Community | July 31, 2009 | 58 comments

3 Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire

source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/three-good-reasons-liquidate-our-empire

Image
pjacobs51
However ambitious President Barack Obama's domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there — 49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.

These massive concentrations of American military power outside the United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries. They are also unimaginably expensive. According to Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website Foreign Policy in Focus, the United States spends approximately $250 billion each year maintaining its global military presence. The sole purpose of this is to give us hegemony — that is, control or dominance — over as many nations on the planet as possible.

We are like the British at the end of World War II: desperately trying to shore up an empire that we never needed and can no longer afford, using methods that often resemble those of failed empires of the past — including the Axis powers of World War II and the former Soviet Union. There is an important lesson for us in the British decision, starting in 1945, to liquidate their empire relatively voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so by defeat in war, as were Japan and Germany, or by debilitating colonial conflicts, as were the French and Dutch. We should follow the British example. (Alas, they are currently backsliding and following our example by assisting us in the war in Afghanistan.)

Here are three basic reasons why we must liquidate our empire or else watch it liquidate us:

Continued at the link . . .
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Humanism,   Opinion,   3 more
  2. tags:
  3. recommended by:
    ras_menelik
  4.     
    |

58 comments // 3 Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire

  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  

    • Money,
      the currency of governments.

      Stock markets,
      the currency of one world government.

      Money holds a nation together
      Stocks are for holding the one world government together.
      Therefore all the stimulus packages were for saving that government.

    • 2 years ago
  • Cynic2
    • 0
      Cynic2  

    • Empires Fall. I see an insane general, shoulder-deep in quicksand, with one hand in the air, rattling a saber. All the while, the general is rapidly sinking.

    • 2 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
  • Gravity_Man
  • s0uthc0ast
    • 0
      s0uthc0ast  

    • Another point to ponder is what happens when the U.S. removes the security umbrella from Europe?
      When these countries need to pay for their own security, what will happen to the fabled socialized medicine of these nations?
      It would certainly be interesting to see these countries with their armies looking at each other nervously.
      That also means we get out of Bosnia.

      To kill two birds with one stone; with the real estate made available by the U.S. vacating these bases in Britain, Germany and Italy, we now have someplace to move the United Nations and get it out of the United States.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • s0uthc0ast:

      Those countries DO pay for their own security. It's laughable if not wholly Jingoist to say the U.S. holds Europe together.

      They're not threatened by anyone and they're all economically interconnected, who would attack them?

      The age of empires ended with the atomic bomb.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • s0uthc0ast:

      there would be some complicated situations but europe now actively defends itself...so I'm not sure what you're talking about

      you could've made a MUCH stronger case for asia by the way, (korea and japan)

    • 2 years ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • s0uthc0ast:

      The security umbrella has likely already done its evil job as training wheels. Europe would do just fine without the U.S. running their store. If anything, that's what scares the living hell out of our military and politicians that keeps our forces there. If we pulled out of Europe and they prospered along without us we might feel like useless vestigial appendages.

      WE MIGHT HAVE TO OOPS CHANGE.

    • 2 years ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Gravity_Man:

      The PRC can hardly be considered Communist anymore.

      It follows almost none of the core tenets.

      The state just pretends to be communist, but it's pretty much abandoned the platform since the cultural revolution.

      It's almost fully capitalist.

      But your point definitely still stands.

    • 2 years ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • jh64487
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • America is addicted to war.

      So much so that most of the time, there isn't even a reason why we fight anymore. We fight wars so that we don't lose wars. We fight wars because we have the materials and the power so, why not?

      We fight to keep the fires going in a well-oiled machine whose purpose everyone has forgotten.

      Its poisoned our culture, our economy and the general compassion of Americans. Nowadays we'll decry a boob falling out on tv and celebrate rockets blowing up peoples' homes. We have almost no domestic production to speak of besides our war machines. And we've become so numb to the horrors of war that we've forgotten why it's bad in the first place. Americans will support wars -even if they don't know why the hell we're fighting them-.

      We've even turned our citizens into little soldiers, proclaiming "loyalty" to their state, their party and the president as if that was patriotism.

      All of this wouldn't be a big deal, except that it costs us untold trillions every year.

      That's right, -trillions-.

      The Pentagon DOES NOT HAVE a discretionary budget, the 600 billion number you see is just maintenance costs. R&D is hidden in a totally different area as are nuclear weapons which are considered a part of the department of energy. You also have to include the cost of all the secret wars we fight every year plus the extra appropriations bills when we actually fight wars in the public sphere. And there are plenty of black ops projects and other hidden activities that go through subcommittees in which congresspeople vote on -without even seeing the fucking price tag-.

      And on top of ALL of that, include that incident back in 2001 where the military -could not account- for 2 TRILLION dollars it spent. You -really- think they don't know where that money went?

      And compare all of this to the brutal battle in congress over limiting money for a TINY portion of the military budget on F-22's, a plane that has -never seen- combat. Think of all that debate and pissing and moaning over this tiny part of our military and how narrowly it actually ended up getting axed.

      And that should give you some idea of why we're in trouble.

      Unless there is a MAJOR shift in public opinion and policy, we're looking at a forever upwards shooting military budget which never provides any actual revenue back. And when congress is deadlocked over whether 0.01% of a SUPERFLUOUS part of the budget should be cut, you can see where this trend leads.

      We can't afford this, NO ONE can. It's god damn insane, and what has it actually ever DONE for us besides give a couple of neocon fascists a temporary hard-on for their country?

      We could have done ANYTHING with all that money, any social goal, just name it, we could have done several times over just with the past couple pentagon budgets ALONE. Not counting all the wars and secret funding.

      We could have built bullet trains across the country, put in free fiber-optic wifi for everyone, built a grossly overbroad public healthcare system, provided free college education for most Americans, etc. etc.

      But instead, we spent it all on bombs which, with the exception of Afghanistan and Japan, never once actually went to the defense of this nation.

      Think about that for a while, then we can get back to discussing just how necessary all this "defense" spending really is.

    • 2 years ago
  • isnamthere
    • 0
      isnamthere  
    • Saladin:

      And look what it's done to personalities in this society. Those who are profitting from war have been brainwashing the youth for decades. Hell, half of the troglodytes that comment here on current would go to war at the drop of a hat. Boo Rah! Let's kill, kill, kill. U-S-A, we're # 1 !

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Saladin:

      That's exactly what I was referring to in my post.

      People in this country support war for the sake of war, even if they don't have the slightest clue WHY we're fighting the war.

    • 2 years ago
  • Cynic2
  • MotherForTruth
  • s0uthc0ast
    • 0
      s0uthc0ast  

    • Is it any coincidence this "empire" has expanded under democrat party control?

      Woodrow Wilson took the U.S. into WWI

      Roosevelt took the U.S. into WWII against Germany AND Japan. To this day we are still in both places.

      Roosevelt papered over eastern Europe so the Soviets could expand their empire.

      Truman took the U.S. into So. Korea in its civil war with N. Korea and escalated the Cold War. To this day we are still there.

      Kennedy took the U.S. into So. Vietnam in its civil war with N. Vietnam and escalated the Cold War further.

      Johnson escalated and expanded the war in Vietnam and escalated the Cold War further.

      Well, at least we are not still in Vietnam.

      Clinton took then U.S. into the civil war in Bosnia.
      To this day we are still there.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • s0uthc0ast:

      It's partisan silliness to say it's all the Democrats doing. And going all the way back to Wilson is silly too, considering that Teddy Roosevelt before him was a big fan of war.

      Actually, Vietnam started with Eisenhower and all the succeeding president, including Nixon, expanded it.

      Plus you're ignoring the Reagan-Bush years in which the REAL expansion of the empire happened after we had no more Soviet rivals to deal with, and all of the secret wars and U.S.-friendly dictators they propped up.

      And of course, you can't leave out good ol' President Bush who got us into this debacle in Iraq.

      The American Empire has always been a bipartisan project.

    • 2 years ago
  • rockstarmillionaire
    • 0
      rockstarmillionaire  

    • I don't see what the problem would be for us to remove our troops from all over the world and have all that money then to fund necessary things in the US. It's not like what other posters have said that we'd have to become energy independent or fear not having roads, literacy, sanitation or commerce since all of that has been provided by privitisation in US history.

    • 2 years ago
  • cego
    • 0
      cego  

    • To really downsize our overseas forces we'd have to become energy independent. Maintaining that we did that we could probably downsize significantly and only maintain a handful of naval bases and quick reaction forces.

    • 2 years ago
  • Netcentric
    • 0
      Netcentric  

    • I concede that there are U.S. troops (but not bases) in Canada. Actually, being a Canadian, I more importantly believe that due to Canada’s strategic importance to the U.S., there are probably more U.S. security and defense staff in Canada who do not wear uniforms than those who do.

      I have mixed feelings about all this. I happen to be very patriotic, have a high regard for those who work in the police, security and defense forces and I appreciate the benefits of living in the country sometimes referred to as America's cousin. Canada benefits greatly by our close relationship with the U.S. and I am personally offended when I hear other Canadians condemning America while at the same time enjoying the prosperity, peace and security the relationship brings.

      I agree that the U.S., like any individual or group, is not perfect. I do not condone all it does, but I will not condemn it while I and my children live beneath its wing.

    • 2 years ago
  • magnusdeus
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Netcentric:

      You don't have to condemn it, you're missing the point.

      It's not about loyalty, a concept so arbitrary in the modern day that it almost ceases to have meaning, it's about out nation's prosperity and survival.

      I understand if you appreciate the U.S.'s beneficiary relationship with Canada (a relationship in which I don't understand how the DoD is related), but who are we protecting Canada FROM?

      There's no one out there, all the enemies we have are from previous foreign wars undertaken to fight people who were never our enemies to begin with.

      Look at Vietnam, we fought a war in which 2 million of their citizens and 57,000 of ours died, in which all the politicians at the time agreed that Ho Chi Minh wasn't really a communist, that it was impossible to win anyway and today we're the best of allies!

      And on the flipside, people we aid turn against us. Like aiding the Mujaheddin in the 80's against the USSR. I don't think that was a bad idea, but look what it created. They've become our main enemy now.

      What is the purpose of these wars? Who do they actually benefit?

      Are we actually being "defended" or are we initiating wars of aggression for agendas that have nothing to do with the prosperity of the American (or any other) state?

    • 2 years ago
  • Netcentric
    • 0
      Netcentric  

    • I quite agree with you here Mark701. However here is the first paragraphc in an essay of mine in response. I do realize the views expressed in the paragraph below are not wthout contraversy. Also please understand I am NOT saying that the US Empire brings the same pros and cons to the modern world that the Roman's did in their time but what I AM saying is this - the decline of empire is a double edged sword and let us be careful what we wish for.

      "In the year 407 A.D. Emperor Constantine withdrew the last Roman legion from Britain. The Dark Ages began. The presence of Roman legions had meant the presence of law and order. It meant roads which meant trade which meant prosperity. It meant sanitation, literacy and commerce. When the last of the Eagles departed Britain’s shores, all these things tumbled almost instantly into chaos and ruin. Factions, tribes and warlords began their long war for dominion that would bring hell on earth to the peoples of Europe for the next 500 years."

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Netcentric:

      Britain really isn't a good example.

      First off, pretty much every Roman Emperor prior to Constantine warned that going into Britain would stretch out an already too-thin empire. And realize that Rome didn't go there to civilize the natives, it went there to pick up booty and slaves for an empire that it could barely support.

      Furthermore, the local Celts and tribesmen were by no means savage barbarians, you're thinking of the Saxon invaders.

      Which is WHY the Romans left in the first place, because they couldn't afford a war against the Saxons in Northern Scotland. It's why they maintained Hadrian's Wall rather than move up north and create an occupying presence.

      Furthermore, Rome had been falling the whole time. It's not as if pulling out of Britain was a slippery slope for them. It was their Imperial bad habits, mainly slavery, that both forced their hand into Britain and forced them to abandon it.

      Think about it, what has our empire ever DONE for -us-? What has it done for the people? Is it really in our best interest to keep it around?

      That doesn't mean we have to give up our military might, just stop maintaining all these overseas bases as if we ruled the world. Because, if you think about it, it is a facade. We wouldn't be able to hold any of those locations if there was actually serious military opposition against us.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  

    • Like every other military empire in history e.g the Romans, the Greeks, the European Colonial Powers, the Soviet Union etc., our military might will be broken, not by another nation but by our inability to finance it. This is just a matter of time. For comparison consider this, this year America will spend 670 BILLION dollars on defense. China, which is second in the defense spending category, will spend only 85 billion. As a nation we spend more than the rest of the world COMBINED on "defense". This can't go on much longer.

      Whereas the thought of this will make many Republicans lose their erections, I think it will be the best thing for our country. If China wants to police the world let them, then we can focus on our economy and drive THEM out of business.

    • 2 years ago
  • bastional
    • 0
      bastional  

    • What a great read. The question is; Are we as a community going to take action by spreading this truth to the masses or are we going to stand by and be the educated minority? If we spread this education of the facts, the more people that are educate will vote enlightened as opposed to the getting the same results from our government that the ignorant keeps voting in. This is democracy, let’s act the part.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  

    • This explains it all....Obama is not change.....which is somethingwe NEED! We need REAL CHANGE! That can only come through an educational rEVOLution! Peace

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • ooooh, an article from MOTHER JONES!

      well, it's GOT to be accurate, if it comes from that bastion of journalistic excellence.

      You may as well get your news from Grandma, pendejo

    • 2 years ago
  • pjacobs51
    • 0
      pjacobs51  
    • curtisreed:

      Yeah, people don't appreciate good ole "investigative journalism" anymore. They would rather have their news pulled out of the networks proverbial ass (and their corporate sponsors) and believe that as fact.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
  • RudyRudell
  • Netcentric
    • 0
      Netcentric  

    • Contrary to the map above, there are zero U.S. military bases in Canada. Therefore the rest of the map is without credibility. Too bad that it therefore puts the facts of the article into question.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  
    • Netcentric:

      Yes and no. Read the title of the map- US MILITARY TROOPS and Bases Around the World. I'm sure there is massive cooperation between the US and Canadian military with each sending troops to the other nation for specialized training. Unless you pick up on that nuance, then the map could be construed as misleading. Still it is a fact that we have approximately 700-800 overseas bases. By comparison, China, arguably our largest military rival, has no overseas installations.

    • 2 years ago
  • bastional
    • 0
      bastional  
    • Netcentric:

      True @ mark701. For example, CFB North Bay is a Canadian Air force facility in Ontario Canada that works closely with NORAD and the Airborne Warning and Control System operated by the USAF and NATO.

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • 0
      GodsnLiberals  

    • our reach is farther than that...what you guys are seeing is what you are allowed to know...

      the business of warfare should be tended by people who knows warfare and not someone how does not have the stomach for such business..

      read the "art of war"

    • 2 years ago
  • magnusdeus
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      If you knew anything about the Art of War, you'd be able to see why the U.S. is in trouble.

      It's set its defensive position as the entire planet without any real way to support such a war if it were to actually happen.

      It is completely reliant on the threat of nuclear weapons, which it will never use, the spy tricks of the CIA and the general facade of invincibility to maintain its empire.

      Furthermore, 99% of the time -it has no GOAL-. What army goes to war just to go to war? You win before you go to war, not during.

      And also, you're forgetting Sun Tzu's most basic tenet. A bit of paraphrasing here but the point is still the same.

      "A general who is victorious 100 times in 100 battles has not reached the pinnacle of excellence. But the general who can subdue his enemies without fighting a single battle, THAT is the pinnacle of excellence."

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • 0
      GodsnLiberals  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      sun tzu declares that the 'general' who runs the war should be able to follow through with his tactics...

      we cannot even being our war against terrorism if its being INFLUENCED by the public who cannot stomach warfare..

      so before you run to subsequent chapters..read the kind of mindset needed to run a war, are you willing to "behead a few concubines"??

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      Not if it isn't necessary, which it's never proven to be thus far. And especially if THERE IS NO GOAL.

      WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THIS WAR?

      -What- are we trying to WIN?

      You don't get it, you can't WIN a war that has no OBJECTIVE.

      You can't win a "war on terror" because its objective is "the end of terrorism."

      Furthermore, you can't fight a war on terror any more than you could fight a "war on crime" or a "war on poverty." It doesn't even make sense, it doesn't even fall into the military's jurisdiction.

      You might as well fight a war on bad language.

      Terrorism is a criminal activity, there's no standing armies or nations to combat. The military is often the CAUSE of terrorism, how could it ever be its solution?

      You beat it by doing police work and counter-espionage. And even then you never "beat" it, you just stave off threats as they come along. And even then, there's always going to be an attack that gets through, no matter HOW Nazi you are about stopping it.

      The "war on terror" was and is just an excuse to fight wars that the U.S. would never otherwise have a justification to the public for.

      That's why up until now no one has even -bothered- to put more troops into Afghanistan (you know, where the terrorists actually ARE) because it's all been a facade to trick people.

      They can't fight this with military might and they know that, it's all been an excuse to fuck around and do whatever they want.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      i gotta say saladin wins this article, i'm not sure what you're talking about in any of your comments GnL.

      kinda nutty sounding actually, like you just finished "The Art of War" and think you're ready to lead a campaign. A peasant general if you will.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      A few reasons:

      War is good for the GDP in the short run. Unfortunately it destroys our NNP because of the fact that everything produced either depreciates nearly instantly (a bomb) or quickly becomes obsolete (technology).

      Maintaining an empire is an expensive strategy, and leaves the economy deep in debt and hollow, though large.

    • 2 years ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  

    • The U.S. military is becoming the rule of the machines like in Terminator. Machines will never give up. The world is about to be conquered. We ain't no John F. Kennedy or Great Britain in 1945.

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  

    • "imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union."

      the soviet union and EVERY OTHER EMPIRE throughout history.

      ya'think?

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • Katmai512
    • 0
      Katmai512  
    • jh64487:

      From Sun Tzu's Art of war:

      Chapter Three: Planning Attacks

      Generally in warfare, keeping a nation intact is best, destroying a nation second best;

      keeping an army intact is best, destroying an army second best;

      ....

      Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence;

      to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.

      Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city.

      Laying siege to a city is only done when other options are not available.

      If the general cannot control his temper and sends troops to swarm the walls, one third of them will be killed, and the city will still not be taken.

      This is the kind of calamity when laying siege to a walled city.

      Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare principles subdues the enemy without doing battle, takes the enemy's walled city without attacking, and overthrows the enemy quickly, without protracted warfare.

      More at http://sonshi.com/sun3.html

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • 0
      GodsnLiberals  
    • jh64487:

      is that what you think is happening now?

      the whole mentality of those running this campaign is questionable..we dont have to go through the chapters yet..

      we the proper people to run this warfare..
      question..do you think sun tzu would oppose to use waterboarding to gain information again an enemy??

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • jh64487:

      Let's hypothetically say that he did.

      Would you ever admit it?

      I don't get how you can be a cheerleader for mindless bloodshed and destruction and still pretend like you know anything about war.

      You're a war junkie, and that would be fine if you could come out and admit it, but some part of you apparently thinks that we aren't aware of that and it's all a big secret.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • jh64487:

      A) I wouldn't use Sun Tzu's advice for warfare anymore than I would follow Lao Tzu for stock market advice. N/A.

      B) We have seen over and over again throughout history the path that empires take (including china and japan). I'm honestly not even sure what you're point is. quoting an old general isn't going to change history after all.

      C) Torture? if he knew that he couldn't get reliable information from it and he knew his soldiers wouldn't be tortured if he didn't torture the opponents soldiers he'd probably be against it. those weren't exactly enlightened times though. ...course, china still uses torture to get information. mostly to get a confession...

      but hell let's just use torture for everything!

      fool.

    • 2 years ago
  • endovenoso
    • 0
      endovenoso  

    • i've heard terrible stories about soldiers in bar fights in italy, if the carabinieri come, they just take in the italians, no matter the story, the americans walk

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • CreditFigaro
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • endovenoso:

      bullshit, endovenoso. the US military members can receive pretty severe penalties for misbehavior in foreign ports. the notion that our troops get some kind of preferential treatment is silly.

      if you are going to make those accusations, you better be ready to back them up with proof.

    • 2 years ago
  • larrysnotes
  • endovenoso
    • 0
      endovenoso  
    • endovenoso:

      I hear firsthand accounts from four active members of the US Army.

      A bar fight starts, usually over women, it turns into a soldiers v italians brawl, and like I said, the most the carabinieri will do is stop the fight and arrest the italians.

      Of course the soldiers avoid being there when the police arrive, but it takes a SERIOUS crime to get arrested, and that is saying you can't make it back to base first. If they do it is more likely that the justice will be dealt by the military, which in many cases is preferential.

      My question to all of you who doubted: do you really believe that the US govt does not have agreements with other countries to protect US soldiers? Or do you believe that the soldiers just mind themselves?

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos