I have just completed Alain Joxe’s Empire of Disorder. Although I disagree with certain aspects of his analysis, I believe it is the most important book on politics I have read for sometime. I thought I would post passages so we could discuss the subject of American Imperialism in the 21st century.
Joxe begins by looking at the development of the Roman and British empires. He argues that the success of these empires was partly due to its ability to protect these “subjugated societies”. This is very different from the “American Empire”:
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
Yet it is nonetheless at the head of an empire, though this empire is merely a system for regulating disorder by means of financial norms and military expeditions and has no intention to occupy conquered territories. It operates on a case-by-case scenario, organizing repression of the symptoms of despair, applying almost the same norms both internally and externally.
The question is often asked whether the power of the United States is primarily economic or primarily military and in what "proportions" or in what mode. In short, what is the definition of the global political domination it has established under the name of "globalization" that leads to increased disparities between rich and poor, to the rise of an international, rootless "noble caste" and to an escalating number of endless wars?
The United States had in fact been preparing itself theoretically ever since the Gulf War, or at least for the past five years, for something new that they had foreseen in principle. Certain think tanks and groups of experts, closer to the Army and the Marines, understood that the absolute superiority gained by their mastery of the practical effects of the electronic revolution, both in the military, aero-satellite sphere and the economic and financial sphere, would lead, with "globalization," to qualitatively intolerable asymmetrical effects. They realized that the counterattack by the nations, peoples and classes sacrificed would take unexpected forms and sometimes the form of terrorism, the weapon of the weak. This counterattack would most likely require heightened inventiveness, and the United States was supposed to head them off in order to protect itself. This was the origin of the general concept of an "asymmetrical war."
Theoretical strategy' is used here to confront the concept of globalism because we will have to defend ourselves against the Empire of Disorder, and this discipline can be applied like an anthropology and a logic of reciprocal action under the threat of death. It assumes that relations of force are based in part on imaginary representations during the period of deterrence and prevention, but also during the period of operations. Imaginary means imagined, not unrealistic.
In times like today the strategic approach must be renewed: since the dawn of time, it ordinarily seeks to evaluate rationally the representations and actions of states in violent interaction, but with a unique system of leadership imposing its norms on a world considered to be a semi-unpredictable chaos, the problems of hierarchization or victory it elicits are formally different than those that arise from free competition between states regulated by agreements and international common law.
This transnational imperial leadership requires the maintenance of what state traditions keep calling disorder while pushing it to the outskirts of the Empire. However, the limits of the imperial system today are no longer geographical and disorder can be found everywhere.
It clearly appears that the American strategy of avoiding the responsibility of protecting socio-economically societies of geographical nation-states and their operational strategy of repressing the symptoms of despair-rather than attacking its causes leads us straight into an impasse or to the rise of a global anti-democratic regime. The first steps were taken with the globalist strategies initiated under Clinton and have been confirmed under Bush Jr. The Empire, on the economic offensive under Clinton, is now taking the completely new form of a military and expeditionary offensive.
Offering this prospect leads to the certain failure, though not necessarily close, of the attempts to establish global deregulation and to redefine a "monopolar" American Empire as an Empire of Disorder. I defend the idea that Europe, as a pluralist power and a crossroads of continents, probably represents the primary line of resistance to this empire for structural, and not only ideological reasons, but also for political and security reasons as well.
Until now, the hope for peace has been at the root of the imagination of war. In fact, "peace is normally the goal of war. On the contrary, war is not the goal of peace," as Saint Augustine once told us. If the interior peace of a state is sometimes restored by the invention of an external threat of war, this exportation of violence owes more to a hellish peace than a divine one. If it is true that we have entered the era when globalization will erase the frontiers between internal and external wars, we can also anticipate that it will either eliminate peace or preferably that it will erase the boundary between internal peace and external peace, so that peace can become the global objective for eliminating war.
Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
Alain Joxe goes onto look at 9/11:
The immediate effect of the attack on the United States was to change completely the relationships between the government and the political parties and impose on the population a war-time psychosis justifying the limitations placed on the information concerning military operations, claiming extraordinary rights for the treatment of prisoners and exercising intellectual censorship as well. Few in the United States dared suggest the obvious: that the Bush administration exploited the situation to fulfill its extremist agenda. Those who did were completely shut out from the major media outlets. They could criticize all they want, they wouldn't be heard. Debates were circumscribed very precisely, and some obvious questions were not asked. This was something completely new for the United States, or at least so blatant and extensive.
The event could have been exploited in a thousand different ways, but they decided to take advantage of it in that way. Why? The answer is the regime. The constitution, the functioning of the American state may be in a much deeper crisis than we think and therefore needs mystification to maintain the legitimacy or the power or the effectiveness of its institutions.
I have enough confidence in a certain American democracy to think that this fantastical direction will not work. When the Russians invaded half of Europe with all sorts of threats, it was not a fantasy, so public opinion could be mobilized. Even McCarthyism, for all its condemnable excesses, was something like a justification in a real relationship of forces. Now, there is absolutely nothing like that. Korea cannot destroy the world, neither can Iraq or Iran. All that is just a joke. There was no reasonable way of considering this a dangerous situation.
The obvious answer is the huge shift in the military budget. Before September 11, Bush was pushing for a new "Star Wars" effort, overruling the objections of allied powers. Bin Laden provided afar better argument for the Congress to approve the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, as Bush himself boasted.
A 15% increase in the military budget means a Keynesian kick-start for military spending. Democrats are usually the ones to do that; Ronald Reagan himself did the same while saying he was not. Maybe it was a way to jump-start the economy that does not rely on speculation but on state spending. If so, it would become understandable. It would be aimed at providing "good administration," one that we can, of course, criticize, but which is a normal, Machiavellian administration of the American state apparatus. It would claim to be ultra-liberal, but that would just be for the outside. Inside the country, it decided to make a big budgetary effort for redistribution using military credits. This would not be the first time. It would be a response. But you get the impression that something else is involved. Because in order to obtain these military credits, Bush has to create a worldwide danger equivalent to what the USSR could have been. Then the rest of the world begins to think: stop exaggerating. There is no such danger that would justify these war efforts.
The immediate effect of the attack on the United States was to change completely the relationships between the government and the political parties and impose on the population a war-time psychosis justifying the limitations placed on the information concerning military operations, claiming extraordinary rights for the treatment of prisoners and exercising intellectual censorship as well. Few in the United States dared suggest the obvious: that the Bush administration exploited the situation to fulfill its extremist agenda. Those who did were completely shut out from the major media outlets. They could criticize all they want, they wouldn't be heard. Debates were circumscribed very precisely, and some obvious questions were not asked. This was something completely new for the United States, or at least so blatant and extensive.
The event could have been exploited in a thousand different ways, but they decided to take advantage of it in that way. Why? The answer is the regime. The constitution, the functioning of the American state may be in a much deeper crisis than we think and therefore needs mystification to maintain the legitimacy or the power or the effectiveness of its institutions.
I have enough confidence in a certain American democracy to think that this fantastical direction will not work. When the Russians invaded half of Europe with all sorts of threats, it was not a fantasy, so public opinion could be mobilized. Even McCarthyism, for all its condemnable excesses, was something like a justification in a real relationship of forces. Now, there is absolutely nothing like that. Korea cannot destroy the world, neither can Iraq or Iran. All that is just a joke. There was no reasonable way of considering this a dangerous situation.
The obvious answer is the huge shift in the military budget. Before September 11, Bush was pushing for a new "Star Wars" effort, overruling the objections of allied powers. Bin Laden provided afar better argument for the Congress to approve the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, as Bush himself boasted.
A 15% increase in the military budget means a Keynesian kick-start for military spending. Democrats are usually the ones to do that; Ronald Reagan himself did the same while saying he was not. Maybe it was a way to jump-start the economy that does not rely on speculation but on state spending. If so, it would become understandable. It would be aimed at providing "good administration," one that we can, of course, criticize, but which is a normal, Machiavellian administration of the American state apparatus. It would claim to be ultra-liberal, but that would just be for the outside. Inside the country, it decided to make a big budgetary effort for redistribution using military credits. This would not be the first time. It would be a response. But you get the impression that something else is involved. Because in order to obtain these military credits, Bush has to create a worldwide danger equivalent to what the USSR could have been. Then the rest of the world begins to think: stop exaggerating. There is no such danger that would justify these war efforts.
Joxe points out that the development of technology has provided an opportunity to develop a civilized society:
Thanks to advances in science, robotics and the potential abundance of resources, the Fraternity mentioned in the French republican slogan (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) has become pos¬sible in theory, but not without a state, and not without politics. Nations and their citizens, however, have already handed over to corporations many of the political components needed to lead the world in the direction laid out by our Enlightenment ancestors.
Joxe rejects Marxist thinking on imperialism:
Lenin was often wrong, both during his life and after his death. The supreme - hence final - phase of capitalism is not imperialism. Unless imperialism is finally, essentially, not the export of capital to colonial zones, but its constant relocation in free market globalization. The strength of multinational conglomerates and delocalized banks, the transformation of investments into temporary installations as volatile as off-shore accounts that hold the threat of relocation over their workers, create a structural fear. The uprooting of the threat produces a structural fear by rendering localized protection useless.
The threat of unemployment is enough to cause fear. But to terrify, massacres or hyperinflation are needed. Globalization today is not supreme because it has not yet organized a politico-military system in conformity with the financial system, the way Lenin proposed "imperialism" as a concept for the spatial organization of the relocation of capital into the colonial or neo-colonial empires of vast industrial nations. Today, there is no global Empire that proposes a global political regime. There is no violence in conformity with the economy. We can imagine even further stages of development, other wars more global than nuclear war - which never occurred - or than the wars in Chechnya and Kosovo; and other types of peace even closer to the "peace of cemeteries." But we can also imagine a peace more heavenly than the Dayton Agreement.
In the meantime, before saying politics is dead, we need to point out and zoom in on each place where creative sovereignty appears, locating where new forms of politics are taking shape in the world and finding where politics is hiding on both sides. Finding out which elites have organized oligarchic politics into a sovereign force without the people, and in which new or old groups popular sovereignty has taken hold and is coordinated outside the ordinary framework of democracy.
The culture of electoral democracy has particularly weakened the notion of politics. The idea that politics must necessarily take the form of a transparent, electoral and parliamentary democracy with eligible parties on the left and on the right, with a normal level of corruption instead of massacres, has perverted our sense of the stakes involved. One need not adhere to conspiracy theories in order to admit that oligarchic, and therefore antidemocratic, sovereignties and empires exist. Working to clearly define these phenomena is necessary for an effective reorganization of the left. The American program of "democracy for all" is all well and good, but it sounds like a missionary toasting at a cannibal banquet. The problem must be dealt with at its source. There can be no democracy without the victory of popular power over the oligarchy.
Thanks to advances in science, robotics and the potential abundance of resources, the Fraternity mentioned in the French republican slogan (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) has become pos¬sible in theory, but not without a state, and not without politics. Nations and their citizens, however, have already handed over to corporations many of the political components needed to lead the world in the direction laid out by our Enlightenment ancestors.
Joxe rejects Marxist thinking on imperialism:
Lenin was often wrong, both during his life and after his death. The supreme - hence final - phase of capitalism is not imperialism. Unless imperialism is finally, essentially, not the export of capital to colonial zones, but its constant relocation in free market globalization. The strength of multinational conglomerates and delocalized banks, the transformation of investments into temporary installations as volatile as off-shore accounts that hold the threat of relocation over their workers, create a structural fear. The uprooting of the threat produces a structural fear by rendering localized protection useless.
The threat of unemployment is enough to cause fear. But to terrify, massacres or hyperinflation are needed. Globalization today is not supreme because it has not yet organized a politico-military system in conformity with the financial system, the way Lenin proposed "imperialism" as a concept for the spatial organization of the relocation of capital into the colonial or neo-colonial empires of vast industrial nations. Today, there is no global Empire that proposes a global political regime. There is no violence in conformity with the economy. We can imagine even further stages of development, other wars more global than nuclear war - which never occurred - or than the wars in Chechnya and Kosovo; and other types of peace even closer to the "peace of cemeteries." But we can also imagine a peace more heavenly than the Dayton Agreement.
In the meantime, before saying politics is dead, we need to point out and zoom in on each place where creative sovereignty appears, locating where new forms of politics are taking shape in the world and finding where politics is hiding on both sides. Finding out which elites have organized oligarchic politics into a sovereign force without the people, and in which new or old groups popular sovereignty has taken hold and is coordinated outside the ordinary framework of democracy.
The culture of electoral democracy has particularly weakened the notion of politics. The idea that politics must necessarily take the form of a transparent, electoral and parliamentary democracy with eligible parties on the left and on the right, with a normal level of corruption instead of massacres, has perverted our sense of the stakes involved. One need not adhere to conspiracy theories in order to admit that oligarchic, and therefore antidemocratic, sovereignties and empires exist. Working to clearly define these phenomena is necessary for an effective reorganization of the left. The American program of "democracy for all" is all well and good, but it sounds like a missionary toasting at a cannibal banquet. The problem must be dealt with at its source. There can be no democracy without the victory of popular power over the oligarchy.
Joxe goes on to explain the relationship between corporations and organized crime:
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the gov¬ernment and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
But the relationship of war or alliance with states also characterizes industrial corporations, distinct from the Mafia, which have increasingly become conglomerates that contest any form of regulation. Regulations once allowed nations to manage a certain distribution of resources between rich and poor. The wars or alliances with different nations are sought in the name of free trade. Over the past few years, private corporations have substantially regrouped and concentrated their efforts and now these new conglomerates exercise their considerable weight on governments. Their directors are considered the equals of the President of the United States, and often wield more power than the heads of state of smaller countries.
Freely organized crime, freely organized finance and freely organized industrial or commercial corporations have become allies to defend free trade, and it is extremely difficult to locate the real, that is to say the financial boundary between the criminal economy and the transnational economy in general.
Joxe takes a close look at how the theories of Hobbes and Clausewitz impact on politics in the 21st century:
A brief exercise in critical attention will reveal how Clausewitzian continuation is an avatar (a reincarnation, a fixture) of Hobbesian sovereignty established on an implicit contract between the people, who reject the state of war, and the Sovereign, an artificial object responsible for managing this contract like a program designed from the bottom up.
Clausewitz wrote: War is simply a continuation of politics by other means. Clausewitz is a continuation of Hobbes through other means.
This "simple" continuation is a stabilized unit within the peace/war relationship, from the 18th to the 20th century, up until 1945. But using the word "continuation" might be misleading because it distorts the thought of Clausewitz… In fact, as everyone knows, politics in war is much different than politics in peace in both its ends and its means. Clausewitz was well aware of this and decided to use a separate word for political goals (Zweck) and for military aims (Ziel). The mystery of "continuation" is displaced, set in the atemporal, the diagrammatic: the Ziel-Zweck relationship is resolved in the organizational chart of political-military command. It is the old question of the relation between the monarch and commander-in-chief in Sun Zu, of the king - the Prussian staff in Clausewitz - and today between the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In any case, this question deserves to be dealt with on an institutional level, but we know that this is not essentially an institutional distinction, rather the difference between two philosophies of action that respond to a philosophical hierarchy. The philosophy of political action must win out over the philosophy of military action, at the risk of the death of democratic sovereignty, which is the internal peace contract.
If the French Army in Algeria had been free to conduct its own war, in other words to decide the Ziel and the Zweck, civil war might have broken out in France, for the Army would have had to constrain the Hexagon to this Zweck, which is the equivalent of a civil war in a democracy. In the end, the French political goal, the acceptance of independence, prevailed.
If the Israeli Army is free to conduct its own war, in other words with no political goal, or fixing its Zweck as the complete submission of the Palestinians or even their expulsion, like a photocopy of the Ziel, or total victory over the Palestinians, it will lead to permanent war, to the destruction of Israeli democracy and to international conflict.
However, we are no longer in this configuration. French Algeria was the objective of another age. A Bantustan Palestine as well. Behind Sharon's excesses lies American military excess, and the abnormal contact between imperial military globality and the absence or dissipation of global diplomacy as transnational politics, its disappearance in the face of a global economy that does not "think politics" but thinks "repression" as a separate sphere, not a continuation but a social mirror of the economy.
The current configuration, in which little wars and the bravado of American military leaders abound, is certainly quite different than the paleo-imperial process of French Algeria; however, the distinction between Ziel and Zweck has become impossible in the global empire because there is no global political power, only a global military power (the American Army) and a global economic power (corporations, the market).
In order to master this complexity without giving up the description of strategies, the principles of decision used by deciding groups, friends or enemies, left or right or on the fence, new words are needed. The Lefts must now place their programs-the fight against inequality and misery and for the extension of sovereignty, culture, civil responsibility and peace to all popular classes - at the global level, already occupied by the Right. Truckloads of goodwill are not enough because the most deadly violence is already at work, not as a continuation of political sovereignty, but as a "continuation" of the global economy by other means without political mediation.
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the gov¬ernment and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
But the relationship of war or alliance with states also characterizes industrial corporations, distinct from the Mafia, which have increasingly become conglomerates that contest any form of regulation. Regulations once allowed nations to manage a certain distribution of resources between rich and poor. The wars or alliances with different nations are sought in the name of free trade. Over the past few years, private corporations have substantially regrouped and concentrated their efforts and now these new conglomerates exercise their considerable weight on governments. Their directors are considered the equals of the President of the United States, and often wield more power than the heads of state of smaller countries.
Freely organized crime, freely organized finance and freely organized industrial or commercial corporations have become allies to defend free trade, and it is extremely difficult to locate the real, that is to say the financial boundary between the criminal economy and the transnational economy in general.
Joxe takes a close look at how the theories of Hobbes and Clausewitz impact on politics in the 21st century:
A brief exercise in critical attention will reveal how Clausewitzian continuation is an avatar (a reincarnation, a fixture) of Hobbesian sovereignty established on an implicit contract between the people, who reject the state of war, and the Sovereign, an artificial object responsible for managing this contract like a program designed from the bottom up.
Clausewitz wrote: War is simply a continuation of politics by other means. Clausewitz is a continuation of Hobbes through other means.
This "simple" continuation is a stabilized unit within the peace/war relationship, from the 18th to the 20th century, up until 1945. But using the word "continuation" might be misleading because it distorts the thought of Clausewitz… In fact, as everyone knows, politics in war is much different than politics in peace in both its ends and its means. Clausewitz was well aware of this and decided to use a separate word for political goals (Zweck) and for military aims (Ziel). The mystery of "continuation" is displaced, set in the atemporal, the diagrammatic: the Ziel-Zweck relationship is resolved in the organizational chart of political-military command. It is the old question of the relation between the monarch and commander-in-chief in Sun Zu, of the king - the Prussian staff in Clausewitz - and today between the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In any case, this question deserves to be dealt with on an institutional level, but we know that this is not essentially an institutional distinction, rather the difference between two philosophies of action that respond to a philosophical hierarchy. The philosophy of political action must win out over the philosophy of military action, at the risk of the death of democratic sovereignty, which is the internal peace contract.
If the French Army in Algeria had been free to conduct its own war, in other words to decide the Ziel and the Zweck, civil war might have broken out in France, for the Army would have had to constrain the Hexagon to this Zweck, which is the equivalent of a civil war in a democracy. In the end, the French political goal, the acceptance of independence, prevailed.
If the Israeli Army is free to conduct its own war, in other words with no political goal, or fixing its Zweck as the complete submission of the Palestinians or even their expulsion, like a photocopy of the Ziel, or total victory over the Palestinians, it will lead to permanent war, to the destruction of Israeli democracy and to international conflict.
However, we are no longer in this configuration. French Algeria was the objective of another age. A Bantustan Palestine as well. Behind Sharon's excesses lies American military excess, and the abnormal contact between imperial military globality and the absence or dissipation of global diplomacy as transnational politics, its disappearance in the face of a global economy that does not "think politics" but thinks "repression" as a separate sphere, not a continuation but a social mirror of the economy.
The current configuration, in which little wars and the bravado of American military leaders abound, is certainly quite different than the paleo-imperial process of French Algeria; however, the distinction between Ziel and Zweck has become impossible in the global empire because there is no global political power, only a global military power (the American Army) and a global economic power (corporations, the market).
In order to master this complexity without giving up the description of strategies, the principles of decision used by deciding groups, friends or enemies, left or right or on the fence, new words are needed. The Lefts must now place their programs-the fight against inequality and misery and for the extension of sovereignty, culture, civil responsibility and peace to all popular classes - at the global level, already occupied by the Right. Truckloads of goodwill are not enough because the most deadly violence is already at work, not as a continuation of political sovereignty, but as a "continuation" of the global economy by other means without political mediation.
But an excess of wealth can weaken military defenses and an excess of expertise in violence can devastate the economy in the long run; a new temporality is imposed on these empires, a more historical time that presents itself as cyclical. In the European the¬ater, the predatory center moves from East to West in a fish scale progression, starting from the Mesopotamian cradle of the state. It is a commonplace, first in the Bible, then in Greek historiogra¬phy to speak of the succession of predatory empires and their migration to the West. We could also suggest the migration of logistical empires to the East, in India and China.
As economic machines normally producing negentropy (order, internal peace, wealth), these systems cannot last eternally; the pre-industrial predatory Empire works like a clock carefully wound with all the skill of keeping the goose with golden eggs alive. It increases its survival time either by returning to a moderate logistical system, or by pursuing its foreign predatory conquests at the risk of military surfeit, an over-developed specialization towards specific end: in this case, perfecting destructive military capabilities at the expense of productive, economic capabilities. This over-development can take two forms, either an internal redistribution of the spoils at the risk of exhausting all the reserves, or a decentralization producing management economies with a reduction of privileged bureaucracies, at the risk of Balkanization of military sovereignty by means of wars of liberation or less predatory invasions.
But these ways of prolonging the life of an empire are also methods of self-destruction. The longest imperial experiment, the Chinese Empire, went through many cycles of logistical empires, barbarian invasions and separation into more or less predatory kingdoms without losing its identity as the Middle Empire, or moving its center without losing sight of the historical continuity of China. In the West, however, the Roman, Byzantine and Carolingian Empires, the sultanates, the Holy Roman Empire, Tsarism, Napoleon, the British Empire, the French colonial Empire and Hitler have disappeared forever. Europe is a recent political construct.
The transformation of the Russian empire and the materialization of the American empire, opposed like the two halves of the world, tracing a fortified boundary across the territory of a divided Europe, shows that a predatory imperial form prefers seeking out confrontation with an Other and an outside, and in this way it can never become global.
Europe as an identity organizing internal peace is a recent political expression, just as America is a recent empire. The recent designation (in May 2000) of China as a virtual main rival (peer competitor) of the American empire, the designation in 2001 of "Islamic terrorism" as a global enemy, the designation once again of three states - North Korea, Iran and Iraq - as "rogue states" for the mere fact that they are accused of trying to develop nuclear weapons, shows that the single Empire is looking for both the unity and plurality that will allow it to keep a predatory relationship with an exterior. It is concerned that unifying world imperial power (the monarchy, to borrow Dante's vocabulary) would require it to base its power throughout the world on internal global violence or to establish Universal peace without predatory oppression, an even more paradoxical task.
The American Empire is thus faced with a traditional problem. By perfecting the predatory and repressive military machine to the extreme, which could become necessary to its reproduction, the Empire could veer towards a monstrous overdevelopment of the destructive, or merely repressive, function of the state, threatening its subjects with death. The "people" always decide the end of logistical-predatory empires through various forms of plebian secession, of anachoresis" or of invasions greeted as liberations. There is a type of collapse without invasion exemplified by the fall of the Assyrian Empire.
A giant with clay feet, built on the mud of Mesopotamian irrigation, on the over-exploitation of Neolithic techniques, without any progress in productivity, save in techniques of destruction, Assyrian militarism disappeared all at once, just like, I might add, the Soviet Empire, caught in the breathless arms race orchestrated by the United States.
The relation between economy and violence, however, has changed drastically with the beginning of the accumulation of capital and the scientific development of technology. Which system of domination prevails in the modern Empire-states, and ultimately in the American Empire?
The elimination of the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain produced the first real globaliry in history, but it was a military event that created a military globaliry, rather than an economic one at first.
In fact, two negative moments from a military perspective marked the period: a wall falling without a fight (Berlin), Soviet abstention from a war in their glacis (the Gulf War). These two events sealed the defeat of the Soviet economic system and the Soviet military. There can be no economic defeat in a global Empire without a military defeat. Not necessarily a defeat during a wartime operation: a mixed defeat, both economic and military, in the arms race occurred in the East and a political collapse was then enough to finish it.
At this turning point, Fukuyama was premature in declaring the "End of History"', because globality, the formation of a truly global world economy, is not as easy as it seems. It runs up against the presence of politico-military sovereignties maintaining spaces that prevent total market economy unification. A few states still consider themselves Marxist (China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba), some states still maintain a partially controlled economy, either by vocation or due to a prolonged state of war (Iraq, Iran, Serbia). Other states have preserved a large nationalized sector, and even the ideology behind the nationalization of major public services and public works projects by the state. Even capitalist Europe calls for a social market economy and supports the need for sovereign regulations of the economy.
More theoretically speaking, the dogmatic defenders of the free-market economy cannot prove that free-market institutions can arise without rules, without the state acting as a guarantor of its political will, imposing the suspension of predatory violence at the gates of the marketplace or, better yet, of the entire nation.
The "predatory peace" proclaimed after the military victory of the American Empire in the name of the universal free-market ideology, imposed the representation of an economic globality that did not yet exist. The end of violence in the world bazaar cannot yet be regulated by a world state-which neither exists nor is desired by the United States - or better yet, local states, which lack the competence. Any regulation in the meantime must be done partially and empirically through negotiations that remain confidential between violent Mafias and unarmed Merchants.
Predatory peace is only a virtual paradigm with value for an improbable future and not for the present. It is not a stable state, but a process; in American strategic vocabulary, it is called enlargement, the extension of democracy and free-market economy to the entire globe. Announced by Anthony Lake in 1993, enlargement will end (so they say) in economic globality, if the future prophecy goes according to Clintonian plans and market enlargement produces its own profitability.
However, the Cold War of the Empire against an enemy or another (barbarian) Empire no longer exists to siphon the contradictions of class struggle away from the Empire through populist style mobilizations. The American Empire must face the strategic problem in the traditional form that all Empires had to face if, like the Roman or Chinese Empires, they considered themselves to be "alone in the world," since they knew nothing about the others. The competing colonial Empires had to face the same problem: class struggles are traditionally "drained off" by delimiting a space to conquer. But what happens if conquest is no longer profitable in the "barbarian areas" (Rome gave up trying to conquer Germania) or if there are no more "barbarian areas"? There are two abstract strategies that were applied both in the history of the Roman Empire as in the history of European colonial empires:
i) The Empire can recreate a military enemy within the economic globality to polarize itself and suspend class struggle in the name of security with repressive wars. This exterior is "naturally' present: it includes zones of poverty that do not form a "market" and can therefore become purely military marches again. Internal war in zones of poverty. One could say that it is taking shape in the United States.
ii) The Empire can also reauthorize war within the newly drawn globality of military leadership in order to redefine peace. War is illegitimate and hindered in the world today by two obstacles that are beneficial in principle, but do not really work to prohibit war. Authorizing international wars is within the grasp of the military leadership of the United States. The return of local duels has been facilitated by the removal of two hindrances:
• war is hindered by the prohibition on international wars by the UN; it is the equivalent of a police prohibition on duels within a unified world. The UN Security Council would be in charge of the policing function of the World Empire. This is the project on which the UN institution was built-at least on paper. A UN General Staff has nonetheless never been formed, much less a specifically UN military force. There are no archers on watch under the orders of the king. This model does not work. The UN at most plays the role of a weakened papacy.
• war is theoretically hindered by the United States itself, the global imperial military nation, with its own doctrine of military intervention: Zero GI casualties and the reshaping of NATO into its new role of sending out forces that no longer have anything to do with defending against the USSR, causing a crisis in alliances and renresentations.
As economic machines normally producing negentropy (order, internal peace, wealth), these systems cannot last eternally; the pre-industrial predatory Empire works like a clock carefully wound with all the skill of keeping the goose with golden eggs alive. It increases its survival time either by returning to a moderate logistical system, or by pursuing its foreign predatory conquests at the risk of military surfeit, an over-developed specialization towards specific end: in this case, perfecting destructive military capabilities at the expense of productive, economic capabilities. This over-development can take two forms, either an internal redistribution of the spoils at the risk of exhausting all the reserves, or a decentralization producing management economies with a reduction of privileged bureaucracies, at the risk of Balkanization of military sovereignty by means of wars of liberation or less predatory invasions.
But these ways of prolonging the life of an empire are also methods of self-destruction. The longest imperial experiment, the Chinese Empire, went through many cycles of logistical empires, barbarian invasions and separation into more or less predatory kingdoms without losing its identity as the Middle Empire, or moving its center without losing sight of the historical continuity of China. In the West, however, the Roman, Byzantine and Carolingian Empires, the sultanates, the Holy Roman Empire, Tsarism, Napoleon, the British Empire, the French colonial Empire and Hitler have disappeared forever. Europe is a recent political construct.
The transformation of the Russian empire and the materialization of the American empire, opposed like the two halves of the world, tracing a fortified boundary across the territory of a divided Europe, shows that a predatory imperial form prefers seeking out confrontation with an Other and an outside, and in this way it can never become global.
Europe as an identity organizing internal peace is a recent political expression, just as America is a recent empire. The recent designation (in May 2000) of China as a virtual main rival (peer competitor) of the American empire, the designation in 2001 of "Islamic terrorism" as a global enemy, the designation once again of three states - North Korea, Iran and Iraq - as "rogue states" for the mere fact that they are accused of trying to develop nuclear weapons, shows that the single Empire is looking for both the unity and plurality that will allow it to keep a predatory relationship with an exterior. It is concerned that unifying world imperial power (the monarchy, to borrow Dante's vocabulary) would require it to base its power throughout the world on internal global violence or to establish Universal peace without predatory oppression, an even more paradoxical task.
The American Empire is thus faced with a traditional problem. By perfecting the predatory and repressive military machine to the extreme, which could become necessary to its reproduction, the Empire could veer towards a monstrous overdevelopment of the destructive, or merely repressive, function of the state, threatening its subjects with death. The "people" always decide the end of logistical-predatory empires through various forms of plebian secession, of anachoresis" or of invasions greeted as liberations. There is a type of collapse without invasion exemplified by the fall of the Assyrian Empire.
A giant with clay feet, built on the mud of Mesopotamian irrigation, on the over-exploitation of Neolithic techniques, without any progress in productivity, save in techniques of destruction, Assyrian militarism disappeared all at once, just like, I might add, the Soviet Empire, caught in the breathless arms race orchestrated by the United States.
The relation between economy and violence, however, has changed drastically with the beginning of the accumulation of capital and the scientific development of technology. Which system of domination prevails in the modern Empire-states, and ultimately in the American Empire?
The elimination of the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain produced the first real globaliry in history, but it was a military event that created a military globaliry, rather than an economic one at first.
In fact, two negative moments from a military perspective marked the period: a wall falling without a fight (Berlin), Soviet abstention from a war in their glacis (the Gulf War). These two events sealed the defeat of the Soviet economic system and the Soviet military. There can be no economic defeat in a global Empire without a military defeat. Not necessarily a defeat during a wartime operation: a mixed defeat, both economic and military, in the arms race occurred in the East and a political collapse was then enough to finish it.
At this turning point, Fukuyama was premature in declaring the "End of History"', because globality, the formation of a truly global world economy, is not as easy as it seems. It runs up against the presence of politico-military sovereignties maintaining spaces that prevent total market economy unification. A few states still consider themselves Marxist (China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba), some states still maintain a partially controlled economy, either by vocation or due to a prolonged state of war (Iraq, Iran, Serbia). Other states have preserved a large nationalized sector, and even the ideology behind the nationalization of major public services and public works projects by the state. Even capitalist Europe calls for a social market economy and supports the need for sovereign regulations of the economy.
More theoretically speaking, the dogmatic defenders of the free-market economy cannot prove that free-market institutions can arise without rules, without the state acting as a guarantor of its political will, imposing the suspension of predatory violence at the gates of the marketplace or, better yet, of the entire nation.
The "predatory peace" proclaimed after the military victory of the American Empire in the name of the universal free-market ideology, imposed the representation of an economic globality that did not yet exist. The end of violence in the world bazaar cannot yet be regulated by a world state-which neither exists nor is desired by the United States - or better yet, local states, which lack the competence. Any regulation in the meantime must be done partially and empirically through negotiations that remain confidential between violent Mafias and unarmed Merchants.
Predatory peace is only a virtual paradigm with value for an improbable future and not for the present. It is not a stable state, but a process; in American strategic vocabulary, it is called enlargement, the extension of democracy and free-market economy to the entire globe. Announced by Anthony Lake in 1993, enlargement will end (so they say) in economic globality, if the future prophecy goes according to Clintonian plans and market enlargement produces its own profitability.
However, the Cold War of the Empire against an enemy or another (barbarian) Empire no longer exists to siphon the contradictions of class struggle away from the Empire through populist style mobilizations. The American Empire must face the strategic problem in the traditional form that all Empires had to face if, like the Roman or Chinese Empires, they considered themselves to be "alone in the world," since they knew nothing about the others. The competing colonial Empires had to face the same problem: class struggles are traditionally "drained off" by delimiting a space to conquer. But what happens if conquest is no longer profitable in the "barbarian areas" (Rome gave up trying to conquer Germania) or if there are no more "barbarian areas"? There are two abstract strategies that were applied both in the history of the Roman Empire as in the history of European colonial empires:
i) The Empire can recreate a military enemy within the economic globality to polarize itself and suspend class struggle in the name of security with repressive wars. This exterior is "naturally' present: it includes zones of poverty that do not form a "market" and can therefore become purely military marches again. Internal war in zones of poverty. One could say that it is taking shape in the United States.
ii) The Empire can also reauthorize war within the newly drawn globality of military leadership in order to redefine peace. War is illegitimate and hindered in the world today by two obstacles that are beneficial in principle, but do not really work to prohibit war. Authorizing international wars is within the grasp of the military leadership of the United States. The return of local duels has been facilitated by the removal of two hindrances:
• war is hindered by the prohibition on international wars by the UN; it is the equivalent of a police prohibition on duels within a unified world. The UN Security Council would be in charge of the policing function of the World Empire. This is the project on which the UN institution was built-at least on paper. A UN General Staff has nonetheless never been formed, much less a specifically UN military force. There are no archers on watch under the orders of the king. This model does not work. The UN at most plays the role of a weakened papacy.
• war is theoretically hindered by the United States itself, the global imperial military nation, with its own doctrine of military intervention: Zero GI casualties and the reshaping of NATO into its new role of sending out forces that no longer have anything to do with defending against the USSR, causing a crisis in alliances and renresentations.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 29 2006, 04:32 PM) 
I have just completed Alain Joxe’s Empire of Disorder. Although I disagree with certain aspects of his analysis, I believe it is the most important book on politics I have read for sometime. I thought I would post passages so we could discuss the subject of American Imperialism in the 21st century.
Joxe begins by looking at the development of the Roman and British empires. He argues that the success of these empires was partly due to its ability to protect these “subjugated societies”. This is very different from the “American Empire”:
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies. (Alain Joxe)
Joxe begins by looking at the development of the Roman and British empires. He argues that the success of these empires was partly due to its ability to protect these “subjugated societies”. This is very different from the “American Empire”:
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies. (Alain Joxe)
This is an important point. It is difficult to see what is in it for the subjugated people. Even the puppet rulers are not able to enjoy their rewards in peace and quiet.
The American Empire worked successfully when people did not know it was there. That is when the power took the form of money. The Marshall Plan was an important ingredient of this. So also was the covert role that the CIA played in undermining democratic elections in Western Europe in the 1940s and 1950s. This involved preventing left-wing governments being elected (France, Italy and Greece) and moving left of centre governments to the right (UK).
The presence of US troops in Europe also mirrored the Roman Empire in providing the impression that the people were being protected from the Barbarians (Communists).
The overthrow of the Greek government in April, 1967, exposed this sham. It then became clear that the main intention of the Americans was not to preserve democracy but to obtain anti-communist governments. The overthrow of democratic governments had already happened in the underdeveloped world (Guatemala - 1954) but it was a shock to see the same thing was happening in Europe.
The weakness of the American Empire was also seen in Vietnam. Again, attempts were made to protect a military dictatorship in order to prevent the spread of communism. The Vietnamese showed that if you show enough determination to resist, America’s military superiority cannot obtain victory. This is a lesson that George Bush is currently learning in Iraq.
The American Empire is the last of the empires. I believe that when China replaces the United States as the world’s main superpower, they will not make the same mistakes as Johnson, Nixon and Bush. One reason is the China is run by the military and not by multinational corporations.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 29 2006, 04:32 PM)
Alain Joxe’s Empire of Disorder:
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
Yet it is nonetheless at the head of an empire, though this empire is merely a system for regulating disorder by means of financial norms and military expeditions and has no intention to occupy conquered territories. It operates on a case-by-case scenario, organizing repression of the symptoms of despair, applying almost the same norms both internally and externally.
The question is often asked whether the power of the United States is primarily economic or primarily military and in what "proportions" or in what mode. In short, what is the definition of the global political domination it has established under the name of "globalization" that leads to increased disparities between rich and poor, to the rise of an international, rootless "noble caste" and to an escalating number of endless wars?
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
Yet it is nonetheless at the head of an empire, though this empire is merely a system for regulating disorder by means of financial norms and military expeditions and has no intention to occupy conquered territories. It operates on a case-by-case scenario, organizing repression of the symptoms of despair, applying almost the same norms both internally and externally.
The question is often asked whether the power of the United States is primarily economic or primarily military and in what "proportions" or in what mode. In short, what is the definition of the global political domination it has established under the name of "globalization" that leads to increased disparities between rich and poor, to the rise of an international, rootless "noble caste" and to an escalating number of endless wars?
This is an important point that needs to be grasped. In the past, wealthy and powerful states could control poor and weak states. This has changed since the 1960s. Examples include the U.S. in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. Currently we are seeing the same thing happening in Iraq. Even the combined forces of NATO cannot get Afghanistan under control. Why should we be surprised? The Soviets had 300,000 troops in Afghanistan and still could not keep their puppet rulers in power.
Although it is clear to the objective observer, politicians like Bush and Blair have failed to grasp this point. This is the background of the current disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. But what has changed? How was Germany able to dominate countries like France in the 1940s? How did the Soviet Union manage to suppress the populations of countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc?
There are three main reasons for this change. The first involves ideology. People have to believe in some sort of ideology that promises a better future. In the case of Vietnam it was communism, while in countries like Iraq it is Muslim fundamentalism. These people might be wrong about their vision of utopia, but that does not matter as long as they believe in it strongly enough.
The second involves a willingness to die for the cause. This was always a problem in countries like Vietnam as their ideology was non-religious and they did not believe in an afterlife. However, the tactics of the U.S. gave the Vietnamese people no other option (the same was also true of the Russians when they were occupied by the Nazis).
The third reason involves tactics. The weak are no longer willing to use the same tactics of the strong. It is indeed pointless for them to try and win the conflict by using conventional tactics. Instead they use the fighting methods explained in Robert Taber’s book, War of the Flea. In other words guerrilla warfare. This proved successful in Vietnam and Afghanistan. However, recent wars have seen a new development - suicide bombers. This is something that communists would never had used because of their lack of belief in the afterlife. To Muslims this is not a problem.
As a result of these changes, Bush and Blair cannot defeat terrorism when it is being used as a means of removing an occupying army. Nor can they provide protection for the people living in this occupied territory in the same way as the Romans, British, Soviets, etc. did in their empires. That is why Alain Joxe rightly describes what is happening today as the “Empire of Disorder”.
One of the interesting phenomena (for me, at least) about the current military campaign in southern Afghanistan is the apparent inability of the United States to get NATO countries to commit soldiers and equipment to the fight. I've just read an account of the ructions at the NATO summit in Poland, where extreme pressure has apparently been brought to bear on Germany and France in particular to send helicopters and soldiers to reinforce the few thousand NATO soldiers in the south - thus far to no avail.
I'm sure that previous US administrations would not have been submitted to this public humiliation. On the other hand, perhaps previous administrations would not have been in the position of asking the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to fight on the borders of Pakistan …
I wonder if this lack of ability of the Americans to enforce their will on their European allies will prove to be long-lasting, and spill over into other areas of policy.
I'm sure that previous US administrations would not have been submitted to this public humiliation. On the other hand, perhaps previous administrations would not have been in the position of asking the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to fight on the borders of Pakistan …
I wonder if this lack of ability of the Americans to enforce their will on their European allies will prove to be long-lasting, and spill over into other areas of policy.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 29 2006, 06:17 PM)
Joxe goes on to explain the relationship between corporations and organized crime:
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the government and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the government and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
Interesting analysis of organized crime groups from a global perspective. I always thought a Thomas Friedman approach to transnational organized crime groups would make for a good read- perhaps a future project. The globalization of crime does what globalization as a whole does. It brings local businesses (crime groups) into a wider arena, opening up opportunities for new customers, new products, cheaper labor, and new means of communications.
You can't really say it levels the playing field, because as a criminal organization, there is the inherent need to keep the other guy off your turf and to steal from him. SO it also serves to weed-out the groups that can't compete on a global scale. Your local town mob boss who is content wih controlling a dying union and running card games in the back of a social club will not outlast the enterprising young wiseguy who partners with computer hackers in Asia, plays the financial markets in Europe, pumps and dumps stocks online, etc.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 29 2006, 05:32 PM)
"Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty." (Alain Joxe)
Funny he would use the word neo-Darwinist to describe a type of American that still resists the scientific principles of evolution.
Of course this implies that the Bush supporter or regular American fixates on this "us against them" paradigm. It's more complicated that that. I think it's as invalid a notion as the stereotype many Americans have of the French (lazy, snotty, arrogant, lazy). If I were to tell a European that I voted for Bush, I would be deluged with criticisms of his foreign policy from the Continental perspective. Conversely if they told me they supported Chirac, I would have an immediate impression of their ideology.
It's hard to pull yourself out of a nationalistic view, especially in a post-9/11 America. As much of an Anglophile as I am, I fly the American flag outside my house every day, not the union Jack.
But it doesn't automatically mean you share an extreme neo-Darwinist view. I'm not making a blanket statement that that doesn't exist. It does, in a numbers far greater than I would like, yet far less than the non-American media would present.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world, than the pride that divides, when a coloful rag is unfurled." Neil Peart.
The fasces of ancient Roman times were the bundles of rods carried by the lictors to symbolize the great strength of the organized Roman people.
An organised group, in charge, and determined to remain in charge, ultimately displays the characteristics we now know as Fascism.
Lenin, in 1916 (under tsarist rule) wrote of the Monopoly Capitalist as the end of Capitalism. It seems to me reasonable to say that the characteristic of the Monopoly Capitalist in its decay exhibits the characterisitics of Fascism while globally Imperialist. This then is the Corporate Fascist.
The only true ememy of Corporate Fascism is the one who threatens its definition of Property.
_____________
With the end of feudalism, and with the rise of the Machine, the person becomes simply the Market. A means to an end.
Therein lies the answer to the end of "the protecti"on of "friendly or dominated auxiliaries."
The rise of the Machine not only devalues the person in the chain of production, but also removes the person from the repressive apparatus, the Military. The button is more important and ultimately. the trigger can lie in a predetermined sequence, bought and paid for, written, by indidviduals who themselves will have nothing to do with the consequences. (unless they actually understand what they are doing, and even then, like Einstein, can most likely only shake their head in the priviledge of hindsight).
So with the compartmentalisation of production and human resources we have the new AlienNation. Of course there is no payoff to the corporate fascist in "the protecti"on of "friendly or dominated auxiliaries."
_____________
Terrorism is NOT of the weak. It is of the strong, the Fascist.
The human face of the freedom struggle is not terror, it is DEFENCE. In all spheres, literature, child rearing, sharing, saying no to disunity, and where necessary resistance. And therefore it is sacrifice. And Sacrifice is the opposite of Private Property.
_____________
what is property? Theft?
At which point could the land I may own become mine? At the point at which the society I live in defined it as available, and this is almost universally at the point at which it ceased to be the property of another society or people.
Kennedy, in his last year of life presented the south with the liberalisation of property. The Negro was no longer just going to have voting rights, he was going to have property right. Rights to live where he wanted, sleep where he wanted and work where he wanted. (note I say "He", the ERA is still not a reality). This is the point of divergence. This is the reason for asassination. A redistribution of Power, of Property.
OOOOOOOOOOO
on another note: the Chinese Emperor is alive and well. The success of the Chinese system is that it has the Divinity of the Emperor enshrined as the final word, which steers a grouping that theoretically can draw members from all society. It's the penultimate exclusive inclusiveness. I suspect the ruling grouping in the US are maneuvering the society(and through popular culture icons has to a large extent already succeeded) into a field of candidates where the price is indeed available, but only on specific terms. Not freedom.
An organised group, in charge, and determined to remain in charge, ultimately displays the characteristics we now know as Fascism.
Lenin, in 1916 (under tsarist rule) wrote of the Monopoly Capitalist as the end of Capitalism. It seems to me reasonable to say that the characteristic of the Monopoly Capitalist in its decay exhibits the characterisitics of Fascism while globally Imperialist. This then is the Corporate Fascist.
The only true ememy of Corporate Fascism is the one who threatens its definition of Property.
_____________
With the end of feudalism, and with the rise of the Machine, the person becomes simply the Market. A means to an end.
Therein lies the answer to the end of "the protecti"on of "friendly or dominated auxiliaries."
The rise of the Machine not only devalues the person in the chain of production, but also removes the person from the repressive apparatus, the Military. The button is more important and ultimately. the trigger can lie in a predetermined sequence, bought and paid for, written, by indidviduals who themselves will have nothing to do with the consequences. (unless they actually understand what they are doing, and even then, like Einstein, can most likely only shake their head in the priviledge of hindsight).
So with the compartmentalisation of production and human resources we have the new AlienNation. Of course there is no payoff to the corporate fascist in "the protecti"on of "friendly or dominated auxiliaries."
_____________
Terrorism is NOT of the weak. It is of the strong, the Fascist.
The human face of the freedom struggle is not terror, it is DEFENCE. In all spheres, literature, child rearing, sharing, saying no to disunity, and where necessary resistance. And therefore it is sacrifice. And Sacrifice is the opposite of Private Property.
_____________
what is property? Theft?
At which point could the land I may own become mine? At the point at which the society I live in defined it as available, and this is almost universally at the point at which it ceased to be the property of another society or people.
Kennedy, in his last year of life presented the south with the liberalisation of property. The Negro was no longer just going to have voting rights, he was going to have property right. Rights to live where he wanted, sleep where he wanted and work where he wanted. (note I say "He", the ERA is still not a reality). This is the point of divergence. This is the reason for asassination. A redistribution of Power, of Property.
OOOOOOOOOOO
on another note: the Chinese Emperor is alive and well. The success of the Chinese system is that it has the Divinity of the Emperor enshrined as the final word, which steers a grouping that theoretically can draw members from all society. It's the penultimate exclusive inclusiveness. I suspect the ruling grouping in the US are maneuvering the society(and through popular culture icons has to a large extent already succeeded) into a field of candidates where the price is indeed available, but only on specific terms. Not freedom.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 29 2006, 04:38 PM)
But an excess of wealth can weaken military defenses and an excess of expertise in violence can devastate the economy in the long run; a new temporality is imposed on these empires, a more historical time that presents itself as cyclical. In the European the¬ater, the predatory center moves from East to West in a fish scale progression, starting from the Mesopotamian cradle of the state. It is a commonplace, first in the Bible, then in Greek historiogra¬phy to speak of the succession of predatory empires and their migration to the West. We could also suggest the migration of logistical empires to the East, in India and China.
As economic machines normally producing negentropy (order, internal peace, wealth), these systems cannot last eternally; the pre-industrial predatory Empire works like a clock carefully wound with all the skill of keeping the goose with golden eggs alive. It increases its survival time either by returning to a moderate logistical system, or by pursuing its foreign predatory conquests at the risk of military surfeit, an over-developed specialization towards specific end: in this case, perfecting destructive military capabilities at the expense of productive, economic capabilities. This over-development can take two forms, either an internal redistribution of the spoils at the risk of exhausting all the reserves, or a decentralization producing management economies with a reduction of privileged bureaucracies, at the risk of Balkanization of military sovereignty by means of wars of liberation or less predatory invasions.
But these ways of prolonging the life of an empire are also methods of self-destruction. The longest imperial experiment, the Chinese Empire, went through many cycles of logistical empires, barbarian invasions and separation into more or less predatory kingdoms without losing its identity as the Middle Empire, or moving its center without losing sight of the historical continuity of China. In the West, however, the Roman, Byzantine and Carolingian Empires, the sultanates, the Holy Roman Empire, Tsarism, Napoleon, the British Empire, the French colonial Empire and Hitler have disappeared forever. Europe is a recent political construct.
The transformation of the Russian empire and the materialization of the American empire, opposed like the two halves of the world, tracing a fortified boundary across the territory of a divided Europe, shows that a predatory imperial form prefers seeking out confrontation with an Other and an outside, and in this way it can never become global.
Europe as an identity organizing internal peace is a recent political expression, just as America is a recent empire. The recent designation (in May 2000) of China as a virtual main rival (peer competitor) of the American empire, the designation in 2001 of "Islamic terrorism" as a global enemy, the designation once again of three states - North Korea, Iran and Iraq - as "rogue states" for the mere fact that they are accused of trying to develop nuclear weapons, shows that the single Empire is looking for both the unity and plurality that will allow it to keep a predatory relationship with an exterior. It is concerned that unifying world imperial power (the monarchy, to borrow Dante's vocabulary) would require it to base its power throughout the world on internal global violence or to establish Universal peace without predatory oppression, an even more paradoxical task.
The American Empire is thus faced with a traditional problem. By perfecting the predatory and repressive military machine to the extreme, which could become necessary to its reproduction, the Empire could veer towards a monstrous overdevelopment of the destructive, or merely repressive, function of the state, threatening its subjects with death. The "people" always decide the end of logistical-predatory empires through various forms of plebian secession, of anachoresis" or of invasions greeted as liberations. There is a type of collapse without invasion exemplified by the fall of the Assyrian Empire.
A giant with clay feet, built on the mud of Mesopotamian irrigation, on the over-exploitation of Neolithic techniques, without any progress in productivity, save in techniques of destruction, Assyrian militarism disappeared all at once, just like, I might add, the Soviet Empire, caught in the breathless arms race orchestrated by the United States.
The relation between economy and violence, however, has changed drastically with the beginning of the accumulation of capital and the scientific development of technology. Which system of domination prevails in the modern Empire-states, and ultimately in the American Empire?
The elimination of the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain produced the first real globaliry in history, but it was a military event that created a military globaliry, rather than an economic one at first.
In fact, two negative moments from a military perspective marked the period: a wall falling without a fight (Berlin), Soviet abstention from a war in their glacis (the Gulf War). These two events sealed the defeat of the Soviet economic system and the Soviet military. There can be no economic defeat in a global Empire without a military defeat. Not necessarily a defeat during a wartime operation: a mixed defeat, both economic and military, in the arms race occurred in the East and a political collapse was then enough to finish it.
At this turning point, Fukuyama was premature in declaring the "End of History"', because globality, the formation of a truly global world economy, is not as easy as it seems. It runs up against the presence of politico-military sovereignties maintaining spaces that prevent total market economy unification. A few states still consider themselves Marxist (China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba), some states still maintain a partially controlled economy, either by vocation or due to a prolonged state of war (Iraq, Iran, Serbia). Other states have preserved a large nationalized sector, and even the ideology behind the nationalization of major public services and public works projects by the state. Even capitalist Europe calls for a social market economy and supports the need for sovereign regulations of the economy.
More theoretically speaking, the dogmatic defenders of the free-market economy cannot prove that free-market institutions can arise without rules, without the state acting as a guarantor of its political will, imposing the suspension of predatory violence at the gates of the marketplace or, better yet, of the entire nation.
The "predatory peace" proclaimed after the military victory of the American Empire in the name of the universal free-market ideology, imposed the representation of an economic globality that did not yet exist. The end of violence in the world bazaar cannot yet be regulated by a world state-which neither exists nor is desired by the United States - or better yet, local states, which lack the competence. Any regulation in the meantime must be done partially and empirically through negotiations that remain confidential between violent Mafias and unarmed Merchants.
Predatory peace is only a virtual paradigm with value for an improbable future and not for the present. It is not a stable state, but a process; in American strategic vocabulary, it is called enlargement, the extension of democracy and free-market economy to the entire globe. Announced by Anthony Lake in 1993, enlargement will end (so they say) in economic globality, if the future prophecy goes according to Clintonian plans and market enlargement produces its own profitability.
However, the Cold War of the Empire against an enemy or another (barbarian) Empire no longer exists to siphon the contradictions of class struggle away from the Empire through populist style mobilizations. The American Empire must face the strategic problem in the traditional form that all Empires had to face if, like the Roman or Chinese Empires, they considered themselves to be "alone in the world," since they knew nothing about the others. The competing colonial Empires had to face the same problem: class struggles are traditionally "drained off" by delimiting a space to conquer. But what happens if conquest is no longer profitable in the "barbarian areas" (Rome gave up trying to conquer Germania) or if there are no more "barbarian areas"? There are two abstract strategies that were applied both in the history of the Roman Empire as in the history of European colonial empires:
i) The Empire can recreate a military enemy within the economic globality to polarize itself and suspend class struggle in the name of security with repressive wars. This exterior is "naturally' present: it includes zones of poverty that do not form a "market" and can therefore become purely military marches again. Internal war in zones of poverty. One could say that it is taking shape in the United States.
ii) The Empire can also reauthorize war within the newly drawn globality of military leadership in order to redefine peace. War is illegitimate and hindered in the world today by two obstacles that are beneficial in principle, but do not really work to prohibit war. Authorizing international wars is within the grasp of the military leadership of the United States. The return of local duels has been facilitated by the removal of two hindrances:
• war is hindered by the prohibition on international wars by the UN; it is the equivalent of a police prohibition on duels within a unified world. The UN Security Council would be in charge of the policing function of the World Empire. This is the project on which the UN institution was built-at least on paper. A UN General Staff has nonetheless never been formed, much less a specifically UN military force. There are no archers on watch under the orders of the king. This model does not work. The UN at most plays the role of a weakened papacy.
• war is theoretically hindered by the United States itself, the global imperial military nation, with its own doctrine of military intervention: Zero GI casualties and the reshaping of NATO into its new role of sending out forces that no longer have anything to do with defending against the USSR, causing a crisis in alliances and renresentations.
As economic machines normally producing negentropy (order, internal peace, wealth), these systems cannot last eternally; the pre-industrial predatory Empire works like a clock carefully wound with all the skill of keeping the goose with golden eggs alive. It increases its survival time either by returning to a moderate logistical system, or by pursuing its foreign predatory conquests at the risk of military surfeit, an over-developed specialization towards specific end: in this case, perfecting destructive military capabilities at the expense of productive, economic capabilities. This over-development can take two forms, either an internal redistribution of the spoils at the risk of exhausting all the reserves, or a decentralization producing management economies with a reduction of privileged bureaucracies, at the risk of Balkanization of military sovereignty by means of wars of liberation or less predatory invasions.
But these ways of prolonging the life of an empire are also methods of self-destruction. The longest imperial experiment, the Chinese Empire, went through many cycles of logistical empires, barbarian invasions and separation into more or less predatory kingdoms without losing its identity as the Middle Empire, or moving its center without losing sight of the historical continuity of China. In the West, however, the Roman, Byzantine and Carolingian Empires, the sultanates, the Holy Roman Empire, Tsarism, Napoleon, the British Empire, the French colonial Empire and Hitler have disappeared forever. Europe is a recent political construct.
The transformation of the Russian empire and the materialization of the American empire, opposed like the two halves of the world, tracing a fortified boundary across the territory of a divided Europe, shows that a predatory imperial form prefers seeking out confrontation with an Other and an outside, and in this way it can never become global.
Europe as an identity organizing internal peace is a recent political expression, just as America is a recent empire. The recent designation (in May 2000) of China as a virtual main rival (peer competitor) of the American empire, the designation in 2001 of "Islamic terrorism" as a global enemy, the designation once again of three states - North Korea, Iran and Iraq - as "rogue states" for the mere fact that they are accused of trying to develop nuclear weapons, shows that the single Empire is looking for both the unity and plurality that will allow it to keep a predatory relationship with an exterior. It is concerned that unifying world imperial power (the monarchy, to borrow Dante's vocabulary) would require it to base its power throughout the world on internal global violence or to establish Universal peace without predatory oppression, an even more paradoxical task.
The American Empire is thus faced with a traditional problem. By perfecting the predatory and repressive military machine to the extreme, which could become necessary to its reproduction, the Empire could veer towards a monstrous overdevelopment of the destructive, or merely repressive, function of the state, threatening its subjects with death. The "people" always decide the end of logistical-predatory empires through various forms of plebian secession, of anachoresis" or of invasions greeted as liberations. There is a type of collapse without invasion exemplified by the fall of the Assyrian Empire.
A giant with clay feet, built on the mud of Mesopotamian irrigation, on the over-exploitation of Neolithic techniques, without any progress in productivity, save in techniques of destruction, Assyrian militarism disappeared all at once, just like, I might add, the Soviet Empire, caught in the breathless arms race orchestrated by the United States.
The relation between economy and violence, however, has changed drastically with the beginning of the accumulation of capital and the scientific development of technology. Which system of domination prevails in the modern Empire-states, and ultimately in the American Empire?
The elimination of the Berlin wall and the Iron Curtain produced the first real globaliry in history, but it was a military event that created a military globaliry, rather than an economic one at first.
In fact, two negative moments from a military perspective marked the period: a wall falling without a fight (Berlin), Soviet abstention from a war in their glacis (the Gulf War). These two events sealed the defeat of the Soviet economic system and the Soviet military. There can be no economic defeat in a global Empire without a military defeat. Not necessarily a defeat during a wartime operation: a mixed defeat, both economic and military, in the arms race occurred in the East and a political collapse was then enough to finish it.
At this turning point, Fukuyama was premature in declaring the "End of History"', because globality, the formation of a truly global world economy, is not as easy as it seems. It runs up against the presence of politico-military sovereignties maintaining spaces that prevent total market economy unification. A few states still consider themselves Marxist (China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba), some states still maintain a partially controlled economy, either by vocation or due to a prolonged state of war (Iraq, Iran, Serbia). Other states have preserved a large nationalized sector, and even the ideology behind the nationalization of major public services and public works projects by the state. Even capitalist Europe calls for a social market economy and supports the need for sovereign regulations of the economy.
More theoretically speaking, the dogmatic defenders of the free-market economy cannot prove that free-market institutions can arise without rules, without the state acting as a guarantor of its political will, imposing the suspension of predatory violence at the gates of the marketplace or, better yet, of the entire nation.
The "predatory peace" proclaimed after the military victory of the American Empire in the name of the universal free-market ideology, imposed the representation of an economic globality that did not yet exist. The end of violence in the world bazaar cannot yet be regulated by a world state-which neither exists nor is desired by the United States - or better yet, local states, which lack the competence. Any regulation in the meantime must be done partially and empirically through negotiations that remain confidential between violent Mafias and unarmed Merchants.
Predatory peace is only a virtual paradigm with value for an improbable future and not for the present. It is not a stable state, but a process; in American strategic vocabulary, it is called enlargement, the extension of democracy and free-market economy to the entire globe. Announced by Anthony Lake in 1993, enlargement will end (so they say) in economic globality, if the future prophecy goes according to Clintonian plans and market enlargement produces its own profitability.
However, the Cold War of the Empire against an enemy or another (barbarian) Empire no longer exists to siphon the contradictions of class struggle away from the Empire through populist style mobilizations. The American Empire must face the strategic problem in the traditional form that all Empires had to face if, like the Roman or Chinese Empires, they considered themselves to be "alone in the world," since they knew nothing about the others. The competing colonial Empires had to face the same problem: class struggles are traditionally "drained off" by delimiting a space to conquer. But what happens if conquest is no longer profitable in the "barbarian areas" (Rome gave up trying to conquer Germania) or if there are no more "barbarian areas"? There are two abstract strategies that were applied both in the history of the Roman Empire as in the history of European colonial empires:
i) The Empire can recreate a military enemy within the economic globality to polarize itself and suspend class struggle in the name of security with repressive wars. This exterior is "naturally' present: it includes zones of poverty that do not form a "market" and can therefore become purely military marches again. Internal war in zones of poverty. One could say that it is taking shape in the United States.
ii) The Empire can also reauthorize war within the newly drawn globality of military leadership in order to redefine peace. War is illegitimate and hindered in the world today by two obstacles that are beneficial in principle, but do not really work to prohibit war. Authorizing international wars is within the grasp of the military leadership of the United States. The return of local duels has been facilitated by the removal of two hindrances:
• war is hindered by the prohibition on international wars by the UN; it is the equivalent of a police prohibition on duels within a unified world. The UN Security Council would be in charge of the policing function of the World Empire. This is the project on which the UN institution was built-at least on paper. A UN General Staff has nonetheless never been formed, much less a specifically UN military force. There are no archers on watch under the orders of the king. This model does not work. The UN at most plays the role of a weakened papacy.
• war is theoretically hindered by the United States itself, the global imperial military nation, with its own doctrine of military intervention: Zero GI casualties and the reshaping of NATO into its new role of sending out forces that no longer have anything to do with defending against the USSR, causing a crisis in alliances and renresentations.
Call me old-fashioned or out of time, but the concept of laissez faire has historically been proven disasterous to a healthy American economy any time it has been implemented. Its proponents will cite its advantages from their entrepeneurial, or corporate P.O.V., when in reality a "free market" system means the sacrifice and loss of viable employment opportunities within the continental sector via their out-sourcing to Third World economies. Computerization has compounded the fact by the sheer magnitude of the globility it provides for the facillitation and success of the process. What answer is readily available to staunch this hemorrhage? A dwindling surplus of menial minimum wage jobs?
War serves mainly to line the pockets of the contracted entities [Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.] who stand to profit from the carnage and destruction wrought during the emminent domaining process inherent in the empirical/imperialist dual mindset, equally reminicent of the Manifest Destiny concept of the 1700's.
Therefore, with regard to the ordinary citizens of the Western, Middle Eastern, or the Asian sectors of the world, shall we remain as the mere "plebes" of old, in this "global" society, lacking in voice, strength, or tenacity?
Excellent read, John. Thanks for linking me up.
But the Emperor Has No Clothes, and We as an educated society Know this but don’t cry Out.
Snippets from posted text in balck, my comments in blue
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
The obvious answer is the huge shift in the military budget. Before September 11, Bush was pushing for a new "Star Wars" effort, overruling the objections of allied powers. Bin Laden provided afar better argument for the Congress to approve the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, as Bush himself boasted.
I think a key point to remember here is that the speech that Rice was about to deliver when 9-11 was carried out was about the need for re-pursuing the Star Wars or Strategic Defense Initiative to protect America from the one or two missiles that constituted a more realistic nuclear threat in a world of possible or probable proliferation. That was the policy goal at the time and that is a reason why the daily security briefing with a title similar to “Bin Laden Appears Determined to Make an Attack on American Soil” was not acted upon with all guns blazing. It is an amazing and puzzling fact that all of the things were are asked to do because the possibility of suspect A doing this or that seemingly is contradicted by the far less than all out effort to apprehend Bin Laden, the charismatic figurehead of the “evil-doers” Under this logic shouldn’t all resources be used on this manhunt, and all objections of allies be bullied aside with the “you’re either with us or against us” argument? If anything merits this doesn’t the search for Bin Laden do so?
<a href = “http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer”> Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism</a>
“The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.”
The strength of multinational conglomerates and delocalized banks, the transformation of investments into temporary installations as volatile as off-shore accounts that hold the threat of relocation over their workers, create a structural fear. The uprooting of the threat produces a structural fear by rendering localized protection useless.
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the government and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
IMHO a very importmant element of modern world politics. If the game is corporate, capitalistic, democratic socialism, then everybody is strongly encouraged to play and those that do not will constitute another world. (Do we have clear second and third worlds of the modern world order like we did during the Cold War?)
Corporations, like other non-states, terrorist groups and organized crime syndicates, have tremendous advantages in the modern world order. As we open our borders up more in the name of free trade and free competition, our borders become so permeable that these non-state entities have a tremendous mobility and can count on being allowed to profit with relationships with those they must (U.S. U.K., Germany etc, while negotiating terms of entry into places that can give them other types of benefits too, (raw materials, cheap labor, secret banking, cover for illegal activities, what have you.) While I am generally a proponent of globalization, I see danger in the Al-Qaedas of the world and the Bermudas and Cayman Islands of the world. If we return to a period of economic nationalism each of these types of organizations would have more difficulty, but probably with the globalizing technology and morph-ability of the corporate structure, can probably adapt institutions today to adapt to any type of economic system short of fascist corporatism of dictators like Hussein. (and of course they probably can profit from supplicating relationships with these types even more but they have the danger of having their interests revoked and their property nationalized from figures like this)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is a bit too much to lay a main burden of the blame here on the United States. The United States policies of globalization have been working hand in hand with nations around the world. There is a capital class that has had a high degree of success in distributing the bounty of the capitalist economy (and I do think the regulated market economy is superior to any socialist model put forward so far) to pay out to capital at the expense of labor in the last forty years. Of course I think the irony here is that center leftist policies reward the capital classes better than their ideal world (no taxes and the iron law of wages)
IMO the modern economy is extremely dependent on consumption and the way to fuel consumption is
Snippets from posted text in balck, my comments in blue
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
The obvious answer is the huge shift in the military budget. Before September 11, Bush was pushing for a new "Star Wars" effort, overruling the objections of allied powers. Bin Laden provided afar better argument for the Congress to approve the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, as Bush himself boasted.
I think a key point to remember here is that the speech that Rice was about to deliver when 9-11 was carried out was about the need for re-pursuing the Star Wars or Strategic Defense Initiative to protect America from the one or two missiles that constituted a more realistic nuclear threat in a world of possible or probable proliferation. That was the policy goal at the time and that is a reason why the daily security briefing with a title similar to “Bin Laden Appears Determined to Make an Attack on American Soil” was not acted upon with all guns blazing. It is an amazing and puzzling fact that all of the things were are asked to do because the possibility of suspect A doing this or that seemingly is contradicted by the far less than all out effort to apprehend Bin Laden, the charismatic figurehead of the “evil-doers” Under this logic shouldn’t all resources be used on this manhunt, and all objections of allies be bullied aside with the “you’re either with us or against us” argument? If anything merits this doesn’t the search for Bin Laden do so?
<a href = “http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer”> Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism</a>
“The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.”
The strength of multinational conglomerates and delocalized banks, the transformation of investments into temporary installations as volatile as off-shore accounts that hold the threat of relocation over their workers, create a structural fear. The uprooting of the threat produces a structural fear by rendering localized protection useless.
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the government and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
IMHO a very importmant element of modern world politics. If the game is corporate, capitalistic, democratic socialism, then everybody is strongly encouraged to play and those that do not will constitute another world. (Do we have clear second and third worlds of the modern world order like we did during the Cold War?)
Corporations, like other non-states, terrorist groups and organized crime syndicates, have tremendous advantages in the modern world order. As we open our borders up more in the name of free trade and free competition, our borders become so permeable that these non-state entities have a tremendous mobility and can count on being allowed to profit with relationships with those they must (U.S. U.K., Germany etc, while negotiating terms of entry into places that can give them other types of benefits too, (raw materials, cheap labor, secret banking, cover for illegal activities, what have you.) While I am generally a proponent of globalization, I see danger in the Al-Qaedas of the world and the Bermudas and Cayman Islands of the world. If we return to a period of economic nationalism each of these types of organizations would have more difficulty, but probably with the globalizing technology and morph-ability of the corporate structure, can probably adapt institutions today to adapt to any type of economic system short of fascist corporatism of dictators like Hussein. (and of course they probably can profit from supplicating relationships with these types even more but they have the danger of having their interests revoked and their property nationalized from figures like this)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is a bit too much to lay a main burden of the blame here on the United States. The United States policies of globalization have been working hand in hand with nations around the world. There is a capital class that has had a high degree of success in distributing the bounty of the capitalist economy (and I do think the regulated market economy is superior to any socialist model put forward so far) to pay out to capital at the expense of labor in the last forty years. Of course I think the irony here is that center leftist policies reward the capital classes better than their ideal world (no taxes and the iron law of wages)
IMO the modern economy is extremely dependent on consumption and the way to fuel consumption is
But the Emperor Has No Clothes, and We as an educated society Know this but don’t cry Out.
Snippets from posted text in balck, my comments in blue
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
The obvious answer is the huge shift in the military budget. Before September 11, Bush was pushing for a new "Star Wars" effort, overruling the objections of allied powers. Bin Laden provided afar better argument for the Congress to approve the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, as Bush himself boasted.
I think a key point to remember here is that the speech that Rice was about to deliver when 9-11 was carried out was about the need for re-pursuing the Star Wars or Strategic Defense Initiative to protect America from the one or two missiles that constituted a more realistic nuclear threat in a world of possible or probable proliferation. That was the policy goal at the time and that is a reason why the daily security briefing with a title similar to “Bin Laden Appears Determined to Make an Attack on American Soil” was not acted upon with all guns blazing. It is an amazing and puzzling fact that all of the things were are asked to do because the possibility of suspect A doing this or that seemingly is contradicted by the far less than all out effort to apprehend Bin Laden, the charismatic figurehead of the “evil-doers” Under this logic shouldn’t all resources be used on this manhunt, and all objections of allies be bullied aside with the “you’re either with us or against us” argument? If anything merits this doesn’t the search for Bin Laden do so?
<a href = “http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer”> Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism</a>
“The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.”
The strength of multinational conglomerates and delocalized banks, the transformation of investments into temporary installations as volatile as off-shore accounts that hold the threat of relocation over their workers, create a structural fear. The uprooting of the threat produces a structural fear by rendering localized protection useless.
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the government and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
IMHO a very importmant element of modern world politics. If the game is corporate, capitalistic, democratic socialism, then everybody is strongly encouraged to play and those that do not will constitute another world. (Do we have clear second and third worlds of the modern world order like we did during the Cold War?)
Corporations, like other non-states, terrorist groups and organized crime syndicates, have tremendous advantages in the modern world order. As we open our borders up more in the name of free trade and free competition, our borders become so permeable that these non-state entities have a tremendous mobility and can count on being allowed to profit with relationships with those they must (U.S. U.K., Germany etc, while negotiating terms of entry into places that can give them other types of benefits too, (raw materials, cheap labor, secret banking, cover for illegal activities, what have you.) While I am generally a proponent of globalization, I see danger in the Al-Qaedas of the world and the Bermudas and Cayman Islands of the world. If we return to a period of economic nationalism each of these types of organizations would have more difficulty, but probably with the globalizing technology and morph-ability of the corporate structure, can probably adapt institutions today to adapt to any type of economic system short of fascist corporatism of dictators like Hussein. (and of course they probably can profit from supplicating relationships with these types even more but they have the danger of having their interests revoked and their property nationalized from figures like this)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is a bit too much to lay a main burden of the blame here on the United States. The United States policies of globalization have been working hand in hand with nations around the world. There is a capital class that has had a high degree of success in distributing the bounty of the capitalist economy (and I do think the regulated market economy is superior to any socialist model put forward so far) to pay out to capital at the expense of labor in the last forty years. Of course I think the irony here is that center leftist policies reward the capital classes better than their ideal world (no taxes and the iron law of wages)
IMO the modern economy is extremely dependent on consumption and the way to fuel consumption is pay high wages and invest in infrastructure and education and insurances for our citizens like health. but the modern corporate strategy is to have the cake and eat it too. Take high profits from interacting with the developed economies but move most investment into cheaper areas. In a world where capital seems to be available even in a period of ridiculously high government spending (see the US budget) at a pretty low cost, how is it that capital still earns so much of the rewards of the day at the expense of the middle and working classes. The present economy reminds me in far too many ways of the economy of the 1920s. The major exception being the lack of economic nationalism. But productivity is up and the income distribution is dangerously unbalanced in such a way that would make Karl Marx say I told you so.
Snippets from posted text in balck, my comments in blue
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
The obvious answer is the huge shift in the military budget. Before September 11, Bush was pushing for a new "Star Wars" effort, overruling the objections of allied powers. Bin Laden provided afar better argument for the Congress to approve the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, as Bush himself boasted.
I think a key point to remember here is that the speech that Rice was about to deliver when 9-11 was carried out was about the need for re-pursuing the Star Wars or Strategic Defense Initiative to protect America from the one or two missiles that constituted a more realistic nuclear threat in a world of possible or probable proliferation. That was the policy goal at the time and that is a reason why the daily security briefing with a title similar to “Bin Laden Appears Determined to Make an Attack on American Soil” was not acted upon with all guns blazing. It is an amazing and puzzling fact that all of the things were are asked to do because the possibility of suspect A doing this or that seemingly is contradicted by the far less than all out effort to apprehend Bin Laden, the charismatic figurehead of the “evil-doers” Under this logic shouldn’t all resources be used on this manhunt, and all objections of allies be bullied aside with the “you’re either with us or against us” argument? If anything merits this doesn’t the search for Bin Laden do so?
<a href = “http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer”> Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism</a>
“The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.”
The strength of multinational conglomerates and delocalized banks, the transformation of investments into temporary installations as volatile as off-shore accounts that hold the threat of relocation over their workers, create a structural fear. The uprooting of the threat produces a structural fear by rendering localized protection useless.
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world. On the one hand, this situation derives from the transnationalization of violent mafias; on the other, from the transnationalization and concentration of capital, especially financial capital. Colombian, Afghan, Pakistani, Nigerian drug mafias, Russian and Yugoslavian mafias, Chinese Triads, the Camorra, the N'dranghetta, etc., all make up a world of private, violent and popular enterprises with wealth and power. They harbor certain symbols of sovereignty such as "the legitimate use of the threat of death." Mafia legitimacy is a political construction that is at war with certain states, but sometimes allied with powerful states (Mexico, Russia) or tiny ones (Liechtenstein). Although they do not comprise or dominate the majority of entrepreneurial society, they contribute to the destabilization of the government and the breakdown of the protective function that is legitimately ensured by the nation-state. They are a new global neighbor for corporations.
IMHO a very importmant element of modern world politics. If the game is corporate, capitalistic, democratic socialism, then everybody is strongly encouraged to play and those that do not will constitute another world. (Do we have clear second and third worlds of the modern world order like we did during the Cold War?)
Corporations, like other non-states, terrorist groups and organized crime syndicates, have tremendous advantages in the modern world order. As we open our borders up more in the name of free trade and free competition, our borders become so permeable that these non-state entities have a tremendous mobility and can count on being allowed to profit with relationships with those they must (U.S. U.K., Germany etc, while negotiating terms of entry into places that can give them other types of benefits too, (raw materials, cheap labor, secret banking, cover for illegal activities, what have you.) While I am generally a proponent of globalization, I see danger in the Al-Qaedas of the world and the Bermudas and Cayman Islands of the world. If we return to a period of economic nationalism each of these types of organizations would have more difficulty, but probably with the globalizing technology and morph-ability of the corporate structure, can probably adapt institutions today to adapt to any type of economic system short of fascist corporatism of dictators like Hussein. (and of course they probably can profit from supplicating relationships with these types even more but they have the danger of having their interests revoked and their property nationalized from figures like this)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is a bit too much to lay a main burden of the blame here on the United States. The United States policies of globalization have been working hand in hand with nations around the world. There is a capital class that has had a high degree of success in distributing the bounty of the capitalist economy (and I do think the regulated market economy is superior to any socialist model put forward so far) to pay out to capital at the expense of labor in the last forty years. Of course I think the irony here is that center leftist policies reward the capital classes better than their ideal world (no taxes and the iron law of wages)
IMO the modern economy is extremely dependent on consumption and the way to fuel consumption is pay high wages and invest in infrastructure and education and insurances for our citizens like health. but the modern corporate strategy is to have the cake and eat it too. Take high profits from interacting with the developed economies but move most investment into cheaper areas. In a world where capital seems to be available even in a period of ridiculously high government spending (see the US budget) at a pretty low cost, how is it that capital still earns so much of the rewards of the day at the expense of the middle and working classes. The present economy reminds me in far too many ways of the economy of the 1920s. The major exception being the lack of economic nationalism. But productivity is up and the income distribution is dangerously unbalanced in such a way that would make Karl Marx say I told you so.
Until now, the hope for peace has been at the root of the imagination of war. In fact, "peace is normally the goal of war. On the contrary, war is not the goal of peace," as Saint Augustine once told us. If the interior peace of a state is sometimes restored by the invention of an external threat of war, this exportation of violence owes more to a hellish peace than a divine one. If it is true that we have entered the era when globalization will erase the frontiers between internal and external wars, we can also anticipate that it will either eliminate peace or preferably that it will erase the boundary between internal peace and external peace, so that peace can become the global objective for eliminating war.
Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
--------------------
The highly respected historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote in 1991, "The Disuniting of America. Reflections On A Multicultural Society." The foreword included the following...... "Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own.America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities. Instead of a nation composed of individuals making their own unhampered choices, America increasingly sees itself as composed of groups more or less ineradicable in their ethnic character....Will the center hold? or will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?"
Posed as a literal question, an answer to the above could be:
No the center has not held, and irrespective of the events of the last six years, there is a certain element of The Tower of Babel, as an expression used to define American culture here and now, which is not a good thing if no one is listening, to the other, or if one side is presenting a disingenious propoganda campaign designed to increase it's suppresion of civil liberties, while maintaining the guise of noble intentions.
Are the American people watching the Bush Administration currently undertake a hegemonic militaristic last stand before it's Era of Empire ends, simultaneously mixed in with a corporatized media at the beck and call of the apparatus of government, some people would say yes.
To wit, circumstances are even more adversely affected, by the 'framing the debate' conundrum of which the slogan "This is your Media, This is Your Media on Drugs" description seems apropos. American political campaigns, for the most part do not have civilized discourse only searches for dirt on the other, and mudslinging, although that is only an opinion.
Particularly galling is framing the debate as a World Wrestling Federation match-up between the Democrat's and the Republican's, instead of a coherent logical dialogue about America's future. Why? Because those same Democrats pass the bill's that the President send's to Congress and the last time I looked there were no gun's pointed at their heads when they voted, and which is equally disturbing in the long run, if one is expecting those same Democrat's to ostensibly, pull America back to the center.
Are American's being more or less asked [subconciously, perhaps] to act as if there are no credibility issues with 'the War on Terrorism' as it is presented via the media? i.e. credibility re Invading Iraq because they were in cahoot's with Al-Qaeda, or how consensus, only in the most bastardized sense was derived, and, of which the Administration seek's to play down, successfully to those who are willing to sleepwalk through a defining moment in history.
My only experience with the totalitarianism of the last century was reading about it in books, nonetheless I am acutely aware of the fact that in history, each generation to a degree [on a national level] has to be re-educated on the horrors of war and the fact that freedom in it's purest form, was purchased with human blood, and eternal vigilance is required to maintain it. But in today's media quagmire, if you say those words and you are not to the right of Attila the Hun, your patriotism is 'suspect.'
If one accept's the last premise, it is nauseating to see what is arguably a "People Magazine Mentality" willing to fork over civil liberties, in no small part, due to a media that is, dare I say, stuck on stupid to the detriment of us all.
Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
--------------------
The highly respected historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote in 1991, "The Disuniting of America. Reflections On A Multicultural Society." The foreword included the following...... "Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own.America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities. Instead of a nation composed of individuals making their own unhampered choices, America increasingly sees itself as composed of groups more or less ineradicable in their ethnic character....Will the center hold? or will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?"
Posed as a literal question, an answer to the above could be:
No the center has not held, and irrespective of the events of the last six years, there is a certain element of The Tower of Babel, as an expression used to define American culture here and now, which is not a good thing if no one is listening, to the other, or if one side is presenting a disingenious propoganda campaign designed to increase it's suppresion of civil liberties, while maintaining the guise of noble intentions.
Are the American people watching the Bush Administration currently undertake a hegemonic militaristic last stand before it's Era of Empire ends, simultaneously mixed in with a corporatized media at the beck and call of the apparatus of government, some people would say yes.
To wit, circumstances are even more adversely affected, by the 'framing the debate' conundrum of which the slogan "This is your Media, This is Your Media on Drugs" description seems apropos. American political campaigns, for the most part do not have civilized discourse only searches for dirt on the other, and mudslinging, although that is only an opinion.
Particularly galling is framing the debate as a World Wrestling Federation match-up between the Democrat's and the Republican's, instead of a coherent logical dialogue about America's future. Why? Because those same Democrats pass the bill's that the President send's to Congress and the last time I looked there were no gun's pointed at their heads when they voted, and which is equally disturbing in the long run, if one is expecting those same Democrat's to ostensibly, pull America back to the center.
Are American's being more or less asked [subconciously, perhaps] to act as if there are no credibility issues with 'the War on Terrorism' as it is presented via the media? i.e. credibility re Invading Iraq because they were in cahoot's with Al-Qaeda, or how consensus, only in the most bastardized sense was derived, and, of which the Administration seek's to play down, successfully to those who are willing to sleepwalk through a defining moment in history.
My only experience with the totalitarianism of the last century was reading about it in books, nonetheless I am acutely aware of the fact that in history, each generation to a degree [on a national level] has to be re-educated on the horrors of war and the fact that freedom in it's purest form, was purchased with human blood, and eternal vigilance is required to maintain it. But in today's media quagmire, if you say those words and you are not to the right of Attila the Hun, your patriotism is 'suspect.'
If one accept's the last premise, it is nauseating to see what is arguably a "People Magazine Mentality" willing to fork over civil liberties, in no small part, due to a media that is, dare I say, stuck on stupid to the detriment of us all.
QUOTE (David Richardson @ Sep 9 2006, 08:33 AM)
One of the interesting phenomena (for me, at least) about the current military campaign in southern Afghanistan is the apparent inability of the United States to get NATO countries to commit soldiers and equipment to the fight. I've just read an account of the ructions at the NATO summit in Poland, where extreme pressure has apparently been brought to bear on Germany and France in particular to send helicopters and soldiers to reinforce the few thousand NATO soldiers in the south - thus far to no avail.
I'm sure that previous US administrations would not have been submitted to this public humiliation. On the other hand, perhaps previous administrations would not have been in the position of asking the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to fight on the borders of Pakistan …
I wonder if this lack of ability of the Americans to enforce their will on their European allies will prove to be long-lasting, and spill over into other areas of policy.
I'm sure that previous US administrations would not have been submitted to this public humiliation. On the other hand, perhaps previous administrations would not have been in the position of asking the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to fight on the borders of Pakistan …
I wonder if this lack of ability of the Americans to enforce their will on their European allies will prove to be long-lasting, and spill over into other areas of policy.
This highlights a major problem with the new American Empire. For example, the Romans had their auxiliaries and the British were very good at persuading local people to become part of the occupying force (both Stalin and Hitler were fascinated by the way the British did this). The Soviet Union was also able to get other Warsaw Pact countries to provide troops.
Bush has tried to get other countries to supply troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (the coalition of the willing). Most countries refused in Iraq. They have also been reluctant to put troops in dangerous areas of Afghanistan. This is the main concern of critics of Blair’s foreign policy at the moment. The former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan recently resigned in protest at the tactics being used in the Helmand province. He says that the British policy of bombing and strafing villages is only increasing recruitment to the Taliban. In other words, the British are imitating the military tactics of the US that failed so disastrously in Vietnam.
The only countries left willing to provide troops to carry out frontline duties are the UK, Australia and a couple of right-wing governments in Eastern Europe. Italian and Spanish governments were also willing to do this before they were ousted from power. This is understandable as it is impossible to convince the electorate of these countries that it is in their interests to support these invasions.
The US will eventually end up completely isolated. By this time the American people will hopefully come to their senses and will elect someone willing to scale down their military adventures. That is elect a government that is not being sponsored by Halliburton, Bechtel or the other multinational companies that make their money from wars.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 11 2006, 07:37 AM)
The US will eventually end up completely isolated. By this time the American people will hopefully come to their senses and will elect someone willing to scale down their military adventures. That is elect a government that is not being sponsored by Halliburton, Bechtel or the other multinational companies that make their money from wars.
A majority of the American people have already gotten wise to Bush. A large percentage of Republicans running for re-election are running as "independent" Republicans, that is, as Republicans who are willing to diverge from Bush on important issues. In California, Arnold Schwarzenegger's pro-Bush speeches are aired by Dems as a way of discrediting him. I'm afraid Terminator 5 may be coming soon to a theater near you, after all...
IF the trend continues and a non-neo-con gets elected in 2008, the U.S. will be in a fairly good position, IMO. It will have set a good example for other democracies--"SEE, we had a complete idiot run our country into the ground for 8 years, and nobody murdered him, nobody overthrew him, and we survived. THEREFORE...Democracy works" At such time, IF the newly elected president has a LICK OF SENSE, he/she will embrace the UN and sell Bush's behavior as an over-reaction to 9/11, and not as a reflection of the American people's ill will... If this occurs, the U.S. may yet find a way to use its Empire-like status for the benefit of mankind.
Trying to stay positive...
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 11 2006, 07:37 AM)
The US will eventually end up completely isolated. By this time the American people will hopefully come to their senses and will elect someone willing to scale down their military adventures. That is elect a government that is not being sponsored by Halliburton, Bechtel or the other multinational companies that make their money from wars.
There are no meaningful geopolitical boundaries, those are bureaucratic relics that will continue to be supported by their own momentum. A snake eating its own tail. Though they are obsolete, they will continue to be marginally observed as a means of keeping track - of the flow of people and goods.
In the place of states, there are multinational corporate income streams, fueled by military projects.
Whichever drama the U.S. political strategists choose to present to the public, it is no longer a matter of statecraft. It is stagecraft on a global scale. And I think this has been true since around 1900.
MV
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Sep 10 2006, 04:55 PM)
Snippets from posted text in black, my comments in blue
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
I think there is one major difference. When the Romans, British, Soviets took over a country they remained in power for a reasonable period of time. In doing so, they created order. Eventually, of course, they were removed by the host population because the valued freedom over order.
For the last 100 years or so, the US has attempted to control countries by its use of economic power. Only on rare occasions has it been forced to send in an occupying army. When it has sent in the troops, such as in Vietnam and Iraq, it has never gained complete control and therefore has been unable to provide any protection to the host population. Therefore it has become the “Empire of Disorder”.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 12 2006, 01:51 AM)
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Sep 10 2006, 04:55 PM)
Snippets from posted text in black, my comments in blue
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
I think there is one major difference. When the Romans, British, Soviets took over a country they remained in power for a reasonable period of time. In doing so, they created order. Eventually, of course, they were removed by the host population because the valued freedom over order.
For the last 100 years or so, the US has attempted to control countries by its use of economic power. Only on rare occasions has it been forced to send in an occupying army. When it has sent in the troops, such as in Vietnam and Iraq, it has never gained complete control and therefore has been unable to provide any protection to the host population. Therefore it has become the “Empire of Disorder”.
This seems pretty darn selective to me. I'm not sure where you see complete Britsh control and long term stability. The Americans have had a longer period of Pax Americana than the Soviets were ever able to enjoy. They were the opposite sides of the war during the Cold War. The occupied nations of Germany and Japan have enjoyed long runs of peace as have the NATO powers that I would guess you would have as the other side of the Soviet control zone in the Warsaw Pact.
The American vision of world trade provided a golden age of the economy from 1945-1970 and the Atlantic Charter, GATT vision of Bretton Woods has laid out a period of sustained growth. Major world powers haven't been warring with each other. Are you claiming that the Roman empire didn't have constant border wars along its much nearer frontier?
I would locate the problems with nationalism and guerilla tactics that have turned around the tremendous advantages held by Westernized and industrialized forces. The conquest is as easy as ever, but in the post 1914 world countries must use inordinate force and brutality just to delay the inevitable.
This is the lesson of Serbia of 1914, Algeria, India, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. Remember, the British Empire was there with just as much frustration and futility. The United States has been put off by this difficulty as much as every other nation. And just like the mighty British Empire of the 19th century, it would rather its business interests or foreign policy clout solve its problems than a full blown military effort.
I wonder what stability Britain was trying to instill with its drug pushing in China backed up by its gunboat Nemesis. I think conquest is disorder, And conquest + naitonalism = guerilla tactics means that the advantage remains in the hands of the home team, no matter how humble its means.
I am not a flag waving patriot and I am critical of American foreign policy. But it has simply replaced Great Britain as a hegemon without being mcuh better or worse. When the United States behaves itself and doesn't have a cowboy as president shouting you're either with us or against us, the world calmy ignores the giant astride it. Much as the pre-coronation routines of the old British Empire were humble and underplayed in the days of Queen Victoria. When the power became less of a reality more pomp and pompousness hasten the British decline. (Eric Hobsbawm, one of my alltime favorite reads about the symbols of power)
Cheers as you say on your side of the Pond. Have a Nice Day, as the sun-glass wearing CHP likes to say over here while handing a speeding ticket to the driver.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 12 2006, 08:51 AM)
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Sep 10 2006, 04:55 PM)
Snippets from posted text in black, my comments in blue
The United States, however, as an imperial power, today refuses to assume the protective role for its friendly or dominated auxiliaries. It does not seek to conquer the world and take responsibility for protecting the subjugated societies.
I’m not sure that Great Britain did this any differently. They paid out national resources when returns would come back for the empire. It exported an idealistic philosophy a la White man’s Burden as a justification for conquest and a reason to feel better about the pilfering of economies (the return of infrastructure into subjugated societies) but the myth of protection was revealed in times of war in places like French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies.
I think there is one major difference. When the Romans, British, Soviets took over a country they remained in power for a reasonable period of time. In doing so, they created order. Eventually, of course, they were removed by the host population because the valued freedom over order.
For the last 100 years or so, the US has attempted to control countries by its use of economic power. Only on rare occasions has it been forced to send in an occupying army. When it has sent in the troops, such as in Vietnam and Iraq, it has never gained complete control and therefore has been unable to provide any protection to the host population. Therefore it has become the “Empire of Disorder”.
America has a uniquely short 'attention span' and it is getting shorter. Corporations think in terms of the profits this year and even the next year 'be damned' for now.... I think this kind of [non]thinking is part of the 'mix' in the current American Imperialism.....no longterm thinking...and certainly no plans to 'win' the hearts and minds of the conquered except with 'shock and awe' and 'goodies' such as Coke and bluejeans and American pop music etc. The problem is most of the vanquished had those things available before. John, your right that no stability or other is offered to those we try to dominate except to the few thugs at the top that act as our local kings [Marcos, Pinochet, etc....]. For the populations at large under Pax American post WW2 there are NO advantages I can see...and think they also see none. Increasingly, I think the American People are also seeing that they too are a captive people in their own country and that somehow a cabal has quietly taken over and the levers of democracy don't connect to much anymore....it is early days in this regard, but slowly [post 911/Patriot Act] this awareness is rising in a politically/historically challenged society. While the methods of control by this power group over the Americans is not as brutal as over those outside the borders of, the contol is perhaps even more complete and clever. That they could stage a public coup d'etat [Dallas 11/22/63] and a faux investigation of it [2 in fact] and get the Public to mostly just eat, watch TV, consume, shut-up/don't question and die - without a revolution or even much protest is testiment to just how complete the control is....but of late things seem to becoming unhindged....slightly, but increasingly.....as every Empire has its limits.
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Sep 13 2006, 02:29 AM)
This seems pretty darn selective to me. I'm not sure where you see complete Britsh control and long term stability. The Americans have had a longer period of Pax Americana than the Soviets were ever able to enjoy. They were the opposite sides of the war during the Cold War. The occupied nations of Germany and Japan have enjoyed long runs of peace as have the NATO powers that I would guess you would have as the other side of the Soviet control zone in the Warsaw Pact.
The American vision of world trade provided a golden age of the economy from 1945-1970 and the Atlantic Charter, GATT vision of Bretton Woods has laid out a period of sustained growth. Major world powers haven't been warring with each other. Are you claiming that the Roman empire didn't have constant border wars along its much nearer frontier?
I would locate the problems with nationalism and guerilla tactics that have turned around the tremendous advantages held by Westernized and industrialized forces. The conquest is as easy as ever, but in the post 1914 world countries must use inordinate force and brutality just to delay the inevitable.
This is the lesson of Serbia of 1914, Algeria, India, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. Remember, the British Empire was there with just as much frustration and futility. The United States has been put off by this difficulty as much as every other nation. And just like the mighty British Empire of the 19th century, it would rather its business interests or foreign policy clout solve its problems than a full blown military effort.
I wonder what stability Britain was trying to instill with its drug pushing in China backed up by its gunboat Nemesis. I think conquest is disorder, And conquest + naitonalism = guerilla tactics means that the advantage remains in the hands of the home team, no matter how humble its means.
I am not a flag waving patriot and I am critical of American foreign policy. But it has simply replaced Great Britain as a hegemon without being mcuh better or worse. When the United States behaves itself and doesn't have a cowboy as president shouting you're either with us or against us, the world calmy ignores the giant astride it. Much as the pre-coronation routines of the old British Empire were humble and underplayed in the days of Queen Victoria. When the power became less of a reality more pomp and pompousness hasten the British decline. (Eric Hobsbawm, one of my alltime favorite reads about the symbols of power)
The American vision of world trade provided a golden age of the economy from 1945-1970 and the Atlantic Charter, GATT vision of Bretton Woods has laid out a period of sustained growth. Major world powers haven't been warring with each other. Are you claiming that the Roman empire didn't have constant border wars along its much nearer frontier?
I would locate the problems with nationalism and guerilla tactics that have turned around the tremendous advantages held by Westernized and industrialized forces. The conquest is as easy as ever, but in the post 1914 world countries must use inordinate force and brutality just to delay the inevitable.
This is the lesson of Serbia of 1914, Algeria, India, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. Remember, the British Empire was there with just as much frustration and futility. The United States has been put off by this difficulty as much as every other nation. And just like the mighty British Empire of the 19th century, it would rather its business interests or foreign policy clout solve its problems than a full blown military effort.
I wonder what stability Britain was trying to instill with its drug pushing in China backed up by its gunboat Nemesis. I think conquest is disorder, And conquest + naitonalism = guerilla tactics means that the advantage remains in the hands of the home team, no matter how humble its means.
I am not a flag waving patriot and I am critical of American foreign policy. But it has simply replaced Great Britain as a hegemon without being mcuh better or worse. When the United States behaves itself and doesn't have a cowboy as president shouting you're either with us or against us, the world calmy ignores the giant astride it. Much as the pre-coronation routines of the old British Empire were humble and underplayed in the days of Queen Victoria. When the power became less of a reality more pomp and pompousness hasten the British decline. (Eric Hobsbawm, one of my alltime favorite reads about the symbols of power)
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not attempting to defend the British Empire. I agree that it was just as unpleasant as the current American Empire. If we do a body count the British Empire was far worse than the one being led by Bush. I was only trying to show the added problems that a modern empire has to endure.
There is another major difference between past empires and the present one. Empires were usually popular with the masses. Only those with a fully developed political consciousness opposed the development of the British Empire. (Of course, some members of the middle and upper classes opposed it on moral grounds.) The home populations benefited economically from these foreign adventures. For example, the ruling classes in Britain were able to give the working classes a higher standard of living because of the exploitation taking place in other countries. This is the main reason that Marx was proved incorrect with his theory that capitalism would result in a lowering of the standard of living of the working class in industrialized countries to the point where a revolution would take place. In that sense, imperialism saved capitalism.
The American Empire is much more difficult to justify to the masses back home. It is clearly a very expensive operation. It has also resulting in the deaths of a lot of Americans. Unlike the British Empire, it is not producing a higher stand of living. Nor does it provide more jobs for Americans. In fact, the main concern of modern industrialists is to use its military might to guarantee its investments. This includes obtaining cheap labour in the underdeveloped world. The American Empire is more about selling jobs than obtaining new ones. What is more, it can’t even keep the price of oil down (the reason Rupert Murdoch told us why we had to invade Iraq).
The only way the empire can be sold to the American people is by the notion that life would be far worse without it. That is, a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. (In the past it was a world ruled by communists.) We are constantly being told that the war on terror is really a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the occupied people. It is also a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the American people. So far, the American media has gone along with this nonsense. However, with the growth in alternative news sources, this also will prove to be a losing battle.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 13 2006, 07:50 AM)
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Sep 13 2006, 02:29 AM)
This seems pretty darn selective to me. I'm not sure where you see complete Britsh control and long term stability. The Americans have had a longer period of Pax Americana than the Soviets were ever able to enjoy. They were the opposite sides of the war during the Cold War. The occupied nations of Germany and Japan have enjoyed long runs of peace as have the NATO powers that I would guess you would have as the other side of the Soviet control zone in the Warsaw Pact.
The American vision of world trade provided a golden age of the economy from 1945-1970 and the Atlantic Charter, GATT vision of Bretton Woods has laid out a period of sustained growth. Major world powers haven't been warring with each other. Are you claiming that the Roman empire didn't have constant border wars along its much nearer frontier?
I would locate the problems with nationalism and guerilla tactics that have turned around the tremendous advantages held by Westernized and industrialized forces. The conquest is as easy as ever, but in the post 1914 world countries must use inordinate force and brutality just to delay the inevitable.
This is the lesson of Serbia of 1914, Algeria, India, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. Remember, the British Empire was there with just as much frustration and futility. The United States has been put off by this difficulty as much as every other nation. And just like the mighty British Empire of the 19th century, it would rather its business interests or foreign policy clout solve its problems than a full blown military effort.
I wonder what stability Britain was trying to instill with its drug pushing in China backed up by its gunboat Nemesis. I think conquest is disorder, And conquest + naitonalism = guerilla tactics means that the advantage remains in the hands of the home team, no matter how humble its means.
I am not a flag waving patriot and I am critical of American foreign policy. But it has simply replaced Great Britain as a hegemon without being mcuh better or worse. When the United States behaves itself and doesn't have a cowboy as president shouting you're either with us or against us, the world calmy ignores the giant astride it. Much as the pre-coronation routines of the old British Empire were humble and underplayed in the days of Queen Victoria. When the power became less of a reality more pomp and pompousness hasten the British decline. (Eric Hobsbawm, one of my alltime favorite reads about the symbols of power)
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not attempting to defend the British Empire. I agree that it was just as unpleasant as the current American Empire. If we do a body count the British Empire was far worse than the one being led by Bush. I was only trying to show the added problems that a modern empire has to endure.
There is another major difference between past empires and the present one. Empires were usually popular with the masses. Only those with a fully developed political consciousness opposed the development of the British Empire. (Of course, some members of the middle and upper classes opposed it on moral grounds.) The home populations benefited economically from these foreign adventures. For example, the ruling classes in Britain were able to give the working classes a higher standard of living because of the exploitation taking place in other countries. This is the main reason that Marx was proved incorrect with his theory that capitalism would result in a lowering of the standard of living of the working class in industrialized countries to the point where a revolution would take place. In that sense, imperialism saved capitalism.
The American Empire is much more difficult to justify to the masses back home. It is clearly a very expensive operation. It has also resulting in the deaths of a lot of Americans. Unlike the British Empire, it is not producing a higher stand of living. Nor does it provide more jobs for Americans. In fact, the main concern of modern industrialists is to use its military might to guarantee its investments. This includes obtaining cheap labour in the underdeveloped world. The American Empire is more about selling jobs than obtaining new ones. What is more, it can’t even keep the price of oil down (the reason Rupert Murdoch told us why we had to invade Iraq).
The only way the empire can be sold to the American people is by the notion that life would be far worse without it. That is, a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. (In the past it was a world ruled by communists.) We are constantly being told that the war on terror is really a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the occupied people. It is also a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the American people. So far, the American media has gone along with this nonsense. However, with the growth in alternative news sources, this also will prove to be a losing battle.
A very neat summation, John.
I submit that the reason the US media maintains this lie is because they have a large financial stake in it. Peace and international co-operation doesn't sell advertising space.
Pretty soon now the citizens of the US should realise the 'War on Terror' is merely another brand label being used to line the pockets of its sponsors.
It might take a few more thousand 'working homeless' for this to sink in. The empire is in its death throes.
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Sep 13 2006, 03:23 PM)
It might take a few more thousand 'working homeless' for this to sink in. The empire is in its death throes.
Define "death throes." Do you actually see America on the verge of collapse? Or headed dfor a slight decline?
I suspect the latter. I believe today's inter-locking economies insures that if America collapses, it will drag most of the world down with it.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Sep 13 2006, 10:22 PM)
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Sep 13 2006, 03:23 PM)
It might take a few more thousand 'working homeless' for this to sink in. The empire is in its death throes.
Define "death throes." Do you actually see America on the verge of collapse? Or headed dfor a slight decline?
I suspect the latter. I believe today's inter-locking economies insures that if America collapses, it will drag most of the world down with it.
A significant decline. I think America will be supplanted as the world's preeminent economic force by China and the EU. America built its economic success in the 20th century, when oil was cheap. The era of cheap energy is now over, IMO, but America retains a massive reliance on increasingly expensive carbon based fuels. It's a real handicap. Successive Governments have failed to face the issue, partly because of oil industry influence, partly because of the political unpopularity of such measures. Serious threats to America's oil supply, such as war in the Middle East, combined with its huge military spending and level of debt, could cause an economic collapse, IMO.
Also, America will have to address the growing economic problems faced by its population. Working poor and working homeless is a distinctly American phenomenon. The War on Terror has resulted in a massive wealth transfer away from the public and into the hands of the military and armaments industry and its shareholders. It can't be sustained long term, especially since America posesses very little social welfare infrastructure to cushion the fall for those who are adversely effected by this wealth transfer. Also, globalisation has cost America its manufacturing base.
Widespread economic hardship will force people to focus on what's important. Only then will they force their leaders to curtail the massive waste of public money caused by stunts like the war on terror, the war on drugs and military adventures in foreign countries.
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world.
Not a conspiracy, but not really a coincidence, either. There is something I can't define in a single word that worms it's way between those two options. To really get to the heart of it, you need to read the history of Corporate Law, specifically how US courts came to extend the use of the 14th amendment to include corporations. That decision led inexorably to what we see today.
Not a conspiracy, but not really a coincidence, either. There is something I can't define in a single word that worms it's way between those two options. To really get to the heart of it, you need to read the history of Corporate Law, specifically how US courts came to extend the use of the 14th amendment to include corporations. That decision led inexorably to what we see today.
QUOTE (Greg Parker @ Sep 14 2006, 05:19 AM)
Corporations, or rather their leaders, have reached forms of sovereignty that are foreign to the territorial definition of states. This is not a conspiracy, just the state of the world.
Not a conspiracy, but not really a coincidence, either. There is something I can't define in a single word that worms it's way between those two options. To really get to the heart of it, you need to read the history of Corporate Law, specifically how US courts came to extend the use of the 14th amendment to include corporations. That decision led inexorably to what we see today.
Not a conspiracy, but not really a coincidence, either. There is something I can't define in a single word that worms it's way between those two options. To really get to the heart of it, you need to read the history of Corporate Law, specifically how US courts came to extend the use of the 14th amendment to include corporations. That decision led inexorably to what we see today.
I understand it dates back to KKK Judge Hugo Black's rulings that defines groupings as 'individuals' which enabled educational institutions to circumvent de-segregation orders.
The culture of electoral democracy has particularly weakened the notion of politics. The idea that politics must necessarily take the form of a transparent, electoral and parliamentary democracy with eligible parties on the left and on the right, with a normal level of corruption instead of massacres, has perverted our sense of the stakes involved. One need not adhere to conspiracy theories in order to admit that oligarchic, and therefore antidemocratic, sovereignties and empires exist. Working to clearly define these phenomena is necessary for an effective reorganization of the left. The American program of "democracy for all" is all well and good, but it sounds like a missionary toasting at a cannibal banquet. The problem must be dealt with at its source. There can be no democracy without the victory of popular power over the oligarchy. (Alain Joxe)
--------------------
I agree with this paragraph and its been what ive been trying to internally type for some time now.
Elections in the United States have become the opposite of democracy.
By this I mean they serve to obscure the true nature of power and manufacture a false consenses that is not based on the realites of power. Take for example the recent STEALTH primary campaign of Hillary Rodham Bush. Her strategy was keep it off the airwaves because she new how mad the politically litterate base of her party was at her for shutting up for five years while the Executive Branch shed its legilative limb.
The true work of the Hillary campaign was done by the NYT. First they went after Lieberman, because they knew their DLC--right democratic line was becoming two transparent. Lieberman was the more blatent Bush enabler, but Clinton was the hinge, and played a much more important structural role in the party of the professional Bush enablers.
The NYT's idea was to sacrifice Lieberman to save Hillary. Sure enough, a week before the elction the times typed something to the effect of 'though hillary hasn't been exactly brave in foreign policy her record is very differnt from Lieberman' It then went on to type some fine print that Hillarys typsists typed in 2002 or 3. The main point of this fine print was that NO ONE IN OUR NATION EVER HEARD IT WHEN IT MATTERED, IE WHEN SOMEONE SPEAKING OUT CLEARLY MIGHT HAVE STOPPED THE PSYCHOTIC IRAQ INVASION.
So, in the realm of MEDIated politics, Hillary was not Lieberman- Light, she was Orthodox Lieberman, Orthodoxer than any true hustings could ever bear. It was she who cloaked Bushes extremism with the wholecloth of the party itself. Lieberman's function had been aberational flak-catcher, and his played his role in August.
50-60% of Americans are against the Iraq war now. They do not have a single senator articulating thier principles. Burke suggested that a representative not have to litterally represent the views of his constituents. Here in the US, we have trumped Ed: in our new theory of representation 1 senator out of a hundred can represent 40-60% of the population, and he can die in a small plane crash (Wellstone) as the wiser intonation of the general will are manifest in the new republic. Poli sci profs take note.
The net result? 60% might be for or against something passionately, but they will never get thier talking head on TV that is required to galvanize a general opinion into a clearly articulated policy option. This guy understands how American media- fascism works. Brown shirts not required, but definiately not excluded either.
--------------------
I agree with this paragraph and its been what ive been trying to internally type for some time now.
Elections in the United States have become the opposite of democracy.
By this I mean they serve to obscure the true nature of power and manufacture a false consenses that is not based on the realites of power. Take for example the recent STEALTH primary campaign of Hillary Rodham Bush. Her strategy was keep it off the airwaves because she new how mad the politically litterate base of her party was at her for shutting up for five years while the Executive Branch shed its legilative limb.
The true work of the Hillary campaign was done by the NYT. First they went after Lieberman, because they knew their DLC--right democratic line was becoming two transparent. Lieberman was the more blatent Bush enabler, but Clinton was the hinge, and played a much more important structural role in the party of the professional Bush enablers.
The NYT's idea was to sacrifice Lieberman to save Hillary. Sure enough, a week before the elction the times typed something to the effect of 'though hillary hasn't been exactly brave in foreign policy her record is very differnt from Lieberman' It then went on to type some fine print that Hillarys typsists typed in 2002 or 3. The main point of this fine print was that NO ONE IN OUR NATION EVER HEARD IT WHEN IT MATTERED, IE WHEN SOMEONE SPEAKING OUT CLEARLY MIGHT HAVE STOPPED THE PSYCHOTIC IRAQ INVASION.
So, in the realm of MEDIated politics, Hillary was not Lieberman- Light, she was Orthodox Lieberman, Orthodoxer than any true hustings could ever bear. It was she who cloaked Bushes extremism with the wholecloth of the party itself. Lieberman's function had been aberational flak-catcher, and his played his role in August.
50-60% of Americans are against the Iraq war now. They do not have a single senator articulating thier principles. Burke suggested that a representative not have to litterally represent the views of his constituents. Here in the US, we have trumped Ed: in our new theory of representation 1 senator out of a hundred can represent 40-60% of the population, and he can die in a small plane crash (Wellstone) as the wiser intonation of the general will are manifest in the new republic. Poli sci profs take note.
The net result? 60% might be for or against something passionately, but they will never get thier talking head on TV that is required to galvanize a general opinion into a clearly articulated policy option. This guy understands how American media- fascism works. Brown shirts not required, but definiately not excluded either.
QUOTE (Robert Howard @ Sep 10 2006, 05:14 PM)
Until now, the hope for peace has been at the root of the imagination of war. In fact, "peace is normally the goal of war. On the contrary, war is not the goal of peace," as Saint Augustine once told us. If the interior peace of a state is sometimes restored by the invention of an external threat of war, this exportation of violence owes more to a hellish peace than a divine one. If it is true that we have entered the era when globalization will erase the frontiers between internal and external wars, we can also anticipate that it will either eliminate peace or preferably that it will erase the boundary between internal peace and external peace, so that peace can become the global objective for eliminating war.
Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
--------------------
The highly respected historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote in 1991, "The Disuniting of America. Reflections On A Multicultural Society." The foreword included the following...... "Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own.America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities. Instead of a nation composed of individuals making their own unhampered choices, America increasingly sees itself as composed of groups more or less ineradicable in their ethnic character....Will the center hold? or will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?"
Posed as a literal question, an answer to the above could be:
No the center has not held, and irrespective of the events of the last six years, there is a certain element of The Tower of Babel, as an expression used to define American culture here and now, which is not a good thing if no one is listening, to the other, or if one side is presenting a disingenious propoganda campaign designed to increase it's suppresion of civil liberties, while maintaining the guise of noble intentions.
Are the American people watching the Bush Administration currently undertake a hegemonic militaristic last stand before it's Era of Empire ends, simultaneously mixed in with a corporatized media at the beck and call of the apparatus of government, some people would say yes.
To wit, circumstances are even more adversely affected, by the 'framing the debate' conundrum of which the slogan "This is your Media, This is Your Media on Drugs" description seems apropos. American political campaigns, for the most part do not have civilized discourse only searches for dirt on the other, and mudslinging, although that is only an opinion.
Particularly galling is framing the debate as a World Wrestling Federation match-up between the Democrat's and the Republican's, instead of a coherent logical dialogue about America's future. Why? Because those same Democrats pass the bill's that the President send's to Congress and the last time I looked there were no gun's pointed at their heads when they voted, and which is equally disturbing in the long run, if one is expecting those same Democrat's to ostensibly, pull America back to the center.
Are American's being more or less asked [subconciously, perhaps] to act as if there are no credibility issues with 'the War on Terrorism' as it is presented via the media? i.e. credibility re Invading Iraq because they were in cahoot's with Al-Qaeda, or how consensus, only in the most bastardized sense was derived, and, of which the Administration seek's to play down, successfully to those who are willing to sleepwalk through a defining moment in history.
My only experience with the totalitarianism of the last century was reading about it in books, nonetheless I am acutely aware of the fact that in history, each generation to a degree [on a national level] has to be re-educated on the horrors of war and the fact that freedom in it's purest form, was purchased with human blood, and eternal vigilance is required to maintain it. But in today's media quagmire, if you say those words and you are not to the right of Attila the Hun, your patriotism is 'suspect.'
If one accept's the last premise, it is nauseating to see what is arguably a "People Magazine Mentality" willing to fork over civil liberties, in no small part, due to a media that is, dare I say, stuck on stupid to the detriment of us all.
Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle.
--------------------
The highly respected historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote in 1991, "The Disuniting of America. Reflections On A Multicultural Society." The foreword included the following...... "Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own.America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities. Instead of a nation composed of individuals making their own unhampered choices, America increasingly sees itself as composed of groups more or less ineradicable in their ethnic character....Will the center hold? or will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?"
Posed as a literal question, an answer to the above could be:
No the center has not held, and irrespective of the events of the last six years, there is a certain element of The Tower of Babel, as an expression used to define American culture here and now, which is not a good thing if no one is listening, to the other, or if one side is presenting a disingenious propoganda campaign designed to increase it's suppresion of civil liberties, while maintaining the guise of noble intentions.
Are the American people watching the Bush Administration currently undertake a hegemonic militaristic last stand before it's Era of Empire ends, simultaneously mixed in with a corporatized media at the beck and call of the apparatus of government, some people would say yes.
To wit, circumstances are even more adversely affected, by the 'framing the debate' conundrum of which the slogan "This is your Media, This is Your Media on Drugs" description seems apropos. American political campaigns, for the most part do not have civilized discourse only searches for dirt on the other, and mudslinging, although that is only an opinion.
Particularly galling is framing the debate as a World Wrestling Federation match-up between the Democrat's and the Republican's, instead of a coherent logical dialogue about America's future. Why? Because those same Democrats pass the bill's that the President send's to Congress and the last time I looked there were no gun's pointed at their heads when they voted, and which is equally disturbing in the long run, if one is expecting those same Democrat's to ostensibly, pull America back to the center.
Are American's being more or less asked [subconciously, perhaps] to act as if there are no credibility issues with 'the War on Terrorism' as it is presented via the media? i.e. credibility re Invading Iraq because they were in cahoot's with Al-Qaeda, or how consensus, only in the most bastardized sense was derived, and, of which the Administration seek's to play down, successfully to those who are willing to sleepwalk through a defining moment in history.
My only experience with the totalitarianism of the last century was reading about it in books, nonetheless I am acutely aware of the fact that in history, each generation to a degree [on a national level] has to be re-educated on the horrors of war and the fact that freedom in it's purest form, was purchased with human blood, and eternal vigilance is required to maintain it. But in today's media quagmire, if you say those words and you are not to the right of Attila the Hun, your patriotism is 'suspect.'
If one accept's the last premise, it is nauseating to see what is arguably a "People Magazine Mentality" willing to fork over civil liberties, in no small part, due to a media that is, dare I say, stuck on stupid to the detriment of us all.
This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time, Robert. Thank you.
Ter
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Sep 13 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 13 2006, 07:50 AM)
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Sep 13 2006, 02:29 AM)
This seems pretty darn selective to me. I'm not sure where you see complete Britsh control and long term stability. The Americans have had a longer period of Pax Americana than the Soviets were ever able to enjoy. They were the opposite sides of the war during the Cold War. The occupied nations of Germany and Japan have enjoyed long runs of peace as have the NATO powers that I would guess you would have as the other side of the Soviet control zone in the Warsaw Pact.
The American vision of world trade provided a golden age of the economy from 1945-1970 and the Atlantic Charter, GATT vision of Bretton Woods has laid out a period of sustained growth. Major world powers haven't been warring with each other. Are you claiming that the Roman empire didn't have constant border wars along its much nearer frontier?
I would locate the problems with nationalism and guerilla tactics that have turned around the tremendous advantages held by Westernized and industrialized forces. The conquest is as easy as ever, but in the post 1914 world countries must use inordinate force and brutality just to delay the inevitable.
This is the lesson of Serbia of 1914, Algeria, India, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. Remember, the British Empire was there with just as much frustration and futility. The United States has been put off by this difficulty as much as every other nation. And just like the mighty British Empire of the 19th century, it would rather its business interests or foreign policy clout solve its problems than a full blown military effort.
I wonder what stability Britain was trying to instill with its drug pushing in China backed up by its gunboat Nemesis. I think conquest is disorder, And conquest + naitonalism = guerilla tactics means that the advantage remains in the hands of the home team, no matter how humble its means.
I am not a flag waving patriot and I am critical of American foreign policy. But it has simply replaced Great Britain as a hegemon without being mcuh better or worse. When the United States behaves itself and doesn't have a cowboy as president shouting you're either with us or against us, the world calmy ignores the giant astride it. Much as the pre-coronation routines of the old British Empire were humble and underplayed in the days of Queen Victoria. When the power became less of a reality more pomp and pompousness hasten the British decline. (Eric Hobsbawm, one of my alltime favorite reads about the symbols of power)
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not attempting to defend the British Empire. I agree that it was just as unpleasant as the current American Empire. If we do a body count the British Empire was far worse than the one being led by Bush. I was only trying to show the added problems that a modern empire has to endure.
There is another major difference between past empires and the present one. Empires were usually popular with the masses. Only those with a fully developed political consciousness opposed the development of the British Empire. (Of course, some members of the middle and upper classes opposed it on moral grounds.) The home populations benefited economically from these foreign adventures. For example, the ruling classes in Britain were able to give the working classes a higher standard of living because of the exploitation taking place in other countries. This is the main reason that Marx was proved incorrect with his theory that capitalism would result in a lowering of the standard of living of the working class in industrialized countries to the point where a revolution would take place. In that sense, imperialism saved capitalism.
The American Empire is much more difficult to justify to the masses back home. It is clearly a very expensive operation. It has also resulting in the deaths of a lot of Americans. Unlike the British Empire, it is not producing a higher stand of living. Nor does it provide more jobs for Americans. In fact, the main concern of modern industrialists is to use its military might to guarantee its investments. This includes obtaining cheap labour in the underdeveloped world. The American Empire is more about selling jobs than obtaining new ones. What is more, it can’t even keep the price of oil down (the reason Rupert Murdoch told us why we had to invade Iraq).
The only way the empire can be sold to the American people is by the notion that life would be far worse without it. That is, a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. (In the past it was a world ruled by communists.) We are constantly being told that the war on terror is really a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the occupied people. It is also a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the American people. So far, the American media has gone along with this nonsense. However, with the growth in alternative news sources, this also will prove to be a losing battle.
A very neat summation, John.
I submit that the reason the US media maintains this lie is because they have a large financial stake in it. Peace and international co-operation doesn't sell advertising space.
Pretty soon now the citizens of the US should realise the 'War on Terror' is merely another brand label being used to line the pockets of its sponsors.
It might take a few more thousand 'working homeless' for this to sink in. The empire is in its death throes.
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Sep 13 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 13 2006, 07:50 AM)
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Sep 13 2006, 02:29 AM)
This seems pretty darn selective to me. I'm not sure where you see complete Britsh control and long term stability. The Americans have had a longer period of Pax Americana than the Soviets were ever able to enjoy. They were the opposite sides of the war during the Cold War. The occupied nations of Germany and Japan have enjoyed long runs of peace as have the NATO powers that I would guess you would have as the other side of the Soviet control zone in the Warsaw Pact.
The American vision of world trade provided a golden age of the economy from 1945-1970 and the Atlantic Charter, GATT vision of Bretton Woods has laid out a period of sustained growth. Major world powers haven't been warring with each other. Are you claiming that the Roman empire didn't have constant border wars along its much nearer frontier?
I would locate the problems with nationalism and guerilla tactics that have turned around the tremendous advantages held by Westernized and industrialized forces. The conquest is as easy as ever, but in the post 1914 world countries must use inordinate force and brutality just to delay the inevitable.
This is the lesson of Serbia of 1914, Algeria, India, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice. Remember, the British Empire was there with just as much frustration and futility. The United States has been put off by this difficulty as much as every other nation. And just like the mighty British Empire of the 19th century, it would rather its business interests or foreign policy clout solve its problems than a full blown military effort.
I wonder what stability Britain was trying to instill with its drug pushing in China backed up by its gunboat Nemesis. I think conquest is disorder, And conquest + naitonalism = guerilla tactics means that the advantage remains in the hands of the home team, no matter how humble its means.
I am not a flag waving patriot and I am critical of American foreign policy. But it has simply replaced Great Britain as a hegemon without being mcuh better or worse. When the United States behaves itself and doesn't have a cowboy as president shouting you're either with us or against us, the world calmy ignores the giant astride it. Much as the pre-coronation routines of the old British Empire were humble and underplayed in the days of Queen Victoria. When the power became less of a reality more pomp and pompousness hasten the British decline. (Eric Hobsbawm, one of my alltime favorite reads about the symbols of power)
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not attempting to defend the British Empire. I agree that it was just as unpleasant as the current American Empire. If we do a body count the British Empire was far worse than the one being led by Bush. I was only trying to show the added problems that a modern empire has to endure.
There is another major difference between past empires and the present one. Empires were usually popular with the masses. Only those with a fully developed political consciousness opposed the development of the British Empire. (Of course, some members of the middle and upper classes opposed it on moral grounds.) The home populations benefited economically from these foreign adventures. For example, the ruling classes in Britain were able to give the working classes a higher standard of living because of the exploitation taking place in other countries. This is the main reason that Marx was proved incorrect with his theory that capitalism would result in a lowering of the standard of living of the working class in industrialized countries to the point where a revolution would take place. In that sense, imperialism saved capitalism.
The American Empire is much more difficult to justify to the masses back home. It is clearly a very expensive operation. It has also resulting in the deaths of a lot of Americans. Unlike the British Empire, it is not producing a higher stand of living. Nor does it provide more jobs for Americans. In fact, the main concern of modern industrialists is to use its military might to guarantee its investments. This includes obtaining cheap labour in the underdeveloped world. The American Empire is more about selling jobs than obtaining new ones. What is more, it can’t even keep the price of oil down (the reason Rupert Murdoch told us why we had to invade Iraq).
The only way the empire can be sold to the American people is by the notion that life would be far worse without it. That is, a world ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. (In the past it was a world ruled by communists.) We are constantly being told that the war on terror is really a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the occupied people. It is also a battle for the “hearts and minds” of the American people. So far, the American media has gone along with this nonsense. However, with the growth in alternative news sources, this also will prove to be a losing battle.
A very neat summation, John.
I submit that the reason the US media maintains this lie is because they have a large financial stake in it. Peace and international co-operation doesn't sell advertising space.
Pretty soon now the citizens of the US should realise the 'War on Terror' is merely another brand label being used to line the pockets of its sponsors.
It might take a few more thousand 'working homeless' for this to sink in. The empire is in its death throes.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Sep 13 2006, 10:22 PM)
QUOTE (Mark Stapleton @ Sep 13 2006, 03:23 PM)
It might take a few more thousand 'working homeless' for this to sink in. The empire is in its death throes.
Define "death throes." Do you actually see America on the verge of collapse? Or headed dfor a slight decline?
I suspect the latter. I believe today's inter-locking economies insures that if America collapses, it will drag most of the world down with it.
What we will see is a fairly steady decline in the standard of living of the American people. According to some Marxists, this kind of situation could lead to a revolutionary situation. Given its past, I think this is very unlikely.
However, it will create a crisis for the American capitalist system. The right-wing will split and we may well see the emergence of a neo-fascist movement. Others will retreat from imperialist ambitions. If the masses do not move either to the extreme right or left, I suspect they will either become apathetic or will resort to crime.
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ Sep 16 2006, 03:25 PM)
The culture of electoral democracy has particularly weakened the notion of politics. The idea that politics must necessarily take the form of a transparent, electoral and parliamentary democracy with eligible parties on the left and on the right, with a normal level of corruption instead of massacres, has perverted our sense of the stakes involved. One need not adhere to conspiracy theories in order to admit that oligarchic, and therefore antidemocratic, sovereignties and empires exist. Working to clearly define these phenomena is necessary for an effective reorganization of the left. The American program of "democracy for all" is all well and good, but it sounds like a missionary toasting at a cannibal banquet. The problem must be dealt with at its source. There can be no democracy without the victory of popular power over the oligarchy. (Alain Joxe)
50-60% of Americans are against the Iraq war now. They do not have a single senator articulating thier principles. Burke suggested that a representative not have to litterally represent the views of his constituents. Here in the US, we have trumped Ed: in our new theory of representation 1 senator out of a hundred can represent 40-60% of the population, and he can die in a small plane crash (Wellstone) as the wiser intonation of the general will are manifest in the new republic. Poli sci profs take note.
The net result? 60% might be for or against something passionately, but they will never get thier talking head on TV that is required to galvanize a general opinion into a clearly articulated policy option. This guy understands how American media- fascism works. Brown shirts not required, but definiately not excluded either.
50-60% of Americans are against the Iraq war now. They do not have a single senator articulating thier principles. Burke suggested that a representative not have to litterally represent the views of his constituents. Here in the US, we have trumped Ed: in our new theory of representation 1 senator out of a hundred can represent 40-60% of the population, and he can die in a small plane crash (Wellstone) as the wiser intonation of the general will are manifest in the new republic. Poli sci profs take note.
The net result? 60% might be for or against something passionately, but they will never get thier talking head on TV that is required to galvanize a general opinion into a clearly articulated policy option. This guy understands how American media- fascism works. Brown shirts not required, but definiately not excluded either.
The same is also true of the UK. The polls show high percentages against the invasion of Iraq, sending troops to Afghanistan, PFI, low-rates of taxes on the rich, high defence spending, etc. However, the two main parties, as in the US, do not reflect the public mood. As we have a system of first past the post, only these two parties can form a government. Not surprisingly, the British public has become politically apathetic (the same thing appears to have happened in the US).
The main reason for this state of affairs is the corruption of the political system. As in the US, the same people are funding both political parties. They both want the same sorts of things. For example, low rates of tax on the rich, high defence spending, PFI contracts, low wages, globalization, etc.
The UK, like the US, is now run by an oligarchy. This oligarchy currently controls both political parties. There is evidence that the oligarchy is currently trying to gain control of the Liberal Democrats. (See today’s conference’s vote on taxation).
However, it is not all doom and gloom. The internet is undermining the power of the oligarchy to control our political information. Tony Blair will soon have to resign. Potentially, over 2 million will have a vote in this election (all members of trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party can vote). Maybe we can get a prime minister who can free himself of this oligarchy.
QUOTE (David Richardson @ Sep 9 2006, 08:33 AM)
One of the interesting phenomena (for me, at least) about the current military campaign in southern Afghanistan is the apparent inability of the United States to get NATO countries to commit soldiers and equipment to the fight. I've just read an account of the ructions at the NATO summit in Poland, where extreme pressure has apparently been brought to bear on Germany and France in particular to send helicopters and soldiers to reinforce the few thousand NATO soldiers in the south - thus far to no avail.
I'm sure that previous US administrations would not have been submitted to this public humiliation. On the other hand, perhaps previous administrations would not have been in the position of asking the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to fight on the borders of Pakistan …
I wonder if this lack of ability of the Americans to enforce their will on their European allies will prove to be long-lasting, and spill over into other areas of policy.
I'm sure that previous US administrations would not have been submitted to this public humiliation. On the other hand, perhaps previous administrations would not have been in the position of asking the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to fight on the borders of Pakistan …
I wonder if this lack of ability of the Americans to enforce their will on their European allies will prove to be long-lasting, and spill over into other areas of policy.
This is an issue that has received very little attention in the press. Major countries in Europe are no longer willing to do America’s “dirty work”. Only the UK continues to fully support the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Spain and Italy did for a while but their right-wing governments have now been removed from power. The only real support in Europe apart from the UK comes from right-wing governments and former members of the Warsaw Pact. These countries can be economically bullied into sending troops into dangerous areas.
The idea that NATO troops can control Afghanistan in absurd. The Soviets were unable to do this with 300,000 ground troops in the 1970s. Are the US and NATO willing to make the same commitment in order to fail? Will it work with 500,000 or 750,000?
The point Alain Joixe makes (and remember, he wrote the book before the Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq) is that the US can occupy but cannot create order. My own view is that the US will not withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan in the same way as it left Vietnam in the 1970s. Instead it will retreat into heavily armed bases and allow the rival factions to fight it out between themselves. In other words, it will delay public humiliation for as long as possible.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 29 2006, 04:32 PM)
Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle. (Alain Joxe, Empire of Disorder)
This view was supported by the leaked report from 16 intelligence agencies in the United States. One of the ironies of the situation is that it is no longer in the economic interests of the American people to maintain an empire. It is expensive in both money and men. It has become impossible for Bush to balance his budget. Every sane American must be asking: “What am I gaining from US troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
Up to now Bush has argued that it is making them safe from terrorism. The leaked report shows the opposite is the case. American troops in these countries are building a deep level of resentment in the Muslim community that will in many cases be expressed by further terrorist acts.
In many ways the United States is experiencing a similar situation to the one faced by the UK and France in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Once resistance to the empire reaches this level, it ceases to be economically profitable. The problem is that politicians are usually slow to adapt to these changing economic situations. However, eventually the UK and France got the message and they began to accept the demands for independence.
Under Tony Blair the UK has been sucked back into this imperialist idea of controlling other countries. It has made him unpopular with the electorate and there is a good chance that he will be replaced by someone who rejects the “new imperialism”. The opposition parties seem keen to distance themselves from this policy. Will the same thing happen in the United States?
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Oct 4 2006, 11:34 AM)
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 29 2006, 04:32 PM)
Current wars now appear to be managed like wars of repression by "liberal states" against "terrorism," but this is a temporary appearance, due mostly to the American media effort that requires its allies to demonstrate their solidarity in strange or even absurd terms corresponding to the American view of the outside world, an extreme neo-Darwinist, behaviorist and autistic view of their "tribal wisdom" that was understandable for a family of pioneers penetrating the plains of the Far West, but highly defective for those who would seek universal royalty.
Because terrorism is not an adversary, only a form of political violence, its suppression is not a Clausewitzian political goal that could end in a victory and a peace, especially since counter-terrorist actions are always implicated in a state or imperial terrorism and violations of human rights, measures that are the source of the most extreme forms of resistance and of terrorism itself. Without attacking the causes, we reinforce the cycle. (Alain Joxe, Empire of Disorder)
This view was supported by the leaked report from 16 intelligence agencies in the United States. One of the ironies of the situation is that it is no longer in the economic interests of the American people to maintain an empire. It is expensive in both money and men. It has become impossible for Bush to balance his budget. Every sane American must be asking: “What am I gaining from US troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
Up to now Bush has argued that it is making them safe from terrorism. The leaked report shows the opposite is the case. American troops in these countries are building a deep level of resentment in the Muslim community that will in many cases be expressed by further terrorist acts.
In many ways the United States is experiencing a similar situation to the one faced by the UK and France in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Once resistance to the empire reaches this level, it ceases to be economically profitable. The problem is that politicians are usually slow to adapt to these changing economic situations. However, eventually the UK and France got the message and they began to accept the demands for independence.
Under Tony Blair the UK has been sucked back into this imperialist idea of controlling other countries. It has made him unpopular with the electorate and there is a good chance that he will be replaced by someone who rejects the “new imperialism”. The opposition parties seem keen to distance themselves from this policy. Will the same thing happen in the United States?
World War II certainly helped France and Great Britain decide to relinquish their colonies/Empire. I don't think we can wait for WWIII for the same with the USA. Every sane American realizes that there is no good and much bad that can and will come from the War in Iraq and the lies it was built upon...but the other half of America, let us call them the deluded patriots are sure the Great Leader is fighting a determined enemy hellbent on the destruction of the USA and all it 'stands for' - having 'bought' the Big Lie. Nothing - not even reality - will change their perception of the myth....before it was 'commies' - they need an external 'other' evil, so they don't have to look at themselves..... America is a highly polarized society now, but the progressive [sane, can see reality, 'smell the coffee'] side still have no organized party to represent them and the system is rigged to have but two tweedle-dee/tweedle-dumb parties of the Ruling Elite. To sruvive, America needs to very quickly invent a way of getting other parties into the fray IMO. The two old Parties will do everything to stop this...as they are too much invested [ in all senses of that word! ] in things as they are now.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 19 2006, 08:04 AM)
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ Sep 16 2006, 03:25 PM)
The culture of electoral democracy has particularly weakened the notion of politics. The idea that politics must necessarily take the form of a transparent, electoral and parliamentary democracy with eligible parties on the left and on the right, with a normal level of corruption instead of massacres, has perverted our sense of the stakes involved. One need not adhere to conspiracy theories in order to admit that oligarchic, and therefore antidemocratic, sovereignties and empires exist. Working to clearly define these phenomena is necessary for an effective reorganization of the left. The American program of "democracy for all" is all well and good, but it sounds like a missionary toasting at a cannibal banquet. The problem must be dealt with at its source. There can be no democracy without the victory of popular power over the oligarchy. (Alain Joxe)
50-60% of Americans are against the Iraq war now. They do not have a single senator articulating thier principles. Burke suggested that a representative not have to litterally represent the views of his constituents. Here in the US, we have trumped Ed: in our new theory of representation 1 senator out of a hundred can represent 40-60% of the population, and he can die in a small plane crash (Wellstone) as the wiser intonation of the general will are manifest in the new republic. Poli sci profs take note.
The net result? 60% might be for or against something passionately, but they will never get thier talking head on TV that is required to galvanize a general opinion into a clearly articulated policy option. This guy understands how American media- fascism works. Brown shirts not required, but definiately not excluded either.
The same is also true of the UK. The polls show high percentages against the invasion of Iraq, sending troops to Afghanistan, PFI, low-rates of taxes on the rich, high defence spending, etc. However, the two main parties, as in the US, do not reflect the public mood. As we have a system of first past the post, only these two parties can form a government. Not surprisingly, the British public has become politically apathetic (the same thing appears to have happened in the US).
The main reason for this state of affairs is the corruption of the political system. As in the US, the same people are funding both political parties. They both want the same sorts of things. For example, low rates of tax on the rich, high defence spending, PFI contracts, low wages, globalization, etc.
The UK, like the US, is now run by an oligarchy. This oligarchy currently controls both political parties. There is evidence that the oligarchy is currently trying to gain control of the Liberal Democrats. (See today’s conference’s vote on taxation).
However, it is not all doom and gloom. The internet is undermining the power of the oligarchy to control our political information. Tony Blair will soon have to resign. Potentially, over 2 million will have a vote in this election (all members of trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party can vote). Maybe we can get a prime minister who can free himself of this oligarchy.
This is a very good point. Many people may disagree strongly with the Government about policy issues, but if there is broad agreement from the major parties about an issue (let's say globalisation, for example), then the alternative argument gets starved of oxygen. Only independants or minor parties dare raise the issue. If they do, they are swiftly condemned by the media as radical or out of touch. The media points to the policy positions adopted by minor parties on unrelated issues to discredit them on issues which may have a genuine public resonance. It's unfair and highlights the limitations of the current western democratic systems. The democratic system has failed to keep pace with the needs of a rapidly changing society.
The British and American systems of parliamentary representative democracy were not designed to operate in the current environment of wholesale corporate capture. Corruption of the political process has resulted in the democratic system becoming grotesquely warped. The question of what is fair and just for the average citizen has been transformed into a question of what is fair and just for the corporation, right in front of our noses. Politicians are elected by us to act on behalf of us. The fact that wealthy corporate interests now own all the politicians (except for some free thinking independants) means that we have been effectively squeezed out of the process. Politicians fight like Kilkenny cats to gain favor with wealthy corporate donors. Once this is done, the pitch for the public vote becomes a banal succession of tiresome cliches. The politician's primary loyalty is to his corporate donors.
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Oct 12 2006, 06:06 PM)
from Oct 12, 2006 www.democracy.org
More than 650,000 people have died in Iraq since the U.S. led invasion of the country began in March of 2003. This is according to a new study published in the scientific journal, The Lancet. The study was conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Researchers based their findings on interviews with a random sampling of households taken in clusters across Iraq. The study is an update to a prior one compiled by many of the same researchers. That study estimated that around 100,000 Iraqis died in the first 18 months after the invasion.
Les Roberts joins us now from Syracuse, New York -- He is one of the main researchers of the study. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study but has just taken a post at Columbia University.
Les Roberts. Co-author of the study on civilian mortality in Iraq since the invasion. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study but has just taken a post at Columbia University.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts joins us now from Syracuse, New York. He’s one of the main researchers of the study. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study but has just taken a post at Columbia University. Les Roberts, welcome to Democracy Now!
LES ROBERTS: Hi, Amy. It’s nice to be with you again.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Why don't you lay out exactly what you found?
LES ROBERTS: Sure, we, as you said, went to about 50 neighborhoods spread around Iraq that were picked at random, and each time we went, we knocked on 40 doors and asked people, “Who lived here on the first of January, 2002?” and “Who lived here today?” And we asked, “Had anyone been born or died in between?” And on those occasions, when people said someone die, we said, “Well, how did they die?” And we sort of wrote down the details: when, how old they were, what was the cause of death. And when it was violence, we asked, “Well, who did the killing? How exactly did it happen? What kind of weapon was used?” And at the end of the interview, when no one knew this was coming, we asked most of the time for a death certificate. And 92% of the time, people walked back into their houses and could produce a death certificate. So we are quite sure people didn’t make this up.
And our conclusion was comparing the death rate for that 14 months before the invasion, with the 40 months after, that the death rate is now about four times higher. And, in fact, it’s twice as high as when we last spoke two years ago and when we did our first study. So, things have gotten bad, as you stated. We think about 650,000 extra people have died because of this invasion, and about 600,000, some 90%, are from violence.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I’m sure you have heard by now the responses of President Bush and military leaders about this. What is your response to their saying that this is not credible?
LES ROBERTS: You know, I don't want to sort of stoop to that level and start saying general slurs, but I just want to say that what we did, this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn’t very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.
So, I think we used a very standard method. I think our results are couched appropriately in the relative imprecision of [inaudible]. It could conceivably be as few as 400,000 deaths. So we’re upfront about that. We don’t know the exact number. We just know the range, and we’re very, very confident about both the method and the results.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts, this was President Bush when he was asked about the study Tuesday, during his morning news conference. He dismissed the study, as you know, and said Iraqis are willing to tolerate the level of violence in Iraq. The question came from CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: A group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war. That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December, at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure, and do you consider this a credible report?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: No, I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey, and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate. And it's now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods, so people can feel, you know, at peace.
No question, it's violent. But this report is one -- they put it out before. It was pretty well -- the methodology is pretty well discredited. But I -- you know, I talk to people like General Casey and, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: The 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure -- 30,000?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, I stand by the figure. A lot of innocent people have lost their life -- 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just -- it's not credible. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: And again, this was General George Casey, the top U.S. military leader in Iraq, who was also asked about the Lancet study.
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I have not seen the study. That 650,000 number seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I’ve not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so, I don’t give that much credibility at all.
REPORTER: What’s the 50,000 number? Where did you see that from?
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I don't remember, but I’ve seen it over time.
REPORTER: Is it a U.S. military estimate?
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I don't remember where I saw that. It’s either from the Iraqi government or from us, but I don’t remember precisely.
AMY GOODMAN: General George Casey and President Bush. Les Roberts, your response, and also to President Bush saying Iraqis tolerate this level of violence.
LES ROBERTS: Well, you know, we didn’t do a poll of Iraqis about their tolerance for the level of violence, but I think that Iraqis are pretty unhappy with the level of violence. And I think there are a couple of issues that arise, because of this. First of all, you know, I’m not so surprised that entities that monitor newspaper reports or groups that are looking at official government statistics think that it’s ten times lower than the real number.
We have gone and looked at every recent war we can find, and only in Bosnia did all governmental statistics add up to even one-fifth of the true death toll. And in Bosnia, the rate was 30 or 40 percent, with huge support for surveillance activities from the UN. So it’s normal in times of war that communications systems break down, systems for registering events break down.
And in Saddam’s last year of his reign, only about one-third of all deaths were captured at morgues and hospitals through the official government surveillance network. So, when things were good, if only a third of deaths were captured, what do you think it’s like now?
And another thought is that -- quite unrelated -- if someone said in the 9/11 attacks, “I think only 200 or 300 people really died,” we would be really, really upset. And I think in the long view, the danger of discarding this study, if it’s correct, is that, at a moment when we as a society should be showing contrition, our leaders have essentially expressed indifference to an extraordinary level of suffering. And that’s just the wrong message in terms of either our long-term security or peace in the Middle East.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Les Roberts, I would like to ask you something about the methodology of the study. Clearly in Iraq, as in most wars of this type, the level of violence is uneven across the country. It might not necessarily even correspond to the population densities of different areas. What was the methodology that you used to select the particular clusters that you chose?
LES ROBERTS: Sure. That’s a great question. And you’re right. In Iraq, there is a huge difference in death rates between, for example, the Kurdish north, which is relatively safe, and the Sunni Triangle, where the death rates are extremely high. And what we did was we got a population estimate of every government, from the Iraqi government, and we randomly allocated these 50 clusters that we were to go visit proportional to the population in each of those governments, so that, if in the Kurdish north there is only 20% of the population living in the couple safest provinces, we would naturally end up with a sample that’s 20% or so from that zone.
And then, once we had picked that we were going to visit two or three neighborhoods in a certain governance or province, we would then make a list of all the villages and towns and cities, and again randomly pick one of those to visit, so that big places had a larger chance of being visited than smaller places. And then, finally, when we got down to the village level or to the section of a city, we would pick a house at random, visit it and the other 39 houses closest to it to grab a cluster of 40 houses. And luckily, in the analysis, we can sort of look at how much variation there was between clusters.
And when we reported this, we didn’t say it was 655,000 deaths. We said it was 655,000 deaths, and we’re 95% sure it’s between about 400,000 and 950,000. And that range of imprecision is capturing that variance between neighborhoods that you described, some places having a lot of violence, and some not. So there is less than a 2 percent chance that the number is well below 400,000. So, you know, it’s not precise. It’s incredibly hard to do this kind of work in times of war, and I think that this is awfully good, given the conditions.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts, there are some, like a very much quoted analyst, Anthony Cordesman, who are saying this is just a matter of politics. You released this study right before the election. This isn’t science. It’s politics.
LES ROBERTS: Well, if I’m not mistaken, Anthony Cordesman was formerly a Pentagon official, and, you know, I think he probably has a political lens in what he says. But this study has been underway for most of a year, in terms of organizing and getting it all together. It was done in June through July. It took some time to get the data out of Iraq, because of the logistical troubles of moving people in and out. We analyzed it carefully. We submitted it to The Lancet quite a while ago, and The Lancet had control over when this came out.
And I think this is just a lose-lose situation. You know, if this had come out two weeks ago, people would be saying the same thing. If this came out in the months after or the two months after the next election, people in Iraq would see this as very political in timing. So, you know, any time within a several month window here, we were going to get this accusation, and I just think it’s bunk.
And more importantly, is it true? It is easy -- it’s going to be very easy for a couple of reporters to go out and verify our findings, because what we’ve said is the death rate is four times higher. And a reporter will only have to go to four or five different villages, go visit the person who takes care of the graveyard and say, “Back in 2002, before the war, how many bodies typically came in here per week? And now, how many bodies com in here?” And actually, most graveyard attendants keep records. And if the number is four times higher, on average, you’ll know we’re right. If the numbers are the same, you’ll know we’re wrong. It is going to be very easy for people to verify this and get all of this talk about whether it’s political out of the way, because the fundamental issue is, a certain number of Iraqis have died, and if our leaders are saying it’s ten times lower than it really is, we are driving a wedge between us and the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Les Roberts, I saw you Upstate New York a while ago, after your first study came out, and you commented on how little it was commented on or picked up here in this country, though cited all over the world. But now you have the report out in The Lancet, and you have the President Bush responding to it, even if he is discounting it. You’ve got General Casey responding to it. What about the U.S. press looking at these figures?
LES ROBERTS: You know, I think that -- this is just my opinion -- the U.S. press sort of follows public opinion. It doesn’t necessarily lead it, except in a few circumstances, like AIDS in Africa. And the public is ready to think, “Wow, things might be going badly in Iraq.” And I don’t think the public was ready to say that two years ago.
And so, when this study came out, Tony Blair was asked three times -- I’m sorry, the 2004 study came out, Tony Blair was asked three times in the week that followed, ‘What do you think of this estimate that 100,000 Iraqis had died in the first 18 months of occupation?” No one asked George Bush about how many civilians had died or about our study for 14 months after the study came out. And then, when he was asked, it was just by a member of the public in a forum in Philadelphia.
And now, within about four hours of the study coming out, he was asked directly, he was forced to respond, there was a dialogue going on. So, I think that the nation, as a whole, is more ready to honestly talk about Iraq, and that’s led the press to be more able to honestly talk about Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts, thanks very much for joining us, co-author of the study on civilian mortality in Iraq since the invasion. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study, has just moved on to Columbia University.
More than 650,000 people have died in Iraq since the U.S. led invasion of the country began in March of 2003. This is according to a new study published in the scientific journal, The Lancet. The study was conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Researchers based their findings on interviews with a random sampling of households taken in clusters across Iraq. The study is an update to a prior one compiled by many of the same researchers. That study estimated that around 100,000 Iraqis died in the first 18 months after the invasion.
Les Roberts joins us now from Syracuse, New York -- He is one of the main researchers of the study. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study but has just taken a post at Columbia University.
Les Roberts. Co-author of the study on civilian mortality in Iraq since the invasion. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study but has just taken a post at Columbia University.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts joins us now from Syracuse, New York. He’s one of the main researchers of the study. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study but has just taken a post at Columbia University. Les Roberts, welcome to Democracy Now!
LES ROBERTS: Hi, Amy. It’s nice to be with you again.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Why don't you lay out exactly what you found?
LES ROBERTS: Sure, we, as you said, went to about 50 neighborhoods spread around Iraq that were picked at random, and each time we went, we knocked on 40 doors and asked people, “Who lived here on the first of January, 2002?” and “Who lived here today?” And we asked, “Had anyone been born or died in between?” And on those occasions, when people said someone die, we said, “Well, how did they die?” And we sort of wrote down the details: when, how old they were, what was the cause of death. And when it was violence, we asked, “Well, who did the killing? How exactly did it happen? What kind of weapon was used?” And at the end of the interview, when no one knew this was coming, we asked most of the time for a death certificate. And 92% of the time, people walked back into their houses and could produce a death certificate. So we are quite sure people didn’t make this up.
And our conclusion was comparing the death rate for that 14 months before the invasion, with the 40 months after, that the death rate is now about four times higher. And, in fact, it’s twice as high as when we last spoke two years ago and when we did our first study. So, things have gotten bad, as you stated. We think about 650,000 extra people have died because of this invasion, and about 600,000, some 90%, are from violence.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I’m sure you have heard by now the responses of President Bush and military leaders about this. What is your response to their saying that this is not credible?
LES ROBERTS: You know, I don't want to sort of stoop to that level and start saying general slurs, but I just want to say that what we did, this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn’t very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.
So, I think we used a very standard method. I think our results are couched appropriately in the relative imprecision of [inaudible]. It could conceivably be as few as 400,000 deaths. So we’re upfront about that. We don’t know the exact number. We just know the range, and we’re very, very confident about both the method and the results.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts, this was President Bush when he was asked about the study Tuesday, during his morning news conference. He dismissed the study, as you know, and said Iraqis are willing to tolerate the level of violence in Iraq. The question came from CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: A group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war. That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December, at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure, and do you consider this a credible report?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: No, I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey, and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate. And it's now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods, so people can feel, you know, at peace.
No question, it's violent. But this report is one -- they put it out before. It was pretty well -- the methodology is pretty well discredited. But I -- you know, I talk to people like General Casey and, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: The 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure -- 30,000?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, I stand by the figure. A lot of innocent people have lost their life -- 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just -- it's not credible. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: And again, this was General George Casey, the top U.S. military leader in Iraq, who was also asked about the Lancet study.
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I have not seen the study. That 650,000 number seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I’ve not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so, I don’t give that much credibility at all.
REPORTER: What’s the 50,000 number? Where did you see that from?
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I don't remember, but I’ve seen it over time.
REPORTER: Is it a U.S. military estimate?
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I don't remember where I saw that. It’s either from the Iraqi government or from us, but I don’t remember precisely.
AMY GOODMAN: General George Casey and President Bush. Les Roberts, your response, and also to President Bush saying Iraqis tolerate this level of violence.
LES ROBERTS: Well, you know, we didn’t do a poll of Iraqis about their tolerance for the level of violence, but I think that Iraqis are pretty unhappy with the level of violence. And I think there are a couple of issues that arise, because of this. First of all, you know, I’m not so surprised that entities that monitor newspaper reports or groups that are looking at official government statistics think that it’s ten times lower than the real number.
We have gone and looked at every recent war we can find, and only in Bosnia did all governmental statistics add up to even one-fifth of the true death toll. And in Bosnia, the rate was 30 or 40 percent, with huge support for surveillance activities from the UN. So it’s normal in times of war that communications systems break down, systems for registering events break down.
And in Saddam’s last year of his reign, only about one-third of all deaths were captured at morgues and hospitals through the official government surveillance network. So, when things were good, if only a third of deaths were captured, what do you think it’s like now?
And another thought is that -- quite unrelated -- if someone said in the 9/11 attacks, “I think only 200 or 300 people really died,” we would be really, really upset. And I think in the long view, the danger of discarding this study, if it’s correct, is that, at a moment when we as a society should be showing contrition, our leaders have essentially expressed indifference to an extraordinary level of suffering. And that’s just the wrong message in terms of either our long-term security or peace in the Middle East.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Les Roberts, I would like to ask you something about the methodology of the study. Clearly in Iraq, as in most wars of this type, the level of violence is uneven across the country. It might not necessarily even correspond to the population densities of different areas. What was the methodology that you used to select the particular clusters that you chose?
LES ROBERTS: Sure. That’s a great question. And you’re right. In Iraq, there is a huge difference in death rates between, for example, the Kurdish north, which is relatively safe, and the Sunni Triangle, where the death rates are extremely high. And what we did was we got a population estimate of every government, from the Iraqi government, and we randomly allocated these 50 clusters that we were to go visit proportional to the population in each of those governments, so that, if in the Kurdish north there is only 20% of the population living in the couple safest provinces, we would naturally end up with a sample that’s 20% or so from that zone.
And then, once we had picked that we were going to visit two or three neighborhoods in a certain governance or province, we would then make a list of all the villages and towns and cities, and again randomly pick one of those to visit, so that big places had a larger chance of being visited than smaller places. And then, finally, when we got down to the village level or to the section of a city, we would pick a house at random, visit it and the other 39 houses closest to it to grab a cluster of 40 houses. And luckily, in the analysis, we can sort of look at how much variation there was between clusters.
And when we reported this, we didn’t say it was 655,000 deaths. We said it was 655,000 deaths, and we’re 95% sure it’s between about 400,000 and 950,000. And that range of imprecision is capturing that variance between neighborhoods that you described, some places having a lot of violence, and some not. So there is less than a 2 percent chance that the number is well below 400,000. So, you know, it’s not precise. It’s incredibly hard to do this kind of work in times of war, and I think that this is awfully good, given the conditions.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts, there are some, like a very much quoted analyst, Anthony Cordesman, who are saying this is just a matter of politics. You released this study right before the election. This isn’t science. It’s politics.
LES ROBERTS: Well, if I’m not mistaken, Anthony Cordesman was formerly a Pentagon official, and, you know, I think he probably has a political lens in what he says. But this study has been underway for most of a year, in terms of organizing and getting it all together. It was done in June through July. It took some time to get the data out of Iraq, because of the logistical troubles of moving people in and out. We analyzed it carefully. We submitted it to The Lancet quite a while ago, and The Lancet had control over when this came out.
And I think this is just a lose-lose situation. You know, if this had come out two weeks ago, people would be saying the same thing. If this came out in the months after or the two months after the next election, people in Iraq would see this as very political in timing. So, you know, any time within a several month window here, we were going to get this accusation, and I just think it’s bunk.
And more importantly, is it true? It is easy -- it’s going to be very easy for a couple of reporters to go out and verify our findings, because what we’ve said is the death rate is four times higher. And a reporter will only have to go to four or five different villages, go visit the person who takes care of the graveyard and say, “Back in 2002, before the war, how many bodies typically came in here per week? And now, how many bodies com in here?” And actually, most graveyard attendants keep records. And if the number is four times higher, on average, you’ll know we’re right. If the numbers are the same, you’ll know we’re wrong. It is going to be very easy for people to verify this and get all of this talk about whether it’s political out of the way, because the fundamental issue is, a certain number of Iraqis have died, and if our leaders are saying it’s ten times lower than it really is, we are driving a wedge between us and the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Les Roberts, I saw you Upstate New York a while ago, after your first study came out, and you commented on how little it was commented on or picked up here in this country, though cited all over the world. But now you have the report out in The Lancet, and you have the President Bush responding to it, even if he is discounting it. You’ve got General Casey responding to it. What about the U.S. press looking at these figures?
LES ROBERTS: You know, I think that -- this is just my opinion -- the U.S. press sort of follows public opinion. It doesn’t necessarily lead it, except in a few circumstances, like AIDS in Africa. And the public is ready to think, “Wow, things might be going badly in Iraq.” And I don’t think the public was ready to say that two years ago.
And so, when this study came out, Tony Blair was asked three times -- I’m sorry, the 2004 study came out, Tony Blair was asked three times in the week that followed, ‘What do you think of this estimate that 100,000 Iraqis had died in the first 18 months of occupation?” No one asked George Bush about how many civilians had died or about our study for 14 months after the study came out. And then, when he was asked, it was just by a member of the public in a forum in Philadelphia.
And now, within about four hours of the study coming out, he was asked directly, he was forced to respond, there was a dialogue going on. So, I think that the nation, as a whole, is more ready to honestly talk about Iraq, and that’s led the press to be more able to honestly talk about Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: Les Roberts, thanks very much for joining us, co-author of the study on civilian mortality in Iraq since the invasion. He was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study, has just moved on to Columbia University.
This report supports the main idea in Empire of Disorder that the US is unable to provide protection to the people of the invaded country. Yet Bush continued to make speeches that suggest that US troops will be in Iraq for many years. Will the American people really allow him to get away with this?
In an article in yesterday's Sunday Times, Simon Jenkins argues that the US troops are unable to provide security to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2404365,00.html
General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff and head of the army... shares the overwhelming view among defence experts that British lives are still being sacrificed in Iraq because Blair lacks the guts to stand up to George Bush. Staying another five years would be counter-productive and serve no British interest. Yet Blair kept saying he would remain “until the job is done”. What job? There can be no progress without security and Iraq outside Kurdistan has become, under coalition supervision, a worse bloodbath than under Saddam Hussein, whether or not 500 people are dying each day as recently reported. For Blair to imply that things are getting better is a lie.
Worse, as Dannatt points out, “our presence exacerbates the security problem”. We were not invited — “we kicked the door in” — and as occupiers we are no longer welcome. The British are not even policing Iraq, merely guarding bases and venturing on occasional patrols that offer target practice for passing mujaheddin.
This does no more than echo what American field generals were reporting as long ago as September 2003, six months after the invasion. According to Bob Woodward’s book State of Denial, they demanded an immediate transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis. Swift withdrawal, they said, “would enhance the security situation because the Iraqis don’t like occupation”. Staying would become a focus for insurgency. Never did soldiers speak truer words...
Dannatt’s interviews have gone far beyond these matters. Reporting army dissatisfaction in Monday’s Guardian, Max Hastings wrote that “no one seriously suggests that serving officers should be permitted publicly to question the usefulness of staying in Iraq”. Dannatt has given himself just that permission. He broke the “omerta” under which British officers have laboured ever since Bush trapped Blair at Crawford back in April 2002. They have had to fight a proxy war for the Pentagon over which they had no control or even influence. They have seen their hearts-and-minds work in the south ruined by the ineptitude of US troops and officials in the north. Policy had been ruled by America’s political timetable, the next event being the congressional election on November 7.
The debate on Iraq is approaching the point it should have reached in 2003: how best to extend partition from Kurdistan to the Sunnis and Shi’ites and thus minimise civil conflict. The constitution provides for it, offering Blair a crucial exit strategy later this year. In May in Baghdad, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, told Blair that he wanted British forces out of the south by the end of the year. Frightened of what Bush would say if he took Maliki at his word, Blair refused this gift horse.
Offered a chance for a dignified military withdrawal and a handover to an elected Iraqi government, he parroted Bush’s line about craven surrender to terrorism and “finishing the job”.
Dannatt might sensibly have taken this debate forward, rather than publicly questioning the wisdom of the war as such. He is anyway vulnerable to double standards, given his enthusiasm for the war in Afghanistan. Here a decision to send an under-manned ill-equipped expedition with hopeless objectives was made without army protest. Like Iraq it had no relevance to any military threat to Britain and was entirely political: to show that Britain could play a lead role in a newly expanded Nato.
Afghanistan has since proved a carbon copy of Iraq, with lack of security vitiating the winning of local hearts and minds. There is no way that 5,000 British troops, or even 100,000, can protect southern Afghanistan from the mujaheddin. Occupation is the rallying point for insurgency and a stimulus to anarchy — as Dannatt points out in Iraq. If he wants withdrawal from Iraq, why not from Helmand? As head of the army Dannatt enjoys closer access to the prime minister than any public service professional. He may be angry at Blair’s stubbornness but he has privileged conduits for that anger. In going public he has clearly become a hero of exasperated soldiers in the field, as well as of the anti-war lobby at home (and possibly of the pusillanimous cabinet).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2404365,00.html
General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff and head of the army... shares the overwhelming view among defence experts that British lives are still being sacrificed in Iraq because Blair lacks the guts to stand up to George Bush. Staying another five years would be counter-productive and serve no British interest. Yet Blair kept saying he would remain “until the job is done”. What job? There can be no progress without security and Iraq outside Kurdistan has become, under coalition supervision, a worse bloodbath than under Saddam Hussein, whether or not 500 people are dying each day as recently reported. For Blair to imply that things are getting better is a lie.
Worse, as Dannatt points out, “our presence exacerbates the security problem”. We were not invited — “we kicked the door in” — and as occupiers we are no longer welcome. The British are not even policing Iraq, merely guarding bases and venturing on occasional patrols that offer target practice for passing mujaheddin.
This does no more than echo what American field generals were reporting as long ago as September 2003, six months after the invasion. According to Bob Woodward’s book State of Denial, they demanded an immediate transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis. Swift withdrawal, they said, “would enhance the security situation because the Iraqis don’t like occupation”. Staying would become a focus for insurgency. Never did soldiers speak truer words...
Dannatt’s interviews have gone far beyond these matters. Reporting army dissatisfaction in Monday’s Guardian, Max Hastings wrote that “no one seriously suggests that serving officers should be permitted publicly to question the usefulness of staying in Iraq”. Dannatt has given himself just that permission. He broke the “omerta” under which British officers have laboured ever since Bush trapped Blair at Crawford back in April 2002. They have had to fight a proxy war for the Pentagon over which they had no control or even influence. They have seen their hearts-and-minds work in the south ruined by the ineptitude of US troops and officials in the north. Policy had been ruled by America’s political timetable, the next event being the congressional election on November 7.
The debate on Iraq is approaching the point it should have reached in 2003: how best to extend partition from Kurdistan to the Sunnis and Shi’ites and thus minimise civil conflict. The constitution provides for it, offering Blair a crucial exit strategy later this year. In May in Baghdad, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, told Blair that he wanted British forces out of the south by the end of the year. Frightened of what Bush would say if he took Maliki at his word, Blair refused this gift horse.
Offered a chance for a dignified military withdrawal and a handover to an elected Iraqi government, he parroted Bush’s line about craven surrender to terrorism and “finishing the job”.
Dannatt might sensibly have taken this debate forward, rather than publicly questioning the wisdom of the war as such. He is anyway vulnerable to double standards, given his enthusiasm for the war in Afghanistan. Here a decision to send an under-manned ill-equipped expedition with hopeless objectives was made without army protest. Like Iraq it had no relevance to any military threat to Britain and was entirely political: to show that Britain could play a lead role in a newly expanded Nato.
Afghanistan has since proved a carbon copy of Iraq, with lack of security vitiating the winning of local hearts and minds. There is no way that 5,000 British troops, or even 100,000, can protect southern Afghanistan from the mujaheddin. Occupation is the rallying point for insurgency and a stimulus to anarchy — as Dannatt points out in Iraq. If he wants withdrawal from Iraq, why not from Helmand? As head of the army Dannatt enjoys closer access to the prime minister than any public service professional. He may be angry at Blair’s stubbornness but he has privileged conduits for that anger. In going public he has clearly become a hero of exasperated soldiers in the field, as well as of the anti-war lobby at home (and possibly of the pusillanimous cabinet).
I've never really understood the reasoning that says that around 30,000 NATO and US troops have a better chance of 'pacifying' Afghanistan than 300,000 Soviet troops did. I know that 'we' are better than 'them', but ten times better? What seems to have happened is the same as happened under Soviet occupation - the outsiders do deals with various local warlords to buy time and the illusion of control. You could argue that initially the Soviet Union brought more benefits in terms of investments in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc, but most of those benefits were shelled and bombed out of existence in the civil wars that followed Soviet withdrawal. What's to stop the same happening again?
Recent published information shows how Bush and Blair are creating disorder in Iraq. An estimated 365,000 people have fled from Iraq so far this year. UN monitors report 2,000 a day crossing the Syrian border. A third of Iraq’s professional class have fled to Jordan. One of the major concerns of these people is the dismantling of the secular society established by the previous regime. For example, over a hundred lecturers at Baghdad University alone have been murdered. Most of these were killed because they have allowed women to attend their classes. It is now considered inflammatory for women in Iraq to walk the streets unveiled.
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Jul 1 2008, 06:45 PM)
Three excerpts from Cook's article:
Full article: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?na...le&sid=5263
About the author: http://www.richardccook.com/author.php
Much of the world's history over the last century has been dominated by the United States. But by the turn of the millennium in 2000-2001, the “American Century” had begun to descend into a chamber of horrors.
The years since then have been marked by the huge financial bubbles engineered by the U.S. Federal Reserve System and the virus of predatory global capitalism. We have the looming worldwide economic crisis with rising bankruptcies, credit disruptions, and soaring fuel and food prices. Alongside has been the thinly-disguised but continuing attempt by the U.S. to conquer the Middle East by force of arms under the heading of the “War on Terror.”
....With the killing of Kennedy, the dogs of war were unleashed. After America's disastrous war in Vietnam ended in 1975, President Jimmy Carter tried to introduce a policy of civility and restraint in domestic and world political affairs, but he was swept away in the election of 1980 by the “Reagan Revolution,” whose catastrophic legacy we see today.
President Ronald Reagan set in motion the current mudslide of worldwide cataclysms through his huge military build-up, the “Reagan doctrine” of proxy warfare in third-world countries, the pathologically paranoid Strategic Defense Initiative—“Star Wars”—program, and the deregulation of the financial industry. Since our economy is the largest in the world, such action was bound to affect every other nation in making them subservient to the U.S. bankers and financiers who organized themselves in such institutions as David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission.
Bill Clinton, elected in 1992, did little to stem the tide of barbarism. He completed the destruction of the U.S. as an industrial democracy by signing the legislation for NAFTA and opening the floodgates to foreign control of U.S. business. He also completed the deregulation of the financial industry by repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which had prohibited the merger of investment and deposit banks. But Clinton still was attacked by the right-wing who wanted him to unleash a new military assault against Iraq.
When George W. Bush became president in 2000, the grand strategy of Middle East occupation was facilitated by the skillful exploitation of the 9/11 attacks as the excuse for military mobilization to be financed by the housing bubble and the forced sale of U.S. Treasury debt to foreign investors. The historic jack-up of petroleum prices—including the most recent ones that have brought gas at-the-pump in the U.S. to $4 a gallon—are clearly a de facto tax on the American public to pay for these wars.
It has become obvious in recent months—even as Bush et. al. plot a possible attack on Iran before the end of his presidency—that the rest of the world is heartily sick of U.S. arrogance. Even our allies in NATO have refused to allow us to build a defensive missile shield virtually to the borders of Russia.
....What we may be seeing—even as the U.S. military has extended its reach to the insertion of uniformed personnel in 135 nations—is the end of the Anglo-American Empire and the birth of a multi-polar world. It appears that the more level-headed among the U.S. and worldwide elite are tilting toward Barack Obama as the best choice to manage America's inevitable decline.
This decline is by no means a bad thing. Through graceful acceptance, America may even have a chance someday to regain its soul. A good place to start would be to establish a National Historical Truth Commission to investigate such historical puzzles as the real causes of U.S. entrance into the wars of the past century; assassinations—such as JFK, Senator Paul Wellstone, and JFK, Jr.; and 9/11. Another worthwhile proposal is for a tribunal on “International and Domestic Crimes Committed by High U.S. Government Officials,” which will be discussed at a national conference planned for Andover, Mass., in September.
Full article: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?na...le&sid=5263
About the author: http://www.richardccook.com/author.php
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.