Liberal Hawkish Bastards
If you want to find the blueprints for the US imperial grand strategy, you needn't look to a Republican or a Right-Wing Hawk.
Look to those cozy Liberal "doves," like Jimmy Carter's (supposively the most "liberal" and "progressive" US President) former Secretary of State, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
His book, "The Grand Cheesboard," is a classic among political scientists--which are, of course, white males with grand notions of "History" and the santity of "the State" and other white supremacist/partiarchal madness.
In the book, he details plans to surround China with military bases and zones of influence, encroach on traditionally Russian-dominated zones of influence, and maintain control of the Middle East and Central Asia for oil.
He talks about Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, but crucially mentions nothing of Africa or Latin America, not to even mention India, a rising world power.
Why?
In 1997, when the book was written, it was assumed that international monetary institutions under US control would keep these regions tame. Of course, recent Lating American defiance of the US has put all of these assumptions in check.
But I don't mean to miss the forest for the trees.
Here's the thing: Hillary Clinton is more hawkish on Iran than Bush has been (at least rhetorically), John Kerry would have done very little to rebuild our social welfare system--all he would have done was raise taxes enough to actually pay for what we have--Bill Clinton may have been one of the most aggressive President's in foreign policy in history, Jimmy Carter oversaw one of the most heinous genocidal actions committed by a US client in history (Indonesia in East Timor and Indonesia on its own population), Lyndon Johnson escalated a war that murdered three million people and which led to the rise of a regime in Cambodia which murdered another 2 million--that Cambodian regime, it is not reported in American textbooks, was destroyed by the Vietnamese army the US fought to annihilate . . . perhaps one of the few cases of a REAL HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. John Kennedy launched a massive terrorist war on Cuba, oversaw violent coups, turned away Soviet attempts to de-escalate tensions, etc.
OK, Truman established the whole military industrial complex in the aftermath of World War II: he shifted government intervention in the economy from social programs to militarization which basically means our tax dollars (most taxes come from the middle class) are put into the bank accounts of wealthy businessmen who are in the business of making bombs. He allowed no public debate. He also sent Japanese fascist police to terrorize their former colony of Korea.
FDR narrowly avoided revolution by launching a piss-poor New Deal, which did accomplish a lot to keep people from starving (preventing revolution) but ultimately failed, to be succeeded by World War II/Trumanesque militarization. He also oversaw some of America's greatest war crimes: the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and the rest of Japan.
Woodrow Wilson put forward a white supremacist plan for elite white capitalist states to quit fighting amongst themselves in order to join together in the common project of destroying the rest of the world and devouring the labor and resources of browner peoples.
THE LIST GOES ON. THESE ARE ALL DEMOCRATS, AND THEY ALL HELPED CONSTRUCT THE CURRENT IMPERIALIST SYSTEM OF THE US GOVERNMENT. DON'T BE FOOLED AT THE POLLS, FIGHT FOR A NEW WAY, NOT THE SAME OLD HAWKISH LIBERAL BASTARDS DRESSED UP IN POST-1960'S PUBLIC RELATIONS BULLSHIT.
Look to those cozy Liberal "doves," like Jimmy Carter's (supposively the most "liberal" and "progressive" US President) former Secretary of State, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
His book, "The Grand Cheesboard," is a classic among political scientists--which are, of course, white males with grand notions of "History" and the santity of "the State" and other white supremacist/partiarchal madness.
In the book, he details plans to surround China with military bases and zones of influence, encroach on traditionally Russian-dominated zones of influence, and maintain control of the Middle East and Central Asia for oil.
He talks about Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, but crucially mentions nothing of Africa or Latin America, not to even mention India, a rising world power.
Why?
In 1997, when the book was written, it was assumed that international monetary institutions under US control would keep these regions tame. Of course, recent Lating American defiance of the US has put all of these assumptions in check.
But I don't mean to miss the forest for the trees.
Here's the thing: Hillary Clinton is more hawkish on Iran than Bush has been (at least rhetorically), John Kerry would have done very little to rebuild our social welfare system--all he would have done was raise taxes enough to actually pay for what we have--Bill Clinton may have been one of the most aggressive President's in foreign policy in history, Jimmy Carter oversaw one of the most heinous genocidal actions committed by a US client in history (Indonesia in East Timor and Indonesia on its own population), Lyndon Johnson escalated a war that murdered three million people and which led to the rise of a regime in Cambodia which murdered another 2 million--that Cambodian regime, it is not reported in American textbooks, was destroyed by the Vietnamese army the US fought to annihilate . . . perhaps one of the few cases of a REAL HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. John Kennedy launched a massive terrorist war on Cuba, oversaw violent coups, turned away Soviet attempts to de-escalate tensions, etc.
OK, Truman established the whole military industrial complex in the aftermath of World War II: he shifted government intervention in the economy from social programs to militarization which basically means our tax dollars (most taxes come from the middle class) are put into the bank accounts of wealthy businessmen who are in the business of making bombs. He allowed no public debate. He also sent Japanese fascist police to terrorize their former colony of Korea.
FDR narrowly avoided revolution by launching a piss-poor New Deal, which did accomplish a lot to keep people from starving (preventing revolution) but ultimately failed, to be succeeded by World War II/Trumanesque militarization. He also oversaw some of America's greatest war crimes: the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, and the rest of Japan.
Woodrow Wilson put forward a white supremacist plan for elite white capitalist states to quit fighting amongst themselves in order to join together in the common project of destroying the rest of the world and devouring the labor and resources of browner peoples.
THE LIST GOES ON. THESE ARE ALL DEMOCRATS, AND THEY ALL HELPED CONSTRUCT THE CURRENT IMPERIALIST SYSTEM OF THE US GOVERNMENT. DON'T BE FOOLED AT THE POLLS, FIGHT FOR A NEW WAY, NOT THE SAME OLD HAWKISH LIBERAL BASTARDS DRESSED UP IN POST-1960'S PUBLIC RELATIONS BULLSHIT.