This constitutes a revolution. American militarism had hitherto been conceived of as a defensive tool, a means to contain foreign threats, with direct offensives serving as the economic-cultural weapon of choice. This era seems to be forgotten now, as the Pentagon has taken over from Wall Street. Militarism is henceforth perceived as a means of intimidation. The process has just been used against Iran and Syria. The problem is that any major power that resorts to direct threats rather than reason and persuasion runs a huge risk, especially in our current world, where the notion of power is no longer what it used to be.
Owing to its intimidation effect, this strategy could end up succeeding. This would, however, only be a temporary development, for the American population is not ready to face the consequences of a genuine war, even against a middle power. The USA is thus attempting to delay its inevitable decline, a decline that will come to pass in no more than fifteen years.
F. Hyperpower and Schizophrenia
The Iraqi campaign has proven that the American administration has overestimated the power of its new armaments, which have been described as ‘a revolution in military affairs’. The fact of taking a whole month to ‘pacify’ an already agonising country (an Arabian one on top of that, knowing how unskilled the Arabs are at manoeuvre warfare and how atavistic their disorganisation is), despite making use of approximately half of one’s military potential and even paying off Iraqi generals and granting them safe conducts so that they may desert their posts (as has been widely confirmed), only to end up failing and shamefully calling one’s allies to the rescue in the end, is not exactly a brilliant performance on the part of the ‘sole superpower’. Patton must be turning in his grave…
However, beyond this Pyrrhic victory, this pseudo war, the USA has not been perceived by the international public opinion as the liberator of an oppressed nation from the clutches of a tyrant, but as an aggressor. The resemblance to Napoleonian imperialism is striking. Following the Revolution, Napoleon presented himself as the liberator of a Europe that had been oppressed by the monarchic-feudal system. He was nonetheless seen as a classic conquering aggressor. After a series of victories, along came the dramatic French downfall, the first stage of our country’s decline. The fate of the American dominion will be similar to that of the ephemeral French empire, only on a more massive scale; for anyone who ends up alienating the whole world is doomed to perish.
The NAI arouses a worldwide sentiment of illegitimacy with regard to American hegemony, a sentiment that prevails not only in the Muslim world, but even within the American public opinion. The dream of a humanity guided by an admired, cherished and respected USA (following the collapse of the USSR) is falling apart, as is any utopian hope for a Pax Americana.
Just like the Ottoman empire, the USSR displayed far greater wisdom than the USA; it did not claim to have the vocation to achieve world domination and act as a global police force. It thus managed to preserve its national heart at the time of its fall, as did Turkey. The USA will not follow suit… The old American notion of a Manifest Destiny (i.e. the mission and destiny that God entrusted America with so as to have it lead the world towards freedom, justice and progress) is taking in water from all sides. The proclamation of its almost religious right to govern the planet has, paradoxically, diabolised the USA and portrayed it as an exploitative, brutal and hypocritical imperialistic force, while simultaneously reinforcing the very same Islamism that labels America ‘the Great Satan’.
***
The Muslim jihadi ambition, that of a universal holy war to conquer the world in the name of Allah, is actually the inverted clone of the Christian-Protestant American plan. By attacking Muslim countries (and claiming, quite sincerely, in fact, that it is not lashing out at Islam, but merely striving to depose tyrants), the USA is logically perceived by the simple minds of the Muslim masses as a power that is attempting to proselytise them, meaning to enslave them. Islam versus America: such is the global watchword of all imams.
America’s eternal flaw lies in its inability to understand others. It suffers from egocentrism and is under the impression that its use of military force could lead Muslim countries to adopt ‘democracy’, a notion that is utterly incomprehensible to the Muslims, who are brought up in a religious system of hierarchal theocracy. It thus makes perfect sense for the USA to be seen (against its will, of course) as the instigator of a ‘crusade’ targeting Islam, a crusade led by an alliance of Protestants and Jews, hence the term ‘Judaeo-crusaders’, which Muslims use to label the Americans.
Historically speaking, it is always very hazardous to be misunderstood: the USA intended to act as the friend, liberator, ally and protector of Muslim peoples. Nevertheless, it now finds itself accused of being the latter’s sinister oppressor, which renders the cowboys tearful with both shame and fury. Naivety has always been the main characteristic of American global governance, since the Americans are unable to comprehend the world; with the new form of American imperialism, however, this naivety has taken on gigantic and unreasonable proportions. As a matter of fact, the American tradition merges two opposites together: isolationism, i.e. the will to an autarchic civilisation and an oecumene preserved against ravaging storms, and a need for messianic interventionism. This contradiction is fatal when it comes to having a clear understanding of the world around. American culture is thus trapped between self-centredness and the need to expand itself, which robs it of any and all potential to understand others. At the core of the American mentality, one finds a very thick carapace of psychological incomprehension, regardless of the passion that Americans harbour for psychology. Despite its narrowmindedness and its dogmatism, the Muslim mentality is, by contrast, far subtler, calculating, perverse and Machiavellian, a fact that is due to the typical Arab temperament.
What is noteworthy is the presence of a moral contradiction from which the American nation has never managed to free itself: the chiasmus of violence and good will, which remain incompatible. Its existence constitutes a lesion that scars the American collective unconscious, one from which it will never recover: there is no denying the fact that the puritanical land of ‘God’s Peace’, where human rights were invented (before France plagiarised the concept), was founded upon the eradication of American Indian tribes, as well as upon the agricultural enslavement of Blacks, not to mention the countless bombardments that targeted civilian populations in the wars of the 20th century. In no way is this a question of my condemning such behaviour, which has plagued the actions of all peoples (History is, after all, a river of blood and a state of eternal war); I am merely making the observation that the above-mentioned behaviour casts doubt upon the American desire to establish the USA as the land of virtue. Hence the American schizophrenia: in order to impose Goodness, does it not, in fact, spread Evil? Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Vietnam are among the numerous examples….
Poor America. Although it is truly kind at heart, there are moral and economic factors that leave it with no choice but to wage war and, through ‘collateral damage’, slaughter all the peoples that it longs to liberate, offering them presents and humanitarian aid in addition to a bombardment bonus. America is a Santa Claus that kills unintentionally. In the long run, this contradiction is hardly manageable. America’s psychological frailty might well be its Achilles heel.
G. The New American Imperialism’s Cinematographic Imagination
In the NAI’s vivid imagination, not only does one encounter the traditional form of American messianism (the Protestant ideology of combatting Evil, the assimilation of the USA to a True Israel, the theory of the latter’s ‘Manifest Destiny’, etc.), but one resorts to more recent American myths as well. The first is that of the sheriff, whose duty it is to maintain order whenever confronted with bandits in the ‘global village’ that the Earth has now become, just as he once did in the Far-West itself. Next on the list is the spell-binding, repetitive reminder about the war waged against Hitler and the American intervention during World War II, an intervent
ion that is the founding act of American hegemony. Akin to revolutionary France (only on a larger scale), the USA awards itself the recurrent role of world liberator from the clutches of tyrants. It is therefore necessary to maintain a constant, yet not too massive stock of demonic tyrants that are subject to termination and replenishment.
As a rule, imperialism is justified through the imperative of ‘rushing to the aid of the oppressed’, an imperative that has been highly typical of war justifications ever since the French Revolution. It is certain that westerns, with their image of the cavalry charging the savage American Indians in order to liberate the beleaguered settlers, play a certain role in the mental impregnation of American leaders, who have gorged on countless Hollywood films and television series.
Furthermore, let us not forget the desire to avenge the humiliation suffered in Vietnam, which has left a profound impression upon the Americans. The latter would love to re-experience Apocalypse Now and claim victory this time around. The aim is also to alleviate the immense vexation endured by the GIs in Mogadishu, which was the focus of the film Black Hawk Down. What is equally worth mentioning is the impact that the Rambo character (played by Silvester Stallone) has had upon the minds of current American leaders: a ferocious boxer and a solitary warrior, Rambo is the incarnation of the legitimate killer. Donald Rumsfeld thus mistakes himself for Rambo, an attitude that is even felt in his choice of words.
Above all, however, the NAI feeds upon a sort of morbid and contradictory fascination for the notion of an ‘Empire’ as depicted in the Star Wars cinematographic saga: this Empire is simultaneously the embodiment of an Evil that must be eradicated and an invincible and fascinating power which the USA would love to resemble. How sinful… What serves as evidence for this is the entire industry that has surfaced around the ‘negative’ characters portrayed in the saga, whose uniforms and overall posture are inspired by the Third Reich, including the worldwide sale of Star Wars Bakelite figurines. We should also point out that shortly after the huge success achieved by the above-mentioned saga, American troops were equipped with helmets bearing a strange resemblance to those of the Wehrmacht and… those used by ‘Death Star’ troopers.
One thus delves to the core of American schizophrenia, which the NAI has adopted and raised to the point of paroxysm. ‘We are the Good ones. As for those snakes that tempt us and obsess us, they are an Evil lot’. The biblical theme of Adam’s temptation at the hands of the serpent is of course highly present. The same schizophrenia is also encountered in the American attitude to sexuality, in which puritanism merges with pornography, and in environmental matters, where radical ecology and the right to pollute without restriction entwine.
The NAI finds itself entangled in a mixture comprising a culture of brutal and cynical military force (‘imitating the tyrants who we strive to defeat’), with all its mediatic attributes, and a humanistic and democratic discourse which is just as naïve and sincere. It is no longer in books and the teaching of history that American neoconservative leaders find their inspiration (as was the case in the days of Henry Kissinger, a German Jew endowed with a long memory), but in the clichés of a superficial, audio-visual imagination. Any form of imperialism that lacks spirit is doomed to be short-lived.
In addition, American filmography is haunted by the spectre of Rome. The amazing Gladiator (the best Hollywood peplum) is evidence of this. Through the NAI, the American leaders in Washington now believe themselves to be part of the Roman Emperor’s court. Forgive me for calling Baudrillard to my aid here, but his notion of a travesty applies perfectly in this regard. Washington thus considers itself the extension of Christian imperial Rome in its struggle against the Barbarians. The issue is that Christian imperial Rome was a giant with feet of clay, even if it did come across as the culmination of the Empire. By founding its power upon emotional images and self-representative myths instead of an objective analysis of its own position and situation, the NAI reveals its persistent weakness.
H. The Inanity of ‘International Law’
In order to counter American warmongering, France has called for the implementation of ‘international law’, in accordance with the latter’s absolutistic definition. In a formulaic fashion, it has armed itself with both the vague concept of the ‘legality of the international community’ and the UN’s authority, as if the latter were a global government. This is bizarre, especially coming from a country that sees itself as the precentor of the ‘European superpower’.
Despite the disastrous blunders that characterise their poorly-constructed pretexts to justify wars, the neoconservatives have, unlike the French, fully grasped the fact that, beyond the hypocrisy of an ‘international legitimacy’, which they contrast with ‘legality’, the ‘international community’ is but a myth, as confirmed by those principles that were first defined by Bodin and Richelieu, then by Talleyrand and Metternich. They have also comprehended the following truths: that balance can only be rooted in the conflictual-cooperative relations of effective statist powers, regardless of any universal morals and in harmony with the law of interest (even when it is masked with moral values of Good); that a planetary central power erected into a Republic of Justice could never come to pass and that international order can only come about through a concert of powers in which the strongest one will obviously always have the final word; that international relations relate to the ‘natural state of affairs’ (to use Sorel’s words), a state that is tempered by ephemeral contracts between sovereign powers that will never recognise anyone or anything else to be superior, be it the Greater Good of mankind or the UN; that it is material power and not a legality or ethics that has been agreed upon peacefully which dictates international behaviour; and that no ‘principle’ (especially a moral one!) is ever eternal, and all precepts are based on temporary voluntary agreements, which is how sovereignty is actually defined.
Hence the reason why, when one implements this classic political philosophy, whose essence is of purely European origin and completely at odds with the universalistic and judicial dimension of American abstractionism, the USA has been absolutely right all along (from its own perspective) when affirming its sovereignty, refusing to allow its nationals to appear before the International Criminal Court, not ratifying the treaty that prohibits nuclear tests (a treaty that it nonetheless attempts to force upon others), surreptitiously violating the WTO’s regulations while still practicing the very same protectionism it condemns elsewhere, unilaterally denouncing the second SALT treaty signed with Russia, maintaining in power the despots that suit it and overthrowing the ones who do not, and so on…
So as to counter this American policy, a policy that can be likened to that of European nations during the 19th century, moralising sermons will be to no avail. It is, instead, the establishment of a sovereign power with a correlative political will that represents the sole efficient means. Chirac’s France has failed to realise this: it espouses various ‘ethical’ and ‘anti-war’ positions within the UN, while simultaneously allowing B52s to fly over its own territory, remaining without response when confronted with American boycotts and protectionism, allowing its industrial jewels to be purchased through American pension funds, remaining idle-handed when watching its junior executives and researchers emigrate in large numbers overseas, agreeing to finance the humanitarian aid and reconstruction of Iraq in the aftermath of the devastation wrought upon the country by the US Air Force, and so on. And let us rather not mention the Italian, Spanish and British attitude towards the USA, of course: their approach is that of serfs who seem to delight in being humiliated and cheated by their suzerain.
Although quite weak, it is only Putin’s Russia that has displayed a consistent attitude in the face of American hegemony, simply saying niet, without any sanctimonious preaching.
I. A Desperate Aggressiveness
What is it then that sets this New American Imperialism apart from its classic American counterpart? It is not their respective roots, ideologies or profoun
d legitimations, in fact, but their methods. For more than a century now, a puritanical and naïve sort of messianism has been at the source of American imperialism, an imperialism which has served as a moral justification for the strategic and (especially) economic-commercial stranglehold that the USA has had the world in.
However, as a result of the 9/11 attacks and the neoconservative coup following Bush’s rigged election, American imperialism has recently distanced itself from its previously restrained and skilfully justified aggressiveness, embracing an unbridled and barely, if at all, justified form of hostility. In comparison with traditional imperialism, the NAI has replaced calculating behaviour and well-thought-out hypocrisy with crude lies and straightforward aggression validated through highly questionable arguments. What the classic kind of American imperialism resorted to were legitimated power and force, whereas the NAI utilises violence, supporting the latter with pretexts that lack credibility.
Compared to its traditional counterpart, the NAI has bitten off more than it can actually chew, since its ambitions are unreasonable. Instead of manipulating the UN (a practice that once paid off from the Israeli perspective) and taking advantage of NATO (an organisation which is a mere tool of strategic domination disguised as an alliance), the USA has little use for both, preferring to take advantage of various ‘coalitions’ shaped in accordance with its own wishes. The new American administration is no longer content with the USA being the foremost world power, as was once the case; the aim is now to make America the sole superpower. The USA does not strive to achieve a major global influence, but simply to dominate the Rest of the World, using direct warfare whenever necessary.
A Global Coup Page 4