Ruy Lopez

Koyaanisqatsi's post should be read carefully because he emphasizes justification and decent behaviour. Not that I don't feel or care about such things but I am lousy at it. I specialize in dynamics of movement. Back to the OP.

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

Morgan has oversimplified a complex topic that historians, though agreed on many points, are still debating . The particular assertion about the Roman empire does not even feature in the debate. Ever heard of the expression "barrack emperors"?

Though the Roman military installed emperors before, like Claudius, it was not a policy. From Commodus to Pertinax and so on, it became a policy and the military started to have more material things while civilian civil liberties got eroded. The problems with financially prosperous soldiers and officers are: 1)they lose the discipline and fervor for battle that they had before. 2)they shun frontier duty. 3)they go to war for wealth and 4)meddle with politics and administration where they do not have competence.

In the third century, most of the officers and legionaires manning Roman frontiers were from the FOEDERATI , conquered non-Italian allies also called barbarus or foreigners (not the English word barbarian). Their loyalty was not for Rome but to their commander.

Koya's emphasis on the military, as far as the US case is concerned, could be overstated. I know we both read or listen to news "between the lines". But we have different interests and I cannot read, as yet, what he sees. Certainly, however, the military had always contributed in a major way to the demise of empires.




ZAR'S QUESTION

The empire cannot be sustained in the sense of maintaining a performance at a plateau. Once the top of the trend has rounded or failed and turned south, the trend cannot be reversed whatever a president, congress or supreme court does. This is true for very long duration WAVES like the K-wave (60 years), imperial episodes (150 yrs) (also see thread "Why war policy is dysfunctional" on page two or three of Pol. Forum) and Duncan's "oil industrial civilization era" (130 years). The trend has to correct to a point of equilibrium or "real value" , which is way way down, before it can change direction.

The pattern looks like the famous bell-shaped curve when "smoothed or idealized" but on closer inspection , looks like a squat capital letter M.

[
[
[ --------- - B
[ --------- - - /\ D
[ --------- -- / \ /\
[ --------- - / \/ \
[ --------- - / C \
[ --------- - / \__/
[ --------- - / E
[ --------- - A
There we are. For the US empire, A represents the period around 1890. B is about 80 years later, around 1968. Letter C represents economic stagflation, loss of US moral standing in the 70s and economic decline for the first time. While the US was bombing Vietnam, Japan and Europe reeved up their economic engines and took market share away from the US. From C to D is an attempted recovery spanning the terms of Reagan (1980), Bush Sr. and Clinton. The attempt never surpassed previous peak performance in world trade because China, South Korea, Taiwan and others came in. I think Bush Jr. is presiding over the start of the second decline, a very steep one that could go on for 30 years. E or equilibrium is 30 years away.

The diagram represents only the political/ideologic/moral and economic clout of the US. Does not include cultural and military. But it does not matter the military cannot save the situation. How many hundred millions can one kill anyway?

I'm sorry I cannot fix the diagram; it looks alright in my draft but gets distorted on the board. You can follow the text and remember a squat letter M.

Answerer

I seriously don't think America will fall by the turn of this century because unlike the Roman empire, America doesn't have the problem of goths, Mongols or Vandals to deal with. Terrorism is a threat but it is far from strong enough to overthrown an empire. Without the presence of another superpower or multi-nations' alliance, it is hard to foresee the collapse of America in the near future.

Perhaps China, Russia and the European union may have the ability to bring about the fall of the American nation. But we will have to wait a long time for this.

spurly

What American empire? We liberate countries and give them back to their own people. What kind of empire is that?

Kevin

Ruy Lopez

I forgot to mention an important point. Why is there a near universal condemnation of the US war policy in M.E. and Central Asia? The answer goes back to 1968 accoding to some historians.

Wallerstein calls it "centrist liberalism" the ideological glue that held world or free world opinion behind the US. It said that the US is anti-communist, anti-fascist , champion of freedom and democracy. It's mostly propaganda myth, of course, and the turning point was the 1968 revolutions/upheavals, Vietnam and the revolt of the working class, especially in France.

The US cover story unravelled and gradually worsened over time. Now the tide is irreversible for a long time to come especially with George Bush threatening a middling Arab country almost daily on TV. . This is behind the seriously eroded political and moral clout of the US. Like a mafia boss who could order his thugs to blow people's brains out. Now he has to do it himself.

From Spurly;
What American empire? We liberate countries and give them back to their own people. What kind of empire is that?

I have to respect your opinion. But I am giving up this business for a while.

Zar

At the risk of being accused of overkill, I just thought I'd have a little fun with Paint Shop Pro... Does this look right?

Buddrow_Wilson

It would not necessarily take outside force to bring about the destruction of the U.S. Political/moral erosion could be just as deadly. Its quite possible that we could be in a situation similar to Russia's in say 50 years without ever waging war on our own soil. Public distrust and apathy ------> Govt abusing power ------> donward spiral. This current insanity is not a good sign.

Not that the U.S. is likely to lose its sovereignty by the end of the century, more possible that we become impotent or, tables turned, treated as a rogue nation in the future.

Of course nothing is certain, trends can be reversed.

Ruy Lopez

From Zar:
At the risk of being accused of overkill, I just thought I'd have a little fun with Paint Shop Pro... Does this look right?

Yes. Quite perfect and colorful too. One improvement can be made. Point A should be lower than point E to represent the real progress made by US society over 150 years from 1890 to 2040, assuming these dates are accepted.

From Buddrow_Wilson:
It would not necessarily take outside force to bring about the destruction of the U.S. Political/moral erosion could be just as deadly. Its quite possible that we could be in a situation similar to Russia's in say 50 years without ever waging war on our own soil

Quite agree. Anything can happen especially when the US goes into a less controllable adventure as contemplated. Actually the most likely danger for the US, IMO, is a financial debacle that would force contraction and withdrawal.

The US bubble up to year 2000 (except real state which is still ongoing) was supported by the domestic as well as foreign funds fleeing Asia, South America and Europe. Most of these funds are still trapped in US stock and bond markets. They have yet to sell. Only the SMART RICH with some exceptions have sold, which caused the first round of crashes. If you are familiar with the terms "weak and strong hands" as used in stock and futures markets, you would be convinced markets have a long way to fall.

The US's enemies know this situation and will probably follow a strategy of bleeding the US financially in Iraq (post-war), Afghanistan and Middle-east in general; not to mention homeland terrorism. Illegal Russian and Chinese,French? arms would surface among militants to damage oil loading ports, pipelines, air assets and military facilities. The British people who oppose war would take their country out leaving the US alone to SPEND AND DIE.

All it takes would be a panicky assessment that the US dollar would plunge. These moneyed people could panic and dump the US financial instruments and assets. A sharp recession or depression could follow. and the American people's resolve could evaporate.

I think the best thing the US public can do is change their administration for peacenik leaders in 2004 and gradually withdraw without losing face.

Zar

Ruy Lopez,

FYI, I updated the graph to reflect your comments somewhat better.

Morgan

Ok, dealing with Kuwait and Iraq first. It seems to have faded from the memory of the mass media that in the early 20th century that Britain controlled Iraq, or Mesopetania as it was then.

Mesopetania contained much of the Middle East, including Kuwait. The British, in their infinite wisdom, thought it might be a good idea to separate it all into the mess we see today.

Many Kuwaitis in 1992, wanted to be part of Iraq again (of course, they rarely get reported). So, in a way, you can see a justification for Saddam Hussain. In addition, the American ambassador had given him the go ahead to invade Kuwait. The Americans were fully aware that Saddam Hussain was going to invade Kuwait, and then made a U-turn and attacked Iraq, because they believed Saddam wasn't controllable anymore (this information comes from The Clash of the Fundamentalists , by Tariq Ali).

Spurly: Sure you give them back their countries. But to who? It's often been American policy, "We'll do the fighting, you do the building afterwards" to the rest of the world.

Take Afghanistan, for example. In 1996, the Taliban were hailed as
the saviours of Afghanistan from the bloody hands of the Northern Alliance.

Who did the Americans decided to back in 2001/2002? The Northern Alliance! I'm not saying the Taliban were the good guys - far from it, they were a bunch of fascist, fundamentalist, power-hungry idiots. It just shows you that America doesn't give a damn who it backs. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is your fundamentally flawed policy. I'm sure Afghanistan will be back to haunt America later.



Richard, yes it was a simplistic representation of a complex problem. But that was all it was meant to be; a representation. I merely intended to illustrate that all Empires have fallen in history and that America will be no different.

Koyaanisqatsi

The modern one that we've been buliding ever since the days when it had a name and an ideology: "Manifest Destiny"; let's call it an "economic empire." We save your ass and you do what we tell you to do, but don't bother us with actually running your country directly. We'll tell you what to do and base our military in your prime real estate and you'll step-to when we need you to. Which is, unfortunatley, the heart of the problem (IMO).

I see it thus: a deal has been struck between the non-elected, court-appointed rulers (i.e., Bush, Inc.) and the military; you save our ass and we save yours. The problem is, however, that the deal makers were (again, IMO) overwhelmed by the military juggernaut they necessarily unleashed to cover their tracks and will pay the price (both literally and figuratively).

Too much power now resides in the hands of non-elected officials (and I don't mean Bush, Inc., I mean the appointees of Bush, Inc.) and as such, cannot be deposed by either elected officials or the general voting population. This is the almost inevitable result of effectively removing the checks and balances our forefathers (whoring bastards all, but great nation builders) so desperately fought to establish; the balance of power shifts and, thanks to Republican short-sightedness (or should I say, these Republicans), the ability to correct this imbalance is largely gone.

The Heimat Security Agency has more power than FEMA (which means more power than the President) and that's during peace time (FEMA's powers are limited to national disaster; the HSA has declared that the nation is always in a state of national disaster, thereby insuring their constant and nerely absolute power; with no oversight contingencies).

In a weird way, the current administration (and their lackeys) have indeed set off the doomsday dominoe device, by simply removing any and all regulations against it. There is no effective way to remove the HSA now that it exists with the operating parameters granted to it.

So, we now have an agency with the authority to wave anybody's rights at any time it deems necessary, with no congressional oversight, working in tandem (and in command, if need be, in times of national crisis) with the military, who have just been given some 400 billion dollars (without war monies contingencies) over the next four years.

Think about that. The military and the HSA (the two most powerful and therefore most untrustworthy elements of any nation; military and secret police) have not just carte blanche to do anything they want to do regarding our foreign policy, but also regarding our civilian rights.

Ironic that Republicans, who always preach "no big government," have just singlehandedly created the biggest and most feared government possible; a secret police/military state.

Now, more on point, is the military to blame for taking advantage of this gift or the secret policemen for capitalizing on this gift? Not really. But, again, the concern is not so much in what this generation does with this shift of power as it is about what the next generatioin does, since, as I pointed out previously and Roy confirms, once this state of affairs is allowed to happen, the empire begins its inevitable descent.

Now, considering that we are, indeed, spread too thin and have bases literally all over the world, what will it mean once an economic empire starts to crumble? Well, the effect is literally historically demonstrated in the downfall of both Britain and Russia. The needs of the military (the now central concern of the empire) only grow at the expense of the civilian population that supports that empire (as we see now in the gutting of Social Security, for just one example), eventually (and inevitably, at least as far as history is concerned) becoming subordinate and dependent upon another "economic empire," such as the burgeoning Chinese version of "Capitalism" that's slowly emerging (and heavily courted by the more forward thinking of the last administration, as well as the current, only to a much lesser degree).

The reason Clinton will go down in history is not for going down in history (easy one, I know, but still fun and it's late); it will be because he saw that a militarily weighted economic empire will only kill itself very quickly, and he was right as is being amply demonstrated right now.

Politicians who are only interested in short term self-interest will always fall prey to larger animals (military) who are also only interested in short term self-interest, which is precisely why the forefathers tried to instill the checks and balances in our government to begin with.

Nixon showed us quite clearly what the inevitable end-game is to such thinking, yet here we are again, on a much larger scale that certainly seems to me to be irretrievable, unless the world's other failed empires teach us the lesson they are so desperately trying to do right now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you can't even convince Germany that a war is necessary, then you had better damn well stop all considerations of war.

If we're lucky the E.U. will take over and we'll go back to being the isolationists we were way back when; i.e., Canda. It could very well be the best thing that ever happened to us, but, I fear, at a tremendous loss of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in the meantime.