Empire v. Democracy
Chalmers Johnson is joining the Coffee House for the next few days to discuss his new book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
History tells us that one of the most unstable political combinations is a country -- like the United States today -- that tries to be a domestic democracy and a foreign imperialist. Why this is so can be a very abstract subject. Perhaps the best way to offer my thoughts on this is to say a few words about my new book, Nemesis, and explain why I gave it the subtitle, "The Last Days of the American Republic." Nemesis is the third book to have grown out of my research over the past eight years. I never set out to write a trilogy on our increasingly endangered democracy, but as I kept stumbling on ever more evidence of the legacy of the imperialist pressures we put on many other countries as well as the nature and size of our military empire, one book led to another.
Professionally, I am a specialist in the history and politics of East Asia. In 2000, I published Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, because my research on China, Japan, and the two Koreas persuaded me that our policies there would have serious future consequences. The book was noticed at the time, but only after 9/11 did the CIA term I adapted for the title -- "blowback" -- become a household word.
I had set out to explain how exactly our government came to be so hated around the world.
As a CIA term of tradecraft, "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to, and in, foreign countries. It refers specifically to retaliation for illegal operations carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. These operations have included the clandestine overthrow of governments various administrations did not like, the training of foreign militaries in the techniques of state terrorism, the rigging of elections in foreign countries, interference with the economic viability of countries that seemed to threaten the interests of influential American corporations, as well as the torture or assassination of selected foreigners. The fact that these actions were, at least originally, secret meant that when retaliation does come -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 -- the American public is incapable of putting the events in context. Not surprisingly, then, Americans tend to support speedy acts of revenge intended to punish the actual, or alleged, perpetrators. These moments of lashing out, of course, only prepare the ground for yet another cycle of blowback.
A World of Bases
As a continuation of my own analytical odyssey, I then began doing research on the network of 737 American military bases we maintained around the world (according to the Pentagon's own 2005 official inventory). Not including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, we now station over half a million U.S. troops, spies, contractors, dependents, and others on military bases located in more than 130 countries, many of them presided over by dictatorial regimes that have given their citizens no say in the decision to let us in.
As but one striking example of imperial basing policy: For the past sixty-one years, the U.S. military has garrisoned the small Japanese island of Okinawa with 37 bases. Smaller than Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands, Okinawa is home to 1.3 million people who live cheek-by-jowl with 17,000 Marines of the 3rd Marine Division and the largest U.S. installation in East Asia -- Kadena Air Force Base. There have been many Okinawan protests against the rapes, crimes, accidents, and pollution caused by this sort of concentration of American troops and weaponry, but so far the U. S. military -- in collusion with the Japanese government -- has ignored them. My research into our base world resulted in The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, written during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
As our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq turned into major fiascoes, discrediting our military leadership, ruining our public finances, and bringing death and destruction to hundreds of thousands of civilians in those countries, I continued to ponder the issue of empire. In these years, it became ever clearer that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their supporters were claiming, and actively assuming, powers specifically denied to a president by our Constitution. It became no less clear that Congress had almost completely abdicated its responsibilities to balance the power of the executive branch. Despite the Democratic sweep in the 2006 election, it remains to be seen whether these tendencies can, in the long run, be controlled, let alone reversed.
Until the 2004 presidential election, ordinary citizens of the United States could at least claim that our foreign policy, including our illegal invasion of Iraq, was the work of George Bush's administration and that we had not put him in office. After all, in 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and was appointed president thanks to the intervention of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. But in November 2004, regardless of claims about voter fraud, Bush actually won the popular vote by over 3.5 million ballots, making his regime and his wars ours.
Whether Americans intended it or not, we are now seen around the world as approving the torture of captives at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Bagram Air Base in Kabul, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at a global network of secret CIA prisons, as well as having endorsed Bush's claim that, as commander-in-chief in "wartime," he is beyond all constraints of the Constitution or international law. We are now saddled with a rigged economy based on record-setting trade and fiscal deficits, the most secretive and intrusive government in our country's memory, and the pursuit of "preventive" war as a basis for foreign policy. Don't forget as well the potential epidemic of nuclear proliferation as other nations attempt to adjust to and defend themselves against Bush's preventive wars, while our own already staggering nuclear arsenal expands toward first-strike primacy and we expend unimaginable billions on futuristic ideas for warfare in outer space.
The Choice Ahead
By the time I came to write Nemesis, I no longer doubted that maintaining our empire abroad required resources and commitments that would inevitably undercut, or simply skirt, what was left of our domestic democracy and that might, in the end, produce a military dictatorship or -- far more likely -- its civilian equivalent. The combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, an ever growing economic dependence on the military-industrial complex and the making of weaponry, and ruinous military expenses as well as a vast, bloated "defense" budget, not to speak of the creation of a whole second Defense Department (known as the Department of Homeland Security) has been destroying our republican structure of governing in favor of an imperial presidency. By republican structure, of course, I mean the separation of powers and the elaborate checks and balances that the founders of our country wrote into the Constitution as the main bulwarks against dictatorship and tyranny, which they greatly feared.
We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation starts down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play -- isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy.
History is instructive on this dilemma. If we choose to keep our empire, as the Roman republic did, we will certainly lose our democracy and grimly await the eventual blowback that imperialism generates. There is an alternative, however. We could, like the British Empire after World War II, keep our democracy by giving up our empire. The British did not do a particularly brilliant job of liquidating their empire and there were several clear cases where British imperialists defied their nation's commitment to democracy in order to hang on to foreign privileges. The war against the Kikuyu in Kenya in the 1950s and the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 are particularly savage examples of that. But the overall thrust of postwar British history is clear: the people of the British Isles chose democracy over imperialism.
In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt offered the following summary of British imperialism and its fate:
"On the whole it was a failure because of the dichotomy between the nation-state's legal principles and the methods needed to oppress other people permanently. This failure was neither necessary nor due to ignorance or incompetence. British imperialists knew very well that 'administrative massacres' could keep India in bondage, but they also knew that public opinion at home would not stand for such measures. Imperialism could have been a success if the nation-state had been willing to pay the price, to commit suicide and transform itself into a tyranny. It is one of the glories of Europe, and especially of Great Britain, that she preferred to liquidate the empire."
I agree with this judgment. When one looks at Prime Minister Tony Blair's unnecessary and futile support of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, one can only conclude that it was an atavistic response, that it represented a British longing to relive the glories -- and cruelties -- of a past that should have been ancient history.
As a form of government, imperialism does not seek or require the consent of the governed. It is a pure form of tyranny. The American attempt to combine domestic democracy with such tyrannical control over foreigners is hopelessly contradictory and hypocritical. A country can be democratic or it can be imperialistic, but it cannot be both.
The Road to Imperial Bankruptcy
The American political system failed to prevent this combination from developing -- and may now be incapable of correcting it. The evidence strongly suggests that the legislative and judicial branches of our government have become so servile in the presence of the imperial Presidency that they have largely lost the ability to respond in a principled and independent manner. Even in the present moment of congressional stirring, there seems to be a deep sense of helplessness. Various members of Congress have already attempted to explain how the one clear power they retain -- to cut off funds for a disastrous program -- is not one they are currently prepared to use.
So the question becomes, if not Congress, could the people themselves restore Constitutional government? A grass-roots movement to abolish secret government, to bring the CIA and other illegal spying operations and private armies out of the closet of imperial power and into the light, to break the hold of the military-industrial complex, and to establish genuine public financing of elections may be at least theoretically conceivable. But given the conglomerate control of our mass media and the difficulties of mobilizing our large and diverse population, such an opting for popular democracy, as we remember it from our past, seems unlikely.
It is possible that, at some future moment, the U.S. military could actually take over the government and declare a dictatorship (though its commanders would undoubtedly find a gentler, more user-friendly name for it). That is, after all, how the Roman republic ended -- by being turned over to a populist general, Julius Caesar, who had just been declared dictator for life. After his assassination and a short interregnum, it was his grandnephew Octavian who succeeded him and became the first Roman emperor, Augustus Caesar. The American military is unlikely to go that route. But one cannot ignore the fact that professional military officers seem to have played a considerable role in getting rid of their civilian overlord, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The new directors of the CIA, its main internal branches, the National Security Agency, and many other key organs of the "defense establishment" are now military (or ex-military) officers, strongly suggesting that the military does not need to take over the government in order to control it. Meanwhile, the all-volunteer army has emerged as an ever more separate institution in our society, its profile less and less like that of the general populace.
Nonetheless, military coups, however decorous, are not part of the American tradition, nor that of the officer corps, which might well worry about how the citizenry would react to a move toward open military dictatorship. Moreover, prosecutions of low-level military torturers from Abu Ghraib prison and killers of civilians in Iraq have demonstrated to enlisted troops that obedience to illegal orders can result in dire punishment in a situation where those of higher rank go free. No one knows whether ordinary soldiers, even from what is no longer in any normal sense a citizen army, would obey clearly illegal orders to oust an elected government or whether the officer corps would ever have sufficient confidence to issue such orders. In addition, the present system already offers the military high command so much -- in funds, prestige, and future employment via the famed "revolving door" of the military-industrial complex -- that a perilous transition to anything like direct military rule would make little sense under reasonably normal conditions.
Whatever future developments may prove to be, my best guess is that the U.S. will continue to maintain a façade of Constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it. Of course, bankruptcy will not mean the literal end of the U.S. any more than it did for Germany in 1923, China in 1948, or Argentina in 2001-2002. It might, in fact, open the way for an unexpected restoration of the American system -- or for military rule, revolution, or simply some new development we cannot yet imagine.
Certainly, such a bankruptcy would mean a drastic lowering of our standard of living, a further loss of control over international affairs, a sudden need to adjust to the rise of other powers, including China and India, and a further discrediting of the notion that the United States is somehow exceptional compared to other nations. We will have to learn what it means to be a far poorer country -- and the attitudes and manners that go with it. As Anatol Lieven, author of America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, observes:
"U.S. global power, as presently conceived by the overwhelming majority of the U.S. establishment, is unsustainable. . . The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted, and key vassal states are no longer reliable. . . The result is that the empire can no longer pay for enough of the professional troops it needs to fulfill its self-assumed imperial tasks."
In February 2006, the Bush administration submitted to Congress a $439 billion defense appropriation budget for fiscal year 2007. As the country enters 2007, the administration is about to present a nearly $100 billion supplementary request to Congress just for the Iraq and Afghan wars. At the same time, the deficit in the country's current account -- the imbalance in the trading of goods and services as well as the shortfall in all other cross-border payments from interest income and rents to dividends and profits on direct investments -- underwent its fastest ever quarterly deterioration. For 2005, the current account deficit was $805 billion, 6.4% of national income. In 2005, the U.S. trade deficit, the largest component of the current account deficit, soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion, the fourth consecutive year that America's trade debts set records. The trade deficit with China alone rose to $201.6 billion, the highest imbalance ever recorded with any country. Meanwhile, since mid-2000, the country has lost nearly three million manufacturing jobs.
To try to cope with these imbalances, on March 16, 2006, Congress raised the national debt limit from $8.2 trillion to $8.96 trillion. This was the fourth time since George W. Bush took office that it had to be raised. The national debt is the total amount owed by the government and should not be confused with the federal budget deficit, the annual amount by which federal spending exceeds revenue. Had Congress not raised the debt limit, the U.S. government would not have been able to borrow more money and would have had to default on its massive debts.
Among the creditors that finance these unprecedented sums, the two largest are the central banks of China (with $853.7 billion in reserves) and Japan (with $831.58 billion in reserves), both of which are the managers of the huge trade surpluses these countries enjoy with the United States. This helps explain why our debt burden has not yet triggered what standard economic theory would dictate: a steep decline in the value of the U.S. dollar followed by a severe contraction of the American economy when we found we could no longer afford the foreign goods we like so much. So far, both the Chinese and Japanese governments continue to be willing to be paid in dollars in order to sustain American purchases of their exports.
For the sake of their own domestic employment, both countries lend huge amounts to the American treasury, but there is no guarantee of how long they will want to, or be able to do so. Marshall Auerback, an international financial strategist, says we have become a "Blanche Dubois economy" (so named after the leading character in the Tennessee Williams play A Streetcar Named Desire) heavily dependent on "the kindness of strangers." Unfortunately, in our case, as in Blanche's, there are ever fewer strangers willing to support our illusions.
So my own hope is that -- if the American people do not find a way to choose democracy over empire -- at least our imperial venture will end not with a nuclear bang but a financial whimper. From the present vantage point, it certainly seems a daunting challenge for any President (or Congress) from either party even to begin the task of dismantling the military-industrial complex, ending the pall of "national security" secrecy and the "black budgets" that make public oversight of what our government does impossible, and bringing the president's secret army, the CIA, under democratic control. It's evident that Nemesis -- in Greek mythology the goddess of vengeance, the punisher of hubris and arrogance -- is already a visitor in our country, simply biding her time before she makes her presence known.
This essay, and others by Chalmers Johnson, regularly appear at TomDispatch.
Americans are optimistic and would prefer to believe that current imperial trends are temporary and not fundamental. This may be in play concerning Congress' slow reactions to executive depredations on Constitutional strictures.
In need of immediate response is the administration's latest--installing political appointees to oversee and derail regulations they deem unneeded. But more pressing is to counter a deadly definitional shift--the President as Commander-in-Chief should mean no military commander can outrank him but is being turned around to mean the President has total power.
It should be announced in Congress that the President must immediately stop dodging over infringements of the Bill of Rights, and lay out the current program's details sufficiently for Congress to make a determination on its legality. This is not a case that should wait for the Supreme Court. Congress has authority to ask what it wishes of the President, since noncompliance can be simply impeached. That is, the President serves at Congress' pleasure.
January 31, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Koppel's commentary this morning on NPR was chilling. Chilling not so much in the explicit content but in the fact that he, and one would assume others in his class, are finally addressing the logic of the current reality and that this logic will wipe away all of the window dressing, all of the face paint and store bought hair used to dress up this last imperial grasp of control over the life line of the U.S. economy. The next moves are crucial to this nation. The moves on the part of the people of this country as well as the moves by the reckless corporate oligarchs.
I've often used the analogy of Great Britain's step back from imperialism as a source of personal hope for this country. Unfortunately others have responded with valid distinctions between the two situations that wipe away any solace. We are in for a rough ride.
January 31, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are those distinctions between GB's experience and our own?
January 31, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
As we moved toward war in Iraq, I thought of the fall of the Athenian republic, between the Sicilian expedition and the ensuing oligarchy, but the public and legislative action is not quite parallel, lacking the shared sense of panic. And sure, I thought of Rome, where the cry of war and an ambitious leader attained public acclaim, political cowardice, and increasing crossed political machinations. Yet that already seems long ago, when Bush had vast approval, he could call war opponents traitors, and few Democrats would dream of voting against him.
In today's paper, I'm reading instead of a divided Congress, not a tyrant and a docile legislature but a large legislative block, between the GOP and Lieberman, able to frustrate change. I'm reading leading presidential candidates (other than Clinton) demanding an end.
It's in our interest for Congress to act, whether by defunding war or indeed simply by what some have (mistakenly, I think) called merely symbolic votes to stop it. That way, Bush must clearly defy Congress and act as a tyrant. Either he's then impeached or, if the GOP minority holds, the outrage sweeps us in office in 2008.
But what do we do if the legislature is not craven but still effectively enough in GOP hands and thus the hands of empire?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 31, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since it takes only a bare majority to control committees and schedules, hearings are the avenue to redress of our various grievances. The majority can also ensure that bills to to the floor, making opposition public.
January 31, 2007 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just over a year ago, I attend a talk given by Eric Hobsbawm on the "American Empire." Some of his points seem relevant to this discussion, in part because he too saw the inevitable demise of American hegemony. Hobsbawm first identified the developments that had revived the model of empire, something that contradicts American self-understanding and is often seen as pejorative. He also targeted the case for empire, perhaps most prominently presented in Niall Ferguson's book.
Hobsbawm then discussed the differences between the British empire of the nineteenth century and the American empire of the twentieth/twenty-first. I found two points particularly interesting.
Hobsbawm compared the different experiences of the American and Canadian frontiers. The U.S. idolized the vigilante or outlaw cowboy -- John Wayne -- while Canada developed the Mounties. Hobsbawm suggested that the British culture accepts a strong national government as the provider of freedom, law, and social hierarchy. In the U.S., however, freedom is seen as the adversary of the central government.
He also detailed the economic foundation for the British empire. The British economy, he said, was intricately and intimately linked to the world economy. Even in the 1950s, 60% of British investments were in the developing world. In contrast, the United States has no such organic connections with the world economy and remains one of the least trade dependent economies in the world. Hobsbawm asked if the economy alone could have stablished the U.S. in its exalted position today. Would the U.S. have come to dominate world affairs without the politcal tensions of the Cold War? He answered no. The United States does not gather power through the economic lie of the land, he said, but relies on political and ideological might. That political power in the world might not always exist.
Hobsbawm wrapped up by calling the United States a "fading political force," whose military is insufficient to reach its political ends. For example, he argued that the U.S. has "messianic need" to convert others to its way of thinking, and so muddles much more in other countries' internal affairs. That naturally increases the resistance to American dominion.
This talk was the first time I had wondered whether the United States had the capability to be the "world's only superpower." I'd considered if that would be a good thing, but not whether the idea was feasible. It gave me a new appreciation for the economic component of the ruthlessness required to maintain an empire. (After all, empires don't develop during peacetime.)
All of which indicates, as Chalmers Johnson wrote, that democracy and empire are mutually exclusive.
January 31, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last section, "The Road to Imperial Bankruptcy," is the clincher. We will not change out of insight or the rational ability to see our best interest, or that of the world. We will change only in order to adapt to catastrophic change forced upon us. The exception might be this, a "pre-cursor" crisis with the rise of an FDR politician-leader who charts the course for the U.S. to become a "normal" country in the family of nations, instead of an unsustainable empire. Brilliant analysis, Dr. Johnson. My question is this, "Do our present generation of political leaders not see the obvious historical place of America, are they also so deluded, or are they just afraid to tell the truth to the American people?"
January 31, 2007 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lately I have been thinking of a paraphrase for the Clausewitz maxim: "War is the extension of politics by other means".
War is the extension of business--consider the usual meaning of "state interests".
In this country at least, politics is an extension of business so it's fitting that war is, also. But qui bono?
January 31, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, this is cool. Mr. Johnson, Blowback is a terrific book. I actually read it before 9/11, and after that I was quite a downer, always explaining to people how throwing our national weight around was inevitably going to come bite us all.
The interesting thing to me is that all of your claims in Blowback came out of that East Asian context, with only passing mention of the Middle East. Americans should actually consider ourselves lucky that we've experienced comparatively limited blowback from other areas of the world where we're taken it upon ourselves to determine the governments of other nations.
January 31, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would seem that the American Empire (if it ever existed) is over. We have lost all the major wars we have waged since the end of WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq). We cannot control the social policies of the banana republics as we did in the 19th and 20th Centuries (viz Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua, etc) and have been out foxed by China and Russia in central Europe and parts of Africa.
I think the significance of the 700+ military bases is overdrawn. They are mostly relics with no practical use. They are insufficient for waging wars as the hoops the US had to go through to get troops into Iraq and Afghanistan showed and they don't intimidate local governments as in the days of gunboat diplomacy. Rather they exist because of institutional inertia.
We haven't even been able to exert our will over the developing nations in the Doha round of the WTO talks. The only thing we can do is destroy things using our raw military capabilities. We can't control events, not even in the countries we occupy.
These means that the outlook for the US economically is grim. We use 40% of the world's resources and have 4% of the population. The world won't (and can't) permit this to continue much longer. There just aren't enough resources for this to go on. Water and arable land issues are already becoming a crisis in many places, including the US southwest.
My estimate is that a sustainable US economic level would be similar to that of Bulgaria on a per capita basis. We won't be using donkeys for transport, but the days of the SUV and McMansions will have to be abandoned. So the only question is are we going to plan for a phased restructuring of our society toward a sustainable economic model, or is it going to happen willy-nilly with the pain spread unevenly? Judging by our experience with planning for a Katrina-type event I'm betting on a lack of preparation. The civil unrest won't be pretty.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 31, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome Mr Chalmers,
I loved "Blowback" and talk about it to everyone. My brother in law is a county treasurer in the rust belt, and once when he started talking about how manufacturing left the area and globalization, he quickly trailed off. I sent him a copy so he could fill in some of the blanks.
For my own part, I would like to see Mr. Chalmers write more about the differences between our economy and those of the Asian tigers. Many people are even further in the dark about those issues than they are about the American empire.
January 31, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
One way of looking at the situation is that Great Britain did not so much liquidate its empire as transfer imperial control to the US, a country with which it had stong and secure cultural and political ties. It then assumed the status of the main satrapy under the US empire.
In other words, it did not liquidate its imperial assets and sell them off at auction. It was bought out. A financially strapped but still valuable old corporation became a division of a larger, growing conglomerate.
Who will buy out the United States? If we dismantle much of the US empire and military protection system, it will hopefully be replaced by some stable and benevolent security order, one in which responsibilities are distributed among many countries, and governed somewhat democratically by more of the world's people, rather than directed from a single national capital. How do we build such a system? How do we (the world's people, not just US citizens) create something that is potent enough to do the job, and does not just consist of wishful thinking on paper?
January 31, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are lots of them. One is WWII and the aftermath. Another is the relative size of GDP to the rest of the world.
January 31, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The fact that these actions were, at least originally, secret meant that when retaliation does come -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001
American support for the Mujaheeden in Afghanistan was not exactly a secret. In fact it was well known that the US was supporting rebels against the Soviet puppet government there. Hence the reaction to 9-11 was not surprise about sonmething peopel had been ignorant but rather surprise that peopel we had helped had suddenly turned on us.
Re: But in November 2004, regardless of claims about voter fraud, Bush actually won the popular vote by over 3.5 million ballots, making his regime and his wars ours.
Correction: making his war and his actions the property not of "us" but of those people who supported him and voted for him (just as had been true before 2004). Why impute support for Bush to people who flat out cannot stand the man?
Re: We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire.
We do not have an empire, we have a hegemony. Other than some small islands like Guam we have no overseas provinces that we govern and exploit for our own benefit. Quite the contrary actually: most of our foreign involvment is actually detrimental to our own self-interest. And also, if having an empire is bad for democracy, how to expalin the fact that France, Britain and the Netherlands once held vast imperial territories and yet became not less but more democratic during that long era?
Re: Whatever future developments may prove to be, my best guess is that the U.S. will continue to maintain a façade of Constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it.
My guess is that after Bush leaves office the system will correct itself as it has done after previous bad institutions. Indeed, the one best reason for hope ios that Bush has no political heir. One way or another the GOP candidates for 2008 are going to have to run away from his legacy as soon as they can establish themselves as independent candidates. And the Democrats most certainly will not wish to further Bush's work.
Re: We won't be using donkeys for transport, but the days of the SUV and McMansions will have to be abandoned.
I very much doubt there will be an absolute drop in tne standard of living: inertia is a powerful force. Most likley there will be a long period of stagnation as other nations surpass us. This is more or less what happened to Britain and France, and in fact this had already begun a generation ago when middle class wages began to stagnate.
January 31, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it Tom.
I was thinking about how Hugo Chavez is seizing all this control and that perhaps first I had sympathized with his cause and his constitutency - but he was 'over-reaching' in a distinctly 'illiberal' manner.
But the opposite of liberalism isn't socialism - it's authoritarianism.'
Similarly, when Bush claims more and more power, it's actually just like Chavez's over-reach, but going the other direction. He's handing out get out of jail free cards to rapacious industries that put him where he is. The shameless predation of the credit card industry is made possible by an authoritarian strongman who refuses to enforce laws, or strips protective regulations with impunity.
Hence, the economic elites continually feed the system of authoritarianism in a kind of vicious circle. It goes beyond the self-evident relationship between military power and economic power of the military industrial complex (e.g. Halliburton).
Instead, the self-dealing and instances of the government "picking winners" in the economy (ethanol anyone?) is directly linked with an authoritarian President, handing prizes to his super-elite campaign donors.
It's a thoroughgoing, all encompassing system and imperial wars are just an extension of an internal empire - an internal tyranny. The army preys on weak states like Iraq, in the same way the credit industry preys on the poor and weak within our borders.
January 31, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you being here Mr. Chambers and answering our questions. I have always been distressed by the contradiction that the cradle of modern democracy would enable and support totalitarian dictators such as Pinochet, Duvalier, Franco and so on. This is not lost on the world. You spoke about the posibility of the US military taking over our government.
Considering that much of our military is commited to the Constitution, do you foresee a military uprising that could split the arm forces, much like Franco's uprising against the demoractically elected Spanish Republic, and an enusing civil war here?
January 31, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points rdf.
We only 'won' the Gulf War, but it was a true coalition - I think blessed by the U.N.
I think the point here though is not that the Empire is beginning, but that it is ending.
There is an over-the-top, decadent, baroque asthetic surrounding us. If you have an SUV, make it 6000lbs. It might actually be less capable, less practical - that's not the goal - the goal is size itself because size is "American." If you have a house, make it unimaginably large. You might only live in a few rooms - the point is not better living though - it's as if you are there to serve the aesthetic of size, not the other way around.
We seem to take some pride in a profanely expensive Army - even though it keeps losing wars.
Everything is ridiculous - even on its own terms. The degenerate part is that we actually take pride in our weakness because we represent them as uniquely American.
January 31, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
most of our foreign involvment is actually detrimental to our own self-interest
This is among the subtler aspects of "Blowback". The intuitive response would be that the empire exists to make profit. And this is so, but only for a minority: the members of the Defense welfare state, denizens of the Mil-Ind complex and middlemen profiting from overseas trade. The rest of us are sacrificed to spread the doctrine of free market capitalism, the real point of the empire.
January 31, 2007 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Following WWII, because much of the industrialized world lay in shambles, a relatively intact US was the only game in town. (In relative recent history only the Netherlands, Great Britain and perhaps Spain have been in similar circumstances.) As the only game in town we enjoyed unprecedented prosperity - as did the three countries cited above in their time. (Remember when a Dutchman was able to spend $1000 for a tulip?)
It has been pointed out that today the playing field is fairly even - a far more normal state of affairs world-wide than our position following WWII - and as such the prosperity of the US will naturally resemble the prosperity of other industrialized nations.
Unless we can gracefully accept our "reduced" status in the world - which there is no reason to think we can't - but instead continue down this empirical road hoping to somehow recapture our past "glory" we are, to our great detriment, in danger of becoming a player on a very uneven playing field.
January 31, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need to have that debate over whether we want to commit to Empire. Is it worth it? Can we do it? What kind of Empire will we be?
I am not against the concept of Empire. But this Empire by stealth is a travesty.
January 31, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given our ridiculous two party system, no politician would dare tell the American public that the party is over; e.g., that the Bush tax cuts must be rescinded and reversed at a minimum to set us on the road to solvency.
Also, too many sticks have been poked into too many eyes around the globe over the past six unhappy years.
Prepare to pass the torch of empire to China!
January 31, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paul Kennedy was mocked for publishing his Rise and Fall of the Great Powers on the eve of the USSR's implosion. Somehow I don't think he gets as mocked today, even while Niall Ferguson takes the oxygen in the right-wing room.
As for the production of profit: let's not forget that the Dutch and British empires were the outgrowth of corporate ventures, where the state stepped in.
January 31, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you here Mr. Johnson. I read "The Sorrow of Empires" last year, and while I was familiar with the themes of the book already, it provided much additional information to help crystalize my understanding of the phenomenon of the MICC. What is cogent about your analysis is your focus on the economics of the situation. Many, no most other commentators ignore economics in the equation in trying to ferret out causality in our foreign policy.
I would posit that we are not merely in danger of becoming bankrupt, but that we already are. Bankruptcy itself is not deadly, but failing to reorganize from it, is. Instead of dealing with the fact that we are bankrupt, like a compulsive gambler we keep doubling down, thereby making the final reckoning that much more painful, and perhaps devastating.
Our productive industrial base is shrinking on an accelerating basis, yet the stock market soars, and the real estate and derivatives bubbles dwarf the real economy by orders of magnitude. The ability to produce wealth, and the infrastructure to support that productive capacity is withering away, while at the same time monetary aggregates are growing exponentially. This is not merely a US problem, it is global (w/the possible exception of China).
Here is where I break a bit with your analysis. I don't see this as primarily a US attempt to have a global empire. Certainly there are elements in the US that support that project. However, they are being played by global forces (in short, the advocates of globalization), an elite that is allied across national boundaries, and indeed is the enemy of national boundaries and the nation state itself. This pro-feudalist or neo-feudalist elite's goal is world empire, but without the meddling intermediary of nation state governments. Governments have a tendancy to promote, however poorly and inconsistantly, the Common Good. These people don't want even the possiblility of another FDR or Lincoln to come along and upset their plans. They are using US might to smash the nation state system, in order that they may create a more perfect version of the nazi cartel scheme, of which they were the authors as well.
UA
January 31, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on the money. The mesh of free trade agreements is a second step in eroding national boundaries for the benefit of the international ownership class. The first step was dismantling the Bretton Woods framework. Unfortunately this type of enterprise requires a huge pool of middle class citizens to pay the bill, since the rich refuse to pay and the poor simply can't. Hence the American taxpayer is tapped as a revenue source while at the same time soaked through increasing debt to sustain the cycle. It cannot last forever.
January 31, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post Mr. Johnson. Thank you for coming here to tell us about your newest book.
In reading your post I could not help but think about what President Eisenhower said in his farewell address at the end of his 2nd term. His warning about the loss of our democracy at the hands of an unchecked military-industrial complex is coming to fruition.
The imperialism shown by the US, especially since the end of WWII, has rivaled (if not surpassed) the respective empires of Rome, Alexander The Great and the British. And the authoritarianism tendencies, needed in any government to sustain an empire, has accelerated exponentially since September 11, 2001. Up to the fall of the Soviet Union we had an enemy to justify our imperialistic foreign policy. But since the fall of our ideological enemy we have yet dismantle our occupational military presence across the world and if anything we have tried to expand our military domination of the world.
I, sadly, think we have lost our republic in terms of being a republic. The establishment of NORTHCOM was the signal to me that we had lost our government to the forces of the military-industrial complex. Both parties have abdicated the Congressional powers given to them by our Constitution and are allowing an "unitary" executive to rule...in short an American dictator with each party taking turns in enjoying the spoils lavished on them by the military-industrial complex, who are the real rulers. And our military is positioned around the globe to protect the "best interests" of our country which are all and only "economic interests".
I hope I am wrong but I think it is too late to turn back because of the apathy and sloth of the American people...who are willing to sit back and be placated by organized religion (which is the backbone of the military-industrial "body") being satisfied with their I-pods, SUV's and cheap goods from Wal-Mart.
Again thanks for coming here and I am really look forward to reading your book...
January 31, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point and I agree in a general way. However it would seem to me that the elites are trying to game the in-place system of national boundaries for their benefit. National boundaries are excellent for quelling the flow of labor in response to capital. They are also useful for taxation purposes and for the ridiculous dog and pony shows called national elections that contribute to the myth of national identity and thereby through patriotism encourage young people to throw themselves into the meat grinder wars fought for the elite's purposes. In essence I see the contituencies of nations that were once the people being replaced by corporations leaving the people to do all the work that has yet to be privatized.
January 31, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As but one striking example of imperial basing policy: For the past sixty-one years, the U.S. military has garrisoned the small Japanese island of Okinawa with 37 bases. Smaller than Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands, Okinawa is home to 1.3 million people who live cheek-by-jowl with 17,000 Marines of the 3rd Marine Division and the largest U.S. installation in East Asia -- Kadena Air Force Base. There have been many Okinawan protests against the rapes, crimes, accidents, and pollution caused by this sort of concentration of American troops and weaponry, but so far the U. S. military -- in collusion with the Japanese government -- has ignored them. My research into our base world resulted in The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, written during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
*******************************************
As with most things I have read by Chalmers Johnson, this piece is long on assertion and short on facts. Or I probably should say contains only selected facts. Reading this you wouldn't know that we've been closing bases all over the US and all over the world for decades. You wouldn't know that there is such a thing as the BRAC process.
Also you wouldn't know that when countries ask us to leave, we leave. It's interesting Johnson cites Okinawa. As he points out Kadena is the largest installation in East Asia. But it is largest only because the much larger facilities at Clark AFB and Subic Bay in the Philippines are closed because the Philippine government asked us to leave. If the Japanese asked us to leave Okinawa, we would. Should I bring up the Panama Canal and the bases we don't have there anymore? Or a hundred more examples?
January 31, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, an ever growing economic dependence on the military-industrial complex and the making of weaponry, and ruinous military expenses as well as a vast, bloated "defense" budget, not to speak of the creation of a whole second Defense Department (known as the Department of Homeland Security) has been destroying our republican structure of governing in favor of an imperial presidency.
********************************************
Again, long on assertion and short on facts.
"an ever growing economic dependence on the military-industrial complex and the making of weaponry"
If so why does it keep shrinking as a sector of the economy? The reason there are all these merged defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman) is because there isn't enough business to keep them viable as stand-alone entities. When Eisenhower gave his famous speech, military spending was at over 9% of GDP. Now with our "militarized" economy we aren't but about half that.
I've read Johnson assert elsewhere that defense spending is all that is keeping the economy afloat. Yet during the Clinton Administration, when the Armed Forces were cut and defense spending fell to its lowest level as a percentage of GDP since WWII, the economy boomed.
Empirically there's nothing to support Johnson.
"huge standing armies"
In 1960 when Eisenhower gave his speech, there were 2,475,438 on active duty in the Armed Forces. In 1993 when Clinton took office there were 1,705,103 on active duty. Last year there were 1,426,713 active duty personnel. This on a population almost twice what it was in 1960.
I'll let you draw the trend line.
"not to speak of the creation of a whole second Defense Department (known as the Department of Homeland Security)"
Which if you'll recall, is pretty much an organization cobbled together from pre-existing agencies. Johnson would have you believe we didn't have a Coast Guard or Border Patrol before. And whose idea was it to have this new agency? The Democratically controlled Senate.
January 31, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is possible that, at some future moment, the U.S. military could actually take over the government and declare a dictatorship (though its commanders would undoubtedly find a gentler, more user-friendly name for it). That is, after all, how the Roman republic ended -- by being turned over to a populist general, Julius Caesar, who had just been declared dictator for life. After his assassination and a short interregnum, it was his grandnephew Octavian who succeeded him and became the first Roman emperor, Augustus Caesar. The American military is unlikely to go that route.
********************************************
As people seem loathe to remember, the Roman Republic fell after three generations of coups, counter-coups, and civil war with political leaders traipsing around the country leading private armies. Octavian was the last thug left standing. The population was so exhausted they took peace at any price.
I agree that the American military is unlikely to go that route as I don't see how any reasonable person can think that really parallels the US situation today
January 31, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both parties have abdicated the Congressional powers given to them by our Constitution and are allowing an "unitary" executive to rule...in short an American dictator with each party taking turns in enjoying the spoils lavished on them by the military-industrial complex, who are the real rulers.
********************************************
The real rulers. You really think so? Look here:
http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/x_sic.exe?DoFn=
Political donations by the defense industry rank 9th out of 16 donation sectors. In fact the largest source of political donations are labor unions that give six times what the defense industry donates.
Should we get that dirty union money out of politics?
January 31, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
American support for the Mujaheeden in Afghanistan was not exactly a secret. In fact it was well known that the US was supporting rebels against the Soviet puppet government there. Hence the reaction to 9-11 was not surprise about sonmething peopel had been ignorant but rather surprise that peopel we had helped had suddenly turned on us.
*******************************************
This is kind of a stretch. We helped Afghans fight Soviets. Afghans weren't behind any of the attacks in the 90s, first attempt at WTC, Khobar Towers, Kenyan Embassy, USS Cole, etc. They didn't plan and execute 9-11. At best they turned a blind eye to Al-Quaeda efforts.
January 31, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hobsbawm compared the different experiences of the American and Canadian frontiers. The U.S. idolized the vigilante or outlaw cowboy -- John Wayne -- while Canada developed the Mounties. Hobsbawm suggested that the British culture accepts a strong national government as the provider of freedom, law, and social hierarchy. In the U.S., however, freedom is seen as the adversary of the central government.
*******************************************
I think this is really an inept analogy. If you really look at it, John Wayne rarely played outlaws, and often when he did they were ones that were trying to go straight. More often he was a law officer or a cavalry officer (central government, anyone?) Actually, I'd say most westerns really talk about the difficulty of establishing local control and law enforcement in new settlements. Speaking of control, how about the romanticization of Texas Rangers.
I'd say Hobsbawm never really watched many westerns.
January 31, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The British economy, he said, was intricately and intimately linked to the world economy. Even in the 1950s, 60% of British investments were in the developing world. In contrast, the United States has no such organic connections with the world economy and remains one of the least trade dependent economies in the world. Hobsbawm asked if the economy alone could have stablished the U.S. in its exalted position today. Would the U.S. have come to dominate world affairs without the politcal tensions of the Cold War?
*******************************************
He is right, we probably wouldn't have dominated world affairs without the Cold War, but that wasn't the plan really was it? We had to get dragged into WWII. After that the European powers were crushed and there was a vacuum that we stepped in to.
And we didn't start the Cold War did we? We demobilized.
But saying the economy had nothing to do with it is just crazy. I mean has he ever heard of the Marshall Plan?
January 31, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the sinking of Bretton Woods in '71 by Nixon (and George Schultz, who is one of the top henchmen in the employ of the global elite of which I speak. Schultz put together the Shrub's team, including 2 of his favorite thugs, Rumsfeld and Cheney) was a kind of international deregulation of the monetary system which paved the way for globalization depredations. It also paved the way for US deregulation of trucking, airlines, energy, health care (from Hill Burton to the HMO). In short, these actions by Nixon, Carter and Reagan essentially undid all of FDR's reforms which had ended the depression, defeated fascism and built the US into the greatest agroindustrial powerhouse in history.
As a first step in rebuilding the world economy, what is needed is a new Bretton Woods system, updated for today's reality. Fixed exchange rate controls, allied to long term credit emanation of low interest directed to productive industry, power generation and other infrastructure development in the US and globally. At the same time, non-productive investments, such as speculation in real estate and the gambling practice known as the derivatives market must be curtailed. In this way we could write down the bad debt that overhangs the world economy and begin building a more just world order based on allied sovereign republics.
If the US backed such reform internationally and led the way domestically, it would find many eager partners and rebuild our standing the world, especially the developing world. We could thus really put a knife in the heart of the virus of commonly misnamed "terrorism", which are really thugs employed by the elite to budgeon nation states into committing suicide. We would finally have a real peace dividend, as it becomes clear that we are not interested in war and looting the planet anymore, as it is outmoded and counterproductive; the vast majority of our resources and energy can be channeled into solving the world's looming raw materials and water crises.
UA
January 31, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they are gaming the system. They have the resources to place many bets and buy off many players. The point I'm making is that they are engaged in an end-game to stop playing around the edges and take dictatorial control worldwide (at least, ultimately). Their greatest fear is the rise of powerful leaders in a national context (such as an FDR) who can diminish or end their influence and power.
The nation state system certainly isn't perfect, but it is the best answer for now. A republic is based on a language-culture dominant within a nation, and a system of laws, not men. The oligarchic elite throughout history has always used tensions within nations to foment and exacerbate differences in these cultures to further their goals. You can see that in our own country or many others. You can see it in the way the Sunni-Shia divide is being used to try to eviserate any sense of stability in SW Asia. Divide and conquer. Same as it ever was. Just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it doesn't work.
I think we will evolve to a world government eventually, but I think the point where that is feasible is a long way off, probably a century or two. Forcing it before humanity is ready for it would be a recipe for incredible chaos.
UA
January 31, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't the comparison you use is fair. In reality unions divide out across the economic spectrum just as capital does. Why treat "organized labor" as a single sector but divide capital into ten or more?
Pull all the business sectors contributions together and you will get a far different impression.
Capital = $256 million
Labor = $ 59 million
January 31, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Union money is fine. I was just trying to point out that it was silly to say that the defense industry is the overall controlling force in American political life when in the last election cycle unions donated $58 million and the defense industry donated $9 million.
That just as I don't buy Johnson's assertion that that our entire economy is driven by defense spending when defense spending is only 4.5% of GDP. When defense spending fell during the Clinton years the economy boomed.
January 31, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you are saying but you could have made the same point by picking the Finance sector which donated $52 million to Defense's $9 million.
January 31, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. I only picked unions because they were the largest donators.
January 31, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover, prosecutions of low-level military torturers from Abu Ghraib prison and killers of civilians in Iraq have demonstrated to enlisted troops that obedience to illegal orders can result in dire punishment in a situation where those of higher rank go free.
*******************************************
"The two highest-ranking officers known to be punished in connection with the scandal - Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski and Col. Thomas Pappas - were given nonjudicial punishments that seriously blighted their careers. As a rule, though, nonjudicial punishments are not a matter of public record and therefore bring less attention than courts-martial.
To some, it is similar to what might happen to a police chief if he doesn't watch over his officers on the beat. "We do not yet hold people criminally responsible based on position alone," says William Eckhardt, who was the chief prosecutor in the My Lai cases, where two US soldiers were tried for leading a massacre of Vietnamese villagers in 1968. "It seems like things are working the way they should be," he adds."
From the CS Monitor. Just a colonel and a general
January 31, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you done yet?
January 31, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Rise and Fall of Great Powers was a brilliant work. The cost of hegemony ultimately undermines it as free riders emerge from underneath.
I think that the American precedent isn't so much the Roman Empire, but the Athenian Empire and the Delian league which started off as a benevelent alliance and warped into the Athenian Empire. Just like our own.
I think Johnsons critique of the British retreat from Empire is unfair. It wasn't likely to smooth and perfect. It left friendship with many of its ex-colonies, including India.
They handed the retreat responsibly. Shoring up Greek anti-communists, defeating a communist insurgency in Malaysia, handing off the keys of the Empire to the U.S. for the purposes of containing the Soviet Empire.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the US is the hub of a hub and spoke economic and security arrangement that gives it far too much power over the whole arrangement, made worse by not having a Soviet Empire as a counter weight.
The hub and spoke system is fine as long as the Democrats are in power or semi-democrats like Eisenhower - the era of 1933 until 1969 and the installation of Nixon, who by then embraced the enertia by claiming "we are all new dealers now" - signalling he wouldn't try to destroy the institutions that the Democrats had constructed.
But lets not forget, the Fascist Europe and Japan that were liberated by liberal American Armies, those Fascist states, especially Germany, were created by Republican party policies in the 1920s: The "blow back" was the great depression, which lead directly to the rise of Hitler, the holocaust, World War II - those were all the gift of the republican party of the 1920s. The American armies that liberated Europe were simply undoing what we had done.
Europeans and Japanese looked to the US as the model of liberal prosperity and the invading American armies as liberators. But that was only true if there were liberal politicians in charge.
Enter George Bush II - the man who felt it was his job to undue the new deal, to destroy the middle class and recreate the 1920s, and to end Social Security etc... This man, as President, has a lot more power to corrupt our international arrangements where he has almost exclussive power.
The blow back is almost entirely a republican created phenomina. Vietnam, though implemented by Democrats, was the result of Joe McCarthyism and "who lost China - the Dems are soft on communism" rhetoric spouted by the Republicans in the 1950s. Kennedy and Johnson didn't want to lose Vietnam the way Truman lost China.
But the Republican monopoly in our domestic politics has set itself up for domestic blow back, and this is where our salvation lies. But its worth pointing out that while the Republican ascendancy prevails we have failure of institutions at almost every level.
Very soon we will hopefully have Democrats back dominating our politics. But its also important to realize that all liberal systems involve the presence of powerful labor movements and the next democratic ascendancy won't have much of that.
Long term we have to build institutional safeguards for our own potential for fascism. Also, we have to build an alliance network that isn't based upon hub and spoke so that a corruption break down in one state doesn't bring down the whole network.
In the longer term it is obvious that China and India will be the super powers, and we, even at a population of 500million, will be like England is to us, a junior power. Fortunately India is likely to champion English language and English legal institutions into the future. Unfortunately we are more likely to fall under the domination of China instead of India.
An alternative scenario is the "Monetism" or the European Community model and broad international harmonic convergence that exists among all developing states. The first opportunity to pursue this course was post 9-11. Bush could have forged a "super NATO" to face off and contain radical Islam creating alliances that extended Nato across Eurasia and to include Russia, China, India, Japan, India as well as our other allies in the region. On top of that an extension of the European community model could have gradually been pushed east. The result would have been a global EU type evolution: in other words global peace and prosperity.
All that was forgone for the sake of Bush trying to dismantle the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. He may have failed domestically, though he did great damage, but he may have succeeded internationally in destorying what Truman created.
As Churchill stated in his "Finest Hour" speech, Republican policies in the 1920s nearly lead directly to a new dark age in the 1940s.
Simply put they are at it again. At some point they should become discredited.
A huge clean up of Rooseveltian proportions awaits the next Democratic president. Hopefully he'll have the modesty to replace the hub and spoke system of our international commitments to a network one based upon "monetism" that is the basis of the European network community.
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
January 31, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you?
January 31, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, with Bush in power militarism has certainly taken over our government.
Tom
January 31, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
El Campesino explains it all. Next we will hear both sides of the 2+2=5 debate.
Tom
January 31, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, he was talking about the extent of our presence overseas, and 737 (even though it probably includes many minor and lightly populated outposts, and not a few "double- or multiple-counts") is still a hell of a lot of "bases." Furthermore, your BRAC reference suggests the fact that, as is the case in the USA, our overall military presence overseas is necessarily not being net-reduced by base closures, but is merely being consolidated.
And while I agree that the Okinawa bases would eventually be closed if the Japanese asked us to leave, this issue has been almost certainly superseded by the stated US intention to move most of its Okinawa operations in the region to Guam. Still, I can guarantee that they would be made to regret having asked.
January 31, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: In the longer term it is obvious that China and India will be the super powers, and we, even at a population of 500million, will be like England is to us, a junior power.
More likley there will be no "super"power and instead there will only powers, of which the United States will be one, though by no means the dominant power. We may rather be like France in the 19th century, after Waterloo dealt the death blow to universal French hegemony: still a power to be reckoned with, still perhaps THE cultural center of the world, but no longer able to dictate terms to the planet. (And like Russia we will almost certainly be the only power that matters in our own "near-abroad", the Western Hemisphere)
Re: On top of that an extension of the European community model could have gradually been pushed east.
The Europeans had and have no desire to push further east, certainly not into Russia or into the Muslim world. The EU may ultimately absorb the rest of the Balkans, maybe even Switzerland and Norway will someday join; Turkey is looking less and less likely and only limited trade arrangements will be made with Ukraine and the Caucasus nations. Beyond that the EU will not go, and that is not Mr Bush's doing, but the preferrence in Europe itself.
January 31, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political donations by the defense industry rank 9th out of 16 donation sectors. El Campesino
Perhaps, you should rank those donations in the form of a ratio of, say, $ per defense industry CEO.
January 31, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be noted that the ULTIMATE sources of campaign spending are not always clearly defined by the FEC records.
In many communities around the USA, the local economies are dependent upon the defense contractor to bring in "outside money" into the local economy which is then enlarged by a factor of 5 or 6 by the economic "multiplier " effect as defense employees spending is passed on to butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.
The local power elite know that -- so you often see contributions offered up by clients of defense patrons -- real estate companies, law firms, etc. There is an enormous and intricate system of mutual logrolling.
Nonetheless, much of this economic activity is an illusion. Defense spending is CONSUMPTION -- it in not investment. A basic minimum is necessary but anything beyond that minimum --in peacetime and lacking a reasonable threat -- is waste.
Our federal debt in 2008 will be $ 4 TRILLION more than what Bush projected it would be just back in 2001. And what have we bought? An array of productive new technologies? No A new Interstate Transport system? NO. An array of new medical technologies? NO
What's true hilarious is Bush's deceitful claim that his tax cuts were needed for employment. Anyone who looks at where the capital from the tax cuts went knows that it went to create jobs in CHINA -- not here in the USA. Just look at US statistics for domestic investment vice our foreign direct investment.
Ever see Fox News or Rush Limbaugh talk about that?
January 31, 2007 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A useful ratio might be $$/employee. Defense is highly skilled work, not a big labor force. I remember debates over the B-1, with its multi-billion tag being promoted as creating jobs. The math showed it cost over a million$/yr, per job. The large union money comes from diffuse organizations like SEIU and NEA.
But weapons systems are not all there is to making money from conflict. Direct income is available to service companies like KBR and indirect profit comes from currency and commodity trading.
And mainly, military force is used to ensure markets and trade routes when not in direct defense of the country. Our Navy guarantees open sea lanes as a main task.
January 31, 2007 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind.
A modern tyrant who should find no resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of allies, and the apprehension of his enemies.
The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge.
But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies.
The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. (58)
To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly.
..."Wherever you are," said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, "remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror." "
---Edward Gibbon "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
January 31, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To resume, in a few words, the system of the Imperial government, as it was instituted by Augustus, and maintained by those princes who understood their own interest and that of the people, it may be defined an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth.
The masters of the Roman world surrounded their throne with darkness, concealed their irresistible strength, and humbly professed themselves the accountable ministers of the senate, whose supreme decrees they dictated and obeyed."
--Edward Gibbon "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
January 31, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and
all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws.
He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest
spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining
nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion....
...Meanwhile at Rome people plunged into slavery- consuls, senators,
knights. The higher a man's rank, the more eager his hypocrisy, and his looks the more carefully studied, so as neither to betray joy at the decease of one emperor nor sorrow at the rise of another, while
he mingled delight and lamentations with his flattery."
---Cornelius Tacitus "The Annals of Imperial Rome"
January 31, 2007 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to fit in opinion close to JPF311. I agree with Mr. Johnson's overall concepts but not his details.
Like JPF, I am optimistic, because of the last election, that the pendulum will take a large correction. The great thing about our system is it seems to follow the law of every action produces an equal reaction. Regarding the political pendulum.
Of course blowback also follows this law and that is why I agreee with Mr. Johnson's overall concepts and prescriptions.
The Dubya nightmare will be over in two years.(By the way - sure it's a wild *ss claim, but I think I might be the inventor of the nickname "Dubya" - from my C-SPAN web site political users forum days, long before blogs came into play.) It is imperative we keep our eyes on the ball of winning house, senate, and white house. Sorry to expound on the obvious. Amateurs such as myself are good at that. But a house and senate, with Guiliani at the helm and with veto power, would not be enough I don't think to take corrective actions in restoring our nation's sanity. We need the swing voters to stay with us. To me that means we shouldn't spend so much energy slamming winning politicians in our Party such as Senator Shumer who was slammed on TPM yesterday. I think we need to excercise some restraint the next 2 years until we have achieved monopoly in Washington.
Regarding the standard of living, one thing I think we can count on is expatriotism. Retirees moving to other countries where housing is cheap. Perhaps some telecommuting worker bees, pre-retirement, as well, who can't afford American home ownership so opt for becoming expatriate. As well as medical patients flying to othter countries where surgeries are cheap. I think we are now seeing the real beginning of the "global economy" where the world will indeed become smaller and smaller. This I believe will be a good thing as face to face relations beat propaganda any day. Expatriate means a change in citizenship right? So perhaps I need to find another word as I believe many of the snowbirds have retained their US citizenship and are not interested in gaining any new citizenships, just interested in living overseas.
My amateur behind intuits that our economy has followed a bell curve though. But a bell curve with a permanent plateau at the top. I believe we are at the plateau, and that we have been since the last gasp dot com bubble. I don't think our "empire will fall" at the other end of the bell curve. We have reached a point where everyone in America is nickling and diming each other, "Walmarting" each other as I like to say. And I believe this is the signal that we have reached the bell curve's plateau. The stock market making some gains may well be because of it's being propped up by some of the things talked about in this thread. Or it may be that the stock market's continuing rise doesn't equate to any tangible benefits for those Americans who are not sizable stock holders. We equate that if the stock market has a run, that the "economy is up." Which economy? The economy of the super wealthy, the 5%? As there are different classes, so too are there different economies, different realities. That makes me a member of the "
middle economy." How about you? (Even though I only have a 20 year old B.S. in Business, did I just invent "the lower, middle, and upper economies"?) Sorry Ronald, I'm not buying your trickle down economics. If you had only lived to see the extent of the damming of your cash flows perhaps you'd have become a Democrat yourself. I propose that the mean (average) state of all three economies is a plateau. That the cheers and bells of the stock exchange only apply to the "upper economy." This plateau I speak of is in harmony with Mr. Johnson's stating that we will need to get used to our lower standard of living and prominance. And if China and India are on the rise, they are just in the growth phase of their own bell curves.
Since our enemies are rogue guerrilla forces now, I think our entire military budget and strategy should adjust. I would imagine that would imply smaller military bases, both domestic and abroad. The fact that this hasn't happened already is testimony to the overall concepts Johnson and others shed light on in this thread that the military snowball is quite large and has a lot of momentum.
I wonder if the proposed 20,000 troup increase is a setup. If Republican strategists realized with the 2006 elections that that the Iraq war and Dubya have shred their Party's reputation to pieces. That they expected all along for the Democrats to pull the purse strings on the buildup. Which then becomes their scapegoat regarding losing the Iraq war. Therefore, contrary to 99.99 percent of my Democrat colleagues, I advocate allowing the buildup. Allowing 2 more years of the Republican Party digging it's own grave. Which will help to ensure our 2008 hat trick. (I don't play or watch hockey, but I think a hat trick is when one hockie player scores 5 points? House and Senate in 2006 being goal 1 and 2, House, Senate and White House in 2008 being goals 3, 4 and 5.)
I agree we should engage in blowback prevention. But I am also a realist in that I think the religious nuts who have declared war on us need to be squashed. Not with conventional wars. Fighting fire with fire - guerrilla vs. guerrilla tactics.
January 31, 2007 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chalmers, you are brilliant.
This is something I have been researching on and you have taken my thoughts and put it in writing. It is Fantastic.
America is the richest and most powerful nation on earth and has donated billions of dollars to many poor countries. Why would a small group of people willing to travel to America and destroyed the Twin towers? My research came to the same conclusion as yours. Yes, revenge is the main reason. It is not about Islam or the jealousy of the America’s wealth, it is retaliation.
America is an imperialist outside America and many Americans do not know that. The average American, which I have found, is actually less than average. The majority of the American population has never traveled out of the country and many have never traveled out of their own states.
America may have many top universities in the world but many Americans are incapable of understanding their own country, let alone the whole world. This is due to the limitation of the human mind to process massive amount of information and average American is not smart enough to comprehend facts, fictions and opinions. My research also found that average American is not spending enough time reading. With the bulk of their time trying to make ends meet and church activities, they have little time for analysis.
Your figures about national debt, current account deficit and trade deficit with China are quite right. My analysis concludes that America will face bankruptcy even if America decided to pull out of Iraq. America has done many bad things in Iraq including killing, raping and torturing. America will experience backlash from the people they have tortured and killed.
American is not making as much money as before and the war in Iraq is draining their financial resources aggressively. The cost of homeland security is getting higher and it will be factored into the cost of production and it will make America goods and services even less competitive in the world market. Consequently, America will not be able to repay their debts. America will keep borrowing and keep raising the national debt limit. There will be a surge in criminal activities in America as a result of not putting enough money in education and jobs. The deceptive behaviors of the government will be a big contributing factor for social unrest.
Thanks for your writings.
February 1, 2007 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
In regard to the EU model, I meant it purely as a model. A super set model would emerge to allow nations and regions to get along along a broad set of guidlines that they can agree to - and start building narrowly micro cross national institutions of cooperation - that is Monetism.
I don't think that the European Union should get much bigger, but instead fill in the gaps. But the pattern for multinational cooperation should be built upon into a larger near global context.
Your idea that that the world would return to a multipolar world of powers may very well be correct. I certainly won't argue with it. But a multipolar world would look an awful lot like the multipolar great powers that dominated the geopolitics of Europe for over a millenia.
After 1500 years of various ascendent states trying to replace the Roman Empire's role as hegemon, and there by acheive a lasting peace, Europe finally realized after World War II, that no nation would succeed, and it wasn't worth the effort. This is classic Game Theory - An interative game where the parties don't know when the game is going to end, the only logical, rational action is cooperation. For 1500 years each ascendent power thought they could bring 'the game' to an end by becoming the hegemon. Europeans now realize that the game will never end, and so its irrational to not cooperate.
That's what the Europeans discovered. And so they are building true multinational community based upon cooperation.
Europeans think they have found the answer to the worlds future problem, because they have lived through 1500 hundred years of competing multipolar geopolitics and the warfare it has spawned. No they don't want to extend the European community beyond Europe, but there is no reason for a global community to not follow the logic inherent in the European community but on a larger level. Developing states are converging harmonically: to develope you need sound institutions, rule of law, and venting of opinions and evolutionary change through democratic institutions.
The pattern is there for the modern world to follow. Likewise, the war on terror, is simply an ideological based confrontation between the modern world and the archaic Islamic world located in Southwest Asia. Like the cold war, a super Nato containment security apparatus is called for. Like the cold war, underneath that security arrangment, an economic, cultural and political cooperative arrangement could also follow suit.
He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin
February 1, 2007 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have it a bit backward. The United States has not be willing to use its maximum military power since the end of WWII. However the significance of Korea and Vietnam, looking at the aftermath it is even clear they were lost, was as battles of the Cold War. That was won.
Afghanistan and Iraq are not over. Would you advocate the United States inflicting far more casualties in order to win? Churchill was willing to use poison gas against the Iraqis in the 1920s.
The problem of Doha isn't who the U.S. can persuade it is that the U.S., Europe and Japan do not want to yield what would make it easier for poorer countries.
The U.S. is the dominant economy and at the moment keeps virtually the entire rest of hte world going. Whether it is funding Chavez, the Islamist Jihadis or global warming there are lots of reasons for Americans to get a hold of our wasteful use of energy. It is not becasue there is any real competitor in the world with the growing exception of China. They are even more wasteful than America.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 1, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
America may have many top universities in the world but many Americans are incapable of understanding their own country, let alone the whole world. This is due to the limitation of the human mind to process massive amount of information and average American is not smart enough to comprehend facts, fictions and opinions.
***************************************
This is such a tiresome argument - "Americans don't act the way I think they should because they're too dumb"
You're going to convince a lot of people with that approach.
February 1, 2007 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Important point.
I try to resist the tendency to think I'm smart and others are dumb. It's unhelpful at best, and not usually true in any meaningful sense.
February 1, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . looking at the aftermath it is [not] even clear [Korea and Vietnam] were lost . . . .
And at the cost of 58,000 American lives not to mention a lifetime of physical and mental disabilities of survivors, of the lives of millions of SE Asians (including those attributable to the destabilization of Sihanouk's Cambodia), and of the loss of a decade of moral and physical development of our own home country, just what is it that we won?
February 1, 2007 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking from personal experience, there isn't much of this sort of plato's cave ilumination taking place on american television. And we are TV addicts. If we go to Barnes / Noble to buy a book, we don't think of spending too much time reading politics. If we do read a political book it is one of the many that is just as un-enlightened as the average joes we speak of.
Thank goodness for the Net. I'm just not sure how many average joes are reading blogs like this. I think an intellectual elite are and that is better than nothing.
In order to get a documentary that is critical of America you have to get it as a movie on demand. This is another positive though and is better than nothing.
I'm not saying I'm buying Mr. Johnson's crystal ball 100 percent. But obviously there is much truth to it.
I'm an optimist and I think we'll get it straightened out and soon. Bush has been a nightmare, but we can give him credit for shocking many average joe voters into questioning authority just as the vietnam war and watergate did. The last election has proven this to be so.
I must say I am at least looking / leaning more towards the left of the political spectrum myself when being enlightened in this stuff.
Running an internet business, spending time with my two children and wife, excercising, and studying to change careers to become a teacher, is a full plate and part of it is the full plate that the commentor above used the terms "making ends meet."
And yes if you are an evangelical (which I'm not) you assume everything's as God intended since Dubya is also an evangelical, at least he is rumored to be. So why bother reading politics?
I think the truth will be heard - that the "system" is in meltdown.
One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
February 1, 2007 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between being dumb and being ignorant though.
The ignorance is what needs to change.
February 1, 2007 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to think America was the smartest country in the world. America excels in science and technology in the world. Naturally, one would think that America is full of talented people with above average intelligence. After arriving in America and obtaining a Masters degree in Business Administration and working in America for a number of years, I then realize that many Americans are below average.
Before the Iraq war, I watched the arguments for and against attacking Iraq and many of the arguments were simply baloney but many Americans believed in it. The funny thing was that the main expert from the United Nations was discredited and yet a discredited American was assigned the job to search for WMD in Iraq. The UN chief weapon inspector was discredited by some powerful officials in the white house and he left America in disgust. I could not help but imagined how stupid these Americans were. The Iraq war should not have happened in the first place but many Americans, who were stupid and whose judgments were clouded with hatred and revenge, decided to go ahead with an illegal war that messed up the whole society in Iraq today.
America is not a just society. It is dominated by people who are ignorant and dumb and to provide leadership to the world community is just ridiculous. America is now run by a cowboy from Texas. How much does he know about Mexico, Canada or Indonesia? Not much, I would image.
If the war in Iraq were allowed to be continued, it will drain off all the financial resources from America’ piggy bank. Up till now, America is still debating on the pros and cons of troop surge or withdrawal, while many Iraqis are dying from the war, food and water shortages and fear. Do I think America has many above average intelligent Americans? The answer is absolutely no. The opposite is true.
February 1, 2007 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
But at least we won the right, or at the very least inherited the right, to this very day to underwrite the "....interest payments by the Treasury to cover past debt-financed defense outlays going back to 1916." at the estimate, "...in 2002 such interest payments amounted to $138.7 billion."
~OGD~
February 2, 2007 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you John Smith!
~OGD~
February 2, 2007 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't if it's intelligence that's the problem, John. I think when you have big money controlling so much it's hard for people to develop the critical thinking skills needed to see through the BS.
Tom
February 2, 2007 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
America is blessed with lots of wealth and wants to control and dominate the world with money and weapons. It is sad that America thinks she is the king and every country must follow and agree with the American foreign policies. America should win the hearts and minds of the people not with weapons but with love, sincerity and kindness.
After 9/11, Larry King interviewed the Pakistani President and was told that Pakistan was offered US$500 million in cash, military weapons and forgo-debts. The Pakistani President accepted the deal to allow American soldiers to be based in Pakistan, much against the wishes of his own people.
Lately, the Pakistani President reviewed a threat from a former top white house official that he was being threatened; a threat to bomb Pakistan back to “Stone age”. The Pakistani President wrote a book about this but being a poor country, he has little credibility to back his claim. He also stated that CIA was giving his country, in million of US dollars, to get “people of interest” from Pakistan. This is just one example surfacing on the news, I believe more and more such threats will surface in the near future.
Now that America has removed Saddam Hussein, who was once an ally of America. The question is who’s next? Everyone in the world is watching. Blowback is indeed a good word to describe retaliation on America because of misdeeds committed outside America; religion is just an excuse.
February 2, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We won the Cold War. We defeated an enemy that was totiltarian. That is not a bad victory. The defeatims at this site is quite amazing.
Also, New York is the financial capital of the world and the dollar the globes reserve currency. This has all sorts of benefits for Americans.
Vietnam was perhaps unnecessary and certainly fought rather stupidly. The United States has an armed forces designed to fight large scale conventional wars not insurgencies. However, as a proof of America's decline neither Korea or Vietnam are proof and that was my only point.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 2, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
We won the Cold War. We defeated an enemy that was totiltarian. That is not a bad victory. The defeatims at this site is quite amazing.
****************************************
I quite agree.
February 2, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
After arriving in America and obtaining a Masters degree in Business Administration and working in America for a number of years, I then realize that many Americans are below average.
******************************************
Well, by definition about half the population would be below average, don't you think?
Again, I don't think the argument that America has problems because the people are stupid goes anywhere. Always turns into a self-congratulation derby - "Why can't they be smart like me!"
February 2, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
America has problems because the super-rich are rigging the system.
Tom
February 3, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink