A Self-Inflicted Curse
Why is the United States of America such a bellicose and bloody nation? Why do its soldiers fight wars all over the world? Because it can, is the obvious answer. It is, after all, the only military super-power on the planet. However, this answer is not satisfying at all. Having the capacity and military capability to wage war and defeat any other nation-state on the planet provides no satisfying reason for actual armed aggression which has been an intrinsic part of United States foreign policy for over seventy-five years.
If a nation state is vastly superior in military power, it may make the decision to go to war easier to make. The war may seem less risky. But there are plenty of superior nations adjoining weak nations that don't suffer the same fate as Kuwait in the early 1990's when Iraq's tanks rolled across the border. Australia is vastly superior in a military sense to New Zealand but we have not been invaded by Aussie diggers; we, in turn, are vastly more powerful than Samoa, or Tonga—yet, we do not fight them nor invade them. One of the most armed and militarily geared-up nations in Europe is Switzerland, but the Swiss represent no threat to anyone.
Why is this not equally true of the United States? But there is something else which is strange about the United States. It does not fight its wars according to the time-honoured historical pattern. In the good-old-days from since when Noah-was-a-lad to the emergence of a dominant United States upon the world scene, wars were essentially about occupying and controlling territory—or at least occupying it to the extent that one could. A nation went to war, smashed its enemies, raped its women, pillaged the land, carried off captives, set up puppet governments and exacted perpetual tribute of all kinds. The war pattern of the US, however, has become fundamentally different. It invades a nation, fights, tries to make some changes in that nation with the object of withdrawing and leaving it alone thereafter. Our forbears would have been deeply puzzled by this kind of behaviour, by this kind of warfare.
Anti-globalisation protests and big business conspiracy theories notwithstanding, the spoils of conquest enjoyed by the United States from its constant warring have been almost non-existent when compared to the time-honoured historical pattern. “To the victor goes the spoils,” has been decidedly not the case when the US has fought its wars. In fact, more often than not the reverse has been the case. Not only has the US paid a great price in both lives and material to fight its wars, but afterwards the US taxpayers and citizens have paid over and over and over again as the US has habitually poured billions of dollars into supporting those nations it has invaded and subsequently left. And, more often than not, it has ended up being hated and despised by the donee nation.
This is true even when the hatred is not necessarily military. Take Europe, for example. Thousands upon thousands of US service personnel lost their lives fighting (they believed) against tyranny in Europe in two continental-wide wars in the last century. Then, after the Second World War, the Marshall Plan provided billions of dollars to rebuild shattered Western Europe. If the Soviets had allowed it, the aid blanket would have been expanded right through Eastern Europe as well. But today, the United States is almost universally mocked, derided, even hated throughout Western Europe. One is left with the disturbing impression that were Western nations more militarily powerful viz-a-vis the United States, the disgust felt toward that country would likely have taken on a military dimension a long time ago.
The question is begged—why is the United State so different from other nations? Why is it so exceptional? Why does it engage its military and conduct its foreign policy in a manner very different from the “normal” time-honoured historical pattern. In the very asking this question we are drawn to the answer. The fundamental reason is that the United States acts differently from other nation precisely because it believes that it is different and is not like other nations.
There is a prevailing belief throughout the United States that it not just the most powerful and wealthiest nation upon the earth, but that it is qualitatively different—which is to say, better. It believes itself to be more enlightened in some very critical ways. It is indeed, exceptional. This belief is what is referred to as American exceptionalism. It is also widely believed that the United States has a special role (and responsibility to carry out that role) in human history. This belief is shared right across the political spectrum from left to right (although the precise nuances of the role that ought to be played can vary widely between right and left). We see this displayed so clearly when we compare Presidents Bush and Obama--from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Both alike has aspired to lead the world and make it a better place. Both alike have believed that it is the special duty and responsibility of the United States to lead the world to this better place. The United States had a duty to engage in messianic labours to this end.
One can see this ideology in overt display upon the wardrobe of Sarah Palin, or upon media personalities such as Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. Their gauche triumphalism grates with the left. They hate it. But the left is equally tarnished, believing that the United States has a special duty to take care of oppressed people, whether in Mogadishu or Rwanda--and yet, that includes sending in the US military, if need be. What other nation is so great that it cares so much, is the meme. One can see exactly the same principles in overt display upon the wardrobe of Hillary Clinton, as she scolded Pakistan for not "doing more" to modernise itself. "Follow our example," hectored Clinton. "We tax everything that moves to pay up to make things better. It is time you did the same."
This belief in the special responsibility that alights upon the United States to lead the world is referred to as the doctrine of American Manifest Destiny.
As we consider these beliefs, doctrines, and ideology it is all too tempting to react facilely in a spirit of resentment. When someone exalts himself, an instinctive reaction is to resent the arrogation and boasting and become quickly resolved to cut him down to size. This goes a long way to explain the attitudes of the political elites and of the “man on the street” in Europe toward the United States. But we must move beyond such superficialities. The matter is more serious and the evils more profound than such trite, "who do you think you are" reactions.
The essential question, however, is to ask why the ideology of Exceptionalism or Manifest Destiny has come to control the United States, so that both President Bush and President Obama share it in common and merely disagree over the way it should be manifested to the world? It is an ideology which amounts to a national idolatry of self-serving, self-worship, yet one with terrible costs. And to answer that question we must turn back to the early 1900's.
It is here we are confronted with a breathtaking perversion of the Christian faith that took hold of the United States and has racked it ever since—with consequences for almost every other nation upon the earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment