Picture of the Day
On Sept. 11, 2001 a hole was punched in America's heart, in its soul, and in its psyche.
Today we mourn the loss of 2,976 Americans.
The attack though did more than senselessly take lives. It punctured America's psyche, its self image.
No longer were we safe. No longer were we invulnerable. Despite our incredible wealth and high tech miltary, the US learned on that day that it could still be hurt.
And in it's wounded response, America has also proved the limitations of its power.
The symbolism of the attack is far broader than currently discussed. The best historical parallel I can draw is the sack of Rome by Alaric and the Gauls. Once the unthinkable sack of Rome was proved possible, many peoples who had long standing grievances attacked Rome in wave after wave.
Today, we mourn the 2,976 who died on 9-11, but we must recognize that they may well be only the first.
(extended in the comments.)
posted by mikevotes at
6:35 AM
4 Comments:
The US does indeed face a "generational" challenge as the tides of history and geopolitics erode the base of the empire.
As the US spends its strength in the deserts of Iraq, and its political goodwill on unilateral, dubiously legal, foreign policies, the "provinces" of the empire are beginning to rebel. The most obvious is the strategic weakness of the American economy towards the geopolitics of oil, but there are smaller subtler revolts going on as well. Central and South American countries are throwing off the US benefitting neoliberal economic policies, the far east is beginning to coalesce around China, and Europe is finding new strength through its union. American influence is fading among its once strong partners and markets.
This was the primary theoretical purpose of the now dissolved Project for the New American Century, to stave off this ebbing of the American empire. Their theory was that the US could leverage its present military advantages into geographic tactical advantages which would extend America's influence. (That's why top proponent Cheney chose the phrase, "generational war."
The PNAC strategy was a radical abandonment of the Clinton strategic doctrine with which I strognly agree.
The Clinton doctrine was aimed at establishing all of the legal groundworks for the US as a nation among nations now, attempting to leverage what were our diplomatic/goodwill advantages into a global legal framework that would be constructed on the US's terms. That was the "new world order."
Instead, this radical miltaristic attempt by the current administration to secure the US's future position has backfired. It has created more hostility, more enemies, and more breathing space for those that wish to work against US interests.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:19 PM
The damage we have done will take decades to undo..if even then.
By
Unknown, at 2:44 AM
I think the best thing we can do now is to withdraw all of the tentacles that we have out in the world and begin a period of renewal and regrowth - internal regrowth. We need to stop the internal erosion, rebuild our base and regain the inner strength and integrity that other people in the world used to look up to.
By
Ptelea, at 8:57 AM
I wrote a longass answer to both of you, but blogger ate it. So, shorter version this time.
Dusty, yes and no. If the US were to radically change leadership, policies and tactics, I think that reasonably quickly somewhat more normal international and economic relations could be restored. Foreign leaders want to do business with America and want to deal with it on good terms. However, such repproachment would require the US accepting a weakened position.
As for "street" (arab, european, latin America) that will take possibly generations as any misstep will echo through all the past mistakes.
Ptelea, I tend to agree, but it has to be done carefully. The US has a fair number of unsustainable governments it has propped up to varying degrees and an immediate abandonment would lead to alot of them flipping to leadership that would be more anti-American. (can you blame them? we supported their despots.)
I would argue that such support is unsustainable in the long term anyhow. The cracks in the empire are already showing and the forces pulling it apart aren't even that strong yet.
The US would definitely benefit from a refocusing of money abroad to US infrastructure, both physical and social/educational. That would build a solid footing for the next hundred years.
The real question is how do you pull back in the best possible way. That was the basis of the Clinton doctrine, trying to build an international legal framework which tended towards stability (and still benefitted US interests.)
If the US is chased out of the world the terms will be written against us.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:28 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home