There are worrying signs that the US is not able to pay for its huge military deployments and its military adventurism. The US uses its political clout to cajole its satellite countries to pay for its wars. For instance, Japan paid $13 billion to the US for the first gulf war against Iraq. According to Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism, the ballooning US balance of payments deficit is financed by the central banks of the world, which plough back the surplus dollars to buy US Treasury bonds. Blinded by its overwhelming military power the Empire hurtles relentlessly towards the future in pursuit of its hegemonic goals. Its inept elected representatives have surrendered their judgment to a cabal of unelected military experts.
The unraveling of the Empire would have the same inevitability of a Greek tragedy: the hamartia of an inflexible empire bereft of adjustment and compromise colliding against the forces of blowback and imperial overstretch. The danger of the US alienating Europe, Russia East Asia and China politically cannot be ruled out. The threat of the dollars not flowing back into the American economy is a real possibility. The scenario is dangerous for the US economy as it may financially implode if foreign investment dries up.
Imperial Overstretch
“The two great tests which challenge the longevity of every major power,” wrote Paul Kennedy in his magisterial survey The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, “whether in the military /strategical realm, it can preserve a reasonable balance between the nation’s perceived defense requirements and the means it possesses to maintain those commitments; and whether it can preserve the technological and economic bases of its power from relative erosion in the face of ever-shifting patterns of production.” Kennedy holds the view that this test of American abilities will be greater because it, like imperial Spain around 1600 or the British Empire around 1900, is the inheritor of a vast array of strategic commitments which had been made decades earlier when the nation’s political, economic, and military capacity to influence world affairs seemed so much more assured. ‘The United States now runs the risk of what might roughly called “imperial overstretch”: that is to say, decision-makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligation are far larger than the country’s power to defend them simultaneously.’
Johnson believes that America is in a state of decline. The signs are there for all to see: increasing estrangement between the population and their government, loss of moral authority among the elite, the appearance of militarism and the separation of military from the society it is supposed to serve. He quotes with approval David Calleo, professor of international politics, ‘The international system breaks down not only because unbalanced and aggressive new powers seek to dominate their neighbors, but also because declining powers, rather than adjusting and accommodating, try to cement their slipping preeminence into exploitative hegemony.’
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I have to think that the main shortcoming of your thesis is that despite the appearance of imperialism, the US is not and has never been an empire, and as a nation has no real desire to do the things which empires do, such as dominating or colonizing other nations.
You seem to be laboring under the restrictions of terminology and paradigms of the 19th century while attempting to examine relationships between modern nations which aren't easily pigeonholed by concepts like 'imperialism' and 'colonialism'.
Good case in point is the assumption you repeat that the 'empire' is characterized by overwhelming military power, when that's certainly not true of the US. What we see demonstrated in Iraq today is how inadequate our military capabilities are to dominate even a relatively small area and disorganized enemies. When compared to real 'imperial' powers the amount the US spends on its military and the size of that military are insignificant.
Dave
2 - Aaman
Dave, firstly, if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter whether it has an identity crisis. There's no basis to believe imperialism died with the 19th or the 20th century. Why then did the United States appoint a pro-consul as their first act after the invasion and conquest of Iraq?
Secondly, I'm not sure if you've read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, but in the very beginning, he talks about how civilizations move from an Age of Expansion to an Age of Conflict, characterized by a declining rate of growth and expansion, growing tensions and class conflicts, and frequent and violent imperialist wars. That sounds pretty much like the social dynamic of the United States in particular in the world today. He goes on to analyze why the Universal American Empire is a near certainty, and its eventual decay.
The longevity of empires is much reduced, as has been pointed out elsewhere, and you seem to prove the point by your description of the difficulty of maintaining even the semblance of imperial rule in Iraq.
Incidentally. there is a regional imperial power with greater longevity who seems to be only too ready to step into the American vacuum, but that's another story.
3 - Zharkov
The viewpoint of the author is entirely one-sided, Leftist, and distorted. For example, he repeats the old Leftwing canard: "In countries like China, Vietnam and Indonesia the workers who earn low wages cannot buy the goods produced by them", yet this hasn't been true for years. Chinese workers are buying cars, homes, and other consumer products at a record rate, and although the pay scales may be somewhat lower than the U.S., the prices of their goods are also lower.
He fails to criticize the utter depravity of 9/11, an attack without any particular purpose other than to terrorize New York City, and he suggests it's the moral equivalent of righteous "blowback" from the poor and oppressed, yet nobody believes Saudi Arabia was poor, nor was Osama bin Ladin ever "oppressed". The Saudi citizens who went to flight school could certainly afford it and the airline tickets required to hijack the airliners.
What is true is that the USA has sacrificed a large portion of its industrial base to help other countries bring their living standards higher and move them into a modern age. If the resistance to moving 7th century living standards into the 21nd century is "blowback", then perhaps it is one of those things necessary to advance the human race.
Some criticisms are justified, and the Soviet army could have been allowed to remain in Afghanistan undisturbed as it ultimately made no difference whether they won or lost there, when collapse of the Soviet state was inevitable. What did make a difference was that guerrilla warfare methods had been taught to America's future enemies. The CIA made many mistakes and misjudgements in dealing with the Islamic revolution because it failed to understand it, and many of those mistakes have caused American fatalities, so critical comments are merited, yet there must remain the criticism of Islam that it remains a deadly religion that results in genocide against Christians, Buddists, Hindus, and others, wherever Islam has been allowed to spread.
The Islamic revolution is not a result of empire but developed as the result of a lack of empire when the British and French withdrew from the middle east region, and to say it is "blowback" is the ultimate in disinformation.
4 - socrates
Dear Zharkov,
we do not advance a debate if we call a viewpoint 'entirely one-sided, Leftist, and distorted.'By calling your response a extreme right-wing view of a neocon I do not advance the cause of rational debate either.So let me respond to the issues raised by you.
"In countries like China, Vietnam and Indonesia the workers who earn low wages cannot buy the goods produced by them" 'yet this hasn't been true for years. Chinese workers are buying cars, homes, and other consumer products at a record rate, and although the pay scales may be somewhat lower than the U.S., the prices of their goods are also lower.'
You appear to have missed the main point of the argument that shipping high wage jobs to low wage economies is beneficial to US corporations in the short term but it also replaces high wage consumers with low wage consumers. The paradox is that by job losses in US & Europe leading to loss of purchasing power in middle and lower class of consumers is not made good in countries where the consumers have poor pay.If there is compression of demand in Rich countries on account of job losses the economy gets into a tailspin of depression. The ripple effect on low cost economies would be that outsourcing would slow down and cripple the low cost economy. As things stand US is the consumer of last resort and if things go wrong there countries like China and India would also be in trouble.For the world economy to be stable the corporations in US and Europe would have to ship jobs overseas with the same pay as workers in US and Europe(a silly thing to do from the perspective of corporations).
The terrorist attack of 9/11 may be an act of depravity but does not tell you the reasons.The flawed foreign policy of supporting and aiding the repressive Saudi ruling elites produces anger in the Middle East. Foisting of tin pot dictators elsewhere does not help US in making friends but produces angry people who would like to hurt US by acts of terrorism.Incidently, the Saudi terrorists were not poor but angry people.
If US sacrificed its Industrial base by favoring Japan, it was not for altrusitic reasons. The primary reason was to show the world that Japan was a star pupil of capitalism. To serve the interests of cold war and to prove that communism/ socialism would never succeed Japan was propped up post II world war,for which US paid a heavy price.
And your last comment'The Islamic revolution is not a result of empire but developed as the result of a lack of empire when the British and French withdrew from the middle east region, and to say it is "blowback" is the ultimate in disinformation.' You are assuming that the British & French Empires were civilising influences, an assumption which betrays an elementary knowledge of history.
Islam does not have the monopoly of violence in history.In the blood splattered pages of history Christanity does have its share of intolerence and violence too.
5 - socrates
Dear Dave,
Thank you for your comments.
Post cold war, US has relied less on diplomacy and more on military force and financial manipulation when it came to foreign policy. She maintains military bases all over the world and her military budget for the year 2007 was raised to a total of US$ 532.8 Billion.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$9106 billion.
In view of the staggering military expenditure,it would be extremely naive to say that US does not have hagemonic intentions or that she is a weak military power as the war in Iraq was botched up.
6 - Clavos
...her military budget for the year 2007 was raised to a total of US$ 532.8 Billion.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$9106 billion.
Setting aside for the moment that these two figures refer to two different years' budgets, 533 billion is not 47% of 9106 billion, it's more on the order of 6%. Perhaps you meant to say the world budget total in 2003 was 910.6 billion?
In view of the staggering military expenditure,it would be extremely naive to say that US does not have hagemonic intentions
Maybe not, when you consider that the US military has been known to pay $600 for a $10 hammer.
I'm being facetious, of course, but my point is that it's not logical to infer US hegemonic intentions merely from the size of its military budget.
7 - Dave Nalle
Let me echo what Clavos just said. The vast majority of US military spending goes towards efforts to provide military support for allied nations and efforts, peacekeeping and pure maintenance of our military infrastructure. As a rule the US does not invade and occupy foriegn countries on an indefinite basis as would be required for building an empire. We may have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, but if anyone in America thought we had long-term imperial ambitions in either country the public would turn against those invasions even faster and more universally than has already been the case.
Dave
8 - socrates
Dear Clavos,
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the USA responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total. Further,World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1,001 billion at constant (2003) prices and exchange rates, or $1,118 billion in current dollars;
Moreover,the figure of US$ 532.8 Billion for 2007 is understated as it does not take into account other military related expenditure such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, e.g. $120Billion in 2007).
All in all a fairly impressive expenditure when you add additional $23.4 Bil to be spend by the Department of Energy during FY'07 for the development, maintenance and production of nuclear warheads.
I note with interest your comment' Maybe not, when you consider that the US military has been known to pay $600 for a $10 hammer.'
I am glad that you are facetious for it would not amuse your taxpayers to know that the US army is fighting the war in Iraq with hammers priced at $600 per hammer.
Anyway thank you for providing the decimal point to the figure $9106 billion(910.6).
9 - socrates
dear Dave,
In view of the clarifications provided by Clavos that the US military has been known to pay $600 for a $10 hammer,I see the error of my ways.
Now I am inclined to believe that all US military expenditure is spent on hammers priced@$600 per piece leaving very little expenditure for the purchase of WMD.Now we know why the war in Iraq was botched up.
10 - Dave Nalle
Don't forget the $2500 toilet seats, Socrates.
US purchases of WMDs are another issue entirely. We spend more money today disposing of old and volatile WMDs than we ever spent making them.
Dave
11 - socrates
Dear Dave,
With toilet seats priced at $2,500 and hammer at $600, it may not be a bad idea to outsource the supply to China or India.
I dare say this would release the military budget for the purchase of Weapons of Hostile Intent(WHI)to wage the war against terror.
12 - Zedd
Socrates
Very sober article.
It is confounding that the most glaring thing to some in your article is the use of the WORD "imperial" and not the affects of our actions.
It is our obsession with categories that actually gets us into trouble. Our need to have good guys vs bad guys prevents us from dealing with the complexities of international interplay.
We see ourselves as the good guys and so justified in fulfilling our needs which are supported by capitalism, which is good always.
Politicians understand our simple categories hence the axis of evil speech. In order to proceed with the plan ahead, we had to cause a stir. Whereby there was a threat from evil forces (bad guys). After that we had to giddy up and fight the good cause.
Imperialism is a bad guy word so it can not possibly be attached to us. Even though we colonized this country rather agressively I would say (or is it just me?)
13 - Dave Nalle
Rather than comparing flat amounts spent on military purchases, a more relevant comparison is what percentage of a nation's GDP is spent on their military, since the two ought to be somewhat proportional. Such a comparison is a much better measure of whether a country is disproportionately warlike. It's not easy to apply this kind of analysis to a country like China where the economy is directly controlled by the government and groups like the Red Army are essentially self-funding and non-accountable, but here are comparisons of some nations where military spending is relatively transparent:
Saudi Arabia 5.9%
Israel 5.8%
Russia 3.6%
US 3.2%
UK 2.7%
France 2.2%
Australia 2.1%
Worldwide Average 1.7%
So as you can see, the US isn't even in the top 3 as far as percentage of GDP spent on their military, though it like all of these countries is above the worldwide average.
Considering that the US essentially pays the defense cost for much of western europe and many other areas of the world, our spending per GDP is actually pretty low.
Dave
14 - Dave Nalle
Imperialism is a bad guy word so it can not possibly be attached to us. Even though we colonized this country rather agressively I would say (or is it just me?)
Britain, Spain, France, Sweden and the Netherlands colonized this country. We didn't colonize ourselves. Plus it was 400 years ago.
Dave
15 - socrates
Dear Dave,
Consider this fact: Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, according to the Center for Defense Information, the US outlays for defense as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, has from Fiscal Year 2003 consumed more than half (50.5%) of all such funding and has risen steadily. Discretionary spending accounts for approximately 1/3 of all federal outlays.
The military expenditure of US is placed at $522(2007) billion dollars.This expenditure dwarfs the military expenditures of other countries. For example- China 62.5,Russia 61.9, UK 51.1, Japan 44.7,France 41.6, Germany 30.2, Saudi 21.3 and so on.
The point is if one were to list the global interventions by US from 1945 to present it would be very impressive indeed.As the interventions have been exceptionally bloody one can surmise that more than hammers were used by US to wage conflicts/war on other countries.
16 - Dave Nalle
Well duh, military expenditures can go up over time as GDP goes up. That's true of any country which doesn't encounter some sort of economic disaster. It's not unique to the US.
And as I said before, the US spending does not dwarf that of other countries on a basis of percentage of GDP which is a more reasonable comparison.
It's even less excessive when you consider the military actions you mention. The US has taken on the military responsibilities of much of the rest of the world to keep peace and counter oppression and given all of that activity the level of expense is surprisingly low.
Your suggestion that our interventions have been 'exceptionally bloody' is a complete crock. In addition to the fact that we have not taken and occupied territory in the long-term as an empire would do, almost all of our interventions have been primarily characterized by the relatively low level of civilian casualties compared to other military conflicts. Yes, there are a couple of exceptions like Vietnam and Iraq, but in both cases the high level of civilian casualties was largely caused by the tactics of the enemy, not as a result of US policy.
Dave
17 - Aaman
Dave - the Phillipines, Hawaii, Texas, California, the Cuban proxy state pre-1962 - long term occupation?
18 - Clavos
Cuban proxy state pre-1962 - long term occupation?
Hold on a second -- what "occupation," long term or otherwise, of Cuba pre 1962?
What do you mean by "Cuban proxy state"?
And what's the significance of 1962?
19 - Aaman
That should've been 1959 - and surely you not denying the client status of Cuba post the Platt Amendment - "Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual happiness". This remained in force until Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy in 1934.
It later became a more typical American economic hegemony - In 1946,half the billion-dollar Cuban sugar industry was American-owned, and more than 25% of the cultivated land was American owned.(Foreign Policy magazine and The Dust of Empire) Indirect rule is more pernicious, in many ways, than direct rule.
I'm glad you don't dispute the rest of American local aggrandizement and annexation. Grover Cleveland's secretary of state Richard Olney is another case that comes to mind, and his extended interpretation of the Monroe doctrine.
20 - Clavos
In 1946,half the billion-dollar Cuban sugar industry was American-owned, and more than 25% of the cultivated land was American owned.
By the 1950s, the Cuban sugar industry was Cuban owned, top to bottom,; and in fact, today's American sugar industry is Cuban owned and controlled. Are you familiar with the name Fanjul?
Also, Cuba was not "occupied" by the US after 1934, when the Platt Amendment was repealed (repealed, except for the lease on Guantanamo).
Had it been, Fidel would not have won his "revolution". As it was, his pitiful little ragtag band of "revolutionaries" barely beat Batista's army, and only because they were even more inept than Fidel's barefoot guajiros.
In fact, Batista blew it. Shortly after the attack on Moncada barracks, he had Fidel in custody, but at the urging of Catholic Jesuit priests, didn't execute him. Batista's humane gesture was Cuba's (and the world's) loss.
I lived in Cuba in the late fifties; I even met Huber Matos once, briefly, in Baracoa, Oriente province, in July or August, 1958. I saw what went on. So did the Cuban people, and they've been voting with their feet ever since.
I'm glad you don't dispute the rest of American local aggrandizement and annexation.
Kindly don't infer anything about me simply because I chose not to respond.
21 - STM
The real issue is what's happened since Castro took power. It must have looked great at the beginning, and even through to the collapse of the Soviet Union there must have been hope that things would steadily improve. But I wonder how the Cuban people REALLY feel now, though. 20-20 hindsight is a marvellous thing. I wonder if they'd have preferred Castro had never come out of the woodwork, knowing what they know now.
And not being communist these days doesn't necessarily mean bowing down to America and doing everything it wants. The road taken by Cuba was consigned to the dustbin of history by Gorbachev, who was smart enough to see the writing on the wall (literally, in that case).
22 - socrates
dear Dave,
Your comment'Your suggestion that our interventions have been 'exceptionally bloody' is a complete crock.' could be true if the entire US military budget was spent on expensive toilet seats and hammers. Sadly, the US army did acquire Tomahawk missiles, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells which were used with deadly effect in Iraq.In Vietnam napalm bomb, cluster bombs and agent orange were used to poison the earth, the water and the gene pool.The figures of dead in Vietnam alone comes to one million.
But there is a bright side to our discussion:not all the US taxpayers money was wasted on hammers and toilet seats as suggested by you and Clavos. The 'puny' military budget of about half a trillion did produce an impressive number of body bags.
23 - socrates
dear Clavos,
Did you know Batista personally? I mean you seem to be vouching for his good character(Batista's humane gesture).I presume you left Cuba before Castro came to power.
Too bad Batista blew his chances!
24 - Anand Menon
The Wikepedia encyclopedia says"...Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations, countries, or colonies. This is realized either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. The rule of authority of a country is based on territory, economic establishment and political influence. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire. It is also considered the action by which one country controls another country or territory accomplished by military means to gain certain advantages. Imperialism helps one country gain power and domain over other areas. ..."
Lets face it by this simple definition the U.S is an imperial power although some people on this blog can't see the wood for the trees....perhaps they should read William Blums's seminal work "Killing Hope"...should give you a broad idea ....and also ...ask all those people living in all those countries where the U.S has interfered in the past 100 years whether there was anything remotely "benovelent " about their handiwork....by any stretch of the English language....
The chickens are coming home to roost.All those adventures abroad come at a cost.During the time Bush and co. have been in power the dollar has depreciated by 40%....and it is sliding further ...towards the shit creek....watch the trillion dollar housing bubble burst...deflating consumer spending.....watch the subsequent effect on the stock market balloon ...which is otherwise enjoying the last wisps of Greenspan's low interest helium swirling into the largest credit bubble in history.....watch the consequences of Empire....watch it Mr.Nalle .....and weep.
25 - Dave Nalle
Dave - the Phillipines, Hawaii, Texas, California, the Cuban proxy state pre-1962 - long term occupation?
Clavos has already addressed the issue of Cuba. The others are even more ridiculous. Texas and California both came into the union willingly. They had to virtually force the US to annex them at a time when many American politicians were politically opposed to annexation. They also held popular votes whcih overwhelmingly favored annexation, even among the non-English speaking populations. Plus that was 150-some years ago. Why not add Louisiana and Vermont to your list while you're at it? Silly.
As for Hawaii, the story there is certainly a lot muddier, but its entry into the union was not terribly bloody or oppressive compared to other territorial acquisitions of the period. In the long run, coming under the protection of the US government was better for everyone concerned including the native population. You don't hear a lot of Hawaiians complaining these days, do you?
And I'm not at all sure where you're going with the Philippines. There are a hell of a lot of people there who WISH the US was more heavily involved, that's for sure. Since we reduced our interest the place has gone to hell in a handbasket. And our presence there was always a moderating and protecting one. I can only imagine how much worse things would have been without US involvement.
Finally, one comment for Anand. The dollar has been deliberately deflated as part of an economic strategy which thus far seems to have been pretty successful. As for the 'housing bubble', it's not bursting. Every expert seems to agree that the adjustments are short-term, and the impact of artifically low interest rates wore off quite a while ago. You can bleat about economic doom and gloom all you want, but the evidence just isn't there to support it, so long as the deficits continue to go down at an accelerated rate and the value of the dollar starts to rebound correspondingly as we ought to see in the next few months.
Dave