Nefarious Intentions

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated…[because] Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending… that the good of the people was the object. Abraham Lincoln, 1848

Undoubtedly there are many people in the U.S. whose perspectives are guided in some part by a belief in an impending or future apocalypse. However, the answer to the question of what role these people play in guiding U.S. foreign policy is, very little. To observe why this is so one must first understand that there is a huge gulf between the people who share apocalyptic beliefs (the true believers) and the elites (the non-believers) that claim to share their vision.

Probably no one understood the concept of elites “pretending’ that the good of the people was the object” better than Abraham Lincoln when secessionists successfully sold to the people the issue of states’ rights wrapped around the narrow economic interests of the elite, resulting in the attempted secession of the southern states. Today, we observe that apocalyptic Evangelicals display disproportionate political power due in part to the highly contentious and partisan nature of contemporary politics. It is for this reason that politicians, especially those on the “Right,” pander to the motivations of these voters. These politicians backed by special interest are in many ways no different from the leading secessionists of Lincoln’s day. Apocalyptic views of the voting population of Evangelicals are being manipulated by politicians in inconspicuously cunning ways for the same ends that have directed U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

What guides U.S. Foreign Policy?

In a nutshell, U.S. foreign policy is and has been directed by a “will-to-power” a need to discharge its strength, to dominate and to spread its values and culture for the purpose of controlling markets and global resources on behalf of U.S. corporations and special interests, especially the domination of scarce resources in foreign lands. This policy is and has been carried out around the globe by asserting its military and political dominance while the true intentions of feeding the narrow political and corporate special interests are cleverly masked by language that is well understood by those portions of the population whose support is required for its success. Where the U.S. has not been able to successfully convince foreign populations of its hegemonic supremacy, the U.S. destroys, disparages and/or isolates the target country and/or its leadership. Often the language used to justify these ends are found in values that the U.S. people hold dear, such as “freedom” and “democracy” and examples of the hypocrisy of these policies are evident throughout contemporary U.S. history

Israel as an Example

Those putting forth the theory that religious apocalyptic perspectives instruct U.S. foreign policy often attempt to use blind support for Israel as a case-in-point example, but for our purposes the principle of Occam’s razor or the simplest solution tends to be the best, is still the most instructive. There is no question that there are many supporters of Israel in the U.S. but is it more likely that this support exists due to the belief by some that it will hasten the apocalypse or is it more likely that the policy exists because the military-industrial complex, which holds tremendous sway in international politics (especially the U.S.), benefits enormously from the welfare subsidies that the U.S. government doles out to Israel, who in turn redirects those subsidies back to U.S. manufacturers of weapons? Many of those who see apocalyptic thinking influencing U.S. foreign policy fail to recognize that the U.S. is “the world’s leading arms exporting nation” (Aslam) which typically provides financial support for arms to unstable, undemocratic, brutal regimes who are actively involved in war, conflicts or human rights abuses and that have no historical ties to the biblical apocalypse.

Much of these theoretical religious apocalyptic musings are sophomoric in that they attempt to draw logical conclusions from misleading assumptions. For instance, Aziz and Berlet’s paper “Culture, Religion, Apocalypse, and Middle East Foreign Policy” tries to sell us their theory by touting the widespread sales of fictional apocalyptic books and public opinion polls, such as the CNN national poll in which 14% of people were found to believe that the first Gulf War was the beginning of Armageddon. By following the same line of reasoning should we conclude that U.S. foreign policy is more heavily influenced by reincarnated astrologers when we observe that a Harris poll of the same year showed that 31% of Americans believed in astrology and 27% in reincarnation? Certainly not, and just as these assumptions hold no weight their author’s theories fundamental problem is that they cannot accurately predict past or future patterns of U.S. foreign policy behavior.

Gary North in “The Foreign Policy of 20 Million Would-Be Immortals” concludes that “fundamentalists send money to Jewish organizations’ to speed up the process” of the apocalypse but he neglects to address the conditions that allow for the crimes of Israel to go unpunished, such as the widespread fear of the consequences of being labeled an anti-Semite when one publicly documents the terrorism, crimes against humanity and widespread breaking of international law by the Israelis during their obstinate occupation of Palestinian land. North also fails to address how the U.S. government’s support for Israel is not unprecedented, as support for brutal regimes seems to be the U.S. government’s apple pie, with example after example found throughout U.S. history and around the world i.e. Pinochet, Suharto, Noriega, Batista, Franco, Hitler and yes, Saddam Hussein.

Maybe the U.S. government’s unprecedented financial support is due to it finding its governmental soul-mate in Israel, which also talks about “freedom” and “democracy,” but only practices it when it serves the narrow self-interests of the elite and only when it doesn’t involve a Palestinian? Or is it likely that the military-industrial complex is such a strong U.S. political force that neither party questions allocations of taxpayer’s money for the purposes of purchasing U.S. manufactured weapons? Or maybe U.S. support for Israel persists because a vicious and self-perpetuating information vacuum has been created whereby mass media outlets are too afraid of reporting the actions of Israel and because of this blackout the American public never learns the reality so that they react strongly when Israel is justifiably condemned? Maybe neither of these theories are correct but they undoubtedly have a greater influence on U.S. foreign policy than does the apocalyptic perspectives of a few insignificant “true believers” who are merely seen as a means to an end by U.S. elites.

Iraq

No analysis of apocalyptic perspectives would be complete without a brief mentioning of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, after all, much of this discussion would not be taking place without it. While it may seem to some that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is the culmination of apocalyptic perspectives embodied in George W. Bush, again the principle of Occam’s razor is most elucidating. Is it more likely that Iraq was invaded to expedite the apocalypse or is it closer to the truth to posit that George W. Bush considered what it would mean for the U.S. to control Iraq’s vast oil resources and the fact that a war would insure that not only would he would remain President for another term but also help the cause of his party in the mid-term elections, not to mention all the campaign contributors and benefactors of the Republican Party who would be paid back in private contracts for first destroying Iraq and then cleaning up, rebuilding and securing the country? The fact is that the invasion of Iraq more closely resembles violent undertakings of previous administrations to secure resources and markets such as securing

“Mexico, especially Tampico‘ for American oil interests in 1914′. Haiti and Cuba‘ for the National City Bank’ the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street’ Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912′ the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916… China to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.” (Butler)

Conclusion

There is no doubt that certain forms of American Christianity and fictional apocalyptic perspectives have influenced many people in the U.S. and around the world. However, at this point it should be clear to all that these perspectives have always been superseded and manipulated by the tangible and pragmatic albeit myopic elite interests of the day. As extreme as some of these apocalyptic perspectives may seem, one is almost left wishing for their greater influence of at least some fictional visions of the future, such as those conjured in Wells’ “The Days of the Comet.” Instead U.S. foreign policy has been dominated by very convincing super-nationalistic and hubristic radicals; an iniquitous and insidiously pervasive ideology that seeks to use the ignorant to do its bidding as the elite that direct it vicariously leave their loafer prints across the faces of those people around the globe deemed to be beneath the narrow interests of the self-important. With history as our guide it’s clear to see that this reality won’t change until the conditions that make it possible are dispensed. If there comes a time when apocalyptic thinking more fully instructs the path the U.S. decides to put itself upon the vision must not include the violent and systematic elitist conditionings of the past that litter the pages of our history as it can easily be observed that those having failed to learn these lessons are presently in the process of repeating them.

Works Cited

Berlet, Chip & Aziz, Nikhil. “Culture, Religion, Apocalypse, and Middle East Foreign Policy.” 5 Dec. 2003.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2003/0312apocalypse.php

 

The Harris Poll #11, February 26, 2003. The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359

 

North, Gary. “The Foreign Policy of 20 Million Would-Be Immortals.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north188.html

 

Wells, H.G. “In the Days of the Comet.” 1906.

http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/days_comet/

 

Aslam, Abid. “US Selling More Weapons to Undemocratic Regimes That Support ‘War on Terror.’” 25 May 2005.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0525-04.htm

 

Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC [Retired]. “War Is A Racket.” 1935.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

The Israeli Backdoor

In 1981 Israel destroyed an electricity generating nuclear reactor that was in the process of being built just south of Baghdad. The Israelis feared that Saddam Hussein was creating weapons of mass destruction for use against them. Today, the circumstances in Iran are eerily similar except if Israel foolishly decides to attack Iran, this time the outcome is going to be very, very different. It could even lead to a world war.

Since 1949 it has cost U.S. taxpayers over $134 billion dollars in financial “support” for Israel and with the disproportionate power of the Israeli lobbying arm, AIPAC or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, politicians from both parties fear that cutting of the “aid” will have political ramifications, in part because most of that money is granted with the understanding that Israel will use it to buy American manufactured weapons, yet another group of campaign contributors that politicians don’t want to disturb. That huge sum of money also represents the lion’s share of total foreign aid dollars to all nations so it should come as no surprise that the modern, industrialized Israeli nation, which doesn’t require U.S. financial support, is certainly better equipped at fighting a conventional war than Iran.

The problem for the U.S., should Israel decide to attack Iran, is more than just financial but putting our tin-foil hats aside, an attack could be just what the military-industrial complex backed Bush administration desires. An Israeli attack, especially if the Iranians retaliate against the U.S., could potentially be the backdoor to U.S. military aggression against Iran and would be seen by people living in the region as an imperialist plan to solidify a nearly total dominance of Middle Eastern oil reserves. That multi-trillion dollar motivation could by itself, be justification for such a plan.

George Bush and his neo-conservative military and oil benefactors understand that they don’t have the political capital to even suggest an attack on Iran but an attack could be the opening to greater U.S. involvement. However, the reality would be that it would drive the U.S. into an even deeper intractable presence in the region. Neighboring states would be horrified and threatened and the extent of their reactions would be uncertain at best. The so-called “pre-emptive” attack would surely garner an intense counter-attack. The Iranians would declare war and justifiably unleash ferocious conventional and non-conventional attacks against Israel. The widespread distrust and contempt of the Israelis in the region would intensify the tensions by the many who see Israel as the occupiers of Palestinian territory and who also view the U.S. involvement as accessories to the Israeli occupation while ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians. Additionally, many in the region would be instantly radicalized, creating an environment where thousands and potentially millions would converge into a substantial threat that would make Al-Qaeda look like a knitting circle.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Without George Bush the U.S. could work as an honest broker of peace to help to negotiate an equitable agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Domestically, the U.S. could institute public funding of elections to remove the power motivations that disrupt peace and fund the military-industrial complex by disproportionately aiding Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. The U.S. could also establish an international treaty which disregards who is using violence and describes when and where the use of force is acceptable i.e. in the most extreme of circumstances, when attacked or when there is a clear and present danger. We could also help to delineate what the repercussions are for its misuse. The U.S. could also use its still immense sway to push nations towards accepting conditions as well as a set of non-military and non-violent tangible steps to take for disarming tyrants (democratic or otherwise), oppressors of freedom and disturbers of the peace. Most importantly, the U.S. and Israel could stop inflaming worldwide tensions by recognizing how their behavior provokes nations into arming themselves with the world’s most destructive weapons. At the same time all the nations of the world could work towards an international set of fair and equal behavioral standards for conducting relations with one another without consideration for what weapons each other does or doesn’t possess.

Next Page »