Corgan Interview

Michael Corgan is a professor of international relations at Boston University. His area of expertise is Iceland. He served as Political Advisor to the Commander of the Iceland Air Defense Force. Corgan also was a member of the Navy for 25 years. Corgan has multiple published works including his most recent book Iceland and Its Alliances: Security for a Small State. Below is an interview I conducted via email with the professor.  

  1. Do you think the United States has been military imperialistic in its military expeditions post-World War II. If so, why?

No, I do not think that US military interventions, except for Panama and Granada in in the Caribbean, have been imperialistic, per se. Usually where the US has intervened militarily it has been for the maintenance of a certain world order according to principles articulated most fully by Woodrow Wilson in his speeches before and during the US entry into the first world war. Both Presidents Bush have been the most recent proponents of this sort of thing but virtually all post-WWI presidents, except perhaps Carter, have followed the same line.

This world order is more than just a "world safe for democracy." An orderly world according to American standards is a world of commerce at which the US has excelled and dominated. There have been other claimants for a particular world order, by force if necessary, but none of these has shown much capacity for providing the material benefits of the US underwritten system. For example, any centralized economic system that can, among other things, get Germans to make cars as bad as the East German Trabants and Wartburgs has to be fundamentally flawed.

Nor are US military interventions dictated by the quest for unrestricted access to cheap oil as many claim. Neither Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, nor Panama and Granada have any oil.

If there has been any military imperialism in the classical sense, that is control of territory, it has been in the Caribbean. As for economic imperialism, a better case can be made. But even the iconic symbol of this, as denounced in the phrase "coca-colonization of the world," fails a closer examination. After all, no one is forced to drink Coke. The US has excelled at production for the masses and at mass marketing and that's where the imperialism, such as it is, lies.

The US has a large and extraordinarily military capability and it is a toolbox ready to hand for a president to use when other modes of action would be far better. But a president ordering the military into some kind of action thus takes control of a situation from other actors in our foreign policy establishment looks more, well, presidential. 

2     Assuming that you do believe that the United States has been overambitious in its military exploits, what have been the effects of  this military enforcement of American hegemony? Are these effects positive, negative, or negligible?

There is a mixed record on US military intervention. Many powers privately like the US keeping some order in their parts of the world. As an example, the US bombing of Libya in 1982 was condemned by the other Arab governments but privately none of them was happy with Qaddafi's calls for "people of the Maghreb" to rise up and overthrow their illegitimate rulers. The same is true for other regions. None of the South American governments supported the US siding with the UK in the Falklands War but neither did they want Argentina to 'win.' The same with Iraq in 1992.

On the other hand, there are unmitigated disasters like our second war in Iraq in 2003. The war, in my view, passed absolutely no test of legitimacy. It dismayed our allies (except Tony Blair) and created, and continues to create, more enemies for us. It also calls into question our judgment and our vaunted intelligence capabilities.

This is a perfect example of what can happen when a country chooses not to play by the rules, most which it had originally insisted upon, in world politics.

No one, after Saddam Hussein's failure in 1992, will take on the US in a conventional war. That leaves guerilla-type wars which are always long and given to a disproportionate number of innocent, non-combatant, victims, even if winnable. Even Sri Lanka has lately proven that.

With the institution of the UN in 1945 the US had seemed to stand for rule of law in the world. Now that estimation of US intentions has been lost and it will be many decades, at best, before it can be recovered.

3. If American military interference continues on the same path it is now, what do you see as far as future international relations are concerned

If the US continues to use military force on its own - the Bush Doctrine - just because it can, we will have invited others to do the same. Example; Russia in its "near abroad" countries is doing what we have done in the Caribbean and says so. China will almost certainly be next.

4. What experiences do you have that makes you an expert in the field of International Realations?

I never call myself an 'expert.' That is an evaluation whereas 'specialist' is a description. I'll settle for that term.

I spent 25 years in the US Navy and my specialty there, when not looking for Soviet submarines or doing gunnery or being an adviser in Vietnam, was political-military relations. I spent several tours in NATO assignments including being the Political Advisor to the Commander of the Iceland Defense Force and served 7 years on the faculties of the National War College in DC and the Naval War College in Newport. Since then I have been on the faculty of BU's IR Department and my publications and lecturing have been on security matters and Nordic politics.

 5.     If you could pick one thing that the United States could do to restore its global image, what would it be?

With reservations, such as most countries regularly claim, sign and ratify three international treaties: the Anti-personnel Landmine Convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Criminal Court.

6.     Do you believe that the Obama administration is making strides to improve the American image that he inherited when he came to office? If so, what are they?

Obama is interested and trying to do the right things but the domestic economy overrides everything else right now. One significant thing the has done on the international scene is getting the nuclear arms treaty with Russia. As a onetime nuclear weapons officer on a ship, I think the existence of as many nuclear weapons as there now are in the world is the most dangerous threat to world Peace and order.

7. What military action, covert or overt, has been the most detrimental to the perception of the United States?

The current Iraq war.

8. What do you think of my websites? Can you suggest any improvements

Be wary of too simple characterizations. As the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl once said, "All the easy problems have been solved. What is left are the hard ones." There are usually at least some plausible arguments for both sides of an issue.

A personal example. I served in Vietnam twice and I am well aware that most Americans hold that we supported a dictatorship that the people didn't want. It was never that simple. After all, who ever in the North got to vote for Ho Chi Minh? Yes, the people there supported him but one could say it was the survivors who did. After all, he eliminated 60,000 people on his way to power. Could both sides be 'wrong?' I often think so. [BTW, there were atrocities on both sides, always the case in war]  Intervention is a perilous business and we should hold back much more than we do.

Interview With William Blum

Willam Blum is an author specializing in foreign policy. Blum is best known for getting a book endorsement from Osama Bin Laden. During a video in which he threatened the United States, Bin Laden recommend that all American read Blum's book Rouge State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. Blum has also written some other books including Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir. He also publishes a monthly newsletter called the "The Anti-Empire Report." Below is an interview I conducted with him via email.

Q: Do you think the United States has been military imperialistic in its military expeditions post-World War II. If so, why?

A: Yes,  I've written several books documenting this.

Q: Assuming that you do believe that the United States has been overambitious in its military exploits, what have been the effects of this military enforcement of American hegemony? Are these effects positive, negative, or negligible?

A:       Totally negative, for the countries invaded and for the American quality of life.  One exception, many US corporations have benefited greatly.

Q: If American military interference continues on the same path it is now, what do you see as far as future international relations are concerned?

 A:        More and more hatred of the US.  More and more anti-US terrorists.  More and more US wealth and blood wasted and spilled.

Q: You quoted as saying that “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism.” Do you sincerely believe that this can repair the international American image?

 A:       Of course.  I wouldn't have said it it if I didn't believe it.  America was once greatly loved and admired.

Q: Osama Bin Laden expressed his approval of your book, Rouge State. Was this expected? What were you’re feelings of the endorsement and have they changed in the time since?

A:                How could it have been expected?  Do you think I was in touch with Bin Laden?  I was very glad then and remain very glad.  It got me mainstream media exposure I'd never have gotten otherwise.

Q: Many people consider you to be a radical left wing journalist. While you do have facts to support your opinion, much of your work is done using extreme emotionally charging expressions. How do you fight accusations of blatant subjectivity in a field that calls for an objective approach?

A:                 Forget subjectivity and objectivity.  The question is: Does what I say make sense?  Does it help to explain world events?  Have I documented my facts?  Mainstream media can appear to be objective, but it leaves out a great deal of important information.  Their errors are those of omission more than those of commission.

Q: If you could pick one thing that the United States could do to restore its global image, what would it be?

A:               End its wars -- commpletely and immediately.  In Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.  And use some of the trillions saved to repair the damage done by the US military.

Q: Do you believe that the Obama administration is making strides to improve the American image that he inherited when he came to office? If so, what are they?

 A:              Obama's foreign policy is totally indistinguishable from that of Bush.  If anything, worse.

Q: You have made many criticisms of American policy during your lifetime. What qualifies you, an accounting major, to make these claims?

  A:           My being an accounting major does not qualify me at all.  My being a researcher and analyzer and radical thinker is what qulaifies me.

Q: In exploring your website, you seem to have no lack of critic for the United States. In your eyes, has the United States done anything right in the 65 years since WWII?

  A:       In foreign policy nothing I can think of.  Why don't you offer a suggestion of something right and I'll comment.

Interview With

Andrew

Bacevich

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University. He is the author of multiple books including Washington Rules:  America’s Path to Permanent War ,The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, and American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U. S. Diplomacy. Below is an interview I conducted with Mr. Bacevich via email.

1. Can you tell me who you are and your credentials that make you an expert on American foreign policy?

I am a professor of history and international relations at Boston University where I have taught for a dozen years.  My graduate training was in US diplomatic history.  I served as a military officer for 23 years before starting my academic career.

2. What is your view on American military post-World War II?

It has been over used and abused.  It has fought valiantly, but only rarely achieved meaningful victory, in the conventional understanding of that term.

3. Can you briefly explain your view on the effects of American militarism on the American economy?

For all kinds of reasons we are bankrupting ourselves.  Excessive military spending contributes to that problem.

4. In one of your books, you criticize the United States for building up its military during peacetime. Why is this negative?

I don't remember writing anything of that sort.  I firmly believe that we need a military strong enough to defend the country and its most vital interests.

5 What about the multiple jobs the military provides?

There are better ways to make a living -- doing things that enhance the way we live in positive ways.

6 Does the ever-increasing threat on American security not warrant an impeccable military?

I dispute the premise.  The threats we face today are far smaller than they were in, say 1940 or 1950.

7. Do you believe the Obama Administration is making improvements in foreign military policy?

In some ways, yes.  In others, no.  There is much less change than he promised.

8. Is the damage done by American militarism unrepairable? If not, what steps must be taken to repair the image?

Americans need to wake up.

Vietnam

Brief: Unofficially began in 1961 when the United States began taking measures to ensure that the Communist North Vietnam did not take over South Vietnam. U.S. influence in the region however began much earlier, during the first Indochina war, during which France was trying to maintain its colonies in Southeast Asia. This war was the longest in U.S. history and considered one of America's worst military defeats ever.

Stats

Americans Killed: Approx 58,156

Americans Injured Approx 303,704

Missing in Action Approx 2,338

Severely Disabled 75,000

100% Disabled Approx 23,214

Amputations and Crippling Wounds Were 300% higher than in World War II

Vietnamese Dead Approx 1,921,000

Cambodians Dead Approx 200,000

Laotians Dead Approx 100,000

Southeast Asians Wounded 3,200,000

Analysis: This is one of the United States's greatest military tragedies. The main objective was not accomplished. The United States was unable to keep Vietnam from falling to Communism; however, the secondary accomplishment was accomplished, Communism did not spread to other Southeast Asian countries. Facism did spread to Cambodia after the war when the brutal Khmer Rouge took control of the country after the war. 

The amount of carnage on both sides is a major downside. The Vietnamese causalities imply that the United States is being over zealous in its attempt to stop communism, which results in other countries having a negative perception of the United States. The American casualties angered many people in the American public, who believed that the United States shouldn't be in Vietnam and thus the soliders were dying in vain. 

Maybe even more important than the conflict itself, Vietnam affected American foreign policy in future years. Many of the interventions after Vietnam were an attempt to reestablish the superiority of the United States military in the eyes of other nations. Many countries believed that Vietnam was one of the worst military defeats ever suffered by the United States and it is hard to dispute. The United States invested all of its money, troops, attention, and supplies to Vietnam, yet they still failed to attain the objective. 

The Bottom Line: 

The damage to the American morale and American military, devastating casualties, and negative future effects makes this intervention a...

 Failure

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Brief:

As most of you know, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a military response to Saddam Hussein's refusal to give in to a United States ultimatum. The United States believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, claims that later were discovered to be false. The end result of the conflict was that Hussein was ousted from power, captured, and executed. The actual military fighting ending fairly quickly, however after the war's supposed end, an insurgency has complicated development in the country. A power vacuum was left by Saddam's departure and their has been civil war between different sects in the country. The outcome following the war has left Americans wondering whether Iraq is really any better off before we liberated them.

Stats 

United States Fatalities: 4412 (As of July 20th, 2010)

Iraqi Civilian Deaths: 95,082-105,855 (As of July 20th, 2010)

Analysis

The initial cause for the war was wrong. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. It was only after this that the operation in Iraq became a humanitarian intervention. This change of heart refutes the "altruistic" intentions of the United States. It is unclear what we wanted out of Iraq. Oil? We haven't gotten much. An ally in the Middle East? It will probably take another 25 years before Iraq is a full functioning ally of the United States. Its rather hard to be productive after the United States overthrew the social structure and bombed the country back into the middle ages. 

The carnage during the reign of Saddam Hussein and during American occupation are comparable. It is obvious that Iraqis are not "grateful" for being liberated. Unlike the Persian Gulf War, this war in Iraq made the United States seem like a trigger happy, Muslim hating, killing machine. The war was accompanied by an economic backlash.

The Bottom Line:

This intervention was unnecessary. The government pulled a fast one on the civilians and used the high emotion time of 9/11 to strike a totally unrelated enemy. The only thing this intervention did was cause problems with Muslims and divert efforts from catching Osama Bin Laden.  

Somalia 1992-1994 (Operation Restoring Hope)

Brief:

Other than inspiring one of the goriest movies of all time, Black Hawk Down. The intervention in Somalia and the Battle of Mogadishu changed the way that the United States approached humanitarian interventions. The United States military was involved in Somalia in 1991 and 1992, but at that time the mission had solely been to help the general Somalian population, which was starving. 

When President Clinton came to office in 1993 the situation in Somalia had worsened and a half a million Somalians had either died of war or hunger, and a million more were expected to starve that year. Because of the success of the Gulf War the American public was overconfident in its military ability and was angry at military leaders for not intervening in what seemed to be a quick fix in Somalia. 

Ultimately the United States interfered in an internal Somalian conflict. The regular troops on the ground were not trained well enough to do the extreme peace keeping tasks that they were assigned. In the end, the United States sought to do an operation involving specialist forces in order to capture resistance leader Muhammad Aidid. During the Battle of Mogadishu, an attempt to arrest Aidid went wrong and the warlord's fighters were able to down a low flying Blackhawk helicopter. Customary to military tradition, a rescue team tried to extradite the helicopter's crew when bands of Somali citizens and gangsters attacked them with small arms.

Stats:

Americans Killed: 43

Analysis:

This defeat was humiliating. It deflated the confidence gained by the Persian Gulf War. Unlike the Persian Gulf, the military forces in Somalia were simply a bunch of rebels. The view of the defeat back home was very negative. Essentially, the American public said, "We were just beaten by a bunch of hooligans." 

This is however not the case. The strike against American forces in the Battle of Mogadishu was very well planned. Aidid knew that American soldiers would come for their own so he chose to down the Blackhawk in the middle of his "backyard" full of the warlord's supporters. He knew that the Americans were gathering intelligence about him so he used that to his advantage as well. 

But nevertheless the defeat in Somalia was embarrassing. American bodies were dragged through the street on televisions world wide. No matter how sophisticated or well-armed the Somalians may have been, the common perception still remains that they were a group of unorganized rebels who managed to kill a decent amount of Americans. 

Technically, this intervention was a United Nations affair, but it was the United States' decision to start the Battle of Mogadishu which effectively killed the intervention. Technically, the Somalian suffered more lost at the Battle of Mogadishu-only 18 Americans were killed compared to hundreds of Somalians.  None of the technical things matter because the Somalian warlords were able to best United States Special Ops in the eyes of the rest of the world. 

The Bottom Line:

The Intervention in Somalia was a failure and resulted in rule changing in humanitarian interventions (Presidential Decision Directive 25 of 1994)

Panama 1989

Brief:

The U.S. intervention in Panama in 1989 was essentially over the disobedience of one man, Manuel Antonio Noriega. Noriega was no doubt a bad man. In the past he had been on the C.I.A's payroll while he was providing information about the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. However, Noriega parted ways with the United States, like a stray dog wanders from its owner. He became heavily involved in the drug trade and began to gain power in Panamanian society. He slowly became a behind the scenes dictator through a combination of illegal activities and violence. The murder of Dr, Hugo Spadafora essentially left power to Noriega unchallenged. 

Though a full scale invasion of Panama was undesired the United States was left no choice as Noriega refused to give up power. The United States charged Noriega in the United States on drug charges and Noriega was not about to leave his throne in Panama to face those charges in the United States. 

One of the main concerns in the Panamanian invasion was the concern for the approximately thirty-four thousand American citizens in Panama. The United States and then President Bush were afraid that the Anti-American rhetoric used by Noriega would incite violence against these students. This idea was furthered by the fact that leading up to the intervention, harassment toward American citizens had exponentially increased. 

Stats:

American Special Forces Killed 11

American Special Forces Deployed 4,150

American Soldiers Killed: 23 

American Soldiers Deployed 23,000

American Civilians Killed 3

Panamanian Troops killed: 314

Panamanian Civilians Killed 300

Analysis

This military action was well planned and well executed. The strike was quick and efficient as the casualities were relatively low on both sides of the field. The reason for the intervention was suspicious because Noriega was once on the C.I.A. payroll, however the rouge Noriega was no longer helping the United States but hurting it making him disposable. 

All of the objectives of the mission ousting Noriega, protecting American citizens, and restoring American military prominence were accomplished in this mission. 

The Bottom Line:

This was a good intervention. It boosted the image of the American military both domestically and abroad. It was effective and the government, despite having shaky motives, was able to convince the public that the intervention was for the best.