American Imperialism

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM HISTORY AT CROSS ROADS Standing at the crossroad of ever changing position of global power we are witnessing yet another twist in the history. A merciless and cruel phenomenon which time and again has intruded the life of mankind, history clearly depicts, that ever since the evolution of mankind a struggle for dominance has started among the human race some time to impose own ideas and philosophy on others some time to extend own territory and might and foremost for the dominance of resources for the accumulation of wealth to strengthen their stranglehold on subjugated subjects. For this new empires merged on the scene while the old one diminished because of their failure to grasp the ever changing scenario and evolution of human mind. Yet we are witnessing another hegemonic power trying to create a empire by using lame and shameful excuses in order to put the world on her toes, The stiff resistance against such hegemonic designs is natural whether you name it terrorism or struggle for self respect and independence. Imperialism is defined as the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations and an empire is a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority. An empire exists when one nation, tribe or society exercises long-term domination over one or more external nations, tribes or societies. Through that domination the imperial power, or empire, is able to determine many of the key political, social, economic and cultural outcomes in the dominated society or societies. And that is the critical point---the ability of the empire to determine what happens, the outcomes in the societies under its control---is what distinguishes an empire from other forms of political organization. Those who hold power at the centre of an empire typically derive economic benefits, access to important resources, control of militarily strategic territory, and other forms of power as a consequence of imperial arrangements.

One thing is clear with the passage of time the systems and philosophy regarding the establishment of dominance changed. Some time ethnic conflicts some time religious and some time civilization conflicts were the name given to these uprising. Very few admitted there wish of creating there empire. Primitive conflicts were ethnic conflicts in which we saw some ethnic community dominated the other, Achamanides Julius Cesar, all were ethnic based dominations where lust for booty and grabbing of opponent resources were prime, ultimately when the resources of opponent drained the effects were felt at higher echelons of empire and inability to drag that burden the empire collapsed. Romans Empire in an example where lust for money was at its peak and so many states were plundered just to boost the booty again this lust of money made the Roman Empire over stretched and due to inability to sustain this overstretched empire economically the Roman Empire collapsed. All the wars fought before Jesus Christ were ethnic in nature with no tint of religious scent , After Jesus we saw the struggle entering in to new era with the edition of religious furiousty, struggle between Israelites and Christians were primarily religious with the mixture of ethnic conflicts between the monarchs and empires of west . But one thing remained common the subjugation of material resources of the adversary. There is a pertinent lesson in the history that an instinct of economic gain has stretched the empire to an extent where it became impossible for the kings to maintain there might ultimately creating an atmosphere where others slide in the game. This is a common spectrum and stretched over all the history period.

After reformation and at the start of industrial revolution it was west who in the struggle to gain control over the resources and to add their economy plundered the world, it will not be wrong to say that at the start of 15th century when the new worlds were discovered was primarily an economic issue. Columbus in 1492 started a voyage for exploring the new commercial route like wise vas coda gamma explored the route to India, further between 15th and 19th century west embarked on a struggle to capture resources rich areas there by giving rise to colonialism, Dutch empire Napoleon wars and later British conquest of colonies are pertinent examples in this regard.

Great’s army captured Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire, in 331 BC; the treasure seized was equivalent to 300 times the annual income of the richest city in Greece. The battle of Adys was the first major battle during the Roman invasion of North Africa during the First Punic War. Having captured Aspis, a Roman army under the consul Marcus Regulus had moved inland, plundering reaching the walled town of Adys. Alexander left Macedonia to conquer the world his prime aim was to get wealth and resources for Macedonians. Genghis Khan Wars were also an example of horrific plunder. . After the fall of Constantinople in 1204, the crusaders looted the city and transferred its richness to Italy. After half a year of besieging the Protestant city during the Thirty Years War, the Roman Catholic troops of Imperial Field Marshal Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly committed the Sack of Magdeburg. Dutch empire extended through Dutch East India Company and Dutch West India Company established in 1602 AD and 1621AD respectively through which the Dutch controlled the empire in Ceylon Sumatra and West Indies this was primarily an economic enterprise in order to control the wealth and resources of the mentioned states. Similarly expansion of British Empire started with establishment of East India Company incorporated by royal charter on Dec. 31, 1600. Starting as a monopolistic trading body, the company became involved in politics and acted as an agent of British imperialism in India from the early 18th century to the mid-19th century. In addition, the activities of the company in China in the 19th century served as a catalyst for the expansion of British influence there. The 1850s Opium Wars between British Empire and China saw the rapid growth of imperialism. Some of the shared goals of the western powers were the expansion of their overseas markets and the establishment of new ports of call. The French Treaty of Huangpu and the American Wangxia Treaty both contained clauses allowing renegotiation of the treaties after twelve years. In an effort to expand their privileges in China, Britain demanded the Qing authorities renegotiate the Treaty of Nanjing (signed in 1842), citing their most favored nation status.

The British demands included opening all of China to British merchants, legalizing the opium trade, exempting foreign imports from internal transit duties, suppression of piracy, regulation of the coolie trade, permission for a British ambassador to reside in Beijing and for the English-language version of all treaties to take precedence over the Chinese .China was to pay compensation to British merchants in 2 million tales of silver for destruction of their property. The struggle remained intense in 19th and early 20th century where we see colonialism and draining of adversaries resources at peak. WW-1 is pertinent example for controlling the material resources and a struggle for dominance of commercial lanes even the end of WW-1 is as commercial enterpries. Treaty of

Versailles is more a commercial document rather than a armistice truce, WW-2 was another effort to safeguard the colonialism after WW-2 the system of world politics altogether changed and the world was clearly divided in two major super power , This was a struggle of two school of thoughts the capitalism and communism, if we study critically both systems appear a strangle hold to keep hegemony on the world resources after the demise of one of super power this system ultimately halted and a unipolar world emerged where capitalism became supreme and USA emerged as a hegemonic power with no equals. Instead of being a lonely power to scam the pains of the world the lonely superpower embarked on a mission of world dictation and to force her own thought and orders some time in the shape of New World Order and later creating the phenomenon of rouge states and axis of evil doctrine. Unaware of the consequences and in the myth of power the lonely super power has put the world in a furnace where it is melting continuously and the temp in geopolitics arena has risen to an extent where every body is feeling the heat and the picture on the canvas of Globe is ever changing this essay is to analyze the polices of lonely super power with special emphasis on her imperialistic designs and suggest remedies against imperialism.

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, several commentators have advanced the idea of security through empire. They claim that the best way to protect the United States in the 21st century is to emulate the British, Roman, and other empires of the past. The logic behind the idea is that if the United States can consolidate the international System under its enlightened hegemony, America will be both safer and more prosperous. Although the word “empire” is not used, the Bush administration’s ambitious new National Security Strategy seems to embrace the notion of neoimperialism. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Wall Street Journal editorial features editor. The September 11 attacks says Boot, were “the result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solutions to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in our implementation.” Boot holds up the 19th-century British Empire as an example of what he has in mind: “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in Jodhpur pith helmets.” Another advocate of empire is Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby says that” the logic of neoimperialism is too compelling . . . to resist. The chaos of the world is too threatening to ignore, and existing methods for dealing with that chaos have been tried but failed.” He therefore calls for an” imperialist revival” wherein orderly societies, led by the United States, can and should take a page from the past and “impose their own institutions on disorderly ones.” The most sophisticated argument in favour of empire, however, comes from Atlantic Monthly correspondent Robert Kaplan. Who says that American policymakers should turn to chronicles of the Greek, Roman, and British empires for helpful hints about how to run American foreign policy. “Our future leaders could do worse than be praised for their . . . ability to bring prosperity to distant parts of the world under America’s soft imperial influence,” further he says “Rome, in particular, is a model for hegemonic power, using various means to encourage a modicum of order in a disorderly world.

” In his 1919 book, The State in Peace and War, political theorist John Watson

attempted to provide the moral justification for an” enlightened” imperialism. In a nutshell, Watson argued that outsiders have a “legitimate authority” to run the affairs of troubled countries if they are “consciously acting on the basis of a higher good,” namely that of advancing civilization and development. “Political rule over others,” he wrote, is “justified if the rulers exercise their authority for a good that transcends their own desires” for power and material gain, the hallmarks of traditional imperial rule. Today’s advocates of empire similarly talk in terms of both an imperial imperative—colonizing the world’s zones of disorder will be good for us—and imperial virtue—colonizing the world’s zones of disorder will be good for the natives. Kaplan, for example, says that “the wise employment of force [is] the surest guide to progress” and that imperialism is a “dependable form of protection for ethnic minorities and others under violent assault.” Boot agrees and justifies imperialism as a way to liberate people from chaos or tyrannical rule and to bring to them the blessings of a better way of life. He stresses how American empire can “feed the hungry, tend the sick, and impose the rule of law” in troubled places. Similarly, according to the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy, there is a “single model for national success. Freedom, democracy After World War I, President Wilson advanced the idea of creating a mandatory system of protectorates, whereby the colonial possessions of the defeated Ottoman and German empires would be put under Western” trusteeship” in order “to build up . . . a political unit that can take charge of its own affairs” Eventually. Under Wilson’s plan, “imperial sovereignty” would have been exercised, not by a single nation, but by many. Wilson’s project ultimately failed, but the idea behind it has been undergoing a resurrection ever since the Cold War ended. Most recently, Robert Cooper, a senior foreign policy adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has tried to update Wilson by developing the idea of “cooperative empire.” Cooper argues that the existence of zones of disorder—such as Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, Somalia, and Zimbabwe—is too dangerous for established states to tolerate anymore. Kaplan is blunter in his assessment to future.

Predominance and emphasizes “delegation” rather than “cooperation.” For him, the United States is a force unto itself: “Our prize for winning the Cold War is not merely the opportunity to expand NATO, or to hold democratic elections in places that never had them, but something far broader: We and nobody else will write the terms for international society.” The extent to which the UN or any other international institutions matter depends on how much the United States makes them matter; because “the UN is effective to the degree that it has the tacit approval of a great power.” Any “imperial sovereignty” over the world’s zones of disorder may therefore fall to the UN or some other international body in practice, but it will be the United States that gives that sovereignty its meaning. The new imperialists have been emboldened to use the attacks of September 11 to justify an American empire to tame failed states that they believe could become havens for terrorists. They, however, are not interested merely in pacifying dangerous corners of the planet where America’s enemies can hide and conspire, and where tyrants, mass murderers, and other predators can deny their people a decent life. Many are interested in implementing the theory of hegemonic stability, which holds that a massive imbalance of power makes for the most stable international system because no one will be willing or able to challenge the dominant power. The object of U.S. foreign policy, they argue, should be not mere national defence but international supremacy. Given America’s disproportionate military and economic superiority, there is now a temptation to try to revise the world and” universalize both peace and the institutions of freedom” by extending an American imperialism across the planet. The subsuming of the Warring States under the Confucian value system of the Han emperors was a good thing: its global equivalent

can now only be achieved by the United States. Koshy (2002), Mann (2003), and Harries (2004) have examined America’s increasingly unilateral foreign policy direction, and each draws different conclusions. Koshy claims that the ‘war on terror’ is imperialist war designed to secure control of resources; Mann that America needs to recant from morally driven unilateralism and return to the more imperfect but realistic multilateralism.

Harries argues America attempts to dominate the world, probably has a right to do so, but hasn’t been able to succeeded in creating consent for its actions First of all we will see that US imperialism is a phrase of recent era or it is an old phenomenon, Stuart Creighton a famous writer says that US imperialism has been the subject of agonizing debate ever since the united states acquired formal empire at the end of 19th century during 1898 Spanish American war, philosopher Douglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionnalism as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th century, Historian D.W.Meining argues at length for use of word “empire” and imperial for the United States, rooted as early as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 ad which he describe as an imperial acquisition, United States Constitution own its structure as much to the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes as to the experience of the Founding Fathers ,Jeffersonian thought to a great extent Paraphrases the ideas of earlier Scottish philosophers and that even the unique frontier egalitarian has deep root in seventeenth century English radical traditions. Many Marxists, anarchists, member of the New Left, as well as some conservatives, tend to view US imperialism as deep –rooted and amoral. Imperialism as US policy, in the view of historians like William Apple man, Howard Zinn, and Gabriel Kolko, traces its beginning not to the Spanish American War, but to Jefferson ,s purchase of the Louisiana Territory, or even to the displacement of Native Americans prior to the American Revolution, and continues to this day. Historian Sidney Lens argues that “the United States, from the time it gained its own independence, has used very available means – political, economic, and military- to dominate other nations Numerous U.S foreign interventions ranging from early actions under the Monroe Doctrine to 21st century intervention s in the Middle Fast are typically described by these authors as imperialistic.

A theory of “ super-imperialism “ asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies driven not simply by the interests of American businesses, but by the interests of the economic elites of a global alliance of developed countries, Capitalism in Europe, the U.S, and Japan has become too entangled , in this view , to permit military or geopolitical conflict between these countries and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the global core and the global periphery rather than between imperialist powers. A “Hardt and Negri-ite “theory is closely related to the theory of “Superimperialism “but has a different conception of Power. According to political theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the world has passed the era of imperialism and entered a new era. Hardt and Negri no longer hold that the world has already entered the new era of Empire, but only that it is emerging. According

to Hardt, the Iraq War is a classically imperialist war, but represents the last gasp of doomed strategy this new era still has colonizing power, but it has moved from national military forces based on an economy of physical goods to networks bipower based on an informational and affective economy. On this view the U.S is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of international power and sovereignty, termed “Empire” The controversy regarding the issue of US cultural imperialism is largely separate from the debate about US military imperialism however some critics of imperialism argue that cultural imperialism is not independent from military imperialism. Edward Said, one of the original scholars to study post–colonial theory argues that, “So influential has been the discourse insisting on American special ness, altruism and opportunity , that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States is astonishingly peculiar.

He believes non-US citizen, particularly non-Westerners, are usually thought of within the US in a tacitly racist manner, in a way that allows imperialism to be justified through such ideas as the White Man’s Burden. `A “ social-democratic” theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and government- the arms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance a combination often referred to as the “ military industrial complex”. The complex is said to benefit from war profiteering and the looting on natural resources often at the expense of the public interest. The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure. The left–leaning Johnson holds a version of this view other versions are typically held by conservative anti-interventionists, such as Beard, Bacevich, Buchanan, Raimondo, and most notably, journalist John T, Flynn and Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler who wrote. “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during the period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues. I helped in the raping a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903, In China in 1927 helped see to it that Standard Oil went in its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone of few hints; the best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

A "Leninist" theory asserts that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the unified interest of the predominant sectors of U.S. business,

which need to ensure and manipulate export markets for both goods and capital Business, on this Marxist view, essentially controls government, and international military competition is simply an extension of international economic competition, both driven by the inherently expansionist nature of capitalism. The proposed solution is typically revolutionary economic change the theory was first systematized during the World War I by Russian Bolsheviks Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin, although their work was based on that of earlier Marxists, socialists, and anarchists. Chomsky, Foster, Kolko, Lens, Williams, Zinn, Marxist anthropologist David Harvey, and, most notably, Indian writer Arundhati Roy each hold some version of this view, as does Adam Smith himself. American foreign policy officials almost never use the word "hegemony" in their public discourse. When Henry Kissinger did so at his first press conference after being named President Richard Nixon's special assistant for national security affairs in 1968, puzzled reporters scurried to their dictionaries for help. Presidents and their advisers prefer more positive terms such as "global leadership" or "indispensable nation" to describe America's role in the world, yet "hegemony," because it is less loaded, better captures the essence of recent U.S. strategy. The ancient Greeks understood "hegemony" to mean preponderant international influence or authority, and preserving such preponderance has been a fundamental goal of all post–Cold War administrations power and influence constituted "global hegemony," and American leaders, as well as those of a surprisingly large number of foreign nations, wished to preserve it. But domestic divisions surfaced about whether it could best be accomplished unilaterally or by working closely with allies and international organizations. This debate began in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War and by the millennium remained unresolved. President George H. W. Bush envisioned America's role as that of benevolent hegemon, protecting the growing "zone of democratic peace" against regional outlaws, terrorists, nuclear proliferators, and other threats to world order.

It would do so in concert with others, if possible, as in the Gulf War, or unilaterally, if necessary. And today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the world witnesses the effort by the imperial government of the United States of America to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Moslem states and peoples, surrounding central Asia and the Persian Gulf under the pretext of fighting a war against international terrorism or eliminating weapons of mass destruction or promoting democracy which is total nonsense. At the dawn of the third millennium of humankind's parlous existence, nothing has changed about the operational dynamics of American imperial policy. And we see this today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and what appears to be an illegal attack upon Iran. Unlike the Romans or the British, Americans are simultaneously the supposed guarantors of a system of international law and doctrine. It was on American initiative that every member nation of the United Nations was obliged to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Innumerable treaties and instruments, descending and ramifying from this, are still binding legally and morally. Thus, for the moment, the word "unilateralism" is doing idiomatic duty for the word "imperialism," as signifying a hyper-power or ultra-power that wants to be exempted from the rules because—well, because it wrote most of them. Interestingly enough, George Bush gave clear expression to this feeling during the 2000 electoral campaign. He consistently opposed what he called "nation-building" as an American responsibility and called for more "humility" in US relation to the rest of the world, striking an isolationist chord that has been perennial in US tradition. Many have noted how much 9/11 changed Bush’s views. But even after laying out in September 2002 the most explicit blueprint in history for American

world domination in the document "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," Bush could tell a group of veterans that America has "no territorial ambitions. We don’t seek an empire. Our nation is committed to freedom for ourselves and for others.

" In spite of the fact that with respect to the word "empire" Bush is apparently still in a state of denial, his National Security document is nothing if not a description of empire: America will strike any nation or any group that it deems dangerous, whenever and however it feels necessary, and regardless of provocation or lack thereof. America invites allies to join in these ventures but reserves the right to act with or without allies. No nation will be allowed to surpass or even equal American military power, and indeed other nations are advised to limit or destroy any "weapons of mass destruction" they may have, and that includes Russia, China and India. Only the U.S. will have large reserves of weapons of mass destruction, apparently because only we can be trusted to use them justly. How can we understand this peculiarly American approach to empire? Part of the answer lies in understanding west dissenting Protestant tradition. The dissenting Protestants who founded America were suspicious of government. They thought people should do things for themselves through voluntary societies. They were also deeply moralistic. Opposed to the established churches, which happily included saints and sinners, they regarded their own churches as churches of the saved. They tended to see society and the world as split between the righteous and the unrighteous. In that tradition, the desire to triumph over evil can trump the aversion to power. If evil is loose in the world, it is up to US to put a stop to it. Splitting the world into good and evil is a general human propensity; I don’t want to claim that the U.S. has a monopoly on this activity, only that US do it more than other Western nations. And even though I see dissenting Protestantism as one source of this tendency, as my reference to superheroes suggests, this tendency is now secularized and pervasive in US popular culture, disseminated by movies, television and video games. At a deeper level, US infatuation with technology plays into this idea, But 2005 is not 1945, and the United States, despite Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney's assertions, is not liberating Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way that U.S. forces liberated Germany and Japan it is not reconstructing Iraq or the former Yugoslavia as it did when it rebuilt war torn western Europe with the Marshall Plan.

The United States, with its thinly stretched military and deficit-laden economy, does not possess the means to do so today. Instead, the United States is simply depleting the developing world's natural resources, compelling the rest of the developed world to remain dependent on American management of the global economy. When the war ends, no matter how well or badly for the United States, so long as the government is in control of the oil fields and refineries, and so long as Washington controls Baghdad, the oil companies will thrive. This will happen even if thousands of bodies are stacked up outside of the oil wells. So long as the pipelines remain intact and the crude flows, all will be hunky-dory. The recolonisation of the periphery constitutes the political face of imperialist economic domination. It is based on the growing association of the local dominant classes with their northern equivalents. This intertwining is the consequence of financial dependence, the surrender of natural resources and the privatization of strategic sectors in the region. The loss of economic sovereignty has given the International Monetary Fund (IMF) a direct grip over macro-economic management and

the US State Department a similar influence on political decisions. Today no Latin American president would dare to take any significant decision without consulting the US Embassy. Military aggression is the imperialist response to the disintegration of states, peripheral economies and societies, provoked by the growing US domination over this periphery. That is why the current ’war on terror’ has some similarities with old colonial campaigns. Again, the enemy is demonized to justify the massacres of the civilian population on the front line and restrictions on democratic rights in their homeland. However, the more the destruction of the ’terrorist’ enemy advances, the more one witnesses a political and social dislocation. The generalized state of war perpetuates the instability provoked by economic pillage, political balkanization and the social destruction of the periphery The official position of the United States in its “war against terror” is not imperialist. It is something worse. In fact, we need a new word to describe it – and a new set of understandings to see our way out of it.

If you read President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, you will discover its foundation. According to President Bush, “We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in the entire world.” As to whether Bush’s policy signifies “imperialism,” it clearly does not fit the definition – though it comes very close. Bush was not advocating “the extension of control, dominion or empire….” He was advocating the extension of popular control through “democratic” institutions. In accomplishing this “popular control” the use of American ground forces becomes necessary in order to suppress non-democratic elements. Now that this is supposedly accomplished in Iraq, the American forces are set to leave. Once again, this is not imperialism. In fact, it is liberalism run amok History always repeats itself twice,” wrote Karl Marx. “The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” When the world compares Bush to Hitler, they ought to make use of Marx’s formula – turning it back on itself. A farce is a comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations. When President Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the world did not mobilize against him. There was no Battle of Stalingrad, no holocaust, no raving Fuhrer in an isolated bunker, and no “bomb plot” by disgruntled military officers. Instead, Bush ended his campaign with a press conference at which shoes were hurtled at his head by an “Iraqi journalist,” who shouted to the president: “This is farewell … you dog!” With youthful agility the president ducked both projectiles and smiled into the camera: “That was a size ten shoe he threw at me, you may want to know.” Bush later described the encounter as proof of victory. In a democracy, he explained, people wave at you without showing all their fingers. So Bush claimed victory, saying: “We made good progress.” And America’s enemies are repressing giggles. Like Hitler’s blitzkrieg, George W. Bush’s blitzkrieg initially appeared unstoppable, victorious, sweeping all before it; but like Hitler, he overextended, became bogged down, found himself at odds with his generals, issuing a “no retreat” order in the face of collapsing morale.

While Hitler filled the concentration camps and exterminated “undesirables” in conquered territory, Bush was determined to fill voting booths and elect the undesirables.

When the Gestapo captured insurgents, they were brutally tortured; when the Americans captured insurgents, they were forced to wear women’s underwear. Hitler attacked the Russians because of their treachery. Bush invited his treacherous Russian “partner” to a barbecue at his dad’s house. Facing the end, Hitler married an actress and promptly shot himself. George W. Bush, on the other hand, shook hands with his African-American successor and smiled at the prospect of retirement. Here is the face of American imperialism as it ducks an incoming size ten shoe: “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation,” Bush said in his Second Inaugural: “The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies America is no Third Reich. Though its military knows the technique of blitzkrieg, the politicians don’t know what to do with the resulting “victory.” The American people are not an imperialist people. They do not particularly like foreign adventures, or telling other people what to do. The “war on terror,” therefore, tends toward farce. It is not imperialism, but misguided philanthropy in which many people are killed. The axis of evil doctrine coined by the west has totally based on discrimination set rules. One can argue why one thing which is so important for west is harmful and an act of devilish attitude, this discrimination again abstracted the future scenario while dealing axis of evil west never opted for any military action against any non Muslim country rather it amassed all its efforts to word Islam an abstract with in the abstract. Let us see why the west has taken so pain in creating new enemies rather making other cultures friendly.

After the demise of the USSR their remained only one super power the USA to keeps he military advancement going and to keep its own people in some kind of xenophobia USA needed some body and it trimmed first the axis of evil phenomenon and than further advanced to create Islam as the ultimate culprit responsible for the repression in world on this pretext does it not look likely the 9-11 incident was a fabricated and well rehearsed drama of the west to show one hand the Muslims as the enemies of world peace and secondly to put their own people in a xenophobic fear of course the west succeed in attaining it both goals , so when J W Bush declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan he named them the crusade clearly meaning that this was not against any particular community its is against Islam and the fearful west came to believe this idea where as the intention was altogether different. The Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking the real reason of war is to prevent further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. In order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geostrategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. Given America’s disproportionate military and economic superiority, there is now temptation to try to revise the world and “universalize both peace and the institutions of freedom” by extending an American imperium across the planet. Kaplan, for example, says, The subsuming of the Warring States under the Confucian value system of the Han emperors was a good thing: its global equivalent can now only be achieved by the United States.” Mallaby says: “A new imperial moment has arrived, and by virtue of its power America is bound to play the leading role. The question is not whether the United States will seek to fill the void created by the demise of European empires but whether it will acknowledge that this is what it is doing.” To which Boot would add, “America should not be afraid to fight ‘the

savage wars of peace’ if necessary to enlarge the ‘empire of liberty.

’” In the early 1990s, a triumphant American commentator argued that the Bush administration’s war against Iraq “marks the dawning of the Pax Americana” and that U.S. grand strategy should strive to lock in America’s post–Cold War hegemony “to secure the ‘new world order’ that has been the goal of American policy since President Woodrow Wilson.” With U.S. “world leadership assured another commentator says,” today’s military midgets will be content to stay that way. National security with maintaining what some people have called “the functional equivalent of global containment,” the emergence of balance-prone powers threatens a hegemon implicitly. As such, a hegemon must take escalating steps to both ward off potential challenges and persuade security dependents that they are still protected. The chief danger here is strategic overextension because the maintenance of what is in essence a military protector ship is open-ended and requires an empire to continually enlarge the geographic scope of its security responsibilities. Indeed, stabilizing one region logically necessitates the stabilization of the neighboring region to safeguard the first. For example, much of the impetus for the U.S.-led war in Kosovo was to protect investment in the fragile peace that the West imposed in Bosnia. The process of strategic overextension becomes self-reinforcing because, each time a hegemon expands its perimeter new potential threats are encountered that demand further expansion. As political scientist Robert H. Johnson explains, political “uncertainty leads to self-extension, which leads in turn to new uncertainty and self extension”. Maintaining empire, in other words, requires perpetually widening commitments. Afghanistan is already an obvious example of this process of self-extension. The fate of Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul, it is argued, now requires Washington to stabilize Central Asia, disentangle the Kashmir conflict, and resolve conflicts in the Middle East. Even more fundamental, today’s advocates of empire dodge the central foreign policy question facing U.S. policymakers in the post–September 11 world. What should America’s priorities be?

Because everything is a priority under the strategy of empire, there are no conceptual brakes to prevent the United States from engaging in a sweeping activism that saps both its resources and credibility. Thus Kaplan may invoke SunTzu’s maxim that “the side that knows when to fight and when not to fight will take the victory. There are roadways not to be travelled, armies not to be attacked, walled cities not to be assaulted... But that logic presumes that states will be lastingly indifferent to the fluid nature of politics and inherent uncertainty about the future. As political scientist Joseph Grieco notes, however, because states worry that today’s ally can become tomorrow’s rival,” they pay close attention to how cooperation might affect relative capabilities in the future.” Howard Zinn was right; there is a threat out there to which US have to respondincluding the use of non-state actors against the US." The war on terrorism has logic of its own. There is a logic the present administration is pursuing that dovetails with the view of more conservative sections of the ruling class. Their

logic is: "We are now way ahead of any of the other powers in the world. We have to maintain that superiority." That is: If anyone appears to be developing a potential threat we need to knock it out now. It was in the context of discussions of Asia that U.S. planners said that any emerging threat needs to be taken out now in order to guarantee U.S. superiority in the future. And that it is the beginning of a doctrine that any perceived threat anywhere needs to be taken out. It's considered a part of a pre-emptive war in which the goal is the maintenance of the U.S. as the chief power in the world. Why Iraq? What's it all about? We need to look at Iraq in the context of September 11. The administration and Paul Wolfowitz, one of its ideologues, had Iraq in their sights well before September 11. We need to understand that it isn't simply terrorists attacking the U.S., but any state sponsoring terrorism, or that isn't seen as accepting the discipline of the U.S., must itself be disciplined.

It isn't only that they are ideologically preoccupied with Iraq. They are, of course. But the point is that Iraq clearly stands out as one of the states that stand in the way of the U.S. ability to rule the world. That’s what we're talking about, the drive by the U.S. to determine the fate of the world in its own interests. Therefore, the administration has decided that Iraq must be taken out. Not only for Iraq's sake, but read for Iraq, "Saudi Arabia"; read for Iraq, "Iran"; read for Iraq, "China"; read for Iraq, "the first step." If they don't get Iraq, why should anyone listen to what the U.S. says? It is one thing to launch a multinational operation into Kosovo. It is another thing to say, "US intend to set the agenda for the world, and you are either with us"-and this is the connection with September 11-"or against us." With the new doctrine, the question becomes whether the U.S. will be able to carry this program through, whether or not they are overstepping their capabilities. That’s also the key to understanding the debate between the multilateralists and the unilateralists. All of these peopleScowcroft, Kissinger, all who hung onto the last breath as unilateralists in Vietnam-these born-again coalition-builders are now arguing, "Let's not go it alone." But there is actually now, with the war against terrorism, a new basis for unilateralism since the U.S. has interests that are not necessarily shared with Middle East allies, the European powers, or others. There is a basis on which unilateral interests lead them to pursue Iraq to the end. What does it mean in terms of the war? It means U.S has an uphill battle to win over the rest of the world. It doesn't rule out getting the acquiescence from the rest of the international powers. There are all kinds of problems, but it seems clear that they will still go ahead with the war-that they intend to get all their ducks in a row. Its guess work about the timetable, but the timetable in terms of getting approval seems to be accelerating. We will have to do a lot more to explain the apparent contradictions of American imperialism, which is that they don't seem to give much thought to what the effects will be on "the street" in the Middle East. They are playing with notions like "International stability"-the hallmark of Cold War imperial ideology-"is secondary to the needs to impose the rights and authority of the U.S.

Part of their logic can be attributed to the fact that they do not face the kind of anti-imperialism that they faced in the past. When they say "in the street" they mean inchoate opposition that repression can take care of, and that's why the right wing is strong here. They don't see the same kind of political movements that emerged 20 or 30 years ago that had a nationalist or anti-imperialist

direction. What is the prognosis? We have to understand that American imperialism feels emboldened, but that even with a couple of victories under its belt it does not have a free ride. Even if it is able to get approval for this war, it will unleash a set of events despite itself, which include a number of new contradictions. For example, how do you settle the war? Who gets Iraq? Who gets the second largest reserves of oil in the world? They are talking about an occupation of years. Now most of the countries say they will cut a deal with France and Russia to get frozen money and contracts. What about the rest of the world? The rest of Europe? Japan? That's just one question. What happens when the Middle East is thrown into turmoil, let alone the development of an anti-imperialist movement in the heart of the beast? A couple of things about the character of the opposition movement we need to build. Anti-imperialism is no longer a given in the movement. We have to explain why activists should be anti-imperialist-in some cases with arguments about the past history of American intervention, but we also need to develop arguments about the present character of American imperialism. What is wrong with regime changes? What is wrong with pre-emptive strikes? We have to be versatile in being able to argue the case against the administration. We also have to offer an alternative, but not only of anti-imperialism. We need to develop socialist propaganda that ties opposing the war to changing the system that produces war. In order to accomplish this uphill task following are recommended:-

1. America should Stop the so called war on terrorism, that needs first to define terrorism universally because world is looking terrorism as one enraged by non state actors and other by states. 2. America should arrange broad base dialog among the Muslims and west in order to clarify the mistrust prevailing among the two. 3. Should withdraw all it forces from all Muslims states in order to give them a positive message of friend ship. Should stop interfering in the autonomy of other and let others decide there goals in the face of Globalization. 4. In order to stop capitalist imperialism a new currency for international trade should be introduced as China has demanded in G-20 conference 5. All government should allow democracy in their countries so that a awareness of fundamental rights can inculcate among the masses 6. Rich countries specially the OPEC countries and China stop buying US security bond if America did not abide by the fundamental right of freedom 7. A universal agreement of not allowing their territory for any kind of aggression and not to provide bases to such powers should be introduced.

The ongoing turmoil is leading towards a horrific future where peace is a distant story it is up to west and especially America to design a broad base policy of tolerance among all tiers of globe and start on looking the situation in true retrospect especially the Muslim world which presently is in direct firing line of the west, west should think seriously that ongoing policy is not in favour of

anybody rather it is complicating the issues in all spheres, to gain more benefits from the resources of Muslim and third world a dynamic and just policy is the need of the day from which both east and west can be benefited failing in this regard is catastrophic and world as terrorist paradise is the order of the day. .