a bit of reading material

The other day, I was listening to BBC on the radio, and they were talking to a historian named Niall* Ferguson. He had a new book out (the name of which I forget) and the things he said were pretty interesting. So I decided to check the library, and see if they had his new book. They didnt (it was on order), but they did have other books by him, so I checked out "Colossus".
I was hooked. A half-dozen pages into the introduction to the paperback edition, and I was hooked, and hooked tight. The quote the other day came from the first page. And the one right below. I'm probably going to have to buy my own copy of the book, because I tend to read non-fiction rather slower than fiction, my life is not terribly conductive to reading these days, and because someone else is requesting the book from the library, which prevents me from renewing it. That's okay, it's good enough to pay for. Besides, that way I can take notes in it.

The primary thesis of the book seems to be that the trouble with American foriegn policy is not that we're imperialists, but that we're half-assed imperialists. That sounds bad, doesnt it? But, I'm not sure that perhaps he's not right (on the radio, in "support" of his theory, he cited the "what have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from "The Life of Brian"). I'll have to let you know what I think after I finish the book, but expect tidbits from it from time to time. Like this one:

Ferguson has identified the Seven Characteristic Phases of American Engagement:

1. Impressive initial military success
2. A flawed assessment of indiginous sentiment
3. A strategy of limited war and gradual escalation of forces
4. Domestic disillusionment in the face of protracted and nasty conflict
5. Premature democratization
6. The ascendancy of domestic economic considerations
7. Ultimate withdrawl

How dead on is that? Lest you think that Ferguson created this set of characteristics to bip the Bush Corporation, you might study the history of U.S. intervention in Latin America. Dont forget, the Monroe Doctrine has been getting us into stupid situations for decades before Middle Eastern oil was even a consideration. An example? In 1939, after decades of failed interventions all over Latin America (Sandanistas vs. two generations of the Samoza regime, anyone?), only Costa Rica could be described as a true democracy. Guess which Latin American country had never been "helped" by the U.S.A.?

Or how about the following quote, from a 1935 magazine article written by the highly decorated Marine General Smedley D. Butler:

"I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903.... Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.
(Schmidt, Hans, Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the contradictions of American Military History {Lexington, Ky. 1987})

Does this sound familiar? Does anyone, besides the deluded third of the country who think Dubya's doing "a heckuva job", really think we invaded Iraq to spread democracy and freedom? We've been saying that for decades (rather like the British Victorian mission to spread "civilization"), but all too often, this "democracy" is accompanied by a major American company that deals in whatever resource the country we're "helping" (ourselves to) has.
There's nothing wrong with democracy. Personally, I'm all for it. It's in everyone's best interest (except for oligarchs, petty tyrants, and boot-licking yes-men, of course). But like the proverbial horse, you cant make anyone be democratic. Lead them to it, yes. Then, wait. Odds are, if they see you enjoying your own cool draught, they'll want a bit for themselves, too. Mmmm, good. What we've managed to do, though, is drag them to the pond, muddied it up a bit, shoved their heads in, then, while they're snorting and shaking their hair out, pulled out a bottle of rot-gut (Karl's "Obliviator" brand whiskey?) and swilled it while we laughed at their sputtering. Not a terribly good example, is it?

Anyway, I'm going to keep reading the book. I'll leave you with one last quote, a conversation that took place after Woodrow Wilson, speaking of future cooperation with Latin American countries, said it would be possible "only when supported at every turn by the orderly processes of just government based upon law, not upon arbitrary or irregular force... We can have no sympathy with those who seek to seize the power of government to advance their own personal interests and ambitions"†, and indicating the resolve of the U.S. to make sure that those countries behaved in a moderate manner, a position we would enforce militarily if necessary. Then, in 1913, after the assassination of the premier of Mexico, and the seizure of power by General Victoriano Huerta, Wilson refused to recognise that government, leading to this exchange between British foriegn secretary Sir Edward Grey and Walter Page, American ambassador in London:

GREY: Suppose you have to intervene, what then?
PAGE: Make 'em vote and live by their decisions.
GREY: But supposing they will not so live?
PAGE: We'll go in and make 'em vote again.
GREY: And keep this up 200 years?
PAGE: Yes, the United States will be here for two hundred years and it can continue to shoot men for that little space till they learn to vote and rule themselves.

Jesus, when are we going to learn?

*pronounced "neel".
†the irony is even more pronounced when one considers Bush's second inaugural adress.