No To U.S. Global Dominance
Just posted at MotherJones.com: Michael T. Klare (via Tomdispatch) responds to the charge, leveled in the conservative Washington Times, that he is a "defeatist" when it comes to America's expansionist military policy abroad. The piece is titled, "An Imperial Defeatist -- And Proud of It," so you get the idea where he's coming from. He writes:
My initial response...was to insist -- like so many anxious liberals -- that no, I am not opposed to American preeminence in the world, only to continued U.S. involvement in Iraq. But then, considering the charge some more, I thought, well, yes, I am in favor of abandoning the U.S. imperial role worldwide. The United States, I'm convinced, would be a whole lot better off -- and its military personnel a whole lot safer -- if we repudiated the global-dominance project of the Bush administration and its neo-conservative boosters. ...
I say: repudiate empire, overcome our oil addiction, and bring the troops back home. This will save lives, save money, and restore America's democratic credentials. Even more significant, it will help us prevail in any long-term struggle with small, stateless groups that employ terror as their weapon of choice.
Let's be very clear: the pursuit of empire and success in what the President calls "the global war on terrorism" are mutually incompatible. The more we seek to dominate the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa, the more we will provoke anti-American fury and the very violent extremism with which we claim to be at war.
Read the piece in full here.