The myth of good intentions...

The Myth of the Fair and Benevolent State: Policing the World

J.G. Vibes

In the string of military conflicts that the United States and NATO have been involved in since the second world war they have always attempted to maintain the high road by claiming that they were responding to some kind of threat, and apparently helping the people that they were bombing.

This approach is largely accepted by the general public who is either too afraid or unable to suspect malicious intentions on the part of their masters. In helping themselves to rationalize the nonsensical things that are happening in their name many people are firm believers in the idea that their government is doing good “policing the world”.

We hear this phrase all of the time, even among people who generally disagree with wars and government policy. People say that “NATO has no right to police the world as they do!”, and those people would be right. However, that statement is overlooking one fundamental premise, that being the fact that NATO’s goals and ambitions have nothing to do with “policing the world”. Just as ancient Rome’s government could care less about “bringing civilization to the savages”, today’s Western governments are not interested in “spreading democracy” or “policing the world”.

This is an extremely important point to make because this idea that they are trying to police the world perpetuates the myth of the fair and benevolent state, and downplays the significant damage that they are doing to people’s lives around the world. If we were being honest with ourselves, we would say that they are trying to take over the world’s governments and plunder their natural resources, because that’s what we can see happening around us. War is, and always has been, about conquest for plunder and power. And the many wars that we see taking place around the world today are no different.

Sure, nowadays, the cover story may be that they are “policing the world”, but there is now a mountain of evidence showing that the primary goal of these military actions are to secure natural resources, hijack the local political and financial systems, and establish more military bases to assist in future conquests.

Time after time Western imperial powers vilify foreign dictators who, in many cases, have been directly funded and supported by those same imperial powers in the past. For at least the past century the UK, US and their allies have been shipping billions of dollars worth of weapons to foreign dictators under the guise of “foreign aid”. As a side note, “foreign aid” is another one of those terms that imply a fair and benevolent state, when the reality is far more destructive than the choice of words would lead one to believe.

When hearing “foreign aid” many people get visions of food being air dropped into war-torn areas with starving refugees. However, the reality of the situation is that this money is being shipped directly to these foreign dictators so they can more effectively suppress and put down their own populations -- and usually goes right into the pockets of U.S. arms manufacturers . This message was blatantly clear to the Egyptian people when they revolted against their government and had tear gas canisters shot at them that were marked with “made in the USA” labels.

Egypt is certainly not alone. Nearly every dictator that the US and NATO have gone to war with has been one of their very own creations. The volatile situation in the Middle East has without a doubt been fomented by Western powers funding dictators through tax-funded “foreign aid”. Saddam Hussein in Iraq was kept in power thanks to Western support until he was no longer useful and then became a target. Years after the invasion WikiLeaks cables showed that oil contracts were one of the primary motivations behind attacking Iraq. So again we see natural resources playing a major role.

This is the same way that Osama Bin Laden was used as a hired mercenary to fight against the Soviets as a proxy in the Cold War, and then later became a target when the elite needed a new excuse to invade the Middle East. Along with these very high-profile cases there have been ongoing covert operations in dozens of countries worldwide, many of which are exposed by CIA whistleblower John Perkins in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

If all of the facts, confessions and source documents weren’t enough to show that the US and NATO are intent on conquering the world, as opposed to policing it, then this week’s grisly massacre in Afghanistan surely gives us a more animated picture of what the military is really there to do.

The government is of course telling us that these are just “a few bad apples,” as if the very reason that they were over there was not to commit mass murder. These young and misguided souls are strapped with weapons, trained to kill and sent into a territory filled with people who they have been taught to despise. Isn’t this sort of violent and irrational behavior to be expected under those conditions? This is obviously unacceptable behavior, but isn't war and all that comes with it unacceptable behavior to begin with?

The first step towards ridding our world of all this violence is seeing it for what it is and calling it what it is out loud. Using softer language to describe the horrors that are going on around us is actually one of the many ways in which we are being prevented from actually addressing these problems and bringing about a more peaceful existence. Given that today’s governments and all governments throughout history have such a tradition of mass murder and human rights violations, we should always be extremely suspicious whenever anyone in power claims to be doing something noble, especially when military force is involved.

Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/myth-of-fair-and-benevolent-state.html