Zar

I have read with interest an opinion article in the February 2003 issue of Mother Jones entitled, "How Bush's Imperial Doctrine Pits America Against the World," by Todd Gitlin. In short, he sees the behavior of the Bush Administration as being a product of the openly imperialistic designs it came to the White House with -- designs that have been in the works for roughly a decade. If you follow the trail of thought the people in the administration have been leaving out for all to see in their committees, speeches and publications, one of the latest being, "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," the picture emerges. Sept. 11 was, in this large scheme, merely a conveniently catalytic event.

If we go with this view, a real problem strikes me. How do they expect to be able to launch a vast imperial march, and keep it going to fruition for the years it will take to recast the world in the image of the Bush Administration? How can they ever hope that their plans will become rooted enough that subsequent administrations will not undo the work, or flinch at a crisis that results from this ambitious plan and crumble? Do they think, perhaps, that once they've deeply involved the U.S. in this it will have no choice but to finish the job, much like Commander Jack Ripper figured in Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb?

Koyaanisqatsi

That's the problem with a military coup, as history amply demonstrates; it hasn't the ability to go beyond one generation.

What's happened is that an unelected, court-appointed coup (is that spelled right?) has been itself co-opted, IMO. Bush et al made a play and got in with the sole initial purpose of scuttling the burgeoning middle class only to have his backers reallize that he wasn't up for the job in the slightest.

He was an already comatose deer in the headlights, so the military saw its first chance in nearly fifty years to take over control (largely through the obvious weakness of Bush's entire inner circle; energy coallition concerns, but also through the more backhanded whisperings of "terrorism;" the "communist threat" of the new millenium).

America has no real military threat so one is either concocted or allowed to happen, which. After all, how many innocent "acceptable losses" does the military predict in the event of an Iraqi war? I'll goddamned guarantee you it's much larger than Sept. 11th. and far more direct. They had smart pilots; we have smart bombs. Which do you think will be more effective in raining down the only trump card to "terror?"

This entire charade has military mindset written all over it. A sworn-in lame duck President with no mandate and no popular support usurps the constitution through pre-appointed supreme court lackeys self-destructing brazenly in a landmark overreaching decision that they had no business deciding to begin with in order to land a favored son in control of the strongest poor-to-middle-America recovery economy America has seen in, quite possibly, its entire existence, made subtly unstable at the end by Republican dirty tricks involving the castration of the SEC regulatory parameters allowing Arthur Andersen, for example, to play "doctor" with Enron, so that only a war would save Bush's ass.

And lo and behold, they concocted one. At a price. According to Bush, that price is some 400 billion dollars over the next four years not counting any contingency allogations for a "possible" war. What do you think, class? How many people would you kill for 400 billion dollars? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? Three thousand? A hundred thousand?

Anybody know the death toll of the "enemy" from Bush, Sr.'s mid-Presidential crisis?

Bush, Jr. didn't want to be President, but it was arranged that he be President. And now that he is, the military has finally taken over, starting with the creation of the Heimat Security Agency, and they are, quite literally, calling the shots.

Why? Because Bush doesn't know what the hell to do and isn't strong enough to say "Boo" to his father's cronies, who are all behind the scenes. He's the ultimate lackey and doing his part by posturing stupidly at a podium and saying things like "others don't see a risk to peace" as he pushes for war.

Only the military would push for war when such nations as Germany dissent, but the key question is why?

The answer? Oil. But not in the way American protestors think. We don't need the oil for ouselves, we need to control the oil producing regions of the world. That's the military motivation (and those that purse-string the military), since that is the only thing that makes military risk acceptable.

Control the ability of Mr. and Mrs. Ethnic World Order to start their cars in the morning (as well as Mr. and Mrs. Agro Business) and you've effectively solidified the American Imperial concerns.

Producing the oil is the concern of the pleebs; the bungled and the botched. Controlling those who produce the oil (for the rest of the world, not us, mind you) is the job of the elite. You don't get more elite than the ruling class of the American Empire, with the possible exception of the Chinese, our only remaining competitors (hence, comparatively lax standards with North Korea).

The problem being, of course, that history proves once an Empire succumbs to its military, that's the death nail, so either the powers that be recognize this as a last ditch effort, or, my theory is correct, and the military has taken undue advantage of a compromised administration too quickly and with malice aforethought. After, Bush Sr. trained the very people who delivered his son into power and once there, his son balked, so a tragedy of errors could very likely be behind it all.

Regardless, as the whole magician extravaganza goes on in a remote, largely unknown to America place in the middle of an expendable region, no one seems to be noticing the systematic gutting of our national trust fund (except Greenspan, thank f-ing christ, and I never thought I'd say that before).

Ironic, isn't it? The one person who understands the importance of such a trust fund is the one person now titularly responsible for its demise as he proposes to make rich people richer.

As someone recently pointed out, there is no trickled down from the rich. The reason they're rich to begin with is because they don't spend their money!

But, keep looking at the "terror alerts" every night and rest assurd that the American Empire is now completely in the hands of the one institution that will insure its own downfall; the military. There's an apt analogy in the unofficial slogan of the demolitions union in Hollywood: "Fuck the dialogue, let's blow something up."

While exciting to be sure, once the explosions stop, there's still a little problem known as "the story." Without it, the picture may make a lot of money, but it will soon be urinated upon by the first bum who stumbles across the cannisters left out in the streets to rot.

The military knows only one thing; how to kill. Hardly the basis for a stable and lasting Empire, however, which is why all Empires die by their military in the end. That is precisely what's happening now if Bush, Inc. is allowed to keep going. No justification, no reasoning, just fuck the dialogue and let's blow something up.

Short term cash to be sure, but what happens then? Well, considering just about everyone advocating this stupidity is in their late fifties to early sixties, what the hell do they care? No matter what may happen to you or I, their children have their trust funds resolutely intact.

So, recaping to the OP question, an American Empire can only sustain itself so long as the military do not take over (as is already the case), just as was the case for all Empires. The minute the military end up controlling imperial affairs directly is the minute the empire fails to sustain itself.

My 2 sense, anyway.

Morgan

I disagree with Koyaanisqatsi. History has shown us that all empires fall given enough time. They spread themselves too thin and one of two things happens:

1) The centre of the Empire is not defended well enough, and it succumbs to attack (see the fall of the Roman Empire), or

2) Descent and unrest comes from the furthest reaches of the Empire, and the Empire crumbles slowly, relinquishing part of its Empire piece by piece (see the fall of the British Empire), or

3) An outside powerful force launches an attack and destroys the Empire (see the fall of the Third Reich).


I hope that History will be proved right and that America will crumble. I can't see it not happening. Over half the world's population hate Americans, either for their success (which comes about through the exploitation of others) or their foreign policy (how they enact their exploitation of others).

Hubble head

Don't forget about the older than dirt elite families from Germany, England, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Venezuela, Italy, France and a few others who cooperate with our elite in keeping everyone in line.

What we have learned from the fall of other western civilizations is keeping the US sharp but they have a few things to deal with that no other imperialistic powerhouse had - the internet and mass media for starters. Expect to see more efforts in the future to control these areas of our lives that could provide the masses with ideas that breed discontent. The control will not be from the Gov't but the elites who control our Gov't and corporations.

I think we will see a semi-unified world that models a semi-socialist semi-free economy before we see the ultimate end of the U.S.

But then again I've been reading Heinlein.

Morgan

If the US overreaches its borders, which it has been doing, then it will fall. It may not be spectacular fall, like the fall of the Roman Empire, but its economy will wane at the very least.

I believe that the Internet and mass media will bring this about all the faster. The mass-media has immense power over the economy. If they say that "consumer-confidence" is falling, then consumer-confidence will fall.

There is an irrepressable pattern in History. When a nation becomes powerful, there are always people around to abuse that power. When someone abuses that power, the nation becomes discontent and rebels, making the nation cease to be powerful.

Richard1366

It is indeed difficult to read so much "America Hating" prose. How quickly we forget what happened in the early 90's. It was Iraq that invaded Kuwait and plundered, looted, and executed civilians.

It was primarily United States forces that freed that country from Iraq's grasp, put out the oil well fires, and returned everything to Kuwait. If everything was "about the oil" how easy it would have been to simply retain a hold on Kuwait and plunder its oil for our own uses. It was, of course, in our own interest that we freed Kuwait, to prevent Iraq from taking over the other middle eastern countries.

Although the US forces could have completely destroyed Iraq at that time, in compliance with agreements with its allies, including the other Arab states, it did not.

Iraq was sanctioned by the UN for its actions against Kuwait, and Iraq agreed to compliance with the sanctions and with inspections. They then refused to comply and dismissed the inspectors.

The recent UN resolution put an "or else" on the new round of inspections. These inspections were never a case of hide and seek to find cache's of weapons in a country the size of California, it was a case of prove that you have destroyed the weapons you had. Again Iraq has refused to cooperate.

What would the "America Haters" do now? Most likely nothing, Iraq and any other outlaw nation are given free reign to simply do what they want without caring about the consequences for now there are no consequences.

France and Germany have turned their back on support of the UN and turned their back on Turkey, a NATO ally, they should be shamed by the rest of the world for their actions during this time of rising incidents of international terrorism.

What about the other rogue nations? Yes there are other world threats but one must priortize its actions, Iraq is now the priority. Maybe by setting the example with Iraq, other similar regimes will be hesitant to sponser or support terrorist movements or activities.

I'm not real happy with the fundy orientation of President Bush, but in this instance, I think that he has selected the correct course of action.

I predict that the war will be a short one with a minimum of US and actual Iraqi civilian casualties.

Autonemesis

You mean from the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, et. al.? I hear nothing but hate and divisiveness from those guys.

Koy was obviously writing from the perspective of someone who cares about his country, and hates what is being done to it, and to its people. Enough with the "America hating" bullshit. If we didn't care, we'd not be talking about it at all. So knock it off!! Make a reasoned argument instead of this half-baked us-vs-them VOMIT.

Zar

Re-read the OP. It basically says "America is embarking on an empire. How can such a thing be sustained?" Are you saying you are okay with and unconcerned by the premise that America is embarking on possibly the biggest imperial gambit of history? Um...okay. I find it very curious that a person would be so touchy about a guy being religious, but massacring untold numbers of people in an imperial quest isn't a problem.

You basically spouted a bunch of haphazard stuff about the inexorable march of the Iraq situation and that no mortal can stand in its way or has an alternative. That really wasn't what I was referring to, though.

What do you think about the sustainability of an American empire? To get a grasp on the imperial plans, perhaps you should begin by reading the Security Plan I mentioned. See The White House for a copy. Or, take a look at any of a number of copies of Rebuilding Amerca's Defenses by the Project for a New American Century. This is just for starters. Then you can look up the personal views and histories of the Bush cabinet, its first and second-level advidors, etc. Quite eye-opening.

Hubble head

Ditto Ditto. I'm a VFW so if someone calls me un-American for wanting power restored to the people, that fool will be sublimely close to getting popped in the nose.

Richard, no one here is slamming what great things this country has done in the past - we slam the bad things like Iran Contra and election fraud or convicted felons serving under Bush & co. We slam greedy, short sighted imperialistic policies too.

If you support those things and think that still makes you more pro-American than me then I say open your eyes and follow the events more closely and get an accurate historical perspective to understand this new U.S. better.

Koyaanisqatsi

As Kind Bud correctly pointed out (and thank you for that), I do not hate America in the slightest; I hate what is now being done in our name (and has been done in our name in that region for the past thirty or forty years) by our government and the tactics they use to promote the self-interest of the ruling elite.

You think I like being able to see so clearly how my country has literally been taken over from the Supreme Court to the Executive to the Congress and now to the soldier about to kill or be killed for an unjustifiable, wholly concocted lie?

You cannot instigate a war against one man on the possibility that he might one day use his weapons; a war that is guaranteed to kill thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of innocent men, women and children in the offing.

Especially considering who is behind instigating this war! Just about every single member of Bush's inner circle (from Cheney to Rice) have blatant ties (some under investigation; or were prior to this deadly charade) and financial allegiance to Oil concerns and not a one of them has been able to come up with a convincing argument (i.e., humanitarian or imminent threat) to justify such an unprecedented event, not to mention recusing themselves based upon their obvious bias.

If this were a court case involving a company like Enron and the Jury were Bush's inner circle of advisors and seconds and thirds in command, the Judge wouldn't hesitate for a moment to dismiss the lot of them as being too tainted by their associations to rule effectively, and yet we're talking about instigating a goddamned war here, where thousands on both sides will be literally blown apart by shrapnel, "smart bombs" that hit pharmacies, and tefflon coated, incendiary-tipped bullets by the tons.

We already know from what information our military has provided that this will largely be an urban war, which means in the streets and houses; not just a few scattered nomadic dessert dwellers hiding in their caves. It will start with a massive bombing run (probably several) before our troops even move in to see what's left over to kill!

What have the people of Iraq done to deserve their wholesale slaughter; their hell from above? They didn't somehow oust a brutal dictator who doesn't allow them to vote?

Look, Hussein's a criminal, but you don't blow up an entire city block and the hundreds of people who live there in order to kill one guy, yet that is precisely what is being put into motion.

But for what reason? Humanitarian? No, Bush has already discounted that as his motive. So, what then? We're going to murder hundreds of thousands to prevent him from murdering hundreds of thousands? To stop terrorism aimed at the United States and our allies?

How the hell is instigating an unjust war going to stop anti-American terrorism? The logic is so blatantly wrong it hurts and yet it continues to move forward.

Why? If not to control the oil producing regions for our own imperial desires, then why? To kill a man who might kill others in the unknown future (and in the process kill thousands of innocent people, too)?

That's quite literally insane.

Right, which means that Hussein instigated an unjust war and we (meaning the UN coallition) united together to stop that aggression and remove Hussein, which is precisely what we did entirely according to the UN resolution that was almost unanimously agreed to by the entire world body.

See the distinction? In this instance, it will be Americans who will invade Iraq and plunder and loot and execute the civilians, only our methods are far more general and much more deadly on a much larger scale.

Will our primary motive be to plunder and loot and in the same manner as Iraqi soldiers did in Kuwait? No, but it will happen as it happens in all wars where we send in soldiers to some degree. Will we execute civilians? Perhaps not on parade or for political reasons, but the end result will be the same; thousands of civilians will be executed by our bombs and "collateral damage;" guilty only of being in proximity and calling themselves "Iraqi."

Small wonder from people who were born and bred in Iraq.

And who will free Iraq from America's grasp, put out the fires in the schools and hospitals and businesses, and return everything to Iraq?

You're missing the bigger imperial point, which is that we don't need the oil for our own uses, but the rest of the world does. By freeing Kuwait, we made an even stronger ally and by proxy alone their allegiance is now to American business concerns.

Plundering oil isn't what we're after; controlling the regioins that produce it is what we're after.

"In our own interest" meaning what? What if Iraq had taken over the other middle eastern countries (a plausibility, but highly unlikely)? Again, we don't depend on middle eastern oil (we use less than twenty percent from the entire region), so from a supply and demand perspective, it would make little difference to our country's oil needs whoever takes control of the region.

Which means there must be an alterior reason; one I feel I've presented. As others pointed out, just look at who is running this show and what allegiances they have and you should see it, too.

We don't want to produce the oil; that takes money and resources and day-to-day supervision. We want to control or in other words influence who does produce the oil.

Almost the entire world is dependent upon oil in one way or another; from the business person starting their cars for the morning commute to the trigger happy dictators starting their tanks. To be able to make a phone call to say Kuwait and have that oil immediately cut off is the most powerful "weapon" on this planet; even more powerful than nuclear weapons, since it can almost instantly cripple any country's ability to function on the most rudimentary levels.

Look at what happens in America when oil prices simply go up, let alone unavailable; the entire nation's economy goes into a tailspin of destabilization; the covert operative's catch-phrase.

Because it was "in compliance" with those agreements we could not have completely destroyed Iraq and that's the point.

Then, as now, intelligent nations have declared that another nation cannot simply decide to destroy an entire country's population due to the actions of the leader of that nation and back then, his actions were to instigate a war on Kuwait!

In this situation, the man has done nothing of the kind ever since he got his ass kicked twelve years ago. Building up an arsenal is not legitimate grounds for war.

Rember, war is the absolute last option for good reasons; reasons that the entire world put into place twelve years ago even though Hussein himself had started a war with Kuwait.

Get the chronology right, because it's important. First, the UN coallition repelled Hussein and kicked his ass out of Kuwait. Then the UN imposed sanctions for its actions, which Iraq agreed to and then subsequently stalled and hindered inspections. Then they refused to comply and kicked the inspectors out. Then more pressure was put on Iraq to comply and more inspectors sent back in, etc., etc., etc.

Since then (twelve years approximately), Hussein has been watched and his army's every move targeted by our surveillance and as a result, he hasn't done jackshit (in any aggressive sense) other than to allegedly continue to build up his military, contrary to the terms of the UN sanctions.

All that means is that the man hasn't complied with the terms of his punishment for invading Kuwait; it doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) that since he isn't cooperating with those terms, the terms automatically get switched to "death for you and your citizens," which is what Bush, Inc. is trying to sell.

You don't go from sanctions that don't exactly work according to the terms of the sanctions to, "fuck it, let's blow the shit out of their country the way we should have done twelve years ago."

Well, perhaps you do if you're completely ignorant of world politics and procedures and live in a safe, secluded and heavily propagandized section of America, where your primary source of information comes directly from the Pentagon and the tight inner circle of Bush Energy Concerns, Inc.

Ok, sorry, cheap shot, and I didn't mean to imply you were such a person, but you see my point. Once you examine the lack of justifications and the transparency of the administration's motives (like Germany, Russia and France did; though I'd chuck out France along with Hussein ) and then factor in all of the mind-boggling connections everyone involved has to the Oil concerns in America and abroad, well, let's just say that the same people who are calling the shots are also members of the same exclusive clubs who are reporting the shots.

Remember what happened with "60 Minutes" and the tobacco story they didn't run and why that was? Because Larry Tisch's son ran Newport Cigarrettes.

Whose son is running this war and why? Because a two-bit dictator who tried to turn rogue twelve years ago and got his ass kicked in the process won't fully comply with the disarming of his only power base; his army?

And why now? Our economy is sprialing into hell and our Social Security has been plundered by the same person, with the overwhelming majority of the money going to the military without the contingency of a war, so you tell me why now all of a sudden, Hussein, who hasn't said peep in twelve years, now suddenly he's the biggest "threat to peace" that ever existed (setting aside, of course, that the biggest threat to peace is "war" and we're the ones instigating one)?

Not quite. We have.

Ok, agreed. He's most definitely stalling, primarily because he knows that if he has no military, he has no power, either internally or externally. Granted.

But does that justify murdering civilians in the process of trying to force and/or kill one man for his hindering of the conditions set against him?

A war will mean just that, no questions about it, so don't you agree that the threat must be so firmly established as to command assent before such a behemoth as our military is unleashed?

Remember. Urban warfare preceeded by intense bombing, preferrably until there is little or nothing left to kill our soldiers before we even send them in to see what's left to kill.

I don't know. You'll have to find one and ask them.

Bullshit! Their consequences are twelve years of imposed isolation from the world economy and the inability to mobilize their forces externally. And don't forget that this "outlaw" nation was largely created by us in the first place; Hussein having once been Bush, Sr.'s puppet (and, as you pointed out, left standing by same).

Regardless, the answer to your question is "yes," any nation is "allowed" to do anything they want, so long as they don't adversely effect another nation and depending upon who supports which nation and the nature of that adversity; it's called "soveignty" and it is not trespassed lightly. In this case, the question is moot only from our perspective because of the UN resolutions, but just because those resolutions have been hindered does not automatically justify mass slaughter.

And simply because we lay people can't immediately come up with an answer to "well, what do we do now that sanctions aren't being followed properly?", the default answer isn't "bomb the shit out of them."

And least not for any nation that pretends as we do to uphold peace!

Funny how you don't include instigating an all out war as an act of international terrorism.

As for the "rest of the world," if you'll notice, the "rest of the world," i.e., the people living in the rest of the world are overwhelmingly against this war; it is only the country's leaders that are dependent upon America's protection and business concerns that follow the party line; one of which used to be Germany, so that should tell you a lot right there.

Only because Bush, Inc. has made it a priority and not because of any aggressive actions on Iraq's behalf! That doesn't make it a legitimate priority, as several nations have already concluded and pointed out.

If you seriously believe that an imperialist dictation of war against Iraq by America will at all stop or even effect a "hesitancy" for other rogue nations to support terrorist movements or activities, then you have no clue as to the causes of those activities to begin with.

The entire reason these nations hate the American imperial foreign policy is precisely due to these kinds of unjust actions. A war will only exacerbate the problem, not end it.

We weren't at war when the al Queda extremists used our own planes against us, so what makes you think instigating a war will stop that?

At best it will only confirm in "rogue nation's" minds every single thing they use to justify their terrorist activities in the first place; i.e., American Imperial dictation.

Based on what? That there might exist a threat sometime in the possible future that Hussein may use his weapons, even though the world's largest gun has been aimed at his head for the past twelve years and will continue to be aimed at his head until he is killed, dies or is ousted? That because he's not fully complying with his own power base being systematically erradicated according to UN resolutions that the automatic penalty is now the mass slaughter of his people in the hopes we might catch or kill him?

Perhaps you can explain it to me as if I were a child, because I can't for the life of me see any justification for the wholesale slaughter of quite probably hundreds of thousands of people just to get one man for hindering the process of his political castration; a process that is working, just not fully solvent yet.

Again, based on what? This will be an urban war with entire city blocks being bombed to hell in the first few days before any troups are even sent in to see what's left to kill! Do you know how many were killed in the first war; the Gulf War (also predicted to be short with a minimum of US and non-US civilian causualties)?

Even if one innocent person is killed by our bombs, how is that justified? This is allegedly about Hussein's hindering of the UN resolutions, not about the Iraqi people as a whole instigating some sort of unjust aggression against a nation-state.

Whatever happened to "it's better to let one guilty man go free than to imprison ten innocent ones?" Remember? The core value of American Jurisprudence; the ideal that allegedly sets America apart from the majority of the world?

In this case, Bush is effectively arguing, "It's better to kill thousands of innocent men, women and children in order to hopefully stop one man from possibly killing thousands of innocent men, women and children, maybe, sometime in the unknown future."

Not justifiable in the slightest and blatantly against everything my America should stand for.