Why send your own people out to run a country when you can find locals to do it? For example, they occupied Japan after World War II, they created a constitution and Mac Arthur was like a viceroy.It's been very difficult for the last 20 years to get elected leaders who are prepared to fight for their own people. Evo Morales in Bolivia, came very close to defeating the corporations' candidate. It is slowly sowing the seeds of the forces that will one day confront it. You can't deny the underlying feeling of white superiority in all this. The tragedy of 9/11, when lots of civilians were killed in New York and some in Washington, the whole world was forced to weep for them in public. Because they were citizens of the United States of America.Interestingly enough, we're having this interview in Latin America, and this is a continent that has been in revolt for some time. You have seen the failure to topple Fidel Castro after 40 years of the blockade. So we are seeing beginnings of a new wave of, let's call it, subnationalism or protonationalism, which wants to resist. Clearly, 19th century European imperialism was predicated on racism, the white person's burden, bringing Christianity and enlightenment to the benighted natives. When Afghan citizens are killed by indiscriminate bombings, by so-called accidental bombings and the deaths from starvation, these deaths don't count for much.But by and large, in Asia and Africa they have, so far, been pliable regimes. I think, curiously enough, the war in Iraq and the occupation of Iraq and the substitution of Saddam with a U. puppet government, so the oil can be shared out as war trophy is bound to create resistance sooner or later. No one will ever build a monument for the Afghan civilians who died in the bombing raids.Just a crude war of revenge, as I called it at the time. Why are Afghan lives not as important as any other lives?World War I was a war fought over colonial expansion. It felt that the way to get it was to defeat Britain, and then it could actually move forward. They say a holy moral principle is the defense of free trade, i.e., free trade as we see it and according to rules that we make and how we regulate it.For a while this got disguised because while the Soviet Union and that whole bloc of states existed, there was talk of imperialism, but by and large people in the West saw this as essentially fighting a war against an evil enemy, an evil empire. In order to defend this, we are prepared to go to war. The difference between the American empire and previous empires is that the United States usually prefers to work through local compradors, local rulers who are on their side.Thus, American strategic policy is designed to keep these countries separate from each other.That's why the Bush regime is now trying to stop Korean reunification because they are fearful that a unified Korean peninsula with nuclear weapons would make the Japanese go for nuclear weapons.Here was a country that challenged capitalism quite openly. Finally they defeated it by forcing it to go on a binge of military spending, which was completely unnecessary. All the early empires were founded by the need for capital to expand, the need for capital to find new markets.It was this struggle for markets that finally created the British empire, the Dutch empire, the Belgian empire, the French empire. Germany, which had unified late and came to capitalism later than the other powers, decided it wanted its own empire. The September 20, 2002 strategy doctrine put out by the Bush administration makes it crystal clear what this is all about.