The Dangers of Insanity: John Ashcroft and U.S. History

Rene L. Gonzalez Berrios

01/25/04: (ICH) That John Ashcroft is verifiably "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" is common knowledge. From the fact that he corruptly used campaign funds during his Senate election (which he promptly lost to a dead candidate), to the covering up of the breasts of Lady Justice's statue in the FBI (it insulted his "Christian" sensibilities), to his promotion of the Orwellian "1984" Patriot Act (the American equivalent of Nazi Germany's Enabling Act), John Ashcroft's loony escapades are the stuff of legends. Which is why I am not surprised that he thinks the United States is not an empire and is not an aggressor. What is surprising is how a man like him can still be the Attorney General of the United States.

In a recent article debuted by Reuters (respected international news source), Mr. Ashcroft was quoted as saying the following,


-"If you look at the United States and its performance, and where it is in the world and what it does in the world, it's not an aggressor," Ashcroft told the World Economic Forum in Davos."-

-"The United States doesn't seek to consume territory or to acquire an empire,"-

Let us recap some facts quickly. American history, from its beginning, as has been aggressive and expansionist (much like its mother country, Britain). In both cases, both nations had conducted expansionist and brutal campaigns against native inhabitants of regions around the world. Both had "civilizing" manifestos or doctrines (White Man's Burden, Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, Bush Doctrine, etc.) Both murdered and colonized in the millions. However, only one is (justly) called empire (Britain), the other is still denied the title it has deserved virtually throughout its entire history. The following is a recap of America's major junctures. I am aware that many other, smaller conflicts could be characterized as aggressive, but, for the purposes of this article, I only focus on the major historical turning points in American foreign policy. This history refutes Ashcroft's assertions.

American history to its own native inhabitants as been nothing more than a series of broken sovereign treaties, followed by brutal war, biological warfare (Sir Jeffrey Amherst, smallbox blankets), conquest of land, and concentration of natives in "reservations". This campaign was most active (though not limited to) during the 1800s, when the United States had successfully established itself as a sovereign nation among others in the world, and when the domestic pressures of its populations became too intolerable to resolve without equitable solutions. This solution would take the form of usurping the territory of sovereign Native American nations. America's first aggression was against the Native Americans. It's first forays into imperial conquest would be its expansion into sovereign Native national territories and its conquest of half of Mexico in the 1850s (U.S.-Mexican War).

The Mexican War had wetted the appettites of imperialists in Congress. True to what is referred to as American pragmatism, these imperialists debated the wisdom of continuing to annex all of Mexico. That Mexico exists today as a seperate nation is due largely in part to a racist calculation: an annexation of all of Mexico by the United States would have entailed the acquisition of a new responsibility, namely taking care of millions of "brown" people. Much like the Israeli debates today about demographics and governance, with respect to the Palestinians, American imperialists worried that such an expansion would involve the United States in too direct a responsibility to "brown" people and that the ratio of "brown" people to "whites" would be to great to bear. Mexico was spared complete annexation as a result of it. The American hunger for colonies would have to be satisfied lower in the hemisphere.

The debates regarding Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the rest of the Spanish colonies and new Latin American nations began soon after the end of the Civil War (it can be argued that the debates began even earlier). American imperialists viewed Central America as nothing more than resource farms, "banana republics", to be taught American civilization, to be protected by her noble armies against the ravages of European imperialists and to be exploited by American corporations (such as the notorious United Fruit Company). Recent scientific research has uncovered that the U.S.S. Maine (the ship explosion that was used as the justification for the Spanish-American War) had exploded of natural causes (explosives in its cargo hold). The war had been pre-planned (much like today's Iraq War, planned in the late 1990s, advanced after 9-11 provided the convenient political justification), and advanced after the U.S.S. Maine exploded and war fever had engulfed the American populace. Spain, defeated, was forced to give its most lucrative Caribbean colonies, in what the U.S. president called "a splendid little war". Cuba would become a U.S. remote-controlled neo-colony (formally identified as a sovereign state), with specific constitutional provisions authorizing the U.S. in intervening in its affairs (the Platt Amendment). Guam, the Phillippines, and Puerto Rico would become direct colonies. The Phillippines would become independent, but a client-state. Puerto Rico and Guam would remain direct colonies to this day. These two remain as constant reminders of an existing direct American empire.

The Spanish-American War constituted America's second major imperial expansion and would open the way for 50 years of interventions in Latin America. Central America and the Caribbean saw numerous aggressive incursions into their national territories. Haiti, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and others saw U.S. marines from time to time. The 1959 Cuban Revolution marked the first successful revolt against American imperial policy in Latin America (Arbenz's experiment in Guatemala was "neutralized" by a CIA-sponsored revolt of right-wing sectors). The American response was decisively negative, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs CIA-Exile army invasion attempt, and the American embargo against Cuba. All of these incursions, interventions, and embargoes were aggressive, intended to impose American will on its "backyard", and imperial in conception.

The Korean War had raged a few years earlier than the Cuban Revolution. Although the North Korean forces had been the aggressors, an argument can be made that the United States (which had forces in the area since the end of World War II) had aggressive intents in containing China (which had recently been taken over by Mao Tse Tung's Communist forces) and the Soviet Union. An argument can be made that its presence in Korea after the end of World War II was aggressive and illegitimate. Since the subject is up for debate, I will exclude it from my historical recount.

Vietnam would be the next major stepping stone. Noam Chomsky has done a good job of exposing American media hypocrisy regarding the war. Entitled by American media as the "American defense of South Vietnam", the war would in reality be a purely imperial affair. Its justification (communist containment) was flimsy, opposed by the majority of the world, and would garner the largest anti-war sentiment in the United States. Vietnam would be America's first failure in its imperial strategy and massively genocidal (3 million Vietnamese dead). It also constituted the most publicly perceived aggression in its military history.

The 1970s, 80s, and 90s, were a series of Latin American "dirty wars", including conflicts in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Panama. All were aggressive, imperial in conception, and condemned internationally (including a World Court decision against the United States regarding its "proxy war" with Nicaragua). The U.S.'s conflict in Iraq and Bosnia/Serbia would be partly legitimate (given U.N. mandates and international opinion), and are excluded from my recount.

Which brings us to today. Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghani conflict is also debatable. No U.N. mandate allowed for American expulsion of the Taliban regime, but an argument can be made that the invasion was legitimate given the Taliban's harboring of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. However, the Iraq conflict constitutes even more of an illegitimate and aggressive war than the Vietnam war, given that its four justifications (WMD, human rights, Al-Qaeda connection, and democracy-building) have been debunked (see my article Dilemmas of Colonialism, http://members.tripod.com/gngseries/colonialism-01-20-2004.html). With Vietnam, one could argue that the United States was providing a noble service to the South in defending it from Hanoi's communist forces, but then again, you would have to be an absolute anti-communist fear-monger to see any legitimacy in usurping the rights of South Vietnamese and installing puppet governments, all in an effort to defend them from "communist" influence. As if American influence was more desirable, from a point of view that respect sovereignty, self-determination, and the national desires of the Vietnamese (all the values that were feared to be lost should the communists of Hanoi, and their Chinese and Russian benefactors, took control of Saigon). Given that the Viet Mihn and Vietn Cong were the two civilian and military institutions with overwhelming civilian support, arguments of American "defense" of South Vietnamese self-determination are completely baseless. The Vietnamese, North and South, were conclusively supportive of Ho Chi Mihn and his forces (as political support statistics in Chomsky's books prove). The Americans were foreign interventionists in a land that did not want them. In Iraq, however, all justifications are bogus. What remains to be seen is how fast the American public realizes their mistake.

This small recount of America's imperial moments is anything but complete, but sufficient to disprove Ashcroft's bizarro-world assertion. We cannot do anything about the past, but we can learn from it to change the future. The American imperial grand strategy (Chomsky) is being tested today, just as it was tested in Vietnam. My suggestion for all who believe in self-determination, multi-lateralism, international law, and goodwill among nations, is to begin our oppositional conception of American foreign policy by taking some concrete first steps. A good one to start with is to demand that Mr. John Ashcroft, a verifiable pseudo-fascist, pseudo-Christian quack, be removed as the man responsible for the legal well-being of the United States. A man so ignorant of U.S history, or worse, resolutely covering up the truth, cannot be the Attorney General of the United States. The dangers of insanity for the American population and the world cannot be more evident.

Rene L. Gonzalez Berrios M.A.
Political Science / Univ. of Massachusetts
Gonzalez is a Doctoral Candidate in Comparative Politics at the University of Massachusetts
He may be contacted by email at: renegonzalez7@hotmail.com

SOURCES:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4197612
A People's History of the United States - Howard Zinn
The Chomsky Reader - Noam Chomsky
Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America 1972-1992 - William M. LeoGrande
The United States' Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934 - Hans Schmidt