Pharyngula

Posted by: Ray Moscow | June 8, 2010 7:57 AM

From abroad, it's not so obvious that the US is "the good guy". It's little things like invading other countries under false pretenses, killing many thousands of people, etc. that disrupt one's moral certainty.

My country, right or wrong! (and just hope you were born into the right one)

Posted by: toomanytribbles | June 8, 2010 8:00 AM

... so it's slowly beginning to dawn on the LA times...

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 8:10 AM

Those with unchecked power are always the baddies. It's practically a definition.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | June 8, 2010 8:17 AM

http://www.remember.org/educate/medexp.html

Doctors have always been thought of as the saviors of mankind, the healers, and caretakers of our utter existence. Even ancient civilizations revered the medicine men as having special power to protect life. The trust of a physician is sacred. This is why the practice of medicine by the doctors of the Third Reich is egregious, outrageous, and shocking. The Nazi doctors violated the trust placed in them by humanity. The most painful truth is for the most part the doctors escaped their crimes against Humanity and lived a life, unlike their victims.

The USA, especially under the recent Bush Cheney administration has managed to outdo the Nazis and the entire population of this country is complicit by its passivity and lack of outrage.

Any MD that participated in such practices should be tried and put away for life.

Posted by: mxh | June 8, 2010 8:24 AM

As long as you go around calling everyone else Nazis, you could get away with doing things like medical experiments on torture on detainees that haven't been charged. But... of course, they hate us because of our freedoms, so it's ok.

Posted by: a.f.diplotti | June 8, 2010 8:29 AM

Why, I'm suddenly imagining the situation:

"The ability to carpet bomb a country is insignificant next to the power of Christ."

"Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Preacher. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the weapons of mass destruction, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the terrorists' hideaway— Ngh!"

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

Posted by: ajerma | June 8, 2010 8:39 AM

"USA, especially under the recent Bush Cheney administration has managed to outdo the Nazis"

Ahem.
You might want to rephrase that.

Posted by: RichVR | June 8, 2010 8:44 AM

I'm a good guy. I certainly can't speak for any government agencies. Or the damn government for that matter.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 8:47 AM

@Fred.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Bush and Co. did awful things and should be prosecuted. However, they didn't precipitate a global conflict resulting in tens of millions of civilian and military deaths, and they didn't authorise the systematic extermination of further millions.

They are bad men, but in the pantheon of genocide they are still small potatoes when compared to Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Keep it real.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 8, 2010 8:51 AM

IOW if you don't like the rest of the world talking the talk you could try not walking the walk.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 8:55 AM

Reading the comments, I see once again that something very interesting is occurring; the boiling point of civil society is steadily falling; by that I mean that people reacte with outrage to events that would have barely been noticed in the past. In my view this is a very good thing indeed.

However, we don't need hyperbole to make the point. Everything in the list at #18 has occurred and continues to occur, that is enough to be spitting blood over, but it still doesn't mean Obama is Hitler, or that the US is Nazi Germany.

Posted by: justinak87 | June 8, 2010 8:57 AM

That Mitchell and Webb look = hilarious. Very cool of you to use one of their clips, PZ.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | June 8, 2010 9:01 AM

Peter Ashby, @18,

Thanks for the point by point reality check.

In the meantime here in La La Land...

Put a yellow ribbon on your SUV...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfMgRHRJ-tc

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 9:05 AM

Live imprisonment would also be a satisfactory outcome.

Ooooops freudian slip. LOL!

Posted by: nickkanellos | June 8, 2010 9:16 AM

However, we don't need hyperbole to make the point. Everything in the list at #18 has occurred and continues to occur, that is enough to be spitting blood over, but it still doesn't mean Obama is Hitler, or that the US is Nazi Germany.

So, the difference is one of scale and who the victims are. Not substance.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 9:25 AM

@Nickkanellos. Yep. I think I could go along with that.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 8, 2010 9:31 AM

You're right, nothing to see here move along... http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Never said horrible things weren't and didn't happen, just that your statement is one of hyperbole and not substance not matter how angry you or I are at the actions of the US.

Posted by: llewelly | June 8, 2010 9:41 AM

My country, right-wing fantasy or wrong.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 8, 2010 9:44 AM

Well, then, what should elite military units have on their uniforms?
Daffodils? Roses?

Poppies?

Dollar signs?

Something like this?

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 8, 2010 9:46 AM

I don't even mind comparisons of the Bush administration to the Nazis in some reasonable way, there are many to be made, but we haven't come close to outdoing the Nazis. Not even remotely close, by any stretch of the imagination. Are we doing things we shouldn't, committing international war crimes, involved in wars we shouldn't have started? Yes. But we have not called for, much less attempted, the systematic destruction of an entire ethnic group through mass murder. We have some terrible prisons with at least some innocent people in them, and people have been, and perhaps still are being, mistreated, even tortured there. But the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews, and many others, and many more were starving and being tortured in the camps. If you want to make a reasonable comparison based on evidence and logic, do so, but don't claim we've outdone the Nazis, that is absurd hyperbole.

Posted by: Dianne | June 8, 2010 9:49 AM

However, they didn't precipitate a global conflict resulting in tens of millions of civilian and military deaths,

Unless the Roberts et al data is completely made up, the US precipitated a regional conflict that resulted in the death of at least 500,000 people in a time period much shorter than WWII. Additionally, the Roberts data is almost certainly a gross underestimate (consider the fact that they found no increase in non-military related deaths in a country that had had its medical care system destroyed: just not likely). Therefore, it is probably safe to project at least 1 million dead in Iraq alone, probably a similar number in Afghanistan. Ok, so still an order of magnitude less than the Nazis, but not exactly something to brag about.

While we're on the subject of the US and excess deaths, I don't have definitive data on this but it seems to me that we've seen an awful lot of DVT/PE (blood clot) cases coming from Newark airport lately. One could theorize that the inability to bring water and other liquids into the secure area of an airport has resulted in people drinking fewer fluids on planes (the water in the airport is expensive, that available on planes scanty) thereby making themselves more hypercoaguable. The death toll from this is probably not higher than the 10s or 100s, but if there has been even one excess death it is a poor decision since, as far as I know anyway, there have been no examples of the policy saving a plane from being blown up or otherwise prevented in flight morbidity and mortality. If anyone can think of a valid way to study this let me know and I'll add it to my list of projects...

Posted by: Jeremie Choquette | June 8, 2010 9:57 AM

Well, then, what should elite military units have on their uniforms?

Daffodils? Roses?

Have you considered a little patch that says, "I'm Sorry"?

Posted by: Dianne | June 8, 2010 9:59 AM

But we have not called for, much less attempted, the systematic destruction of an entire ethnic group through mass murder.

As far as I know the US government has made no attempt at mass murder of an internal subpopulation and I certainly hope it never gets there. But the rhetoric is disturbingly similar to the early Nazi era rhetoric: blaming all the ills of the country on "terrorists" who are almost exclusively identified with Islamic people is a bit like the "the Jews are to blame" rhetoric that the Nazis used. We haven't gone that extra step and I hope we never will, but the comparison is legitimate.

Posted by: broboxley OT | June 8, 2010 10:03 AM

@Dianne #45 "nits make lice" look it up and rethink your statement

Posted by: Dianne | June 8, 2010 10:05 AM

Coincidentally, these tend to be times and places when bleeding and leeches are considered sound treatments.

Bleeding is a perfectly good treatment for hemochromatosis and polycythemia vera. It was just a bit overused in the past.

That aside, a doctor who has anything other than his or her patients' welfare as his/her first priority needs to quit clinical medicine. Doing something to a patient that is not in his/her best interest is the worst crime in medicine. At the very least the CIA and DOD doctors who participated in torture experiments and non-experimental torture should lose their licenses. Criminal charges of assault seem reasonable as well.

Posted by: Dianne | June 8, 2010 10:09 AM

"nits make lice" look it up and rethink your statement

I'm familiar with the phrase. Might I mention Arizona in this context? And the testimony of soldiers returning from the Gulf who talk about how they kill anyone regardless of age because even the children are likely to grow up to be terrorists? I contend that the comparison stands. I am not claiming that the US government is or, under Bush, was no different than the Nazis but the line of "reasoning" being used to justify policy is disturbingly similar.

Posted by: boboniboni | June 8, 2010 10:30 AM

America is silently nazi.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet.html

Posted by: amphiox | June 8, 2010 10:45 AM

So, the difference is one of scale and who the victims are. Not substance.

But scale is everything in this argument. We cannot just dismiss scale as if it not important. The U.S. has had far greater power to inflict destruction than Nazi Germany ever had, held that power for far longer, and has done far less total damage.

You can't compare what the U.S. is doing now to what Nazi Germany did then.

And besides, you don't need to. The actions speak loud enough for themselves.

Posted by: Dianne | June 8, 2010 10:58 AM

You can't compare what the U.S. is doing now to what Nazi Germany did then.

Why not? If "never forget" means anything other than "hold a grudge forever" then it must mean that the evils of the Nazi era should be held up as a cautionary tale and a warning for future generations. Stopping the US while it is still in the early stages of that road by pointing out that it is on it seems to me to be a good use of the memory.

Posted by: Westcoaster | June 8, 2010 11:00 AM

boboniboni @53, that's a terrific article, eveyone should read it.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 11:05 AM

The U.S. has had far greater power to inflict destruction than Nazi Germany ever had, held that power for far longer, and has done far less total damage.

Exactly. That is the very, very good news. We live in a world where immense powers can be unleashed but aren't. However there is no guarantee that this situation will last indefinetly.

The situation is in flux because we now have economic integration without coherent political representation. The world now looks like 19th century Britian or Apartheid South Africa; run for the benefit of a small democratic class (the EU, US and Japan) on the backs of an increasingly restive underclass (India, China, Africa, Latin America).

We will have formalised global governance, and soon, the only questions are what it will look like and how it is brought about. I'm still optimistic about how this will play out hence : voteworldparliament.org

Posted by: Trucker Doug | June 8, 2010 11:10 AM

PZ, what you've got there is not any kind of official military insignia. It's a private design popular among Airborne troops seen on t-shirts and for tattoos. This is what Army Basic Parachutist wings really look like.

I served in many high-speed units during my military career and none of them featured skulls as part of the official heraldry or distinctive insignia. Lots of swords and daggers, but no bones.

The claim that we're driving around in HUMVEEs marked with "Jesus killed Mohammed" is laughable. General Order 1 for the area command makes it a severe court martial offense to do things like this, or to try to convert the locals.

I see a lot of hate for the military in this thread. It's OK, it's an old story and we're more than used to it.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 8, 2010 11:15 AM

Well, then, what should elite military units have on their uniforms?

Well, how do other elite groups distinguish themselves?

L0Lcats, uv K0Ur23!1!one1!1

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 8, 2010 11:20 AM

For all the bad things and good things the U.S. is done, it's worth mentioning that the U.K. makes us look like saints, historically speaking. And everything we're doing now, the U.K. is doing too. The U.K. is completely complicit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 8, 2010 11:25 AM

General Order 1 for the area command makes it a severe court martial offense to do things like this, or to try to convert the locals.

I'm not jumping on the hate the military bandwagon, Trucker Doug, but while I'm sure the majority of soldiers are reasonable individuals, the idea of trying to convert the locals at gunpoint isn't so laughable as much as literal.

It's only a court martialable offense if the men on the ground lead the Christian charge, apparently.

The song remains the same in every organisation.

Posted by: Trucker Doug | June 8, 2010 11:31 AM

Brownian: Yeah, that pissed me off no end. But once the verses were discovered, they were ordered removed and the company was warned that unauthorized additions to the required information on the weapon was a violation of their contract.

The Domionists are sneaky. We need to watch them and counter them at every turn.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | June 8, 2010 11:37 AM

The claim that we're driving around in HUMVEEs marked with "Jesus killed Mohammed" is laughable. General Order 1 for the area command makes it a severe court martial offense to do things like this, or to try to convert the locals.

US forces have been doing a lot in both Iraq and Afghanistan that is illegal under US military regulations. The mere fact some actions are illegal does not seem to have deterred them.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 8, 2010 11:42 AM

Trucker Doug: I see a lot of hate for the military in this thread. It's OK, it's an old story and we're more than used to it.

Yes, I'm sure the Roman Legionnaires felt the same way.

Look -- it's not personal. It's banal. Everyone is doing a job -- and sometimes their job is productive, and sometimes it's just destructive -- very often it's difficult to tell on the ground. But historically speaking, "unfair" hatred of the military is a very, very rare phenomenon.

It would be a wonderful world where most of the human race hated the military -- but unlikely, and therefore even those who do hate the military perforce will fund their own and support it. Many will even serve (and have served) because of that necessity.

Posted by: NoGods4Me | June 8, 2010 11:45 AM

Trucker Doug, I am NOT piling on some kind of hate the US military (I'm still serving)but the deaths head (skull & crossbones, etc.) has been part of the USMC insignia (Raider Marines in WWII and the Recon groups that came out of it later) and my OCS graduate class adopted it as our platoon flag ... it and the class guidon form part of our "official" class photo (circa 1980). I saw it all the time and a relative of mine just left the Corps and has the recon deaths head on his arm. And the Marines favorite saying? Sending little sheetheads to Allah, one by one. Its on helmet bands, tshirts, you name it ...

Posted by: cousinavi | June 8, 2010 11:48 AM

It's NOT torture. Liz Cheney said so.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 8, 2010 11:56 AM

Sending little sheetheads to Allah, one at a time.

Why, they're practically ambassadors, they are.

I don't hate the military, but the idea that they're putting their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and therefore we should shut up about how they do it, or whatever trite little saying it is that makes for an easy debate topic in high school sophomore civics class, is bullshit. Their actions should be as reproachable as any other group's.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 8, 2010 12:04 PM

Reading the American and Non-American responses to this thread reminds me of deep seated stereotyped beliefs on both sides of the pond which makes this conversation difficult. - Q.E.D.

It's not clear to me there is a US/other split here, but I don't recall everyone's nationality, if I ever knew it.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 12:05 PM

@Frog #72
They were, horribly, normal. Different variations on the theme existed in all Western nations -- it's just in Germany where the scale was tipped first.

Creationists frequently quote Darwin, and not always out of context, where it's clear he had some pretty disturbing and reprehensible views; he was a man of his time.

H.G. Wells predicted that the "white" race would have to exterminate significant numbers of the others before things settled down to a global workers utopia; and he was considered quite an enlightened thinker for the early 20th century.

Thankfully, the circle of inclusion has widened to encompass previously unimaginable numbers, and inconceivable diversity; think India, EU, US or China.

We've come a ways, but the blood thirsty chimp lurks ever in the shadows. To slay that beast for good, we need to take the final step; to widen the circle of inclusion to everyone. Same rights, opportunities and responsibilities for every human on the planet. The same laws applied, debated and agreed in a shared forum by directly elected representatives.

That is the solution to Auschwitz, Gitmo and atrocities yet to come. Agreed laws, fairly applied, no exceptions.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 8, 2010 12:08 PM

I don't hate the military, but the idea that they're putting their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and therefore we should shut up about how they do it, or whatever trite little saying it is that makes for an easy debate topic in high school sophomore civics class, is bullshit.

QFT.

When was the last time the military actively protected our freedom? There hasn't been a threat to our freedom for many, many years.

Now, protecting other people's freedom -- that might be a different story. But seriously. Those killing and dying in the Middle East right now are not protecting our freedom.

I was Army. I really liked my time serving in the military. (Especially Air Assault. I never understood airborne. Why jump out of a perfectly good airplane? But air assault I understood. There's no such thing as a perfectly good helicopter.)

I think a standing army is a global necessity. But just because you have an army doesn't mean you should use it.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 8, 2010 12:16 PM

@Ray - In the U.S. too, the polls were at best split, and many had majorities opposing the invasion of Iraq. In spite of this and several large and loud protests we went ahead with the war. And how many of the supporters of that war now criticize the Democrats for pushing health care reform that the "majority opposed"?

Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | June 8, 2010 12:24 PM

Is anyone working on a "Hitler is informed that..." video yet?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | June 8, 2010 12:33 PM

For all the bad things and good things the U.S. is done, it's worth mentioning that the U.K. makes us look like saints, historically speaking.

We admit that we were an empire. And that we did a lot of dubious things. The joys of hindsight (although this was also before 'equality' was part of the language and we did it all for 'God and the Queen' - neither of which are relevant for the US!!)

And everything we're doing now, the U.K. is doing too. The U.K. is completely complicit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Um, our government was. The sooner that Blair et al gets done for war-crimes the better, but that won't happen unless Bush goes too. Brown-nosing, god bothering cunt of the highest order, Blair is. Screwed over our military by sending them in unprepared too.

That little bastard really makes my blood boil.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 8, 2010 12:44 PM

Gus: In truth, the "we" who are the baddies in this case isn't just the United States, it's pretty much the G8 plus.

Exactly. Sure -- the US pushed. The British supported. The Germans and French publicly opposed -- but privately helped the US with bases and cover for all the secret operations that were part of it. The CIA planes criss-crossed Europe -- and they want to claim that they "didn't know".

I call bullshit. The EU is to blame as well. They know where their bread is buttered -- as the President of Germany just stated (and resigned for it, for letting the cat out of the bag).

We're in this together. It's so easy for Europeans to point the finger -- when they've been essential to the effort all along.

You know -- if you have a foreign army basing on invasion off your territory, either you're occupied or complicit. Which one is it?

And either way -- shouldn't you take responsibility for it?

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 12:58 PM

@Frog

Seriously -- blaming the chimp is a claim that these behavior are irrational, emotional response. They may be possible because of propagandistic manipulation of our emotions -- but they are run as essentially cold, rational decisions about economic and political interests.

Our inner chimp is a xenophobe. Nonetheless, we've managed to progressively overcome our xenophobia to embrace other tribes, city states, regions and nations. I share your disgust of patriotism and I feel pretty much the same way about nationalism; but they are simply variations on the theme, no more rational or logical then beating up the tribe across the river because they worship G'kak instead K'gag.

The inner chimp is absolutely the problem and hitherto we have only caged it through systems of goverance; the must successful of which -- by several orders of magnitude -- is the democratic parliament. It's been applied at every level thus far -- except the global level -- that needs to change.

Posted by: NoGods4Me | June 8, 2010 12:59 PM

"..Don't go around spreading BS lies, yes there are t-shirts out there with that and a few may write that on their headbands,..." So, which is it? BS Lies or "yeah, a few may do that" and "yeah, there ARE Tshirts out there with it on it".? It DOES happen and that fact which you acknowledged in your reply kinda settles that wouldnt you say? Dont give me that self righteous , parade deck shitbird BS double talk; If you can read you can follow the thread. What I was merely pointing out and making an explicit example of was the fact that "Trucker Doug" was talking like the Death Head and all that was NOT actually used officially in the military (it was and IS of course, USMC RECON is one example) and that folks act like the rank and file troops dont write crazy stuff on their equipment, etc. in SPITE of General Order #1. Of course they do and officers DO enforce good order and proper actions but they cannot be everywhere and you damn well know it.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 8, 2010 1:03 PM

@Dianne - We're holding a gun to the EU's head? Our military and nukes? Here is the problem with hyperbole, people eventually start to believe it. The reality is that the U.S. will bomb the crap out of any country small enough and economically isolated enough for us to get away with it, as long as it is to our economic and strategic interest to do so, but we are not going to nuke Hamburg becuase Germany doesn't join or support our war plans. Heck, we aren't even going to bomb North Korea for sinking a South Korean ship. We may be bullies and cowards, but at least we're cowards. The EU has nothing to fear from the U.S. militarily and they know it. Our economic power is significant, but not that significant. The one good thing about globalization is that our economies are too intricately interconnected for us to screw around with major industrialized nations. We don't want a trade war with Europe, so we might take some minor actions, but we're not going to seriously disrupt trade. That would not be profitable, and profits are what we fight for. The EU is not occupied by the U.S., they are independent, and they were not forced to support our war, they may have been bribed, but ultimately they chose to help us because those bribes were worth more to them than Iraqi lives.

Posted by: amphiox | June 8, 2010 1:08 PM

It's not her fault -- she may kill a competitor's baby, but she won't slay a continent.

It's the same instinct that is manipulated, but the chimp doesn't slay the continent only because she can't. Humans do, because the rational human mind provided the power that allows them to do so.

We admit that we were an empire. And that we did a lot of dubious things.

The British reveled in their status as an empire. It became part of their self-identity for a very long time. When things went south and the cultural outlook changed, there was no choice but to admit to being an empire, and acknowledge the dubious things.

But the U.S. arose from a rebellion against that empire, and that has become ingrained into America's self-identity. For most of its history, America defined itself as not being an empire, as being the plucky resistance to some "evil" empire. Whenever America's leaders, or factions among them, wanted to do empire-building things, they had to hide that fact, either literally, or symbolically, from the American people, in order to get the support they needed to do what they wanted to do.

And the U.S. has not (yet) had to go through the final collapse/implosion that all prior historic empires like the British had to go through, and as a result have not (yet) been forced to do the critical self-examination of the beliefs and assumptions that got them to that point.

Of all the hegemonic superpowers that have ever existed (think U.S.S.R, British Empire, Napoleonic France, the various Islamic caliphates, the Roman Empire, the Persians, the various Chinese dynasties, etc, etc), a fair case can be made that the U.S. is the most benign.

The problem is that comparatively "benign" is not benign enough - the world would probably be a better place if there were no hegemonic superpowers at all, and the U.S. is incredibly powerful (in all facets: military, economic, social, etc) that it can do more damage by accident than say the Romans could even dream of doing on purpose.

Posted by: Ewan R | June 8, 2010 1:09 PM

Watch this and tell me you honestly don't see the the beginning of the slide down that slippery slope.

Ah the good old slippery slope arguement. Isn't that the same one that says if you support current legal abortions you're essentially rubber stamping death camps for the mentally ill (etc)?

I'd agree that a comparison of the USA now and nazi Germany isn't entirely ridiculous - the conclusion, after the comparison, that the two are the same however falls well within the bounds of ridiculous. The comparison itself - a useful tool for assessing just how evil you really are.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 1:10 PM

People behave badly when they can get away with it. Some of the responsibility must lie (not the bulk, but some) on the external systems of support. It's not just Americans' fault for how America acts -- we're only 5% of the world population.

Absolutely. I went through my anti american phase in the Bush years (it was comparatively speaking fairly mild) and have since come to very similar conclusions. The developed world is a kind of global nobility, the developing a massive global underclass. The EU and US are equally complicit in perpetuating the current global system; a situation that is going to resolve itself either in gradual reformation or maybe French revolution style. I'm in favour of the former!

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | June 8, 2010 1:20 PM

I think a standing army is a global necessity. But just because you have an army doesn't mean you should use it.

I think it's pretty easy to tell the purpose of an army by its constitution and logistical train. Consider that an army like the Swiss, which is specifically for the purpose of making an attacker pay a horrible price for every inch of territory they take, doesn't need a "force projection" arm that is capable of delivering ordnance globally on demand. An army built to defend would look quite different from an army built for aggression. The US military is entirely oriented toward offensive operations to protect our interests abroad. What does that even mean?

Posted by: Ray Moscow | June 8, 2010 1:32 PM

@ 109: "Our interests abroad" means whatever interests us.

It is pretty amazing that we can have such a large and offensive military force, built and maintained at such an incredible cost, and yet most Americans seem unaware of what it's for and what it does.

For example, there are many hundreds of US bases, apparently permanent, in Iraq and Afghanistan: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175204/tomgram:_nick_turse,_america's_shadowy_base_world/

How can we describe this, other than "empire", with a plan to always be an empire?

And people worry about the cost of helping poor people get some basic health care. We always see to be able to afford to kill more dark-skinned folks, but health care -- that's communism!

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | June 8, 2010 1:52 PM

It bothers me that people in other countries see this type of reporting about U.S. military action, and yet the same reporting is not easily (or prominently) available in the U.S..

There have been some pretty chilling accounts of life in the drone-pilot's chair in major news outlets like the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer

Indeed, the article sounded a lot like the journalist is aware of/witness to war crimes being committed (civilian contractors flying armed predators on killing missions in countries we're not at war with) The New Yorker's got pretty good circulation, too. But I'm sure nobody reads anything but the cartoons.

At the risk of godwinning myself, I'm reminded of how many Germans and Austrians claimed that they really had no idea that there were death camps, etc. That the whole thing somehow happened while they were watching "Dancing with the stars" or the superbowl or something. I wonder if there's a bit of that going on here.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 8, 2010 2:00 PM

Dianne: Yeah, and how well did that work out for, for example, Chile in the 1970s? The most stable country in Central America is Costa Rica: the country that cut a deal with the US. Asking "why don't they rebel" is a bit like asking "why don't they leave" of abused spouses. They don't rebel because the current situation is survivable and the potential consequences of rebelling are severe.

Are you serious? You're going to compare the position of an abused spouse to the relationship between the US and France?

You think the US is about to invade Germany again if they just said "get the fuck out of our country"??? Seriously?

What a bunch of self-pitying BS. Europe has been strong enough to stand up to the US for decades -- they just don't want to.

And as per Chile -- yes, in the long-term Chile came out much better for having stood up to the US. The copper mines stayed nationalized, and Chile's negotiating position was much stronger given that the US always had to consider the very real possibility of another outbreak of independence.

Costa Rica is another wonderful example of that. The Cost Rican deal came out of an insurgency against the US client government -- we were willing to cut a deal precisely because the Costa Ricans were willing to fight.

In the long-term, both have been good for the US as well. The US Empire has been successful insofar as it has been benign -- and it's been benign insofar as the world has forced it to be benign. Internally, one can easily argue that the explosion of civil rights from the '50s to the '70s was at least partially driven by it's international propaganda value -- that it was difficult to get allies throughout the world when much of the American population was to some extent subjugated.

Europe is no battered wife, no economically and socially helpess person beaten down by her family and her community on top of a particular victimizer. It is a powerful community of nations with strong, self-interested leadership. It is a conscious partner of the empire.

They know perfectly well what's in their advantage. The blood is on their hands for what they've done -- they haven't had excuses for their role in the world for generations.

Posted by: Lukas | June 8, 2010 2:18 PM

I don't think many people outside of the US consider the US to be the "good guys" anymore. On the other hand, given the options we have, I also think all of us are pretty glad that it's Team America who plays World Police, and not, say, Russia or China. You may not be the good guys, but at least you're reasonably democratic bad guys who value stuff like freedom of speech.

Posted by: choupick | June 8, 2010 2:24 PM

The only patches of elite military units I've seen had crossed arrows, swords, and lightning bolts. Or maybe an eagle holding a trident. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any American unit that has skulls for an insignia...

Oh wait, they don't. That image is from a cheap army surplus supply store t-shirt.

Well, that settles it, we aren't the baddies I guess.

Posted by: raven | June 8, 2010 2:35 PM

Sigh. Nothing like facing reality.

Most of our recent governments do not represent my values, interests, or ideals. Ironically, one of the few that did was a Christian one, Jimmy Carter. The world is stranger than we can imagine.

Up until recently, I was nationalistic without being jingoistic.

We are number one in many areas. We saved the Europeans and Asians during WWI and WWII. We stared down the evil empire of the commies. We put the first and only men on the moon and sent space probes to the edge of the solar system.

These days it is getting harder and harder to claim any sort of high ground. We have the world's largest...lunatic fringes. We start pointless wars for no good reason that drag on for years. The US is the world leader in bailing out poorly run and failed banks and brokerage houses. [several more pages of dismaying statistics omitted]

I'm going to keep voting and not going to give up but, with 300 million people, it won't make that much difference.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 8, 2010 2:46 PM

brian: We must part company here. Any arbitrary circle of exclusion is irrational; it immediately creates enemies that could have been allies and makes a target of those drawing the circle.

I don't see why. If your goal is material enrichment, and you reasonably expect that the game is zero-sum, then it's perfectly reasonable to set up a coalition to maximize your profits at the expense of everyone else.

Now, whether those clauses are actually correct, and not a misinterpretation, or are only correct under a certain time-scale, is open to discussion.

You can be rational and incorrect.

If I get together with my village to cannibalize the next village -- that can be a rational self-maximizing procedure. One can argue whether, in the long-term, the costs outweigh the gains -- and also whether the long-term is meaningful in that context.

I think we can agree that for nationalism to work even as a rational endeavor, it must be practiced by being big fucking nutz -- but that's true in many cases, like athletic events where the goal and strategy is rational, but the successful practice is done in a non or pre-rational state.

But that does point out an important element -- if the practice must be irrational, even if the goal is rational, then that particular practice can be attacked, even by irrational means. It's not an either/or thingy.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 8, 2010 3:18 PM

Of course this all leaves out one rather important detail, namely, if we are the baddies, who are the goodies? Seems to me that in the real world, when you are talking about relations between nations, there aren't any.

Posted by: davem | June 8, 2010 3:20 PM

Ray @ 22:

e to the Nazi comparison: Somehow I can't take much comfort from the fact that, as far as we know, the US has not engaged in outright genocide yet.

The American Indians would like a word with you. Indeed, in terms of numbers killed, and the proportion of the population killed, the US easily outdid the Nazis. We Brits managed to wipe out the Tasmanians to a man, too. So our nations, as far as I'm aware, are the only 2 ever to commit a perfect genocide.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 3:31 PM

A number of interlocking confederacies has the advantages of both, as long as you can keep it stable. Local control, local democracy with the stability conferred by the external constraints -- you can't go too nuts without your partners stepping in.

Nah ... I'm with Hamilton on interlocking confederacies; the fate of the greek city states showed how fatally flawed an arrangement that is.

The EU is not a bad model for a single global confederacy. Convert the commission into a directly elected Senate, forego the need for a president and leave armed forces to the individual nation states. Then get rid of the council of ministers, it's really just another UN gravy train wreck. Finally, introduce a two tiered voting system. One based on GDP, the other on population; only legislation that passes both barriers becomes law.

That would be my preferred global governance model.

Posted by: nastasie | June 8, 2010 3:38 PM

@ davem # 127

I believe the Spanish and Portuguese managed to completely wipe out several pre-Colombian populations in Central and South America. Particularly the Spanish. I can think of the Aztecs in Central America and the Incas and Guaranis in South America.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 8, 2010 4:00 PM

Brian: Nah ... I'm with Hamilton on interlocking confederacies; the fate of the greek city states showed how fatally flawed an arrangement that is.

They survived for 300 years. I don't think that's a bad run, at all. Hamilton was just another uneducated barbarian at the periphery -- I'm not a fan of his anachronistic and semi-educated thinking. They're records at the time of Greece were incomplete, to say the least.

The Mesopotamians managed to handle how many centuries before the Semites and Persians overran them?

Even those limitations are partly explainable on the basis of the scope of the confederacies -- they depended on local religion for their functioning, and therefore had limited expandability and marcher kingdoms on their borders which lacked the constraints of confederacy.

No system is stable forever. We can only hope for reasonable stability -- a few centuries, say -- with reasonable peace and prosperity in the interim.

The Germans did fairly well through the late middle ages with such a system, as well. The Italians had too much Papacy for it to work for them.

No, you have to read Hamilton and his ilk not as serious political analysts, but primarily as propagandists. He'd say anything to build his dream of empire (there's a reason why there's so many references to the Roman Republic in the constitutional period -- I've even seen portraits of Washington as Julius Caesar).

And, of course, everything has changed with modern weapons, where any conflict threatens both sides with anhiliation, and with a modern economy which is clearly non-zero sum, unlike pre-industrial agricultural economies, particularly those based on slaving.

Let's do some 21st century thinking with the incredible base of knowledge we have, rather than taking seriously ancient propagandists who, from our point of view, had almost no historical knowledge and lived under completely different economic bases.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 8, 2010 4:19 PM

Let's do some 21st century thinking with the incredible base of knowledge we have, rather than taking seriously ancient propagandists who, from our point of view, had almost no historical knowledge and lived under completely different economic bases.

If by this you mean Hamilton, I think this a very harsh judgement indeed. Besides, Hamilton is hardly "ancient". On the contrary he faced the same objections to a federal US in 1790 that people like myself encounter when proposing a global confederacy today and he did an excellent job illustrating why confederacies inevitably grind up against each other until a general war results. Indeed, the very examples you cite were frequently at war during the periods you hold up as part of their success. So I am not at all convinced.

No system is stable forever. We can only hope for reasonable stability -- a few centuries, say -- with reasonable peace and prosperity in the interim.

Certainly no system is perfect, but some are clearly better than others; and a system that encourages suspicious armed camps or breeds enormous power blocks is obviously far inferior to a system that naturally tends to cause militaries to atrophy.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | June 8, 2010 4:46 PM

Right-wingers live in an echo chamber. So as long they listen to their own noise, we'll be the "good guys".

Posted by: GeorgeFromNY | June 8, 2010 5:13 PM

In case anyone cares, a little historical background for the Totenkopf insignia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totenkopf

Also, it's interesting to note that those who hurl "Nazi" as their rebuke of choice are rarely heard denouncing someone as a "Bolshevik" or "Stalinist" no matter how far to the extreme Left the person in question might be.

The reverse is seen on the other side. This or that left-leaning person is a "commie" to those who never call anyone a "fascist" no matter how far to the Right they are.

Posted by: raven | June 8, 2010 5:28 PM

Also, it's interesting to note that those who hurl "Nazi" as their rebuke of choice are rarely heard denouncing someone as a "Bolshevik" or "Stalinist" no matter how far to the extreme Left the person in question might be.

There is a good reason for that.

The Bolsheviks, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and commies in general are all but extinct. You don't hear people calling others Midianites, Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites, Allosaurites, Gibeonites, Edomites, T. rexes, Canannites, or Assyrians either.

Unfortunately, the right wing fascists are still among us. We call them Neo Nazis, fascists, Tea Baggers, Fox news, KKK, Glenn Beckists and so on. I haven't seen a hammer and sickle spray painted in about forever. I do see swastikas here and there and someone burned a cross on someone's lawn not too far away from me recently. They were white but their crime was...adopting a black child.

Posted by: amphiox | June 8, 2010 5:34 PM

Icthyic #138:

Well said.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | June 8, 2010 6:16 PM

If you're big & centralized, you'll pretty soon attack your neighbors.

Of all the hegemonic superpowers that have ever existed (think U.S.S.R, British Empire, Napoleonic France, the various Islamic caliphates, the Roman Empire, the Persians, the various Chinese dynasties, etc, etc), a fair case can be made that the U.S. is the most benign.

The Indus Valley Civilisation lasted almost two millenia and, as far ar I'm aware, we have no evidence of it going to war with anyone, or oppressing its citizens.
There are no IVC carvings or art depicting battles or warfare and no records from any of the surrounding contemporary civilisations of war with them (and they certainly interacted with their neighbours, trade goods have been found in Mesopotamia, Persia and Afghanistan).

wikipedia -

In sharp contrast to this civilization's contemporaries, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, no large monumental structures were built. There is no conclusive evidence of palaces or temples—or of kings, armies, or priests.

Most city dwellers appear to have been traders or artisans, who lived with others pursuing the same occupation in well-defined neighborhoods.

Although some houses were larger than others, Indus Civilization cities were remarkable for their apparent, if relative, egalitarianism. All the houses had access to water and drainage facilities. This gives the impression of a society with relatively low wealth concentration

The ancient Indus systems of sewerage and drainage that were developed and used in cities throughout the Indus region were far more advanced than any found in contemporary urban sites in the Middle East

If I had to live anywhere 5,000 years ago I think I'd pick somewhere in the IVC. Sewerage, dentistry, relative equality, no war. What's not to like?

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 8, 2010 7:05 PM

coughlanbrianm:

You've got me confused. You love the Swiss model, but love Hamilton's arguments about confederacies. That seems to me inconsistent -- what the US had to a large extent before Hamilton and his cronies managed to get their fingers in was the Swiss model.

Hamilton, Madison, etc, wanted a highly centralized state -- much more so than we ended up with. That cohort argued at the CC for the elimination of the states altogether, as in the French model. We got damn lucky they failed -- if they had succeeded the problems of over-centralization the US faces today would have been faced much earlier. Probably no civil war (or a much more low level one), but a terrifyingly unified state probably conquering Mexico and Canada, leading to a much more powerful military and some of the issues that the Germans faced... ugggh, a terrible counter-history ending with an even more nightmarish 20th century than we got.

Thank luck that those "geniuses" didn't succeed with their dreams.

Posted by: amphiox | June 8, 2010 9:09 PM

How about Rwanda? Darfur? Bosnia?

I was responding to a comment about "perfect" genocide. None of those examples count, since there were survivors.

Small comfort, true, and nothing to claim to superiority about (But we didn't kill everyone. . . .), but that was what I was referring to.

The Indus Valley Civilisation lasted almost two millenia and, as far ar I'm aware, we have no evidence of it going to war with anyone, or oppressing its citizens.

You may be right about the Indus. If only all civilizations turned out like them! But by no means can we call that a "hegemonic superpower." And if memory serves, the Indus was ultimately destroyed when they were invaded by the nearby local hegemonic superpower.

A world without any hegemonic superpowers would be a nice one, but the question arises, can such a world exist? If it is inevitable that one nation/civilization/culture will always rise to a position of dominance and exploit the others, then you cannot deny that the U.S. has proven itself a better option than most historical alternatives.

Perhaps a single world government would one day break this cycle. Except I kind of fear that the first thing we'd do after achieving it is to establish colonies on the Moon and Mars, and then oppress and exploit them.

Until the Martians win a bloody war of independence, grow into the economic and military superpower of the solar system, and turn around and oppress Earth.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 8, 2010 9:37 PM

amphiox: A world without any hegemonic superpowers would be a nice one, but the question arises, can such a world exist? If it is inevitable that one nation/civilization/culture will always rise to a position of dominance and exploit the others, then you cannot deny that the U.S. has proven itself a better option than most historical alternatives.

As I said -- no system is stable forever. If it were, it would be dead.

If you're a decentralized state, sure, sooner or later a hegemon will come and destroy you. But if you're a hegemon, sooner or later you will collapse and be reduced to decentralization. India, Mesopotamia, Greece, China, Europe, all went through cycles. We read about the decentralized periods as abject anarchy -- but of course, the hegemons can and do destroy alternative historical records, while decentralized states rarely do -- they're not totalitarian.

For example, we hear about the dark ages after Rome. But it's hard to know how "dark" they really were -- at most we have hints and myths. Relative to the Roman period, few people were slaves. The tech wasn't so high -- but I'd trade tech if I could get rid of the lash. The church was a pack of cults with little central control -- hell, at least you can move away from a local cult. But instead of taking the position of ignorance -- it may have been horrible, or it may have been quite reasonable relative to the preceding and following periods -- most of our history books take the hegemonic position, that since the empires view that period badly, it must have been a bad period. Same goes for the periodic breakups of the Chinese.

So nothing lasts forever, but having a run for a few centuries is good enough. Maybe we can get a few centuries of no hegemon -- with a bonus of high-tech? Won't happen if no one thinks it's possible.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | June 8, 2010 11:59 PM

Shitforface #154:

If you think the US and UK governments are morally equivalent to the Nazis why aren't you engaged in 'resistance' activities - like Timothy McVeigh?

Nice call, dimwit. There's this sad thing with using violence to achieve one's goals, that afterwards it's really hard to say who did the most damage.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | June 9, 2010 12:50 AM

#156 quite nicely sums up what I meant in #155.

Posted by: secularguy | June 9, 2010 4:56 AM

(#119) I can't think of any American unit that has skulls for an insignia...

VFA-103

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 9, 2010 6:55 AM

The USA=Nazi Germany comparison is ridiculous. - Me

Really? - Fred the Hun

Yes, really: not just ridiculous, but stupid and offensive. Why you think I'd revise my view when shown a U-tube video of some American fascists who don't run the country, I'm not sure. We have fascists in every European country too - so presumably you think all these are comparable to Nazi Germany too.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 9, 2010 8:07 AM

If it is inevitable that one nation/civilization/culture will always rise to a position of dominance and exploit the others, then you cannot deny that the U.S. has proven itself a better option than most historical alternatives. - amphiox

Yes, I can. In fact, I do. I don't think it has been either markedly better or markedly worse than great powers in general (as opposed to being markedly better than Nazi Germany). Where it does differ is in being much more powerful than any previous great power, both relatively and absolutely: no other state has ever had anything approaching the degree of global economic and military dominance as the USA, although both have certainly declined from their peak around the end of WWII, and will probably continue to do so.

Frog, inc., I agree with you about the rationality of many aggressive wars from the point of view of those responsible for starting them, given their selfish motives (and, incidentally, about European complicity in US aggression). I'm not sure Nazi Germany fits this pattern, however (nor, more obviously, does Japan's attack on the USA). Starting a war it should be obvious you are almost certain to lose, when there are reasonable alternatives, is difficult to characterise as rational. Adam Tooze, in The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy argues that Hitler had no coherent plan for defeating Britain, given that the latter could rely on American support (which he recognised to be the case). His best hope (this is now me, not Tooze, speaking) was that Britain would simply throw in the towel after the defeat of France. Hitler could then have launched his planned invasion of the USSR with some hope of success - although, for irrational reasons (contempt for Jews and Slavs), he grossly underestimated its industrial potential. As it was, Tooze explains, German industry had to be directed to prepare for continued air and sea war against Britain and the USA at the same time as preparing Barbarossa, which was far beyond its capabilities.

Posted by: Andrew F | June 9, 2010 9:04 AM

@Colin

No daffodils I'm afraid, but certainly roses. Or how about leeks or thistles?

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 9, 2010 11:33 AM

Lemurian:

Evidence please for your inclusion of the IVC amongst your list of centralised, totalitarian, hegemonic states.
Or even evidence that any one of those three adjectives apply.

I don't see where I did. I don't know of any evidence one way or other -- but I'd be surprised if it was; hegemonic powers usually leave great gobs of evidence (historical record as propaganda).

And if you accept that it shouldn't have been included then where is the evidence to back your assertion that decentralised states are invariably destroyed by those that are. If any contemporary civilisation had destroyed the IVC I think we would have evidence. Those kind of states love to boast about their great victories.

All states are "inevitably destroyed" -- usually by a combination of forces. If I recall correctly, the IVC was disrupted by climate change and the migration of Iranian and other West Asian tribes (part of the Aryan Invasions, right?).

Often the disruption is part of a cycle between hegemonic and non-hegemonic states, which was the point of my examples -- Mesopotamia, Greece, China, Europe and so forth. So you can have hegemon -> hegemon transitions, hegemon -> decentralized transitions, decentralized -> decentralized and decentralized -> hegemon.

As far as a I know, IVC was a decentralized -> decentralized, but that transition laid the ground work for the later transition in the Axial Age for a decentralized -> hegemon transition (Alexander the Great and the following Mauryan Empire).

So, I'm not sure what you're all so worked up about.

Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | June 9, 2010 11:53 AM

"Hey, at least we're not as bad as the Nazis!"

They should print that on the dollar bill.
What do you do with faint praise?

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 9, 2010 11:56 AM

Sorry, that last one was @knockgoats, not @amphiox.

Posted by: fbudinichd | June 9, 2010 2:32 PM

If we turn them into mythical monsters like Tiamat or Shaitan, we destroy the lesson that has saved all of us for 60 years

We already have. I'm guessing that I don't need to write down a list of fictional Nazy out there to make a point. But it would be reminiscent of The Catalogue of Ships, right out of Homer's Iliad, and I don't want to contribute to their mythification.

Posted by: Neil Schipper | June 9, 2010 4:30 PM

boboniboni @ 53

America is silently nazi.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/08/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet.html

You're using words you don't understand, and the article is juvenile leftist demagoguery. However, the Paxton article it references is quite deep, and I grudgingly appreciate that you helped bring it to my attention.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | June 9, 2010 6:55 PM

damn. Hit Submit instead of preview. I shall continue from the last sentence.

I also asked for any evidence that the IVC (see first quote) had been destroyed by a hegemonic power. You had said (#151)

And if memory serves, the Indus was ultimately destroyed when they were invaded by the nearby local hegemonic superpower.

After I said in (#160)

The most likely cause of the demise of the IVC seems to have been climate change.

you then said (in #167)

If I recall correctly, the IVC was disrupted by climate change and the migration of Iranian and other West Asian tribes (part of the Aryan Invasions, right?).

Those two statements of yours I have just quoted seem contradictory to me, once again. Do you consider these migratory tribes a "hegemonic superpower"?

Maybe you'd like to clarify things?

Was the IVC centralised? If so, what is your evidence for that, beyond your assertion that all civilisations are at some period?
Was it destroyed by a "hegemonic super power", or not?
If so, which, and what is your evidence?

PS, re evidence - you said (#167)

I don't know of any evidence one way or other ..... hegemonic powers usually leave great gobs of evidence (historical record as propaganda).

On what are you basing your opinions, if you don't know of any evidence? We have no evidence from any of the other civilisations of the time of any conflict, ever, with the IVC, yet we have their evidence of many other conflicts with major civilisations, often from both sides. Abscence of evidence in this case seems to favour the belief that there was no conflict.
Nor do we have any archaelogical evidence that it was destroyed by wandering tribes. There are no burnt city walls, no bodies showing signs of warfare, no discarded weapons. Nor do we have any folk memories amongst what are the descendants of these migrating tribes of them destroying a vast civilisation that had lasted two millenia.
We do, however, know that the climate changed dramatically, rivers changed course and there were droughts at this period.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | June 9, 2010 8:34 PM

RTL: You're confusing different threads and different commenters. #151 was amphiox, not me, so no, I never said nor implied that IVC was destroyed by a hegemonic power, ergo lack of documentary evidence. I'm not contradicting myself, your non-existent opponent is.

That makes it difficult to respond -- because your line of argument is confusing different speakers and different threads as if there were one speaker, and that speaker was me.

If I recall correctly, the timing of the IE migrations was close. I'm not impressed with the link -- assuming that because post-Vedic culture was at least partially derived from Harappan culture (something that has been known for a while) therefore there was no other sources -- that the Harappans were IE speakers is just tendatious, particularly since there are internal claims from the Vedic sources of a migration.

The Vedic records may be the very folk memories you're looking for -- hyperbolized out of all reality. I'd be unsurprised if the breakdown was primarily driven by ecological factors as has happened elsewhere, such as among the Maya and SW US -- but that doesn't exclude the possibility that the breakdown was part of a feedback loop, attracting invaders and exacerbated by invaders (as suggest in the SW by the evidence of cannibalism and central Mexican tooth sharpened skulls).

Think of the Biblical record of the Hebrew devastation of the Canaanites -- the archeological record shows almost no devastation from that putative period. The breakup of the previous civilization was probably also primarily driven by ecological factors. A few tribesmen probably then migrated into the collapse, raided a few dying towns (helping them to die faster) and told their grandchildren stories about how they conquered a vast civilization (after marrying in to the disintegrating civilization).

None of this is surprising. As I pointed out, there are many different transitions. But the N. Indian descendant civilizations, which also were decentralized societies but significantly weaker (probably after migrations, etc, from Harappa combined with the Iranian tribesmen) became attractive targets for hegemonic societies -- see the Buddhist tripitaka for semi-mythical documentary evidence.