Dangers of the U.$. unilateralism

September 22 -- Despite lots of rhetoric about 
"coalition building" in the week after the 
September 11 attacks, the Bush administration has 
returned to its unilateral -- or, in plain 
proletarian language, arrogant and hard-headed --
approach to foreign policy. This can be seen in 
Bush's "you're either for us or against us" speech 
on Thursday. It can be seen in the 
administration's refusal to present any of its 
supposed evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the 
attacks to the Taliban, Amerikan allies, or the 
Amerikan public. It can be seen in Colin Powell's 
admission that the "war on terrorism" will extend 
beyond Osama bin Laden. Since Powell and others 
refuse to say who is next on their list, they are 
demanding governments and people around the world 
for a blank check -- or else.

While some Washington strategists blow off the 
political and cultural concerns of their new 
allies in the Middle East and south Asia -- "Who 
cares if [we attack] during Ramadan [the Muslim 
holy month of fasting]?"(1) -- tens of thousands 
of Pakistanis marched to protest their 
government's acquiescence to the united $tates. 
And even Amerika's NATO friends express concern 
that the u.$. military action will result in 
"large scale civilian casualties."(2)

This Wild-West, might-makes-right, Amerika-love-
it-or-lump-it approach to geo-politics is bad news 
for people around the world, many of whom the 
united $tates may soon be bombing, thanks to vague 
Amerikan allegations against their local ruling 
clique. It will also increase anger against the 
united $tates around the world. Amerikan pundits 
admit that the government of nuclear-power 
Pakistan might be overthrown because of popular 
disapproval of the aid it is giving Amerika.(3)

So Bush's independent, Amerika-first foreign 
policy may be a case of Amerika "picking up a stone 
to drop it on its feet." This would certainly not 
be the first time such has happened. We've 
discussed in the past how Hitler might have won 
World War II, had he not insisted on carrying out 
genocide against Jews, Romany, Slavs, etc. and 
thus made it clear to millions that there could be 
no compromise with Nazism.

Normally, MIM does not give the imperialists tips 
on how to run their system and postpone its 
inevitable downfall (whether that be through 
socialist revolution or nuclear holocaust). In 
this case, we do, for two reasons.

First, although the Bush administration's growing 
arrogance may strengthen opposition to Amerikan 
imperialism and hasten its downfall, it will also 
increase the bloodshed, upheaval, and terror 
imperialism causes. Our policy is always to oppose 
imperialist war, even though once war breaks out 
we are confident it will only lay the groundwork 
for imperialism's demise. Furthermore, where 
nuclear weapons are involved, there is always the 
chance the next war could be the humyn species' 
last.

Second, even when we have good advice to offer 
from the perspective of the imperialists, they 
often cannot take advantage of it, because 
stupidity is endemic among their leadership. It's 
not the smartest, most self sacrificing public 
servants who rise to the top of the Amerikan 
government, after all. It's the rich, their 
coddled, cocaine-snorting children, and political 
opportunists. Even George Bush Sr., the "smart" 
Bush, lived such a sheltered life that he had 
never seen those UPC label scanners, a decade 
after they became common. Transportation safety 
officials were playing golf or eating dinner with 
automobile executives while hundreds died due to 
faulty SUV design.

When somebody with some smarts makes it to the 
top, they have to hold on to their position by 
pandering to labor aristocracy voters. During a 
radio call in program a listener suggested that 
the best response of the united $tates to the 
September 11 attacks might be to do nothing. The 
host replied that the caller might have a point, 
but no Amerikan politician could ever do that and 
expect to keep their job.

Under socialism, leadership positions will only be 
filled by the most self-sacrificing, competent and 
dedicated members of society -- people motivated 
by a sincere concern for public good, willing to 
put their own lives on the line, as some doctors, 
firefighters, and even a few police are now. 
Salaries will be low, and their spending easily 
tracked, so corruption can be effectively 
monitored and combated. And government officials 
whose policies kill people -- whether out of 
stupidity, negligence, or pursuit of persynal 
profit -- will face the death penalty. Leaders who 
have responsibility for the health and well-being 
of millions of people should be prepared to make 
such a sacrifice.

Notes: 
1. Los Angeles Times, 22 Sep 2001, p. A17 
2. Los Angeles Times, 22 Sep 2001, p. A4 3. 
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/sept112001/te
xt.php?mimfile=incompetence.TXT