Conceptualizing American Hegemony: Grand Strategy

[jinnzaman]

Comments and critique would be appreciated:

Conceptualizing American Hegemony: Grand Strategy | Global Intifada

[dreamdeferred]

Well done. Excellent article.....it would serve as a great primer for those who don't accept that the US acts in a hegemonic manner...and an equally useful refresher and tool for those who do.

I hope you're getting marks for this or something because thats a serious essay right there

Two notes

• There are also clear examples of certain countries behaving in a manner that clearly doesn’t benefit American economic or corporate interests and America failed to intervene - such as its muted response to the slow shift to the Left in Latin America, especially in Venezuela where Hugo Chavez’s use of oil is clearly a political tool.

The American response to Venezuela hasn't exactly been "muted".

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team | World news | The Observer
Coup D'État Rumblings in Venezuela

• I especially liked the case you made for the idealogical consistency of expansionism across the political spectrum. An often overlooked reality. Some other things that popped out as especially interesting......the Sudan issue (people need to wrap their heads around the real reasons our govt intervenes in other countries....its certainly not ever about freedom, democracy, or ending tyranny and genocide). Also, you did a good job of supporting your assertions with data.

[jinnzaman]

Actually, I thought about getting into a discussion about Venezuela, but decided against it. Each point in the article is going to get elaborated in further detail. With regards to Venezuela, its true that the US tried to do a coup, but my point was that the type of language we see in the US when it engages Latin America is far more indifferent to when it engages those countries where it has a strategic interest. If a Muslim leader in the strategic zone of interest were to talk like Chavez, its clear that the U.S. would have engaged in a military intervention.

In the Muslim zone of interest, we see the US either (1) establishing military bases or (2) engaging in foreign interventions to achieve its objectives. So yes, while the U.S. has tried to overthrow Chavez, its weak compared to the types of strong actions we see coming from the U.S. in the SZI. Military bases and troop maneuvers are stronger indications of what American strategic interests are.

[dreamdeferred]

jinnzaman said

Actually, I thought about getting into a discussion about Venezuela, but decided against it. Each point in the article is going to get elaborated in further detail. With regards to Venezuela, its true that the US tried to do a coup, but my point was that the type of language we see in the US when it engages Latin America is far more indifferent to when it engages those countries where it has a strategic interest. If a Muslim leader in the strategic zone of interest were to talk like Chavez, its clear that the U.S. would have engaged in a military intervention.

In the Muslim zone of interest, we see the US either (1) establishing military bases or (2) engaging in foreign interventions to achieve its objectives. So yes, while the U.S. has tried to overthrow Chavez, its weak compared to the types of strong actions we see coming from the U.S. in the SZI. Military bases and troop maneuvers are stronger indications of what American strategic interests are.

To be sure the tone towards Latin America, and Venezuela in particular, hasnt been very bombastic historically (Cuba is an exception). But US interventionism in Latin America has been consistent and unrelenting.

Military bases and troop maneuvers are stronger indications of what American strategic interests are.

I dont know about that. Covert operations and military support of dictators/death squads strike me as indicative of protecting strategic interests. The primary reason we dont see troop movements etc in Latin America is because the US doesnt have to do much to contain the region.....America has total control of that theater.

Loud rhetoric/propaganda aimed at specific Latin countries can be seen just before and after US action there (Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela etc) but it isnt necessary on an ongoing basis because;

a) the public doesnt know or care much about South America
b) there isnt a groundswell of hate towards South America that can be manipulated towards shifting public opinion towards more overt actions in the region.
c) the US exercises complete military dominance in this arena.


Chavez will be dealt with eventually....he simply isnt a top priority. The US definitely has stronger interests in other regions right now.

[jinnzaman]

dreamdeferred said

To be sure the tone towards Latin America, and Venezuela in particular, hasnt been very bombastic historically (Cuba is an exception). But US interventionism in Latin America has been consistent and unrelenting.

Military bases and troop maneuvers are stronger indications of what American strategic interests are.

I dont know about that. Covert operations and military support of dictators/death squads strike me as indicative of protecting strategic interests. The primary reason we dont see troop movements etc in Latin America is because the US doesnt have to do much to contain the region.....America has total control of that theater.

Loud rhetoric/propaganda aimed at specific Latin countries can be seen just before and after US action there (Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela etc) but it isnt necessary on an ongoing basis because;

a) the public doesnt know or care much about South America
b) there isnt a groundswell of hate towards South America that can be manipulated towards shifting public opinion towards more overt actions in the region.
c) the US exercises complete military dominance of the region.


Chavez will be dealt with eventually....he simply isnt a top priority. The US definitely has stronger interests in other regions right now.

Good points, but the article didn't seem to give a direct example of how America engaged in covert option. I'll have to research this further. If you have any more information, hollaaaa.

[dreamdeferred]

jinnzaman said

Good points, but the article didn't seem to give a direct example of how America engaged in covert option. I'll have to research this further. If you have any more information, hollaaaa.

No doubt.

I'll be happy to point you towards the evidence of US intervention in Latin America.

I'm gonna step out soon but iA I'll post some links soon.

In the meantime....lookup School of the Americas.

[wheelworks]

The two words Hegemony and donchaknow go together very nicely

[dreamdeferred]

^^^^^^^^I found some quick links for you donchaknow!


An overview of US interventions in Latin America
US Interventions in Latin America Since 1823

How United States Intervention Against Venezuela Works | venezuelanalysis.com

A decent collection of facts and a catalogue for further reading
On Power: The Independent Institute | U. S. Foreign Policy | Regional Influence | Latin America

I dont have a subscription anymore but you may be able to get this through your school.
US: overt and covert destabilisation, by Hernando Calvo Ospina

There's a lot more out there........I'll dig up some more interesting links later iA

[dreamdeferred]

More detailed timeline of US actions in Latin America with sourcing. Note any and all CIA involvement is by nature "covert".....the School of the Americas and the National Endowment for Democracy are both elements used to destabilize and exert control over the region.

History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America

Interesting tangentially related Chomsky lecture
YouTube - Noam Chomsky on Latin America-Sloan/MIT Latin Conf. 1/4
YouTube - Noam Chomsky on Latin America-Sloan/MIT Latin Conf. 2/4
YouTube - Noam Chomsky on Latin America-Sloan/MIT Latin Conf. 3/4
YouTube - Noam Chomsky on Latin America-Sloan/MIT Latin Conf. 4/4

Directly related Chomsky interview. Economic hegemony is another facet of American action in Latin America......as demonstrated by aggressive pursuit of IMF (ie. US treasury) "agreements".

uprisingradio.org » Interventions By Noam Chomsky

Kolhatkar: One of the parts of the world that we seem to be losing our grip over is Latin America. And you talk about that in several of your op-eds. “South America: The Tipping Point,” “Latin America declares its independence and alternatives for the Americas,” etc.You talk about the increasing independence of the Latin American countries from the US. One of those avenues is through joining Mercosur. How optimistic are you that Mercosur is a viable economic path for Latin America and will the United States allow these countries to pursue their own path to shake off the shackles of recent US imperialism?
Chomsky: Well, certainly the United States is not going to allow it easily to happen. On the other hand, Mercosur has not very bright prospects right now. Too much internal antagonism, it hasn’t gotten off the ground. It might and there are steps towards it. And there are further steps. One of the other essayist discusses a very important meeting that took place which I don’t think we received any report in the US. At Cochabamba, Bolivia last December, there was a meeting of Latin American and South American leaders. [They] patched up differences, laid plans for a kind of an European union-style federation for closer integration and cooperation, constructive proposals. Cochabamba is more than a symbolic place. That’s the center of successful resistance against World Bank, US corporate efforts to essentially take over the economy. There’s major struggle there over attempts by the World Bank, basically US accessory to privatized war. I think Banktel was the company that was involved and was in fact driven out by popular resistance. So Cochabamba means something and the meeting means something, therefore I suppose it wasn’t reported. Can the US stop these developments? Well, you know, things are not the way they used to be. So just go back to the early 1960s. At that time, there was also kind of a popular wave of oppositions spreading around Latin America for independence, for overcoming extraordinary internal conflicts. This is a very class-ridden society, some of the worst inequality in the world, the tiny ruling elite—mostly white, there’s a race-class correlation—and a huge mass of the rest who are suffering bitterly. And there were attempts to overcome this. At that point, the US did have weapons. John F. Kennedy’s administration organized this, stimulated a military coup in Brazil, the most important country, which took place shortly after the sad president’s assassination had already been planned. It installed the first of the national security states, neo-Nazi-style states that plagued and then spread throughout the continent. Uruguay. Chile’s a famous case. Ecuador, Peru, everywhere. Argentina was a particularly hideous one. We finally ended up in Central America in the ‘80s, with the US terrorist wars. And it had in fact beat it down with murder, terror, brutal repression. Kennedy also initiated the counterinsurgency operation, the state terror operations. The first in Columbia where he sent a mission, a special forces mission to advise literally paramilitary terror against what were called “the known Communist supporters”—that means: priests organizing peasants, human rights activists, union leaders and so on. And that again still goes on, spread through the atmosphere. Well, the US can’t do that now. The last time they tried to support a military coup was in 2002 in Venezuela when the US backed a military coup that briefly overthrew the government, dismantled Parliament, threw out the Supreme Court. Highly praised in the United States, highly praised and in fact supported by Venezuelan media which amazingly were allowed to function after the coup was overthrown. In the United States, if CBS supported a military coup, they’d be lined up before a firing squad and dispatched without trial, probably. Now there is a major fuss because Venezuela’s not renewing the license of the main station that supported the coup. The US had to back off, first of all, because the coup was overthrown from within but also because of extensive protest from most of Latin America. Democracy is taken more seriously than it is here. And it’s not that they’re giving it up. The US training of Latin American officers is probably at the highest—it’s gone up sharply and maybe at the highest level, even through the Cold War. And they’re being trained for what’s called the “control of the radical populism,” and we know what the means in the context. But whether they can use that weapon or not is not clear. And also the economic weapon, the other major weapon, has been greatly weakened. The IMF particularly, the International Monetary Fund, which is virtually a branch of the US Treasury, has held much of the continent in a stranglehold through—as creditor’s community enforcers, one of its directors calls it. And they’re freeing themselves from that. Argentina’s president announced a year or two ago that, ‘We’re ridding ourselves of the IMF, paid off the debt, restructured and paid off the debt.’ The same with Venezuela. Brazil in a different way did the same. Bolivia will do the same. Probably Ecuador. Country after country has simply been building up reserves, getting rid of the debt, getting rid of the IMF. The IMF is in trouble now. That weapon of control has greatly weakened. For Latin America to overcome 500 years of one or another form of colonization and of internal disarticulation between tiny, wealthy elite and the mass of impoverished people—that’s not going to be easy. But there are steps towards it as there were in the early ‘60s. And this time, the steps cannot just be crushed by force.

More Chomsky

[R-G] Chomsky: U.S. Intervention in Venezuela and in Latin America


Benjamin Dangl, "US Military in Paraguay: Threatening the Left and Eyeing Gas and Oil in Latin America"

Zinn documents some of this stuff as well in one of his books...can't remember which one. Chomsky covers this material in-depth in "Turning the Tide: US interventions in Central America" and in "Interventions' to some extent as well as "Hegemony & Survival" and some of the financial specifics in "Profit over People"

I've been meaning to read this book but haven't gotten around to it.....focuses a little too much on "neocons" but it looks very interesting.

The Latin American Roots of U.S. Imperialism

[ChotooMotoo]

I actually think Latin America is a better example of US hegemony and imperialism than anything we've done in the middle east. That's just my oppinion though, take it or leave it.

[jinnzaman]

I'm not denying American imperialism in Latin America, but its not where the game's being played right now. The strategic zone of interest is largely Eastern Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe.

[ChotooMotoo]

jinnzaman said

I'm not denying American imperialism in Latin America, but its not where the game's being played right now. The strategic zone of interest is largely Eastern Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe.

yeah, but talking about it could help weird people take you seriously. If you downplay it, focusing too much on the middle east, some people are going to think you're just another Muslim whining about stuff. It's also good to lay down the history, so people don't dismiss the whole recent imperialism thing as just another Bushism or some such.

Be happy I'm not trying to criticize you or anything. You did a nice job.

[jinnzaman]

ChotooMotoo said

yeah, but talking about it could help weird people take you seriously. If you downplay it, focusing too much on the middle east, some people are going to think you're just another Muslim whining about stuff. It's also good to lay down the history, so people don't dismiss the whole recent imperialism thing as just another Bushism or some such.

Be happy I'm not trying to criticize you or anything. You did a nice job.

Well, again, my concern isn't with past imperialism (which is self-evident given America's behavior in North and South America) but with the future of its hegemony in order to predict how it will behave and how to develop responses, if any, to it.

A large scale military occupation is highly unlikely in Latin America in the near future, whereas it is actually happening in Eastern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, not to mention the expansion of military aid and alliances in Eastern Europe, India, and with Ethiopia.

Also, I never take critique of my arguments as personal attacks. I invite criticism, which is why I post my work on the internet. I want flaws to be pointed out so I can correct them before I publish.

[dreamdeferred]

ChotooMotoo said

I actually think Latin America is a better example of US hegemony and imperialism than anything we've done in the middle east. That's just my oppinion though, take it or leave it.

I think a strong case can be made that the US learned to flex it's imperial muscle via it's policy and actions in Latin America.

jinnzaman said

I'm not denying American imperialism in Latin America, but its not where the game's being played right now. The strategic zone of interest is largely Eastern Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe.

The chess game is being played with all the pieces concurrently. Latin America may not be the main focus of America's imperial strategy right now but it is still heavily engaged in the region.....particularly through IMF coercion to adhere to Washington Consensus. Destabilization strategies are constantly in motion. The union of South American giants is very concerning to elites in the US and explains some of the shaky alliances we're developing in SA (Columbia, Chile). Things will get heated to the extent that Latin American countries exert their autonomy...especially as united bloc.

[MossadConspiracy]

salam

just out of curiosity, whats shaky about the US-Colombian alliance?

ws