|
I suspect that, considering his articulation of American empire, among other things, that he is.
Also, why does he persistently describe American imperialism in terms of American troops' masculinity in his books, speaches and when he was a CNN commentator? The first paragraph of Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars is the perfect example of this.
Clark must be aware of the fact that he is repeating a century-old strategy (going back as far as TR's rough riders) that pro-imperialism Americans have used to make American citizens comfortable with imperialism (empire equals strength and virility and isolationism equals feminization of American men and weakness).
Furthermore, Clark's argument is very wishy-washy. He's pro-military and pro-"virtual" empire, but criticizes Bush. He has to walk a fine line between approving of masculine empire building, while finding things to criticize in the way Bush engages in empire-building. Ultimately, the argument comes down on both sides of so many lines that it ends up being incoherent.
People think Clark is what we need: a strong-on-defense democrat. But his ambivalence over empire confuses the real issue, which is the consequences of American imperialism. If colonialism was such a bad thing that European nations admitted that they had to give up their colonies, post colonialism (IMF imperialism) is no better for the world, and every bit as brutal and dangerous, and you can't talk honestly about Iraq or about American empire unless you talk about that. Does Clark talk about oil when he talks about Iraq? Virtual empire is as bad for the long term peace and prospertiy of every citizen of the earth as is colonial empire.
The Clinton adminstration had this same debate, with the Treasury Department and Summers and Gore aligning themselves with empire and post-colonialsim, and smarter, progressive democrats saying that America shouldn't impose the Washington Consensus (privatization, deregulation, and free market deterimining interest rates) on developing nations unless we really want an unstable world with a handfull of rich people who are much much richer and billions of very poor people.
In my mind, Clark's N.E.D. membership, both of his books, and his current career (in bankinga and in the media) have a common thread: he's uncritical, and somewhat enthusiastic about virtual-empire. He lines up with people like Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin -- the people I think were the worst part of the Clinton adminstration. He doesn't criticize American imperial ambitions (or their consequences) so much as he criticizes how we achieve our imperial ambitions.
Another example of Clark's ambivalence about empire creating a confusin message is in his second book where he says, "It wasn't just the {armed forces'} technology that was breathtaking to much of the world. It was more the way the men and women in uniform handled themselves..."
"Breathtaking"? Really? Other than among Fox commentators, I don't think many people thought anything about the US military action was breathtaking.
Destructive, yes. If he wants to be nice to the military, how about Competent. Efficient. Effective. Those descriptive terms are closer to the truth. However, they are also debatable given the consequences of the invasion. How can you be awed by your masculine idealized soldier when the consequences have been far short of success? And doesn't that sort of imagery confuse the real issues? Of course it confuses the real issues. That's why it was such an important part of the cultural battle 100 years ago to get Americans to approve of empire building.
The way Clark praises (so persistently) the people in the armed services and the armed forces' capacity for destruction is not only the same cultural strategy the government and yellow journalists employed during America's earliest imperialist wars 100 years ago, it highlights the very awkward line Clark has to walk, which includes criticizing Bush while being pro-conquest. You simply cannot have an honest discussion about the costly consequences of America (military or economic) imperialism when you frame reality that way.
I don't expect many democrats to talk about these issues the way I see them, but there are still several democrats who don't give me pause on these issues the way that Clark does.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
