Show me the way to go home
Aug 14th 2003
From The Economist print edition

“War lite” is all very well. Empire lite is a mistake

EMPIRES are born in funny ways, and sometimes, via the law of unintended consequences, by accident. In his 1998 declaration of war against “Jews and Crusaders”, Osama bin Laden said his aim was to force America's armies to depart “shattered and broken-winged from all the lands of Islam”. So far he has achieved the opposite. Within less than two years of the felling of the twin towers, America has invaded and occupied two Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, with a combined population of more than 50m. If this has surprised Mr bin Laden, it may be no less of a surprise to America itself. Who expected the colony that started its own national life by casting off the empire of George III to end up running a far-flung Muslim Dominion of Iraqistan?
However it happened, Americans are not enjoying it much (see article). The Afghan war of 2001 and the Iraq war this spring were walkovers, costing between them a grand total of fewer than 150 American lives. For the superpower, if not its adversaries, this has been “war lite”. But staying on has been less of a breeze. For one thing, some of the locals do not seem to know when they are beaten: nearly 60 Americans have been killed in Iraq since George Bush declared the end of major fighting. For another, it is expensive: the fighting alone has already cost American taxpayers some $65 billion. On some estimates, rebuilding the country could add anything up to $600 billion. To top it all, Iraqistan is not the very feather a self-respecting empire would choose for its cap. Iraq minus Saddam and Afghanistan minus the Taliban are better off than they were before these subtractions. But both are still a mess.
Given this, it is not hard to see why in America itself the champions of “neo-imperialism” are now being drowned out by voices clamouring for an early exit. Nor is it any disgrace. Mr Bush said all along that America went to Iraqistan in order to defend itself, and would leave these places the moment its job was done. What would be a disgrace is to cut and run before then. It is on the whole a good thing for both America and the world that the superpower is a reluctant imperialist. An incompetent imperialist is bad for everybody.
Has America been incompetent? At first glance, you could almost make a reasonable case that in Afghanistan it has done moderately well. That country is now more or less at peace; an Afghan government exists; a constitution is being written; NATO has taken over control of the international peacekeeping force in Kabul; and America's own garrison has been reduced to a minimum. The trouble is that all these accomplishments are either fragile or incomplete (see article). The south of the country is still too dangerous for aid workers to work in. The government's writ does not extend much beyond Kabul. Local warlords, deep into the heroin trade, wield the real power. The Americans may have deprived Mr bin Laden's men of a safe haven. But Afghanistan remains a failed or non-existent state, still capable in the future of visiting its failures violently upon the West.
America's (and Britain's) post-war performance in Iraq is harder to defend. Even allowing for the scale of the task, they have made a botch of things so far. Americans are famous not only for having supposedly limitless resources but also for their energy, can-doism and powers of improvisation. And yet, three months into the occupation, a scorching Iraq is still waiting for reliable supplies of power and clean water. The occupation authorities have created a Governing Council of Iraqis. Although broadly representative of Iraq's tribes and factions, this body is, however, the unelected creature of the Americans and British, consisting for the most part of returning exiles. It is a transitional achievement, at best.
So what has gone wrong? A common explanation from the superpower's critics is that the Americans are paying the price of “unilateralism”. Had the Iraq war been waged under the banner and with the authority of the United Nations, they say, many more countries would now be helping to put the place back together. Of a score of countries with troops in Iraq, a mere 13,000 come from 19 countries and the 148,000 others are American. Many more countries share an interest in a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. But since the Americans insisted on going it alone, argue some of those holding back, they can jolly well sort out the mess by themselves.
This is not quite fair. Had the Americans waited for the Security Council's authority (and Mr Bush did try for it), Iraqis would probably still be squirming under the dictator's heel. But since the war the Americans have indeed been excessively reluctant to give up a little of their own authority in Iraq so that the UN might have a little more. Though the Security Council has its own man in Iraq, his powers are vague and it is America's proconsul, Paul Bremer, who calls the shots. The present arrangement has the merit of giving America control of a situation for which America will in the end anyway be blamed. But why not seek a new resolution that tweaks the balance enough to encourage more countries to lend a hand?
Putting a sturdier international umbrella over America's accidental empire should not be seen as just a way to defray the costs. It would help in many other ways. In Iraq in particular, it might reassure those who say that America is interested only in plundering their oil. In Afghanistan, the presence of a muscular Office of the High Representative, like the one that was created for Bosnia (and backed by a muscular peacekeeping force), would have helped Hamid Karzai's government to impose his will on the warlords. But internationalisation is not, by itself, a panacea. In the end, only America has the military and economic heft to ensure a decent outcome in these places. And, in a paradox, those Americans now clamouring for an exit from Iraqistan should be pushing their government to do much more in its new dominions, not less.
America succeeded at “war lite”. But it would be an error to follow up with what a Canadian writer, Michael Ignatieff, has called “empire lite”. Even an unwanted empire is an empire, and hard to run on the cheap. Iraqistan requires the urgent application of more money, attention and ingenuity than America has invested so far. This need not mean staying for “the long haul”, as people say. It is possible that by doing more now, America may be able to pull out sooner. The key is to make enough of an effort now to ensure that these places will remain stable when the empire goes home.
The needs of the two places are not identical. The priorities for Iraq are to raise an effective local police force and put together a clear plan and timetable for a constitutional assembly and the election of a government that Iraqis will see as their own. Afghanistan needs more peacekeepers. In Bosnia in 1995, as soon as peace was agreed, America, Britain and France inserted 60,000 peacekeepers. By contrast, the whole of Afghanistan, a country 12 times the area with seven times the population, has only 5,000 or so troops providing security, plus another 12,000 or so mopping up the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. What folly. Failed states that are allowed to fail again will just have to be rescued again, if they are not to become a renewed threat to the security of the West.

You are such a condescending peice of crap jeff. Your familiar sadness, hope for the world? Pardon me while I wretch. Do you feel sad for me? Probably. How self serving can you get? yuck. Society will go on with out you for quite a long time Pitcher. I know this hurts your fucked up ego, but you gots ta deal with it man. Maybe I'm just not as enlightened as you are. But I have true love, do you? My world is beautiful jeff come join me. Or, stop bitching about not being in Spain and do something about it. Lords name in vain, no one like a complainer no matter how flowery they say it. Watch the world above you change? How appropriate because you have fallen into a pit of despair like nothing I've ever seen.
I've been desperate before but I didn't mutilate the english language telling people about it.

My God John you seem almost intelligent sometimes, and then I read this kind of shit from you.

This is Jeff Pitcher's board. Yes he's over the top and excessive. That's why people come here and that's why they read this stuff. The fact that you are repeatedly bitching about these posts is just ridiculous. Whatever anger you feel at Pitcher is between you and him, not him and his fans. I just don't get it. To do that to someone on the public forum does far more than cross the lines of tact: it is hurtful and uncalled for.

I make part of my living by writing and get a fair amount of pretty angry hate mail from time to time. It goes with the territory. But I have never received anything like this from someone I'd call a friend. Friends E-mail privately and say, "Jeez, man, I think you're being a bit melodramatic" or, more appropriately given your E-mail, "You seem depressed man. What can I do to help you?" But to call a so-called friend out on a board and berate him with insults while accusing him of depression...? Are you out of your fucking mind?

For fuck's sake, John, show some restraint.

I know you're thinking, "But Jeff doesn't show restraint." He doesn't have to--again--because it's his board. That's why people come here; because the man DOESN'T show restraint EVER. He says exactly what he wants. At times it's heavy, melodramatic, flowery, poetic, political, stupid, brilliant, or whatever. If you don't like it, fine, but don't just sit here on the board bitching about it over and over again. You bitch about his politics. Then, when there's no politics in his posts, you bitch about his writing. Then you complain about people "fawning" over Pitcher and how it sickens you.

Then, the icing on the cake, you complain about how much Pitcher complains. Who's the loud mouth complainer here? From where I'm standing it doesn't seem to be Jeff Pitcher.

Christian

Sorry, I didn't see on the post directions where it said show restraint and tact.
Pitcher, Jeez, man, I think your being a bit melodramatic.
Christian, If this is so hard, perhaps Pitcher will stop allowing people to respond, I won't stop laughing if he does something like that. I never said he was a friend, I used the word aquantasince originally, I'm VERY discriminating in who I will call a friend. Ah, and I never asked orr insinuated about depression on his part, I don't care. Whats the difference between me and you? ( Dr. Dre) I take responsibility for my actions. Where is Pitcher anyway, I'm eager for another post. Or did I scare him off? I will be sorry, truly, If I scared him off.
You all are lovedmy friend, you are loved.
Lots of love. John.

But, you're right, I was a little over the top myself with the original response. And even if Pitcher was a friend I would respond to him this way. I think my friends would vouch for me.
John

I have been watching this board for some time now, and finally feel that I can say something.It seems that there are three distinct types of people that visit this forum, Jeffersons friends, Jeffersons fans, and people that have an axe to grind. I continue to be amazed at how personal these interactions become, I myself have been moved by many posts here, often moved enough to leave a small note to show this. I do not do this so that other visitors will feel "enlightened" by my "pretentious" comments, but more so to show appreciation for the sharing of consciousness.Does this make me a special little guy? Fuck no. Does it show that I have an opinion? Fuck yes. There is enough ego that visits this board to ruin Rome, were Rome still an "Empire". Thank all that is good for people like Jefferson and Christian, for their honesty, and their art. And let's keep it clean, fuckers.

How about them SF Giants? Personally, I like our chances into the postseason (though I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little worried about our rookie pitchers.)

Rookie Pitchers, now thats funny.

Perhaps I should just fall in line and kiss ass. Wouldn't that be easy. Easy fo' sheazy. You all could make it so easy on yourselves, on Pitcher. But if you prefer the merry go round I understand.
Personally, I like a challenge. So much so that I create them for myself. Pitcher created his and didn't even know it. If I disappear will that make things easier. It will allow P{itcher to carry on with his charade. I like charades.
Now I'm sounding a little crazy, BWAH HAH HAH.
John Rensing. P.S. This looks like a job for me, so everybody just follow me, cause we need a little contraversy, cause it feels so empty without me. ( I understand Pitcher hates rap)

Just wondering-

Let's get away from the John nonsense for a moment and take a look at what Christian said about Pitcher's rights. I checked one of Pitcher's links (adbusters) and a page came up with a shattered McDonalds window on the sidewalk. From my experience on the website they deinitely approve of the type of civil disobedience that may endager such a window. They promote disrupting the corporate machine in creative ways. Well, given that stance, John is simply following adbusters credo. Pitcher is selling records here, he even has a company called Mudita (and even a little Logo), so I'm not sure how Christian can defend Pitcher's right to protection. I realize Mudita is no McDonalds but I gaurantee you that somewhere along the line of producing a CD and Insert someone is being exploited.
Just for fun I checked Christian's website ( a good site by the way) and he links adbusters as well.
This is an open forum. It's the internet for Christs sake. Christian, your protection of domain argument falls flat.

T:

My point isn't to censor John Rensing, but to introduce a modicum of decency into the proceedings. What's the point of simply calling someone an asshole over and over again? The political attack I can tolerate but the personal attacks I just find stupid. In my field, such attacks are called logical fallacies (attacking the man rather than the issue) and will get you an F on your term paper.

Christian

hehe

I agree that ad hominem attacks are worthless and that is exactly my point. Destroying a window of McDonalds or Starbucks is a personal, emotional attack. I beleive this falls under your logical fallacy rule. The people who perpetrate such acts are not acting on solid political grounds but are rather falling victim to rage. I presume you, Mr. Keifer, as a man of intellect have never seen fit to take up your anti-corporate cause with a sledgehammer.
But you and Pitcher are supporting this philosophy by linking adbusters to your sites and therefore fall into conflict by wishing your own sites to be free of such content. As we used to say in Minnesota, Whats good for the goose...?

You may be right. Like all of us I'm just trying to figure out a way to deal with my issues and promote what I feel is a better way to do things. (Yes, I know that's vague.)

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by your last post, though, in part because I feel like you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with me simultaneously. Your comment on ad hominem attacks seems right on target to me in that you agree that they are pointless and rage-oriented. On the other hand, you sleight me for not wanting ad hominem attacks to be a part of this board.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I must agree with you: this is definitely a problem in my thinking. Pitcher has a particular commitment to free speech (as should all artists, and, in fact, all Americans) and therefore let's Rensing's comments flow. That's his perogative as the wizard behind the curtain.

As for this board (and my site) referencing Adbusters, you may be right that Adbusters (in its heavily tongue-in-cheek manner) supports the destruction of corporate institutions. It also may be that I agree with the destruction of said institutions. However, what remains to be seen is how this webboard is like McDonalds. By you own analogy, T., John Rensing must be singlehandedly trying to tear this board, this site, this music, or this man down just as Adbusters is--in theory--singlehandedly trying to decapitate the multinational globalization movement.

Should we embrace Rensing's ad hominem attacks? This reader isn't going to. If that means I'm going against the Adbusters credo, then so be it.

Baaaaaaa.

CK

T:

Good points, by the way.

C

I think you got it just right.

Now let's have another post from Pitcher, shall we? Feed the fire.

By the way, if anyone's interested, the WTO has a great site filled with information: www.wto.org. It's worth looking at. KVMR (a radio station I listen to up in Nevada City, CA) is going to the upcoming WTO summit in Cancun to do some kind of expose. (Slanty journalism, yes, but it could be fun to listen to.)

CK

Wow. There’s a lot of great debate going on in this journal. Every contributor with exception to “Yo” has had very moving arguments which support their personal opinions. Freedom of speech- yes yes… freedom to be an asshole- ditto. It was my posting which sparked the dissonance and stone throwing and I am very proud of that. The initial intent of my posting was to express the disappointment I felt in Pitcher’s web presence. I had seen him perform in Seattle last spring and was curious what his web site was about. But when I visited this realm what I found was a whole lot of image and very little substance. This point is subjective and it was my humble suggestion that he take the pictures down.

Sure, the posting was mean hearted and I admittedly felt some residual guilt. But how else do I send a message to Pitcher that one of his fans now perceives him as the Anna Kournikova of the Sacramento music scene? As an artist this would be a wake-up call to me. I know, I know- I’ve never met the guy and he is probably a warm, gentle, nice human being blah blah blah. But If the point of this web presence is to communicate ideas and harvest a fan base/community, it is my duty as a potential fan to call bullshit. It’s just the price you pay when you have lofty aspirations. Cynics and pragmatists like me will find ways to burst your bubble you live in and present reality in our terms. It’s the price you pay for taking the risk of putting yourself at the mercy of your fans.

But returning to my original point; I am overjoyed at what pitcher’s journal has become. My corporate job is stressful and hectic. I unfortunately don’t have much time at work to contribute to the thread, but it’s always an astounding read. I’m impressed with the intellectual horsepower and seriously refined writing abilities of everyone involved (excluding ‘Yo’ who is far less irrelevant than pitcher even). Indeed, this site isn’t even about Pitcher anymore. The value proposition has become the characters who both lurk in the shadows and valiantly defend their brothers. I have an important meeting to attend to (which involves how every single one of you will communicate with each other in the very near future), so I will conclude:

Rensing and Kiefer, the primary characters in this story I can’t put down, are neither doing the owner of this site any favors. As much as I admire the ball-out and well supported gorilla attack on Pitcher’s character, at the end of the day it’s still pretty evil to beat up the retarded kid during recess. So take it easy John, you are being an asshole. As for Kiefer, I am the most impressed by your character. Not only are you an amazing friend with a huge heart - you are also a very talented man as demonstrated by your excellent web site ( I must say however that the pictures are silly and unnecessary ). You must realize that by continuing to valiantly defend your friend you are enabling his cave-crabbing and thus contributing to the shredding of poor Pitcher’s persona. You MUST let him defend himself. If he wants to reclaim his site, he cannot in my mind sit back like a quivering child and cry to you about it. You have proven your strength of character and I look forward to reading more from you. But if Pitcher wants his site back he will have to fight for it. I realize that my words are not as smoothly consumed as the rest of you all and I thank you for your patience. Back to making the big money…

Sincerely,

Ernest Frank

Ernest:

Great comments and you're absolutely right. This board is no longer about the Orange Trees, Pitcher, etc., which is artistically and intellectually terrific. And you're also right that it's time I bowed out of the defense fund. The issues raised are good ones. Clearly Rensing and I aren't going to agree on these issues, though, which is fine. Pitcher is able to defend himself, to be sure. He's just biding his time.

Best,

Christian

Attacking the man, not the issue. Hmm. Pitchers prattlings are so fluffed up that there is little to no substance. He bitches about the racall situation being "bullshit" Yet I'm sure he's called for the impeachment of Bush. I guess an "idea" can be an important component as long as no one implements it, yes? Well, as long as a private company doesn't get involved. His ignorance of gov't shows in his statement, "but i wonder why nothing is being said in the media and judges quarters, about the fact that a private company was hired to bring is hundreds of employees to gather signatures."
Oh My God. Where do I start? Somehow in his fucked up mind he relates media and judges, I think most people here can see the absolute stupidity involved with that kind of thinking. do yousee somme sort of correlation between the 2Jeff? Just what should the judges do about something that was done all within the confines of the law? And yet, I do understand why someone would question why the media has been so quite on that issue. Perhaps if he had left out the judges quarters it would have read a bit more intelligent.
As much as I detest the possibility that Arnold might be our next gov., I don't know what the movies he's starred in have to do with anything.
I seem to recall an overtly drunken movie in which you, Pitcher starred in. Should I judge you for that? I'll just judge the director. :)
Another point that's been eating at me, so to speak. You need to get some psyco therapy Jeff.
Any adult man that essentially forces a girlfriend to smell his toenail clippings is suffering from some sort of dementia. I can only guess at the sort of women that would break down and do this. whoa. Of course, you say that this is only "almost cruel" because you could never be cruel could you jeff? You give so much of yourself away. You are cruel. Very cruel.
John Rensing