Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGoing on an Imperial Bender
How the U.S. Garrisons the Planet and Doesn't Even Notice
Here it is, as simply as I can put it: In the course of any year, there must be relatively few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit. In startling numbers of countries, our soldiers not only arrive, but stay interminably, if not indefinitely. Sometimes they live on military bases built to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizeable American towns (with accompanying amenities), sometimes on stripped down forward operating bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don't stay, often American equipment does -- carefully stored for further use at tiny "cooperative security locations," known informally as "lily pads" (from which U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in crisis).
At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military "sites" abroad.The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard -- that is, the population of an American town -- are functionally floating bases.
And here's the other half of that simple truth: We don't care to know about it. We, the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media, are knee-deep in base denial.
Now, that's the gist of it. If, like most Americans, that's more than you care to know, stop here.
Where the Sun Never Sets
Let's face it, we're on an imperial bender and it's been a long, long night. Even now, in the wee hours, the Pentagon continues its massive expansion of recent years; we spend militarily as if there were no tomorrow; we're still building bases as if the world were our oyster; and we're still in denial. Someone should phone the imperial equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous.
But let's start in a sunnier time, less than two decades ago, when it seemed that there would be many tomorrows, all painted red, white, and blue. Remember the 1990s when the U.S. was hailed -- or perhaps more accurately, Washington hailed itself -- not just as the planet's "sole superpower" or even its unique "hyperpower," but as its "global policeman," the only cop on the block? As it happened, our leaders took that label seriously and our central police headquarters, that famed five-sided building in Washington D.C, promptly began dropping police stations -- aka military bases -- in or near the oil heartlands of the planet (Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) after successful wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Persian Gulf.
As those bases multiplied, it seemed that we were embarking on a new, post-Soviet version of "containment." With the USSR gone, however, what we were containing grew a lot vaguer and, before 9/11, no one spoke its name. Nonetheless, it was, in essence, Muslims who happened to live on so many of the key oil lands of the planet.Yes, for a while we also kept intact our old bases from our triumphant mega-war against Japan and Germany, and then the stalemated "police action" in South Korea (1950-1953) -- vast structures which added up to something like an all-military American version of the old British Raj. According to the Pentagon, we still have a total of 124 bases in Japan, up to 38 on the small island of Okinawa, and 87 in South Korea. (Of course, there were setbacks. The giant bases we built in South Vietnam were lost in 1975, and we were peaceably ejected from our major bases in the Philippines in 1992.)
But imagine the hubris involved in the idea of being "global policeman" or "sheriff" and marching into a Dodge City that was nothing less than Planet Earth itself. Naturally, with a whole passel of bad guys out there, a global "swamp" to be "drained," as key Bush administration officials loved to describe it post-9/11, we armed ourselves to kill, not stun. And the police stations... Well, they were often something to behold -- and they still are.
Let's start with the basics: Almost 70 years after World War II, the sun is still incapable of setting on the American "empire of bases" -- in Chalmers Johnson's phrase -- which at this moment stretches from Australia to Italy, Japan to Qatar, Iraq to Colombia, Greenland to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, Rumania to Okinawa. And new bases of various kinds are going up all the time (always with rumors of more to come). For instance, an American missile system is slated to go into Poland and a radar system into Israel. That will mean Americans stationed in both countries and, undoubtedly, modest bases of one sort or another to go with them. (The Israeli one -- "the first American base on Israeli territory" -- reports Aluf Benn of Haaretz, will be in the Negev desert.)
There are 194 countries on the planet (more or less), and officially 39 of them have American "facilities," large and/or small. But those are only the bases the Pentagon officially acknowledges. Others simply aren't counted, either because, as in the case of Jordan, a country finds it politically preferable not to acknowledge such bases; because, as in the case of Pakistan, the American military shares bases that are officially Pakistani; or because bases in war zones, no matter how elaborate, somehow don't count. In other words, that 39 figure doesn't even include Iraq or Afghanistan. By 2005, according to the Washington Post, there were 106 American bases in Iraq, ranging from tiny outposts to mega-bases like Balad Air Base and the ill-named Camp Victory that house tens of thousands of troops, private contractors, Defense Department civilians, have bus routes, traffic lights, PXes, big name fast-food restaurants, and so on.
Some of these bases are, in effect, "American towns" on foreign soil. In Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base, previously used by the Soviets in their occupation of the country, is the largest and best known. There are, however, many more, large and small, including Kandahar Air Base, located in what was once the unofficial capital of the Taliban, which even has a full-scale hockey rink (evidently for its Canadian contingent of troops).You would think that all of this would be genuine news, that the establishment of new bases would regularly generate significant news stories, that books by the score would pour out on America's version of imperial control. But here's the strange thing: We garrison the globe in ways that really are -- not to put too fine a point on it -- unprecedented, and yet, if you happen to live in the United States, you basically wouldn't know it; or, thought about another way, you wouldn't have to know it.
In Washington, our garrisoning of the world is so taken for granted that no one seems to blink when billions go into a new base in some exotic, embattled, war-torn land. There's no discussion, no debate at all. News about bases abroad, and Pentagon basing strategy, is, at best, inside-the-fold stuff, meant for policy wonks and news jockeys. There may be no subject more taken for granted in Washington, less seriously attended to, or more deserving of coverage.Missing Bases
Americans have, of course, always prided themselves on exporting "democracy," not empire. So empire-talk hasn't generally been an American staple and, perhaps for that reason, all those bases prove an awkward subject to bring up or focus too closely on. When it came to empire-talk in general, there was a brief period after 9/11 when the neoconservatives, in full-throated triumph, began to compare us to Rome and Britain at their imperial height (though we were believed to be incomparably, uniquely more powerful). It was, in the phrase of the time, a "unipolar moment." Even liberal war hawks started talking about taking up "the burden" of empire or, in the phrase of Michael Ignatieff, now a Canadian politician but, in that period, still at Harvard and considered a significant American intellectual, "empire lite."
On the whole, however, those in Washington and in the media haven't considered it germane to remind Americans of just exactly how we have attempted to "police" and control the world these last years. I've had two modest encounters with base denial myself:
In the spring of 2004, a journalism student I was working with emailed me a clip, dated October 20, 2003 -- less than seven months after American troops entered Baghdad -- from a prestigious engineering magazine. It quoted Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, speaking proudly of the several billion dollars ("the numbers are staggering") that had already been sunk into base construction in that country. Well, I was staggered anyway. American journalists, however, hardly noticed, even though significant sums were already pouring into a series of mega-bases that were clearly meant to be permanent fixtures on the Iraqi landscape. (The Bush administration carefully avoided using the word "permanent" in any context whatsoever, and these bases were first dubbed "enduring camps.")
Within two years, according to the Washington Post (in a piece that, typically, appeared on page A27 of the paper), the U.S. had those 106 bases in Iraq at a cost that, while unknown, must have been staggering indeed. Just stop for a moment and consider that number: 106. It boggles the mind, but not, it seems, American newspaper or TV journalism.TomDispatch.com has covered this subject regularly ever since, in part because these massive "facts on the ground," these modern Ziggurats, were clearly evidence of the Bush administration's long-term plans and intentions in that country. Not surprisingly, this year, U.S. negotiators finally offered the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki its terms for a so-called status of forces agreement, evidently initially demanding the right to occupy into the distant future 58 of the bases it has built.
It has always been obvious -- to me, at least -- that any discussion of Iraq policy in this country, of timelines or "time horizons," drawdowns or withdrawals, made little sense if those giant facts on the ground weren't taken into account. And yet you have to search the U.S. press carefully to find any reporting on the subject, nor have bases played any real role in debates in Washington or the nation over Iraq policy.
I could go further: I can think of two intrepid American journalists, Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post and Guy Raz of NPR, who actually visited a single U.S. mega-base, Balad Air Base, which reputedly has a level of air traffic similar to Chicago's O'Hare International or London's Heathrow, and offered substantial reports on it. But, as far as I know, they, like the cheese of children's song, stand alone. I doubt that in the last five years Americans tuning in to their television news have ever been able to see a single report from Iraq that gave a view of what the bases we have built there look like or cost. Although reporters visit them often enough and, for instance, have regularly offered reports from Camp Victory in Baghdad on what's going on in the rest of Iraq, the cameras never pan away from the reporters to show us the gigantic base itself.
More than five years after ground was broken for the first major American base in Iraq, this is, it seems to me, a remarkable record of media denial. American bases in Afghanistan have generally experienced a similar fate.My second encounter with base denial came in my other life. When not running TomDispatch.com, I'm a book editor; to be more specific, I'm Chalmers Johnson's editor. I worked on the prophetic Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, which was published back in 2000 to a singular lack of attention -- until, of course, the attacks of 9/11, after which it became a bestseller, adding both "blowback" and the phrase "unintended consequences" to the American lexicon.
By the time The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, the second volume in his Blowback Trilogy, came out in 2004, reviewers, critics, and commentators were all paying attention. The heart of that book focused on how the U.S. garrisons the planet, laying out Pentagon basing policies and discussing specific bases in remarkable detail. This represented serious research and breakthrough work, and the book indeed received much attention here, including major, generally positive reviews. Startlingly, however, not a single mainstream review, no matter how positive, paid any attention, or even really acknowledged, his chapters on the bases, or bothered to discuss the U.S. as a global garrison state. Only three years later did a major reviewer pay the subject serious attention. When Jonathan Freedland reviewed Nemesis, the final book in the Trilogy, in the New York Review of Books, he noticed the obvious and, in a discussion of U.S. basing policy, wrote, for instance:
"Johnson is in deadly earnest when he draws a parallel with Rome. He swats aside the conventional objection that, in contrast with both Romans and Britons, Americans have never constructed colonies abroad. Oh, but they have, he says; it's just that Americans are blind to them. America is an 'empire of bases,' he writes, with a network of vast, hardened military encampments across the earth, each one a match for any Roman or Raj outpost."
Not surprisingly, Freedland is not an American journalist, but a British one who works for the Guardian.
In the U.S., military bases really only matter, and so make headlines, when the Pentagon attempts to close some of the vast numbers of them scattered across this country. Then, the fear of lost jobs and lost income in local communities leads to headlines and hubbub.
Of course, millions of Americans know about our bases abroad firsthand. In this sense, they may be the least well kept secrets on the planet. American troops, private contractors, and Defense Department civilian employees all have spent extended periods of time on at least one U.S. base abroad. And yet no one seems to notice the near news blackout on our global bases or consider it the least bit strange.
The Foreshortened American Century
In a nutshell, occupying the planet, base by base, normally simply isn't news. Americans may pay no attention and yet, of course, they do pay. It turns out to be a staggeringly expensive process for U.S. taxpayers. Writing of a major 2004 Pentagon global base overhaul (largely aimed at relocating many of them closer to the oil heartlands of the planet), Mike Mechanic of Mother Jones magazine online points out the following: "An expert panel convened by Congress to assess the overseas basing realignment put the cost at $20 billion, counting indirect expenses overlooked by the Pentagon, which had initially budgeted one-fifth that amount."
And that's only the most obvious way Americans pay. It's hard for us even to begin to grasp just how military (and punitive) is the face that the U.S. has presented to the world, especially during George W. Bush's two terms in office. (Increasingly, that same face is also presented to Americans. For instance, as Paul Krugman indicated recently, the civilian Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] has been so thoroughly wrecked these last years that significant planning for the response to Hurricane Gustav fell on the shoulders of the military's Bush-created U.S. Northern Command.)In purely practical terms, though, Americans are unlikely to be able to shoulder forever the massive global role the Pentagon and successive administrations have laid out for us. Sooner or later, cutbacks will come and the sun will slowly begin to set on our base-world abroad.
In the Cold War era, there were, of course, two "superpowers," the lesser of which disappeared in 1991 after a lifespan of 74 years. Looking at what seemed to be a power vacuum across the Bering Straits, the leaders of the other power prematurely declared themselves triumphant in what had been an epic struggle for global hegemony. It now seems that, rather than victory, the second superpower was just heading for the exit far more slowly.
As of now, "the American Century," birthed by Time/Life publisher Henry Luce in 1941, has lasted but 67 years. Today, you have to be in full-scale denial not to know that the twenty-first century -- whether it proves to be the Century of Multipolarity, the Century of China, the Century of Energy, or the Century of Chaos -- will not be an American one. The unipolar moment is already so over and, sooner or later, those mega-bases and lily pads alike will wash up on the shores of history, evidence of a remarkable fantasy of a global Pax Americana.Not that you're likely to hear much about this in the run-up to November 4th in the U.S. Here, fantasy reigns in both parties where a relatively upbeat view of our globally dominant future is a given, and will remain so, no matter who enters the White House in January 2009. After all, who's going to run for president not on the idea that "it's morning again in America," but on the recognition that it's the wee small hours of the morning, the bender is ending, and the hangover... Well, it's going to be a doozy.
Better take some B vitamins and get a little sleep. The world's probably not going to look so great by the dawn's early light.
[Note on Sources: It's rare indeed that the U.S. empire of bases gets anything like the attention it deserves, so, when it does, praise is in order. Mother Jones online has just launched a major project to map out and analyze U.S. bases worldwide. It includes a superb new piece on bases by Chalmers Johnson, "America's Unwelcome Advances" and a number of other top-notch pieces, including one on "How to Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years" by TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan (the second part of whose Pentagon expansion series will be posted at this site soon). Check out the package of pieces at MJ by clicking here. Perhaps most significant, the magazine has produced an impressive online interactive map of U.S. bases worldwide. Check it out by clicking here. But when you zoom in on an individual country, do note that the first base figures you'll see are the Pentagon's and so possibly not complete. You need to read the MJ texts below each map to get a fuller picture. As will be obvious, if you click on the links in this post, I made good use of MJ's efforts, for which I offer many thanks.]
47 Comments so far
Show Allshankari25 September 7th, 2008 1:18 am:
"We will probably collapse economically, and then get hit by someone who packs more punch than a defeated Iraq. Then we will have to rethink ourselves, and how we must cooperate to save the planet."
This can't come soon enough! I am waiting with eager anticipation for the day that one of our big creditors gets nervous about our huge debt and calls their share of the loan. With interest due. Once the collapse is underway the real hurting begins, but so does the healing. Can't have surgery with out a sharp, painful knife. It might do us good to see ourselves as the "little guy" for once. Humility is good for the ego.
War. War. War. It was stupid, is stupid, and always will be stupid. I figured that Rome really never died; it just became the Holy Roman Empire. It continued through the imperialism in Europe. Here we are with the Roman Empire in the form of the US. Our purpose is to rob everyone of their resources so that we can enrich ourselves. Then we trump up some patriotic mumbo jumbo to sell it off on people.
We can't afford it anymore, and now the world needs to take a step up in evolution, and we need to begin to cooperate. I think the US won't go quietly. We will probably collapse economically, and then get hit by someone who packs more punch than a defeated Iraq. Then we will have to rethink ourselves, and how we must cooperate to save the planet.
The billion dollar check that Cheney is delivering is for reconstruction after Russia's "attack." But it's only the latest in the billions we provided Saakashvili so he could develop a bigger, better military with training from us and the Israelis and with US fighter planes, tanks and other weaponry.
Georgia now seems to be "ours." And even though the people of South Ossetia, probably still reeling from Saakasvili's midnight bombing attack and the deaths of somewhere between 1200 and 2000 unarmed civilians, want to be part of Russia, WE do not want that and therefore it will probably not happen.
Fascinating how we continually bait Russia with missiles on their border and our arming of Georgia, plus urging NATO to make it and other eastern European countries members even though NATO promised at its founding not to do so. And when Russia is made uneasy and objects, Ms. Rice says they are "overreacting." I think not.
Will January never come?
I have earlier on this website tried to answer the question: "What is VP Cheney doing in Georgia?" He is now in Ukraine and it is not difficult to understand why he is there.
Nevertheless, his "promises" to the semi-communist Ukranian government show that any serious restoration of our Constitution demands the dissolution of NATO. Why? Because the sort of promises made to both Georgia and Ukraine, let alone the "pact with Iraq" are the purview of the Congress and not of the President/VP. NATO has become the most convenient vehicle for our administrations, including Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia, to bypass the Constitution. The world today is eerily similar to 1913 when all sorts of pacts resulted in a World War.
The murder in Serajevo did not oblige the Kaiser to support Austria. He did because Germany had already decided to go to war and this was a wonderful excuse to bamboozle his people. There is a lot of attempts to bamboozle me going on today.
Even Adolf Hitler was extremely cautious when it came to making alliances. In every case he stipulated that he was only bound to help militarily when his ally was attacked, not when his ally was the attacker. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Hatbor Hitler was under no obligations to declare war on America. Because he was a megalomaniac he did. I am not sure whether we would have been obliged to declare war on Russia if Georgia had been a NATO member. When I listen to Cheney and McCain, the answer is: of course we would have been so obliged.
Unfortunately the Biden/Obama team has shepherded through congress the 1 billion dollar check for Georgia's Shaaskavili. If the 1990 ruling of the Supreme Court on what constitutes a declaration of war has implications for our relationship with Georgia, then Georgia is already our "ally", just as Israel is our "ally" even though no Congress resolutions exists which justify these designations.
The 1990 SC ruling said that the funding of a specific war by Congress is equivalent to a declaration of war by Congress. That may have been a bad resolution but it is the "law of the land." Ever since Congress voted the first funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan these wars have become legal in the context of our Constitution as interpreted by the SC. Senator Obama conveniently overlooks this fact.
Not to take anything away from Englehart's essay, which is spot-on, it is worth noting that Ecuador is kicking out the US air base near the costal city of Manta, effective in late 2009, at the end of a 10 year contract. Manta, which has 450 US Air Force and contractor personnel, has focused on drug interdiction. Ecuador's ability to do this is the result of two factors: widespread anti-Americanism among the population and a changing economic reality, thanks to major investments from Venezuela and Hong Kong.
This speaks to one of the reasons the US has been able to plant the flag in so many countries: they are beholden economically to the US and/or the IMF/World Bank, where US wishes often shape those institutions' lending policies. As an increasingly globalized economy contributes to economic growth, more countries may find themselves in a position to say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to a US military presence on their soil. As Ecuador's security minister, Gustavo Larrea, said in a Washington Post article on 4 September, "The U.S. stopped being the benchmark of what is good for Latin America. Because Latin America did everything that the U.S. asked it to do and wasn't able to get out of poverty, the North American myth lost political weight."
These statistics are impressive but hardly surprising. The USA has from the begining been an imperialistic military state. Not one generation has existed in this country that has not known at least one war. If the USA was not making war against the Native People (my own)for the possession of land and resources, they were making war against themselves. Then the exportation of war, under the claim that they were bringing freedom to others has become accepted behavior.
No other nation that has ever existed has had more cities and towns with the prefix of "Fort", i.e. Fort Wayne, Lauderdale, Worth etc.
If the USA has existed to be an example to the world, history will most likely list it as the highest "Negative example".
The USA has not been attacked since 1812 ( Hawaii was an illegal territory and not a state), and they have not "won" a war since 1945, and it seems they are loosing in a major way now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still they do not admit to being wrong about any of it.
This is a formula for failure that the American people seem to have accepted as a mantra. The exportation of war failed to serve the Romans or the Brits, and it has failed the Americans.
Every 20 years the US goes to war usually over something ridiculous.
There are no native people to America. We are all immigrants.
Except for the Native Americans.Our immigrant, forefathers stole this country from the only true Americans. People tend to forget this most egregious fraud on the indigenous peoples of America.
Oh yeah. I forgot. We all immigrated from Africa thousands of years ago. That makes you a Black man.
I've known about these 760 bases for years, and have declaimed against them to no discernible purpose. It's like persistently agitating for impeachment: you're howling into a vacuum. But Tom Engelhardt has provided some of the very best commentary anywhere available on the progress of the "wrecking crew" (Thomas Frank's term for the whole Bush-Cheney mafia) as they've systematically destroyed this country and as much of the world as they've been able to lay their filthy hands on. Many thanks to Tom for all his unflagging work these past 8 years chronicling the disaster still in progress.
Here's a thought experiment: How long will it take President Obama (assuming) to address the bank-breaking fact of sustaining these imperialist military bases? Will he make this an issue in his first year in office? second? third? maybe fourth? Or how about never? Would *never* making it an issue that can actually be discussed and debated publicly be a wiser political strategy? I'm betting on never. Both he and McCain will only seek to expand these bases, or fortify them further, draining what's left of the treasury into the Pentagon and sending us swirling down the toilet of history Bush and Cheney have already crapped us down.
What about us Aussies?? We also have a little US base here, called Pine Gap. This is the one, where the Tomahawk missiles have been steered from!
What are the plans for us?
We are already your vassals, fighting your wars - not in great numbers, but hey, we are not that many!
But wait, we now have a Mandarin-speaking PM (Kevin Rudd), instead of that slimy old fascist John Howard, who considered himself Bush's mate, because Bush called him "my friend, FRANK Howard, the Man of Steel" on occasions. So, if we align ourselves with China, are you going to bomb us into democracy and freedom? We do have all the reasons to become a prime target for democracy and freedom: pretty much the whole continent is a mine. Huge depositis of iron ore, zinc, copper, uranium, coal, natural gas, oil and the list goes on and on...
At this rate we will invade and plunder ourselves - - - oh, Bush already has.
If Goliath should kill himself is that a 'win' for little David of Tora Bora?
PLEASE keep it up!
As a proud European, I would like nothing more than to see a McCain government in the usa, the Republicans have been doing a great job as far as we're concerned.
Since the Republicans "entered" the Whitehouse just 8 years ago the Euro has more than doubled in value as traders ditch the "buck", you've been selling your jobs overseas at a rate of 100,000 a month (thanks, by the way) and a continuation of the Republicans' never-ending military drain on your economy will ensure the rise of the EU and China as the dominant powers of the 21st century.
I'm telling you this secure in the knowledge that you won't do anything about it, you'll just dismiss it as "just some shit from some Eurofag" and keep driving towards the precipice in your self-satisfied way.
Happy landings-
LO
I agree that the US empire will not go quietly. We (the south part) didn't give up slavery without a war, we have used nuclear bombs, we have attacked every small country that we thought we could get something from.
I don't think that the US rulers will nicely hand over power to the next empire, like Britain did. I think that they are trying to start a nuclear war with Russia and you guys will get the fallout, so to speak. And a lot of the actual bombs.
And what's with France and Germany going along with the imperial project? I've heard that Sarkozy is an actual CIA agent. His step-mother is married to Frank Wisner, Jr.
And, by the way, McCain or Obama, it doesn't matter. They both serve their corporate masters.
Yeah, but you are going fascist over there arent you, at least there is a whiff that is being detected. Punishment over the failure of the Lisbon Treaty is coming. They are going to cut your oil from Russia. The Euro is going the other way now, isn't it. And the Carbon Emissions scam imposed on you will encourage your industry to move for "blacker" pastures. And a war in the Balkans and Caucuses between NATO and Russia is looming. Kind of close to home, isn't it.
Frankly, I would prefer to withdraw from NATO, let you guys take care of yourself, or maybe we should charge you for our services. Real Empires operate for profit, time to end this charity. Pay up!
BTW, in the NWO, there is the global elite who run the global government, and global citizens. All citizens are simply beasts of burden to the elite, to be disposed when they can no longer work. This is the world coming to all of us, including in Europe. Don't be deceived.
Great thought. Charging for all our free services to Europe. Lets get it in Swiss Francs though, the Euro is going to start down soon.
I appreciate the irony. But this empire is going out with a bang, a nuclear one that would involve you too.
Sorry about the DP, mouse microswitch is playing up.
LO
It might be more useful to understand what and why the military is doing rather than making comments that will never come true.
As to our non-existant Empire..... or whatever we are its not even close to ending. We are, like it or not the 1,000 ld Gorilla in the economic sandbox. Comparing the military, we would be the 2,000 lb Gorilla in the worlds sandbox.
My states economy can almost match Chinas. Its better than Russias.
Our military of course is simply doing the bidding of it's global masters. Positioning themselves to attack countries who resist globalization. When Americas economy is collapsed by these global masters, the military will be sold to the UN/IMF to pay off our debt.
Of course, you all would be running around naked and in bare feet without China, since your states economy largely consists of fictitous capital, while China actually makes stuff.
Also, Russia at least has energy independence. So when your government allows Big Oil to fleece you, Russia makes out like a bandit.
And you forgot to factor in your states share of the Federal Debt, technically, you are bankrupt, as is every state, and their citizens who are left on the hook for the debt (I wonder if corporate citizens will share in this). Good thing China loans us the money that helps keep your states economy running.
"And you forgot to factor in your states share of the Federal Debt, technically, you are bankrupt"
Good point! But we had a surplus till Bush became gov.
I forgot to say that my State actually still manufactures real products and goods including energy.
Well, you should secede and jump the sinking ship.
We had a surplus under Clinton, if you don't not count the social security money they spent. If you count that money, we had no surplus. And we still had the debt, although it's higher now.
It's not America's dependence on foreign oil that's killing us
but our dependence on foreign capital that's our undoing.
But of course, thats another myth. You see, we borrow money from countries like China, this is true. But how does the Chinese government get these dollars? The standard response is that we give them the dollars to buy their manufactured goods. This is true, but then we do not send the dollars to the Chinese government, we send them to their manufacturers. The manufacturer of course needs RMB to pay his local costs, so he goes to one of Chinas banks to exchange USD into RMB. But where does China get all the RMB to buy these USD that they can then loan us. They create them out of thin air, like we do in the US.
The Federal Reserve System creates money by loaning it out in the US. It used to be the Federal Reserve Banks would loan money to our government, money they create out of thin air. But in the 70's, we told them they had to return us the interest less costs, so they do not want to create money for the government, nothing in it for them.
Instead what they do is they auction off the treasuries to those who have USD which requires the government to pay interest. Their principal dealers have plenty of USD since their companies have interests in commercial banks, thanks to the repeal of Glass Steagall which Clinton signed. The commercial banks create vast amounts of money out of thin air in the form of loans, and now of course the Federal Reserve Banks loans money to the investment banks, who are part of the same Financial Holding Company as the commercial bank. Their junk mortgage securities are accepted as collateral for the loan (as opposed to US treasuries, it's kind of like you promising the houses on your monopoly board game as collateral for a mortgage on a real home). Make sure you understand the difference between the Federal Reserve System and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, go to Ellen Browns site, Web of debt.
OPEC is now flush with USD thanks to the high oil prices of recent years to make sure they have enough to loan us, and I have explained China.
But we could have just created our own money without interest, just like the banks do. Thats why they call it fictitous capital. It has no value except as a medium of exchange. Thats what a fiat money and fractional reserve system is all about.
We are dependent because that is what globalization is all about, making us all interdependent on the global money makers. We export productive capital and jobs to developing countries and replace it with fictitous capital. The world gets richer, Americans get poorer. It's by design.
If people only knew the real extent of the fraud, they would laugh, cry, or maybe even start hanging the fraudsters up on lamp poles
Another good point! But repairable.
Crowsnest September 4th, 2008 3:59 pm
Tom:
Why is VP Cheney in Georgia with a 1 billion dollar check in hand, made out to Saakashvili by Biden/Obama?
#1 is he is the biggest asshole in the world with the blood of many of our finest boys and girls directly on his hands.
"I do not argue that Bush/Cheney do not intend to use a Georgian membership of NATO to pressure Russia, but almost every commentator overlooks the Iran-connection!"
I would argue that. It would be another strategic disaster, but suit Cheney and his byblow very well.
Nice to know that some folks understand some of the area.
Pax
"One of the well-known means of income of the Mafioso was "protection money". My hunch is that Mafioso Cheney is telling Saakashvili that his form of "protection money" is to allow our military bases, missile launching sites, and possibly nuclear bombs on Georgian soil even if the country does not become a NATO member."
Wouldn't doubt it for a minute. Nothing would suit Vader better I'd suspect than to be able to widen the conflict while he can.
Chalmers Johnson points out that life is pretty sweet on those bases, giving the trailer park and ghetto soldiers a better life than they could ever have at home. The commissary has cheap goods and the amenities are better than at home for most.
I work with a military brat who spent years at Guantanamo (which she refers to as "where they keep the terrorists now"). She talks about her maid and how her parents spent their free time scuba diving.
And I just found out last night that my coworker spent 4 years in the Bahamas while in the Army in the 60s. He loved it.
Sometimes I read the Army Times. It's pretty interesting. They focus mostly on pay and benefits, not the imperial project they enforce. But I'm pretty sure that they have a map of the bases in there sometimes.
Here's a picture of the US base in plucky little Kosovo, which the US recently recognized, (annoying Russia), where the US bombed the hell out of the country which tried to prevent its succession and then stole a farmer's land to set up a permanent base, Camp Bondsteel.
http://palestinianpundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/camp-bondsteel-empires-base-in.html
The US empire reminds me to some extent of the empire the Mongols created in that, in the foreign territory under domination, the empire appears to have absolutely no concern for the common good whatsoever. The Mongols set up a system where they could apply their muscle ruthlessly and effectively to ensure their puppets in far-flung regions of the empire kept bringing in money for the empire in the form of tributes. They viewed government more as an organized criminal gang whose sole purpose was extortion. The US government is increasingly becoming such a criminal gang with its far-flung puppets ensuring the tribute flows to the US corporations that are well-connected in Washington.
.
The problem with Imperial Decay is that there is no objective yardstick, scope, or meter to furnish timely assessments. Additionally, the Bush-Cheney Cabinet/Imperial Court live in Delusionville.
At some point, in the near future, either of 2 things may happen. First, barbarian hordes may breech our defenses and occupy major portions of the crumbling U.S. Empire. Secondly, our Fascist leaders and Military Honchos, may declare Marshall Law, suspending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are some signs that the U.S. has already tipped into that sharp decline !!!!
,
.
The problem with Imperial Decay is that there is no objective yardstick, scope, or meter to furnish timely assessments. Additionally, the Bush-Cheney Cabinet/Imperial Court live in Delusionville.
At some point, in the near future, either of 2 things may happen. First, barbarian hordes may breech our defenses and occupy major portions of the crumbling U.S. Empire. Secondly, our Fascist leaders and Military Honchos, may declare Marshall Law, suspending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are some signs that the U.S. has already tipped into that sharp decline !!!!
,
.
The problem with Imperial Decay is that there is no objective yardstick, scope, or meter to furnish timely assessments. Additionally, the Bush-Cheney Cabinet/Imperial Court live in Delusionville.
At some point, in the near future, either of 2 things may happen. First, barbarian hordes may breech our defenses and occupy major portions of the crumbling U.S. Empire. Secondly, our Fascist leaders and Military Honchos, may declare Marshall Law, suspending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are some signs that the U.S. has already tipped into that sharp decline !!!!
,
.
The problem with Imperial Decay is that there is no objective yardstick, scope, or meter to furnish timely assessments. Additionally, the Bush-Cheney Cabinet/Imperial Court live in Delusionville.
At some point, in the near future, either of 2 things may happen. First, barbarian hordes may breech our defenses and occupy major portions of the crumbling U.S. Empire. Secondly, our Fascist leaders and Military Honchos, may declare Marshall Law, suspending the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are some signs that the U.S. has already tipped into that sharp decline !!!!
,
babble! the anti-nationals are the occupying force, and the american people and government their foolish lackies.
Tom:
Why is VP Cheney in Georgia with a 1 billion dollar check in hand, made out to Saakashvili by Biden/Obama?
Take a good look at a map of the region. South of Georgia there are two countries Armenia and Azerbaijan and immediately South of A&A is Iran! The distance Tbilisi-Tehran is 550 miles and Tbilisi-Natanz, a major center of nuclear activity,is about 700 miles! The shortest distance is actually across Azerbaijan which Cheney visited too! Tel Aviv-Tehran is more than 800 miles and, as the crow flies, across Jordan and Iraq.
His "mission" is semi-cloaked by Hurricane Gustav and the GOP Convention. The nation is glued to the TV spectacle about Palin and does not notice! How convenient!
I do not argue that Bush/Cheney do not intend to use a Georgian membership of NATO to pressure Russia, but almost every commentator overlooks the Iran-connection!
I understand that all of the Near-Eastern and Middle-Eastern countries (including Turkey) have forbidden Israel to fly over them on the way to attacking Iran. What about Armenia and Azerbaijan, have they forbidden Israeli planes to take off in Georgia and fly across them to Iran?
One of the well-known means of income of the Mafioso was "protection money". My hunch is that Mafioso Cheney is telling Saakashvili that his form of "protection money" is to allow our military bases, missile launching sites, and possibly nuclear bombs on Georgian soil even if the country does not become a NATO member.
Crowsnest September 4th, 2008 3:59 pm
Tom:
Why is VP Cheney in Georgia with a 1 billion dollar check in hand, made out to Saakashvili by Biden/Obama?
#1 is he is the biggest asshole in the world with the blood of many of our finest boys and girls directly on his hands.
"I do not argue that Bush/Cheney do not intend to use a Georgian membership of NATO to pressure Russia, but almost every commentator overlooks the Iran-connection!"
I would argue that. It would be another strategic disaster, but suit Cheney and his byblow very well.
Nice to know that some folks understand some of the area.
Pax
"One of the well-known means of income of the Mafioso was "protection money". My hunch is that Mafioso Cheney is telling Saakashvili that his form of "protection money" is to allow our military bases, missile launching sites, and possibly nuclear bombs on Georgian soil even if the country does not become a NATO member."
Wouldn't doubt it for a minute. Nothing would suit Vader better I'd suspect than to be able to widen the conflict while he can.
Good on you Tom! Shine that light...
Would if I could. But I guarantee you that the leaders of the "progressive" movement will spend another year yelling about the war than doing anything positive. Frankly, I doubt we can close bases with the help most of our folks are giving them.
Not you right-wing blow-hard! Tom Engelhardt
The problem with one single global policeman is, most cops are corrupt, and just who is going to arrest THIS one?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton
A dying empire with the world's most powerful military can only be kept alive for a while with oil.
Now here is a good place to start getting our miliyary in control. Start targeting small bases and mission bases for closure, Start asking why are we in Bum Fud at all? Cut out the little stuff first. Then bigger.
Sgt. Yorks method...picking off the outside turkey so the next one in line won't know he's in danger.
Still don't think the US is an empire Thomas?
No, I don't. But I don't think the word is important either. If some want to use it...OK by me. I think of it as the Roman Empire, etc with direct control. Others use it for the political effect or to describe a political form. I think.
Economic control is pretty direct, seems to me, and the US has exerted incredible economic control, through subsidies, military equipment, the World Bank, the IMF, bribes to officials, aid to right wing governments, CIA involvement in other countries, threats of economic and/or military intervention over other nations.
Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins shows how that works. These kinds of controls control how the governments of other nations act internationally, how they act toward their citizens, and affects the lives of all the people in their countries. That is empire.
empire 1a: an extended territory usu. comprising group of nations, states, or peoples under the control or domination of a single sovereign power. - Merriam Webster's Third New International.
Under the domination, that is empire. When journalists, historians, such as Michael Parenti, and even a Republican in the Bush Administration refer to the US as an empire in the meaning "under the domination", they are using the word empire as it is commonly used today.
Today. Now. This century. Even most reactionaries are not stuck in ancient Roman times for their definitions.
Well, apparently at least one is.