Well, from 1500 to 1900 we had no enemies except the Indians, the French and Indians, the British, the Indians, the British again, the Indians still, the Mexicans, the Yankees (if you were Southern), the Rebels (if you were Northern), more Indians, and the Spanish. I don't think that affects the overall argument, though. There were a variety of enemies, not one big bogey man against whom we defined ourselves except maybe in the Revolutionary War. Good argument about WW II.

He makes good points. The challenge is
that Wahhabi Islam is in world-wide
control fueled by Saudi blood money.

A different model in Indonesia may
survive, but it receives little support
from hardline Jihadists such as Vice
President Hamdah Haz. Haz and his cohorts
are simply hiding behind the political
figure-head, Pres. Megawati Sukarnoputri,
for the time being.

The author does need to brush up on US history from 1500 to 1900. First, it doesn't really begin until May 1787, nearly 300 years into the aforementioned 400 year span. Before then, you aren't talking about the US; you are talking about colonial and indigenous cultures. During the period marked by progress of an actual USA, there were numerous wars and a great deal of public focus and participation in and on those conflicts. The indigenous population as represented by North American tribes or by Mexico was a particular focal point of conflict. Given that the US was in an economic crunch, you'd forgive it for avoiding for three years a fight in which it had no dog, especially when the memories of WWI (the Great War) and the Philippines Insurrection were relatively fresh in the minds of leaders and voters.

This isn't to say that Chomsky et all aren't off-base. It would seem that the US would avoid the Mid-East as it does Africa if the populations there were not obnoxiously inclined to export violence. The reasons for this may be many, but a simple explanation is that it is an expression manefest destiny of Islam, the same thing that propelled it out of Arabia and across Africa and South Asia, well before the relatively static latter period of the Turks (Ottomans).

For a history of Wahhabisim go to :http://www.shianews.com" although there is a great amount of animosity between the two sects.

I think Adolph is right about the economic rationale behind the US non-entry into WW2. It is maybe also helpful to consider that, while having a defined enemy/other can give meaning to our lives, it isn't always necessary to actually fight a war against that enemy.

This is an aside to Fred's commentary: Consider that there was far less regional communciation between the 1500 - 1900. So the Big Enemy didn't have to be as big. This point is valid up to about the 1800s, when the telegraph was spreading. Incidentally, we'll notice that the last of the native american massacres occured at the end of the 19 century, validating Chomsky's point.

Re. validating Chomsky's point:

Tarek Heggy's series looks at elements of modern Mideast history that have contributed to the strong influence in many Arab Muslim societies of "oppression, absence of social mobility, spread of incompetence, despair, reactionary educational systems and corruption."

Many readers, myself included, will not have thought about the modern echoes of Ottoman-Wahhibi antagonism, or British policies in Egypt of divide-and-conquer and rule-by-proxy. This sort of analysis allows us to answer the important (if poorly phrased) question, "why do they hate us?" in more insightful ways.

In contrast, Chomsky's belief that "the United States needs an enemy to survive" is religious in nature. When such beliefs are dressed up as historical fact, discussion is rarely insighful. For example, in the comments above, the US entry into World War 2 in December 1941 is given once as refutation and once as validation of this axiom.

Whatever the stopped-clock merits of Chomsky's individual observations, Armed Liberal had the right of it when he described this sort of philosophical approach. Bad.

Booget,

Two points: First, you have a point about regional communication. However, during the Mexican War, we were simultaneoulsy fighting Mexico and some Indian tribes in more or less the same region. Against which did we define ourselves?

Second, even the most cursory glance at human history shows there is never any need to go looking for an enemy. They'll find you. We are the richest, most powerful country in the world. It is hardly surprising that some "others" will see it as in their interests to defy or try to undermine our interests. That's not ideology, that's a fact of life, an inextricable part of the human condition. We live in a world of material limitations. EVERY society is trying to grab as much of that limited material as possible. In the process, many of them are willing to kill anyone or any society that stands in their way. Any individual or society unwilling or unable to defend itself will die. It's that simple.

If I had seen the part of AMac's post on Chomsky, I could have saved myself some trouble. "Religious belief" is a good way to describe it.

'The last half of the 18th century' of course also corresponds to the beginning of the clear defeat of the Islamic cultures by the West. Their technical and military incompetence is detailed by Bernard Lewis. And in 1683 the peaceful Islamic Turks without a shred of Wahhabism were besieging Vienna...sure makes me believe everything he has to say.

The wahabi from of Islam maybe the most extreme
but the other forms sustaints the backward economic
and social structures which acts as a breeding grounds
for terrorists who are aligned with the wahabi cult.
The other forms do not allow women rights and
is very anatagonistic to other religions (particularly
so called idol worshipers). Their prophet executed
the men of a whole jewish tribe and sold the
women into sexual slavery. Is this in an example
of moral behaviour ?

Actually the Islamic civilization is not up against Christanity; it is up against the civilization created by the French revolution. Very soon there will be an article on this topic on rk_articles.blogspot.com.

Actually the Islamic civilization is not up against Christanity; it is up against the civilization created by the French revolution. Very soon there will be an article on this topic on http://rk_articles.blogspot.com