Iraq K aff
___ of ___
Critical Iraq IAC
The War in Iraq began as a racist and aggressive form of American Imperialism. The
problems there have little to with the execution of the war, and more to do with
America’s militaristic quest for global domination.
(James B, Of the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley) “The Military State of America and the
Volume 57, Number 1, Winter 2010. MUSE. DJ
Yet the deeper, mostly unstated assumptions underlying these authors' proposals ought to strike a chill throughout the democratic Left. Their
the Iraq invasion—and implicitly, future American military exploits of the same kind—have to do with execution, not
the larger vision of American power that inspired the enterprise.
Their words strike an eerie resonance with those of Thomas L. Friedman,
before the invasion occurred: he favored George W. Bush's "audacious" war plan as "a job worth doing," but only "if we can do it right." America's violent
remaking of Iraq would have been entirely acceptable, it seems, if only Friedman's sensibilities could have guided it. More important:
mission of the United States as maker and breaker of regimes around the world remained unquestioned. When any
country gets seriously in the way of American power, the global responsibilities of this country are apt to require
action like that taken in Iraq. We hear this kind of thinking in its most out-of-the-closet form from neoconservatives—
who gave us the Iraq invasion in the first place. But its roots in American history lie at least as far back as notions of
Manifest Destiny. Its key inspiration is a particularly aggressive form of American exceptionalism.
Some higher power—fate,
Divine Providence, or special "moral clarity"—has created opportunities, indeed obligations, for America to set things straight on a global scale.
Versions of this idea are pervasive among thinkers—American foreign policy elites, and those who would guide them—who would disclaim identification with the
neocons. Often conveying the doctrine are code words referring to special "responsibilities" of the United States to guarantee world "stability." Or, as Madeleine
Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated, "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand
tall. We see further into the future. . ." To her credit, Albright's effusions in this direction stopped short of support for invading Iraq—something that cannot be said
for the so-called liberal hawks.
Accepting this view of America as the ultimate and rightful arbiter of global affairs—as master hegemon or world