Chalmers Johnson: US clandestine activities abroad will blow back
American historian Chalmers Johnson believes that “our numerous clandestine activities, some of which are almost totally disreputable, will come back to haunt us.”
In an interview with Mark Karlin put out by the news and opinion site Alter-Net, Chalmers quotes political philosopher Hannah Arendt who argued that at the root of all imperialism, there has to be a racist view. He maintains that the US does not have a withdrawal strategy from Iraq because it does not intend to leave. He points out that although Iraq was invaded, President Bush himself did not understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam, nor did he appreciate that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a minority Sunni dictatorship over the majority Shia population. He did not understand that once you brought about regime change there, the inevitable result would be unleashing the Shia population, that had previously been suppressed, to run their country, and that they would align themselves with the largest Shia power of all, namely Iran.
Chalmers argues that the US cannot be a democratic country and an empire at the same time. Imperialism, by definition, requires military force, huge standing armies, a large military-industrial complex, and the willingness to use force regularly. Imperialism is a pure form of tyranny. It never rules through consent, any more than we US does in Iraq today. “The power of the military establishment is what threatens the separation of powers on which our Constitution is based. The Constitution, the chief bulwark against tyranny and dictatorship, separates the executive and legislative and judicial branches. It does not concentrate power in the executive branch, or concentrate money there, or secrecy,” he adds.
In answer to a question, Chalmers agreed that the US intervention in Iraq, and the desire to nuke Iran is empire building in the guise of fighting terrorism. “In fact, we have to say that in any historical perspective, that the response of Bush-Cheney to 9/11 was a catastrophe of misjudgement and almost surely based on interests entirely separate from the terrorist attacks. We enhanced Osama bin Laden’s power by declaring war on terrorism, escalating his position. The world’s balance of power didn’t change one iota on September 11th, 2001. The only way we could lose the power and influence we had at that time was through our own actions, and that’s what we did. Instead of calling it a war on terrorism, we should have called it a national emergency. We should have gone after the terrorists as criminals, as organised crime, because of their attacks on innocent civilians … Had we done that, we would have retained the support of virtually the entire rest of the world, including the Islamic world, as the victims on 9/11.”...
Read entire article at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk
In an interview with Mark Karlin put out by the news and opinion site Alter-Net, Chalmers quotes political philosopher Hannah Arendt who argued that at the root of all imperialism, there has to be a racist view. He maintains that the US does not have a withdrawal strategy from Iraq because it does not intend to leave. He points out that although Iraq was invaded, President Bush himself did not understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam, nor did he appreciate that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a minority Sunni dictatorship over the majority Shia population. He did not understand that once you brought about regime change there, the inevitable result would be unleashing the Shia population, that had previously been suppressed, to run their country, and that they would align themselves with the largest Shia power of all, namely Iran.
Chalmers argues that the US cannot be a democratic country and an empire at the same time. Imperialism, by definition, requires military force, huge standing armies, a large military-industrial complex, and the willingness to use force regularly. Imperialism is a pure form of tyranny. It never rules through consent, any more than we US does in Iraq today. “The power of the military establishment is what threatens the separation of powers on which our Constitution is based. The Constitution, the chief bulwark against tyranny and dictatorship, separates the executive and legislative and judicial branches. It does not concentrate power in the executive branch, or concentrate money there, or secrecy,” he adds.
In answer to a question, Chalmers agreed that the US intervention in Iraq, and the desire to nuke Iran is empire building in the guise of fighting terrorism. “In fact, we have to say that in any historical perspective, that the response of Bush-Cheney to 9/11 was a catastrophe of misjudgement and almost surely based on interests entirely separate from the terrorist attacks. We enhanced Osama bin Laden’s power by declaring war on terrorism, escalating his position. The world’s balance of power didn’t change one iota on September 11th, 2001. The only way we could lose the power and influence we had at that time was through our own actions, and that’s what we did. Instead of calling it a war on terrorism, we should have called it a national emergency. We should have gone after the terrorists as criminals, as organised crime, because of their attacks on innocent civilians … Had we done that, we would have retained the support of virtually the entire rest of the world, including the Islamic world, as the victims on 9/11.”...