you want to defend the goodness of the u.s., and you begin by quoting john foster dulles??

this is really a very silly article, too confused to even address properly.

but if you want to consider a stark example of american exceptionalism, just look at the current "debate" over america's use of torture and extra-judicial killing. american statesmen pontificate in horror over other countries' use of torture. but the american psychopaths who promoted and carried out the same thing for the Red, White and Blue can do so with impunity. when dick cheney and john yoo are in jail, then i'll consider whether pilger is wrong about american exceptionalism.

Chris,
I would suggest that Pilger's work needs to be seen in an overall context rather than a piece by piece framework.

It seems to me therefore his real objective is the philosophic fitness for the US to be “Leaders of the free world” in that framing their hypocrisy etc. is valid.
Here is a nation that claims to be the champion of Freedom and Democracy and yet in almost every example they breach the principals of both. More specifically while not a clearly defined conspiracy the overall outcome is a nation more concerned with its own wealth than any noble motive. After all it is “the nation of commercial entrepreneurship”.

I suspect that his perspective he accurately observes that Freedom, Democracy and Leadership are all notions that absolute not subject to whim and spin.

Consider it from this perspective Freedom for whom? All people have the right to be free to be exploited by the financially powerful US.
Democracy who's ? Political pragmatisms aside the US gives token lip service to the collective wishes (democracy) of a majority regarding the clear breaches and obscene excesses of Israel.

Even at a nation level if a country's population wants to control its resources it is victimised ( i.e. new Zealand's stance on visiting nuclear ships). Let alone if as a whole it wants to be Muslim, controls its own resources without US interests.

Do we point to their tacit govt. support for Oppressive unpopular regimes for
strategic/commercial benefits. Even to support those regimes against 'popular' alternatives. That list is long, bloody and sad.

Even their wars they pressure, cajole etc. to ensure “allies”. That's a bit like Woollies negotiating with a mum and dad deli/milk bar.

Leadership in its best form takes the people with then not despite them. That's veiled dictatorship.
His critique of IMF is in that context.
Your analysis is in a totally different context that isn't necessarily compatible.

That my view for what it's worth.

Examinator,

I understand where you are coming from.

But US rhetoric is just that. We all have views and values we believe in, although few of us (if any) are without major contradictions.

What I will say is that balancing national and international aspirations is an extremely difficult task. As a colleague of mine has suggested, Pilger should have tested his argument by discussing what alternative nation would have provided better leadership.

I, for one, do not believe that competing nations are close to accepting true global democratic institutions. Nations are not only unequal in terms of resources, but also in regard to the merit of their ideas.

I also doubt whether any nation would have done it much better.
Many other Western democracies have enjoyed a relatively free ride on the back of US leadership in economic and military terms for decades. And they are quite happy for the US to do the dirty work.

Too true as it stands now.
I doubt that agreeing that one dictator is the same as another changes his point. That as practiced the ethos is wrong. In short I find Pilger an idealist that says in essence this is wrong...YOUR task is to make it better.

US simply abuses its power. As I said "political pragmatics aside". I am fully aware getting the Security Council to be prepared to forgo their their Veto (even with the same limitations that apply to the US president's veto in the congress) would be highly unlikely. Much less getting the US to honour other popular treaties. (international justice) and opinions on all these power groups they dominate.

If this could be achieved then they would have some moral authority to be the leader et al.

I find the argument that they're better than anybody else or nothing very thin given many of the conflicts since WW2 were either directly or indirectly were complicated or started by them.

Your piece argues your point with in what I would call amoral pragmatic criteria similar to Squeers discussion topic posts(maybe worth a look?). But come the revolution ..... ;-)

examinator,

I do not disagree with you.

We must seek ways to improve international leadership.

US people also have a responsibility to improve the quality of its governance. This is the ultimate test of a democracy.

I do not deny some of the dodgy US policy decisions.

Unlike Pilger, however, I do believe that Obama is the right man, although the task he faces to overcome immense domestic cleavages and an economic recession with long-term consequences is enormous.

However, even Obama will not escape the need for some unpopular and even controversial decisions, which will offend Pilger and many others. This is the nature of leadership in such a competitive (and often horrific) world.

Following the thread so far, I guess what we are into is yet another conversation revolving around the rub between the exceptionalist side of the US ( Western? ) outlook and its less base aspects: self and world view, as Examinator points out.
Chris at last does not try to shy away from this, which is well for his and his article's credibility.
If only the West ( not just the US ) could see itself as others likely see it.
Ok, so history is work in progress.
But we must reject gain the Panglossian view for Kant ( and perhaps New Testament Christianity ), I say this after just viewing another report on third world misery, this time from a filthy refugee camp in Afghanistan.
People like Bush and Cheney in particular, should finally invest some time in imagining what it must be like for billions of real people also living in this shared world to exist and suffer as what is fobbed off as direct or indirect "collateral damage" arising from foreign and economic policy.
Eg, don't impose on others what you wouldn't impose on yourself.
If living in such a way is so marvellous, why are not the Wall Streeters and City of Londoners living in a slum in Calcutta, say, rather than leaving the great benefits of Modern Civilisation exclusively to the slum dwellers there.
And anyone thinking of doing so, please do not respond with tosh about these problems being the exclusive fault or responsibility of inept local governments. That's NOT how it has evolved and even the most foolish must know something as basic as this.