There used to be two superpowers and one of them was known as the Evil Empire. Now all that has changed, there is only one Evil Empire.
Why does America have to have an empire just because she can? What good is the empire supposed to do? It is simply a transparent lie to suggest that America supports democracy around the world. The Palestinians held a broadly free an fair election (it wasn't perfect but then neither was the election that kept Bush in power) and America has simply tried to pretend that it didn't happen. The democratically elected government of Allende in Chile was overthrown with a lot of help from America and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that George W Bush's government is considering similar moves against the democratically elected government of Venezuela.
At the same time as the USA is supporting the overthrow of democratically elected regimes she doesn't like she is actively propping up dictatorships in other parts of the world. The most obvious case is Saudi Arabia, a feudal kleptocratic monarchy which rejects almost every western value except the big one: the dollar.
If any other regime was in power in Arabia it would act perversely and would maintain itself in poverty by refusing to sell oil. Do we really believe that?
America supports the feudal regimes in the Gulf region for the good of oil companies not the oil supply. If democratic regimes took over from the kleptocrats they might decide to nationalize the oil extraction industry. This is the nightmare scenario for Uncle Sam's empire. Of course a free democratic islamic republic of Arabia isn't going to sit on the oil and not sell it. That would be madness. They may seize the oilfields, refineries and pipelines for the state but they will not stop selling oil and just go back to breeding camels. Stopping the Arab people doing that is not standing up for democracy or protecting America's oil supply it is protecting oil companies. But it is not even doing that in Saudi Arabia as most of the Saudi oil industry is already state owned. So why is protecting Saudi Arabia from its own people so important?
The right wing Republicans have a problem with their ideology. They have come up with the idea that democracies are a good thing and as they are the good guys because they're Christian and brush their teeth an stuff like that any democratic country must be on their side. It is a very simplistic idea. It appeals to simplistic people like Reagan and George W Bush. Unfortunately it has one minor flaw. It's a load of bollocks.
There are certain things you can assume that democracies will be interested in. Supporting the imperial strategy of the USA is not one of them. Russia is a democratic country but that doesn't make the Russians want to be on America's side or for America to continue to have unfair trading relations with most of the poor countries of the world. My country shares with America a desire for free trade (perhaps as a second best option after trade unfairly biased in our favour) peace, international cooperation and respect for certain aspects of international law. But why should any country want another country to gain an unfair advantage? Why should any country be happy to see a strong country impose its will on a weak country? Giving America carte blanche doesn't make any sense, supporting good neighbourliness among all countries does make sense. Because a lot of international politics comes down to good neighbourliness and backing up allies picked on by bullies it is easy for America to misunderstand the nature of the relationship between America and European countries. When America is doing the right thing she has many allies, but to too many Americans using critical judgment and seeing their own national interest turns staunch European allies into ungrateful cheese eating surrender monkeys. This is crazy.
Yes my friend I'll stick up for you when somebody picks a fight with you, me or both of us and yes I'm happy for you to buy a drink for me or to see my sister but that doesn't mean I'm in the wrong if I don't join in a fight you start because you don't want to pay your bill. Do not mistake fighting for one shared cause for being on your side regardless of what the cause of the fight is. Allies don't fight for their allies' empires.
As a rule democracies are extremely unlikely to suffer famines, in
that they are extremely unlikely to suffer leaders who will suffer famines
to happen. Democracies are much less likely to start wars than tyrannies.
With the obvious exception of the USA. But being democratic does not
stop a regime acting rather appallingly if there are enough appalling
people with appalling leaders to facilitate their appalling ideas. Israel
is a democracy but acts quite as ruthlessly as many tyrants.
Wars of territorial expansion are common in tyrannies and much less common
in democracies. It is not a coincidence that Argentina has had a territorial
claim over the Falkland Islands in its constitution for a long time but it
was only when a military junta was in charge that any military adventurism
was attempted.
Democracies tend not to start wars because taking casualties loses votes, the exception to this rule comes with cheap and easy victories. Is it really a coincidence that America has started dozens of wars against small, almost defenceless nations while studiously avoiding fighting any nation remotely powerful enough to offer a bit of stiff opposition? America is a super-heavyweight that thinks twice about stepping into the ring with anything above a bantamweight. This is rather reminiscent of the days of the British Empire when the world's most powerful military fighting machine seemed to be spending a lot of time facing up to small bands of dark-skinned men clad in loin cloths and armed with sticks, some of which could almost have your eye out if you weren't careful.
England has had a history of fighting the great powers of the day. The Hundred Years war, trying to hold on to territories in France, fighting the champions of the world on their home ground. The Spanish Armada, the most powerful empire the world had yet seen. Then a bloke known as Napoleon who seemed to know a thing or two about the arts of war. Then we took to the glory of empire and started to fight tribal warriors who thought a stick was a state of the art weapon.
America has been spending a fortune on military hardware and has precious little to show for it.
Why does America have to spend so much money on defence? America is huge and isolated by wide oceans and distant from her potential enemies. Just for a few moments try to imagine what would be required to invade and conquer the USA. To start with you would need to cross one or both huge oceans before you even attempted a landing. Any landing whether by paratroops, landing craft or just turning up at a port and pointing your guns at the harbour master until he provides you with a gangplank requires air superiority. Then you have to spread forces around a continent sized country. Even if nobody was shooting back it would cost a fortune. To give yourself confidence of victory in an invasion of this kind a general would ask for as a minimum total air superiority plus either a quantitative superiority of land forces of 3:1 or an equivalent quality advantage. In other words a long as the USA has more than a third of the power of any realistic hostile alliance and a moderately capable air force she is safe. Just as China is safe from invasion by the USA because the cost of war far outstrips the potential benefits and also the far from trivial point that nobody actually wants to invade.
Nations need armies and defence policies and plans even when there are no enemies. At least that is what the military industrial complex has to believe. And the military industrial complex will see to it that the people always feel threatened. Does that extend to faking 9/11? I don't know, but having that suspicion does not make a person crazy.
The USA has become addicted to massive defence spending. As so much of this expenditure has been financed by debt there isn't a huge peace dividend to be obtained in the form of lower taxes because America is already paying low taxes. Americas attitude to defence spending is like the obese person's attitude to food, comfort eating to make up for the frustrations of being fat and unloved.
 |
America could resume arms reduction talks and slim down her armed forces considerably. The first things to start reducing are aircraft carriers. Carriers are by their nature offensive weapons, they exist to project force far beyond the territories you control. Who needs them? Only bully nations have a need for aircraft carriers. If the good guys have them that isn't a problem, but who are the good guys? Do you trust the government or indeed the people of the USA never to use her aircraft carriers the way Snake uses his gun? |
The time has come for a new American foreign policy that combines the best elements of the past. America should learn again to speak softly and carry a big stick. At the present she is shouting rather loudly and carrying a huge arsenal of offensive weapons.
No other country is trying to create an empire. Russia and China are both seeking to merely entrench their current territories. None of America's major allies is being threatened or feeling threatened by any assertive great power. So why on Earth is America spending more on weapons than the rest of the planet put together? What sense does that make? The American military seem to developing more and more expensive ways of failing to win wars.
In the Vietnam War the USA dropped more bombs than in WWII and got beaten by a third world force because the Vietnamese had more of a stomach for the fight. The Vietnamese took nineteen casualties to every one American, but they were prepared to keep on fighting and the Americans weren't. In Iraq things are beginning to look rather similar. While American forces are holding the ground they are doing so at a cost which is clearly far too high considering how little they have achieved. Iraq used to be one of the safest places in the world to live obeying the whims of the President, now it is riddled with corruption, crime and violence. The price of Iraqi freedom seems very high.
Do Americans want to be loved and respected or feared and despised? It is a simple choice. Will America stand up for her ruling elite's crude self-interest or for what is right, and only what is right?
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. Dwight D Eisenhower 1961 |
Take note please America.
Atheism
Politics
Life
Feedback
Forum
Blog
Home