Ave Caesar? or, how i support the troops
The following is a link to a Newsday article by Michael A. Babcock, an assistant professor of humanities at Liberty University. In it, Babcock defends the idea of America as a empire, although a benevolent one, and suggests that America embrace its destiny as an empire to actually make the world a better place. He singles out the Roman Empire as a model for America to follow in this regard.
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=239558&Category=14
I put a link to this article because I disagree with it very strongly.
Babcock thinks he knows why i disagree with him. He writes that "Liberal elites" can't understand the rhetoric of imperial destiny because they "believe history is the product of material forces - and is never nudged onward by a transcendent will." He also writes, "Bush embraces the transcendent view - and its clear-cut vocabulary of war."
Babcock maintains. "What we're fighting for cannot be reduced to 'one set of interests' struggling against 'another set of interests.' We are fighting for things that matter - not the right to wear pith helmets or drill oil wells in distant lands. We are fighting for transcendent ideals - of freedom and human dignity." (By the way, in the original text, the single quote-marks around 'one set ...' and 'another set ..." are actually double quotes since there's no quotes around the original text of the bulk of the article).
Let me make myself as clear as I can. I don't know what reasons Bush and the rest of his administration and Congressional supporters have deep down for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that, like Babcock says, my friend Chris Fulton, and my friend Ryan's friend Chris Rosenburger, and my acquaintance/friend Shelly's husband, and my old high-school classmate Jordan Faught have not gone to Iraq thinking they were going to fight for the right to drill oil wells, but for things that matter - specifically, for the people of America not to be killed by terrorists or by the WMDs that Saddam probably sent to Syria. And certainly they would like to see the Iraqi people have human dignity and freedom, and are glad to see that Saddam will not have his reign of terror over them anymore.
None of the reasons they are fighting, as far as I know, have anything to do with an empire. Mr. Babcock, you believe that life is not all about material forces and the battle of selfish interests, and that our war has nothing to do with the material interests of either us Americans or their corporations? Fine. I know my friends are not fighting for material interests, as i said, whatever reasons Bush himself may have -- and i have no way of knowing that one way or the other.
However, an empire is always about material interests. There has never been and never will be an empire not founding for the sake of material gain -- and gains in power -- for those in charge of the empire. Babcock, I imagine, would snort and roll your eyes at this. Typical of a liberal elite schooled in atheist Marxism to think that "material forces" are behind imperial ambitions. But again, let me be clear. If what Babcock says is true about America fighting the war on terror for freedom and dignity, then that particular rationale cannot be leading us toward any empire. And if what he says about America having a destiny as an empire is true, then what he says about freedom and transcendent values being the reason for fighting -- whatever the brave and moral soldiers on the front believe -- cannot be true.
It is not that no moral, transcendent, or even spiritual inflences can be behind the actions of humankind in history on the world stage. Indeed, I believe that they can. But with an empire -- by whatever name -- those higher, better influences are always merely invoked for the purpose of masking the true desires of elite greed. Believing this doesn't make me a Marxist any more than Babcock's own distrust of liberal elites makes him a Marxist.
True empires require domination, and domination is never just. If one believes that domination is just, then one is not actually on the side of human dignity and freedom.
As to the war on terror, i will grant that some form of violence is necessary at the very least to keep us Americans alive. I am not enough of a military strategist to know whether this or that manouver in this or that part of the world is necessary to keep Saudi engineering students with nail clippers from killing more Americans than there are American soldiers sacrificed in those manouvers. If my friend Chris and his fellow heroes believe, in their knowledge of military tactics, that such actions -- and the personal sacrificies entailed -- are necessary, then I will say, "Go ahead -- I salute you." I know the terrorists don't primarily want to take away Americans' freedom - they just want to take away our lives, which is bad enough. The Iraqis and Afghanis, for their part, have each lived long enough under dictatorships, and whether democracy is a Western invention or not, would certainly be preferable to either Saddam or the Taliban. I do not know what the future holds for those long-suffering people, but I know that the presence of American soldiers like my friend are NOT adding to these civilians' miseries, tragic mistakes and unavoidable crossfire victims notwithstanding.
I drive a Ford Escape, a big car with relatively good gas mileage for its size (I came to have it -- and pay for it -- semi-voluntarily through a complex set of circumstances). I like to have a car, and I like having gasoline, as long as real alternatives are not available yet. However, I don't think many of the people who know and care for American military personnel fighting terrorists overseas would want to those brave people to be fighting to secure oil -- whatever the ruling classes may wish. But if Babcock is right, then oil must indeed be what we're fighting for, because that's the only type of thing an empire like the Romans would ever fight for.
The point here is not haggling over the mere word "empire," as if a shift in semantics could change everything. The point is the type of reality behind that word. America could be an empire like the Romans without calling itself an empire, and, theoretically, it could call itself an empire without actually acting as with imperial dominion over far-flung lands and peoples. However, if what Babcock is advocating does not entail such dominion, then it would be foolish to call it an empire. If it does entail dominion, then it is indeed an empire like Babcock says -- although it could not then be a force for transcendent justice.
No one dominates -- as in an empire of any name -- for the purposes of universal peace and idealist principles. I believe strongly in such moral principles, which is precisely why i cannot support any empire.
It's funny -- hippie kids and activists have long called America an evil empire, burning the flag and insulting those who fight in its wars (because their parents didn't pay to send them to college). This has made some people understandably very angry to hear their beloved democratic republic seemingly slandered in that way. But then comes along someone like Micahel A. Babcock to remind us all that we leftist brats didn't originate the idea of this flawed-yet-beautiful jewel we call America being an empire.
In short, I believe in the transcendent ideal of not living under an empire.
You can't call America an empire and then berate someone for burning the flag in the same breath. I support my friend Chris and his companions-in-arms in whatever they feel it necessary to do to keep me and my loved ones at home safe from attack, and hopefully to give some Iraqis and Afghanis a taste of life without dictatorship as well. This has nothing to do with empire or oil, and if Bush or any other elite decision-makers have it in their heads that that is what our American heroes are dying for, then in that case, they would deserve whatever criticism and opposition they are receiving.
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=239558&Category=14
I put a link to this article because I disagree with it very strongly.
Babcock thinks he knows why i disagree with him. He writes that "Liberal elites" can't understand the rhetoric of imperial destiny because they "believe history is the product of material forces - and is never nudged onward by a transcendent will." He also writes, "Bush embraces the transcendent view - and its clear-cut vocabulary of war."
Babcock maintains. "What we're fighting for cannot be reduced to 'one set of interests' struggling against 'another set of interests.' We are fighting for things that matter - not the right to wear pith helmets or drill oil wells in distant lands. We are fighting for transcendent ideals - of freedom and human dignity." (By the way, in the original text, the single quote-marks around 'one set ...' and 'another set ..." are actually double quotes since there's no quotes around the original text of the bulk of the article).
Let me make myself as clear as I can. I don't know what reasons Bush and the rest of his administration and Congressional supporters have deep down for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that, like Babcock says, my friend Chris Fulton, and my friend Ryan's friend Chris Rosenburger, and my acquaintance/friend Shelly's husband, and my old high-school classmate Jordan Faught have not gone to Iraq thinking they were going to fight for the right to drill oil wells, but for things that matter - specifically, for the people of America not to be killed by terrorists or by the WMDs that Saddam probably sent to Syria. And certainly they would like to see the Iraqi people have human dignity and freedom, and are glad to see that Saddam will not have his reign of terror over them anymore.
None of the reasons they are fighting, as far as I know, have anything to do with an empire. Mr. Babcock, you believe that life is not all about material forces and the battle of selfish interests, and that our war has nothing to do with the material interests of either us Americans or their corporations? Fine. I know my friends are not fighting for material interests, as i said, whatever reasons Bush himself may have -- and i have no way of knowing that one way or the other.
However, an empire is always about material interests. There has never been and never will be an empire not founding for the sake of material gain -- and gains in power -- for those in charge of the empire. Babcock, I imagine, would snort and roll your eyes at this. Typical of a liberal elite schooled in atheist Marxism to think that "material forces" are behind imperial ambitions. But again, let me be clear. If what Babcock says is true about America fighting the war on terror for freedom and dignity, then that particular rationale cannot be leading us toward any empire. And if what he says about America having a destiny as an empire is true, then what he says about freedom and transcendent values being the reason for fighting -- whatever the brave and moral soldiers on the front believe -- cannot be true.
It is not that no moral, transcendent, or even spiritual inflences can be behind the actions of humankind in history on the world stage. Indeed, I believe that they can. But with an empire -- by whatever name -- those higher, better influences are always merely invoked for the purpose of masking the true desires of elite greed. Believing this doesn't make me a Marxist any more than Babcock's own distrust of liberal elites makes him a Marxist.
True empires require domination, and domination is never just. If one believes that domination is just, then one is not actually on the side of human dignity and freedom.
As to the war on terror, i will grant that some form of violence is necessary at the very least to keep us Americans alive. I am not enough of a military strategist to know whether this or that manouver in this or that part of the world is necessary to keep Saudi engineering students with nail clippers from killing more Americans than there are American soldiers sacrificed in those manouvers. If my friend Chris and his fellow heroes believe, in their knowledge of military tactics, that such actions -- and the personal sacrificies entailed -- are necessary, then I will say, "Go ahead -- I salute you." I know the terrorists don't primarily want to take away Americans' freedom - they just want to take away our lives, which is bad enough. The Iraqis and Afghanis, for their part, have each lived long enough under dictatorships, and whether democracy is a Western invention or not, would certainly be preferable to either Saddam or the Taliban. I do not know what the future holds for those long-suffering people, but I know that the presence of American soldiers like my friend are NOT adding to these civilians' miseries, tragic mistakes and unavoidable crossfire victims notwithstanding.
I drive a Ford Escape, a big car with relatively good gas mileage for its size (I came to have it -- and pay for it -- semi-voluntarily through a complex set of circumstances). I like to have a car, and I like having gasoline, as long as real alternatives are not available yet. However, I don't think many of the people who know and care for American military personnel fighting terrorists overseas would want to those brave people to be fighting to secure oil -- whatever the ruling classes may wish. But if Babcock is right, then oil must indeed be what we're fighting for, because that's the only type of thing an empire like the Romans would ever fight for.
The point here is not haggling over the mere word "empire," as if a shift in semantics could change everything. The point is the type of reality behind that word. America could be an empire like the Romans without calling itself an empire, and, theoretically, it could call itself an empire without actually acting as with imperial dominion over far-flung lands and peoples. However, if what Babcock is advocating does not entail such dominion, then it would be foolish to call it an empire. If it does entail dominion, then it is indeed an empire like Babcock says -- although it could not then be a force for transcendent justice.
No one dominates -- as in an empire of any name -- for the purposes of universal peace and idealist principles. I believe strongly in such moral principles, which is precisely why i cannot support any empire.
It's funny -- hippie kids and activists have long called America an evil empire, burning the flag and insulting those who fight in its wars (because their parents didn't pay to send them to college). This has made some people understandably very angry to hear their beloved democratic republic seemingly slandered in that way. But then comes along someone like Micahel A. Babcock to remind us all that we leftist brats didn't originate the idea of this flawed-yet-beautiful jewel we call America being an empire.
In short, I believe in the transcendent ideal of not living under an empire.
You can't call America an empire and then berate someone for burning the flag in the same breath. I support my friend Chris and his companions-in-arms in whatever they feel it necessary to do to keep me and my loved ones at home safe from attack, and hopefully to give some Iraqis and Afghanis a taste of life without dictatorship as well. This has nothing to do with empire or oil, and if Bush or any other elite decision-makers have it in their heads that that is what our American heroes are dying for, then in that case, they would deserve whatever criticism and opposition they are receiving.
I am not one-hundred-percent certain that the particular courses of action undertaken by our government through its armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed the best courses of action in terms of actually meeting the goal of stopping terrorist killings. That is, I am completely certain whether "the war is right". But I believe that whatever God is in charge of the universe's morality and reward/punishment system will forgive the soldiers on the ground in the event of any killings on their parts which are not strictly necessary (if that occurs). I hope that doesn't sound too self-righteous. Basically, I'm saying that the U.S. armed-forces personnel involved in these conflicts should kill whoever they need to kill to come home safe.
You ought to know that Liberty University, where Babcock teaches humanities, was founded by Jerry Falwell, a nationally known evangelist and frequent political actor. The Romans killed his savior.
You ought to know that Liberty University, where Babcock teaches humanities, was founded by Jerry Falwell, a nationally known evangelist and frequent political actor. The Romans killed his savior.
posted by jlhart7 at 10:10 AM
1 comments
