Is the American empire already over?

The Globe and Mail ^ | 5 October 2002 | Doug Saunders

[section9]

TheUS has troops in 144 countries, and now we're going to conquer most of the Middle East. We're an empire, and empires always fall. Get a clue.

No, we are not. Saying so does not make it so.

Further, we do not have troops in that many countries. In addition, we do not intend to be in Europe within the next five years. Expect us to bring everyone home from Germany.

A feature of all empires is direct rule from the "metropolitan" center using local stooges to back up your imperium and imperial troops to enforce order on the fozzies at the point of a bayonet. That is not what we are about.

The American people are isolationist by nature. The American governing classes, at least those on the conservative side of the ledger, are resolute in their application of national interest. From time to time, you'll get wooly-headed multilateralism such as that which game from the Clinton Administration. But that is the exception, rather than the rule.

The National Security Strategy that Condi Rice came up with is driven by national interest, not empire building. It recognizes that the United States must deal with mortal threats to the Republic and its people before they strike at us. The American governing classes recognize that Empire leads to penury in the long run.

I suspect you will be seeing a lot of homeward deployments after the war with Iraq is over, starting with Germany. When the Korean imbroglio is completed, we will bring 2nd Division home from there, as well.

Our presence in the world will consist primarily of naval deployments. That is in the nature of our business. It's the way we've always done things. Extended garrison stays are very few and far between, and have been the result of bipartisan political agreement (Germany, Korea), and will, in the end, end.

This article is the flip side of what I read in the European press, these days. Leave aside Japan and its corrupt, Yakuza based economy. Europe is awash in regulations and Islamic infiltration. Compare their population to that of the United States: we are growing, they are not. Our economy will continue to grow. Their's will grow less. Part of it has to do with population growth. We're the largest economy in the world, and will remain so for some time to come, simply because America is the safest place on earth to put your money. China is a comer, but that nation is sitting on tens of millions of unemployed, a critical surplus of young males, it is awash in corruption and graft, and the nation has a history of violent civil wars and warlordism. We do not.

Imho, a bit of sour grapes from our neighbor to the north.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Greybird]

{{ Also posted on Lew Rockwell dot Com. }}
{ That figures ... and then it slithered over here. }

As it happens, I found this one through links elsewhere. Yet I'm getting tired of this particular ad hominem. You're using the provenance of Web links as a substitute for argument. I've been here on FR for three years, and this has only become commonplace (outside of campaign threads) in the last year, since the Nine Eleven atrocities. Before then, at least a minimal stab was made at full-throated debate.

What I've witnessed with dismay is that too many now want shortcuts -- for ethical, political, or merely factual judgment. It's easier to simply dismiss any intelligent critic as a "Rockwellite" or a "DemonRAT" or a "peacenik" -- or, lately, "traitor" -- than to frame a counterargument. This is turning FreeRepublic into a place of political masturbation, and little more, on many threads. It used to be a forum, however raucous and lively. It rarely is any more.

[Poohbah]

In this case, the fact that supposedly non-statist Lew Rockwell thought it worthy of placing on his website is quite interesting, given that this piece has its origins in the state-uber-alles wing of hackademic leftism. Is Lew Rockwell really a libertarian, or does he just play one on the World Wide Web?

Lew Rockwell's endorsement of this piece is merely gilding the lily in terms of discrediting it.

[Greybird]

In addition, we do not intend to be in Europe within the next five years. Expect us to bring everyone home from Germany.

And who's this particular "we"? I haven't seen one inkling of this among the policy elite -- indeed, the neocons want more bases, not fewer.

Eisenhower's advisers were saying the same thing about our troops in Germany when the Federal Republic joined NATO (and our occupation ended) in 1955. To say the least, I'm hardly convinced.

[MadIvan]

What I've witnessed with dismay is that too many now want shortcuts -- for ethical, political, or merely factual judgment. It's easier to simply dismiss any intelligent critic as a "Rockwellite" or a "DemonRAT" or a "peacenik" -- or, lately, "traitor" -- than to frame a counterargument. This is turning FreeRepublic into a place of political masturbation, and little more, on many threads. It used to be a forum, however raucous and lively

Your self-anointed role as defender of Free Republic's morals is touching. Your commitment to tolerance is sweet of you. However, you might want to apply this same level of tolerance when you start another whinge-fest on mine or JohnHuang2's threads.

Otherwise, we'll just assume that you aren't interested in debate or being raucous or lively - rather, you seek to make FR a place safe for libertarian posturing.

Ivan

[general_re]

Wallerstein the socialist being approvingly reprinted by the Lewsers - it's the Sixties all over again, with the resurrection of the far left/far right anti-American coalition. Anyway, when the Rockwellians have to look to a guy like Wallerstein for aid and comfort, and to the Canadian press for material, it can only be a sign of desperation...

[Greybird]

Our economy will continue to grow. Theirs will grow less. Part of it has to do with population growth.

Which is being fueled solely by immigration, as families that have been here for more than one generation are not replacing themselves fully. Or barely managing to do so, depending on the statistician.

It's highly entertaining, at times, to see some people tout the virtues of immigration when it suits them to give credit to the attractiveness of America ... and then to decry it when they dislike how some quality or another is diluted by such new Americans. (Not necessarily by "section9," whom I haven't followed. Yet I've seen it here.)

[MadIvan]

It's highly entertaining, at times, to see some people tout the virtues of immigration when it suits them to give credit to the attractiveness of America ... and then to decry it when they dislike how some quality or another is diluted by such new Americans. (Not necessarily by "section9," whom I haven't followed. Yet I've seen it here.)

Then you've missed the point, for all your supposed intelligence.

Try this out for a minute. Give this some consideration, if you can be bothered to consider anything at all. Previous immigrants to America, Italian, German, Russian and so on - all felt that assimilation with the new country was the highest goal. As John Quincy Adams said to a foreign visitor, an immigrant to America leaves their old identity behind them.

The problem that most people are having is that this is not occuring anymore. Muslim immigrants come and want to bring Sharia to the United States. Mexican immigrants don't bother to learn English and so on. The very idea of the nation, and the access of these new citizens to the idea of the nation is threatened by this lack of assimilation.

We have the same problem in Britain. If the new arrivals all were like the Italian, German, Russian and indeed many Asian immigrants, and worked hard to learn the values of their adopted countries, I doubt you'd hear a peep.

Ivan

[grania]

TheUS has troops in 144 countries, and now we're going to conquer most of the Middle East

That's astounding. Does it include places where are troops are supporting NATO (ex: Kosovo) or the UN?

And meanwhile, our borders are still wide open, and there is very little serious attempt to send home and keep out illegals and minimize the "need" for immigration.

My point? Even if success in all of these global endeavors would be possible, we still lose the battle at home to preserve our culture and traditions.

[section9]

There is no Soviet Union to justify our presence there.

We have already informed the Europeans that we are pulling out of the Balkans.

We are in the process of reorienting ourselves to the Western United States to cover contingencies in the Pacific, once Saddam is all wrapped up.

Our presence in Europe is done. All that is missing is the withdraw order. The last thing that is necessary is a final Understanding with Moscow about the shape of Europe. Right now, we're all about the business of using European bases to get to the Middle East, but do not expect us to be there after our withdraw from Iraq.

See, here's why the "No blood for Oil" crowd is so wrongheaded. If it were only about oil, we'd have lifted sanctions long ago. It is about nukes, because there's an unwritten law in the nuclear business that crazy people shouldn't have access to the bomb.

So we invade Iraq. So we kill Saddam. Then we spend three to four years in Iraq allowing the Corps of Engineers to help the Iraqis rebuild the country. Then, once that is over with, we will withdraw from the Persian Gulf.

I know, big surprise. How could that be?

The Arabs can't eat the oil! They must sell it. Everyone knows it. Especially now that the Russians are getting in the business. The Rejectionist front will collapse and our only reason to go running around the M.E. will be to chase Al Qaeda's ghosts.

And if we don't need to be in the Middle East, we won't need to be in Europe. The expansion of our presence in the Middle East is natural right now because we are about to invade Iraq. But it will come to an end.

Be Seeeing You,

Chris

[Poohbah]

I haven't seen anybody arguing as you describe. Generally, there's two views on immigration on FR: "Bring in the folks who can contribute," or the "Ein Volk, Ein Land" mentality.

What gets comical are:

• The folks around San Diego who have AmericanPatrol.com bumper stickers--and pick up non-English-speaking day laborers at the local shopping mall; and
• The ones who simultaneously demand immediate house-to-house roundup and deportation of all non-citizens and scream bloody murder about "jack-booted thugs" when said JBTs have any authority to detain anyone.

Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary. Objects in rearview mirror are closer than they appear. Offer not valid in months ending in "e," "h," "l," "r," "t," or "y." (I actually saw that in the fine print of an ad offering a new car for $39.99.)

[Greybird]

'Tain't morals, it's courtesy. Almost everyone taking part on here refrains from mixing commentary with posted articles. (That's one of the virtues of this venue, with its implicit respect for personal judgment. Read the data first, then make judgments.) You and, to a lesser extent, Enrique do not do so.

I've been on the Net, and its CompuServe and BBS precursors, for 20 years, and my own patience wears thin with this disrespect for local mores. I'm entitled to complain, and you're free to ignore me, or waste your time posting Gilbert & Sullivan or whateverthehell it is. Don't assume they're "your" threads, though. We all just start them.

[Poohbah]

There's a bit of sleight-of-hand in that "US troops in 144 countries" figure.

It includes the Marine Security Guard detachments at each American embassy.

[MadIvan]

I've been on the Net, and its CompuServe and BBS precursors, for 20 years, and my own patience wears thin with this disrespect for local mores. I'm entitled to complain, and you're free to ignore me, or waste your time posting Gilbert & Sullivan or whateverthehell it is. Don't assume they're "your" threads, though. We all just start them.

There is such a thing as etiquette. And you're rude.

And I'm entitled to point this out, as well as the fact that you're smug, self-righteous and obnoxious.

Ivan

[section9]

Which is being fueled solely by immigration, as families that have been here for more than one generation are not replacing themselves fully. Or barely managing to do so, depending on the statistician.

Firstly, our native population is replacing itself at a greater rate than you suspect.

Secondly, this may surprise you, but hispanic immigrants are learning English. Right now it is their second language; in future, it wll be their first. I saw this out in Los Angeles and El Paso on my way to California. All the business signs were in English. Almost every billboard I saw was in English. In this country, English is the language of business and the law. Mexicans are proud, but they aren't dumb. They can read the handwriting on the wall, as well as the billboards.

The Islamic immigrant thing is a bugaboo. There are far fewer Islamics here than was generally suspected: Less than two million. Not exactly a flood tide.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[MadIvan]

By the way, turning a thread into a long whinge about posting styles diverts the purpose of the information being imparted. In which case, you're being downright disruptive.

Ivan

[grania]

Poobab wrote:There's a bit of sleight-of-hand in that "US troops in 144 countries" figure. It includes the Marine Security Guard detachments at each American embassy.

Tricky guy: Reference to your statistic? If it includes detachments at embassies (and it would probably have to, considering the number of countries), you do your argument a real disservice. I would be interested in knowing how many countries actually have US troops there.

[Miss Marple]

Most Mexicans try to learn English as quickly as possible. They are HAMPERED in certain areas (like California) by insistence of the educational and bureaucratic democrats in providing instruction and forms in Spanish.

Most Mexican workers that work with my son INSIST on speaking English (even when it takes them longer to get an idea across).

Of course, I live in the Midwest, where there is a growing Mexican population but not in the numbers of the Southwest. Their participation currently is about the same as the German gardeners who settled here a century ago...they have neighborhoods and their own groceries, and have brought their customs with them. I imagine that as their children attend schools they will become more assimilated.

Muslims, however, are a different category. Although they speak English, many attend Muslim schools and remain apart.

[hosepipe]

"a beneficial force of democracy and peace that we must join and support."

America is NOT a democracy.....duh!..
===================================================
"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the left is going to change that.... The words Economic Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement." Derek Shearer cited in Reason 1982

"...I would like to be clearly understood...we, the Soviet people, are for socialism.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy." Mikhail Gorbachev

"The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of well being granted to them by World Government."
-- Henry Kissinger, Amiens, France, 1991

[Cacique]

btt