Building an Empire

The other day the Fox News Channel's show The Independents ran a segment on "costs of another conflict abroad and the inner workings of the military". Trying to advertise the segment they posted to social media a blurb and photo showing a map. This map had every country represented that the US military had a presence and the very few that had no presence at all. It was a stark reminder that even today empires are being built, they are being expanded.

There are many people who dismiss the idea that what the United States Government and by extension its arm of force, the military, are in essence building and expanding the largest empire in the worlds history. Larger the Attila the Hun's, Larger than Cleopatra and the Egyptian empire, even larger than the Roman and Persian empires. So what does it take for some to see it for what it is. 

Defined by Merriam-Webster it is "(1) :  a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially :  one having an emperor as chief of state 

(2) :  the territory of such a political unit

 :  something resembling a political empire; especially :  an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

 :  imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

capitalized [Empire State, nickname for New York] :  a juicy apple with dark red skin that is a cross between a McIntosh apple and a Red Delicious apple."

Under these definitions it should be easy to recognize how some see it as an empire. The US Government makes it a point to be the hand of Aid, humanitarian or militarily, or it makes a point to be a main aggressor in affairs in an attempt to gain favor and control from other governments and its own people.

When under the rule, and in this case the threat of violence or better stated annihilation, the entire world is set as an empire under the United States. The US engages, first in the humanitarian aid and relief efforts for various nations, takes on health related issues abroad, engages in wars, intervention, removing political leaders and general mayhem making around the world, all with the implicit approval of the American Taxpayer, who is the wallet and bank for such ventures.

But why?
Why do other nations put up with embassies, military presence, intervention, despotism and meddling in international affairs? Money is one answer. Foreign monetary payments, meant for aid, is the bribery most governments accept for these actions. Fear is the another answer. The US has an aura of violence, of brutality, of annihilation. The world witnesses this day in and day out, yet most don't even bat an eye. The world watched as the US dropped the only atomic bombs to ever be used in warfare on largely civilian population in Japan in World War 2, and then gave them the ability to determine who could and couldn't have such weapons.

It doesn't take much to realize that the US is an empire, though I assume most would rather not believe it or accept it as so. We live in a dangerous time, in a dangerous place and with dangerous people. 

The Humanitarian case and Non-Interventionism

Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this idea.

Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be addressed the same way.

Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions.  And serious questions. These questions have been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each individual to decide.

Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?

Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events. Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list, drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s people.

Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention. In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention?  To ensure the loss of life is kept at a minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate.  In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention, conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.

What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?

Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all part of the norm for these types of affairs.

The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation or state.  Each soldier’s life and those that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.

What are the effects of Intervention?

There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.

The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some Responsibility to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?

Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment, conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of intervention bound supplies.

However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth, imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the government they live under. 

Did Imperialism, Radicalism and Nationalism cause the Benghazi Tragedy?

What do we really know about The Benghazi Incident (not a scandal)? Could it have been prevented? Could the foreign policy and war hawking have been a factor? What are the main factors that lead to the deaths of 4 American Government workers? Are these deaths the consequences of a failed policy and retribution for intervention? How do the “Radicals” on both sides of this issue fuel the fire and promulgate the cause beyond this incident? Can a deep held Nationalism and Imperialism be to blame, at least partially?

The lives of J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were added to the statistical sheets and lists of names of those killed by the actions of the government they worked for. Their own actions contributing to their deaths.

Empire building is paid for by the blood of its citizens.

In empires the cost of expansion has always been monetary and lives. The monetary losses are inherent due to an ever expanding use of resources to fulfill land, power or military gains. It goes without saying that Fiat currency and its value manipulation aid in this matter. It is the human losses that are taken the hardest and rightfully so. The deaths of men and women who have been led to believe they are doing a service to the civilian population at home are justified under the rules of war and the guise of a better tomorrow. The lives of these four men were not the first in this long line of death attributed to government’s interventionist policies and empire building. Though you will not hear it on the political “news” commentary these consulate and embassy attacks happened during the prior Presidential Administration as well, from January 22, 2002 to September 17, 2008 there were 13 separate attacks on US buildings resulting in the death of many and injuring many more. Some will say that these deaths were mostly not Americans and that they should not count as the same, but I say this, how is one life or one attack different than another. A US diplomat, David Foy died as a result of an embassy attack in 2006, where is this in the media today? It’s not there because it has no bearing on the sensationalism of the story today, right now, in your face rhetoric redirecting from the factual past and skewing the point. That point being that this isn't a partisan issue, it’s a policy issue. It is the act of intervention that keeps enemies at our gates. It is the act of intervention that breeds hate and contempt. It is this intervention that costs us one of the most basic natural resources we have, the human being.

We have radicals on all sides.

I hear this all the time, “If it weren't for those radical _____ (insert religious term of your choice) none of this would have happened” Well that’s one way of saying it. Let’s try another, “If the American war radicals weren't so keen to blow up things around the world…” Get it? There are radicals on all sides of this issue. We have radical Pro-Military people screaming to nuke the world. We have radical religious people who claim their religion is the only one allowed and all others must not be allowed to survive. (Don’t think I am just pointing at the Islam faith, Christians pull the same stunts). There are the interventionist radicals and the empirical radicals just the same, shouting for their blood baths and land and power grabs, urging on the utter annihilation of complete civilizations and religions.

The thing is if we didn't have all these radicals screaming for their favorite way of dealing with things all dealing with death and destruction of some sort or another, maybe we could have a rational and logical discussion on the affairs of the world. But maybe I’m just hopeful. Maybe I am just a radical Peace Monger, I just don’t see the rational to defy reason and subvert logic for a gain of temporary peace and faux respect.

Nationalism is a horrid disease of the brain.

Albert Einstein said it best of Nationalism, He says

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

And dammit if he isn't right.

It is a disease, a curable disease at that. Inject some knowledge, a little understanding, a few shots of philosophy and it can change the world. Nationalism really is a hard thing to beat, mainly because most people do not see it as a negative thing. They see “Love of country”, National Flags, Pledges of allegiances, our colors and stripes; they claim superiority and greatness arrogantly and erroneously. Exceptionalism is a word they like to throw around a lot. But are they really exceptional? Are they really great? Are they really superior? How do they fill these claims, by what measure?

Let’s think about it this way, the Nation you were born into, you did not pick it and it did not pick you, by some cosmic happenstance you are where you are and not somewhere where you accept bombing to rubble, on the other side of that is those people that are in the place you are destroying and through that same cosmic happenstance they are being murdered and displaced because of that placement. That doesn't sound too much like a good thing. What if it were reversed, would you accept your fate because you are in a place that others see fit to destroy or invade? Would you feel the same if your home were burned or bombarded, if your family were killed, or you were targeted by drone bombing all because of the geographical location you are in? Nationalism has killed more innocent people than almost any other belief in the history of man. Hitler and Mao used Nationalism to subject millions to the will of Socialism and Dictatorship. The Northern States used Nationalism to carry out a Civil war and subject free individual states to an all-encompassing never ending contract of subservience.  The United States, along with other nations, is using Nationalism again to justify homicide around the globe.

Benghazi wasn't an isolated incident, and it wasn't a scandal, hell I even say it wasn't a surprise. It was a response to the policies and procedures, the mindsets and arrogance Americans show the world. If it be said that justifying an act such as this is on the national security interests of a nation than this is no more an attack than invading Iraq or Afghanistan was. If it be said that the radicals were to blame, then we can say yes, radical nationalists on both sides are to blame. If we are to say that the price of an expanding empire is paid by the blood of its citizens then these four men have paid that price, and there will be more to come.  

The investigation that is and will be taking place in the coming months and years will produce no tangible results, it will not alter policy or procedure, it will not halt the footsteps into a world war, it will not affect the outcome of imperialism, nationalism or radicalism in any nation. The investigation will not lead to arrests of those who perpetrated the act; at best a drone will fly overhead and destroy the entire village they may be staying in, without regard for the innocent lives it will destroy.  No this investigation is a sham; it is a waste of time and ultimately tax payers money.

Benghazi wasn't a single act of terrorism; it was the partial culmination of bad policy and even worse judgment.  These men were not heroes; they are statistics of the loss of lives due to government policy of world domination and world policing.