Neo-Imperialism

(Revised 6-29-2009)

We know what imperialism is, whether it’s the imperialism of the neighborhood gangster leader, or the imperialism of a nationalistic head of state who uses military force to impose his will on the peoples he wants to rule over.

We know the roots of imperialism began in prehistoric times when tribes grew large and their warrior chiefs decided to increase the size of their domain at the expense of smaller or weaker neighboring tribes.

We know that throughout history many warrior chiefs, kings, emperors and other heads of state have indulged in it, conquering and occupying foreign lands and countries. And it was for many reasons. It was to make slaves of foreign peoples. It was to extract natural resources like gold, spices, tea, coffee, diamonds, hardwood, exotic produce, coal, oil, etc. It was also to establish military footholds for strategic purposes, and to establish colonies where the military imperialists could rule the native indigenous people. We all know that. Even our history books have begun to tell us that, because we are gradually becoming a little more honest about it.

We all know that the biggest military-industrial powers have always imposed upon and even fought and killed other people in other countries in order to gain and maintain ever-greater wealth, power and domain in the world. And the "Christian" empires usually had superficial and ostensible "good reasons" for it, like "civilizing the heathen," and "saving souls."

Then, in the 1930s, imperialistic goals and tactics began to change somewhat. Some nations that had a history of military-industrial imperialism, particularly the American and British empires, began to develop a conscience about it, and they began to reevaluate their foreign policies.

At the same time, of course, the people of Germany and Japan were being misled in the opposite direction by tyrannical fascists those who wanted to dominate and rule the world in an even more cruel way. And that set in motion the events that led to the ensuing Second World War, which produced a different set of problems.

Then one the main problems became Neo-Imperialism, which was invented for appearances sake, and out of political expediency. Unfortunately, the goals remained much the same, to exploit the natural resources of foreign lands, and/or to establish or maintain strategic military footholds on foreign lands.

Americans should now understand the true history of their nation, and how and why Neo-Imperialism was established. It was because the U.S. had achieved traditional imperialistic goals in many places in the world just between 1810 and 1932, using its military power to serve the purposes of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex. But, between 1932 and 1941, some conscientious Americans began to realize how the U.S. had become too much like the British Empire that its founding fathers had gained independence from in 1776!

Even after the U.S. was forced into the Second World War in 1941, and even after the U.S. won that war, the number of American people of conscience gradually grew, even to the point where Republican President Eisenhower, in his farewell address in 1961, warned Americans to not let the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex get out of control in its activities in America, and especially in other countries.

Unfortunately, Eisenhower’s warning was not heeded by most Americans. Only the most conscientious, progressive Americans listened and knew what he was talking about, and consequently things have simply gotten worse and more out of control ever since, finally reaching the highly critical crisis mode in 2008.

Of course, during the last 28 years most Americans have been conditioned to regard their country as anything but imperialistic. They’ve become accustomed to the Reaganite and later Bushite view that America is the perfectly beneficent big brother and good policeman of the world, and that Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and then the Soviet Union were the last powerfully harmful military empires. But the historic facts are clear. It shows that the U.S. still indulges in Neo-Imperialism, and it shows us that the U.S. has been a blatant military imperialist nation for much of its history. And I will point out relevant historical facts to show you how and why.

Clearly, the U.S. Government obtained a lot of territory between 1810 and 1840. Then the "manifest destiny" policy begun in the 1840s justified much more unfair and cruel Westward military expansion of the American Empire. Similar policies justified U.S. military actions in the "banana republics" in Central America in order to pave the way for American industry. The U.S. also indulged in more blatant foreign imperialism in 1898 by initiating the Spanish-American War, after which it gained control and "ownership" of Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The Panama Canal Zone was taken by the U.S. in the early 1900s. Hawaii, Wake Island, Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the Marshall Islands followed, along with others. And even though some Americans think there was nothing wrong with that, the fact is that many Americans even then felt that all of that was wrong, and even more Americans now realize it was indeed wrong.

The Republican propaganda and rationale that enabled Neo-Imperialism made most Americans feel better about it, though, and that’s why they invented it. After all, it was, and still is, more "politically correct" and palatable to most of the citizens of the nations that indulge in it. It especially suited and still suits the purposes of the wealthiest few who benefit most from it, and they do not see it as imperialism. In fact, they regard it as beneficent and beneficial to everyone, even though it really benefits them while it exploits the resources and the people in other countries who are negatively affected and victimized by it.

I raise this issue because we really need to put an end to any kind of imperialism, just as we need to establish true democracy in every country. In fact, we need to do both in order to improve the lot of all people in the world.

You see, I submit that we do not yet have true democracy, not even in America. We do not yet have true democracy because democracy cannot exist under monarchial or oligarchical rule, whether it be the ancient traditional monarchy of emperors and kings, or the modern monarchy of prime ministers and presidents and other heads of state. (I discussed that on the page titled Partisan Politics, and explained how we can have true democracy on the pages titled An Updated Declaration of Independence, and How the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth.)

I relate imperialism with monarchy, in whatever form, because it fosters imperialist designs. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s always been the main problem in the world. Sovereign heads of state have always found good excuses to increase their power, wealth and domain and gain and maintain control over their own people, and even over other peoples in other lands. That tradition was originally established by warlords, emperors, and kings who believed that their race, culture, religion, and government were superior and favored by God. They justified themselves on that basis, and many prime ministers and presidents have carried on with the same imperialistic traditions and justified it in the same way. In fact, many U.S. presidents have followed that tradition (including the one who ruled from 2000 through 2008). And now we need to realize and understand how and why.

Don’t get me wrong, though. Even though I must expose and rebuke wrong-doers, I am an American and I deeply love my country. I fully understand that most Americans are the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of World War II by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the Americans that hurry in to help. When famines hit Africa, Americans were there to help. In fact, there have been many thousands of times when Americans have raced to help other people in trouble around the world, and there have been many thousands of times that the American people have proven to be good humanitarians and good world citizens. All Americans can and should be very proud of that. It is our best quality, and in that sense we are a shining example to the world.

Even so, the U.S. Government has often been a bad example, and that’s essentially because of the idea of "divine right," originally created by emperors and kings, and it has been "rule of law" since ancient times. The ancient Roman Empire carried it to extremes. And, ironically, it became a Christian idea in the fourth century A.D. after Christianity was adopted by the Romans. Then the right of Christian emperors and popes and kings became even more "righteously divine," and that idea quickly spread and was accepted throughout all of Christendom. It was even in effect after the Protestant Reformation many centuries later, and it has been more or less in effect ever since, depending on the character of leadership.

For example, it was the basis for the American idea of "manifest destiny" in the 1840s and 1850s, and such ideas have persisted sporadically in America ever since. The idea stemmed from the traditions established by Christian popes and kings, and then by later Christian heads of state. It was justified by the belief that they were doing the "heathen and pagans" of the world a favor by bringing "civilized" Christian religion, rule, law, order, culture and government to "uncivilized" or "undeveloped" lands and countries. Like their modern-day counterparts, they considered this to be an "evangelical mandate," even if it meant taking control and ruling by force of arms, and even killing resisters and "unbelievers" if necessary.

The United States began indulging in that tradition even though the founding fathers had fully realized how wrong it was. The founding fathers had not only questioned the right of European kings and their military imperialism and colonialism. They decided to fight against it and started the American Revolution. They then issued a Declaration of Independence, which was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson and adopted and signed on July 4, 1776. And that propelled them to victory and the brought about the establishment of the United States of America.

Later, as U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson commissioned Lewis and Clark’s Corps of Discovery in 1804, as a peaceful expedition to find a route to the Pacific Ocean. But, unfortunately Jefferson’s precedent of good will was not continued. In spite of the intent of the founding fathers, and in spite of Jefferson’s efforts, the U.S. idea of "manifest destiny" in the 1840s and 1850s expanded the U.S. empire westward by force of arms against Native Americans, and that was only the beginning. The U.S. then become an outright military imperialistic colonial power in the European tradition in 1898.

It is important to note the irony of that, because for 122 years after the American Revolution in 1776, and before the Spanish-American War in 1898, the U.S. had made a point of being anti-imperialistic (except for westward expansion on its own continent). After all, the birth of the United States of America was made possible by "throwing off the yoke" of British imperialism. Therefore, being against imperialism and colonialism on foreign soil was only natural for Americans. But, ironically, that changed after the Spanish-American War, and the reasons for that change are very interesting and worth noting.

The Spanish-American War started out being called a "rescue operation" in both Cuba and the Philippines. And, at first, the Cubans and Filipinos actually did look at the Americans as liberators who would conquer their Spanish oppressors, because prior to that both Cuba and the Philippines were Spanish colonies subject to Spanish rule. But, unfortunately, it turned out that the U.S. victory over Spain in both Cuba and the Philippines resulted only in replacing one imperial power with another. And the story of how and why that happened is also very interesting, because it sounds like it could have taken place just a decade or so ago rather than more than a century ago.

The pivotal event was the treaty with Spain that ended the war. That treaty gave the U.S. "ownership" and control of Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. But it is noteworthy that a Republican president and a Republican-dominated Senate negotiated, signed, and ratified that treaty. Moreover, the debate whether or not to ratify that treaty was very typical, and ironically not much different than it would be today!

Democrats argued that "This treaty will make us a vulgar, commonplace empire, controlling subject races and vassal states, in which one class must rule and other classes must obey." In fact, Democrats were steadfastly against expansionism and imperialism, and against the so-called "manifest destiny." But, like their modern counterparts, Republicans argued that "Providence has given the United States the duty of extending Christian civilization. We come as ministering angels, not despots."

How typical those argument are to the arguments that have taken place ever since, because Republicans haven’t changed much since then. In fact, they were just as bad and just as hypocritical during the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s, and perhaps even worse since 1980.

But, back in 1898, even though Democratic anti-imperialists maintained that this expansionism would violate the most basic tenets of the American Constitution, the Republicans ruled and prevailed. In spite of all Democratic objections, the treaty was ratified in January 1899.

Then, not surprisingly, after they had gained control of their new "possessions," the Republicans insisted that the U.S. Constitution applied only to American citizens. (Sound familiar?) They did not consider non-white "heathen" or foreigners as equal, so they felt this was a natural and logical decision. So, once they had possession, the pro-empire Republicans decided that the Cuban and Filipino people were simply "not suited for self-rule," and "for their own good" had to be governed and ruled by Americans.

That betrayed the Cuban and Filipino people, and rather than being liberated as they had expected, they simply became American subjects against their will. That led to tragic consequences, one of the worst of which was that the U.S. wound up killing thousands of Filipinos in order to gain and maintain control of the Philippines. In fact, in that war 4,234 American soldiers, 16,000 Filipino freedom fighters, and as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians were killed. Then for 34 years the U.S. had to use forceful rule to maintain control.

In the 1020s part of U.S. imperialistic strategies in the world were known as "gunboat diplomacy," which was showing a display of military power, demonstrating an implied threat in order to maintain dominance, and using deadly military force only "when necessary." And that, along with other strategies, made the U.S. an imperial power just like the British and other European empires.

Finally, in 1935, the U.S. government realized it had to at least allow the appearance of Philippine independence. That was partly because of the influenced of democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but it was also because between 1898 and 1935 American leadership had learned some hard lessons about being a traditional militaristic imperial colonial power. Additionally, many conscientious, democratic Americans had objected strenuously against it. That’s why American values regarding fairness and equal rights finally caused the U.S. to try to create at least the appearance of independence in the Philippines and Cuba.

Unfortunately, the reality was that "puppet" governments were set up and supported there and in other countries to serve American strategic and economic interests. Batista in Cuba (1933-1958), Marcos in the Philippines (1965-1986), and Noriega in Panama (1983-1989) were a few of the most well known and infamous puppet leaders (actually dictators), but under all of the puppet leaders their countries were just like other Third World countries that were or would be controlled and exploited by a foreign military power.

The U.S. Government had realized that "colonialism by proxy" was almost as financially rewarding, far less blatant and obvious, and therefore far less harmful for appearances’ sake. In other words, it was more "politically correct," both nationally and internationally. It was a far better way to establish and/or maintain control in a foreign country and still accomplish the same goals, and the U.S. did it with abandon in many places in the world.

Of course over time this was called "American foreign aid," and its ostensible purpose was beneficent and humanitarian. That’s what most Americans wanted to believe then, and it’s what most Americans still want to believe. And, admittedly, it was partially true in certain cases, and it still is partially true in certain cases. After all, the American people as a whole are truly beneficent and humanitarian, and occasionally their government actually reflects the will of the people.

However, the main purpose of American foreign "aid" was, for all practical purposes, not much different than what had driven every other imperial and colonial power in the world. It was to serve the strategic interests of the American military, and to serve the financial interests of American industry and business, to procure natural resources and anything else that Americans wanted to utilize, consume, and take advantage of. In fact, that was the chief motivation for such foreign policy, while in certain instances strategic military considerations were of utmost importance and led to gaining and maintaining a military foothold in politically sensitive or strategically valuable places in the world. That’s why U.S. military bases in the Phillippines, Hawaii, Guam, Panama and many other places have been so important to U.S. Military-Industrial interests.

Now, as I mentioned on the page titled The Third Cold War, by the middle of the twentieth century following World War II, and at the start of the First Cold War with Russia, many Americans began to realize that any invasion and occupation of any land for any reason was wrong. They were helped along in this realization because historians had by that time begun to paint a slightly more accurate historical picture of imperialism and colonialism, and the picture isn’t pretty. That’s when Neo-Imperialism really took hold, because it wasn’t so blatantly aggressive and hypocritical, nor was it so obviously harmful. In fact, it was designed to appear benign, beneficent, beneficial, and helpful.

Indeed, during the First Cold War with the Russian Soviet Union, the U.S. rationale became to "help developing countries fight off the evil forces of communism." That worked even better and was a great excuse. The U.S. Government learned to maintain control in certain foreign countries that way, by simply installing and supporting more puppet leaders who would serve America’s interests. They supplied these puppet leaders with money and modern weapons so they could "fight communism and maintain law and order."

Of course, fighting and preventing despotic, dictatorial, totalitarian rule is a good thing. However, that really was not what the U.S. did. In fact, the U.S. Government supported and installed foreign dictators if they went along with the U.S. and were against communism. President Ronald Reagan’s administration did that a lot during the Second Cold War with Russia, and they were involved in many hot wars in many different countries. Their stated goal was to remove or ward off communist regimes, but, in fact, they didn’t mind supporting corrupt and cruel dictators as long as they were puppets serving American interests. Reagan’s covert support of military or paramilitary "death squads" in El Salvador was probably the most infamous example of that, but there were many others.

If financial and indirect support wasn’t enough, the U.S. rationale justified resorting to covert military operations and even direct military intervention if and when "necessary." The direct military actions have been sometimes reported, but what most Americans have not known is that during the Reagan presidency the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) was established. It is a secret, covert organization with the mission of removing (assassinating) enemies of the president and/or vice president (supposed "enemies of the U.S."). It is independent of the normal chain of command, reporting only to the vice president. The Congress has no oversight of it, nor do the Joint Chiefs of the military or the Secretary of Defense. (And by the way, it was far less active during the Clinton presidency, but become very active again and far more aggressive under the Bush-Cheney Regime, as you will see below.)

This kind of Neo-Imperialism proved to be a more clever and far less obvious way of doing business in Third World countries, and it allowed the U.S. to appear more beneficent and less domineering. It created and maintained situations whereby certain American interests could be served and certain American individuals and corporations could get very rich. And, while the U.S. preferred to do all this without appearing as a bully, it was not above sending in the troops when all else failed. That, in reality, has been the bottom line in U.S. foreign policy for a very long time.

Even though the American people are basically good, the U.S. Government has not always been good, and has often been bad, and it is vain folly to try to deny or ignore its mistakes, as Ronald Reagan was so bent on doing, and as George W. Bush continued to do.

That has been very harmful to America’s reputation, so we must be honest. Americans can no longer deny or ignore the fact that for a long time the U.S. has been trying to control other countries and their people, usually not directly with occupying armies and blatant brute force, but with money, bribery, military aid, influence, and whatever else money can buy to serve American interests. That’s what Neo-Imperialism is, and the U.S. has practiced it for a long time, while pretending to be a beneficent big brother and policeman of the world.

One of the ways it has done that was through the notorious School of the Americas (SOA), a military school located at Fort Benning, Georgia. The SOA was renamed a few years ago to "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC), no doubt because of its notorious and controversial reputation. It’s been in operation for a long time, and was used especially during the Reagan era because the Reaganites and American industrialists loved it. The SOA has trained more than 61,000 pro-American leaders, soldiers and policemen from Central and South America. Its ostensible purpose has been to provide training for anti-communist and anti-insurgency operations and methods to establish and "maintain law and order."

However, the main purpose of the School of the Americas is to serve American industrial interests, and the interests of pro-American puppet regimes installed and/or supported by the U.S. military and CIA. And, as has been demonstrated in so many other similar instances (such as in Cuba under Batista; the Philippines under Marcos; Iran under the Shah; Nicaragua under Somoza; Cambodia under Lon Nol; Zaire under Mobutu; and Indonesia under Suharto), the U.S. government did not mind if their puppet leader was a cruel dictator or not. As far as the U.S. government was concerned, the important thing was establishing easy access for American industrial giants to extract natural resources such as oil, coffee, hardwood, produce, coal, etc.

Many graduates of the school became notorious for human rights violations, including Panama’s Manuel Noriega, Bolivia's Hugo Banzer, some of the top officers of Chile’s Augusto Pinochet's regime, the founders of Los Zetas, a mercenary army for one of Mexico's largest drug trafficking cartel. And during the 1980s, under Ronald Reagan’s reign, some of the leaders of the covert "death squads" in El Salvador had been trained at the SOA.

The school continues to use U.S. tax dollars to train Latin American warlords and dictators, not only in anti-insurgency operations and methods, but also in the art of enhanced interrogation (torture) methods and repression. The graduates then use their new skills to establish and maintain control, and in many cases violate human rights, in their home countries.

Some critics have said that was recently the case in Honduras. On June 28, 2009, a military coup in Honduras overthrew the democratically elected government of that Central American nation and sent President Manuel Zelaya into exile in Costa Rica. And according to some experts on the region, the coup was led by Romeo Vasquez, a graduate of the School of the Americas.

The United Nations General Assembly has condemned the coup and has called for the peaceful restoration of President Zelaya. So has the Organization of American States (OAS). Unfortunately, President Barack Obama merely expressed concern regarding the expulsion of President Zelaya, and called for the people of Honduras to respect democratic norms and the rule of law, and resolve conflicts peacefully. But, I’m afraid words are not enough.

Obama should join the U.N. in calling for the immediate, safe, and unconditional return of President Zelaya to Honduras as president, and the immediate, safe, and unconditional release of any government officials and activists who may currently be detained as a result of the coup; and suspend all financial and military aid to Honduras. (After all, the U.S. taxpayers have been and still are providing a lot of it to Honduras.) Then we should close the SOA/WHISC for good, because training by the U.S. CIA and military has contributed to more than enough human rights violations by SOA graduates.

To be fair, I have to say once again that it’s not the American people who are at fault. Most Americans really have had good intentions, and America is indeed great in many respects. After all, if it weren’t, people from other countries wouldn’t still be coming to America to find a better life. They wouldn’t risk their lives and/or incur huge debt just to enter America as illegal aliens. And the fact that they do proves that America can provide people with more freedom and, in certain cases, more opportunity than many other countries in the world.

However, and even so, we can no longer avoid or deny the whole truth. Too many U.S. actions in too many foreign countries were and still are driven by self-interest, and often even by greed.

Bush’s War in Iraq was an apt example of that, as I will show you. But, while that has become very obvious to many of us, many other Americans have been and still are unaware or in denial. Many Americans still think the U.S. has been better and more beneficent than European empires, and, since that may be true in some respects, American Neo-Imperialism has been and still is very successful. America has been and still is able to rule and control other countries not so much with occupying military forces, but simply with influence, money, and the things that money can buy.

Now it is time that Americans acknowledge how pervasive American Neo-Imperialism has been, from what they used to call the old "Banana Republics" in Central and South America; to Cuba under Batista prior to Castro’s Communist Revolution; to Iran under the Shah prior to the Islamic Fundamentalist Revolution; to Nicaragua under Somoza prior to the Sandanista Revolution; to the Philippines under Marcos prior to his ouster; to Cambodia under Lon Nol prior to Pol Pot and the cruel Khmer Rouge taking over; to Zaire under Mobutu prior to his ouster, and even to Indonesia under Suharto prior to his ouster.

I mention those instances because the United States was instrumental in creating and/or allowing such terrible conditions for the people in those countries that they were driven to violent revolution to overthrow U.S.-supported regimes. And unfortunately, while the result of revolution was sometimes an improvement, it sometimes made things even worse, depending on who took power after the revolution. Whatever the case, it must be said that most of the more recent trouble and strife in those countries can be directly attributable to conditions that were created under American imperialism or neo-imperialism, and in some cases prior European imperialism and colonialism.

The countries I mentioned are just a few of the more notable cases. The U.S. had done this in other places as well, to the detriment of the people under U.S. rule or influence, and to the benefit of American military, business, and industry. This is part of the reason why there are many people in the world who don’t like the United States. It’s why so many people all over the world know or at least suspect George W. Bush for occupying Iraq because of its oil reserves. So, while America can and should be proud of much of what it has done, it would be healthy to admit our mistakes and express our shame and sorrow for the bad things its government has done. It is a sign of a mature and noble nation to admit mistakes, apologize for them, and make amends.

Now granted, as such villains go, America has certainly and obviously not been the worst. In fact, it is worthy of note that during the eight years under President Clinton, the U.S. did not use its military might to protect any American-supported foreign dictators or American economic interests in foreign countries. Bill Clinton deserves credit for being the first American president to accomplish that since 1945, establishing a precedent that should have been followed, but was not because of the Bushite Neo-Conservative plan for world dominance that was written in 2000 (as I will show you).

Of course, most Americans would say that other nations have been worse in the past. And that was perhaps true of the British, particularly in Ireland, Scotland, America, India, Palestine, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Honduras, and so many other places. It was also true of the French, particularly in "Indo-China," Vietnam, Cambodia, Haiti and Africa; the Belgians, particularly in the Congo and Ruanda; and the Spanish in Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, Central America, and South America. In fact, it was true of all imperialist conquerors and colonists who’ve done much the same thing all over the world. And it could be said that they all have been worse than the United States in terms of imperialistic wrongdoings — although I realize that is debatable. After all, if we also consider the U.S. Government’s treatment of indigenous Native Americans for the last several hundred years, it comes closer to appearing not that all that much better than many European empires.

Fortunately, many of us know all this, and most of humanity is realizing just how wrong all that was and is. We are evolving. Most of us have realized that imperialism and colonialism were terribly misguided ventures that resulted in terrible violations of human rights, and in terrible offenses, injustices, crimes, and atrocities — most of which were motivated by sheer arrogance, greed, racism, nationalism, and ethnocentrism. We realize that the legacy and consequence of that arrogance, imposition and exploitation is a large part of the reason why the world is as it is now.

Unfortunately, right-wing Neo-Conservative Republicans in America just don’t get it yet. That has been one of the main problems for the last 28 years.

Many of them still have a Nineteenth Century view of the world. For example, George W. Bush’s policy toward Iraq didn’t actually have much to do with Saddam Hussein, despite what he claimed after his fabricated excuses for going to war were exposed. It had more to do with establishing a much firmer American Military-Industrial presence in the Mid-East, and it really had more to do with oil than with regime change. It was about carrying out the plan concocted by Neo-Conservatives in 2000, called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Considering that documented plan, it becomes very obvious why Bush utterly rejected the French, German and Russian criticism of his Iraq policy, and why he was so dead set against the United Nations (U.N.) being responsible for handling things and keeping the peace in "post-war" Iraq. It’s why Bush put American troops in harms way even though it was clear that the Muslims and Arabs suspected his motives and would wage war against occupying American forces. And Muslim suspicions were not misguided. In fact, if you look at it through the eyes of people who already see America in a bad light, it’s really kind of a sinister imperialistic plot. And it certainly explains why even British Prime Minister Tony Blair was rejected when he advised Bush to let the United Nations handle things after Saddam Hussein was removed.

The PNAC document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, confirms the worst suspicions and fears of many people in America and all over the world. It talks about "American global leadership" that will "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests," and it calls not only for a dominant American role in the Mid-East. It describes American armed forces abroad as "the cavalry on the new American frontier." It even calls for the creation of "U.S. Space Forces" to dominate space.

To be very frank, the PNAC document actually reveals the hidden imperialistic Bushite Neo-Conservative agenda, which has become increasingly evident to most people in the world. It shows disdain and even contempt for the United Nations. It reveals what is worst about some Americans in the eyes of many people all over the world, and it’s no wonder that right-wing conservative Americans, like those in the Bush Administration, are increasingly seen as arrogant, self-righteous imperialists by much of the world community. That’s what they clearly are, and it’s very apparent that their intent was to dominate the world and establish and maintain an American world empire, essentially a one-world government.

It’s also clear that the Bushite-Reaganites wanted to do it even if it meant ignoring the human rights and civil liberties of those they suspect stand in their way, which is clear in all their "security" policies, from the U.S. "Patriot Act" to the treatment of prisoners in the prisons in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and other places not so well known. (See the page on Bush’s Real Record and War.)

Of course, the Republican Neo-Conservatives claim to have the best of intentions, and they may even believe that. In fact, they may actually believe their agenda is really in the best interests of all the people in the world. But, when you examine their plan, their actions, and the impact of their actions, that claim does not ring true. As the PNAC document clearly reveals, and as their actions have proven, they want to be in a position to use American financial and military power to influence and even dictate what happens in the whole world, particularly in the oil-rich Mid-East, and even in the Caspian Sea region, which has the potential of becoming one of the world’s major oil and natural gas sources. (And that, by the way, is one of the main causes of the conflict between Georgia, Russia and the United States, as I discussed on the page title The Third Cold War.)

That is further confirmed in another right-wing document titled Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century. It describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. Long before Bush started to beat his war drum against Iraq this document described how Saddam Hussein must be "targeted as a threat to American interests" because of his control of Iraqi oil fields, and how the use of "military intervention" should be used as a means to fix the U.S. energy crisis. The report was commissioned by James Baker, the former U.S. Secretary of State under the elder George Bush, and it was submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001, five months before the September 11 terrorist attack. That makes it very clear that Bush’s policy of using military force against Iraq was planned long before he has claimed, and is designed to gain access to and control Middle Eastern oil fields.

That’s why so many people in the U.S. and around the world have been accusing Bush of waging a war for oil, and that’s why his steadfast denials have been so disingenuous and even dishonest and hypocritical. The two oil men, Bush and Cheney, clearly served the interests of U.S. oil companies, and that was confirmed by the fact that Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, was given the green light for repair, maintenance and operations of the oil fields in "post-war" Iraq. In fact, according to documents discovered in August 2003, Halliburton won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom, and stood to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were up to no good in other areas as well, not only in other countries, but inside the U.S. against American citizens. And I’m not just talking about the illegal wiretapping that I discussed on the page on Bush’s Real Record. I’m talking about something much worse.

One of America’s best investigative reporters, Seymour Hersh, has written that Vice President Dick Cheney was running an "executive assassination ring" directly under his control and outside of the normal chain of command. As I mentioned above, it’s called the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and according to Hersh it has been "deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state." However, as I said, it is independent of the normal chain of command, reporting only to the Vice President. The Congress has no oversight of it, nor do the Joint Chiefs of the military, nor the Secretary of Defense. Hersh reports that: "It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on.…Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the Ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on in the name of all of us." Furthermore, there are investigations going on now because of credible evidence to support serious suspicions that the JSOC was also responsible for the deaths of American citizens who were critics of the Bush Regime.

Of course, the American corporate network television media has not and does not report things like that, but they have been reported by more independent and brave journalists. That is why we must totally repudiate and reject the right-wing Republican Neo-Conservative Imperialistic agenda. Americans must instead choose a path that will lead to what is in the best interests of all people of the nation and world.

On a wider scale, we the people of the world have a lot of work to do to come together and become the united family of humanity. And the first step is to recognize, stop and prevent any and all forms of imperialism, colonialism, and foreign control of any country.

That would mean, for example, getting Israeli troops out of all Palestinian areas and ensuring that the Palestinians finally have at least part of their home land back (see the page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict). It would mean getting ALL foreign military forces out of countries where they don’t really belong, including U.S. forces. And it would mean strengthening the United Nations so that it truly serves the best interests of all the people of the world, and so U.N. peace-keeping forces can deal effectively with outlaw groups, terrorist groups, and rogue nations and regimes. Military bases now occupied by one foreign power (like the U.S.) could be instead used by U.N. peace-keeping forces.

The only way we can progress forward will be through a revived and empowered United Nations. In fact, it must be a new and improved U.N., truly representative of all the nations of the world, governed by an executive council freely chosen by U.N. representatives of each nation. No individual person would have sovereign executive power. Rather, power would be shared by a representative international executive council, and the security council, which would ensure the equal rights of each nation, and of all people in the world. There would be an effective legislative and policy-making body, and a strong law enforcement and peace-keeping force, which will not only lay down international laws and enforce them, but also keep the peace.

This is an absolute necessity, because we, the people of the world, must have the ability and the power to rescue people who are being oppressed or persecuted, whether it be by their own government, by an internal group, by an occupying foreign force, or by a puppet government supported by a foreign government. We must look out for our own, and "our own" must become each and every one of our fellow human beings on the face of the earth. We are all members of one family of humanity, and we must act like it.

I tell Americans this as a brother and fellow American, because while the U.S. does indeed have a legitimate reason to want to bring to justice the terrorists who attacked and killed thousands of Americans in their home land on September 11, 2001, Americans must now realize that they should act through the auspices and authorization of a reformed and strengthened United Nations, and stop trying to play big brother and policeman of the world. Let George W. Bush be the last head of state to pursue global military-industrialist imperialist policies. And let America become a truly good example to the world.

(Most of the above was covered in my books, but has been edited, revised and expanded here.)