 |
Over at the ever-worthy-of-reading Obsidian Wings, Edward takes issue with a Belmont Club article about our evolving concept of modern warfare, suggesting that it strays into rhetorical territory that takes us down a road that Rome tread to its peril.
The issue of American imperialism--whether it truly exists and whither it takes us--festers nastily beneath many of the arguments about the Iraq War and the PNAC dreams that fuel this administration's foreign policy. Like fascism and Hitler references, it is a loaded term that is frequently misused by the left--which is unfortunate, because it is a word which has a critical place at the table in any discussion of American foreign policy.
I indulged in a brief shot at Bird Dog of Tacitus fame in the comments of the linked ObWi post after BD suggested the following: In short, I disagree with you because I think you're conflating imperialism and influence, in effect defining imperialism over broadly. Allow me to apologize in advance for picking on you, BD, because this isn't your shortcoming alone: I believe that many of the people who support Bush's plan for remaking the Middle East and the PNAC plan in general for American leadership (read: dominance) in global affairs are in fact the ones who are misusing the word "imperialism" by refusing to acknowledge that it by definition describes their stated goals and aims: im·pe·ri·al·ism n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government. The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less independent of each other for operations of war, copyright, internal commerce, etc. I realize some out there in Blogistan feel that pointing out the ideological connections between the PNAC and the Bush Administration is a dead horse which has been beaten into dog food. I disagree. There is room for reasonable disagreement about whether or not the PNAC's principles--and by extension, this administration's stated and unstated goals for American global leadership--are the correct course for this country to set.
But imperialism is as imperialism does. If you're not ashamed of your policies, then you shouldn't be afraid to call them what they are.
Posted by Catsy at 08:52 AM
| Comments (0)
| TrackBack (1)
Comments:
|
|
