Hey Brook, if you'd like to write up a refutation of Max or Johnson's piece and post it on your own TPM blog, I'd be more than happy to promote it to the front page.

Frankly, I don't know if he's right or wrong, but your response was defensive and unhelpful.

Since when is this necessary:

....if you'd like to write up a refutation of Max or Johnson's piece and post it on your own TPM blog...

Jan Knaus

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?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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

Also we no longer have great charismatic generals. Or rather, even if we do, our system rewards competent logistics. Plus our soldiers don't have the attachment Roman ones did--aided no doubt, by the fact that Bush has taken very shitty care of the army. Not that Octavian was a particularly brilliant general (he was a brilliant politician) but he was pretty effective.

However I think we ARE at about the stage where Gaius Marius and Sulla appeared in Rome. However because of the adversarial two-party system we have, consolidating power like that is difficult to sustain--Bush COULD have done it: if after 9/11 Bush could have been someone other than himself (that is, someone who doesn't fuck up all the time).

I didn't mean any offense. I was just pointing out that if anyone wants to put together a full contribution I'd be happy to pull it into the discussion.

I troll-rated you, not because you dismiss Chomsky, but because you dismiss Chalmers Johnson as an ideologically-driven writer.

You obviously have no understanding of who he is. He is AN HISTORIAN, which means that he has a set of professional ethics, which he follows. Which call for 'callin'em as he sees 'em.' I was reading his stuff in the '70's. "Blind ideologue with cult-like followers," indeed, what BS, what total prententious ignorant BS.

There's only one Blind Ideologue with Cult-Like Followers who threatens the health and wealth of every American and all our children: George Walker Bush.

It really is time for a mass population descent on Washington, and/or a general strike. The Decider and the Vice must be deposed. In Aug. '74, the Congressional Republican leadership made a visit to the White House and told Nixon he had to go. Obviously with this craven generation of so-called Congressional leaders we can't expect much, but maybe if we all dropped our normal lives (which about about to be sent to hell anyway if Chimpo attackes Iran) and camped out in our Congress-critters offices for a while ... ?

Well, I don't want to pile on, you seem to have enough to deal with, but one reason we should read their books, is because whether you agree or disagree it is important to know what it is they're saying. Even when I vehemently disagree with authors' politics, I still read what they have to say, to understand how they think, what they're thinking and why they think it. I read many fundamentalist writings, (as well as conservatve, liberal, neo-conservate and, well, anything) because I want to know what kind of arguments they're making and how to refute them.

I think you have raised a question of utmost importance to our society and to our nation - what is it we want from our military, what do we want them to do, how do we want to use them, who should pay for them and why? Politicians won't discuss it - they are fearful of being accused of "anti-Americanism", or being "unpatriotic" because we've allowed sentiment and guilt to drive the discourse, rather than pragmatism and practicality - and underlying it all, the greed and economics which feed on the military.

The citizens of this country have abdicated their right to make choices (for good or bad) because they've been emotionally manipulated to give up that right. No politician has ever explained to the American taxpayer what it means to invest their money in the military and they certainly don't understand what the return is or how to calculate it fairly in tangibles and intangibles for the citizens. It's like a hospital - you only think of it when you need it.

I've written something like this multiple times at TPM, but I'll do it once again:

1. Peter Beinert can't distinguish between making political hay with jingoism and the actual efficacy of 'crusades.' In fact, wouldn't it be better for the Govt. NOT to scare the public with either real or imagined terrorist threats, since, hey, scaring the public is acutally WHAT TERRORISTS WANT.

2. Yes - it seems in our bizarre Manichean wingnut-o-sphere, you either are a saint or demon. To wit: if you don't approve of adding yet another country to our list of nations with whom we are at war, you are a 'pacifist' and would offer your wife up for rape by Canadian and Mexican pillagers.

The only other option is the cure all of malice toward all - universal and generic belligerence will cure whatever ails ya'.

Yet isn't it ironic that the position of automatic belligerence in any and all situations is, quite ironically, the most CRAVEN and cowardly position out there?

That's why I believe Beinert to be not just wrong, but cowardly and in some ways decietful - he wants a liberal crusade because, ya know, the average dumbass jingoist will vote for liberals - who cares if the strategy isn't just ineffective, but actually counter-productive?

Yes there are raving lunatics wingnuts and shameless, cynical demagogues who manipulate the masses - that doesn't mean we have to sink to their level - in fact, we can't if we are desirous of retaining a thread of liberty and democracy.

Don't let the cowards win.

C'mon Feather -- Johnson is a "historian" in the vein of a man seeking answers to a foregone conclusion. I can pull enough examples from history to prove about any point I want to make. Historical examples can be helpful but are not predictors of how we should govern our country today. Read Johnson's own post he put up on TPM today. Johnson rails against the US troops in Okinawa, but does he mention Okinawa was the staging area for our liberation of South Korea from the Communist North? No, he doesn't. Where would S Korea be today without the prescence of US troops there for 50 years? Where would Taiwan be without the Pacific fleet? Does anyone seriously think China hasn't invaded Tawian out of respect for democracy or the UN? I'm going to put these questions to Johnson in reply to his post and see if he answers.

What evidence have you that the "US government is actively advancing America's interests on the global stage"?

Are we at war with a nation-state right now, King? I wasn't aware of that.

I noticed how you tried to slip "Defense" there in the middle as if it did not have the largest budget of the group, far in excess of the civilian foreign policy establishment.

but every other nation has the same army of suits doing the same thing for their nations.

How many other nations have more than 700 overseas military bases?

This is pretty much my view of empires: they're business enterprises. They expand by overrunning neighbors, installing compliant governments, and pulling in taxes and cut-price goods. This income serves to raise the standards of living of the emperors and their entourage back home, at the expense of the defeated neighbors. And as long as the empire keeps expanding, and the emperors and their growing entourage keep getting richer, everything is just fine. It's when the empire stops expanding, and begins to contract, and the imperial income begins to dwindle, and people start getting kicked out of the imperial entourage, that trouble starts back home, and civil wars break out. Ultimately, any empire faces the problem that empires can't keep growing indefinitely, if only because they eventually run out of neighbors to overrun.

There are really only two ways to get rich. The first way is to innovate new civilian tools and technologies, make the land more productive, and engage in peaceful trade, and that kind of thing. But this kind of innovation, historically, has generally been painfully slow. And so empire-building always used to be the only way to get rich quick. And that meant that that most technological innovation has always gone into weapons technology. And, in part because of this, civilian technological innovation has tended to proceed correspondingly more slowly, or not at all. Any Roman would immediately recognise our modern clothes, houses, tables, plates, and food - they've hardly changed at all. But he'd be astonished by our modern weaponry, which has gone through countless cycles of innovation since Roman times.

It could be, however, that the tortoise of civilian technological innovation is catching up with the hare of military technological innovation. Empire building seems to be getting harder, paradoxically because nth-generation weapons have become so powerful that that full scale war is likely to result in mutual assured destruction. And at the same time our civilian technologies -things like cars, washing machines, phones, etc, that help people live their everyday lives - are beginning to demonstrate rates of innovation that rival that of the military.

And should the returns on civilian innovation begin to exceed the returns on empire building, we'll stop building empires, and start making the world a better place to live in. We'll shift, in Buckminster Fuller's terminology, from making killingry to making livingry. It won't be because we've become better people. It'll just be because it will offer a better return on investment.

We don't seem to be quite there yet, however.

Our political dialog has become so Orwellian that we don't even notice it anymore. A typical example is what we call the Department of Defense used to be called the War Department in more honest times. The DoD hasn't defended us since WWII. In fact when we finally were attacked and needed to be defended we had to create a real defense department - Homeland Security.

What we really have is a department of offense, that's why calling it the war department is more proper. This is not just a semantic slight of hand. It is indicative of the whole framing of our militarism. We treat aggression on our part as if it were a defensive action. We claim things in our "national interest" when what we really mean is that we want the resources and markets of those states on our terms.

By sugar coating our self interested aggression we let ourselves avoid facing up to our role in US militarism. It is our demands for resources and finished goods at cheap prices which underlies our muscular foreign policy. If you want to be greedy and wasteful at least cut out the hypocrisy.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Well, Ellen, that's why we have elections -- to make sure the gov looks out for our interests. If you believe they only look out for corporate interests -- you should vote them out. It is a bit cynical though. Let me give you and example: the Doha trade talks. The Bush admin has offered to make deep cuts in our farm subsidies -- in response to demands from the 3rd world who view them as unfair trade practice. This offer is contingent on the EU matching the cuts in their subsidies -- which they have refused to do. It will hurt our ag industry for sure, so corporate interests did not trump in this case.

If it was Bush holding up the talks, the roar of criticism would be defeaning. (like his intransigence on Kyoto). However, you've heard only muted cricism of Europe's position, even though it is clearly hurting 3rd world countries. So, is Europe a unilateral imperialist bully or are they looking out for their interests?

I offer up this example to show you how biased the int'l community is regarding American policy and why I discount most of the criticism. When Europeans talk about multilateralism -- what they mean is they want America to consult with them on every major issue and compromise, while they do what they want. If those are the rules, why shouldn't we go our own way?

RD, how can you say we've never defended anything? Did you miss the chapter on the Korean War or the Cold War? Your comment is sort of insulting to those engaged in those conflicts.

Korea has no natural resources we really need. We could've let them go red. Why didn't we?

Why have we repeatedly defended Taiwan and risked war with China? Taiwan is insignficant on the world stage.

The only reason you can make a comment like this, is because you don't live in these countries threatened by war. If you did, you'd see the American military in a different light.

But anyone who has read Johnson's book The Sorrows of Empire would know that he specifies what is distinctive about the American Empire. And I would presume that the same applies to his other books.

Which is why the original response was such a blatant straw horse argument: you created your own image of what Johnson must have meant when he said the word Empire, and used that to explain why you did not bother reading his work, wherein you would find that the argument you provided is without foundation.

great post, El. Powerful facts no one can refute.

An argument based on the political popularity or unpopularity of a thesis is not an argument about whether it is correct or incorrect. It is, at most, an argument over whether it ought to be expressed in the same way by those who aspire to holding political office.

And, certainly, if someone actually cares for the American Republic and aspires to gain political office, I would certainly argue against using Johnson's language ... the deliberate obfuscation of the state of affairs that he points to is far too effective to make progress through a head-on assault. Someone that completely eschews the entrenched hypocrisies of American politics would have tremendous difficulty penetrating the mass media with his or her argument intact.

But to the main point ... while no long lived Empire has ever been organized almost exclusively on military bases located in putatively independent nations, that system has been a quite common element in imperial systems.

Certainly what prevented it from dominating the Roman Empire was the ongoing tendency to convert protectorates into provinces in order to squeeze larger incomes from those areas for Romans or to quell efforts to use the autonomy of the protectorate to gain actual national independence.

However, the fact that this dominant system for maintaining the influence of the metropole today was a marginal system in notable empires in history does not imply that the US is not an Empire. It may, for example, simply imply that the US Empire is going to be more ephemeral than some of the examples I gave above.

Dear Brook Dataski:

As do the structural limitations of most "conversational" boards, TPMCafe demands that participants boil down and synthesize their arguments. Paradoxically, this compulsion frequently leads to overly broad assertions or at the least, to assertions which time and space do not afford the luxury of mounting supporting arguments. Such comments are left naked and easy prey to those who wish to pick out the weaker parts and cross swords, thereon.

When you've been here a bit longer, I'm sure you'll recognize the protocols and offer your personal gloss on the subject at hand rather than limiting yourself to thrust and parry.

Love,

Ellen

Ms. Ellen, i didn't know you were a real live cybercop -- and a lady at that. I'm not smart enough to understand everything you just said, but i like the way you said it. :)

1. It is considered bad form to down rate a comment because you disagree with it. Look at the verbal equivalent of the numerical score. Spraying a discussion with replies is also considered rude.

2. The Korean war was about nothing from the point of view of the US. You haven't explained why it was necessary for the US to get involved in a civil war in Korea or Vietnam. Perhaps you feel that the US has a right/duty/necessity to police the world. This is a standard neo-con argument these days: "We are bringing the benefits of democracy to the oppressed". If this is our guiding philosophy you need to explain why we chose to apply this policy so selectively. Why have we done nothing about the 20 or so civil wars and totalitarian regimes that have arisen in Africa for the past 50 years? Why are we still doing nothing about Darfur, for example?

3. As to my conjecture on the relationship between capitalism and warfare: that there may be other forms of government which also foster aggression doesn't mean such a relationship doesn't also exist. I also differentiated between colonial wars over land or raw materials and wars over nothing. I wondered if Korea and Vietnam (and perhaps Iraq) belonged to this second category. You ignored this distinction.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

rd,by constantly replying to this discussion, are you confessing to rudeness? Don't worry; you're forgiven.