One and a Half Cheers for American Decline: The Future’s Not Ours -- and That’s Good News

[marmar]

from TomDispatch:



One and a Half Cheers for American Decline
The Future’s Not Ours -- and That’s Good News

By Tom Engelhardt


Compare two assessments of the American future:

In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in which 61% of Americans interviewed considered “things in the nation” to be “on the wrong track,” 66% did “not feel confident that life for our children’s generation will be better than it has been for us.” (Seven percent were “not sure,” and only 27% “felt confident.”) But here was the polling question you’re least likely to see discussed in your local newspaper or by Washington-based pundits: “Do you think America is in a state of decline, or do you feel that this is not the case?” Sixty-five percent of respondents chose as their answer: “in a state of decline.”

Meanwhile, Afghan war commander General David Petraeus was interviewed last week by Martha Raddatz of ABC News. Asked whether the American war in Afghanistan, almost a decade old, was finally on the right counterinsurgency track and could go on for another nine or ten years, Petraeus agreed that we were just at the beginning of the process, that the “clock” was only now ticking, and that we needed “realistic expectations” about what could happen and how fast. “Progress” in Afghanistan, he commented, was often so slow that it could feel like “watching grass grow or paint dry.”

Now, I’m not a betting man, but I’d head for Vegas tomorrow and put my money down against the general and on Americans generally when it comes to assessing the future. I’d put money on the fact that the United States is indeed “in a state of decline” and I’d make a wager at odds that U.S. troops won’t be in Afghanistan in nine or ten years. And I’d venture to suggest as well that the two bets would be intimately connected, and that the American people understand at a visceral level far more than Washington cares to know about our real situation in the world. And I’d put my money on one more thing: however lousy it may feel, it’s not all bad news, not by a long shot.

......(snip)......

Imperial Denial Won’t Stop Decline

Despite much planning during and after World War II for a future role as the planet’s preeminent power, Washington used to act as if its “responsibilities” as the “leader of the Free World” had been thrust upon it. That, of course, was before the Soviet Union collapsed. After 1991, it became commonplace for pundits and officials alike to refer to the U.S. as the only “sheriff” in town, the “global policeman,” or the planet’s “sole superpower.”

Whatever the American people might then have thought a post-Cold War “peace dividend” would mean, elites in Washington already knew, and acted accordingly. As in any casino when you’re on a roll, they doubled down their bets, investing the fruits of victory in more of the same -- especially in the garrisoning and control of the oil-rich Persian Gulf region. And when the good fortune only seemed to continue and the sole enemies left in military terms proved to be a few regional “rogue states” of no great importance and small non-state groups, it went to their heads in a big way.

In the wake of 9/11, that “twenty-first century Pearl Harbor,” the new crew in Washington and the pundits and think-tankers surrounding them saw a planet ripe for the taking. Having already fallen in love with the U.S. military, they made the mistake of believing that military power and global power were the same thing and that the U.S. had all it needed of both. They were convinced that a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East was within their grasp if only they acted boldly, and they didn’t doubt for a moment that they could roll back Russia -- they were, after all, former Cold Warriors -- and put China in its place at the same time. Their language was memorable. They spoke of “cakewalks” and a “military lite,” of “shock and awe” aerial blitzes and missions accomplished. When they joked around, a typical line went: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175298/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_why_the_troops_are_coming_home/#more

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Interesting, but I don't think it takes into account the lobbying power of the arms manufacturers

They need an American military buying insane amounts of expensive kit to make their profits, and they'll throw a hell of a lot of money around Washington to ensure it. The piece seems to assume that a legislature and government will take a sober look at the cost of the current US military, and decide it's unaffordable. But there's no reason to believe there will be a rational assessment of what the USA can and can't afford.

And with the hardware being bought, they need the wars to be fought to justify it; and the generals still get extra kudos for being in charge of an active war rather than a defensive force waiting to fight only if needed. So they'll be happy to join on the chorus of "we must fight", especially since that ensures them lucrative retirement jobs at defence contractors. The Military Industrial Complex will not go down without a major struggle.

[Raster]

2. The Military Industrial Complex will bleed this country dry. Period.

And they will destroy just about anyone by just about any means necessary to do so. America will never know peace--the world will never know peace--as long as the American Military Industrial Complex is allowed to run rampant through the halls of American government. As far as the Pentagon is now concerned, the Republic and its citizens exist to serve the Pentagon, not the other way around.

"The 21st Century Pearl Harbor." That just about says it all. Wake up, America.