At the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, on Tuesday, November 6:
For more than a century U.S. foreign policy—whether conducted by Democrats or Republicans—has been based on the assumption that Americans’ interests are served best by intervening abroad to secure markets, fight potential enemies far from American shores, or engage in “democratic nation building.†But, what is the record of such policies, including now in Iraq? What lessons can America’s earlier foreign policy tradition of noninterventionism—which largely prevailed before the 20th century—offer for today? Would a peace strategy based on free trade and property rights instead promote both security and international harmony? Based on the new book, Opposing the Crusader State, experts Carl P. Close, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, James L. Payne, and Edward P. Stringham will discuss these critical issues.
Reception: 6:30 pm. Program: 7:00 pm
Admission: $15 • $10 for Institute Members
$27 Special Admission includes one copy of Opposing the Crusader State • $22 Members.
Location: The Independent Institute Conference Center, Oakland, CA.
100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428
Phone: (510) 632-1366
Map and directions.
Eric, small detail but Wednesday is the 7th not the 6th.
I typcially don’t pay attention to dates, but coincidentally on that same day the McCall Forum takes place here in Portland, with John Bolton debating Lee Hamilton on foreign policy. If you live in the area, this is pretty much the height of poltical (k)ulture each year – so be there or be square.
The Indepedent Institute does great work. Ive never understood why the media has shown no interest in the work they do. Well, considering how much of the media is bought and paid for maybe it does make sense.
Of course, I haven’t read the book, but I wonder at the title.
The book does not appear to deal with theology; but, if there is to be any *serious* attempt to oppose the “Crusader State”, there must be serious opposition to Crusader *theology*; that is, the doctrines of Christian Fundamentalism.
The doctrine of the ‘Rapture’ cannot simply be disregarded as if it is not in any way relevant to U.S. foreign policy. Millions, if not tens of millions of people in the United States believe this doctrine (all of whom comprise the 52% of people who are in favor of a military attack upon Iran); despite the fact that it is based upon a flagrant contradiction of the Teaching of Jesus.
Thus, even eliminating *every* other secular-humanist doctrine or motivation for U.S. foreign policy would *not* resolve this fundamentally theological issue.
Michael Cecil
http://unsealing-the-seven-seals.blogspot.com/
You mention Christian fundamentalism, but why do you give Islamic fundamentalism a free pass? The United States has been attacked countless times, and thousands of our citizens are dead, all because of Islamic fundamentalism. Why don’t you mention that too?
Attacked because of fundamentalism? Or resistance to US hegemony?
Tim R.
Perhaps Islamic fundamentalism was not mentioned because it was not relevant to the discussion. By the way, when did these “countless” attacks by “Islamic fundamentalists” occur? What are the actual attacks carried out that were due purely to fundamentalist fervor?
(Sigh.)
I did not mention Islamic Fundamentalism because the word “Crusader” comes from Christianity.
If the title of the book had been “Opposing the Jihadist State”, I would not have made reference to Christian Fundamentalism.
If you check my writings on my blog, this should all become clearer.
Michael Cecil
I’d be surprised if the book doesn’t mention those Christian Crusaders. But I’d have to point out that judging from what I’ve heard from most of my youngish leftist friends, it’s as if they believe that if only the crazy Christians went away, we could get back to a foreign policy that ONLY included intervening abroad for human rights (which said Christian Crusaders eagerly claim applies to Sudan) and battling fascism. That is, the motivations behind our only designated WORLD WARS.
Dain states “That is (a foreign policy that ONLY included intervening abroad for human rights), the motivations behind our only designated WORLD WARS”.
Many historians dispute this claim, since it is the key propaganda element put forth by the victors in those wars.
Americans remain unable to observe themselves in an unbiased manner. Most of the world regards the United States as a country engaged in suicide, albeit an extremely messy one. The gang destroying your constitution is doing so with your approval. The net result is going to be the greatest transfer of wealth from a population to the ruling elite in history, ie, a return to feudal times with indentured serfs slaving at subsistence levels for their masters.
Everything you said in your last paragraph is so true, I am terribly, terribly sad to know, DJ, and that is why I so appreciate antiwar.com.
Note: There are trolls (see wikipidia) that show up even here, and that is a disturbing reminder of the ruling class intent to dominate and destroy the vestiges of democracy left in the USA. I abhor trolls.
Obviously personal gain, “national interest” and appealing sounding rhetoric is used to garner support for war, but my point is that even with this understood, the shift in rhetoric itself is indicative of a transforming rationale for aggression and coercion. Appeals to simple defense and resources became uncouth for a reason. Unless you believe that neoconservative partisans, and their liberal brethren (See the book: A Matter of Principle), are ALL on the Halliburton bandwagon and have not internalized a commitment to “muscular humanitarianism”.
Just as British imperialism was shot through with private interests, the rhetoric and ideology of universal human rights, and the superiority of the western way of life, was a staple of the empire for many of its apologists.
Clarification: In my previous post, the quote from Haviland Smith of the CIA referred to Palestinian refugee camps.
Tim R and others:
In “Dying to Win – the strategic logic of suicide terrorismâ€, Random House, 2006, Prof. Robert A. Pape presents an analysis of a database comprising every known suicide bombing attack from 1980 to 2003.
His finding is unambiguous. Virtually every attack was a response by people whose country was, and in many cases still is, occupied by a foreign military force. Religion was not a relevant factor.
Pape’s result was previously confirmed by Haviland Smith, former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism department: “If you visited those refugee camps, you would understand immediately why there are suicide bombers. They were worse than any place I’ve seen. Open sewers, absolute poverty, squalor – and absolutely no hope of getting back their land…â€, quoted in The Burlington Free Press (VT), September 16, 2001.
As for a US foreign policy “that ONLY included intervening abroad for human rightsâ€, I refer you to Dwight Eisenhower.
In 1953 the Eisenhower government asked the US Congress to allocate 400 million dollars (about USD 2.8 billion in today’s money) to help the French, who were fighting desperately to maintain their colonies in what was then called Indo-China and is now known as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. For various reasons, there was opposition to this request within the US. Some Congressmen said it was a giveaway that served no purpose.
Eisenhower: “Now let us assume that we lose Indo-China. If Indo-China goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula, the last bit of land hanging down there (sic!), would scarcely be defensible – and the tin and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming . . . . All of that weakening position around there is very ominous for the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world hold the rich empire of Indonesia? . . . So when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance to the United States of America – our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indo-Chinese territory and from Southeast Asia.†From Remarks, Governors’ Conference, August 4, 1953, Public Papers of the Presidents, 1953, p. 540.
“…certain things we need…†This is one of the clearest statements of the imperialist imperative ever made. For many hundreds of years, Western imperialists including those in capitalist states such as Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini have been the driving force behind a holocaust of gigantic proportions. Unless you recognize the reality of imperialism, you will never be able to understand the world-wide logic of destruction.
“…Western imperialists including those in capitalist states such as Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini…”
Yikes. Straight from the Lenin playbook. I’m sure the classical liberals and advocates of laissez faire would have a problem with that description. (Though I understand that ‘capitalist’ is not synonymous with free markets for many libertarian types, and that any deviation from explicitly Marxist/Leninist forms of state control was still essentially ‘capitalist’ for some leftists.) Capitalism is contra the right wing collectivism of Fascism and National Socialism, with their massive public works projects (see The Three New Deals), inflationary central banking and the top down mixed command economy of Mussolini, for example, who in fact explicitly denounced capitalism and that great bogeyman individualism.
Yea, and good call, who is this “we” that needs resources? With the dandy mechanism known as methodological individualism we can be assured that the “we” is in fact the politically connected plutocrats (imperialists).
All I can say to my Christian Fundamentalist friends is that if Jesus comes as a result of these wars he will not come here to support a superpower, he has a track record of supporting the poor and downtrodden. What if he comes here to support the poor Iraqis against the aggressors? Would you still continue to believe in him?
Imagine a computer game called The Doctrine Of Rapture featuring George Bush. It would help to defuse anger at centers of media creativity by Muslims and perhaps make up for the cartoons of Muhammad which have caused unnecessary shame and embarrassment. Though, its clear the hordes of Muslims reacting to the cartoons were also virtualized and probably never really existed. For that matter, virtualize as much of the crusader culture as possible before depicting the cultures of other peoples. All democratic elections are great subjects for computer games. Perhaps we'll make some at the Filmskolen.
Att den super snygga Prins Carl Philip gjort slut med Emma Pernald har man ju hört rykten om… men här har Catarina Hurtig BEVISET http://www.finest.se/userBlog/?uid=10457&beid=1039525 pÃ¥ att han är SINGEL!!! Ohh yeah!