Suppose that UNASUR, or China, or many others claimed the right to establish military bases in Mexico to implement their programs to eradicate tobacco in the US, by aerial fumigation in North Carolina and Kentucky, interdiction by sea and air forces, and dispatch of inspectors to the US to ensure it was eradicating this poison — which is far more lethal than cocaine or heroin, incomparably more than cannabis. The toll of tobacco use, including “passive smokers” who are seriously affected though they do not use tobacco themselves, is truly fearsome, overwhelming the lethal effects of other dangerous substances.

The idea that outsiders should interfere with the production and distribution of these lethal substances is plainly unthinkable. The fact that the US justification for its drug programs abroad is accepted as plausible, even regarded as worthy of discussion, is yet another illustration of the depth of the imperial mentality.

I find this rhetorical move amusing. It’s an obvious move to make, but is infrequently made. And I don’t know that I’ve seen any advocates of these policies confront it, let alone successfully confront it. Here‘s another one, just for kicks:

At the time when Taliban reluctance to hand over suspects without evidence was the lead story of the day, arousing much fury, Haiti renewed its request for extradition of Emmanuel Constant, leader of the paramilitary forces that had primary responsibility for the brutal murder of thousands of Haitians during the early 1990s, when the military junta was supported, not so tacitly, by the first Bush and Clinton administrations. The request apparently did not even merit a response, or more than the barest report. Constant has been sentenced in absentia in Haiti; it is widely assumed that the US is concerned that if he testifies, he may reveal contacts between the state terrorists and Washington. Does Haiti therefore have the right to set off bombs in Washington? Or to try to kidnap or kill Constant in New York, where he lives, one of the many murderous state terrorists who enjoy safe haven in the US? If not, why not? And why is the question considered too absurd even to raise?

Here is a series of concise criticisms of the in-vogue thinking about U.S. intervention in Afghanistan.

This article is amusing because it applies Forbes’ criteria for judging the economic policies of a president to President Bush.

Recently released interviews with some Soviets show incompatibility between Cold War propaganda and reality. I wonder why the people at the Archive conclude there was an “intelligence failure.” Why not suppose, more plausibly, that American foreign policy needed justification? No one knows better than the people at the Archive that this wouldn’t be without precedent.