengenderedbytheSeptember 2001attackstoissuetheNationalSecurityStrategyoftheUnitedStatesof America,inSeptember2002.ThisdocumentdeclaredthattheUnitedStates woulddoallinitspowertopreventtheappearanceofanother“peercompetitor” iiithemilitaryrealmandwouldnothesitatetoengagein“preemptive"(orpreventive)interventionstoadvanceitsnationalsecurityinterests.Thiswasnothing otherthanadeclarationofperpetualwar,makingitclearthattheUnitedStates waswillingtobrandishitsarmedmightinordertoexpanditsempireandthusits geopoliticalpositionintheworldatlarge.Neverbeforeinthehistoryofthemodernworldhasanynationlaidclaimtosuchafar-reachingstrategyforindelinite globaldomination.

HelpingtopavethewayforthisreassertionofU.S.imperialambitionswasa transformationinthedominanthistoricalaccountoftheVietnamWar. Conservativeinterpretationsofthewarpropouncledbythemilitaryleadership andrightwingconnnentators—atfirstscarcelytakenseriouslyinthepublic(liscussion—l)ecamemoreinfluentialandpervasiveasmemoriesofthewarreceded. InthenewclimateofInakingAmerica“standtall”again,thedefeatinVietnam wasincreasinglyrelegatedtotheclassicpropagandisticcategoryofa“betrayal" broughtoninthiscasebythe(lisloyaltyolithcmediaandbyextremistswithinthe civilianpopulation.‘

Thefocusofthisreinterpretationcenteredonthewar’sturningpointinthe VietnameseTetOffensiveof1968.Tet,itwasnowsaid,wasaresoundingmilitary victoryfortheU.S.andSouthVietnamesemilitaryforces,whichdecimatedtheir NationalLiberationFrontattackers.Yet,ina“betrayal"ofthefirstorder,weare told,itwasturnedintoadefeatbytheU.S.mediaandavocalminorityofwarprotestors,whichhadtheeffectofinducingjohnsontothrowinthetowel.Ineffect establishmentopinionadoptedthesameverdictonthewarofferedearlierby GeneralWilliamWestmoreland,commanderoftheU.S.forcesinVietnam,who wrotein1976thattheTetoffensiverepresented“astrikingmilitarydefeatforthe enemyonanybody’stenns.Unfortunately,theenemyscoredintheUnited StatesthepsychologicalvictorythateludedhiminVietnam,soinfluencing Presidentjohnsonandhiscivilianadvisorsthattheyignoredthemaximthat whentheenemyishurtingyoudon’tdiminishthepressure,youincreaseit.”For Westmoreland,speakingoftheIndochinaWarasawhole,“alackofdeterminationtostaythecourse...demonstratedinCambodia,SouthVietnam,andLaos thatthealternativetovictorywasdefeat.”-"

ReferencestoU.S.failureto“staythecourse”becameamajorthemeofconservativeaccountsofthewar.Thisphrasehadbeenfrequentlyemployedinthe waritself.Forexample,Presidentjoltnsonhaduseditin1967toconveyhis resolvetocontinuethewar.Inanotherinstance,TownsendHoopes,theunder secretaryoftheAirForce,hadpresentedSecretaryofStateClarkCliffordin February1968withastrategyfor“stayingthecourseforanaddednumberof grindingyears”byconcentratingmerelyoncontrollingpopulatedareas.Butthe phrasebecameevenmoreimportantlateronasahawkishslogantoexplainthe U.S.defeat.Thishappenedafterthenoted_journalislStewartAlsoprecalledinhis memoir,StayofE:ccutz'on,publishedin1973,thatWinstonChurchillhadstated inhispresence:“America.Agreatandpowerfulcountry.Likesomestronghorse

pullingtherestoftheworldupbehinditoutofthesloughofdespond,towards peaceandprosperity.ButwillAmericastaythecourse?"“Vietnamhawkslike DemocraticSenatorHenryM.jacksonturnedtoChurchill’squestionatevery opportunity—insistingthattheUnitedStateshadfailedtostaythecoursein Vietnamandshouldnotmakethismistakeagain.’

Sopowerfulhasthisright-wing,militaryunderstan(lingoftheVietnamWar becomethatitisnowaforcetoreckonwithinthecurrentwarinIraq.Thuswhen PresidentGeorgeW.BushdeclaredwithrespecttoIraqinApril2004that “We’vegottostaythecourseandwewillstaythecourse,”hisDemocraticopponentSenator_]ohnKerryechoedthattheUnitedStatesshould“staythecourse” inIraq,addingthat“Americansdifferaboutwhetherandhowweshouldhave gonetowar.Butitwouldbeunthinkablenowforustoretreatindisarrayand leavebehindasocietydeepinstrifeanddominatedbyradicals.“

Thisrepeatedinsistenceonstayingthecourseissometimesreducedtoamere willingnesstocountenancecontinuingbloodshed.AccordingtoMaxBoot:

Anynationbentonimperialpolicingwillsufferafewsetbacks.TheBritishamiy,in thecourseofQueenVictoria’slittlewars,sufferedmajordefeatswiththousandsof casualtiesintheFirstAfghanWar(1842)andtheZuluWar(I879).Thisdidnot appreciablydampenBritishdetenninationtodefendandexpandtheempire;it madethemhungerforvengeance.lfAmericanscannotadoptasimilarlybloodymindedattitude,thentheyhavenobusinessundertakingimperialpolicing.”

Butadoptionofa“bloody-mindedattitude”—somethingthatisnotlackingat presentinWashington—willnotsavetheUnitedStatesinIraq.Despitethemuch proclaimed“victory"inFallu_jah—wherethelevelofdestructionunleashed againstacityinanalreadyoccupiedcountryisprobablyunequaledinmodern timcs——warplannersareworkingovertimetofindawaytostaveolfadefeatthat appearsincreasinglylikely.ThemostimportantrecenttreatmentoftheIraqWar fromwithinthenationalsecurityestablislnnenthasCOIIICfromAnthonyH. Cordesman,along-timenationalsecurityadviserfortheDepartmentofDefense, specializingintheMiddleEastandenergyissues,whooversawtheassessmentof theYomKippurWarfortheDefenseDepartmentin1974.Cordesmanisnowa

FellowinStrategyattheCenterforStrategicandInternationalStudiesin WashingtonandthenationalsecurityanalystforABCNews.Inhisreport “PlayingtheCaurse:”ASlralegyforRt:/tafttitgU.S.PoliryinIrm]and(ItsMfdllfl EastCordesmanarguesthattheUnitedStatesshouldnot“staythecourse"ifa pragmaticstrategyforsuccess,whichhecalls“playingthecourse,”doesnot work.“TheUSfacestoomuchIraqiangerandresenttnenttotrytoholdoninthe faceofclearfailure,andachievinganylastingsuccessintermsofIraqipolitical acceptancemeansthattheUSmustseektolargelywithdrawoverthenexttwo years.”Moreover,giventhedegreeofU.S.failuresofarthequestionofaU.S. defeatinIraqneedstobeconsidered.“TheoddsoflastingUSsuccessinIraq,” hestates,“arenowatbesteven,andmaywellbeworse.TheUScanalmostcertainlywineverymilitarybattleandclash,butitisfarlesscertaintowinthepoliticalandeconomicwar.”'°

CordesmanbelievesthattheUnitedStatescanonlysaveitselffromaclear defeatandtheresultinglossof“face”inIraqbyrenouncingatonceallimperial objectives.AshedeclaredinaninterviewfortheCouncilonForeignRelationsin lateNovember:“We’veneversaidtotheIraqisthatwewon’ttaketheiroil,that wewon’tstealtheireconomy,thatwewon’testablisltmilitarybases,thatwe'll leavewhenanelectedgovernmentasksusto.We’veneversaidthatanygovernmentthatiselectedisOKwithus.”AshewritesinPlayingtheCourse,theUnited Statesshould“conspicuously”abandonthefollowingobjectives:(1)using“Iraq asatoolorleverforchangingtheregion”;(2)usingIraqas“aUSmilitarybase"; (3)interferingwith“Iraq’sindependenceintermsofitspolitics,economics,and abovealloil”;and(4)blocking“totaltransparency”intheU.S.relationtothe Iraqieconomy.U.S.assurancesheinsistsmustincludeitsexplicitcotnmitmentto withdrawentirelyfromtheGreenZoneinBaghdad,whichcannotbemaintained asanimperialheadquartersinasupposedlyindependentIraq.

TheUnitedStates,Cordesmanadvises,shouldnarrowitsobjectivestothe creationofastablegoverntnentbackedupbyanadequateIraqimilitaryforceevenifthenewpoliticalregimeisonlymoderatelybetterthanthatofSaddam HusseinandevenifopenlyantagonistictotheUnitedStates.IfWashingtoncan “succeed”eventothisextent,hesays,itcandeclare“victory”andgetoutwithin twoyearswithaminimumamountofdamagetoitscredibilityasanimperial power.However,incaseitshouldfailtocreateastablepoliticalsolutionortocreateanadequateIraqiarmywithinthatperiod—asnowappearsmostlikely—the UnitedStatesneedstostartmakingplansimmediatelyforwhatitwilldointhe

caseofacleardefeat.“Even‘victory’inIraq,”wearetold,“willbehighlyrelative, anddefeat,"whichcanoccurinanynumberofwaysasIraqspinsoutofcontrol, “willforcetheUStoreinforceitspositionintheentireregion."

Evenmoreimportantthanthefomiationofastableregime,fromCordcsman’s standpoint,isthereplacementofU.S.withIraqiforces.‘“lraqization,’”hewrites, “eitherhastobemadetowork,orIraqwillbecomeamirrorimageofthefailure of‘Vietnamization’inVietnam:Coalitionmilitaryvictorieswillbecomeincreasinglyirrelevant.”AfteradetailedassessmentofIraqiforcesandtrainingheconcludes:“theIraqmilitaryandsecurityforcesarenowfartooweaktotakeoverthe securitymissionandwillalmostcertainlyremainsowellinto2005.TheUS canonly‘playthecourse’effectivelyifitworksoutgoalsandplanswiththeIraqi InterimGovernmentthatgofarbeyondthe28,000man[Iraqi]armedforcesandtheroughly40—55,000mantotalofmilitary,paramilitary,andNational Guard—theUScurrentlysaysare‘required.’”

Thetruthisthatthepresenceof150,000U.S.troopsinIraq,whichhas stretchedavailableU.S.forcestothelimit,hasnotbeenenough,evenwhensupplementedbytroopsfromBritain,tobringthecountrytoheel.“TheUShas alreadylearnedthatitcanwinvirtuallyanydirectmilitarybattleorclash,butit cannotsecurethecountry.AsinVietnam,iftheinterimIraqigovernmentcannotwinthepoliticalbattle,U.S.victoriesinthemilitarybattlesbecomeirrelevant.”GiventhepoliticalturmoilinIraqandthediflicultyofcreatinganypoliticalsolution,orevenavoidingtheoutbreakofcivilwar,Cordesmanbelievesthat theUnitedStatesneedstoconcentrateonhowtoshoreupitspositioninthe remainderoftheMiddleEastintheeventofadefeat:

Fightingacounterinsurgencycampaignisonething;theUSmustnotstayifIraq devolvesintocivilwar.NoonecanguaranteesuccessinIraq;orthatIraqwill notdescendintocivilwar,comeunderastrongman,orsplitalongethnicorconfessionallines.[I]tisonethingtoplaythegameandquiteanothertotrytodeal withdefeatbyreinforcingfailureor“doublingthebet.“lfitisclearby2006thatthe UScannotwinwithitscurrentlevelofeffort,and/orthesituationserious[ly]deterioratestothepointwhereitisclearthereisnonewIraqgovernmentandsecurity forcetoaid,thegameisover.Therenolongeristimetofold;itistimetorun."

Ifforced“torun,”hesays,theUnitedStateswillhavetoofferreassurancesto therulersofthe“friendlyGulfstatesandotherAral)allies."Itwillhavetoprevent

anyexpansionofIslamicjihadinAfghanistanresttltingfromIslamicdeclarations oI“victory”inIraq.AtthesametimetheUnitedStateswillhavetokeeplramfrmn interveninginIraq.MorepressurethaneverwillbeplacedontheUnitedStates tosolvetheIsraeli-Palestinianproblem.Finally,thethreattoU.S.strategicpositionwithrespecttoMiddleEasternoilwillhavetobeplannedfor,requiringthat theUnitedStatesnotwithdrawfromtheMiddleEastbutifanythingstepupits involvement.

CordesmanleavesnodoubtthatthemajorissuefortheUnitedStatesinIraq asintheMiddleEastasawholeisoil.Continualattacksontheoilpipelinesby theIraqiresistancehavelimitedthe[lowolioilfromIraq,underminingoneofthe principalU.S.objectives,andhighlightingtheoverallU.S.failure.Intheeventof acleardefeatandaU.S.withdrawalfromIraq,theoilsituationwillbecomeeven morecritical.“TheUS,”Cordesmanwrites“canandmustfindsubstitutesfor petroleum,butthiswilltakedecades.Intheinterim,theUSandtheglobaleconomywillactuallybecomesteadilymoredependentonenergyimports,andparticularlyonenergyimportsfromtheGulf.”Bytheendof2025theindustrialized countriesalone,accordingtoestimatesbytheU.S.EnergyInformationAgency (EIA)initsIntenzationalEnergyOutlookof2004,areexpectedtoincreasetheir petroleumimportsfromOPECbyanadditional11.5millionbarrelsaday beyondthe16.1millionbarrelsadayin2001,withthePersianGulfsupplying morethanhalfoftheincrease.NorthAmericanimportsfromthePersianCulfarc expectedtodoubleovertheperiod.Meanwhile,demandforoilfromChinaand otherdevelopingcountriesisexpectedtoincreasedramatically.Thestrategic importanceofoilfortheworldeconomywillaccelerateaccordingly.

Inordertomeetthisdemandforadditionalproduction,theEIAestimated thatafurther$1.5trillionwouldhavetobeinvestedintheMiddleEastbetween 2003and2030.Thelong—termpotentialforinvestmentintheexpansionolproductioninIraqisgreaterthanelsewheresincemanyoilanalystsandinstitutes(for instancetheBakerInstitute,CenterforGlobalEnergyStudies,andthe FederationofAmericanScientists)believethat,inadditiontoitsprovenreserves of115billionbarrelsofoil,Iraqmayhave,inthe90percentofitsterritorythat remainsunexplored,100billionbarrelsormoreofadditionaloilreserves. (Estimatescomingfromsomeagencies,liketheU.S.GeologicalSurvey,areless optimistic,withmedianestimatesofadditionalIraqireservesat45billionbarrels.)AccordingtoCordesmanitistheenonnouslevelofinvestmentnecessary fortheexpansionofMiddleEastoilproduction,whichmustoccurinorderto

ensureadequatesttppliesforfutureconstttnption,thatistltemostpressing"practicalprol)lem""presentedbythePersianGulffrotttthestandpointoftheglobal economy.Notonlytnttstsuchinvestmetttsbemadebuttheymustthenbeprotected.InthisregarditwouldnotbeeasyfortheUnitedStatestopulloutcuttipletelyfromIraqortorefrainfrontsteppingupitsinvolvementelsewhereinthe. MiddleEastifcompelledtoleavethatcountry.

RelativetomostanalysesemanatingfrotnnationalseettrityCirclesIIIthe UnitedStates,Cordesman"sPlaying[htComzrrhastheadvantageofheingstrong onrealism.Itisthereforereasonabletoaskwhetherthepowersthatheinthe UnitedStatescanbeexpectedtofollowhisprescription,beginningbyrenouncingallimperialobjectivesinIraq.Thisisunlikelytohappen.Tlteoperational phraseremainsto“staythecourse.”OnMarch30,2004,formersecretaryof defenseunderNixonandFord,_]amesSchlesinger,andfortnerU.S.ambassador toRussiaandundersecretaryforpoliticalaffairsunderClinton,Thomas PickeringeditorializedintheLosAngelesTimesthatIraqshouldremain“above politics”andthattheUnitedStatesshould“staythecourse.”Thereasonsthey offeredincludedpreventingIranfrominfluencingIraq;guaranteeing“long-term stabilityintheproductionandsupplyofoil”;blockingtheriseofanewpowerin IraqopposedtotheUnitedStates;andavoidingaperceptionofAmericandefeat thatwouldservetodestabilizeAmericanpoweranditsinterestsbothinthe MiddleEastandglobally.Inshort,theimperialobjectivesforwhichtheUnited Statesintervenedintheregionmustbemaintainedatallcosts.

NothingcomingoutofWashingtonthesedayssuggeststhatthisdominant viewhasalteredinanyway.Althoughitiswellunderstoodamongthoseatthetop ofthesocialhierarchythataseriesofdisastersmaywellawaittheUnitedStates inIraqifitsimplystickstoitsguns,tonotdosoisseenasguaranteeingastillbiggerdisaster—aconfessionofdefeatthatwilldiminishthefutureU.S.capacityto makewaratwillonthirdworldsocietiesandthustoemployforcedirectlyasa meanstoprotnoteitsimperialdesigns.Moreover,thereisstillthequestionof Iraqioilandwhowillcontrolit.Thusintherulingclassview,evenanabsolute failureinestablishingastablepoliticalregimeandtherequisitemilitaryforceto defenditinIraqdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheUnitedStatesshouldgetout. ThomasFriedman,columnistonforeignaffairsattheNewYbr/tTf1Il.I?.i,whose viewscanusuallybetakenasagoodbarotneterofestablisltntentopinion,eoncludesaNovember18,2004,reportfromIraqwiththestatementthat“Without asecureenvironmentinwhichitsnewleadershipcanbeelectedandeotnfortably

operate,Iraqwillneverbeabletobreatheonitsown,andU.S.troopswillhaveto behereforever.”TheattitudehereisthattheU.S.occupationwouldneedtocontinueendlesslyinthecaseofafailuretorealizethegoalofastablepoliticalsituationinIraqacceptabletotheUnitedStates.GiventheenormousIraqioilreserves WashingtoncoulddecidethatwhatevercostsithadtopayinIraqwouldbeamply rewardedintheend.

IftheforegoingreadingoftheU.S.|eadership’scurrentdeterminationtostay thecourseisright,thenthefailurestobeexperiencedbyU.S.imperialisminIraq arelikelytopersistandbeallthegreater.ThecontinuingpresenceofU.S.troops willmeanthattheU.S.militarywillcontinuetotakeitsbloodytoll(whichhas alreadydescendedtosystematictortureandthereintroductionofnapalm,outlawedbytheUnitedNationsin1980),andIraqioppositiontotheAmerican“liberators”willonlygrow.MeanwhileanyIraqigovernmentthatiselectedunder thesecircumstanceswilleitherhavetobeopposedtotheU.S.occupationorlose anycla.imsoflegitimacywithinIraqisociety.TheU.S.invasionandoccupationof Iraqmaybecreatingtheconditionsforacivilwar,lightingapowderkegunder theentireMiddleEast.Togetanideaofjusthowseriousthiscanbeonehasonly tolookatpresentIsraeliarmingandtrainingoftheKurdishmilitias,withthe objectofthensettingthem-iftheneedshouldarise—againsttheShiiteorSunni forcesinIraq.Isiael’spossessionofhundredsofnuclearweaponsposesthecontinualthreatofthe“Samsonoption”shouldthatgovernmentperceiveitselforits occupationofPalestineasseriouslythreatened."

Widerspeculationatthispointwouldbefoolhardy.Butthereisnodoubtthat ininvadingIraqtheUnitedStatesopenedthedoorsofhellnotonlyfortheIraqis andtheMiddleEastasawholebutalsoforitsownglobalimperialistorder.The fullrepercussionsofthefailureoftheU.S.empireinIraqhaveyettobeseenand willonlybecomeevidentinthemonthsandyearsahead.

Nt)lt‘S Ill?"/(‘It'('

.RobcnKaplan,hnfminlGrunts:Thr.-lmrrimuMilitaryrmI/reCmund(NewYork: RandomHouse,2005),.‘l—l5. Imm:/m"lion

MaxBoot,“AmerianImperialism?NoNeedtoRunAwayfromLabel,"USAYbda)-,May 6,2003.

DeepakLal,InPraiseofEmpirr.s(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2004),99.

Newlfirlt'rm(.s,May10,2003.

.Michaellgnatiefi,“TheChallenfiol}\men'canImperialPower,"J'VavalWarColkgeRminu LVl:2,Spring2003.www.nwc.navy.ntil/press/Review/2003/Spring/art3-sp3.htm

NewNrrlt‘Fina,April27,2003.

MichaelMann,Inca/mm!Empiw(London:Verso,2003),252,267.

Boot,“AnIeri(:tnImperialism?"

MichaelHard;andAmonioNcgri,Empire(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 2000),l73—l79.

AndrewBaoevich,Ama-iamEmpivr(Carnbridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,200-1),I77.

.SeetranscriptofSaddamHussein’:statementandU.S.AmbassadorAprilClaspie's response,JVew)’t'n'It‘Time:lulemnlioual,September23,I990.

.ResearchUnitforPoliticalEconomy,Bcltiml(hrInvasionofIraq(NewYorlt:Monthly ReviewPress,2003).

.NewlbrlcTime:Magazine,March28,I999.

.New761'/tTimes,March8,I992.

.ProjectfortheNewAmericanCentury,R(lmil4lt'ugrlnm1'ta'sDcfcn.m,Strung,Force:and Resource:foraNewCrnlmjv.Se|)lCIIIl)Cr2000-Onllnelinltis:www. newamericanceuntury.org/RebuildingAInt-ricasl)eli:nses.pdf

.lstvfinMésmros,Socialirm.orBm'lm1'.wu(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,2002),37.

.RobertS.McNamara,“ApocalypseSoon,"FrnrigwPolityI48(May/June2005),29.

I./l_/irrI/ll.‘:lIIm'kI/u‘IIin"nu'/('w'uI'i.s'/n

SecEllenC.Collier,In.rIam'r.toflistof(lulledSlamFortesAbroad,I798-I993, CongressionalResearchService,Librar)‘ofCungress,CRSIssueBrief,October7,I993.

Availableonlineat:ww\v.l'a.s.org/nian/ers/cts_93l007.htm.TheCongressionalResearch Servicelistssixty-sixinstancesoltheemploymentofU.S.militaryforcesabroadoverthe periodl945—l993(245overtheperiodl973—l993).Thislistcanbeupdatedforthelast eightyears,bringingthetotalsinceI945tooverseventy.

Quotedin‘TorontoStar,April9,l99l.SeealsoDavidN.Gibbs,“Washington'sNew lnterventionism,"MonthlyReview53:4(September200]),I5-37.

lstvanMészaros,Sat-iali.nnorBarbmimi(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,2002),23. ‘ThissectionwasdraftedbyRobertW.McChesney.

Amnestylnteniational,TheUnitedSlamofAmerica:Right:forAll(London:Amnesty lntemationalI998).Seeespeciallychapters7andB.www.amnesty.org.

2./III/M-riu/I'.vnI(mr/"/2'//I/21'/‘(e

MichaelHardtandAntonioNegri,Empire(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 2000),xii. lbid.

lbid.,9. lbid.,333.

lbid.,335.HardtandNegrirefertotheworkofSamirAmin,especiallytohisEmpireof Chaos(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1992),astheleadingalternativeviewofimperialism/empiretotheirown—onethatdifferssharplyontheissueofcenter/periphery.See HardtandNegri,E-rnpire,9,14,334,467.

HardtandNegri,Empire,xiii-xiv. lbid.,l78,179.

lbid.,I80. lbid.,I82.

.lbid.,407.

.lstvanMészaros,SocialisrnorBurba11'.rm(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,200])and lstvanMéa7A.ros,BqondCapital(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1995).

.Mészaros,Saa'alis1norBarbai-Lsrn,10-11.

.lbid.,I3.

.Thisisanabbreviatedandslightlymodifiedversionol'Més7.1ros’listol'pn'ncipalconuadictions. .lbid.,13-14.

.lbid.,19,61.

.lbid.,51.

.lbid.,28-29.

.TheU.S.suategyofestablishingglobalhegemonythroughtheglobalprojectionofitsmilitary powerisexaminedindetailinDavidN.Gibbs,“Washington‘sNewInterventiouismzU.S. HegemonyandlnterimperialistRivalries,"MrmllilyRwiau53:4(September2001),5-37. Mészaros,Soa'ali.mtorBarbarimt,37-38.

lbid.,40.

lbid.,73.

TheEditors,“PoxAmericana,”MonthlyReview43:3(_]uly—AugustI991),I3.

.TheNrtolbrhTimrswasencapsulatingtheviewsofMichaelllanltandAntonioNegriin theirfashionable,postmodemistwork,Evnpirr(Cambridge.MA:lhtrvaltlUtiiversity Press,2000).

Cornmunis!ManifestoquotedinWorldDewlopmrnlReport,I996(NewYork:(lxlortl UniversityPress.I996),1.

AdamSmith,Book4,Section9.

ThomasFriedman,TheLexusandtheOlitr‘Tn-((NewYork:Farrnr.Strauss.(iiruux, I999),94.

MuchofthediscussioninthisandthefollowingpanigrnplisdrawsonPaulM.Sweny, “MonopolyCapitalism,“NanPnlgmurDt'cli'onru)-ofl'.'eoraontirs,vol.3(NewYork:The StocktonPress,I987),54I-544.

KarlMarx,Capilttl,vol.1(NewYork:Vintage,I977),7771‘. l|)id.._vol.3,chapter27.

ArthurR.Burns,TheDeclineofCompetition:AStudyoftheEvolutionofAmrn'cau Indnshjv(NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1936).

MichalKalecki,Thmr)-ofEconomieDynamics(NewYork:MonI.hlyReviewPress,I965),Itil. .MichalKalecki,EssaysintheTheoryofEconomicFluctuations(London:AllenandUnwin, 1939),149.

.Themonopolycapitalisteconomydoesnotconsistsimplyofgiantlirms.ofcourse.Within manufacturing,forexample,therearehundredsofthousandsoffirms,whichtogether employasubstantialshareoftheworkforce.Thesesmallerfirmsareollenattachedtothe giants,somesupplyingparts,othersoccupyingvariousotherniches.Suchlirnistendto beartheburntofaneconomicdownturn.Conversely,duringanexpansiontheytendto growmorerapidlythanthedominant,monopolisticfirms

ForitdetaileddiscussionofSweezy’sviews,fromwhichpartofthisanalysisistaken,see johnBellamyFoster,“PaulMarlorSweezy,"inPhilipAresitsandMalcolmSawyer,eds..rl BiblioginplticalDicfiovtmyofDissentingEconomists(Northampton,MA:l".(lw:irdElgar. 2000),642—65l.

JosefSteindl,MahtrilyandStagnationinAmericanCapitalism(JV-tnlivrl:Monthly ReviewPress,I976).

ForamorethoroughtreatmentofBaran’awork,fromwhichsomeofthepresent(ll8L‘lIssionisadapted,seejohnBellamyFoster,“PaulAlexanderBaran,"inArentittandSawyer. Bibliogiafi/ticalDiclionaryofDissenlingEco1Iomt'sl.t,36-43.

PaulA.Baran,77::PolilimlEamonyofGmwlh(NewYork:MonthlyReviewl‘nm,I957).I356. ll)id.,142.

PaulA.BaranandPaulM.Sweezy,MonopolyCapital.‘AnEssayontheAmericanEconomic andSocialOrrler(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1966).

13.JoanneBarkan,“ABlastfrontthePast:PaulBantuandPaulM.Sweaty‘:Movtcvpoly 19.

20. Capital,"Dissent44(SpringI997),95. BaranandSweezy,MonopolyCapilal,3.

HarryBniverman,LaborandMonopolyCafn'laL'TheDegindalioiiofWordinthe‘litmalielh Century(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,I974).

AfulleraccountofBraverman'sideascanbefoundin_]o|mBellamyFoster,“lntroduction,“ inHanyBiavennan,LaborandMonopolyCapital(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress, 1998),ix—xxvii.

HarryMagdolf,TheAgeofImtierinlisin:TheEconomicsofl/.S.FmriguP0lfl'_1‘(NewYork: MonthlyReviewPress,I969.)

ForamoreextensivetreatmentofMagtlof|‘slifeandwork,fromwhichpartofthepresent discussionhasbeendiawn,see_]ohnBellamyFoster,"HarryMagtlolf,"inArtestisand Sawyer,BibliograpliicalDictionaryofDissentingEeouami.sl.1,385-94.

.Asimilarview,emanatingfromthethirdworld,waspresentedinSamirAmin’spatltbreakingwork,AccumulationonaWorldScale.ACritiqueoftheTheoryofUndendevelsfmient (NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,I974).FirstwrittenasadissertationinI957.

Magdofl,AgeofImpen'ali.sm,200.

HarryMagdoff,Clnlmlization—7BWhatEml?(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1992),3. PaulM.Sweezy,FourLeehmrsonMarJ:i.rm(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1981),73. Magdoff,Globali.zntion—7?iWhatEnd?,4-5.

lstvanMeszaros,Sociali.miarBarba1ism(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,2001),51-2.

PaulM.Sweezy,“More(orLess)onGlobalization,"MonthlyReview,49:4(September 1997),1-4.

/I.U.S.1|/I'ilim/_'y‘B(I.$'(.'.\‘umlli'm/)iI'c ArnoldToy'nbee,Arnei-icaandtheWorldRevolution(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 1962),pp.105-6.

RobertHarkavy,GreatPowerCompetitioajbrOverseasBase:(NewYork:PergamonPress, 1982).

JamesR.Blaker,UnitedState:OverseasBasing(NewYork:Praeger,l990),9,37.The researchforBlaker'sseminalstudywassupportedbytheOfficeoftheSecretaryof Defense.Onthedataprovidedinthatstudyitshouldbenotedthatthereisnoagreeddefinitionofwhatconstitutesamilitarybase,socalculationastonumbersisdiflicult.Blaker definesamilitarybasesiteasaninstallation“routinelyused"bytnilitaryforces.Allinstallationswithinatwenty-fivemileradiusareclassifiedaspartofasinglebasesiteassociated withthenearesttownorcity;installationsthataremorethantwenty-livemilesapartare seenasdifferentbasesites.Installationsandbasesitesaredemarcatedprimarilyonthe basisofdataonthecapitalvalueoffacilities.

QuotedinC.T.Sandars,America’:Oversea:Carrisans:TheLeaseholdEmpire(Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2000),5.

Blaker,UnitedState:OverseasBasing,32.

SubconmiitteeonSecurityAgreementsandCommiunentsAbroad,ConnnitteeonForeign Relations,U.S.Senate,SecuriqvAgreeriientsandCommitment:Abroad,9I"Congress,2"‘ Session,December2|,I970,I9-20.

ReportofdieSecretaryofDefense,I939,4l.

QuotedinThomasj.McCormick,America’:HalfCentmy(Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,1995),249.TwoyearsbeforeBushseniordeclareddieVietnam Syndromedead,PaulSweezyhadwritteninthisspace:“PriortoVietnam,theU.S.ruling

classhadtakenitforgrantedthatthepeopleofthecountrywouldbewillingtolightany warsthatthedefenseofitsimperialinterestswouldrequire:such,afterall,hadbeenthe essentialpreconditionthroughouttheagesfortheviabilityofempires.ButVietnam proved,atleastinthecaseoftheUnitedStatesinthelatetwentiethcentury,thatthiswas nolongertrue.Thisnewsituationhasbeengivenaname,theVietttatnSyndrutne,andhas cometoplayanincreasinglyimportantpartinthehistoryofourtime."PaulM.Sweezy, “U.S.ltnperialisminthel990s,"Mo1tIltlyReview(OctoberI989),4l:5,6.

L05Angola:Time.t,_)anuary6,2002.

.ReportoftheSecretaryofl)efense,I996,13-4

.Thisestimateofthetmtnl)erofcountriesinwhichU.S.basesarelocatedcatmothe(lirectlycomparedtothefiguresprovidedinlllalter'sstudyreferredtoabove.sincethelatter includesonlybasesrecordedbytheDefenseDepartmentinitslistsofinstallations(based oncapitalizationvalue),whilewehavealsoincludedhere:(I)basesnotlistedinthe l’enlagon‘sBastSlruchnrRcporl,buthousingsubstantialnttrnbersofU.S.troops;(2) basesinU.S.territories/possessionsoutsidethefiftystatesandtheDistrictofColutnbia (viewingtheseasessentiallyoutsidetheUnitedStates);and(3)recentlyacquiredforward operatinglocationsinstrategicareas(mainlyintheMiddleEast,South/CentralAsia,and LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean).Nevertheless,thefigureshere,thoughnotstrictlycomparabletotheearlieronesprovided,suggestthatthegeographicalspreadofU.S.baseshas notcontractedsincetheendoftheKoreanWar(andprobablynotsincetheendofthe VietnamWar)andisnowinaphaseofrenewedexpansion.

.Lo:AngelaTimes,_]anuary6,2002.

.Unocal’stestimonyisreprintedin“ANewSilkRoad:ProposedPipelineinAfghanistan,“ MonllrlyReview,December2001.ThehistoryofUnocal'sCentralAsianpipelineproject isdiscussedindetailinAhmedRashid,Taliban(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 2000),151-30.

.SubcottunitteeonSecurityAgreementsandCommitmentsAbroad,CommitteeonForeign Relations,U.S.Senate,SecurityAgnernentsandCommilmentrAlmond,20.

Clialrnersjoltnson,Blowlmclt:TheCostsandConserplencesofAmericanEmpire(NewYorlt: MetropolitanBooks,2000),64

16.johnLindsay-Poland,“US.MilitaryBasesinLatinAmericaandtheCarribean,"Fom'g'n l7. PolicyinFocus6(October2001)www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org.

HarryMagdolf,Impe11'alr'.rm.-From.theColonialAgeto(liePrcmtl(NewYorlt:Monthly ReviewPress,I978),205.

5.'/'/I(.'/l('(/Ils'(:m:('I_’)='Q/'/In/H‘:‘fr/lriwlt

HarryMagdolf,ImfJe1'i(tli.rm..-From(/1:ColonialAgelothePresent(NewYorlt:Monthly ReviewPress,I978),p.143.

New'l’orkTl'II1£.IMag(tzr'm,_]uly28,2002.

C.Johnlltenberry,“America’sImperialAmbition,"ForeignAffairs81:5 (September—October2002),44.

Boot,Brzezinski,Kaplan,Kissinger,Mallaby,andRosenarequotedinPhilipS.Colub, “TheDynamicsofWorldDisorder:WestwardintheCourseofEmpire,“LrMomlt Diplomaliqmz,Englishinternetedition(September2002).mondetliplo.

coin/2002/09/03westward.SeealsoMart.inWalker,"America‘sVirtualEmpire,"Worltl PalityjournnlI9:2(Summer2002),I3-20.

CharlesA.Conant,TheUnitedStairsin"H?Orient(Boston:HoughtonMilllin,1900),29-30.

J.A.Hobson,IrItpn1'rtIisIn.'AStudy(AnnArbor:UttiversityolMichiganPress,I965),B0l'.

V.l.Lenin,Irnpen'nIt'.rm,theHigfmiStageofCapitalism(NewYork:International Publishers,1939),88.

lbid.,182.

HarryMagdofl,TheAgroflmpen'ah'.nn.TheEconomicsofUS.ForeignPolicy(NewYork: MonthlyReviewPress,1969).

lbid.,53f.

Magdoll',I1npen'alr'.rm,26l.

TheclearestexampleofthisisStevenRosenandJamesR.Kurth,‘listingT/teoriesof Economiclrnpcrinlisrn.(Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks,1974).Inacriticalessayinthat volume,HarryMagdollconcludedthatan“analyticalframeworlt”that“putintoseparate comparunentskeyaspectsoftheimperialistproblemthatareinfactinseparable”wasmistaken.“Theattemptatelear—cutdifferentiationofmilitary,political,andeconomicissues leadstoignoringwhatistnostessential:theinterdependenceandmutualinteractionof thesefactors.Thiswayofthinlting—includingtheuseofthe“nationalinterest"abstraction-isquitetraditionalinorthodoxsocialscience,afactwhichgoesfartoaccountforits historicina.bilitytolacetoeitherthegrowthandsignificanceofimperia.lismorto[thenew] imperialism’srootsintnonopolycapitalism.”MagdoflinIbid.,86.

.PrabhatPatnailt,“WhateverHappenedtoImperialism?"MonthlyReview42:6(November 1990),1-5.

.lbid.

.MichaelHardtandAntonioNegri,Emfiire(Harvard,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 2000),180.

NewYorkTim.c.r,September5,2002. ThissectionwasdraftedbyHan'yMagdoll.

ThisinfomaationisforI992,thelatestyearforwhichthiskindofinforntatiottisavailable. The$2Limitisbasedonpurchasingpowerparity.Thatmeansthatthedataareadjusted soastodeterminewhatamountofgivenbundleofconsumergoodscouldbeboughtfor $2,eliminatingtotheextentfeasibletheeffectoldiflerettcesbetweenpricesfromcountry tocountry.

.ThisdataistaltenfromtheWorldBank'stablesonincotnedistribution—inrecenteditions oftheWorkiDatclofnncnlRe-[wortentitled“PovertyandIncomeDistribution."Incalculating percentagesharesofincomedistributiontheWorldBankreliesonhouseholdsurveysof incomeorexpenditurescompiledbythevariouscounuies.lnordertoensurethatthedata iscomparabletheWorldBatikstalluseswheneverpossiblehouseholdexpendituresrather thanincomedata.Inthecaseoflndiathedatareferredtoisbasedonpercapitahousehold expenditures.WorldBatik,WorldDevelopmentReport,1990,I996,2003editions. Dependingontheavailabledata,WorldBankeconomistswillcalculatethedistributionof incomeeitherbyrevenueorconsumption.

/i.I//n/)crin//Iln/n'Iion.\‘andIraq

RecentlytheBushadministrationhasalsosaidthat“regimechange“couldbestretchedto includeanIraqigovernmentunderSaddamHusseinthatmopcritesFullywithUN.inspectionsanddisarmament,intennisacceptabletotheUnitedStates.Buttheadminisuationhas declaredthistobehighlyimprobable,anditspositioninthisrespectcandmsbeinterpretedaspartofadiplomatic-legalstrategytogarnersupportforitsthreatenedinvasion,inthe eventthatlraqisdeclaredtobenon-cotnpliantwiththeU.N.inspectionprocess.

ThorsteinVeblen,Essaysin014rChangingOrrin‘(NewYorlt:ViltingPress.I934).p.-164.

NoamChomsky,“TheColdWarandtheSuperpowers,”MonthlyReview33:6(Novelnhcr 1931),1r.

HarryMagdolT,TheAgenflmfm‘iaIism.TheEconomicscfl/.S.ForeignPolicy(NewYorlt: MonthlyReviewPress,I969).

jayBooltman,“Thel'residcnt‘sRealCoalinIraq,"Atlanta]onnml—Constitution, September29,2002.

josephSchumpeter,ImpenalismandSocialClasses,editedandintrodnctcdbyPaulM. Sweezy(NewYorlt:AugustusM.Kelley,195l),60.

Olcourseformany(ifnotmost)oltheimperialadventuresofthenineteenthcenturythere wasnevermuchlat.itudeforpretendingthatthemotivesweredefensive.TheOpiumWars werefoughtnotagainstanaggressiveChina,butratliertoimposefreetradeinopium.The struggleamongsttheEuropeanpowerstodivideupAfricawasnotdirectedagainstabelligerentAfricabutrationalizedasthe“whiteman’sburden.”

B.NewTort:Times,September20,2002.

NewlfirlrTimes,October7,2002.

I0.

MrrnlfirlrTimes,OctoberI4,2002.

.Newlin-ItTimes,October10,2002.

I2.

SenateCommitteeonBanking,HousingandUrbanAfl'airs,UnitedStatesDual-Use E;\1:ort5toIraqandtheirImpactontheHealthofthePersianGulfWarVetrra-ru,l03"' Congress,2""sess.,May25,I994,264-76;BnflaloNews,September23,2002.

.S)'du¢j-MorningHerald,October3,2002.

.SeeWilliamRiversPittwithScottllitter,WaronIraq(NewYork:ContextBooks,2002); Newsday,July30,2002;TheGuardian,October7,2002.

.www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html;MiddleEastReport,Fall2002;SanFrancisco Chronicle,September29.2002.

.EdwardL.MorseandjamesRichard,“TheBattleforEnergyDominance,“ForeignAflairs 8|:2(March/April2002).

.QuotedinBookman,“ThePresident’sRealCoal." .New1721']:‘Times,October22,2002.

.C.johnlltenberry,“America'sImperialAmbition,"ForeignAffairsBl:5 (September-October2002).

7."//n/)(:/'£(I//lIIl(.'I'I'(.'(I"andWm‘ RichardN.Hausa,ImfierialAmerica.Online:www.brook.edu. NewTbrhTimesMagazin.c,_]anuary5,2003.

JohnGallagherandRonaldRobinson,“TheImperialismofFree'l‘ra(le,"Iirnnamir HistoryReview,secondseries,6:I(I953),I-I5.

Wolfgang].Mommsen,‘TheonesofIrufmialisru(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, I980),3G9f.

V.l.Lenin,lmfrerialirrrt,theHighestStag?ofCapitalism(NewYork:International Publishers,1939),85.

HenryKissinger,DoesAmericaNeedaForeignl’oIt'c_v?:'linwmrIaDr'[;lornm:)-forthe21st Century(NewYork:SimonandSchusler,200I)

”lt’sNot‘AllAboutOil,’but...,“BusinauWeehOuline,FebruaryI0,2003.

RichardHaass,Intervrrrtiorr:theUserfAmen'mr:MiIr'tar;yForceinthePost-ColdWar World(Washington,DC:CarnegieEndowmentforInternational|’«.-ace,I994).

RichardHaass,InIa11entt'on:TheUseofMilit/u;vForce,84.

HanyMagdoll,Impen'alr'.rm.-FromtheColonialAgetothePresent(NewYork:Monthly ReviewPress,I978),139.

HarryMagdolf,IrnpenalirmwithoutColonies(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,2003),68.

8.'/'/tr:New/lg?!Q/'/I/I/)(.-r/'rI//.wn

JohnA.Hobson,lrnper1'alism:AStudy(LondonzjamesNisbet,I902). Economist,April26,2003.

HarryMagdofi,TheAgeofIrnperialism:TheEconomicsofUS.ForeignPolicy(NewYork: MonthlyReviewPress,I969).

ThisargumentwassuccinctlyexpressedinPaulBarnandPaulM.Sweezy'sMonopoly Capital(NewYorlt:MonthlyReviewPress,1966),l83—202.

Magdofl;TheAgeoflmpen'alism,I6.

RobertW.Tucker,TheRadicalLeftandAmericartForeignPolicy(Baltimore:_|ohns HopkinsUniversityPress,1971),28.

Ibid.,131.

RobertW.TuckerandDavidC.Hcndrickson,TheImperialTemfrtatr'on:TheNewWorld OrderandAmer-r'ea’sPurpose(NewYork:CouncilonForeignRelationsPress,I992),14-5. Ibid.,I47.

Ibid.,10-]1.

RichardHaass,Irtteruerrtion:theUseofAmerr'canMilitaryFonreinthePost-ColdWar Worhl(Washington,DC:CarnegieEndowmentforInternationalPeace,I994),8. NewKrrltTimes,March8,1992.

RichardHaass,"TheReluctantSheri/]?TheUrtitedStatesAftertheColdWar(NewYork: CouncilonForeignRelationsPress,I997),54.

Haass,TheReluctantSlrertfl,93.

.www.brook.edu.Foramoredetaileddiscussionofl-lanss‘“lm[m1'alAmert'ca"argumentsee

chapter7above.

.QuotedinMichaell-lirsh,AtWarwithOurselves:WhyAmericaisSquamleringitsChance toBuildaBetterWorld(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2003),251.

.ProjectfortheNewAmericanCentury,RebuildingAnterira'sDejenses,September2000.

.ForatreatmentofhowU.S.andNATOinterventionintheYugoslaviancivilwarscameto beseenintermsofalargerimperialistprojectseeDiana_|o|tustonc,Foal’:(.'ru.tarIe: Yugoslavia,NA‘T0,andWesternDelusions(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,2002.)

.MaxBoot,TheSavageWarsofPeace:SmallWarsandtheRiseofAmeriranPower(New York:BasicBooks,2003).

.Hirsh,AtWarwithOurselves,245.

.lbi(l.,235.

.CouncilonForeignRelations,Iraq:TheDayAfter(NewYork,2003),48.

.HarryMagdoll,TheAgeofImperialisnl.

.CouncilonForeignRelations,Iraq:‘TheDayAfler,48-9.

.“PrisonlndustryGoesGlobal,"www.Futurenet.org,fall2000.

.lstvanMészéros,SocialismorBarbarism(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,200l)

.9.Kipling,/he“ll//u'I(.*;‘l1(In.'s/)’m'(/(m,”(m(/l/.5./III/)0/'ir1/ism

.jonathanMarcus,“USFacesUptoGuerrillaWar,”BBCNews,july17,2003 (ncws.bbc.co.uk).

ThefollowingbriefhistoricaltreatmentofthePhilippine-AmericanWardrawsmainlyon theseworks:HenryF.Grill,ed.,AmericanImperialismandthePhilippinelnsvmection: TestimonyTalwnfivm.HearingsonAflairsinthePhilippineIskzruisbeforetheSenate CommitteeanthePhilippines—l902(Boston:Little,Brown,1969);AngelVelascoShaw andLuisH.Francia,VestigesofWar:ThePhilippine-AmericanWarandtheAfler-mathof anImperialDream,1899-1999(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2002);DanielB. Schirmer,RepublicorEmpire:AmericanResistancetothePhilippineWar(Canibridge, MA:Scltenlunan,1972),and“HowthePhilippine-U.S.WarBegan,”ManllilyReview51:4 (SeptemberI999);StuartCreightonMiller,“BenevolentAssimilation":TheAlnerimn ConquestofthePhilippines,1899-1903(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1990);and DanielB.SchirmerandStephenRosskamniShalom,ThePhilippinesReader(Boston: SouthEndPress,l987).

Thepoemisoftenreproducedwithoutthesubtitle.ForacorrectversionseeKipling’: Verse:DefinitiveEdition(NewYork:Doubleday,I940).

Althoughaquarterofthemillionisthe“consensual”ligureofhistorians,estimatesof Filipinodeathsfrontthewarhaverangedashighasonemillion,whichwouldhavemeant dcpopulationoftheislandsbyaroundone-sixth.

MacArthurquotedinMiller,"BenevolentAssimilation,"p.94.

6._limZwick,ed.,MartiTwain‘:WeaponsofSatire(Syracuse,NY:SyracuseUniversityPress, 1992),I72.

Forinl'ormationontheMoromassacreandtheW.E.B.DuBoisquoteseewww.l)o0n(locltstieLeon)/ai/ail/moro.html._]iniZwick'sl)0Ol|(lOCl(8llel.COlllwebsiteisacrucialsourcefor materialsonthePhilippine-AmericanWar,contemporaryresponsestoKipling‘s“White Man’sBurden,"andMarkTwain'santi-imperialistwritings.

TheNobelcommitteewas,however,mainlyimpressedbyKipling‘ssympathyforthe lloersinSouthAfrica—anotherpopulationofwhilecolonizcrs.

9.JohnA.Hobson,I:npn1'nli.rm.'ASh:dy(A1uIArbot‘.Ulll\'CI‘Sll‘)’n|‘Michig'.mPless,I965),283. l0.

V.l.Lenin,Imperialism:theHigltesfStageofCnpilnltlml(NewYork:International Publishers,I939),l5.

WallSh-eeI]ourrmI,_]ulyI5,2003.

New‘Mark‘Time:Magazine,September7,2003.

MaxBoot,TheSavageWm:ofPmce:SmallWm:rtmlllll‘Risecf/line:-imuPower(New York:BasicBooks,2002).

NewYorkTime:Magazv'ne,_|ul)-'28,2002.

NiallFerguson,Emfiire:77leRiseandDemiseof!/ItllrilishWorldOnlerand"ItLessons forGlobalPower(Ne\vYork:BasicBooks,2004),309E

ThisalluponwhiteelitestodividetheworldevokedaresponsebeyondBritainandthe UnitedStates.TheadmirationofKiplingamongtherulingclassesatthecenterol'theG||')ltalistworldwasmoregenerd.AsHobsbawmtellsus:“WhenthewriterRudyardKipling,the bardol'theIndianelnpire,wasbelievedtobedyingofpneumoniain1399,notonlythe BritishandtheAmericansgrieved—Kiplinghadjustaddressedapoemon‘TheWhiteMan’s Burden’totheUSAonitsresponsibilitiesinthePhilippines—buttheEmperorofGermany sentatelegram.“ErieHobsbawm,77:eAgeofE-mpire(NewYork:Vintage,1987),82.

I0./5Iraq/I/10//:(.'/'"I/[cl/m//I".7

QuotedintheNewYbrkTirlus,August31,1966.

QuotedinHarryMagdollandPaulM.Sweezy,“TheWarSpreads,"MonthlyReview22:1 (May1970).

CouncilonForeignRelations,Iraq:One'l’Em'Laler,(Washington,DC,March9,2004),13. Lo:AngelesTimes,March30,2004. BttsinessWeek,April26,2004.

BruceNussbaum,“Iraq:AMostDangerousMoment,"BminessWee/¢,Apri|26,2004,37f; BruceNussbaum,“It'sTimetoReshelvetheRumsfeldDoctrine,"BminessWeek,April26, 2004,40f.

NewKirkTimes,April25,2004.

WallStreetJournal,April24,2004.

HarryMagdollandPaulSweezy,"Vietnam:WhatNext?,"MonthlyReview21:7 (December1969),3-4.

“U.S.Weighsthelletumol'MilitaryConscription,"7EmmloSlar,April22,2004. www.gregpalast.com.

II.'/7mU..S'./1'//I/1//'('.'/’(I.1:/I/m‘/'/"('1/nuor/’o.1:./II//('/itwml.’ johnF.Kennedy,“CommencementAddressatAmericanUnivcrsity,"juneI0,1963. www.jllt.library.org/j06l063.htm;V.D.Soltolovsltii,SovietMilitaryStrategy(Englewood Cliffs,N._].:Prentice-Hall,I963),I49.OriginallypublishedintheSovietUnionin1962 underthetitleMililmySlmtey.InhisspeechKennedysubstitutedellipsesinthemain partofthequotationolleredhere.Herewequotefromthesamepassage,replacingthe ellipseswiththeactualtext.

RonaldSteel,PoxAmericana(NewYork:VikingPress,1967),l6—l7,268,336.

Chalmers_|ohnson,TheSonmusofEmpirc:Milifanlrrn,Sec-myandtheEndnflheRrpulrlir (NewYork:HenryHolt,2003),1.

Steel,PaxAmericana,334.

HarryMagdollandPaulM.Sweczy,“PoxAmericana,"MonlIil_rReview43:3Uuly—/lugnst I991),l-13.

Ibid.

/2./'.'/npir('Q/'/lat"/mI'IIr/M

BusinessWeek,September20,2004.

_]onaLendering,“TheEdgesoftheEarthinGreekandRoman'l'hought,“www.livius.org/ ea-eh/edges/edges.html.

Strabo,Geog-raplry,4.1.I4. lbid.,l.l.l7. lbid.,4.l.l2.

CharlesFourier,TheSocialDestinyofMan,OrTheoryoftheFourMovements(NewYork: R.M.Dewitt,1857),99.

KarlMarx,EarlyWritings(NewYork:Vintage,1974),360,218.

KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,CollectedWorks,Vol.6(NewYork:International Publishers,1975),434.

ScientificAmerican,October1971.

.KarlMarx,Earl}Writings(Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,1974),360;Marxand Engels,CollectedWorlts,vol.6,434andvol.34,67.

MikeDavis,VictorianHolocaust:(NewYork:Verso,2001).

.KarlMarx,Capital,vol.1(NewYork:Vintage,1976),916;KarlMarxandFrederick Engels,OnColonialism(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1972),86-8;KarlMarxand FrederickEngels,SelectedCorrespondence(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1975),3lG—7 (MarxtoDanielson,February19,1881);Davis,VictorianHolocausls,39.MarxandEngels didnotusethetermbarbarisininaEurocentricway.Inthecaseofthewarsbetween ChristiansandMoorsinSpa.initwastheChristianswhowerecharacterizedbyEngelsas thebarbarians.CollectedWorks,vol.25,170.

.Marx,EarlyWritings,359-60;MarxandEngels,CollectedWorlu,vol.25,460-6].

.PeterHudisandKevinB.Anderson,eds.,TheRosaLuxemlmrgReader(NewYork; MonthlyReviewPress,2004),349-52,364.

lbid.,3l3.

lbid.,8,18,124-27.

.Ferguson,Colossus,48-52,267,301-02;Ferguson,Empire,369-70.

lstvanMésmros,Socialism.orBarlmrism(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,2001),29.

.USA7bday,SeptcmberI6,2004.

.NewmiTimes,September29,2004.

.Lancet,onl.ineedition,October29,2004.

.USA‘Today,September16,2004.

.Newlbri‘Trim,MayI3,2004.

.FinalReportoftheIndependentPaneltoReviewDnDDetentionOperations,August2004. \nsw.del'enselink.mil/news/Aug2004/d20040824linnlreport.p(|l'.

.Man:andEngels,OnColonialism,I52-55,l62—67;MarkTanner,“AhuGhraib,"New liirlReviewafBooLs,October7,2004,44-50;EdwardGreer,“‘WeDon'tTorturePeople inAn1eric2,”"s\’ewPoliticalScience26:3(September2004),37I-87.

“Apresmoiledeluge!isthe«atehwordofever)’capitalistandofeveryeapitalislnation. Capitalthereforetakesnoaccountofthehealthandthelengthoflifeoftheworker,unless societyforcesittodoso.“Marx,Capital,vol.l,38I. USATbda},SeptemberI6,2004.

DanielSinger,WhoseMillermimn?:‘TheirsorOurs?(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress, 1999),272.

I3.'I'/Ia/"'m'/m'(-Q/'/3'/II/)1.’/1*

KarlMarx,Capital,vol.l(NewYork:Vintage,I976),915. NiallFerguson,Colossus:‘ThePriceofAmerica’sEmpire(NewYork:PenguinBooks, 2004),107.

MichaelKlare,“TheNewGeopolitics,“injohnBellamyFosterandRobertW. McChesney,ed.,PoxAmericana(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,2004),51-56. Foracritiqueofthisnewconservative/militaryhistoryofthewarseeRobertBuzaneo, MastersofWar.-MilitaryDissentandPoliticsintheVietnamEra(CambridgeUniversity Press,1996).

GeneralWilliamC.Westmoreland,ASoldierReport:(NewYork:DaCapoPress,1989), 332-34,404.

StewartAlsop,StayafExecution(Philadelphia:_].B.LippineottCo.,1973),73f. 77tePentagonPapers,vol.4(Boston:BeaconPress.1971),668;NoamChomsky, “Foreword”inPeterLimquecoandPeterWeiss,ed.,PreventtheCrimeofSilence.ReportsfrarntheSessionsoftheInternationalWarCrimes7i'ibnnalfoundedbyBert-rand Russell(London:Penguin,I971),19;DorothyFosdick,ed.,StayingtheComse:Hem) M.jadsonandNationalSeatrity(Seattle:UniversityofwashingtonPress,1987),190. RobertScheer,“Don’tStaytheCourseSenator,"Salon.com,April28,2004;Evan Thomas,“TheVietnamQuestion,”MSNBC.coIn,AprilI9,2004.

MaxBoot,TheSavageWarsofPeace:SmallWarsandtheRiseofAmericanPower(New York:BasicBooks,2003),347.

AnthonyH.Cordesman,“PlayingtheComse:"AStra!egflu'Reshaf;i1IgU.S.Polityin IraqandtheMiddleEast(fourthdraft,November22,2004);www.CSlS.org. lbid.

.SeymourM.Hersh,ChainofCommamt:TheRoadfront9/!)toAbuGhraib(NewYork: \l)'I'l'I.\"|'l)|'\(il"..\'I3!)I72

HarperCollins,2004),356-60,andTheSamsonOption:Israel’:NuclearArsenaland AmericanForeignPolicy(NewYork:RandomHottse,I99I

Abufihraihprison,I40,I59 accumulation.45-47.49-50, 53.8|.I02,I61;competitionover.I09;militarism and.IIO accumulationandcrisis,theoryof,33,43,44 activism:anti-globalization. l6—l7,3|.40,54,62,I20; anti-imperialist,I09,I24, I27.I28;anti-militarism, 64-65;anti-monopolyand anti-lmst.43;anti-war,28. 72,I20.I34,I66. advancedcapitalistcountries. SI.73.I02,I04,I38 Afghanistan.77,I44.I45, I59;Soviet-AfghanWar, I57.I65‘.Talibango\'emment.24,63;U.S.militarism in.22,62,64,65,68,93 Afghanistan,warin(2002-), I2.36.38,57,76,I44; basesin.62,93;beginning of.2I.24:invasionand occupationin,28,67,lI8; nationbuildingin,I05-6. SeealsoSoviet-AfghanWar (I979-I988)

Africa,I4.I6,56,57,I62, I65;basesin,57,62-63, 66:civilwarsin,85; Europeanimperialismin,_ I00,l54—55;revolutionsin. I63;scramblefor,70,83, 99,I09,I79.Seealsospecificcountries

TheAgeofImperialism (Magdofl),49-50,67, 72-74,|08—l2,l|8, II9-20

Aguinaldo,Emilio,I22,I25, I26-27

Albriglil,Madeline,II6 AlQaeda.76.77.Seealso BinLaden,Osatna Allison,RobertJ.,93 Alsop,Stewart:Staythe Execution.l66—67 AnadarkoPetroleum Corporation.93 Anglo-BoerWar(I899-I902),

Index

70,I27.I28

Asia.56,85.I4I,I62.I63. SeealsoCentralAsia;South Asia;specificcomtlries Asianfmaneialcrisis(I997l998),I7

AWACSelectronicsurveillanceaircrall.22

BaatltPartyheadquartersincident(I998),90

BaathParty(Iraq),90,II4, I35,I37

Bacevich,Andrew,I58; AmericanEmpire,I5-I6 Balkans,I8,36,52,S9,66, 74.SeealsoYugoslavia Baran,Paul,47-48,50;The PolilicalEconomyof Growth,45-46 barbarism,36,l47—60;conceptof,l48—50; Luxemburgand,I54-56; Marxand,I50-53,I60, |83nl2;U.S.asempireof, I56-60

Barry,Tom:ForeignPolicyin Focus,75-76 bases,military.Seemilitary basesystem(U.S.) BBCtelevision,l4l-42 Beveridge,Albert,I24 Biden,Joe,I39

BinLaden,Osama,8,I5,24, 28,29,77

BiologicalandToxinWeapons Convention,90

Black,Hugo,26

Blaker,JamesR.,56,I76 BolivarianRevolution (Venezuela),20 Bookman,Jay,85-86

Boot,Max,ll,69,I30, I67-72;“American Imperialism,"I3;The SavageWarsofPeace. |28—29

Bosnia,|l8,I39,I44

Braverman,Harry,50; LaborandMonopoly Capital,49 II7,

BrettonWoodsAgreement. I09,I63.

Britain.‘roleof.inIraqWar. I47,I56,I58,I69 Britishimperialism.25. 67-68,84,86,I27,I30: barbarisinof,I52,I58: declineofltegemonyof. I02,I04,I09:freetrade and,99;inLatinAmerica. I00,I0l,I62;military basesof,55-56;military defeatsof,I67 Brown,MichaelBarralt: ModelsinPolitical Economy,53 Brzezinski.Zbigniew,69 Burns,ArthurR.:TheDecline ofCompetition,43 Bush,GeorgeH.W_,32, 58-59;administrationof, IS,I7,89,||3.Seealso newworldorder Bush,GeorgeW.,I2,63,I2|, I33,I39,I67;biological weaponsand,90;foreign policyand,97;military spendingand,23; September20(200!) speechof,24

Bush(G.W.)administration,I3,I8,67,69,II6, I65;ComprehensiveTest BanTreatyand,I9; KyotoProtocoland,I9; strategicpolicyof, 86-88;unipolarworld and,94-95.SeealsoWar onTerrorism Bush,Jeb,II6 BusinessWeek.I04,135-36, I47 Butler,Richard,64,89-90 cabaltheory,I8,I07-8, II8—2O Canning,George,I00 capitalism,37,48,I54,I6|; birthof,5|-52;competitive,7I;concentrationand centralizationofcapitaland,

SI,53,72,I09;conceptions of,404I;asinherently imperialistic,I9,46,50. 73-74,I02-3,|6|—62:laws ofmotionof,42,47-48,74'. militarismand,2|-25;principlecontradictionsof. 33-34.Seealsomonopoly capitalism Capital(Marx),4l-43,49, I52,I62,l84n26 carbondioxideemissions.I9. I59—60 Caribbeanregion,56,I22. 123;basesin,57.62-63.66. Seealsospecificcountries Caneradministration,I5,69, I46 CaspianSeaBasin,63,93. H2,II9

centerandperiphery,l3—I4. 76,I03.I09.l30—3l. l6l—62;barbarismand, I48,l49—50,l5I,I60; divisionbetween,7I-72, I02;“empire"and,32, 33-34;ofEuropeanimperialism,35;globalizationand, 39,50—5|;inlonnalimperialismand,l0l-2,I06;militarybasesand,66;monopolycapitalismand,45-46. SeeaLsoindustrialized nations;thirdworld CenterforDiseaseControl,89 CentralAmerica,85,I65 CentralAsia,I8,68,76,77, I4I;U.S.basesin,62,63, 66,93,I44,I65 Chamberlain,Edward,42 Chavez,Hugo,20 chemicalandbiological weapons(CBW),88-89,90 Cheney,DicleI8,I07,II6 Chile,85,I44 China,63,I08,I24,I44,I52, I63;asemergingsuperpower,20,36,52;European imperialismin,I54—55', incomedistributionin,79; oilconsumptionin,92; People3'Daily,I34 Chomsky,Noam,78,84 Churchill,Winston,l66—67 CIA(CentralIntelligence Agency),27,88,I57

civilwars.85.98.II7,I58.I69 classandclassrelations,I03. I39.I49-50,|52—53,I54. C|ilTord,Clark.I66 Clintonadministration,59.63. ||8,I34

“coalitionolthewilling,"II6. I19

ColdWar.I3.49.52.I12. II4;anusrace0|‘.I5;end 0|‘,35,I56;imperialism aflcr.I5—l8.l03—6:militarismduring.I09—l0;militarismsince,I6,23,48. 58-64.II7,I46.Seealso Post-SecondWorldWarera colonialism,98—l0l,I05,I52; decolonizationmovement and,I09;earlymodern,34; new,32;semi-colonies,l0|, I02;Spanish,I22.Seealso Britishimperialism Communism,containmentol‘, 58,I08,I44 TheCommunistManifesto (MarxandEngels),39-40, l5l—52 competition,4I-43,49,53, 7|,I09;freecompetition theory,4I-42.Seealso imperialistrivalry ComprehensiveTestBan Treaty,I9,20 Conant,CharlesA.:“The EconomicBasisof Imperialism,"69-70 CongressionalBudgetOflice report(2004),l38—39 Congress(U.S.),23-24, 88-89,II7,l39—-40;House AnnedServicesCommittee, I38;HouseCommitteeon InternationalRelations,63; SenateCommitteeon ForeignRelations,58,I34 Cordesman,AnthonyI-|., l67—7l;Playingthe Course,I68 corporations,45,5|,7|,I09, IIO,Ill;competition among,53;monopolycapitalismand,I02-3,|75n|I; multinational,I9,40,53, 74.I03,I20,I44;nonlinancial,49-50,72;oil,85, 92-93,I04,||2;prolitmar-\\|\|".|)l\I|‘|'Z|l|\l.|.\‘\l

ginsof,44 CouncilonForeignRelations (U.S.),II.84,II3.Illl, |34—35 counterinsurgencyoperations, 22.59,I29 counter-revolutionarywars, 51,I37 cotmtcrterrorism,2| creditsystem,4I,46,73 Cuba,57.85,I22,I23,I44 culturalimperialism,74 currency,SI,73,I63,I64. Seealsounderdollar

Daaldcr,lvo,I2 Davis,Mike,I52 debt,inthirdworld,50,73, I|0—lI DefensePlanningGuidance. Il5—|6 democracy,asjustificationfor imperialism,36,I30, I40—4l,I57,I64 DemocraticParty(U.S.),23,27 deSilva,GV.S.:The Alternatives:Socialismor Barbarism,I55—56 developednations,SI,73, I02,I04,I38 developingnations,II0—lI. Seealsothirdworld development,33,44,SI,52 Dewey,George,I22 dictators,U.S.supportof,I57 divisionoflabor,49;international,|6l Dobbins,JamesF.,II9, I34-35,I36;Iraq:TheDay After.II8 dollar-goldstandard,I4.34. 93-94,I64 dollar(U.S.),50,73,I63 DominicanRepublic,III,144 DuBois,W.E.B.,I27.l3|

EasternEurope,I6,I8,53,62 ecologicaldestruction,l9—20, 33,I50,I53,I54,l59—60 EconomicandPhilosophical Manuscripts(Marx), l50—5l,I53 economicexploitation,77-78, 98.I04.I44

economichegemony.ofU.S.. I09.IIO.lIl;decIineof. I4.I7.52.I56.I65

economicimperialism.66. 69-72.74.75.Seealso imperialism

economicstagnation.23.48. 53.70—7l,I56.I65;holdingolT.II0;monopolies and.43.44.45

Economistmagazine.l07—lI, |2I.I30 economists.42-43.Seealso Marxianeconomics Ecuador.62

ellectivedemand.theoryof,45 Egypt.22

Eisenhower,DwightD..II0 elections:inIraq.MI;in U.S..I07.I67:inVietnam. I63-65

ElSalvador.I5.62.74.I44

Empire(HardtandNegri).I4. 3|.36.76

EmpireSyndrome,I20

Engels.Friedrich,40.42.I5I, l83nI2:Originofthe Family.PrivateProperty. andtheState.I50:ThePart PlayedbyLaborinthe TransformationfromApeto Man,I53

Eni(oilcorporation),93 environmentaldegradation, I9—20,33,I50,I53,I54, I59-60

Ethiopia.I4 Eurodollarmarket,I4 Europe.52,93-94,98;U.S. basesin,57;Western,85, I49,I64.Seealsospecific country

Europeanimperialism,35, 45-46.I00,l54—55,I62. SeealsoBritishimperialism

EuropeanUnion(EU),20,36, 50 exploitation,3l,SI,68,75, 94,ISI;barbarismand, I49:economic,77,78,98, I04,I44:incomedistributionasreflectionof,III

Colosstts.I64;Empire_ l29—30 Iinancialization.SI.53. Il0—I| Ford.Gerald.I34 ForeignAffairsmagazine.67. 68-69.76 foreignaid,I44 foreigninvestment,49,lI0. Seealsoinvestment foreignmarkets,7| foreignpolicy(U.S.),II—l2, 63.97-98.|07—8,II3: geopoliticalstrategyin,84. MI;inVietnamera,72,Ill forwardoperatinglocations (FOLS).62.66,II7 Fourier,Charles.|49—S0 France,l5l;colonialism,I37 Frank,AndreGunder,46 freetrade,99-I00,I44;IOI Friedman,Thomas,I7, l7|-72;TheLexusandthe OliveTree,40 Fulbright,J.William,I34 Funston,Frederick,I25

Gallagher,John,99,lol Garner,Jay,l4|—42 GeneralAgreementofTariffs andTrade(GATT),50,I09 GenevaConvention(I949), I59,I63

GenoaG8protest(200l),3| geopoliticalstrategy,84,I4|. Seealsoforeignpolicy (U.S.)

Germany,83-84,I54,I62 Gitlin,Todd,76-77 globalinstitutions,5I,73, I09-I0

globalization,3I-38,I09; activismagainst,|6—|7,3|, 40,54,62,I20;defined,39; economic,66;offinance, 5|;incomedistributionand, 77-8I;mythsof,52-54; neoliberal,29,39-54 globalwarming,l9—20, I59-60

goldstandard(U.S.),I4,34, 93-94,I64

Grenada.invasionof.I-I.I5. 74.I44.I65

grossdomesticproduct (GDP).49

grossnationalpmdtict(GNP). II9

growthofoutput,33 Guam.I23

GuantanamoBaybase.Cuba, 57.65.I59

Guardian(London).63 Guatemala.IS,74.35.I44 guerrillawarfare.I24,I28. I38,I48:inIraq.I57-58, I6I-,inVietnam.I63-65. Seealsoresistance,organized

GulfWar(l99l),25,32.58. I29,I46,I56;beginningof. I6;blowbackfrom.I5; casualtiesof,36;imperialismsince,Il2—|3;sanctionsafter,22.36

Fallujah,Iraq,I37,I67 Ferguson,Niall,|56—57;

GrandAreaPlanning,84-85 GreatDepression,84 Greece,I44;PersianWarsof,I48

Haass,Richard,I04—5, II5-I6;“Imperial America,"97-98,99,II6; TheReluctantSheriffll5 Hagel,Chuck,I39 Haiti,lI8,I44 Hansen,Alvin,47 Hardt,Michael,I4,3|,76 Harkavy,Robert:GreatPower CompetitionforOverseas Bases.55-56 HarvardReview,69 Haushofer,Karl,7 Hay,John,I22 Hendrickson,DavidC.. II3-I5,Il8 hierarchyofpower,intemational,I06 Hilferding,Rudolf.50; FinanceCapital.42 Hirsch,Michael:AtWarwith Ourselves,II7-I8 Hobson,JohnA.,l0I; lIIIp€fl(IlI.I'lII.'AStudy, 70-7|,I07,I27 holywar(jihad),I5 HongKong,I22 I-loopes,Townsend,I66—67 Howitt:Colonializationand Christianity.I52 I-luberman,Leo,8,45.49

humanrights,I30;violations of.29

Hussein,Saddam,I5.23,H7, I29,I68.I79nI;inIraqItanWar,77.87.88; weaponsinspectionsand.90

lgnatiefl",Michael,I2.68. 98-99,I28,I29

Ikenbeny,G.John,68,94 IMF(lntemationalMonetary Fund),I7,40.S0.73,I09 imperialism:"benevolent." I46;centrifugalandcentripetaltendenciesof,94; criticalanalysisof,70-74; early,83,I38;economic. 66,68,69-72,74,75;failureof,I6I-72;historical phasesof.34,I09;infomtal andfomial,97-I02,I03. I06;IraqWarand,I6], I67—72;logicof,l6l—63; policingtheconceptof.72, 74-77;post-WWII,34-35; “sheriffandposse" approachto,I16;Vietnam Warand,I63-«65;warand. I65—67.SeealsoU.S. imperialism;Bn'tishimperialism;newimperialism

“TheImperialismofFree Trade“(Gallagherand Robinson),99 imperialistrivalry,3|,86,94, l|0,II9,I45;monopoly capitalismand,5l—-52,I02, I03;resurfacingof,53;in I9thcentury,83;U.S.intoleranceof",86

TheImperialTemptation (TuckerandHendrickson), |I3—I5 income,wage,46,I50,I52, I54-55 incomedistribution,44,7|, 77—8I,80,I06,I78 India,45-46,56,79,I52,I62 Indochina,I44,I66.Seealso underVietnam IndochinaWar(I946-I954), I66 Indonesia,37,I44 industrializednations,SI,73, I02,I04,I38

informalimperialism.97—I02. I03.I06 IntemationalCriminalCmtrt.87 intemationalhier:trch_\'of power.I06 intemationallaw.U.S.violationof.28

intentatioualorgttttiztttions. SI,73.l09—I0 intermgation.65.Seealsotorture interventions.military.75-76. 85,I00,I09.I56.Secutilitarism(U.S.);spt.-c(I7t'i"ft"‘verttians investtncnt.44,47.49.70—7|. I|0,I70—7I invisiblehand.ofmarkct.40,53 Iran,22.85,93.I37.I44. I7l;Revolutionin(I979), I4.I5,85,|I2 Iraq,37,I44,I45.I69. I79nI;armedforcesof, I40,I67;bombing0|".I8. 22,90,I57—58;interim govemmentof,I40-4|: invasionofKuwaitby,I6, 23,58;nationbuildingin, I05—6,II5—|6,II8;oil reservesof,I70;policein, I58;sanctionsagainst,22, 36.SeealsoGulfWar Iraq:OneYearLater(Council onForeignRelations). |34—35 Iraq-IranWar(l980-I988), I5,22,77,88 IraqWar(2003-).83-95, l33—42,I44;barbarisnt and,I47;casualtiesof,I33. I46,I58;escalationol‘,I33. l34—37,I36,I40,I42;exit strategy,I35,I40;imperialistfailureof,l6I,I67—72; invasionandoccupationin. 8,l2—I3,67,I04,l57—58, l72;justiI'tcationfor,83, 87-88;organizedresistance in,20,I33,I35,I36—37, I58,I70‘.PhilippineAmericanWarcompared, I28—29,I4I-42;possibility oI'U.S.drallin,|39—40; “staythecourse"slogan. I66-67,I7I,I72;troop deploymentin,59,I36—39, I58,I69,l7|—72;Vietnam

.\.\I\'|'ZI)I\|I'l-'.|II-\I.I.\'.\|

Warcompared.I33—35. I37—40.I42.I58.I67 Islamicfundamentalism,I5. 77.I47.I56,I57 Ismcli-Palestinianconllict,I4, 22.29.93.I70;tmclcar weaponsof.H2,I72 Italy.84

Jackson.HenryM.,I67 Japan,52,63.34.93,94,98;as challengerofBritishetnpire, 83;U.S.occupationof,57; U.S.Securitytreaty,36, 45-46;WWIIdefeatof,85 JeanneKirkpatrick,l34—35 jihad(holywar),I5 jingoism,27 Johnson,Chalmers,65 Johnson,LyndonB.,I66

Kagan,Donald,92 Kalecki,Michal,45,46,50; TheoryofEconomic Dynamics,44 Kaplan,Robert:Imperial Grants,7;WarriorPolitics, 69

“KeepIraqAbovePolitics" (SchlesingerandPickering), I35

Kennedy,EdwardM.,87 Kennedy,JohnF.,I43,I44 Kerry,John,I8—I9,I35,I67 Keynes,JohnMaynard: GeneralTheoryof Employment,Interestand Money,43-44 Khalilzad,Zalmay,63 Kipling,Rudyard,I27.l8|n8; “WhiteMan'sBurden,"7, I2|—3I,I44,I82nl6 Kissinger,Henry,I04;Does AmericaNeedaForeign Policy?.69

Kolko,Gabriel,III Korea,20,I44 KoreanWar(I950-I953),25, 56-57,85

Kosovo,I6,II8,I39.See alsoYugoslavia Kurds.89,I37 Kuwait,22,29,52,59,62,93; Iraqiinvasionof.I6,23.58

KyotoProtocol.I9 Kyrgyzstan.62.63

lahor.I3-I4.33-34.I09, I63:divisionof,46.49.See alsowageincome:workers I.aI.Dcepak.ll Isms.I66

LatinAmerica.I00,IOI.Il0. I62;revolutionsin,85.I63: U.S.basesin.57,62-63.66 Lebanon.22.I44

Lenin.Vladimirlllyich.34.50SI.I0|.I09;Imperialism. 42-43.7|-72.I27

Lihhy.Lewis.I07,II6 liberalism.73.II7.Seealso neolibcralism

I.ib_\'a.22.37

Lindsay.James.I2 LondonObserver.3|,76

Las.4ngclt:r7ime.:I29.I35.|7l LouisianaPurchase(I803),I3 Lul:Oi|.93

Luxemburg.Rosa,38,44,I47. I5-1-56;JuniusPamplilel (TheCrisisinGerman Social-Democracy),I54

McArthur,Arthur,I25

McClureMagazine.I24 Macke,RichardC.,65 McKinley,William,I23,I24 McNamara,Robert,I9 Magdoff,Harry,8,9,37-38, I46;TheAgeof Imperialism.49-50,67, 72-74,I08-I2,II8, |I9—20;colonialismand, I05,I06;Globalization, 5|-52;Imperialismwithout Colonies.I06;VietnamWar and.I37—38 Malaysia.37 Mallaby,Sebastian,68 Mann,Michael:Incoherent Empire,I3 Marcus.Jonathon,l2l Marx.Karl,39-4I,50,72, I47,l50—54;barbarism and.I50-53,I60,|83nI2; IirlmologicalNotebooks. I50;“TheFuturcResultsof theBritishRuleinIndia,"

I52;"TheGenesisofthe IndustrialCapitalist."I62; treadmillmetaphorof. I50-5|.I53.I58.Seealso Capital Marxianeconomics.8.43. 50-53.68.74:imperialism theory.7|-72.8|.I00-I03. I28.Seealsomonopoly capitalism Meszams.Istvan.33-36,52. I20.I57;Socialismor Bnrharism_I9,25.33.35.36 MicrosollCorporation.I20 MiddleEast.83.I4I.I44, I64;basesin.57.59.62, 64.66;Europeanimperialismin.I54-55;GrandArea Planningin,85;implicationsofU.S.defeatin, |69—70;mediacoverageof, 28:U.S.in,I6,22,lI2, I65.Seealsooilandoil reserves;specificcountries Milanovic,Branko,80 militarism(U.S.),35,75,II6, I36,l44—45,I65;bombing oflraq,I8,22,90,|57—58; capitalismand,2I-25;economichegemonyand,I7, I00;interventionismand, 75-76,85,I00,I09,I56;in MiddleEast,I6,22,H2, I65;post-ColdWar,I6,23, 48,I46;post-September llth,I04,II7,I29;rootsof, Il0

militarybasesystem(U.S.), I2,I8,55-66,77,I65. I76;activismagainst, 64-65;inCentralAsia,I8, 62,63,66,93,I44;expansionof,I45.I63,l77n||; forwardoperatinglocations,62,66,H7;functions of,59;inMiddleEast,57, 59,62,64,66; overseas/foreign,byregion (I947-I988),57;post-Cold War,53-64,II7;postWWII,56-57;assystemof occupation,35,64;during VietnamWar,|37—38;vs. Britishimperialbasesystem,55-56,66;worldmap of,60—6|

militaryspeiidittg.I2.27.43. 95.I45.I56 niilitary(l.|.S.).36.I33.I45; atrocitiesb_\'.65.I25-26. I40.I46;rebellionwithin. I6-I;assupportforcorporations.I7;troopsdeploymentand.59.I36.l37—3‘l. I58.I69,l7l-72.Seealso militarism(U.S.):Pentagon‘. U.S.DefenseDepartment ModalitiesforSensitiveSite Inspections(U.N.).90 Mommsen.WolfgangJ.: TheoriesofImperialism. I00 MonopolyCapital(Baranand Sweezy).46.47-49 monopolycapitalism,I7, 39-54,70,7],I03.l7Bnl2; barbarismand,I56;corporationsand,|02—3,I75nl|; as“deadliestphaseofimperialism,"34,52;growthof, I09;lawsofmotionof,46; monopolization,53;new globalizationand,39-40, 50-54;realizationcrisis theory,45;stagnationand, 43;theoryof,4|-44,43, 50-52,5|;U.S.economic andsocialorderand,45-50. Seealsoglobalization MonroeDoctrine,I5 MonsantoCompany,I20 MonthlyReview.8-9,45.49, 53,74,l37—38 Morgan,J.P.,43 Morgan,LewisHenry: AncientSociety,I50 MoroMassacre(Philippines), l26—27,I29 Mossadeghgovemment (Iran),85 Moussa,Amir,I57 multilatcralism,II6,Il7—l8 multinationalcorporations,|9 40.53,74,I03.I20,I44 Murray,Alan,I28 Muslims:Shiite,I37,I40; Sunni,I37.Seealsounder lslain Nader,Ralph,I39-40 NapoleonicWars,I62

NationalLiberationFront (Vietnam),I66

NationalSecurityCouncil (U.S.),63,I34-35 NationalSecurityStrategyof theUnitedStatesof America(2002).I2.I8.67, 86-87.II7.I65

nationbuilding,I0-I-6,IN, ||5,|I7—|8,I63 naturalgas.77,I04,I4I; pipelines,63 naturalresources.Seeoiland oilreserves;rawmaterials Negri,Antonio,[4,3|,76 Negroponte.JohnD..I-I0 neoconservatism,I|—I2.I8. II4.II6,I28.Seealso cabaltheory neoliberalglobalization,29.39, 54.Seealsoglobalimtion neolibemlism,78,79,I28.I4I NewAmericanCentury. II6—I7,II8

NewEnglandAnti-Imperialist League,I23,I27 newimperialism,67—8I.68, 77,|07—20,I28;Ageof Imperialismand,l08—l2; cabaltheoryand,I07—8. |l8—20;post-Gull‘War, II2—l8.Seealsoimperialism;newworldorder NewLefl,46 newsmedia(U.S.),25-29,3I, 63,98,I33.SeealsospecI_'/icsources newworldorder,32-33,52, 53,58,76.II3 NewI’orkTimes,I7,3|, 63-64,67,I36;Friedman in,|7I—72;Gitlinin. 76-77;Poslrelin,78-79 NewYork77mesMagazine, 68,98-99 Nicaragua,I4,I5,74,I44 NikonKeizaiShlmbun(newspaper),65 Nixon,Richard,I4,34,I34 NobelCommittee,I27,I8|n8 NorthAtlanticTreaty Organization(NATO),I6, 3675

NorthKorea,20 nuclearweapons,I9,20,Il2, I72;WMDs,83,87,89-90,

I-II.I44.I63.Seealso underweapons Nussbauni,Bruce.I35-36 occupation.I28-29.I35‘.of Afghanistan.67,II8;of Iraq.8.I2—|3.IJ3—39,mo. l57—58.I72:militarybases and.35.64

OlliceofI-lomelandSecurity (U.S.).24

oilandoiln:serves.77. III-I3.II9.I37,I4I,I72: consumptionol‘.I4,29,92, I7t)—7l:controlof,85, 9I—93.I4l.I60,I70;corporations.85,92-93,I04, H2:inIraq,92,I04,II4, I70;pipelines,63-64,93; sabotageof,I58,I70; strategicsignificanceof, Il4—I5,|70—7I;worldmap 0|".9|.SeealsoMiddleEast Okinawa,57.65

OkinawaWomenActAgainst MilitaryViolence,65 Oman,52.93

OPEC(Organizationof PetroleumExporting Countries),I4,92,I70 OperationDesertFox,90 Onvell,George:I984,I55

Pacificregion,56,I22,I23, l4I,I64;U.S.basesin,57, 65.Seealsospecificcountries Pakistan,62,63,64,93 Palestine,22,29,93,I70,I72 Panama,62,74,I44,I65 Paris,TreatyoI(I899),I23, I24

Palnaik,Prabhat,98-99; “WhateverHappenedto lntperialism?“,74

PMAmericana.55,I|6—|7, I43—46.

Pentagon,23,36,74-75, |77nlI.Seealsomilitary (U.S.);U.S.Defense Department

PentagonI’aper,I|S—|6 Perle,Richard,I07 PersianGull‘,I5,22,III-I3,

\\kI'II)I\II'l'IIll‘\l.l.\'.\|

lI5.II9.I70

Philippine-AmericanWar (I899-I902).I3,I22—27; ImqWarcompared.I28. I29,I4l—42;revisedhistoryol‘.I57;U.S.atrocities in,|25—26 Philippines,37,64,76,|2I, I44,I82

Pickering,Thomas.|34—35.I7l PlanColumbia,59,62 Poslrel.Virginia:“TheRich GetRicherandthePoorget Poorer,"78-7‘) Post-SecondWorldWarera, I3,84-85;militarybases in,56-57;U.S.hegemony in,52,II9,|62—63.See alsoColdWar PotsdamConference(I945),56 poverty,I50,I5|.Seealso incomedistribution Powell,Colin,23,H6,I35. I36

PowellDoctrine,|35—36 “PoxAmericana"(MagdoIT andSweezy),I46 preventivewar,I2,86,II6, I44,I56,I65 production,46,48,70-7I, I02,IIO,I58;barbarism and,I48,I50;controlof, 33;costof,44;andendof freecompetition.42;low levelsof,47;modesof, I55;Taylorismand,49 profits,72,73;margins,44, I45;searchfor,8| ProjectfortheNewAmerican Century,I8 propaganda,25-29,87-88. I4l,I6|,I66 protests.Seeactivism;specific prolesls PuertoRico,62,65,I23 Qatar,59.62,93

racism,68.‘)8,I27,I3|. RandCorporation,l34—3S, I36

Rangel.Charles,I39 rape,I25;prostitutionand.65 ra\vmaterials,I00,l0I.I09.

III,|4|,I-IS.Seealsooil andoilreserves

Reagan,Ronald,I34-35; administration.89,I46

RebuildingAmericait Defenses(Projectforthe NewAmericanCentury), I8.||6—I7

‘regimechange,"87.90,92. 93.I04,I2I,|79nl RepublicanParty(U.S.).23. 27.H8.I35

resistance,organized.I38. I40;inIraqWar.20.I33. I35,I36—37.I58.I70;in Philippines-AmericanWar, 124-25.I29;inVietnam War,I34 revolutionsandrevolts.20. 5|.I20.I22,I26,I44;barborisrnand,I52;inthird world.20.85.I08,I09. I63.I65

Ritter.Scott.90

Robinson,Joan.42.44

Robinson.Ronald.99,IOI RomanEmpire.4,67-68, |48—49.I53

Roosevelt,FranklinD.,43 Roosevelt,Theodore,I24, I26,I27

Rosen.StephenPeter,69 rulingclass,inU.S.,24-25, l|3,II7,I34,l42;assumptionsof,II5;denialofimperialismby,97-98:foreign policyand,II9;troop deploymentand,I38;“white man'sburden"and,I30

Rumsfeld,Donald.88,I07, II6,I35,I36,I60 Russia.63,I52.Seealso SovietUnion

Sandinistas(Nicaragua),I5 SaudiArabia,29,62,92;U.S. basesin,64,77,93

Schlesinger,Jantes,I34—35, I59,|7|

Schuinpeter,Joseph,86;“The SociologyoIlmperia|isms," 86

SeattleWTOprotest(I999), I7,3|,I20 SeptemberII(200I),7-8,2|,

36.87.94.I56.I65;as attackonintperialisnr,37; asblowbackfrontGulfWar. IS;U.S.militarismand.23. 59-60.74-75.I04.II7. I29

Shaller.William.I25

Shaltoflran.I5

SinaiPeninsula.22.I39 Singer.Daniel:II'lro.re .lIillermiturt.".I60

Sino-JapaneseWar(I894I895).70 slavery,I49.I62

Sntith.Adam,40.53 Smith.Jacob,I25 socialism.20.38,I48,I54,I60 Somalia,22,II8.I44 SouthAsia,U.S.basesin.56, 57,62-63,66

SouthKorea,20,I44.See alsoKoreanWar

Soviet-AfghanWar(I979I988),I57,I65

Sovietbloc,collapseof, |5—I6,I8,58,85,I46,I56 SovietUnion,42,I08,I43, I44;endof,I7,84,98,I04, II2—I3,II7;sphereof influenceof,62,84

Spanish-AmericanWar (I898),|3,57,70,l2I, I22,I23,I27

Spartaeism,I54. Stalinisrn,42.SeealsoSoviet Union

statusofforcesagreements,52 Steel,Ronald:Pax Americana,I43-44,I45—46 Steindl,Josef,44,45;Maturity andStagnationinAmerican Capitalism,44,45 stockmarket,23-24,28,4| Storey,Moorfield,I27 Strabo:Geography,I48—49 SubicBaybase,Philippines, 64-65 Sudan,22,37 SuezCanal,56 superpowers:Chinaasemerging,20,36,52;U.S.assole, 75,98,I04,|I3,I33,I46. SeealsoSovietUnion; UnitedStatesofAmerico supranationalorganizations, SI,73,I09——I0

surplus.46,48.70»7|.‘)8. H6;extractionol".5|.IOI. II0;investment-seeking.47 Sweezy.Paul.8.50-5I.53. I37—3II.I46.I76—77nlI; .Ilonopol_vCapital.-I3.45. 46.47-48,49:post~Gu|I Warmilitarismttnd,37-38: TheTlri-or_vof(‘apila/is! Dewlupnreitt.45 Syria.37

Tnjikistttn,62 Tnlibnngovemment (Afgltanislttn),24.63 Tenet,GeorgeJ.,88 terrorism,I5,20.64.I35, I47,I56;countcrterrorism and,2|;U.S.involvement in,29,37,38,I57.Seealso WaronTerrorism;specific actsofterrrori.rm thirdworld,I3—I4,45-46,87. l7I;debtin.50,73, Il0—II;revolutionsin,20. 85,I08,I09,I63.I65.See alsocenterandperiphery Timemagazine.3|.76-77 torture,I25,I40.I46,I50, |5|.|58—59 TotaIFina|E|f(oilcorporation),93

Toynbee,AmoldzAmericaand theWorldRevolution.55 Truman,Harry,56 Tucker,RobcnW.,I|3—l5, II8;TheRadicalLeftand AmericanForeignPolicy, |ll—l2 Turkey,62,93.I37 Twain,Mark.I23,l26—27

underdeveloptnerrt,33,34,37‘ 45-46.lI0.I52 unemployment.33,I38 unipolarworld,riseof,93-95, I08,I|3,l|7—l8

U.N.HumanDevelopment Report,78 UnitedNations(UN): SecurityCouncil,I40; weaponsinspection,87, 88-92,I79nI

U.S.DefenseDepartment,59,

ll5,I67,I77nll;Base StructureReport(200l).59. 62;DefensePlanning Guidance.l7—l8.Seealso military,U.S.;Pentagon U.S.imperialism:breakout strategyof,94-95;25“burden,"98;goalsof,I45: post-ColdWar,l5—|8, I03—6;post-WWII,I10; |9th-century,83;U.S.lell and,72,74,76-77,II8;vs. Britishimperialism,67-68, 78,98;vs.imperialismof past,35,49,8|,86,II3—I5. Seealsoimperialism UnitedStatesofAmerica:citizensof,25,29,I64; DepartmentofCommerce, 89;DepartmentofEnergy, 92;economicandsocial orderof,45-50;economic hegemonyof,I4,I7,I00. I09,IIO,III,I65;election (2000),I07;election(2004), I67;asempireofbarbarism, 156-60;EnergyInformation Agency(EIA),I70;foreign policyof,Il—|2,63,97-98. l07—8,III,lI5;as“guns andbutterempire,"I57; lntemationalCriminalCourt and,87;NationalSecurity Council,90;National SecurityStrategy(2002), 12,I8,67,86-87,II7,I65; assolesuperpower,75,98, I04,II3,I33,I46;State Department,84,II6;strategicpolicyof,86-87; SupremeCourt,I07;asterroristforce,29,37,38,I57; asworldpoliceman,I38. SeealsoU.S.imperialism; Congress(U.S.);militarism (U.S.);military(U.S.) U.S.Steel,43 UnocalCorporation,63,64 Uzbekistan,62

Veblen,Thorstein,43,50,84; TheTheoryofBusiness Enterprise,42 Venezuela,20,62 Versailles,Treatyof(l9l8),84

Vieques.PucrtoRico.65 liernam:TheEndless|l’ar (Huberman,Sweezyand Magdofl),8 VietnamSyndrome,I4.I20. I42.I64,l76—77n8 VietnamWar(I964-I975),I4, 25.32,49.85.H2‘. activismagainst.72;geopoliticalanalysisof,I64—65; IraqWarcompared, I33—35,I37—40,I42,I58, I67;mediacoverageof,28; TetOffensive,I66;U.S. basesand,56-57;U.S. defeatin.145,|63—65;U.S. justificationfor,I08 vonStorch,Heinrich Friedrich.I5|

WackenhutCorrections Corporation,I20 wageincome,46,I50,I52, |54—5S WallStreet,23-24,28 WallStreetJournal.69,I13 war,5|-52,I27,I62,I63—67; asymmetricformsof,I20; civil,85,98,II7,I58,I69; justilicationfor,86-92, I08;preventive,I2,86, II6,I44,I56,I65;technologyand,I38.Seealso undermilitarism(U.S.); specificwars WaronTerrorism,2I-29, I04,II6,I39,I44,I56; blowbacltto,64;commencementof,36:endlessnessof,I60;asimperialistic,37,66,98;international relationsand,68;militarism and,2l—25,59,75;occupationand,I05;propaganda and,2|,25-29,88.Seealso terrorism

WashingtonI’osI.68,I29 weapons,22,24,38,65,I44; aerial,35;barbarismand, I55;chemicalandbiological,88-89;dcstmctiveness ofmodern,I20;developmentof,I45;nuclear,I9, 20,II2;resistancemovemcntsand,I38;superiority

N.-\KI'l|)l.\|I’|'III|_-\|.I.\'.\I

ol'U.S..I58 weaponsinspection(U.N.). 87,88-92.I79nl_ weapons0|‘massdestruction (WMDs),83,87,89-90. l4I,I44

Westmoreland,William.I65

Whitehead,AlfredNonh.33 “whiteman‘sburden,“I3,25. 68,I57,I79

“TheWhiteMan'sBurden" (Kipling),7,l28—3|,I44. l82nl6

Williams,WilliamApplemn» Ill

Wolfowitz,Paul,I8,I07,|I5. II6

Wood,Leonard,I27 workers,34,46,I39;degradationol‘,49,|50—5|,I52 WorldBank,I7,39-40.50, 79,80,|78nl9—20;China and,79 WorldDevelopmentReport. 39-40 worldincomedistribution,80 worldmarket,32,42,50. 5l—52,I02,|l0 WorldSummitonSustainable Development,78 WorldTradeCenter,36.See alsoSeptemberIt(200|) WorldTradeOrganization (WTO),40,SI,75,79; I999Seattleprotestof,I7. 3I,I20. WorldWarI,25,56,83,I54. I62

YomKippurWnr(I973).l4 Yugoslavia.I6,62,98,II7, I45,I65