Well, that or the USSR really was
a.) evil, and
b.) an empire
The Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein were both evil, but I'm trying to make a more nuanced point. I'm suggesting that these threats were inflated for political reasons (some of them good reasons) - and, moreover, I'm suggesting that a rhetoric of evil was used to describe a much more benign or technical geopolitical phenomenon; and that this rhetoric of evil was designed to "sell" the policy to the low information voters. My suggestion requires that you see the Cold War and War on Terrorism as more than simplistic battles against evil, but larger contexts for American intervention in important regions, that is, contexts for the protection and acquisition of vital geopolitical assets.
Let me try to simplify this for you. Next time you go into Walmart or any other large Department store, take a look at the regions where the products are manufactured. Some of these regions are unstable. Moreover, because they are unstable, they sometimes require "military stabilization". Military stabilization is the kind of thing that would happen if Iran tried to block the Straight of Hormuz, or if the Sandinistas threatened our access to South American sugar, or if any country decided to nationalize a resource that our transnationals controlled or economy needed. The Soviet and Islamic threats, however real, have both been used to justify creating a military presence near resources upon which our economy and lifestyle depend. America did not invent this strategy. This is what superpowers do. Get over it. If we didn't do it, someone else would. The food chain is not for the feint of heart. Innocent blood is sometimes spilled. That's why the lion has claws. [People do not understand the reality of what happens when powerful organisms take care of their needs]
Listen. Britain did not say that it was in India for the spices (which was the equivalent of oil to 16th century capitalism); rather, it dressed its geopolitical goals in a grandiose war for civilization. In the foreground we heard glorious stories of how Mother England was civilizing the barbarians -- indeed, cleaning up the natives with the King's English -- while in the background we saw Gandhi's head bloodied with the butt of a rifle.
The rightwing voter (the innocent homelanders of every nation) have always been protected, along with the women and children, from what men must do in "the outlying colonies". Most people don't understand that global politics is a contact sport that requires very tough ethical choices. It's much easier to tell people that their nation is always fighting "the good fight" against evil. [The mere fact that you cannot imagine a more complex scenario is proof that people truly believe their government and the various doctrinal systems used to mobilize a nation]
Son, the economies of Great Nations depend on resources from dangerous parts of the globe. The Cold War was used increasingly as a context to bring those dangerous but necessary regions under our protective wing. Washington and Moscow both used the Cold War threat to consolidate control over their various satellites. This is not rocket science, it's a ho-hum day in the life of a Superpower. (yawn) [You have to learn how to question Washington. The Right has always had a problem questioning Washington when it comes to war. At the end of the day, they trust
their government leaders deeply.]
how did she make an unrelated story about her? that horse was out of the barn and the door was carried away on the hot air of the krugmans et al.
Its a 'hedge'.
