“Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours… American law, American order, American civilization, and the American flag will plant themselves on shores hitherto bloody and benighted, but by the agencies of god henceforth to be made beautiful and bright.” (Senator Albert Beveridge in 1897. Claude Julien. America’s Empire. Pantheon Books, NY, 1971, p. 416).

“And the cure is this: to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit… Consider the 20th Century. It is ours not only in the sense that we happen to live in it but ours also because it is America’s first century as a dominant power in the world.” (Henry R. Luce, millionaire and publisher. The American Century. Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., NY, 1941, pp. 23,27).

“Whether we like it or not, we must recognize that the victory which we have won has placed upon the American people the continuing burden of responsibility of world leadership.” (President Harry Truman in 1945. Cit. in William Z. Foster. Outline Political History of the Americas. International Publishers, NY, 1951, p.483).

“…Destiny has laid upon our country the responsibility of the free world’s leadership.” (Eisenhower. Inaugural Address. The N Y Times. January 21, 1953).

“Some nations may be said to be born to power; others achieve power, or try to. Of the United States alone can it truly be said that power has been thrust upon her…” (John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In: Foster Rhea Dulles. America’s Rise to World Power, 1898-1954. Harper and Brothers Publishers, NY, 1955 p.XIII).

“America has the human and material resources to meet the demands of national security and the obligations of world leadership…” (President John F. Kennedy in 1961. John F. Kennedy. To Turn The Tide. Harper, NY, 1962, p. 81).

“…In the jungle of world politics we are now the lion. Some few Americans may still prefer some other world role— that of a mouse or a parrot or an ostrich, perhaps. But it seems that most Americans, given the choice, would rather lead than follow, would rather use our enormous power to build the kind of world we want to live in, rather than let somebody else take the responsibility for building world peace with less room for diversity.” (Harland Cleveland, political scientist. The Obligations of Power. American Diplomacy in the Search for Peace. Harper & Row Publishers NY, 1966, p.16).

“…the fruits of 40 years of ‘building socialism’— suddenly are no more.” (Richard Fryklund, political scientist. Richard Fryklund. 100 Million Lives. Maximum Survival in a Nuclear War. The Macmillan Company, NY, 1962, p.4).

“we’ve inherited a noble mission, a mission that casts a beacon of hope for all the earth’s people.” (President Ronald Reagan in 1983. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 83, #2079, October 1983, p. 30).

“our responsibilities are as trustees of freedom and peace.” (President Reagan in 1983. The NY Times. September 11, 1983).

Such statements are innumerable. US political leaders, legislators, and subservient political scientists take pleasure in expounding on the “American century” and “American empire.” Such “revelations” are not a new phenomenon in the history of the US. Imperial ideology and its inherent lust for plunder, violence and control over its own and other peoples developed centuries ago and will not vanish until the last exploitative society disappears— capitalism. It will remain only in history books. But humankind will never forget the empires of antiquity and the middle ages, the crusades, the infamy of colonialism, the fight for a redivision of the already divided world, the annihilated civilizations and genocide, the poverty and ignorance. It will never forget the endless crimes committed by the ruling classes— slaveholders, feudal lords and the bourgeoisie— for the sake of wealth and perpetual power.

The twentieth century has seen two world wars that took millions of lives. People shed rivers of blood and tears in those wars. No words could express the depth of grief, the acuteness of suffering, and the enormity of misfortune experienced by countries and continents, cities and villages and all of humankind.

The rulers of Nazi Germany declared for all to hear that their objective was to conquer the whole world. They were prepared to destroy all of humanity, except for the Aryans, whom they believed to be the “chosen race,” and to get rid of those who were “racially inferior,” such as the Communists, Social Democrats, heterodox, atheists, and those who could not prove their Aryan origins five generations back. Many millions of the “inferior races” were to be made slaves. What became of the fascist leaders in their bloody venture is common knowledge. Hitler’s corpse was drenched in gasoline and burned; his accomplices were hanged. The lesson could not have been any clearer.

It would seem that experience could and should serve as a persuasive warning to anyone else who would aspire for world domination. However, the essence of the capitalist system is that its oligarchy has an unquenchable thirst for wealth and power. That is the monstrous nature of the society that turns tears, suffering and blood into gold.

No sooner was World War II over than US imperialism, which incidentally had not hitherto concealed its imperial designs, intoxicated now with the destructive power of atomic bombs, went all out to pursue its insane and oft-discredited ideas of world domination. The concept of “American exclusiveness” has developed and been substantiated throughout the history of the US. It holds that the Almighty created the US to “govern nations,” “to lead the world.” The country’s ruling clique has always strived to translate this concept from mere rhetoric into action.

This was particularly evident when the US entered World War I. President Woodrow Wilson made one accusation after another condemning vice-ridden Europe which supposedly could be rescued from the “Teutonic barbarians” only by the providence-guided US. The turbid wave of great-power chauvinism, based on messianic concepts, swept up public opinion and turned into a reactionary utopia of a “crusade for justice.” Naturally after being “rescued in this way,” the only thing left for Europe was to gravitate towards US policy and obediently take instructions from overseas. It goes without saying, although it was not stressed in the rhetoric of the president and his men, that the European nations’ source of strength, i.e., their colonies, were to be placed under the “reasonable” control of the US.

Woodrow Wilson’s notorious “fourteen points” were geared to give legal force to this control. But Britain and France, which at that time were stronger militarily, “thanked” the US in their imperialistic way. Lenin had this to say about the Versailles Treaty which topped off World War I: “Wilson proved to be an utter simpleton whom Clemenceau and Lloyd George twisted round their little fingers.” It is indicative that in the fall of 1919, when the situation in Russia was so complicated, Lenin found time to analyze US policy towards its allies, because he regarded it as the source of future contradictions towards the imperialists. As Lenin pointed out, Britain and France were winners but they were head over heels in debt, and that gave rise to a definite reaction: unprecedented hatred toward the Americans.

Messianic attitudes, evident throughout US history, found special expression among militant Puritans who were gradually gaining a foothold on the territories of the first thirteen colonies. This idea, possessing the mystical force of self assertion, strengthened the colonists’ fantastic belief in predestination which had led them in those days what was the edge of the world. But as the wealth and power of the US grew, so too did the appetites of the country’s ruling circles while messianic ideas were conveniently being transformed into a political concept sanctifying the aspirations for world domination. Behind the pronouncements made by the provincial politicians who one after another became White House incumbents there emerged hegemonistic ambitions of the ruling elite. Bloody milestones on that path were the annihilation of millions of Indians, the plunder and annexation of half of Mexican territory, the policy of diktat and outright pillage of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America. As early as 1895, when Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was citing the incredible results of US expansionist policies, he said about his country, “We have a record of conquest, colonization and expansion unequalled by any people in the nineteenth century.”

Back in 1823 the US was the first to put into practice the term, “zone of vital interests” when this is what it declared all of Latin America to be. To assert that “right” the US began in 1898 the first imperialist war in history, a war that ended in Cuba’s occupation and subsequent subjugation. The US played an infamous role in the far east when it instigated the Russo-Japanese war, then later proposed itself to act as peacemaker. A retrospective look at US actions in the region shows that the US itself gave a “green light” to Japanese aggression which in the long run led to Pearl Harbor. American imperialism was one of the most active organizers of anti-Soviet intervention; the expeditionary corps of the US was directly involved in Russia’s Civil War in Siberia.

Throughout the entire period between the two world wars, the US, while preaching isolationism, ruthlessly suppressed the liberation movements in Latin America and actively interfered in the internal affairs of countries in the region and was unceremoniously forcing out its European competitors. American monopolies fed and nurtured German revenge-seeking hoping to get what they were after in the next skirmish between the European plunderers. While fighting in World War II the US especially energetically when President Franklin D. Roosevelt died, pursued its traditional imperialist objectives which seemed close at hand after the Axis powers and their allies were defeated and the military and political might of Britain and France were considerably weakened. The monopoly on nuclear weapons made the strategists in Washington dizzy and encouraged them to hasten their efforts to “lead” the world.

The US was the first to use the atomic bomb; this weapon killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The goal was obvious: to blackmail the whole world with nuclear menace. From that time on, having adopted the policy of nuclear terror, the US was first in developing and producing all new types of weapons of mass destruction, thus lifting the menace of war each time to a higher level. The US was tireless in knocking together aggressive blocs in every region of the world (NATO, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS, etc.). The US was first to establish a global network of military bases, including those with nuclear weapons and occupation forces in Western Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and various islands.

The total number of American occupation forces overseas as of the beginning of 1985 was 523,800.

Here is the breakdown in Europe: West Germany— 253,700; Britain— 28,800; Italy— 14,800; Spain— 9,400; Turkey— 5,400; Greece— 3,700; Iceland— 3,100; the Netherlands— 2,800; Belgium— 2,500; Portugal— 1,700; miscellaneous countries— 800; the 6th Fleet— 24,800.

In Latin America and the Caribbean: Panama— 9,359; Puerto Rico— 3,900; Guantanamo— 2,300; Honduras— 850; Grenada— 170; El Salvador— 50; miscellaneous countries— 520; Naval forces— 4,800.

In the Middle East and other regions: Egypt— 1,050; Saudi Arabia— 550; Diego Garcia— 1,250; Bermudas— 1,500; Canada— 550; miscellaneous countries— 1,375; Naval forces— 13,400. (US News and World Report, December 31/January 7, 1985, pp. 42-43).

These bases have a triple function: they pose a genuine military threat to the Soviet Union and the entire Socialist community; serve as a military occupation regime to maintain in power governments suitable to the US; and protect the economic interests of American monopolies. This is the way the military foundation of the American empire is built step by step. This is the context in which it is necessary to view statements by American leaders about using nuclear weapons first, the possibility of “protracted” and “limited” nuclear wars, and “victory” in a nuclear war.

The messianic passion of ruling circles in the US has facilitated the hypertrophic growth there of two monsters— militarism and chauvinism. A little over 15 years ago Robert Leckie wrote The Wars of America. Some sections reveal to a certain extent the role militarism has played in American life.

Leckie comments, “it has been by war more than peace that our institutions have been proclaimed and defended, our industries developed, our culture enriched, our history made national, our arts and sciences improved— and our hearts broken.

“By force of arms we are now the mightiest power on earth. But at what price! We stand surrounded by threats and hatred. Our European allies falter and fall back. Our new allies in Asia do not love us… Wither, then, do we go? Are we to become the world’s policeman?… Mighty as we are, not even we have the resources, the manpower, the will or the mandate for such work.” (Robert Leckie. The Wars of America. Harper & Row, NY, 1968, pp. 978, 979).

Those with similar reservations in the US are numerous, but this is hardly, or not at all, reflected in the policy of the top ruling circles. The dangerous revelry of militarism has been particularly marked in the past years since Leckie made his confession. According to the Brookings Institution, between 1946 and 1975 the US used armed force for political purposes, either directly or indirectly, 215 times and was on the verge of using nuclear weapons 19 times, including 4 times against the Soviet Union. In fact, in the post war world responsibility for the more or less major military conflicts rests with the US— Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon. The US was also instrumental in provoking the war between Iran and Iraq and the occupation of Grenada.

American interventionism throughout its long history has been attended with boasting and the “pushing” of American “values” on the world market. As the reactionary transformation of society deepened, the inhumane traits of its economic and social structure became ever more clear and obvious, namely, the domination of a handful of billionaires running the country, social inequality, racism, militarism, the amorality and hypocrisy of politics, and the voracity for wealth. But the stronger the claims for world leadership, the less people there were who wanted to be under the wing of the American eagle, except, of course, for puppet regimes, fascist, totalitarian, and autocrat juntas that are essentially doomed to fall if it were not for American bayonets.

Chauvinism, which invariably accompanies militarism, is on the upsurge in the US today; it is being used as a screen for messianic ideology. Chauvinism is meant to intoxicate Americans with the ideas of “predestination,” convince them to accept the concept of force as an instrument of international policy, justify any actions taken by the “leader nation,” inculcate a sense of having a superior “nation” and way of life that supposedly corrects the mistakes of the past and ensures a happy future. The present administration takes special pains to promote the idea of a “resurgent America.”

Alarmist methods— lies and claims of a “Soviet threat” — are used cynically to promote chauvinistic attitudes. The calculation is obvious: mass hysteria and fear in a society make it easier to get money for weapons and indulge the arms corporations. Because people are being deceived, a false interpretation of “national pride” is getting a definite response in the country. In other words, a particular method is being followed that had already been used by Nazism in the past.

In modern America chauvinism has virtually taken on one of its most extreme forms— the form of Jingoism, which was defined by the British philosopher, John Atkinson Hobson. (Jingoism is militant chauvinism advocating aggressive imperialist policies. The term originated from the word “jingo,” which was sung in the refrain of a chauvinistic British song in the 1870s. The term was later widely used in the US. Jingo was the name for promoters of extreme chauvinistic views and attitudes, of the more crude forms of imposing US dictate on other countries, and of the cult of white superiority over people of color. The term has the same meaning today).

Hobson wrote: “in the Jingo all is concentrated on the hazard and blind fury of the fray…. It is quite evident that the spectatorial lust of Jingoism is a most serious factor in imperialism. The dramatic falsification of both war and the whole policy of imperial expansion required to feed this popular passion forms no small portion of the art of the real organizers of imperialist exploits, the small groups of businessmen and politicians who know what they want and how to get it.

“Tricked out with the real or sham glories of military heroism and the magnificent claims of empire-making, Jingoism becomes a nucleus of a sort of patriotism which can be moved to any folly or crime.” ( J A Hobson. Imperialism. Ann Arbor Paperbacks, The University of Michigan Press, 1965, pp. 215-216).

It is sufficient to recall how the public at home reacted to Britain’s recent aggression against Argentina and US intervention in Grenada in order to understand the danger of chauvinism masquerading in ultra-patriotic phraseology. Very strong, painful shock is required, as was the case with Vietnam, for a sense of shame and disillusionment to replace Jingoistic fever. But the virus of chauvinism is constantly cultivated by the very way of life in bourgeois society and is multiplied and spread by the colossal, all-penetrating and all-powerful propaganda machine.

Modern American Jingoism is full of enthusiasm and hopes of saddling all the civilized world with the laws of the “Wild West.” For instance, speaking in September 1983 at the Republican National Hispanic Assembly Ronald Reagan said: “we all believe in America’s mission. We believe that… America remains mankind’s best hope…” And further on: “our country ios the leader of the free world, and we morally cannot shirk that responsibility.” (Weekly compilation of Presidential Documents, 1983, Vol 19, #37, September 19, pp. 1250, 1252).

This is what the president talks about incessantly. Such claims reflect braggery, phrase mongering, and posturing— a little of each. But what is dangerous is that the American ruling circles have their goals set on world domination and there are enough Americans who believe in that idea. As for the means of reaching that objective, any of them are acceptable, whether direct intervention, counter-revolution, subversive activities, assassination of unsuitable leaders, or warfare of all kinds. Chauvinism carried to the absurd, unfortunately, is not evoking any notable moral protest by American public opinion. Such is the degree of the nationalistic fever raging in the country.

Under these conditions the danger of militarism and plans for world domination by the ruling oligarchy in the US is all the greater because American messianic ideas are presented as being noble and therefore seem psychologically acceptable. American political scientists and the media have done much “to turn a vice into a virtue.” This book (On the Edge of an Abyss. By Alexander Yakovlev. English Translation. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1985, pp. 5-14) is about the methods used to sow fear of an outside danger, instill chauvinism, justify the growth of militarism and aggression, brainwash the people so they won’t think about whatever the ruling forces feel is undesirable, and generate prewar hysteria. (This last paragraph on some historical reflection urges the question of whether or not the World Trade Center “terrorism” of September 11, 2001 was a US home grown conspiracy to not only fulfill all of the things above, but lift up a violently sinking US economy as well, as nothing does that better than war! See the news article below this; Ed.).

Some information has been taken from Pax Americana published in 1969 in order to document America’s unswerving policy for world domination.

Official documents of the US government were recently made public regarding its preparations for nuclear war against the Soviet Union.

An examination of these monstrous plans indicates that their content was known to the most trusted specialists on psychological warfare, who in an endless torrent of publications in the late forties and early fifties conditioned public opinion in the US to the thought of a future war with the Soviet Union and the inevitability of such a war. (The “inevitability” of this war is still so in 2002, Ed.). They made people believe in an American victory and persistently “sold” the concept of the moral justification and need for a first nuclear strike. This aspect deserves serious attention since it proves a certain interrelationship between actual military plans and psychological conditioning in favor of those plans. Today, in the mid-eighties, American political scientists, especially right-wing conservatives, have stepped up their assault on the principles of peace and peaceful coexistence, are discussing different variants of war, conflicts and confrontation, and are inventing ever new concepts of force in international relations confirming their role as suppliers of “theoretical” justifications for the maniacal plans for nuclear attacks, plans still locked up in Pentagon safes. (End of Introduction).

Moscow June 5, 2002: - Colonel Steve Butler of the American Air Force called President Bush a parody and claimed that Bush let the events of September 11 happen because his presidency was leading the country to nowhere. Butler (the deputy head of the institute of military interpreters in Monterey) sent a letter to the Monterey Herald newspaper on May 26, in which he wrote that the president had not done anything to warn the Americans, because he needed the anti-terrorist war.

Steve Butler made a decision to quit his military career after 24 years of extensive experience in the US Air Force. Article 88 of the Military Justice Code says that any officer who uses obscene words against the president, vice-president, defense secretary, or congress on duty, is to be punished. This article was applied in 1965, when a lieutenant was punished for his participation in an anti-military protest in Texas. Bill's scandal with Monica was judged under the same article.

Links to other sites on the Web

An Iraqi News Site
Present Day Russia's Pravda
The Moscow Times Newspaper
Palestine News Agency
Return to index
See related website