It is not really any news to state that the United States, along with countless countries, adopts principles that are regularly violated. That being said, and even in the context of such habitual hypocrisy, I found Condoleezza Rice’s recent statement concerning Russia extremely amusing.
“Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that’s its military power,” she said. “That’s not the way to deal in the 21st century.”
Regardless of whether certain occasions are justifiable or not (and I do believe some are), it is a simple truth that the U.S. bombs, invades, occupies and interferes in the internal affairs of other countries much more numerously than any other country on this planet.
In just these eight years under the Bush administration, the U.S. has invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, bombed Somalia and passed along bombs to Israel for its campaign against Lebanon. Top politicians on both sides have repeatedly threatened and supported that the same be done to a plethora of countries, most predominantly Iran and Syria. None of this includes our myriad of conflicts during our “times of peace,” including the Balkans, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Libya and Sudan.
Unfortunately, the reason for this is that the cardinal rule for politics in America is that every politician at some point in his career must show his zeal and fervor to start wars. A “strong” president is one with a willingness to draw blood in order to guard or progress what is the then-interpreted national interest.
This cycle will continue and continue by both Democrats and Republicans so long as the core principle that starting a war is a mark of “strength” remains. Both sides are eager to look “strong” and even more eager not to look “weak.” The only thing that changes between parties is tactics and location.
Since their quest is to look “strong” and electable, are we directly responsible for the war-hungry foreign policies implemented by all our politicians? Have we all been psychologically conditioned through mass media to believe that making war is a characteristic of strength so that the elite can profit from the fall and rise of sovereign nations? These thoughts are a little far-fetched, and I really do not want to think that hard.
What I do know is that the idea of the U.S. in essence being in a state of unending war along with the right to start wars in countless countries in conditions not at all correlating with the defense of the country from an attack or impending attack is the cornerstone of Republican and Democratic politics.
Right now we are in a war with many, many terrorists. Before that it was with many, many scary Red Russians. Before that it was with fascist Nazis, and on and on.
And this endless war is why we are a country that uses its military force in many more places and for many more expansive reasons than anyone else in the world.
Like I said, whether or not the bombs dropped on other countries are just has nothing to do with my argument. It is the fact that the U.S. sees military action as the suitable answer in many more situations than other countries in the world.
So when Condoleezza Rice says to Russia that there will be a “price” for the Georgian conflict, I find it nothing less of astounding. Besides the mainstream media, is there anyone else who does not see how ridiculous it is for Rice to be preaching a sermon about military involvement? Who is she trying to reach anyway?
But most importantly, what does the fact that Rice (along with others) knows that she can say these things without being laughed at and being labeled a hypocrite say about you and me?
Julio Cespedes is a junior majoring in biological engineering. He can be contacted at
[email protected].