51吃瓜

Try to imagine America as an extreme nation or even, to put it as extremely as possible, the ISIS of superpowers.

They听are the extremists. If you need proof, look no further than the Afghan capital, Kabul, where the听latest wave听of has proven devastating. Recently, for instance, a fanatic听听his explosives among a group of citizens lining up outside a government office to register to vote in upcoming elections. At least 57 people died, including 22 women and eight children. ISIS鈥檚 branch in Afghanistan proudly took responsibility for that callous act 鈥� but one not perhaps quite as callous as the who, in August 2016,听took out听a Kurdish wedding in Turkey, missing the bride and groom but killing at least 54 people and wounding another 66. Twenty-two of the dead or injured were children, and the bomber听may even听have been a .

Such acts are extreme, which by definition makes the people who commit them extremists.听 The same is true of those like the 鈥渃aliph鈥� of the now-decimated Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who order, encourage or provide the ideological framework for such acts 鈥� a judgment few in this country (or most other places on the planet) would be likely to dispute. In this century, from Kabul to听,听听迟辞听, such extreme acts of indiscriminate civilian slaughter have only multiplied. Though relatively commonplace, each time such a slaughter occurs, it remains an event of horror and is treated as such in the media. If committed by Islamists against Americans or Europeans, suicide attacks of this sort are given 24/7 coverage here, often for days at a time.

And keep in mind that such extreme acts aren鈥檛 just restricted to terror groups, their lone wolf followers or even white nationalists and other crazed听听in this country, armed to the teeth, who, in听,听workplaces,听听and elsewhere听听groups of innocents. Take the听听that the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad used outlawed chemical weapons in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus, the country鈥檚 capital, killing families and causing havoc.

Whether that specific act听听to have been as advertised or not, there can be no question that the Assad regime has regularly slaughtered its own citizens with chemical weapons,听, artillery barrages and (sometimes Russian)听, destroying neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, markets, you name it. All of this adds up to a set of extreme acts of the grimmest kind. And such acts could be multiplied across significant parts of the planet, ranging from the Myanmar military鈥檚 brutal听听against that country鈥檚 Rohingya minority to acts of state horror in places like听听and the Congo. In this sense, our world certainly doesn鈥檛 lack either extreme thinking or the acts that go with it.

Visions of Extremity

We here in the United States are, of course, eternally shocked by听their听extremism,听their听willingness to kill the innocent without compunction, particularly in the case of Islamist groups, from the 9/11 attacks to ISIS鈥檚 more recent slaughters.

However, one thing is, almost by definition, obvious. We are not a nation of extreme acts or extreme killers. Quite the opposite. Yes, we make mistakes. Yes, we sometimes kill. Yes, we sometimes even kill the innocent, however mistakenly. Yes, we are also听,听听and great (), as so many politicians and presidents have been telling us for so many years now. And yes, you might even say that in one area we are extreme 鈥� in the value we put on American lives, especially military ones. The only thing this country and its leaders are not is extremist in the sense of an al-Qaeda or an ISIS, an Assad regime or a South Sudanese one. That goes without saying, which is why no one here ever thinks to say it.

Still, just for a moment, as a thought experiment, set aside that self-evident body of knowledge and briefly try to imagine our own particular, indispensable, exceptional version of extremity; that is, try to imagine ourselves as an extreme nation or even, to put it as extremely as possible, the ISIS of superpowers.

This subject came to my mind recently thanks to a story I noticed about another extreme wedding slaughter 鈥� this one not by ISIS but thanks to a Saudi 鈥溙齩n a wedding in Yemen, first on the groom鈥檚 party, then on the bride鈥檚. The bride and possibly the groom along with听31 other wedding goers听(including children). And keep in mind that this听wasn鈥檛 the first听or most devastating on a wedding in the course of its brutal air war in Yemen since 2015.

To take out a wedding, even in wartime, is 鈥� I think you could find general agreement on this 鈥� an extreme act. Two weddings? More so. And nowhere near the war鈥檚 battle lines? More so yet. Of course, given the nature of the Saudi regime, it could easily be counted as another of the extreme governments on this planet. But remember one thing when it comes to that recent wedding slaughter, another country has backed the Saudi royals to the hilt in their war in Yemen: the United States.

Washington has supported the Saudi war effort in just about every way imaginable 鈥� from听听their planes in mid-air to providing听听to selling them听听of weaponry and munitions of every sort (including听) used in that war. This was true听听and is, if anything, doubly so at a moment when President Donald Trump has put so much energy and attention into plying the Saudis with arms. So tell me, given that the staggering suffering of civilians in Yemen is听, shouldn鈥檛 our support for the Saudi air war be considered an extreme policy? Keep in mind as well that, between December 29, 2001, when US B-52 and B-1B bombers killed more than 100 revelers at a wedding in a village in eastern Afghanistan, and December 2013 when a CIA drone took out a (yep) Yemeni wedding party, US air power wiped out all or parts of at least听, including brides, grooms and even musicians, killing and wounding hundreds of participants in three countries (and only apologizing in a single case).

The troops of present Secretary of Defense James Mattis, when he was commanding the 1st Marine Division in Iraq in 2004, were responsible for one of those slaughters. It took place in Western Iraq and was the incident in which those musicians died, as reportedly did 14 children. When asked about it at the time, : 鈥淗ow many people go to the middle of the desert … to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization?鈥� And that response was no more callous or extreme than the听New York Daily News鈥檚 front-page headline, so many years later, for that US drone strike in Yemen: 鈥淏ride and Boom!鈥�

Imagine, for a moment, that a wedding party in some rural part of the United States had been wiped out by a foreign air strike and an Iraqi insurgent leader had responded as Mattis did or an Iraqi paper had used some version of the听News鈥檚 headline. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 hard to conjure up what the reaction might have been here. Add another little fact to this: To the best of my knowledge,听TomDispatch听was the only media outlet that tried to听听of those American wedding slaughters; otherwise they were quickly forgotten in this country.

So tell me, doesn鈥檛 that have a feeling of extremity and of remarkable callousness to it? Certainly, if those massacres had been the acts of al-Qaeda or ISIS and American brides, grooms, musicians and children had been among the dead, there鈥檚 no doubt what we would be saying about听them听24/7.

A New Kind of Death Cult?

Now, for a moment, let鈥檚 consider the possible extremism of Washington in a more organized way. Here, then, is my six-category rundown of what I would call American extremity on a global scale.

Garrisoning the globe: The US has an estimated听800听or so , ranging from the size of American small towns to tiny outposts, across the planet. They exist almost everywhere 鈥� Europe, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America 鈥� except in countries that are considered American foes (and given the infamous Guant谩namo Bay Detention Center in Cuba, there鈥檚 even an exception to that).

At the moment, Great Britain and France still have small numbers of bases, largely left over from their imperial pasts; that rising great power rival China officially has one global garrison, a naval base in听听in the horn of Africa (near an American base there, one of its听听of outposts on that continent), which much worries American war planners, and a听, in the process of being built, in Gwadar, Pakistan. That other great power rival, , still has听several bases听in countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, and a single naval base in Syria (which similarly disturbs American military planners).

The United States, as I said, has at least 800 of them, a number that puts in the shade the global garrisons of any other great power in history, and to go with them,听more than stationed outside its borders. It shouldn鈥檛 be surprising then that, like no other power in history, it has divided the world 鈥� every bit of it 鈥� as if slicing a pie, into six military commands. That鈥檚听听for every inch of the globe (and another two for听听and听). Might all of this not be considered just a tad extreme?

Funding the military: The US puts approximately a听听annually in taxpayer funds into its military, its 17 intelligence agencies and what鈥檚 now called 鈥渉omeland security.鈥� Its national security budget is听听those of the next eight countries combined and still听听yearly, though most politicians agree and many regularly insist that the US military has been badly underfunded in these years, left in a state of听听and needs to be “.” Now, honestly, don鈥檛 you think that qualifies as both exceptional in the most literal sense and kind of extreme?

Fighting wars: The United States has been fighting wars nonstop since its military invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. That鈥檚 almost 17 years of invasions, occupations, air campaigns, drone strikes, special operations raids, naval air and missile attacks and so much else, from the Philippines to Pakistan, Afghanistan to Syria, Libya to Niger. And in none of those places is such war making truly over. It goes without saying that there鈥檚 no other country on the planet making war in such a fashion or over anything like such a period of time.

Americans were, for instance, deeply disturbed and ready to condemn Russia for sending its troops into neighboring Ukraine and occupying Crimea. That was considered an extreme act worthy of denunciations of the strongest sort. In this country, though, American-style war, despite invasions of countries thousands of miles away and the presidentially directed targeting of individuals across the globe for听听with next to no regard for national sovereignty is not considered extreme. Most of the time, in fact, it鈥檚听听at all or even seriously debated. And yet, isn’t fighting unending wars across thousands of miles of the planet for almost 17 years without end, while making the president into a听, just a tad extreme?

Destroying cities: Can there be any question that, in the American mind, the most extreme act of this century was the destruction of those towers in New York City and part of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001, with the deaths of almost 3,000 unsuspecting, innocent civilians? That became the definition of an extreme act by a set of extremists. Consider, however, the American response. Across significant parts of the Middle East in the years since, the US has had a major hand in destroying not just tower after tower, but city after city 鈥擣allujah,听听and听听in Iraq,听听in Syria, Sirte in Libya.

One after another, parts or all of them were turned into literal rubble. A reported听 were dropped on Raqqa, the 鈥渃apital鈥� of the brief Islamic State, by US and allied air power, leaving at least听听and barely a building untouched or even standing (with the Trump administration听intent听on for any kind of reconstruction). In these years, in response to the destruction in whole or part of a handful of buildings, the US has destroyed (often with a helping hand from the Islamic State) whole cities, while filling the equivalent of tower after tower with dead and wounded civilians. Is there nothing extreme about that?

A Planet in Ruins

Displacing people: In the course of its wars, the US has helped displace a听听of human beings since the last days of World War II. In Iraq alone, from the years of conflict that Washington set off with its invasion and occupation of 2003, vast numbers of people have been displaced, including, in the ISIS era,听. In response to that reality, in 鈥渢he homeland,鈥� the man who became president in 2017 and the officials he appointed went to work to transform the very refugees we had such a hand in creating into terrifying bogeymen, potentially the most dangerous and extreme people on the planet, and then turned to the task of听听that none of them would ever arrive in this country. Doesn’t that seem like an extreme set of acts and responses?

Arming the planet (and its own citizens as well): In these years, as with defense spending, so with the selling of weaponry of almost every imaginable sort to other countries. US weapons makers, aided and abetted by the government, have outpaced all possible competitors in global arms sales. In 2016, for instance, the US took听听of those sales, while between 2002-2016, , or more than 85% of the nations on the planet. Many of those arms, including听, missiles, advanced jet planes, tanks and munitions of almost every sort went into planetary hot spots, especially听the .

At the same time, the citizens of the US themselves have听 (often of a particularly听) than the citizens of any other country on Earth. And appropriately enough under the circumstances, they commit听. When it comes to听, then, wouldn鈥檛 you call that extreme on both a global and a domestic scale?

And that鈥檚 only to begin to plunge into the topic of American extremity. After all, we now have a president whose administration considers it perfectly normal, in fact a form of 鈥渄eterrence policy,鈥� to听听parents from even tiny children crossing our southern border or to听听and听听on poor Americans. We鈥檙e talking about a president with a cult-like following whose government is ideologically听听迟辞听 environmental protections of every sort and听pushing听for further of the country and the planet, even if it means the long-term destruction of the very environment that has nurtured humanity these last thousands of years.

Think of this perhaps as a new kind of death cult, which means that Donald Trump might be considered the superpower version of an Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As with all such things, this particular cult did not come from nowhere, but from a land of growing extremity, a country that now, it seems, may be willing to preside over not just cities in ruin, but a planet in ruin, too. Doesn鈥檛 that seem just a little extreme to you?

*[Tom Engelhardt鈥檚 latest book is听听(Dispatch Books). This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.

Photo Credit:听听/