That's what I'm saying
It's the metapoint of this blog,
I also see tremendous parallels in the status of the provinces/colonies/conquered lands. Rome didn't fall in a day. The ultimate collapse of its empire was preceded by centuries of increasing independence among its conquered lands. We're at the very early stage of this dissolution of control, but it is happening.
One of the reasons I'm so hard on the Bush administration is the very basic disagreement as to the status and future of the empire.
This administration set out its policy to try and convert our current (and temporary) military advantage into another century of American dominance. Hence, The Project for a New American Century.
Whereas I tend to favor the Bush I/Clinton internationalist approach that attempted to convert the US's current dominant position into a rigid framework of international law that framed the relationship changes from the rise of China (and generally Asia) in the most beneficial way.
That's the bottom line of why I hate these bastards. Based on some pipe dream of fighter jets changing the far greater geopolitical tide, they have squandered our best chance at a good post hegemon existance. By the time we clean up all their mistakes, we will be negotiating from a substantially weaker position.
Their mistakes have not just been bad. They've been disastrous.
The US government is on a “burning platform” of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned.....
Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.
I also see tremendous parallels in the status of the provinces/colonies/conquered lands. Rome didn't fall in a day. The ultimate collapse of its empire was preceded by centuries of increasing independence among its conquered lands. We're at the very early stage of this dissolution of control, but it is happening.
One of the reasons I'm so hard on the Bush administration is the very basic disagreement as to the status and future of the empire.
This administration set out its policy to try and convert our current (and temporary) military advantage into another century of American dominance. Hence, The Project for a New American Century.
Whereas I tend to favor the Bush I/Clinton internationalist approach that attempted to convert the US's current dominant position into a rigid framework of international law that framed the relationship changes from the rise of China (and generally Asia) in the most beneficial way.
That's the bottom line of why I hate these bastards. Based on some pipe dream of fighter jets changing the far greater geopolitical tide, they have squandered our best chance at a good post hegemon existance. By the time we clean up all their mistakes, we will be negotiating from a substantially weaker position.
Their mistakes have not just been bad. They've been disastrous.
posted by mikevotes at
9:04 PM
11 Comments:
I suppose it the difference between using American influence to exercise or power and using American power to exercise our influence. That's worded a little awkward but I hope it makes sense.
What makes the Bushian approach (I don't even know if "neo-con" even defines the mentality) is that at every step of the way it has been a failure. Unless, as I think is the case, we see "success" as the exercise of military power rather then the results such an exercise bring. So for the Bushians, success is the accumulation and execution of power, not actually accomplishing a goal... except, perhaps, the accumulation of more power.
By
-epm, at 7:00 AM
I think the military card has been overplayed. It has lost its effectiveness as a diplomatic tool. Of course some will say the military has been restrained i.e. no nukes yet.
By
Anonymous, at 7:46 AM
EPM, I think your first sentence sums it up nicely.
Part of the reason I think this military effort has been a failure is that they overestimated its value (as anon said.)
There was this "mafia" theory floating around early in the Iraq war, that the US could "make an example" out of Iraq and then other countries, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, would be so afraid they'd fall into line.
Shock and Awe was very much embraced because of this, more than than its real tactical application in Iraq. The idea was to fight one war, and influence several enemies.
...
Anon, I think that's true, but only because the policy of long occupation has exposed the US threat of power.
Instead of creating an awe and fear of the US military, Iraq has offered a blueprint as to its weaknesses, a very cheap way to disable the mechanical advantages. (Tell me countries around the world aren't reworking/rethinking their anti-vehicle devices.)
The modern American military was built for tabletop battles with the Soviets on the plains of eastern Europe.
It was very impressive (in an air show kinda way) as a threat in a "stand up war."
But Iraq has revealed the weakness in the smaller "high tech" army. It's more capable of blowing things up, but all that money spent on weaponry means alot less boots and alot less presence.
Our military was far more effective as a diplomatic tool when it wasn't used but dangled as a threat.
(As for nukes, the minute the US uses nukes anywhere, it will create substantially more fear of US influence, but at the same time, it will also mark an admission that US conventional forces aren't enough.)
Question: Are nukes inevitable? The Russians went down without using them, can the US?
By
mikevotes, at 8:11 AM
Question: Are nukes inevitable?
Some do tend to see it as a quick simplistic solution. 'Nuke the bastards!' I don't think it's inevitable but there's something scary about the way people discuss the possibility. The more it gets discussed the more innured (?) we get to it.
By
Anonymous, at 9:07 AM
In the rest of Western civilization, the thought of using nukes for anything other than the most imminent need for survival would be seen as barbaric... the act of a rogue nation. The US, however, has departed from the course of Western civilization. One might say we've devolved in that context. This has been possible, in part as anon states, because we have become desensitized to what we would have once found abhorrent, by the constant drumbeat proclaiming the crude Bushian "values" as patriotic...
If we were to use nukes in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan, would that be the final straw that separates us for the rest of the Western world? I don't know. These twisted people have a way of taking actions that seem to reach over the line, but just far enough over the line as to be begrudgingly forgiven. At which point the line is reset and they reach again. If Bush does use "nukes" he will first use the lest powerful type and claim they were barely nukes anyway -- more like really powerful conventional weapons. The spin and word parsing will go into overdrive until everyone simple drudgingly groans like Marge Simpson and moves on.
I don't know if nukes are inevitable. There is a Dr. Strangelovian clique in the WH and Pentagon that are just itchin' to go nuke. But are they in a position to make it so? I don't know.
By
-epm, at 10:21 AM
'The spin and word parsing will go into overdrive until everyone simple drudgingly groans like Marge Simpson and moves on.'
Very well put -epm. Sad but true.
By
Anonymous, at 10:38 AM
Anon, I meant nukes as inevitable because of an unwillingness to accept the loss of power.
I don't mean it so much as the US will nuke Iran as the US will eventually rebreak the nuclear barrier because of some underlying refusal to accept the limits of a declining world position, you know?
In a broader sweep, as the US faces its limitations, what level of weapons will it go to before it accepts the decline of empire.
....
EPM, obviously, I wasn't fully clear in making the connection between fall of empire and escalation of brutality.
My mention of this wasn't intended so much as around the Bush administration, but in relation to the actions of America in a decade or two.
In this extended indebted decline, the US will likely swing from fairly strong welfare type leadership to take care of the people as they suffer, and a more and more fascist leaders who will reinstill a sense of strength in the nation.
I don't know if any of that makes sense, but I see the future as one of a declining American empire, and at this point, I find it hard to see the US releasing its colonies the way the British eventually did.
We're at the Boer war period where we're trying to subdue the local people through bullets because our soft influence has waned.
There has only been one semiempire collapse since nuclear weapons, Russia, and I wonder if they will all go as quietly.
By
mikevotes, at 1:29 PM
Ah, I see. Interesting thought exercise, Mike.
After reading your extended thoughts I come away with a question of my own. How much of America's decline is due to the singular, totalitarian actions of this particular administration and how much is due to a broader more lengthy decline in the American spirit, across party lines?
Hmmm. I have to think about this. Sometimes I get stuck in the present, and possessed by my anger and shame in the Bush administration, and their despicable, partisan enablers in Congress.
By
-epm, at 2:27 PM
Well it does have a kind of horrible logic to it...bigger is better...bigger problems will need bigger weapons. I'm not sure if that really is the way most Americans think or not. Trouble is these decisions seem to be made by a small group.
By
Anonymous, at 3:08 PM
Right. And if you get the wrong small group at the wrong time.....
By
mikevotes, at 4:08 PM
EPM, sorry I missed your comment.
Just off the cuff, I would say at least a generation of leaders.
It's myy broad contention that America peaked in the 60's when it went from a lender nation to a debtor nation, and from an oil exporter to an oil importer, and the beginning of foreign interventions it couldn't handle.
There have been better and worse presidents along the way, but it's my opinion that the forces driving the US decline are only partially within its control.
It is my belief that the best policy is mitigation and planning for a post hegemonic existence.
In that context, this administration has been utterly disastrous.
By
mikevotes, at 9:39 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home