We place these articles at no charge on our website to serve all the people who cannot afford Monthly Review, or who cannot get access to it where they live. Many of our most devoted readers are outside of the United States. If you read our articles online and you can afford a subscription to our print edition, we would very much appreciate it if you would consider purchasing one. Please click here to subscribe. Thank you very much. —The Editors

Home
Subscribe

BOOKS RELATED
TO THIS TOPIC:

Bush versus Chavez
Bush versus Chávez
Washington's War On Venezuela
by Eva Golinger
BUY THIS BOOK
The Cold War and the New Imperialism
The Cold War and the New Imperialism:
A Global History
1945-2005
by Henry Heller
BUY THIS BOOK
Pox Americana
Pox Americana: Exposing the American Empire
edited by John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney
BUY THIS BOOK
Socialist Register 2005
The Empire Reloaded:
Socialist Register 2005
edited by Leo Panitch
and Colin Leys
BUY THIS BOOK
Naked Imperialism
The U.S. Pursuit of Global Dominance
by John Bellamy Foster
BUY THIS BOOK
Behind the Invasion of Iraq
Behind the Invasion of
Iraq

by the Research Unit for Political Economy
BUY THIS BOOK
The New Crusade
The New Crusade:
America’s War on Terrorism
by Rahul Mahajan
BUY THIS BOOK
Fools' Crusade
Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions
by Diana
Johnstone
BUY THIS BOOK

ESSAYS ON:
» Africa
» Asia
» Europe
» Feminism/Women
and Politics

» Globalization
» Labor and
Working-Class Issues

» Latin America
» Media/
Communications

» 9/11–War on Terrorism
» Social/Political
Theory

» U.S. Politics/
Economics

Essays on Iraq, U.S. Imperialism, and War

Imminent Crises: Threats and Opportunities
NOAM CHOMSKY

Regrettably, there are all too many candidates that qualify as imminent and very serious crises. Several should be high on everyone’s agenda of concern, because they pose literal threats to human survival: the increasing likelihood of a terminal nuclear war, and environmental disaster, which may not be too far removed. However, I would like to focus on narrower issues, those that are of greatest concern in the West right now. I will be speaking primarily of the United States, which I know best, and it is the most important case because of its enormous power. But as far as I can ascertain, Europe is not very different.

June 2007


Road to the Iraq War: Two Views of U.S. Imperialism
ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ

The evening before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I was giving a talk at our main leftist meeting place in the San Francisco Mission District. Of course, the long planned topic for the evening—looking back on the 1960s antiwar movement—was sidelined by anxious discussion of the imminent invasion of Iraq. I was stunned when an admired leftist comrade began fervently invoking similarities between the Bush administration and the Roman Empire, analogizing Roman legions and the U.S. military. Others piled on, developing the comparison further, also talking hopefully about the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire. I interrupted the ancient history discussion, asking why not look at U.S. history, especially U.S. imperialism in Latin America as a precedent. Silence met my remark, and the discussion of Rome continued.

January 2007


Resource Wars
WILLIAM K. TABB

The close relation between war and natural resources is of long standing. What else was colonial conquest about? Vast estates held by the Dutch East India Company came under direct control of the Crown as did the lands conquered by the British East India Company. What was in demand in Europe dictated the commodities produced and the natural resources that were ripped from the earth. European violence set the terms on which resource extraction occurred. There was no free trade for mutual benefit based on comparative advantage. There were few constraints on the violence employed in the extraction of resources starting with the “shock and awe” of bombardments and fire storms of wars of conquest and followed by the pitiless subjugation of people of color. Having defeated the locals in battle the invaders suborned local elites and customs to extract resources from those they had conquered.

January 2007


REVIEW OF THE MONTH
Imperial America and War
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER

On November 11, 2000, Richard Haass—a member of the National Security Council and special assistant to the president under the elder Bush, soon to be appointed director of policy planning in the State Department of newly elected President George W. Bush-delivered a paper in Atlanta entitled "Imperial America." For the United States to succeed at its objective of global preeminence, he declared, it would be necessary for Americans to "re-conceive their role from a traditional nation-state to an imperial power." Haass eschewed the term "imperialist" in describing America's role, preferring "imperial," since the former connoted "exploitation, normally for commercial ends," and "territorial control." Nevertheless, the intent was perfectly clear:

May 2003


Imperial Ambition: An Interview with Noam Chomsky
DAVID BARSAMIAN

David Barsamian:What are the regional implications of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Noam Chomsky: I think not only the region but the world in general perceives it correctly as a kind of an easy test case to try to establish a norm for use of military force, which was declared in general terms last September. Last September, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America was issued. It presented a somewhat novel and unusually extreme doctrine on the use of force in the world. And it's hard not to notice that the drumbeat for war in Iraq coincided with that. It also coincided with the onset of the congressional campaign. All these are tied together.

May 2003


Behind the War on Iraq
RESEARCH UNIT FOR POLITICAL ECONOMY

Three themes stand out in Iraq's history over the last century, in the light of the present U.S. plans to invade and occupy that country. First, the attempt by imperialist powers to dominate Iraq in order to grab its vast oil wealth. In this regard there is hardly a dividing line between oil corporations and their home governments, with the governments undertaking to promote, secure, and militarily protect their oil corporations. Second, the attempt by each imperialist power to exclude others from the prize. Third, the vibrancy of nationalist opposition among the people of Iraq and indeed the entire region to these designs of imperialism. This is manifested at times in mass upsurges and at other times in popular pressure on whomever is in power to demand better terms from the oil companies or even to expropriate them. The following account is limited to Iraq, and it provides only the barest sketch.

May 2003


Beyond the Drumbeat: Iraq, Preventive War, ‘Old Europe’
ARNO J. MAYER

The letter of support, signed by the leaders of eight European countries last January, for the Bush administration's inexorable push for war with Iraq was both singularly ideological and shortsighted. The list of values that the signatories claim to share with the United States is altogether unexceptionable: "democracy, individual freedom, human rights, and the rule of law." But there is a crying omission: free-market capitalism. This omission is all the more striking since there is no fathoming the infamous terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 without bearing in mind that its main target was the World Trade Center, a prominent symbol and hub of globalizing capitalism.

March 2003


U.S. Imperial Ambitions and Iraq
THE EDITORS

Officially Washington's current policy toward Iraq is to bring about a “regime change”—either through a military coup, or by means of a U.S. invasion, justified as a “preemptive attack” against a rogue state bent on developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction.* But a U.S. invasion, should it take place, would not confine its objectives to mere regime change in Baghdad. The larger goal would be nothing less than the global projection of U.S. power through assertion of American dominance over the entire Middle East. What the world is now facing therefore is the prospect of a major new development in the history of imperialism.

December 2002


The Rediscovery of Imperialism
JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER

The concept of “imperialism” was considered outside the acceptable range of political discourse within the ruling circles of the capitalist world for most of the twentieth century. Reference to “imperialism” during the Vietnam War, no matter how realistic, was almost always a sign that the writer was on the left side of the political spectrum. In a 1971 foreword to the U.S. edition of Pierre Jalée’s Imperialism in the Seventies Harry Magdoff noted, “As a rule, polite academic scholars prefer not to use the term ‘imperialism.’ They find it distasteful and unscientific.”

November 2002

 
 

All material © copyright 2002–2008 by Monthly Review