Ravings of a mad college professer

The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing. Or things a journalism professor would say.

---

Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

The upside to losing Iraq? An empire falls

Robert Jensen, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR
Friday, December 03, 2004

The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing.

I don't mean that the loss of American and Iraqi lives is to be celebrated. The death and destruction are numbingly tragic, and the suffering in Iraq is hard for most of us in the United States to comprehend. [1] The tragedy is compounded because these deaths haven't protected Americans or brought freedom to Iraqis — they have come in the quest to extend the American empire in this so-called "new American century." [2]

So, as a U.S. citizen, I welcome the U.S. defeat, for a simple reason: It isn't the defeat of the United States — its people or their ideals — but of that empire. And it's essential the American empire be defeated and dismantled. [3]

The fact the Bush administration says we are fighting for freedom and democracy (having long ago abandoned fictions about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties) [4] does not make it so. We must look at the reality, no matter how painful. The people of Iraq are better off without Saddam Hussein's despised regime, but that does not prove our benevolent intentions nor guarantee the United States will work to bring meaningful democracy to Iraq. [5]

Throughout history, our support for democracies has depended on their support for U.S. policy. When democratic governments follow an independent course, they typically end up as targets of U.S. power, military or economic. Ask Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. [6]
In Iraq, the Bush administration invaded not to liberate but to extend and deepen U.S. domination. [7]When Bush says, "We have no territorial ambitions; we don't seek an empire," he tells a half-truth. The United States doesn't want to absorb Iraq nor take direct possession of its oil. That's not the way of empire today — it's about control over the flow of oil and oil profits, not ownership.

In a world that runs on oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has great strategic power. [8]U.S. policymakers want leverage over the economies of its competitors — Western Europe, Japan and China — which are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Hence the longstanding U.S. policy of support for reactionary regimes (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships (Iran under the Shah) and regional military surrogates (Israel), aimed at maintaining control. [9]

The Bush administration has invested money and lives in making Iraq a platform from which the United States can project power — from permanent U.S. bases, officials hope. [10] That requires not the liberation of Iraq, but its subordination. [11] But most Iraqis don't want to be subordinated, [12] which is why the United States in some sense lost the war the day it invaded. One lesson of contemporary history is that occupying armies generate resistance that, inevitably, prevails over imperial power. [13]

Most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone, and most want the United States gone. When we admit defeat and pull out — not if, but when — the fate of Iraqis depends in part on whether the United States (1) makes good on legal and moral obligations to pay reparations, [14] and (2) allows international institutions to aid in creating a truly sovereign Iraq. [15]

We shouldn't expect politicians to do either without pressure. An anti-empire movement — the joining of antiwar forces with the movement to reject corporate globalization — must create that pressure[16]. Failure will add to the suffering in Iraq and more clearly mark the United States as a rogue state and an impediment to a just and peaceful world.

So, I'm glad for the U.S. military defeat in Iraq, but with no joy in my heart. [17] We should all carry a profound sense of sadness at where decisions made by U.S. policy-makers — not just the gang in power today[18], but a string of Republican and Democratic administrations — have left us and the Iraqis. But that sadness should not keep us from pursuing the most courageous act of citizenship in the United States today: Pledging to dismantle the American empire. [19]

This planet's resources do not belong to the United States. [20] The century is not America's. We own neither the world nor time. And if we don't give up the quest — if we don't find our place in the world instead of on top of the world[21] — there is little hope for a safe, sane and sustainable future. [22]

Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of "Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity." He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.


1. “…The death and destruction are numbingly tragic, and the suffering in Iraq is hard for most of us in the United States to comprehend.” The only way that you can comprehend it fool is to live it. You should have given a few years of your life to serve your country. Then you would have comprehenion.


2. “…they have come in the quest to extend the American empire in this so-called "new American century."You mean we get two of them? The 20th Century and the 21st! I’m so happy. You really like me. You really really like me.

3. “It isn't the defeat of the United States — its people or their ideals — but of that empire.” But what is an empire if not the extension of people and their ideals?

4. “…long ago abandoned fictions about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties.” They have not been abandoned! They have been proven!

5. ‘…but that does not prove our benevolent intentions nor guarantee the United States will work to bring meaningful democracy to Iraq.” And don’t let those elections fool you, right?

6. “When democratic governments follow an independent course, they typically end up as targets of U.S. power, military or economic. Ask Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Can we ask Germany, Japan, France, South Korea, etc.?

7. “…the Bush administration invaded not to liberate but to extend and deepen U.S. domination.” Why do you have a problem with us doing both? Liberate Iraq and let dictators in the region know that America has a big freaking stick.

8. In a world that runs on oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has great strategic power. We don’t have to invade to do that. Our submarine force could easily do it. And how do you explain the $50 a barrel price then? I mean that is the price before our greedy oil companies even touch it.

9. Hence the longstanding U.S. policy of support for reactionary regimes (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships (Iran under the Shah) and regional military surrogates (Israel), aimed at maintaining control. Israel is a reactionary regime? Mr. Jenson we also support Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, Ukraine, Poland, S. Korea, Great Briton etc etc.

10. “…from which the United States can project power — from permanent U.S. bases, officials hope. But only if the freely elected government of Iraq wishes for us to have bases there which we will gladly pay for like we do in the100 or so other countries that we have bases in.

11. “That requires not the liberation of Iraq, but its subordination.”No it doesn’t. See 10 again and reread it.

12. “But most Iraqis don't want to be subordinated, …”And some do? Sounds like there is a market for some enterprising Dominatrix

13. “One lesson of contemporary history is that occupying armies generate resistance that, inevitably, prevails over imperial power.” True, so very true. Look at the Ottoman, Mongol and Roman Empires. It always happen after only 4 or 5 hundred years.

14. “…makes good on legal and moral obligations to pay reparations” I guess building a modern electrical, water distribution system, hospitals, schools, refurbishing the entire oil pumping system, etc, etc don’t count for anything. Oh and lets not for get the tens of thousands of Iraqis that were tortured, raped and killed every year.

15. “…allows international institutions to aid in creating a truly sovereign Iraq.” That wouldn’t happen to be the U.N. you are talking about is it? At least the USA has experience at creating sovereign nations. What experience does the U.N. have?

16. “An anti-empire movement — the joining of antiwar forces with the movement to reject corporate globalization — must create that pressure” Lets join with the World Workers Party, ANSWER, International Action Center, American Communist Party, Green Peace, …

17. “So, I'm glad for the U.S. military defeat in Iraq, but with no joy in my heart.” And how are you going to feel when you come down from what you are hallucinating on and find out that not only did we win and win magnificently but Iraq is an independent freely elected country with a seat at the UN general assembly. I suggest that you see someone experienced with PEST. Because I see a new disorder on the horizon. ONBWR. (Oh No Bush Was Right)

18. “…not just the gang in power today…” You mean that “gang” that was elected with a mandate by the American voters?

19. “…the most courageous act of citizenship in the United States today: Pledging to dismantle the American empire.” Gee? And here I always thought that the most courageous thing a citizen could do was to wear the uniform of the United States military and perform their sworn duties to defend and protect it. See what you miss when you don’t take college course from a would-be writer turn journalist professor.

20. This planet's resources do not belong to the United States.That is why we pay cold hard cash for them.

21. “…if we don't find our place in the world instead of on top of the world…” I don’t know about anyone else but it is good to be on top of the world. Anything else sucks.

22. “…there is little hope for a safe, sane and sustainable future.” And in the entire history of Mankind has there been a time it has been Safe, Sane and Sustainable? Oh forgot. You’re not a History or Political professor. You are a glorified English teacher that teaches students on how to structure their sentences to get the most emotional bang for it’s ink. And after reading your article it is easy to see why you could not hack it in the real world.

Concerning the flap about Armored Humvees.

Concerning the flap about Armored Humvees.

Well two things, maybe three are going to come out of this whole brouhaha.

In a very few years all of those Humvees will need to be replaced because they were not designed to carry the weight of all that armor. It is already starting.

Two, The Press has just handed the President a blank check to get anything he wants for the military. Does anyone think that Sen. Clinton will vote against any bill that has military equipment attached to it? Kerry?

Three, The military will develop an armored fighting vehicle that fills that gap between the Bradley/Stryker and the Jeep. The Humvee is a great vehicle but the service should never have gotten rid of the Jeep.

So everyone that has a hard on for the Pres and SecDef and think you just got a gottcha you better analyze this again.

The ACLU, NEA and the Liberal Media

Originally posted by ********:

They can only criminalize certain religious behavior.

There have been Christians for nearly 2000 years, and there were Jews for nearly 2000 years before that. Both groups are notorious for persisting despite no-holds-barred attempts by governments to wipe them out.

Empires die when they attempt to get rid of God, but religion never goes extinct.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point. But we and by we I mean Jews, Christians, Muslims, Shamanism, etc, need to make sure that the ACLU and the Liberal cabal does not remove religion from the public square. We must fight their relentless attacks.

The ACLU origin stems from communist with the goal of destroying the United States of America's government and to rewrite it's history while destroying it's emergent culture to make way for world communism.

The USSR and the Nazis have both tried to eliminate and replace religion and both are gone.

The USSR backed the fledgling ACLU from it’s beginning. The USSR is gone but not forgotten. The ACLU, the NEA and the Liberal Intelligenca still dreams of world communism and view the USSR as only the first experiment and believe that it just was not tried in the right place and by the right people. Of course the American Liberal Cabal believes it is superior and will be able to fulfill the birth of the breached child called Communism.

And of course the first that needs to die is the “Opiate of the masses’ as the Intelligenca like to call religion. As long as man has hope and faith Communism cannot be firmly rooted.

And the bloodshed that will follow will make all the deaths of the 20^th Century pale in comparison. After all what is a birth without a little blood?

Ok

Some percentages of the 45 million babies that have been aborted since Roe v. Wade became the "Law of the Land" belong to Republicans and conservatives. And some liberals that have had abortions have become conservatives after coming to terms with the realizations of their action has killed a life.

But the vast, I mean Vast majority of the aborted babies are the products of liberal parents.

Here is a fact.

The majority of children eventually settle into the political beliefs of their parents.

Another fact.

Many Liberals are choosing to not have children or are having children much later in life.

So if you do the math the liberals will in time die out as a persuasion. But there is an alternative.

To hold off the extinction they must convert people to their beliefs.

So they have infiltrated the Teacher's Unions, the Courts and of course the Democratic Party.

Bobby Kennedy if he was still alive would be scratching his head.

Now a question of those here whose parents are Liberals.

Mom, Dad. Have you ever aborted any of my brothers or sisters?

If not, then why do you support someone else killing their children.

If yes, why did you choose me over my brother or sister? Or can I just consider myself the winner of "Life's Lottery"?

Further thought on the Hypocrisy of the ACLU

When was the last time, or would that be the first time, that the ACLU went to court to protect someone 2nd Amendment right?

Well the answer is never because of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights the 2nd is the only one that the ACLU has taken a stand on that it is not an individual right. Meaning that it is a states right. How ridiculous is that? What kind of mental gymnastics must one go through to come up with that opinion?

And what can we derive from this? First that the ACLU selects which rights it wants to protect and only parts of amendments that they wants to champion.

As an organization it is hypocritical and its leadership is selective in what Amendments it will defend because they are agenda driven and that agenda is the same agenda that inspired its communist founders to form the ACLU. To use the very Constitution of this country to destroy this country. To warp the meanings and intentions of the founding fathers, to deliberately misconstrue the writings, character, and history of the revolution. To support outright, lies when needed, to advance their goals.

The very idea that the constitution contains a separation of church and state, that the right to bear arms is a state’s right or that it ever occurred to the men that signed the Constitution and ratified the Bill of Rights that a woman would have the right to murder their unborn child and that it would be protected under the right of privacy is a travesty.

Does anyone really believe that this was the intent of the framers of the Constitution?

If you say yes then you are a liar or a fool. If you say that it is the natural evolution of a living document then you are truly delusional.