Posted by
JDComments on Monday, December 11, 2006 11:21:56 AM
How does one address someone who sees the War on Terror as an imperialistic US's excuse to wage war for gain and power? As stupid and ridiculous as this sounds, some do expound this viewpoint, as seen in an
article in the Pittsburg Tribune by someone named Ralph Reiland, who is described as an "
associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur" but sounds to me to be , well I hate to write disparagingly of someone who seems to be mentally challenged.
While his political affiliation is not mentioned, I'll eat my...in his restaurant if he is not a died in the wool Liberal [and if Mr. Reiland does not feel that is leftward enough for him, my apologies]. The absolute nonsense which he puts forth seems like a throwback to the days when Stalin was the hero of the Left , Moscow was the Promised Land, and the United States was seen as a decadent, tottering straw man who was ready to be toppled by the proletariat. History has put the lie to all that, but it seems some still cling nostalgically to their fairy tales.
Reilland begins by reciting the usual pap about how the State has the right to kill, and how rulers use imperialism to gain wealth and wage wars to distract their subjects while they are being abused and robbed by their leaders. If this sounds like a rehash of "1984" , well, it is. I guess Reiland just wanted to wake up all us unaware Winston Smiths.
He then describes why the War on Terror is the perfect front for the US to engage in a perpetual war of imperialism. Yes, you heard right, it's all about our greed for wealth and dominance , and we now have an open ended invitation to go anywhere and everywhere to wage battle and take home treasure.
Where does one even start tearing this apart? I guess you could mention 9/11, and the Jihad that the Islamists have declared on us. Or perhaps we could politely ask where is all the wealth and power we are supposed to be accruing if this is all about imperialism? I may be wrong but last time I checked all this empire building was costing us dearly, and if we are imposing our will anywhere I think it's been overlooked by ... everyone. Is this anyway to run an nascent empire?
And then of course there is the internal debate which is on the verge of having us retreat from our empire before it has even been born. Picking up the newspaper or reading the ISG report, I find it hard to see any of the triumphalism or conquering mindset of a Roman Empire, which Reiland compares us to. I guess we just don't have the hang of this Caesar thing yet.
Reiland does attempt to explain all the calls for ending the Iraqi War- he says it is because we are losing, and that if we weren't, we would be off and running all over the place with our dominating soldiers and devastating weapons and the full support of the stupid, abused citizens who don't realize what a facade this all is.
Of course Reiland never says why we are losing, only that we bungled it . It never crosses his mind that the reason we are where we are is because we are
not imperialists and instead shirk from the responsibilities associated with conducting a war [see
post ]. By ignoring all the meanings of imperialism, and disregarding the existence of a world wide enemy that is seeking to destroy us, Reiland blithely espouses a view that has absolutely no correspondence to reality and, if believed and followed, would most likely get us all killed. We are probably the most reluctant super power in the history of the world, and yet for people like Reiland we will always be the villain crushing others in our path as we seek to take over the world. It would almost be comical if we weren't facing a life and death situation which just doesn't seem to register with those like him.