Guest guest Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 S Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:36:14 -0700 (PDT) The New World Order The New World Order Tony Judt | July 14 Issue New York Review of Books Comments by By Sean Pau NYRB - Those of us who opposed America's invasion of Iraq from the outset can take no comfort from its catastrophic consequences. On the contrary: we should now be asking ourselves some decidedly uncomfortable questions. The first concerns the propriety of " preventive " military intervention. If the Iraq war is wrong¡ª " the wrong war at the wrong time " ¡ªwhy, then, was the 1999 US-led war on Serbia right? That war, after all, also lacked the imprimatur of UN Security Council approval. It too was an unauthorized and uninvited attack on a sovereign state¡ªundertaken on " preventive " grounds¡ªthat caused many civilian casualties and aroused bitter resentment against the Americans who carried it out. By Sean Paul in USA: Foreign Relations on Sun Jul 3rd, 2005 at 10:01:33 AM PDT Judt writes: Among democracies, only in America do soldiers and other uniformed servicemen figure ubiquitously in political photo ops and popular movies. Only in America do civilians eagerly buy expensive military service vehicles for suburban shopping runs. In a country no longer supreme in most other fields of human endeavor, war and warriors have become the last, enduring symbols of American dominance and the American way of life. " In war, it seemed, " writes Bacevich, " lay America's true comparative advantage. " (And this leads us to a perilous time in our history, one I do not think enough people take seriously. Too many people in America are a-historical. It seems to me they think that we are immune to history's worst impulses. But we are not, as Judt notes:) Historians and pundits who leap aboard the bandwagon of American Empire have forgotten a little too quickly that for an empire to be born, a republic has first to die. In the longer run no country can expect to behave imperially¡ªbrutally, contemptuously, illegally¡ªabroad while preserving republican values at home. For it is a mistake to suppose that institutions alone will save a republic from the abuses of power to which empire inevitably leads. It is not institutions that make or break republics, it is men. And in the United States today, the men (and women) of the country's political class have failed. Congress appears helpless to impede the concentration of power in the executive branch; indeed, with few exceptions it has contributed actively and even enthusiastically to the process. (One of the most serious problems is that the opposition in this country is almost too loyal, as Judt notes: " The " loyal opposition " is altogether too loyal. Indeed there seems little to be hoped from the Democratic Party. Terrified to be accused of transgressing the consensus on " order " and " security, " its leaders now strive to emulate and even outdo Republicans in their aggressive stances. " ) (This is why I am always beating the table on this, urging the Democrats to stand up and fight the Republicans just as nastily and dirtily as they fight against us. Of course, this is too 'frat boyish' for some people. Fine. But politics is a rough business.) (And if you think the media is going to help, well, just read this. Howard Dean, the original angry man. But how about Tom DeLay and the outrageous things he says? What about some of the other thugs in the Republican Party?) (But I digress.) (Our fascination with all things military in this country will lead only to grief. Of that I am convinced. But what worries me more is how oblivious we are to international opinion, for example, authoritarian China is now viewed more favorably than the United States. How did this come to pass? More importantly, where does it lead:) The American people have a touching faith in the invulnerability of their republic. It would not occur to most of them even to contemplate the possibility that their country might fall into the hands of a meretricious oligarchy; that, as Andrew Bacevich puts it, their political " system is fundamentally corrupt and functions in ways inconsistent with the spirit of genuine democracy. " But the twentieth century has taught most other peoples in the world to be less cocksure. And when foreigners look across the oceans at the US today, what they see is far from reassuring. (Judt saves the best for last. And I think Judt should be applauded for saying what needs to be said:) For there is a precedent in modern Western history for a country whose leader exploits national humiliation and fear to restrict public freedoms; for a government that makes permanent war as a tool of state policy and arranges for the torture of its political enemies; for a ruling class that pursues divisive social goals under the guise of national " values " ; for a culture that asserts its unique destiny and superiority and that worships military prowess; for a political system in which the dominant party manipulates procedural rules and threatens to change the law in order to get its own way; where journalists are intimidated into confessing their errors and made to do public penance. Europeans in particular have experienced such a regime in the recent past and they have a word for it. That word is not " democracy. " (I can already hear some people say, " Judt's rhetoric goes to far. " Whatever, because if you think our Republic is guaranteed to last throughout your lifetime, think again. People, there are no guarantees or insurance policies on this. And if they shove a radical winger Justice down our gullets, well, you know. Speaking of justices, here's the really scary part: what if Gonzales gets confirmed? Imagine it.) (Yeah, I thought so.) More- http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20050704.htm ___________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.