Veering from Left to Right

First, the left. Whatever you think of its message, this short video is ingeniously, almost frighteningly watchable (via Andrew Sullivan, of all people):

It was created in 2004 by Simon Robson, working with left-wing writer Barry McNamara. To my way of thinking, Barry the narrator hyperventilates a few times. It doesn’t make sense to call the 9/11 attack a reaction to U.S. global dominance, except in the sense that it was motivated in some part by the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi Arabian soil. And even if it was a reaction to American global dominance, it was a mass murder explicitly intended to help realize the far-off goal of Islamic fundamentalist global dominance. If that ever came about, even Barry McNamara would pine for the good old days of American global dominance. Also, I don’t think the U.S. is going to be invading Britain or France anytime soon. And, finally, a group cannot be a "manifesto."

However, the writings of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in fact do deserve close scrutiny, which brings us to the right wing. Many leading members of PNAC went on to occupy high positions in the Bush Administration. Several members — including our good friend Charles "Dolchstoss" Krauthammer — remain dismayingly influential U.S. opinion leaders. Major aspects of the PNAC’s philosophy were carried one-to-one into American foreign policy, with the results we’re all familiar with.

Many readers of this blog happen to be citizens of various nations not fortunate enough to be the world’s only remaining superpower. You’ll be reassured to know that the Project for a New American Century has no imminent plans to harm you, so long as you don’t interfere with America’s exercise of "global dominance." Some excerpts from the group’s 2000 report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century:

From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. (p.17)

And here’s one of the "three missions" they propose for U.S. armed forces (p.51):

Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.

5 thoughts on “Veering from Left to Right

  1. Simon Robson, Barry McNamara and the PNAC guys are really Waisenknaben in comparison to people like Fox News reporter Brit Hume, Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, British neocon Melanie Phillips or former Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations member Dave Gaubatz.

    Why? Because the latter discovered the following shocking truth (, nice article about right-wing blogs and the Iraq-WMD-conspiracy):

    “(a) WMDs really were found in Iraq after the invasion, (b) they were located in vast underground bunkers (c) which contained “nuclear, chemical and biological materials”, but (d) the U.S., through negligence, failed to secure those sites and, as a result, (e) the WMDs were stolen by The Terrorists and/or Syrian agents, who now have them and are actively plotting (along with China, Russia and North Korea) to use them against the West, but —

    (f) because the Bush administration is so embarrassed by their failure to prevent the theft of all these dastardly weapons, and because Democrats are embarrassed by this discovery because it proves that Saddam really did have WMDs all along, they have all jointly created a vast conspiracy where they conceal the discovery of WMDs in order to cover up for their negligence.

    Think Progress has a little video from Fox News whith Thomas McInerney.

    I’m pretty sure, for some right-wing paranoids and wackos the word “Dolchstoß” now definitely becomes a very, ahem, special connotation if they simultaneously keep the following Gallup analysis in mind which identifies one religious group in the US who always has been and actually is the toughest foe of the Iraq war…


  2. … no imminent plans to harm you, so long as you don’t interfere with America’s exercise of “global dominance” …Thank God we all here live in Germany where such things are only uttered in much more veiled expressions, such as putting “access to strategic resources” as “national security interest” in writing and verbally throwing something about the control of the high seas after it. The Zeit author meanwhile takes these dog-whistle politics as a signal to brush the silly populace’s concerns about legitimacy and morale, good vs. evil aside.


  3. Martin,

    veiled expressions? Dog-whistle politics? For everyone who is familiar with German security politics and the NATO doctrine since the 1980’s the Zeit article has no new information. That’s old hat! And there’s a huge difference between “the maintenance of the free trade system” or “military protection of sea ways” and wars of aggression and the invasions of foreign countries.

    But as a real military strategist you surely will instantly explain us how the Bundeswehr without own nuclear weapons, aircraft-carriers or intermediate-range and long-range missiles is mililary capable of doing something like the exercise of global dominance…


  4. the Bundeswehr without own nuclear weapons, aircraft-carriers or intermediate-range and long-range missilesThe U.S.’s dominance in Iraq seems not to be needing those toys. I’d take you for a more mature person though if you didn’t peg peace on the (non-)availability of any sort of toy in the first place. Or if you didn’t fall for verbal politics. The U.S. isn’t waging a war of aggression on Iraq either, it’s “preemptive defense against terrorism” if you had followed the news at all.Homework for you: Go and call Jung and have him write that limiting addendum with free trade and the high seas written into that security strategy document, just so there aren’t going to be any funny interpretations when resource war comes on 20 years from now. It’ll be cute to watch you cringe.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s