Myth: Guns and butter forever and lower taxes truth: No more butter
By
Saul Landau Read Spanish Version
"We’re
still spending like we weren’t at war…. We can’t have guns and
butter both at the same time.”
—Fred
Thompson,
campaigning in Iowa, October 2007
We
all learned — again — truth occupies a unique space in American
politics: the taboo corner. I don’t refer to John McCain’s
“always putting my country first,” or his pious skewering of
special interests; or Barack Obama’s solemn oath to escalate the
war in Afghanistan and kill Bin Laden.
During
the first (September 26) Presidential debate, moderator Jim Lehrer
didn’t ask: “How will either candidate find money to expand the
war in Afghanistan (which both want to do), maintain U.S. military
strength everywhere (761 bases), and invade Iran and/or Pakistan,
while cutting spending (McCain) or repairing broken educational
systems and other infrastructure (Obama)? Do you plan to borrow more
from the Chinese and Saudis as U.S. credit ratings drop to just above
junk bond levels or just print money?”
Truth?
That’s painful. Ask the man McCain boasts of having as a foreign
policy adviser. When Kissinger reigned as Secretary of State and
National Security Adviser under Nixon he totally buffaloed the media,
but couldn’t withdraw from Vietnam “with honor” in 1975. Since
Kissinger’s departure from affairs of State, his legacy has taken
firm root.
In
the mid 1970s, the media attending K’s “background briefings”
hired a psychiatrist to help them distinguish lies from truth.
Disguised as a reporter, the shrink attended several sessions, called
the press corps together and informed them: “When K plays with his
glasses, it’s a sign of veracity. When he rubs his thighs and
clasps his hands like a school boy, expect veracity. When he opens
his mouth to talk, he’s lying.”
Lying
has become the norm. Even after the United States lost the Vietnam
War and killed up to 4 million Vietnamese, while destroying large
parts of their countryside with Agent Orange and bombs, some
resentful hawks maintained that the victorious Vietnamese hadn’t
played fair. As Vietnam struggled to count its dead and rebuild from
more massive bombing than Germany and Japan experienced during World
War II, Washington whined about them not returning all the MIAs. The
media and politicians didn’t ask: what did Vietnam do that caused
us to invade them and bomb them to smithereens? To this day, some
hard cases still whimper “they” didn’t let us win.
Two
decades earlier, Eisenhower quit in Korea. Only a much decorated
General could carry this off! He understood the United States could
not win an Asian land war. A Big Fat Truth!
The
United States cannot win in Iraq or Afghanistan. At best, it can
leave an Iraqi army and police force with loyalties closer to Iran
than to Washington. Iran has already gained regional prominence
thanks to Bush’s demolition of Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-led
rule.
Look
at the traditional “backyard,” for a dramatic example of
declining U.S. influence. Although its official funeral has not yet
taken place, several Latin American leaders treat the Monroe Doctrine
as a virtual corpse. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez
gleefully embraced Russian military advisers and referred to the
United States government as “Yankis
de mierda.”
Washington encouraged an unsuccessful coup in 2002, but has not
really punished him. Indeed, each barrel of Venezuelan oil bought by
the United States enriches Chavez’
rule.
When
a pseudo secessionist movement erupted in Bolivia in August, the
United States predictably backed the rich and the white against the
poor and dark-skinned Indians. Then, under Chilean leadership, Latin
American nations met and backed President Evo Morales in his effort
to maintain Bolivian sovereignty and integrity. Washington was not a
player.
Ecuadorian
President Rafael Correa evicted a U.S. military base — supposedly
drug-war related. In the summer, Bush sent the Fourth Fleet sailing
south to show power. Latin American editorials sneered and groaned.
Finally, Bush explained that his effort related to humanitarian
concerns. One of the ships had a few beds and a few doctors to treat
patients — a ridiculous effort to compete with the tens of thousands
of Cuban doctors that had treated vast numbers of poor Latin
Americans over the decades and trains gratis their young people to
become doctors.
U.S.
diplomats did no better in Asia, when ideologically rigid neo
liberals failed to get North Korea to denuclearize. The giant power
under Bush run by the neo cons got no settlement in the Middle East,
and even intervened poisonously in the Georgian President’s
military battle with Russia in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The
rest of the world sees the U.S. Empire as an overreaching and out of
control colossus. But our own political leaders refuse to admit they
run an empire.
As
world markets shudder, most dramatically in the United States,
columnists foresee the end of the American Century, which began in
1945.
“Having
created the conditions that produced history’s biggest bubble,
America’s political leaders appear unable to grasp the magnitude of
the dangers the country now faces,” wrote John Gray. “Mired in
their rancorous culture wars and squabbling among themselves, they
seem oblivious to the fact that American global leadership is fast
ebbing away. A new world is coming into being almost unnoticed, where
America is only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain
future it can no longer shape.” (The
Guardian,
September 28, 2008)
Gray
refers to neo liberalism’s twin pillars, absolute military power
and unconditional free market economics. He reminded readers how
President George “Free Market” Bush attacked other national
leaders’ lack of discipline in applying neo liberal models. Bush
now demands urgently that Congress authorize massive government
intervention in the economy.
Of
course, most third world countries had already experienced the woes
of IMF free market models. Angry Americans now hurl curses
at bankers, investors and brokers. They ruined the economy at home.
China, whose government laughed at neo liberal models, continued to
buy U.S. paper. None of its major banks have yet collapsed. Instead,
China celebrates the return of its astronauts from their space jaunt.
U.S. investment in scientific research shrinks.
Once
the world’s rule and law maker, U.S. leaders have proven unreliable
in the extreme. In 1945, Washington insisted on establishing rules
for starting wars at the Nuremberg trials. Having established the
absolute illegality of aggressive (preemptive) wars, Washington
engaged in several of these — including Vietnam and Iraq. The laws,
as the rest of the world discovered, applied to them, not to the
United States.
On
the economic front, Washington demanded from the world its neo
liberal fiscal orthodoxy. Then, countering one of the “free market”
ideology’s key dictates, it began borrow staggering sums. Chinese
and Saudi loans helped finance Bush’s tax cuts.
Arab
petro-states and Japan contributed loans so U.S. troops could die and
kill in Afghanistan and Iraq and occupy bases everywhere.
Candidate
McCain blames the financial collapse on greed. He and Obama offered
sheepish support of a modified bailout plan. McCain wants to curtail
government but expand its bailout role and its military operations —
as does Obama. This means more borrowing from abroad.
What
a plunge from greatness! Franklin D. Roosevelt believed a UN could
steer a path that muted aggressive imperial behavior. Like
Eisenhower, FDR understood that once engaged in global militarism
even the strongest economy must bend. World War I irrevocably damaged
England and France. Germany resurged from defeat to assert imperial
ambitions — and then got destroyed, and divided for four plus
decades.
The
Soviet Union’s Waterloo came in Afghanistan and in the arms race
when it could not outspend its rival.
Bush’s wars have cost $1 trillion or more. A self-called
compassionate
conservative
has spent the world’s largest economy into a bottomless pit of
debt. Bush
still pushes a dubious missile defense as authority oozes from
Washington, tied down in two wars and scurrying to save its credit
market. Russia demonstrated U.S. helplessness as its troops poured
into Georgia. Ironically, Bush’s still neo con military plans
demand ever more money and Congress passed a military budget without
debate that exceeds — with Iraq supplemental and intelligence — the
previous $700 billion figure
Amazingly,
given our weakened economy, no serious political figure or media
pundit has yet suggested that U.S. military commitments make no
sense: Iraq, Afghanistan, plans to invade Iran and Pakistan, the
maintenance of 761 bases and developing a new round of nuclear
weapons.
The
media still buys the myth of Bush’s successful surge; translated as
bribing Sunnis and encouraging ethnic cleansing to decrease conflict
in some of Iraq, not the troop increase.
The
image of this nation, fostered by all official and unofficial
sources, touts it as the permanent number one. Shouting USA and
singing “God Bless America” with hats off at baseball games may
make some of us continue to feel good, so long as truth never gets in
the way.
Saul
Landau is an IPS fellow, author of A
BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD
and WE
DON’T PLAY GOLF HERE,
plus 40 other films on dvd (available at roundworldproductions).
