Who is the agressor? - The Endgame of Globalization

[Dover]

BOOK REVIEW
Driving American foreign policy
The Endgame of Globalization by Neil Smith

Reviewed by Dmitry Shlapentokh

The beginning of the Iraq war led to unusual frankness in describing the goals and methods of American foreign policy. It was stated that Americans might well disregard international law and preach Hobbesian "realpolitik", in which right is defined by strength.

Some of the articles published just before or during the war could well have been published in Nazi propaganda publications. The difference is that these Iraq war articles stated that, while force should be applied in foreign policy, democracy should be preserved at home.

There was also unbounded optimism that, facing American military might, the enemy's resistance would soon crumble. But the war is going badly and this has started to change, as an increasing number of publications provide a variety of explanations for why things went wrong.

Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, representing the Democrats, blasted President Bush for an imperialistic drive - Caesarism - and for abandoning the principles that made the US great. He claimed that this prostitution of "Lady Liberty" made Bush and company reckless and got America into trouble...cont'd

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GJ08Aa01.html

[McKenzie]

1. Brzezinski protests too much

his book "The Grand Chessboard" explains a lot. Read it then look at what is happening at the moment. (apologies if you have read it)

[Tace]

2. The Conclusion Of The Piece Is Good

snip

But one should remember that Hitler's policy was not just gas chambers and millions of slaves, but also a variety of sound social-economic arrangements that made it possible to fight, and almost win, a war against the majority of the world's population.

Hitler, while not discarding private property, understood that a long, global armed conflict could not be carried out on the basis of privatization, social/economic deregulation and mercenary armies, with the assumption that casualties would be low. Strict government control went along with a strong safety net, and the wounded soldiers from the Waffen SS in World War II did not need to engage in long litigation with the Reich to get decent medical service, housing and food. Their trust that the state would never abandon them contributed greatly to their fighting spirit. And, of course, there is no doubt that Hitler's kind of bureaucracy would work much better in dealing with natural disasters such as Katrina.

There is no way that Bush or any democratic president could change US social/economic arrangements in radical ways. Thus, "fascistizing" America, transforming it into a militaristic empire poised for global conquest, is out of the question.

But this does not mean that American rivals should be cheered up. The point is that the conflict between what the American elite and the public want and what they can do might well lead to increasing irrationality in the elite's behavior, as is reflected in recent changes in military doctrine, which now authorizes preventive nuclear strikes.