Her tone is what struck me. She said imperialism very slowly and with utter disdain - as if the term was nothing but jingoistic nonsense. That's interesting because you have to be a fool or liar to deny that the concept of the US as an empire is taken very seriously by people of many political viewpoints. If the US government does not hold imperial ambitions then how does one explain these statements of the official 2002 US National Security Strategy:
- To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.
- Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.
- We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts...are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind hearing from such establishment players on NPR , but why is there never any serious counter-perspective? Why don't we hear about Russia from experts like Craig Murray, who also has the dirt on the US-British behavior. Or why not bring on critics of US imperialism such as Chalmers Johnson or Noam Chomsky?
It seems plainly obvious that NPR tightly restricts the limits of what is considered acceptable for debate. Those limits are based in an unquestioning faith in the overall goodness of American power and policy, regardless of any and all evidence that might undermine that faith. It's enough to drive someone crazy...