posted on October 26, 2002 09:45:52 PM new
No other nation on the face of the earth uses the words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the
premise for their foundation in government.
America does, and scads of Constitutional law have been written and re-written, debated and considered,
because a long time ago the Founders decided to base everything upon the absolute necessity of those three
concepts. America is and has always been a nation of immigrants, because the promise of these simple ideals
has lured millions of people from every corner of the globe to these shores.
These words are the basis of the American Dream, a concept so simple and yet so huge that it is difficult to
define. How does one encapsulate the concept of "the pursuit of happiness" in so diverse a nation? The answer
to that question lies in the interpretation of the word that comes before it, "liberty." Above all, and first in line, is
"life." Americans have the right to be alive, free, and to pursue fulfillment in whatever way suits them, so long
as that pursuit does not grossly interfere with the life, freedom and happiness of a neighbor.
The American Dream has come to mean a variety of things pertaining to ownership. Having your own home is
part of the American Dream, as is owning a car, having a job, and the pursuit of monetary wealth. This is all
well and good, for we live in a capitalist society so large that it would make Adam Smith faint dead away.
Through it all, however, runs the pulsing heartbeat of those three simple concepts.
Of course, we have never achieved the lofty goals set by the Founders in this regard; liberty is still denied to
many, and the pursuit of happiness is impossible for citizens treated unequally. Yet the American Dream, at
bottom, is bent towards the creation of that more perfect union, where wrongs are made right and happiness is
well within reach.
This is the American Dream we speak of openly, in daylight, when the children gather to learn about the land
they call home. This is what we tell the immigrants when they raise their hands to take the pledge and become
citizens. This is what we tell ourselves when we feel the need to be convinced that this nation is indeed good
and great.
There is another American Dream which lurks in shadow, and speaks only in whispers of its designs. This
other American Dream runs dark and silent, on rails lubricated by oil, blood and power. It works at all hours of
the day and night to achieve its goals. It does not sleep. The existence of this other American Dream places
the first one, the real one, the true one, in terrible peril. If this other American Dream is allowed to blossom into
its intended potential, the American Dream we speak of to our children will cease completely to exist.
The proponents of this other American Dream look at the world in terms of empire. They seek to achieve
hegemony over great swaths of strategically-important territory, and will do whatever is necessary to gain this
control. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, they see America as the first truly global superpower. With the
use of economic and military might, they seek to gain absolute dominion in the space opened by the fall of our
former rival. The term "Globalization" encapsulates only a fraction of the plan.
For many years, the proponents of this other American Dream lingered in neo-conservative think tanks, like the
Committee on the Present Danger, where they could only snipe from the fringes. With the rise to power of
George W. Bush, in an election that denied him even the pretense of a mandate, these neo-conservative
strategists suddenly found themselves walking the halls of power, because Bush was forced in the absence of
a mandate to fall back upon his neo-conservative base for support. The other American Dream, alive for so long
only in white papers within these think tanks, has become the central framework of American policy.
One proponent of this strategy is Richard Perle, a former Defense Department official within the Reagan
administration. Perle is now chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board, which carries great weight within
the Pentagon. Recently, this board listened with avid attention to a policy briefing proffered by other hard-right
think tankers that proposed a "Grand Strategy for the Middle East." The final slide of their presentation offered
"Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot (and) Egypt as the prize" in an effort to extend
American hegemony over the entire Middle East. Such plans cast into deep shade the reasons put forth by the
Bush administration to defend war against Iraq. There is far more on the table here than the threat of weapons
of mass destruction.
The framework for this other American Dream has other champions in positions of great influence within the
Bush administration. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz, spring from the
same neo-conservative think-tank roots as Richard Perle. From their places high in government, these fringe
elements have gained the required position to push forward with their plans.
This other American Dream is not solely a creation of Bush administration officials, nor has it just recently
come to fruition, nor is it fixated solely upon the Middle East. The bloody history of Afghanistan represents a
clear example of the kind of geopolitical gamesmanship that characterizes the plans these people have for
America. Afghanistan in 1978 was ruled by a Communist puppet regime called the People's Democratic Party
of Afghanistan (PDPA). To foster a destabilization of that regime, so as to counter the growing Soviet influence
in that strategically vital region, America began arming and training Afghan mujeheddin warriors, with
Pakistan's assistance, in an effort to undermine the PDPA.
This effort, however, had more in mind than the overthrow of the PDPA. Elie Krakowski, in a study written for
the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in April of 2000, described Afghanistan's importance
as going far beyond the dictates of the Cold War:
"(Afghanistan) owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land
power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself. With the collapse of
the Soviet Union, it has become an important potential opening to the sea for the landlocked new states of
Central Asia. The presence of large oil and gas deposits in that area has attracted countries and multinational
corporations. Because Afghanistan is a major strategic pivot, what happens there affects the world."
This places American aid to the mujeheddin in 1978 in a broader perspective. Our actions were not simply
about attacking communism. In attempting to destabilize the PDPA, we were hoping to tempt the wrath of the
Soviet Union. It worked: The USSR invaded and eventually destroyed its ability to extend influence into the
region against the unyielding rock of Afghanistan, eliminating a strategic enemy and opening the region to
broadening American hegemony.
Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor for President Carter during this period, bluntly confirmed this in
1998. "We did not push the Russians into invading," said Brzezinski, "but we knowingly increased the
probability that they would. The secret operation was an excellent idea. The effect was to draw the Russians
into the Afghan trap."
Brzezinski's brag is revelatory, for it describes the lengths to which the proponents of this other American
Dream will go to achieve this goal. Afghanistan was utterly destroyed by the Soviet invasion in 1979, by the
ten-year war fought by Afghan warriors to remove them, and by the ravaging civil war that descended in the
aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. In that span was born the Taliban, trained to fight, and to propound their
deadly interpretation of Islam, in Pakistani religious schools funded and supported by the American CIA.
Brzezinski's "Afghan trap" gave birth, as well, to Osama bin Laden, whose reputation as a heroic anti-Soviet
mujeheddin warrior made him a demigod within Afghanistan. None of this - the Soviet invasion, the Taliban,
Osama bin Laden, the wretchedness of life in Afghanistan - would have come into existence without the forces
behind the other American Dream playing out geopolitical strategies designed to augment American control in
the world.
This other American Dream was codified by Brzezinski in 1998, who authored in 1998 a study for the Council
on Foreign Relations entitled, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives."
The study describes in detail the importance of Afghanistan and the entire Central Asian region, which is
described in its entirety as "Eurasia." According to the study, America must gain military and economic
control of the region to stave off competition from China, Russia and Europe. The guts of the study are quoted
below:
"But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous
concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals including
gold...It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also
challenging America...A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced
and economically productive regions.
"To put it in terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand
imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the
vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
Profoundly disquieting are the conclusions reached by Brzezinski regarding the means by which the American
populace could be directed into supporting the actions required to achieve control in that region. "As America
becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign
policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
The danger is clear. This geopolitical strategy of dominion in Central Asia, begun in 1978 with the "Afghan
trap," put in motion a series of events that ultimately led to the creation of the Taliban, the empowerment of
Osama bin Laden, and the attacks of September 11th. The plans described to Richard Perle's Defense Policy
Board that target not only Iraq, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia and indeed the entire Middle East, were born from the
same strategic imperatives.
This is the other American Dream. Already, the blowback from its dictates have dealt a terrible blow to the true
dream we wish to live by. We live in fear now of mega-terrorism that was spawned by our actions in Central
Asia and the Middle East, and by our desire for economic control of those regions and their resources.
Because of the terrorism we have already endured, many of our essential liberties have been taken away in the
blasphemous guise of protecting freedom. Because of the terrorism we have already endured, the fundamental
right of life was taken from thousands of our citizens. The three pillars of our society have been shattered.
The proponents of this other American Dream control the military, economic and strategic policy that governs
this nation. Their power was greatly increased by a terrorist attack put in motion by the activities of other
American officials acting with the same strategy of hegemony and dominion in mind. They continue their work,
right now, at this moment. One dream works feverishly, while the other withers and dies.
-- William Rivers Pitt, a teacher from Boston, MA.
posted on October 26, 2002 10:56:25 PM new
The problem that Mr. Pitt forsees in the words, "The Pursuit of Happiness" actually has a much differnt reality than the one that we are used to. I read where once that Thomas Jefferson, Master Craftsman of Enlightened Thought that went into our revolutionary Declaration of Independance hoestly felt that Property was also an inalieable right. The words that he first proposed were, "Life, Liberty and Property." However, the New York Banking Establishment felt that this was agsainst their business interests and strongly objected to the point of threatening to call the whole thing off if Thomas Jefferson did not change the wording. The wording was changed into the more familiar phrase that we have all come to know and to love.
Think about what a difference it would have made to have Property guaranteed to each citizen. Property laws would be strongly - and strangely changed all around. A person's land and personal effects could never be taken away from them, including foreclousure by the Internal Revenue Services. What else might things have changed to be if only those words had not been changed?
Certainly, there have been few court cases that I have ever heard of where the Judge ruled the outcome of the case according to "The Pursuit of Happiness."
posted on October 27, 2002 08:23:40 AM new
"Americans have the right to be alive, free, and to pursue fulfillment in whatever way suits them, so long
as that pursuit does not grossly interfere with the life, freedom and happiness of a neighbor."
That statement should apply not only to our individual neighbors but also to our international neighbors. We should not be in the process of arranging a posse or coalition to take over the middle east.
Following September 11, Robin Theurkauf, a secturer in international law at Yale University, wrote, "Terrorist impulses ferment in poverty, oppression and ignorance. The elimination of these conditions and the active promotion of a universal respect for human rights must become a priority."
She lost her husband, Tom, in the Twin Towers.
John Pilger wrote a very good book about modern imperialism and the propaganda that justifies it called "The New Rulers of the World". I wish that I could copy and paste every word right here.
posted on October 27, 2002 08:47:49 AM new
I wouldn't be surprized to discover its the dsame folks as they've always been. Read "Merchants of Grain" and follow up with "Food in History."
posted on October 27, 2002 09:26:09 AM new"Terrorist impulses ferment in poverty, oppression and ignorance. The elimination of these conditions and the active promotion of a universal respect for human rights must become a priority."
I totally agree Helen. I'm afraid that the poor are 'used' to fight the wars because they're viewed as expendable, like the suicide bombers. Then you have the religious right who claim salvation through God, then go about preaching the exact same style of terrorism to their flocks of poor, ignorant, etc.,... no different than the Muslims.
posted on October 27, 2002 10:57:39 AM new
Borillar,
I don't understand your comment about "dsame folks".." wouldn't be surprized to discover its the dsame folks as they've always been. Read "Merchants of Grain" and follow up with "Food in History."
The following links are to recent articles written by Pilger.
posted on October 27, 2002 03:58:10 PM new
Um, before I go fuill up my reading quota for the next several weeks, Helen, I just wanted to say that a) "dsame" should have been spelled "same" (of course); and b), my point is that rhoughout human history, certain commodities have been controlled through a few families. These same familes have controlled the food supply for millenia, for example. And recently Banking and now Oil. I figured that there was no reason for the major players to stop doing what they've always been up to -- just new faces on the scene.
posted on October 27, 2002 04:31:03 PM new
From Helen's thrid link about Diplomacy:
"Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: "That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The ferocity of the American-led attack far exceeded the mandate of Security Council Resolution 678, which did not allow for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and economy. When the United States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two new members of the Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was warned by the US ambassador in Quito about the "devastating economic consequences" of a No vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with new IMF conditions for its debt."
The point I wish to make is about countries getting into debt. If you read that paragraph, you'll realize that it is a club being weilded over the heads of governments around the world. If you think about it, we're in debt and getting so much deeper every day. We, too, can easily be threatened and controlled through our own government.
Now do you see why I b1tch all the time about Bush getting us further and futher into debt? And my questions about WHO is funding that debt has met with dead silence here in the RT. I'll drop going any further now before someone complains that I'm ranting.
