The Supposed Anti-Imperialism of Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel has amassed a following of young socialists in the US. He's running for president in the democratic primary, with a stated goal of pushing the party left. His apparent anti-imperialist positions and drift towards some social democratic policies has brought him support from even some Marxist-Leninists. In this text I seek to prove that Gravel's 'anti-imperialism' is based in empire apologia, blaming individuals, and an ahistorical analysis. It is not anti-imperialism, it is soft imperialism, an apology and excusal of what the US is fundamentally based on. The multitude of contradictions in his autobiography are glossed over, and I see only two possibilities; that he's desperately clinging to an obviously backwards analysis, or his motivations are not what he claims. Since he seems fairly aware of the consistent horror of US history, I strongly suspect the second is true. From what I've read, I even suspect that his counterintelligence career has not truly ended.


Counterintelligence Background
When Gravel was 18 he took a bus "heading for New York with the purpose of joining the Israeli forces in their fight to defend their new state" (128)." He ended up turning back, and was only 18, but his later actions can't be chalked up to youthful ignorance (including his continued support of the Israeli state). Gravel was due to be drafted into the imperialist war against Korea, so he decided to join the counterintelligence corps since he was "still a patriot" despite some criticism of US foreign policy (Gravel 108). While he was in South Carolina after training, he decided to become an officer since he "wanted to be a leader and... wanted to go to Korea" (109). Gravel didn't get his wish to join the brutal imperialist forces in Korea and was assigned to Germany instead. There he was "opening people's mail and listening to their telephone conversations... [and paying] off spies" (109) Gravel was happy to contribute to the anti-communist spy network in Germany since the job was "full of adventure" (109).

He was "a little uncomfortable spying mostly on perfectly innocent civilians", but continued and was transferred to France where he was "infiltrating communist rallies" (110). Someone who worked in counterintelligence and spied on communists is now a politician popular in some anti-imperialists circles. He was second in command in Germany for the Communications Intelligence Service (now the Army Security Agency) (109). I suppose Gravel's supporters will claim this should not be concerning since he felt "a little uncomfortable" spying on communists. All politicians are immediately suspect, as politicians in the US are of course opportunists. A politician who worked in counterintelligence brings up the possibility of even more hidden motivations.


Gravel's Theory of Imperialism I: Interrupting the "American Revolution": 
Gravel claims that "we need to conclude the interrupted American Revolution against Britain, which sought to make the people sovereign, not their representatives" (262). The American Revolution was never about making 'the people' sovereign, it was about continuing settler genocide and increasing the American bourgeoisie's exploitative profits. Gravel even admits some of the errors in this myth. He acknowledges some of the horror US settlers inflicted upon indigenous people, even calling it a "white man's war of ethnic cleansing" (89). The contradiction here is ignored, because the American origin story Gravel is pushing has nothing to do with history or facts, it's a mythology to justify US existence, and those that support the US must protect it at all costs. The US is upheld as a beacon of democracy and justice, the complete opposite of reality.

Belief in this mythology necessitates some mental gymnastics when confronted with the realities of US history and present policy. The most common approach, which Gravel uses frequently, is to separate the actions which contradict this mythology and consider each to be an individual aberration. To avoid cracks in the mythology, these flaws can't be linked, can't be traced back to their roots, since that would pull the cloak away and reveal the genocidal basis of the United States. Gravel (incorrectly) claims Teddy Roosevelt was America's first overseas imperialist president, claiming he "infused unprecedented powers into the executive branch... [After Panama] There ensued the long history of twentieth century US covert and overt military interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, an area marked off for empire by President Monroe back in 1823" (97). In this Gravel is blaming Teddy Roosevelt for a subversion of America, preserving the mythology.

While he acknowledges that the founders had a vision of rights and government only for wealthy white men, he also says that "Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Wilson, and others were defending a principle of the Declaration of Independence that said 'people' could change their government whenever they wanted" (231). He acknowledges the racism and class interests of the founders, but simultaneously mentions them in glowing terms, saying they "helped change my idea of America" (84). Washington apparently was "mindful of protecting indigenous Americans but war was inevitable. He 'awed the Indians' so settlers could plow ahead"(88). Creating brutal shock troops which massacred native people is not being "mindful of protecting indigenous Americans". Washington fully supported the genocidal behavior of settlers, which Gravel partially acknowledges when he admits that "Washington used [his standing army] to expand America's territory by putting down uncooperative Indians" (89). 'Uncooperative' is a description which doesn't seem to fit 'people struggling for their lives'. The only massacre Gravel actually mentions is the Battle of the Wabash, a "massacre of 623 American militiamen" (89). Settlers massacred native peoples fighting for their right to live and even those that didn't or could not fight. Children and infants were indiscriminately killed. Settlers took trophies from those they killed, and proudly bragged about it. Comparing that to a military defeat where genocidal settlers were killed is disgusting.

Modern day politicians are also blamed for pulling us in the wrong direction. According to Gravel,
"abuse of power used to be something to hide. Bush flaunts it" (229). Abuse of power is what the US was founded upon. Gravel claims to stand for some mythical United States, but materially that means support for the genocidal reality of the United States. Gravel's most famous act as a Senator was reading the Pentagon Papers into record, which allowed them to be released to the public. However, he claimed that even this exposure of the disgusting actions of the US in Vietnam was "in the name of helping this great nation we all love" (28). Anyone who loves the United States is in no way an anti-imperialist. According to Gravel, "this country emerged as a republic after violently revolting against a monarchy and empire. But it has itself grown into a global empire built through surrogate rulers and direct occupation" (239). This country was never a 'republic', it was a dictatorship of slave-owners and other wealthy settlers.


Gravel's Theory of Imperialism II: It's Unnecessary: 
Gravel claims that anti-intervention "would likely have been the reasoned approach of founders like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, who set the rational tone of the early republic" (209). This leads us to the next piece of Gravel's warped 'anti-imperialism'. Not only is imperialism a betrayal of these imaginary American values, it's also an irrational betrayal of the founders reasoned plans. A common chant by US socialists is "money for jobs and education, not for war and exploitation". While this is well intentioned, it also speaks to a very dangerous concept pushed by many in the US social democrat tradition. They claim that the US is 'wasting' money on foreign wars when it could be used domestically. These wars are not a waste of money, they are a means to bring more money into the US, by defending and expanding imperialist control. Gravel pushes this flawed concept wholeheartedly, claiming that "Wilson's naiveté and stubbornness drove America unnecessarily into the First World War... [because of a] belief in his own moral superiority and a naïve desire to dictate to others how long-term peace should be achieved" (98-99).  Entering World War I wasn't a naive action, it was a calculated decision to expand US empire in Africa and to open markets for US goods. While outwardly claiming the war was to protect democracy, internal documents have clearly shown that Wilson entered the war for the very rational interests of empire. Gravel goes on to acknowledge that there may have been reasons apart from Wilson's well-meaning naivete, but only mentions the wartime impact on the economy, not the US gains in expanding empire.

Gravel continues with this analysis in other areas. He claims the fear of communism is unfounded, saying before his Pentagon Papers reading that "the first and foremost reason our nation is in a mess today and going towards bankruptcy is a result of our paranoiac fear of communism. This is unfounded for the simple reason we have far and away a superior military and economy... we as leaders and as a nation are party to the killing daily of innocent people for no apparent reason... certainly it does not add to our security" (28). The US fight against the Soviet Union was not irrational, and the killing of people fight for liberation was not 'for no apparent reason'. The US fight against socialism is not irrational, it's a fight to preserve and expand imperialist interests. Gravel applies the same line to the invasion of Iraq, claiming "Bush had no reason to suspend habeas corpus, torture prisoners, spy on Americans, sign statements to avoid enforcing laws he doesn't like, and enrich his backers with wars of plunder" (229). The end of that statement contradicts the rest of the sentence of course. There wasn't 'no reason', the actions of Bush were driven by the fundamental basis of the United States: the imperialist push to continuously increase plunder of the global south.


Gravel's Theory of Imperialism III: Bumbling Empire, Good Intentions, and Blowback: 
If one accepts the entirely ahistorical premise in the previous section, it follows that the US must be making mistakes in engaging in these wars, a concept I refer to as the 'bumbling empire theory'. Along with this comes blowback theory, where the violent actions of empire-sponsored groups are seen as an unfortunate side-effect, instead of the intended results. In line with his protection of US mythology, Gravel claims this is a result of a new assault on rational politics: "instead American machismo- with our concept of 'manifest destiny' now fused into our imperial goal of global hegemony- prevailed over the Age of Reason. The Enlightenment was under assault by the rise of the Religious Right in the Reagan era. As the US confronted the limits of its overseas power, rather than work within those limits to preserve sensible American interests, more brute force was exerted" (209). Here he also endorses a less blatant imperialism, only objecting to brute force, not preserving US interests.

Gravel ascribes good intentions to a plethora of politicians. According to Gravel, "we all wanted to see a democratic and prosperous Iraq at peace with its neighbors. But the Bush administration foolishly thought invasion and occupation would bring it about" (16). Biden is likewise given the benefit of the doubt, Gravel saying "I like him, but I think he's dead wrong on many things, especially how to solve Iraq" (16). Neither Bush, Biden, or any other politician supporting the Iraq war had good intentions. They are knowing war criminals, and their actions have paid off for US empire. Gravel goes even further to absolve democrats, claiming Hillary "and most Democrats in both Houses calculated that looking patriotic, even if it meant giving credibility to a phony threat, was better than being right" (16). Their motivations were purely political according to Gravel, with nothing to do with their relationship with oil companies and other US interests. The impacts of these imperialist wars are accidents according to Gravel, as he claims "The Taliban harbored bin Laden after 9/11, and there was justification in overthrowing that vile regime. But stability was not brought to Afghanistan, partly because the mission was diverted to Iraq" (227). Stability was never an intention of US policy in the Middle East. Gravel portrays the outcome as a mistake, the unfortunate results of actions by a 'bumbling empire'.

Gravel has kind words for Eisenhower, calling him "a great leader in Lao Tzu's sense, teaching people to lead themselves. As president he wasn't a great politician, but he was a very courageous leader during the war" (140-141). High praise for the imperialist president Eisenhower from a supposed anti-imperialist. He also promotes the Kennedy mythology, endorsing Arthur Krock's claim that "the CIA refused to listen to JFK and did its own thing in Vietnam. Kennedy also wanted less spent on war and more on domestic needs. It was a monumental loss we are still suffering from" (144). JFK was only opposed to certain outward displays of strength, preferring a more covert but no less brutal form of imperialism. Gravel claims that the US had nothing to do with "the collapse of the Soviet economy, Mikhail Gorbachev's unprecedented reforms, popular democracy movements in the Eastern Bloc, and the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan all contributed... Did Reagan's arms buildup hurt the Soviet economy?" (213). Reagan's arms buildup absolutely hurt the Soviet economy. Resources and labor which could have gone to improving the lives of the Soviet people instead had to be spent on the military. The CIA knew this very well, but Gravel pretends not to.


Gravel's Theory of Imperialism IV: Individual Error: 
Since imperialist crimes are errors according to Gravel's contradictory theories, the source of imperialist actions can't be fundamental to the US economy or political system. It follows that the source must be individual. Gravel claims that "Truman changed America forever" (104) by increasing executive power and creating a larger military establishment. While it's true that the tools of imperialism increased in power severely under Truman, this was not an individual choice. This was a natural development as empire expanded and imperialist capital demanded more protection from a government entirely under its control. On Reagan, Gravel says "that Reagan hasn't gone down in history as one of the biggest knaves to inhabit the White House is beyond me" (212). Reagan hasn't gone done in infamy because he didn't subvert the US way, he embodied it.

The anti-communist crackdown in the 50's is likewise dismissed as an individual decision. Gravel claims that "McCarthy's hysteria was based largely on his own lust for power and notoriety" (106). Again this speaks to the supposed irrationality of the imperialist government. The attacks under McCarthy were not irrational, they were a calculated way to crush rising dissent. They viciously attacked many leaders such as Paul Robeson, shutting him out of the music industry and the US media. These leaders were building solidarity with the global south, attempting to build a US movement between colonized people within the US and their natural allies overseas. This posed a great danger to US power, recognized by McCarthy and many others. Instead Gravel portrays it as one man's irrational crusade.

Gravel exposes his true beliefs on empire with his thoughts on the events following World War II. He claims that "FDR had proposed post-war colonies be put under UN trusteeship, but Churchill thunderously opposed. As a result, nationalist movements mostly turned to Communism, or at least pretended to, to get Soviet aid to throw off their colonial masters" (118). The implication is that UN trusteeship would have carried out imperialist goals in a neoimperialist fashion, subverting nationalist movements and controlling colonies without outright war.


Motivations: Political Gain?
The first major vote on militarist matters with Gravel in the senate was on a missile defense system. Gravel's words on his apparent indecision reveal something very concerning: "though I had pretty much made up my mind [to oppose it], I enjoyed the attention of being one of the last undecided. The longer I stayed on the fence the more press I got. I was soaking it up... By holding out I had gone from obscurity to being a national figure almost overnight" (162). He didn't even attend a closed door session on the bill, as he was watching the Apollo 11 launch in Florida instead. Is that a commitment to opposing militarism? His attraction to the spotlight seems to explain much of his career, choosing controversial opinions to gain media attention. The opportunist qualities of all US politicians, including Gravel, are no coincidence. Not only are opportunists attracted to politics, they are the only ones able to succeed in the US political system. Gravel describes his methods to gain political office: "everyone I met I sized up as someone who could potentially help me. Self-promotion held no shame" (136). He tells a story of his run for the legislature: "Rita Martin was the girlfriend of a woman I was seeing. While I was running for the Legislature she was running for a statewide beauty contest. I recognized we both had to be visible. So I hit on her and told her we needed each other to reach our goals" (136). Gravel went so far as to create a relationship because it was politically expedient.

Gravel also saw native peoples of Alaska as a useful group politically: "the key to winning I thought was with native Alaskans... It  was the first time a white politician had ever visited these remote communities. I saw two purposes to this: to hold hearings on the concerns of a people who were here long before white men arrived, but who now were mostly ignored, and to build a base to beat Rivers. It was simultaneously morally right and politically advantageous to me" (146). The primary importance of the political side of this action is revealed in his campaigning tactics: "I would arrive at the first village at dawn knocking on doors, sometimes waking families. We couldn't speak each other's language, but I left a bumper sticker or a card" (147). He didn't even take the time to find a translator, or find a way to communicate with native people. He had no interest in their concerns or their struggle, and only saw them as a way to win political office. When he was first running he didn't even take a strong stance against the Vietnam war. He admits that this was partly for political reasons, and while he claims it was also due to unformed anti-war views, at other points in the book he traces his anti-war views to before this election. He was an opportunist in every way, determined to climb in politics in any way he could. In Gravel's own words, "Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president" (169).


Anti-Communism and Slander of Anti-Imperialist Struggles
In line with Gravel's claims of empire being unnecessary, he slanders anti-imperialist countries in their healthy mistrust and necessary defense against imperialism. He claims under McCarthy, "a legitimate problem is deliberately overblown" (106), showing his clear allegiance to anti-communism. Stalin is called a "murderous dictator" (111), the Soviet Union a "police state" (116), and the struggle of the USSR against imperialism is dismissed. Gravel claims that "Stalin also exaggerated the American threat. It was convenient for him to have an external enemy to enforce unity at home. Like-wise, al-Qaeda and some elements in Iran exaggerate the American threat. They keep their people from contact with American ideas to preserve their hollow, fundamentalist dictates" (111). The US had plans to attack the USSR in any way possible, and showed that these weren't idle threats with brutality in other countries. Iran today is under constant imperialist attack, with infiltrating NGOs, the constant threat of open military attack, and crippling economic warfare. I don't think it would be possible for Iran today or Stalin last century to exaggerate the American threat.

The USSR's rejection of the Marshall Plan, correctly recognizing it as 'dollar imperialism', is considered by Gravel "Moscow's biggest contribution to the start of the Cold War [!!!]." He continues: "the Soviet leadership put its own survival ahead of the Russian people. Rather than take the Marshall Plan help to rebuild his country, Stalin imprisoned millions of people whom he used virtually as slave labor in the reconstruction" (117). He applies blame to the Soviet Union for starting the cold war by rejecting imperialist 'aid', an absurd accusation. The rejection of this strings-attached aid is also apparently to blame for struggles of the Soviet people. According to Gravel, paying criminals full wages and giving them extensive rights is 'slave labor'. What's stunning is that after making these baseless accusations Gravel goes on to admit that the Marshall Plan did exactly what the USSR was claiming. He terms the arms race a win for the Politboro and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, claiming they benefited from militarism just like the US. The USSR was forced into military development from the United State's threats, and it hurt the development of socialism severely. The Eastern Bloc counterrevolutions are of course termed 'democracy movements', another trope in anti-communist propaganda. Gravel celebrates FDR's victory against communism, pointing out that he "was right to claim after his 1936 re-election that he had saved capitalism from the excesses of a Communist or anarchist revolt. There was great anger in the land and labor unrest. It is not widely understood today how popular Communism and anarchism had become. Several public buildings were bombed and businessmen and their allies in congress genuinely feared social revolution" (78).

Gravel's Plans
The same narratives are pushed on Gravel's current campaign website. The cover page is a counter of the cost of "regime change" wars. It doesn't count the deaths of civilians or the impact on the economies of countries ruined by imperialism however, it counts the dollars spent on these wars. In his autobiography he claims that "the way to fight terrorism is through international police work, not invasion and occupation... we need a global agency along the lines of Interpol to fight terrorism with coordinated police work" (227). While this doesn't appear to be in his current platform, there are still policies that position the US as a positive force in international affairs. On his current campaign website Gravel calls for the US to engage in mutual aid with other countries. This plays into modern 'soft' imperialist strategy. Economic attacks disguised as mutual aid are a common tool of the US against colonized countries. Gravel also doesn't advocate for eliminating the US military or empire in entirety. He calls for a 50 percent cut in military spending, a move McNamara says won't have any visible effect on military operations. He also calls for a stronger enforcement of required congressional approval for war. All of this still leaves the door open for militarism and foreign wars, only improving appearance.

On his campaign website he calls the DPRK government 'a troubled one', and calls for the US to continue pushing for denuclearization. While he does advocate for US troop withdrawal, he also wants to "promote cultural exchange between the United States, South Korea, and North Korea". This certainly sounds like a 'soft' imperialist approach. Gravel pushes the anti-semitic trope that AIPAC is responsible for US policy with regards to Israel. The US supports Israel because it's furthering US interests throughout the world. He doesn't take a strong stance on Palestinian liberation, considering a two-state solution as one option. Much of the rest of his platform relies on minor reforms which would be immediately reversed if they got through in the first place.

One of Gravel's big ideas is direct initiative legislation, where US Americans could vote directly to influence government policy. This is based on some absurd assumptions, made by all who see electoralism as a way to end imperialism or capitalism. The thought that the US dictatorship would allow people to vote against imperialist interests is absurd, and it's doubtful that the US public even would vote against it in many cases. In his 2008 run for president Gravel also supported the libertarian fair tax, which "would add 23 percent to all purchases of new goods and services... prices of new goods would decline with the elimination of corporate taxes" (236-237). I hardly think I even need to comment on that position. This clearly shows that Gravel has no coherent political ideology. He bounces around to extreme positions to attract attention.

Gravel's campaign is run by teenage meme socialists. According to one of them the people that are really getting out there politically are "a lot of young white guys", although it's "wrong to portray the movement as only being that". This was in response to a question about young white guys' political heroes always being old white guys. They didn't push back and mention socialist heroes who aren't white or male, likely because they don't have any. They promote the popular blasé ironic 'leftist' humor on his twitter, joking about issues like the Iraqi blood on Joe Biden's hands. Politics appears to be a game for them, and while I don't doubt they believe much of what they say, their analysis appears to be skin-deep. They differ with Gravel on some points, including 9/11 (Gravel believes it was an inside job while the teens say that "absolutely" neither of them are 9/11 truthers).

We don't have the evidence to draw a definite conclusion with regards to Gravel's motives, but a scenario kept playing out in my head. If you're working in intelligence, what's the best way to establish cover for an asset as an anti-imperialist? Take a document which is already leaked to the press and likely to be publicized soon anyway, and have them be the hero that releases it to the public. They then have established anti-imperialist credentials without a downside, as it would have gotten out anyway. It also renews faith in the US government to have an elected official reveal this document. When Gravel worked with a Beacon publishing to release the pentagon papers in book form, "an anonymous donor on Long Island gave Beacon a large donation to finance the project. I still don't know who it was" (51). At best Mike Gravel is an opportunist who's adopted 'anti-imperialism' as a way to once again win fame. At worst Gravel's counterintelligence work never ended.

More Concerning Quotes From Gravel's Autobiography:
"I took part in the massive intelligence work of infiltrating and suppressing [partisans'] movements in Europe, even though some had no ties to the Soviets" (116)
On quitting the army: "even the thrill of espionage could not keep me" (127)
"That was something to celebrate. There was no enemy even closely comparable to America in military strength. There was no reason to continue wasting money on defense." (216)
"Roosevelt could communicate hope and do something about it..." (78)
"I read Jefferson and learned that questioning authority and the official version of history was at the very core of what it meant to be American... He also helped plant the idea in my head that people can rule their own lives." (83-84)
"Congress agreed with Washington's request for the small standing army until 'the United States shall be at peace with the Indian tribes.' That would take a century, once most of them were wiped out through disease or war" (89)
"Gruenig showed the courage Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and other senators did not when they voted for a similarly bogus resolution giving Bush authority to invade Iraq" (150)
"I was fortunate to be in the Senate when it was breaking out of its Cold War stupor to stand up to Nixon, a great executive power abuser. A rebellious populace and a vibrant press, aware of its Constitutional responsibilities, aided his downfall" (202)
"If I've got to push people around, I push them around" (146) A reference to lying about an offer of chairmanship to convince an opponent to drop out.
"[Gruening] went as far as calling the United States the 'agressor'. I took a more ambivalent position. That was partly because my anti-war views hadn't fully formed yet and, frankly, for political reasons. I had to position myself to Gruening's  right on the war if I were to differentiate myself from him and provide voters an alternative... I also rejected unilateral US withdrawal, arguing that it would be a 'field day' for Ho Chi Minh's 'brutality' as he led communist victories across Asia. My views would change radically once I visited Vietnam" (150)
"He got Truman to ignore Ho Chi Minh's six letters asking for an alliance. Acheson cabled the US consul in Hanoi in 1949: 'in light Ho's known background, no other assumption possible but that he outright Commie...' After thus driving Ho into the Soviet camp..." (122)
Selling missiles to Egypt and Saudi Arabia "I supported the idea that in the long run it would be better for Israel's security" (202)
"Much of the Iranian leadership opposes [Ahmadinejad's] reckless anti-US and anti-Israel rhetoric. He is politically weak, given the failure of his economic policies" (227)

The source for all quotes is Gravel's autobiography unless indicated otherwise.