Mantus

Well here is something from a website I discovered a while back called Billmon. A well made point and with style. Tell me what you guys think.


Politician Speaks Truth, Press Outraged

A political gaffe, they say, is when a candidate accidentally tells the truth. I don't know about the accidental part, but Howard Dean seems to have met the latter test when he mentioned the disagreeable truth that empires -- even red, white and blue ones -- don't last forever.

But it's Time's story, so I'll let them tell it:

Two weeks ago, while campaigning at a Stonyfield yogurt factory in New Hampshire, the would-be Commander-in-Chief suggested that America should be planning for a time when it is not the world's greatest superpower: "We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We won't always have the strongest military."

Such comments could come back to haunt Dean. If there is a central political reality in post-9/11 America, it is this: Voters won't be willing to listen to a candidate's ideas on the economy or any other domestic issue unless they are first convinced that he or she is a credible, competent guardian of national security.

Now "credible, competent guardian of national security" is actually Timese for "a president ready to bomb countries back into the Stone Age on a semi-regular basis."

Which is roughly similar to the Rumsfeldian definition of diplomacy: "a threat or ultimatum backed by the use of overwhelming military force."

By those standards, Governor Dean does seem to have violated the modern media rule of thumb: Anyone who has any hesitations about starting wars in the Middle East is automatically unfit to be president.

Of course, I don't literally know what Dean literally said -- Time isn't known for its careful and contextual use of quotations.

But if the governor was trying to say that imperial overstretch usually brings imperial ruin, and that excessive reliance on military power tends to be self-defeating over time, then he's definitely on the right side of the history, if not the Washington punditocracy.

Op cit.: Machiavelli's The Prince; Clausewitz's On War, Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly, Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

And here is a very interesting article that points out some of the ominous parallels between the neocon conception of national security and the policies pursued -- with disastrous results -- by Kaiser Wilhelm's German Empire.

In the Kaiser's case, obsession with military strength overwhelmed diplomacy (in the non-Rumsfeldian sense). This turned allies into enemies, creating a fear of encirclement -- and an even greater obsession with military strength.

In the end, national strategy became the servant of military power, instead of the other way around -- a condition Newt Gingrich apparently would like to replicate here. Empires may die, but stupid ideas are immortal.

However, Governor Dean seemed to have the British, not the German example in mind: a slow, lingering death, rather than a quick, if painful, suicide.

The idea that the American empire might die a natural death isn't an easy thing to face. It's too much like reflecting on our own deaths. We're conditioned psychologically to avoid such thoughts, which can induce an almost overwhelming sense of existential despair -- much like watching Fox News.

But there it is: Empires don't last forever. And if you've been keeping up with not-so-current events, you may have noticed that their shelf lives keep getting shorter and shorter:

- Rome: 700 years, give or take

- Ottoman: 500 years, ditto

- Spanish: 300 years

- British: 200 years

- German: 100 years

- Soviet: 70 years

If you think about how those empires died, you'll see immediately that we could do a whole lot worse than the British, who managed to liquidate theirs quickly, relatively peacefully and with a minimum of hard feelings.

The Brits, however, had a lot of experience in the empire business, and a healthy appreciation for the art of diplomacy. They also didn't have Newt Gingrich.

Shrewd diplomacy also allowed the Brits to build their empire on the cheap. So did a 100-year head start in the Industrial Revolution. But once the other European powers (and us) caught up, the going got a lot tougher; the economic burden a lot heavier.

We've only beginning to face the long-term economic consequences of our own imperial project. Will 21st century Americans be any more willing to pay those costs than 20th century Brits? How many wars will they be willing to fight? How many countries will they need to "pacify"? If the British experience is any guide, there will be plenty of both.

And if America gets tired of carrying those burdens? Well, the problem with being an empire in decline is the same problem with being a fading movie star: On the way down you have to deal with all the people you pissed off on the way up. Somehow I'm guessing our imperialists won't handle it as well as the British did.

If you want an idea of what that could mean down the road, check out this piece on the op-ed page of today's Wall Street Journal:

Euro Shield

With the Cold War behind us, the key question of international politics, as seen by the French political and administrative elite, is this: Now that there is no military threat to Europe from the Soviet Union, or anyone else, how to contain the US?

In this logic, the euro must become an alternative, or co-reserve currency alongside the dollar. This would deprive the US of its "soft power" and, to an appreciable extent, of its free ride in the world economy.

After all, the special international role of the dollar permits the US to run staggering trade deficits and to escape the balance of payments discipline that holds all other nations in check. This, it is believed, boosts America's ability to finance military and political power beyond its real means.

A primary goal of French and European foreign policy is therefore to shift portions of the foreign-exchange reserves of the world into euros.

I would submit that this isn't the kind of national security challenge that can be handled by sending in the 4th Armored Division. And America is going to be facing a lot more of them as the century goes on.

Maybe it's because he's a doctor, and more comfortable with the harsh realities of aging and death than the rest of us. Or maybe it was just a juicy sound bite for the New Hampshire anti-war vote that backfired onto the pages of Time magazine.

But either way, Governor Dean seems to have grasped a rather important point about protecting national security in an age when military hegemony is likely to prove very expensive, very fleeting, or both. The media are the ones with their heads in the sand, not Dean.

Actually, I'd say the media has its collective head wedged firmly in another dark place -- the same one so many of its stories seem to emerge from.

But I'm trying to clean up my act.

Posted by billmon at April 29, 2003

boatin

Good writer. There are a few things I believe to be true:

He's right - Governor Dean is toast.

Great quote, obvious truth - "Empires may die, but stupid ideas are immortal."

I hate talk about "the good old days", but I'm beginning to feel like an old fart about the news. Only the Wall Street Journal and the Economist seem to even have the pretense of unbiased reporting. Oh, and the O'Riley Factor.

It is an interesting idea, that America won't be a huge power forever. I believe it absolutely, but I wonder if it will be in my lifetime.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"


(Great post, dude. I wonder how many people will read it...)

maximusveritas

Great article. I remember talking to conservatives a few years back, right after the Cold War, before 9-11. I would hear alot about how America could do whatever it wanted because there was no one to stop us. I heard alot about turning countries into parking lots. No one would ever think about the consequences. No one ever thought about the possibility of it not lasting forever. 9-11 should have been a wakeup call, but instead we have merely hastened our path to self-destruction. I think, deep down, many people can see this. It's just a matter of coming to grips with it and then deciding to do something about it.

Dragonlich

Interesting, but also not quite accurate in it's parallels.

Wilhelm's Germany, for example, died because it was attacked by four big countries, all powerful, or at least potentially powerful as Germany. Britain might be a better example, but she lost her last bits of empire during WW2, when the Americans demanded she'd give them up in exchange for military support. Russia of course only lasted until the other big empire won the arms race, and the Russian empire turned out to be build on quicksand.

Now, the Roman empire... that might be a comparable situation, but even that is quite different. There were huge bits of unknown territory, and they actually pissed *everyone* off by attacking and enslaving them. That is the stuff rebellions are made of. I don't see the US doing that, as much as some people would like to believe they do.

The only real potential enemies of the US:
- Europe, which is too fragmented. It will take ages before this threat becomes real, and it will only become real if the EU suddenly grows hostile. One or two hostile nations do not mean the rest will follow, no matter how arrogant these few are.
- China. If history repeats itself, China will either remain stagnant and impotent, or they'll grow powerful and might implode. I don't see how such a huge country can maintain enough unity to eventually attack the US. Chinese unity has always been maintained by force and repression, and I don't see much difference today. The only real problem: there's too many of them...
- A big Muslim fundy state. This is the big unknown. My impression is that it will never happen. However, if it does, I don't see how this country could ever pose a credible military threat. Suicide bombers are nice while they're carried out by nameless, unknown groups. If a country carries them out, it'll be ended pretty damn quickly (and very bloodily). A political threat they might be, but they'd need to hold on to their oil for the next few centuries in order to do that... oops. I believe that this Muslim thing will die out, or it will be made to die out. That leaves the Islamic barbarian hordes, which might or might not pose a threat - but not nearly as much as the Germanic tribes and/or mounted warriors from the steppes in Roman times.

These three indicate to me that there is no credible enemy, and no final battles. That leaves the gradual decline, which will go unnoticed until it's too late. And it's only natural that such a thing will happen. We'll see a period of massive uncertainty, and a new, even bigger player will arrive eventually; however, that'll take lots of time - I won't be around to see it happen.

reconmike

I love how someone hoping for the demise of the United States will always draw comparison to the great "empires" of world history.

During all but the Soviets it took years to get enough troops across a region to quell upheavel, the US can have 200,000 combat ready troops anywhere in the world in a matter of weeks.

This is some unbelievable shit, now that the silly sissys in France have been protected by the US and Russia is no longer a threat what to do about the Americans?
Are they for real?

Thanks for posting it Mantus it was a very good and funny humor article.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

boatin

So, reconmike, are you suggesting that America will be the first world power to stay a world power forever?

And where do you get this?

"Someone hoping for the demise of the US?" Gosh, were there paragraphs that somehow I didn't see? Perhaps you have skills that enable you see people's inner heart and intent? Or just so far past objective that you can't play with an idea?

reconmike

edited by reconmike

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

BBtB

And I read the article as well as the comments but I think my first response to just reading the name of the thread still says it all..


"With our backs against the wall when the revolution comes"

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"