“The Fine Print”, by Michael Schrader

 

Have We Forgotten?

 

(Written and posted 27 June 2003)

 

 

It’s, arguably, the greatest nation this world has ever known.  Every nation wanted to be like it.  It’s language was spoken worldwide.  It’s culture was emulated in nations near and far.  It’s considered to be the epitome of civilization.  It’s influence surpassed the Romans.

 

It sent its mighty military across the ocean to a mostly unpopulated and inhospitable land to fight two wars against an enemy that it supported and armed against a mutually detested enemy.  (After all, my enemy’s enemy is my friend).  It was amazed at how quickly its ally had turned against it after all the support it had given it.  After the proxy war, its one-time friend had become emboldened to attempt to annex an adjacent state, claiming that the annexed land was a natural extension of its own, and this mighty nation decided that it had a duty to intervene, both militarily and economically.

 

The military was dispatched to stop the aggression and maintain the order.  Economic sanctions were placed on its ex-friend’s economy to subdue it and encourage regime change.  (The thinking was that if life become difficult enough for the average Joe or Jane then the masses would rise up in revolt against their leaders.)  The strong-armed tactics did not work, however.  The interesting thing about economic hardship is that people learn to adapt, and they did.  Over time, the sanctions were only hurting its businesses, not its ex-friend’s.  The military presence not only stoked fear, it also stoked resentment.

 

At first, the resentment was highly localized and manifested itself peacefully, with the occasional rally here and there.  Then, it progressed, as other localities discovered that their resentment was shared by others, that they were not alone in their feelings.  The dissatisfied in the various localities began to talk to each other, and decided that working together and in concert they could challenge their “occupiers”.  Government offices run by the “occupiers” were vandalized or destroyed; community members deemed to be collaborating with the”occupiers” were brutalized.  Economic enterprises deemed to be for the sole benefit of the “occupiers” were sabotaged, boycotted, or destroyed.

 

The response of the benevolent “liberators” to the escalating unrest was to increase the use of strong-arm tactics.  Suspected leaders of the “resistance” were arrested and detained, their property confiscated.  New, more punitive decrees were issued.  The military presence was strengthened.  Local customs and traditions were ignored and civil rights trampled upon as the military performed clandestine searches and seizures for guns, weapons, or anything else deemed to be a threat to the military’s well-being.

 

As if these measures by themselves did not contribute to the hatred of the “occupiers” by the local populace, several soldiers, fearing for their safety, panicked and fired into an unarmed crowd, killing several innocent civilians.  Instead of ending all resistance, this show of force only stoked the resentment of the “occupation” even further, leading to an escalation of the resistance.  Now, the resistance was armed and deliberately targeting the military, using snipers hiding behind walls to shoot at military personnel, and engaging in guerilla tactics such as ambushes.

 

The leaders of the occupying power branded the leaders of the resistance as outlaws and terrorists, and were willing to pay handsomely for information which would lead to their arrest and capture.  While there were a few takers, the information they were given was actually misinformation intended to distract and confuse while the leaders of the resistance continued to hide among the common people. 

 

We all know the rest of the story.  Despite the bounties on their heads, Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, and the rest of the Massachusetts patriots continued to lead the local opposition to the British, while coordinating efforts with patriots in other colonies. George Washington and his patriot army harassed the vastly superior British army for six years with a brilliant strategy of surprise attacks and strategic retreats.  The patriot leaders, most notably Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, were able to enlist the aid of the French, Spanish, and Dutch, all enemies or rivals of the British.

 

We seemed surprised that the Iraqis are resisting our occupation of their homeland.  I think it goes to show how truly ignorant we are of our own history.  We fought a twenty-year war against our own occupation.  Prior to the French and Indian War, the British crown pretty much left us alone and we were, for all practical purposes, independent.  After Americans fought for the British in the French and Indian War (the North American theater of the much larger Franco-British conflict), we became battle-hardened and emboldened, and decided to annex the former French territories east of the Appalachians.  The British, alarmed by our expansionist ambitions, sent in the British army to take control of the territories west of the Appalachians, pinning us in along the eastern seaboard.  To keep us in line the British tried a variety of methods – economic sanctions, in the form of taxes (if you have to work all of the time to pay your taxes, you won’t have time or money to cause trouble); enhanced military presence; direct government oversight by fiat (they disbanded our elected assemblies and replaced them with appointed governors).

 

Do you recall what all of the Boston Tea party fuss was about?  It had less to do with the amount of the tea tax itself than the other provisions of the Tea Act creating a government subsidized monopoly.  Even though the cost of the tea provided by the East India Tea Company was actually cheaper than other companies’ tea, it was the facts that the government had taken away the option of buying tea elsewhere and that money from American businesses was being given directly to a British company, and only one British company, that caused such a ruckus, as this type of corporate welfare is contradictory to the principles of a free market economy.  (Hmmm…a government created corporate monopoly being given revenue extracted from an occupied state…sounds rather Halliburtonish, doesn’t it?)

 

Our forefathers and foremothers fought two wars with the British and suffered untold hardships because they believed that we have the right the choose, and that choices should not be made for us from an outside power.  I don’t understand, then, why we think it is now okay to do to the Iraqis what we the patriots died to prevent the British doing to us. 

 

As Independence Day approaches, we need to seriously reflect on our past and what it should mean to be an American.  We should also reflect on what happened to the great British Empire, how quickly it collapsed, and how less than one hundred years after the end of the War of 1812, the mightiest nation on Earth was eclipsed not only as a world power, but also as a European power.  (While all the emphasis was being placed on the empire and military prowess, the condition back home became a shambles, with the rich becoming richer and the poor living in third-world conditions.)

 

 

Back to “The Fine Print” Index