Three Who Made A War
Paul Craig Roberts
The Spanish-American War was caused by three people: Teddy
Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and William Randolph Hearst. The war,
which killed a number of Spaniards and Americans, including some
prominent Harvard “Swells,” was based entirely on lies and machinations
of these three men and served no purpose other than their personal
needs. Princeton University historian Evan Thomas calls these three
monsters The War Lovers.
Hearst needed a war to build his newspaper circulation. Roosevelt needed a war to
sate his blood-lust and desire for military glory. Lodge needed a war
to reinvigorate American manhood and to enlist American manhood in his
“Large Policy” of American Empire. Between them, thanks to the ignorance
and stupidity of the American people, they pulled it off.
Their adversary was Speaker of the House, Thomas Brackett Reed, “the
Czar,” the most powerful politician in Washington. Reed, an honest and
incorruptible politician, saw Lodge’s policy of “American
exceptionalism” as naked imperialism that stood in total opposition and
in great danger to American purposes. Reed saw Roosevelt’s war lust as a
diversion of national purpose from the reconstruction of an economy
that increasingly served a shrinking minority at the expense of the
American people. But Hearst, Roosevelt, and Lodge made “peace” an
epithet. The American people, whose gullibility is never-ending, were
captivated by war-lust. Reed lost confidence in the American people
whom he so well served. Reed could find no moral purpose in pushing the
country toward war over nothing but fake news reports by “yellow
journalism.”
Only a few years previously, Reed had had to halt the Cleveland
administration from going to war with Great Britain over a British
boundary dispute with Venezuela concerning mineral-rich land claimed by
British Guyana. Somehow this boundary dispute, which had no more to do
with US security than Honduras, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,
Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Georgia, Ukraine, and the South China Sea have
today, was seen as a “threat to US national security.”
Roosevelt and Lodge were ecstatic over the possibility of War with
Great Britain. War was its own goal. Roosevelt wrote to Lodge: “I don’t
care whether our sea coast cities are bombarded or not; we would take
Canada.” Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, hard facts prevailed
over American war lust. The American navy had 3 battleships. The British
had 50. If only Washington had gone to war with Great Britain over a
British boundary dispute with Venezuela. The total destruction of the
American navy and coastal cities might have taught Americans a lesson
and made the population less lustful for war and more suspicious of
Washington’s war lies: the Gulf of Tonkin, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of
mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad’s use of chemical weapons,
Russian invasion of Crimea, etc.
Roosevelt and Lodge searched for a weaker adversary than the British navy and settled on Spain.
But how to bring about a war with a declining and tired 400-year old empire far removed from American interests?
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/23/2nd-attempt-three-made-war-paul-craig-roberts/
Hearst, desperate to sell newspapers, knew what to do. He hired the
artist, Frederic Remington, a painter and sculptor much worshipped by
American conservatives today. Remington provided a drawing, filling half
of the front page of Hearst’s New York Journal, of a comely nude young
woman surrounded by sinister Spaniards. Hearst alleged that three lady
passengers on the US mail steamer Olivette were strip-searched in the
Harbor of Havana, Cuba, by leering Spanish males.
America had a rare moment of rational thought and philosophical
reflection during the brief period of its Founding Fathers. Ever since
America has been a country of pulp romances and court histories written
as “chivalric derring-do.” Hearst asked where were the knightly American
males who would rescue womankind from these indignities at the hands of
cruel, wanton, Spaniards.
Hearst repeated the story with Evangelina Cisneros, “a beautiful
young woman from the gentlest of families.” In Hearst’s story Evangelina
went to the Island of Pines to beg for her elderly father’s release
from the cruel Spaniards. As she resisted the sexual advances of the
leering Spanish prison commander, she was thrown into a squalid prison
for prostitutes.
Having created his heroine, Hearst rushed to rescue her. Hearst hired
the son of a Confederate cavalry colonel, Karl Decker, to rescue the
fair lady. Thousands of words were printed to describe Decker’s daring
rescue, but what really happened is that Hearst bribed the Spanish
guards to let her go from her comfortable hotel room. Having freed “one
Cuban girl,” Hearst wanted to know “when shall we free Cuba.”
Teddy Roosevelt wanted to be the star of the event. Senator Lodge and
the American newsman Richard Harding Davis made it so. Teddy charging
up the hill, leading the Rough Riders, not urging from behind, defeated
the Spanish all by himself and won the war.
What did it mean for the Cubans, a mixed and varied peoples, who had
been fighting the Spanish for independence for years before
self-righteous, self-serving Americans saw the opportunity to advance
their interests and careers?
For Cubans, it meant swapping one master for another.
General William Shafter, the American in charge of the invasion
force, declared: “Why these people [Cubans] are no more fit for
self-government than gunpowder is for hell!” Calixto Garcia, who had
been fighting for thirty years for Cuba’s liberation from Spain, was not
allowed to be present when Spain surrendered Cuba. It was purely an
American show devoid of the revolutionaries in whose name the war had
been fought.
Roosevelt wrote home that the Cubans had fought badly and were not
responsible for their liberation from Spain. It was Teddy and his Rough
Riders who brought freedom to Cuba. The Teller Amendment passed by
Congress in 1898 guaranteeing independence to Cuba was superseded by
the Platt Amendment of 1901. The Platt Amendment gave Washington the
right to intervene in Cuba whenever Washington pleased.
It finally dawned on Cubans that “civilization,” a word used by
Americans, meant “denying the darker races the power to govern.” In 1908
Cubans who had fought against Spain formed an independent political
party. They were massacred by the thousands by the Cuban government now
more sensitive to pleasing Washington than to the voice of its own
people.
The story of American intervention is the same everywhere. American
intervention has never benefited any peoples except those allied with
Washington and American corporations.
Hearst’s rival in yellow journalism was Joseph Pulitzer, whose name
ended up on a prestigious journalism award. Today the entire US print
and TV media engage in the yellow journalism of the Hearst/Pulitzer era.
Yellow journalism has helped to keep America in wars as nonsensical as
the Spanish-American war ever since the 21st century began. The
neoconservatives have resurrected Lodge’s “Large Policy” of American
imperialism justified by the doctrine of American exceptionalism.
If Americans were to read three history books, they could free
themselves from their self-righteous delusions that endanger all life on
earth. Those books are: A People’s History of The United States by Howard Zinn, The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, and The War Lovers by Evan Thomas.
No one who reads one of these books will ever again believe that the
US government in Washington is the “light unto the world,” the
“exceptional and indispensable” government that brings “freedom and
democracy” to the conquered provinces of the American Empire.
Washington is the home of warmongering self-interested parties that
have no concept of compassion or justice and serve only their own power
and enrichment. Americans are as indifferent to the populations that
their government bombs as Teddy Roosevelt was to the prospect of his own
country’s coastal cities being bombarded. As Russia’s President Putin
reminded the world on March 18, 2014, the US prefers the rule of the gun
to international law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment