Over There
1/11/2006
Here is the opening paragraph from a USO solicitation for donations I received addressed to my dead mother the other day:
Freedom isn't free; it has to be paid for, over and over again. Know one knows this better than the young Americans now fighting terror and tyranny - in dusty deserts, on frozen mountainsides, and in dangerous places all over the world. These brave men and women put their lives on the line for us, every day of the year.
Can you imagine how we would view such ridiculous hyperbole if it was a letter from the Italian government? The former Soviet Union? Cuba?
I am not mentioning the above countries flippantly. All of them, in their own words, have sent their armies “overseas to fight tyranny.” Each time they did, (Italy to Ethiopia, Soviet Union to Afghanistan, Cuba to Angola…sounds like a Risk game!!!) the majority of the “free world,” with the United States leading the charge, denounced them as “belligerent” “aggressive” and “unjustified.” In fact we were so offended by these country’s obvious imperial ambitions that we fought wars, both hot and cold, against them to prevent their further expansion.
The letter continues that the USO provides crucial services to the 200,000 troops overseas. I support the USO but this letter has led me to wonder, why do we have so many troops overseas?
The answer, you might say, is the war in Iraq. Obviously when you try to prosecute a war, no matter how ineptly, you will require manpower. But that doesn’t explain the outrageous number of bases and troop deployments we have all over the world. These bases have been in existence for all of my lifetime. Even the USO letter states that they, “…have mounted 42 entertainment tours to 22 countries in the past 12 months.” Why are our troops in 22 countries? Are all of them “fighting for freedom?”
Why do we just accept that it is our God given right to have military bases, weapons and troops whenever and wherever the hell we want? Why do we assume our motives are benign? And when another nation dares to exercise their democratic sovreignty, the thing that we supposedly cherish the most, we ridicule and belittle making me wonder if we really believe in the things we supposedly believe in. (Freedom Fries anybody?)
Again, I suggest that you think of the same situation except instead of the apple pie loving United States on top it is the government of China pulling the strings.
Doesn’t sound too cool or justified does it?
I know freedom isn’t free…
the last five years of this administration has proved that.
Larry
posted by Larry B | 10:29 AM
1 Comments:
Hey D-rod
I vaguely remember GWB talking about pulling out of certain bases specifically South Korea. But you're probably right and it will never happen.
And I do agree that some countries actually "ask us" to be there and although some of these requests are completely legitimate, we also have to be careful as to who we think is doing the asking.
Sometimes the request comes from a friendly government existing of that country's upper powerstructure that we have installed/ and or propped up in the first place to give us the veneer of being benevolent when in reality the overwhelming majority of the actual people do not want us there.
Kind of like when Dick Cheney sent Chalabi to the New York Times to tell their reporter that it is confirmed that Sadam definitely has the beginnings of nuclear weapons. The reporter writes a story repeating these "facts" then Cheney goes on TV and refers to the article as evidence to support our need to invade. It is completely circular but obviously works.
But what is is what is and, I am sure, as a citizen of the United States, I benefit materialisticly from the creation of, what I would describe as, spheres of influence all around the world. At least in a Ronald Reagan trickle down sort of way.
But in my post, I was just pointing out that it is interesting that we, as a people, completely accept our acting agressively and unilaterally for "our national interst" (which I believe Chris Rock described as "White people or oil") when, in reality, our foreign policy actions are not that disimilar from many (all?) other countries who we label as tyrannical or evil.
And what exactly is the "National Interest"? Are these wars and deployments in the benefit of the basic working class person or are they to benefit the top two-percent that would only interact with someone like myself if I was parking their car?
That is where catchphrases like "spreading freedom and democracy" come in. What is particularly galling is that these goals the administration cynically pretend to purport actually DO have great meaning and power but now, because of this reckless administration, are cheapened slogans covering up an imperialistic agenda.
Do you want proof?
As I mentioned before, when we first entered into this mess, what reason did the administration give for invading Iraq? It was Sadam's possesion of WMDs and his wild-eyed maniacal plan for world domination. In other words, the administration used and fostered a climate of fear and hate created by the terrorist attack (by Saudis)on 9/11 and scared the Americann People into supporting an aggressive "pre-emptive" invasion of a country that actually had nothing to do with it. When no WMDs showed up, the raison d’être became "spreading democracy" and "freeing the Iraqi people" whom, I am sure, the people in charge do not care one iota about.
But they have to say things like that because their real goal was to have a semi-permanent base in the Middle East to either directly seize or at least prop up someone who will keep "the rubes" in line while our companies do bussiness there. This has been a goal of a certain section of our government since the Shah of Iran, who was a ruthless, illegitimate monarch/dictator/torturer that the United States kept in power for thirty years, was deposed in 1979.
Do you think that the majority of Americans would continue to be so passive and/or supportive of the current policies if George W would say that we are sustaining this action to add an extra zero to my buddy's bank account?
Believe me, I am not naive about the situation either. As long as the concept of sovreignty exists, these kinds of actions will continue. And, in certain cases, are actually absolutely neccessary.
I just ask that the base alloy of hypocracy be removed when doing it because before we become a truly enlightened state, we have to, at a bare minimum, at least recognize our motives when making our choices.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home