The Washington Post published an opinion piece today that epitomizes the logic of militaristic imperialism. Check out this excerpt:
These are words. They’re scary words. If China invades Taiwan, these words argue, our daily lives—here! in the United States!—would be dire-ified! Scary as they are, though, the words don’t really say anything.
Each sentence, taken individually, is a massive leap of logic. How, exactly, would America’s position in the Asian-Pacific region be “gravely weakened”? The authors don’t say. No hows are included in this argument—which is typical of this sort of neo-con argument, going back to the domino theory.
A great way to test grandiose claims like this is to turn them around. What if the argument appeared in China Daily, and read like this:
What if the U.S. invades Grenada? China’s geopolitical position in the Caribbean, and the perception of China’s allies in the Caribbean, would be grievously weakened. This would increase America’s global hegemony, which it would use to weaken our (Chinese) prosperity and mess up the everyday life of Chinese people. Therefore, China must defend Grenada!
Such an argument would rightly be dismissed as nonsense. China doesn’t have, nor should it have, any say over the Caribbean. If the U.S. invades Grenada, China would not be affected.
So it is with Taiwan.
(Missing here is the highly relevant fact that the U.S. legally considers Taiwan to be part of China. Under American law, China can’t “invade” its own territory.)
I’m pointing this out because this is exactly the kind of twisted logic used to justify invading Iraq, and Vietnam, and defending Ukraine. What if what if? This then that then this other thing—but if you take a beat to think about what’s actually being said, none of it makes sense.
Warmongers are like used-car salesmen. The sell comes hard and fast—to keep you from thinking.
