a collection of thoughts about american foreign policy by william blum   william blum 




louis xvi needed a revolution; napoleon needed two historic military defeats; the spanish empire in the new world needed multiple revolutions; the russian czar needed a communist revolution; the austro-hungarian and ottoman empire needed world war i; nazi germany needed world war ii; imperial japan needed two atomic bombs; the portuguese empire in africa needed a military coup at home; the soviet empire needed mikhail gorbachev . . . what will the american empire need? 




<u+201c>i don<u+2019>t believe anyone will consciously launch world war iii. the situation now is more like the eve of world war i, when great powers were armed and ready to go when an incident set things off. ever since gorbachev naively ended the cold war, the hugely over-armed united states has been actively surrounding russia with weapons systems, aggressive military exercises, nato expansion. at the same time, in recent years the demonization of vladimir putin has reached war propaganda levels. russians have every reason to believe that the united states is preparing for war against them, and are certain to take defensive measures. this mixture of excessive military preparations and propaganda against an <u+201c>evil enemy<u+201d> make it very easy for some trivial incident to blow it all up.<u+201d><u+2014> diana johnstone, author of <u+201c>queen of chaos: the misadventures of hillary clinton<u+201d> 




in september 2013 president obama stood before the united nations general assembly and declared, <u+201c>i believe america is exceptional.<u+201d> the following year at the un, the president classified russia as one of the three threats to the world along with the islamic state and the ebola virus. on march 9, 2015 president barack obama declared venezuela <u+201c>an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states.<u+201d> 




vladimir putin, speaking at the un in 2015, addressing the united states re its foreign policy: <u+201c>do you realize what you have done?<u+201d> 




since the end of world w attempted to overthrow dropped bombs attempted to assassinate attempted to suppress 




<u+201c>the plan is for the united states to rule the world. the overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. it calls for the united states to maintain its overwhelming superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. it calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. it says not that the united states must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful.<u+201d> 




two flew over the cuckoo<u+2019>s nest: <u+201c>we are, as a matter of empirical fact and undeniable history, the greatest force for good the world has ever known. . . . security and freedom for millions of people around the globe have depended on america<u+2019>s military , economic, political, and diplomatic might.<u+201d><u+2014> 




<u+201c>war with russia will be nuclear. washington has prepared for it. washington has abandoned the abm treaty, created what it thinks is an abm shield, and changed its war doctrine to permit us nuclear first strike. all of this is obviously directed at russia, and the russian government knows it. how long will russia sit there waiting for washington<u+2019>s first strike?<u+201d><u+2014> 




iran signed the nuclear accords with the united states earlier this year by agreeing to stop what it never was doing. any iranian nuclear a 




us general barry mccaffrey, april 2015: <u+201c>because so far nato<u+2019>s reaction to putin<u+2019>s aggression has been to send a handful of forces to the baltics to demonstrate <u+2018>resolve,<u+2019> which has only convinced putin that the alliance is either unable or unwilling to fight. so we had better change his calculus pretty soon, and contest putin<u+2019>s stated doctrine that he is willing to intervene militarily in other countries to <u+2018>protect<u+2019> russia-speaking people. for god<u+2019>s sake, the last time we heard that was just before hitler invaded the sudetenland.<u+201d> no, my dear general, we heard that repeatedly in 1983 when the united states invaded the tiny nation of grenada to protect and rescue hundreds of americans who supposedly were in danger from the new leftist government. it was all a fraud, no more than an excuse to overthrow a government that that didn<u+2019>t believe that the american empire was god<u+2019>s gift to humanity. 




since 1980, the united states has intervened in the affairs of fourteen muslim countries, at worst invading or bombing them. they are (in chronological order) iran, libya, lebanon, kuwait, iraq, somalia, bosnia, saudi arabia, afghanistan, sudan, kosovo, yemen, pakistan, and now syria. 




how our never-ending mideast horror began: radio address of george w. bush, september 28, 2002: <u+201c>the iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the british government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. the regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al qaeda terrorists inside iraq. this regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.<u+201d> yet . . . just six weeks before 9/11, condoleezza rice told cnn: <u+201c>let<u+2019>s remember that his [saddam<u+2019>s] country is divided, in effect. he does not control the northern part of his country. we are able to keep his arms from him. his military forces have not been rebuilt.<u+201d> 




the fact is that there is more participation by the cuban population in the running of their country than there is by the american population in the running of theirs. one important reason is the absence of the numerous private corporations which, in the united states, exert great influence over all aspects of life. 




<u+201c>the u.s. is frantically surrounding china with military weapons, advanced aircraft, naval fleets and a multitude of military bases from japan, south korea and the philippines through several nearby smaller pacific islands to its new and enlarged base in australia . . . the u.s. naval fleet, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines patrol china<u+2019>s nearby waters. warplanes, surveillance planes, drones and spying satellites cover the skies, creating a symbolic darkness at noon.<u+201d> (jack a. smith, <u+201c>hegemony games: usa vs. prc,<u+201d> counterpunch) 




sr<u+2019>s leader nikita khrushchev, a native of the region, had donated crimea to ukraine in 1954. crimeans were always strongly opposed to that change and voted overwhelmingly to rejoin russia after the us-induced ukrainian coup in 2014. russian president vladimir putin refers to the ukrainian army as <u+201c>nato<u+2019>s foreign legion,<u+201d> which does not pursue ukraine<u+2019>s national interests. the united states, however, insists on labeling the russian action in crimea as an invasion. 




putin re crimea/ukraine: <u+201c>our western partners created the <u+2018>kosovo precedent<u+2019> with their own hands. in a situation absolutely the same as the one in crimea they recognized kosovo<u+2019>s secession from serbia legitimate while arguing that no permission from a country<u+2019>s central authority for a unilateral declaration of independence is necessary . . . and the un international court of justice agreed with those arguments. that<u+2019>s what they said; that<u+2019>s what they trumpeted all over the world and coerced everyone to accept<u+2014>and now they are complaining about crimea. why is that?<u+201d> 




paul craig roberts: <u+201c>the absurdity of it all! even a moron knows that if russia is going to put tanks and troops into ukraine, russia will put in enough to do the job. the war would be over in a few days if not in a few hours. as putin himself said some months ago, if the russian military enters ukraine, the news will not be the fate of donetsk or mauriupol, but the fall of kiev and lviv.<u+201d> 




in a major examination of us policy vis-<u+00e0>-vis china, published in march 2015, the authoritative council on foreign relations bluntly declared that <u+201c>there is no real prospect of building fundamental trust, <u+2018>peaceful coexistence,<u+2019> <u+2018>mutual understanding,<u+2019> a strategic partnership, or a <u+2018>new type of major country relations<u+2019> between the united states and china.<u+201d> the united states, the report declares, must, therefore, develop <u+201c>the political will<u+201d> and military capabilities <u+201c>to deal with china to protect vital u.s. interests.<u+201d> 




military from <u+2018>hemispheric defense<u+2019><u+2014>an outdated relic of world war ii<u+2014>to <u+2018>internal security,<u+2019> which means war against the domestic population.<u+201d><u+2014> noam chomsky 




cuban baseball players who are paid a million dollars to play for an american team are not <u+201c>defectors,<u+201d> a word which has a clear political connotation. 




boris yeltsin was acceptable to american and europeans because he was seen as a weak, pliable figure that allowed western capital free rein in the newly opened russian territory following the collapse of the soviet union. yeltsin<u+2019>s era was also a time of rampant corruption by russian oligarchs who were closely associated with western capital. that corrosive culture came to a halt with the election of vladimir putin twice as president between 2000<u+2013>2008, and again in 2012. 




many isis leaders were former iraqi military officers who were imprisoned by american troops. the fight isn<u+2019>t against isis, it<u+2019>s against assad; at the next level it isn<u+2019>t against assad, it<u+2019>s against putin; then, at the next level, it isn<u+2019>t against putin, it<u+2019>s against the country most likely to stand in the way of us world domination, russia. and it<u+2019>s forever. 




connecting to the us-based internet would mean channeling all of cuba<u+2019>s communications directly to the nsa. 




george w. bush has been living a comparatively quiet life in texas, with a focus on his paintings. <u+201c>i<u+2019>m trying to leave something behind,<u+201d> he said a couple of years ago. yeah, right, george. we can stand up some of the paintings against the large piles of iraqi dead bodies. 




seymour hirsch: <u+201c>america would be much better off, if, 30 years ago, we had let russia continue its war in afghanistan . . . the mistake was made by the carter administration which was trying to stop the russians from their invasion of afghanistan. we<u+2019>d be better off had we let the russians beat the taliban.<u+201d> ( deutsche welle , april 2, 2014 interview) we<u+2019>d be even better off if we hadn<u+2019>t overthrown the progressive, secular afghan government, giving rise to the taliban in the first place and inciting the russians to intervene on their border lest the soviet islamic population was stirred up. 




the former secretary of state madeleine albright in an interview in 1998 summed up exactly what the us thinks of the un: <u+201c>the un plays a very important role. but if we don<u+2019>t like it, we always have the option of following our own national security interests, which i assure you we will do if we don<u+2019>t like what<u+2019>s going on.<u+201d> she is now a foreign-policy advisor to hillary clinton. 




<u+201c>a leader taking his (or her) nation to war is as dysfunctional in the family of humankind as an abusive parent is in an individual family.<u+201d><u+2014> suzy kane 




<u+201c>it would be some time before i fully realized that the united states sees little need for diplomacy. power is enough. only the weak rely on diplomacy . . . the roman empire had no need for diplomacy. nor does the united states.<u+201d><u+2014> boutros boutros-ghali , secretary-general of the united nations from january 1992 to december 1996 




<u+201c>interventions are not against dictators but against those who try to distribute: not against jim<u+00e9>nez in venezuela but ch<u+00e1>vez, not against somoza in nicaragua but the sandinistas, not against batista in cuba but castro, not against pinochet in chile but allende, not against guatemala dictators but arbenz, not against the shah in iran but mossadegh, etc.<u+201d><u+2014> johan galtung, norwegian, principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies 




<u+201c>no mention was made that iraq<u+2019>s christians had been safe and sound under president saddam hussein<u+2014>even privileged<u+2014>until president george bush invaded and destroyed iraq. we can expect the same fate for syria<u+2019>s christians if the protection of the assad regime is torn away by the us-engineered uprising. we will then shed crocodile tears for syria<u+2019>s christians.<u+201d><u+2014> eric margolis, 2014 




the debate on jewish power.<u+201d><u+2014> gilad atzmon 




<u+201c>we need a trial to judge all those who bear significant responsibility for the past century<u+2014>the most murderous and ecologically destructive in human history. we could call it the war, air and fiscal crimes tribunal and we could put politicians and ceos and major media owners in the dock with earphones like eichmann and make them listen to the evidence of how they killed millions of people and almost murdered the planet and made most of us far more miserable than we needed to be. of course, we wouldn<u+2019>t have time to go after them one by one. we<u+2019>d have to lump wall street investment bankers in one trial, the council on foreign relations in another, and any remaining harvard business school or yale law graduates in a third. we don<u+2019>t need this for retribution, only for edification. so there would be no capital punishment, but rather banishment to an overseas nike factory with a vow of perpetual silence.<u+201d><u+2014> sam smith 




<u+201c>i have come to think of the export of <u+2018>democracy<u+2019> as the contemporary equivalent of what missionaries have always done in the interest of conquering and occupying the <u+2018>uncivilized<u+2019> world on behalf of the powers that be. i have said that the <u+2018>church<u+2019> invented the concept of conversion by any means, including torture and killing of course, as doing the victims a big favor, since it was in the interest of <u+2018>saving<u+2019> their immortal souls. it is now called, <u+2018>democratization.<u+2019><u+201d><u+2014> rita corriel 




<u+201c>it is more or less impossible to commemorate the war dead without glorifying them, and it is impossible to glorify them without glorifying their wars.<u+201d><u+2014> paul craig roberts
a collection of thoughts about american foreign policy
william blum