What is Iraq if not the last gasp of America as Empire? The end of the Cold War is often seen as a U.S. victory over the U.S.S.R., but in fact, it cost both superpowers their empires.
The parallel of these two losses of empire is uncanny.
Like Russia lost its empire in Eastern Europe, we lost our "empire" in Western Europe. During the Cold War, Western Europe was a collection of U.S. client states under our nuclear umbrella, our missiles and troops stationed there to protect it against the U.S.S.R. The collapse of the Soviet Empire not only set free Eastern Europe (East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and Albania), but also liberated Western Europe to pursue its own course, which it has with the European Union.
The EU is now a single-currency economy in competition with the U.S. — and with the power to bring U.S. companies like GE and Microsoft to heel, something heretofore unthinkable. By declining to follow us into Iraq (making it a U.S.-U.K. Lone Ranger and Tonto adventure), the two EU leaders, Germany and France, have carved out a separate role for EU diplomacy in the world, which is often, and ironically, allied with Russia against the U.S.
The parallel continues in another way. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. also lost their empires in their own backyards. The Baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia) and the old Soviet Republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc.) are now states independent of Russia — while U.S. hegemony over own backyard in South America is at an end, too. Until quite recently, we installed puppet regimes in South America almost as freely as the British used to play Puppet Shuffle in the Middle-East. Now South Americans can vote, and they vote for leaders who are charting an independent course well to the left of us.
We're still the #1 military and economic force on earth — two great imperial weapons — but huge question marks have emerged over our continued efficacy in both these spheres. We have a rival economy as strong as our own in the EU, as well as the emerging giants of India and China to contend with. The Indians seem set to become the IT leader of the world — not only do we outsource our computer needs there, but our own Silicon Valley has felt the impact of Indian nationals. And the Chinese, now the undisputed manufacturing powerhouse of the world, will overtake us as the world's biggest economy in the next two decades.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - George P. Wood
William F. Buckley once said that a man who pushes a little old lady into the path of an oncoming bus and a man who pushes a little old lady out of the path of an oncoming bus should not both be criticized as men who push little old ladies around. He was making a point about the argument often heard during the Cold War that the USSR and the USA were morall equivalent. Unfortunately, Adam, you seem to make that same mistake in your comparison of Russia's loss of "eastern Europe" with America's loss of "western Europe." Come again? I remember Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but I can't remember any American invasions of any country in western Europe during the cold war. And European independence of American foreign policy began well before the fall of the Soviet Union. Oh, and your comments about the power of an independent European Union are touching, given the French and Dutch rejections of the EU constitution. I'll believe Europe can mount a unified, sustained objection to American foreign policy when there's actually a union to the EU. Without a doubt, the single most absurd sentence in this entire post is this: "What is the Soviet parallel to our Iraq adventure? Their war in Afghanistan." Are you kidding? The US won in Afghanistan and has helped birth a democratically elected government. The last time I checked, the Soviets lost and retreated in shame. Some parallel.
2 - George P. Wood
Silly me, I forgot to add that the US is doing quite well in Iraq too, where we've given birth to a sovereign, democratically elected government that is writing a constitution. We're winning the war, in my opinion.
3 - John Bambenek
The Left looks at any war America is fighting and says its a quagmire and we're losing. Then they wonder why people think they are seditious.
4 - Victor Plenty
Nah, they know only morons think them seditious.
5 - Bennett
Vietnam?
Nope, no quagmire there.
Iraq?
Nope, "we're doing quite well."
I enjoyed reading your posr Adam. The China observations are spot on.
6 - adam
Jeesh, George, I just ran with an interesting analogy. I like how you ignored the analogy about South America and the Soviet Republics. That part of the analogy is actually one of moral equivalence, now that you mention it, which my post was not about at all.
But then, you shillers for Bush and his amazingly incompetent administration (what have they done right?) can be so touchy. I imagine that's what you are, because I can't think of anyone else who'd be so idiotically outraged.
The Soviet war in Afghanistan and our war in Iraq is highly analogous: both started as optimistic imperial adventures and ended in quagmire.
7 - RedTard
Thank you Mr. Ash. The blame America first attitude of your side of the political spectrum is what keeps the US conservative and the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth.
8 - George P. Wood
Adam:
For the record, I'll grant you some moral equivalence between Soviet action in eastern Europe and American action in South America. Not much, but some. (What, for example, is the moral equivalent of the Katyn Forest Massacre in Poland?)
And, for the record, I'll also grant you that analogies can be useful.
My gripeâ€"outraged, yes, but not idiotically soâ€"is over the lazy identification of US actions in Iraq with Soviet actions in Afghanistan, and the even lazier use of "empire" to cover both countries influence over other countries. I notice, for example, that you don't cite any western European countries invaded by the USA in response to my citation of the Hungarian and Czech invasions by the USSR.
What's most idiotic about your reply to my post is the phrase "ended in quagmire." Uh, Adam, the war in Iraq is not over, and I think our armed forces are doing a fairly good job. Not perfect, not complete, but progressing. Would you like to cite evidence to the contrary?
What has the Bush administration done right? Two successful invasions, two democratic elections in Islamic countries, a good economy (GDP at 3.8% in latest quarterly estimate), etc. Are you really that ideologically blinkered that you can't see some successes in this administration?
9 - adam
Listen RedTard,
I think the Marshall Plan was the most noble undertaking by any nation in the history of humankind. No other victor in war has ever done anything half as good as America did for Germany and Japan, who did not deserve such largesse.
By the same token, what we're trying to do in Iraq now is pretty noble, even if we're incompetent at it, and can't seem to reconstruct Iraq enough to make sure everyone has drinkable water so its kids can stop dying. Not that democracy for Iraq was our original intention, but at least we've had our minds changed for us.
Conversely, I don't equate backing Bush with backing America. Quite the contrary. Bush is a disaster for us -- militarily, economically, and morally. I couldn't think of a worse president if I had to make one up. What did America do to deserve this guy? I know we voted for him, but with all our faults, we still don't deserve him. Bring back Nixon. He wouldn't have sold us out to China.
10 - adam
George:
I'm not ideologically blinkered. I'm practically blinkered. Maybe the economy is good for you, but I'm getting screwed. I was rich in the 90s under Clinton, but I'm struggling under Bush. I wish the billions he's spending on Iraq was being spent on us. I hope Hillary becomes president. America was a fun place under the first Clinton. I just want my fun back. The less ideology the better.
11 - Randy Kirk
If you were rich under Clinton and poor now, you must have made the huge mistake of putting all your chips in one market (stocks) and not diversified into any other (real estate, gold, bonds) where you could have gotten rich. Personally, my net worth on my personal dwelling along has made me "rich" by some people's standards.
The only other place where big losses took place is the manufacturing sector. As a primary manufacturer who saw my sales drop by 25% (along with all my friends) in 2000, I look at the last years of Clintonism as the thing that hurt me the worst.
Sorry, I messed with the thread a little. I think we as a nation have a desire to buy low and sell high, and that includes to folks all over the world. In the long run, if everyone does that, we'll all do quite well .. here and around the globe.
12 - gonzo marx
snide comment incoming..
yes, China is definately buying our Nation low and will more than likely be keeping, or foreclosing on the mortgage
while our government and corporations have been playing checkers with China, thinking they have the advantage, the Middle Kingdom has been patiently playing chess
as for the Original Post...some of the points i can agree with, some of the analogys fall flat for me
but overall, some good food for honest Thought can be had...thanks Adam
Excelsior!
13 - Randy Kirk
Japan was going to buy us a while back. I'm pretty sure the sky is falling ... this time.
14 - gonzo marx
news flash for you...who holds the second highest amount of our Nations Debt
1 = Bank of China
2 = Bank of Japan
now, who is buying IBM?..and what communist government is trying to purchase an american oil company, with all it's assets, technologies and reserves?
wake up and smell the dim sum...
wakari mas na?
Exscelsior!
15 - Randy Kirk
My biggest concern is France. Don't they own Nestle. Just don't take my chocolate.
16 - adam
I did put my chips in stocks, so yes, the disaster was in Clinton's last years. But at least the country had a surplus then, and wasn't in debt. I can't help thinking that four more years of a Clinton-like president like Gore would've made for a funner America than four years of Bush.
I guess the problem is I take Bush personally. Sometimes I question how I can hate a politician this much, but there you go, I just do. I can't stand the fact, for example, that the rest of the world dislikes us quite a lot because of his war. It pisses me off. I want to be proud of my country, dammit.
But even without the Iraq war, I probably would've hated Bush for his tax cuts for the rich. Are these three reasons -- the war, our loss of world prestige, tax cuts for the rich -- enough reason for me to hate him as much as I do? I don't know.
I do think he has a good sense of humor. I liked his Dad OK. I think McCain would've made a good president, probably a great one, certainly a 100 times better than Bush. I'd vote for McCain over John Kerry, for example.
It's bizarre, Bush is the first president I actually hate. I wonder if the other Bush-haters out there have better reasons than I do for hating him. It could be I just don't like guys who've had it easy all their lives.
While we're at it, I don't know why I like Bill Clinton so much. He wasn't a good liberal by any means. Nor is his wife. But I just like them.
Could just be a matter of taste. I look at John McCain, for instance, and I just like what I see. I look at John Kerry, and I'm sort of suspicious at what I see. And I look at George W. Bush, and I hate what I see. Maybe someone has a better explanation for this than I do.
17 - Randy Kirk
Look for certain things in leaders. They are not always things that make them warm a fuzzy.
Clear moral direction (See Book "Good to Great")
Short list of issues to attack, with clear strategy for doing so
Don't listen to the naysayers. Persue the Dream
Don't worry about who likes you. They won't like you at all if you don't succeed.
Apply those criteria to the presidents of countries and businesses and you can predict the ones who will accomplish something and be rewarded with ataboys by the history books.
Bush follows those principles.
18 - dietdoc
Adam and all: I think this is one of the most thought-provoking posts in a while, at least for me. I appreciate all the exchanges as you have elicited some good opinions and thoughts, all in this topic. I know where I think I stand, but this certainly is an interesting viewpoint.
Cheers,
Ron
19 - Shark
Excellent essay, Adam.
Small quibble: "...the Chinese... will overtake us as the world's biggest economy in the next two decades."
Make that: "...in the next two weeks."
And as for hating Bush, I've got ya beat: I hated him when he was my governor.
(I think we're just beginning to see Iraq, I mean "Bush's Blunder" -- as a turning point in American history -- and I don't think Georgy will be treated real swell by future historians. I also predict that when they leave office, the retired whistle-blowers and the assholes who suddenly develop a conscience or a book deal, etc. -- will provide explicit evidence for the most corrupt administration in American history.)
====
George Wood: "...I remember Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but I can't remember any American invasions of any country in western Europe..."
How 'bout CIA assasinations, right wing death squads, and fake US supported governments in S. America? Remember those?
=========
Dear "RedTard" -- I believe you have a typo there.
=========
20 - Dave Nalle
How can our Empire have a last gasp when we never had an Empire in the first place? Or are we in danger of losing Guam, Samoa and Puerto Rico?
You have some interesting points here, but you come from a completely mistaken premise that the US is in a competition which can only be 'won' by one country, and that our destiny as a nation can only be fulfilled by world domination. This has never been the way that America worked, and today it's a concept which is more outmoded than it has ever been.
Our goal in Iraq, for example, is clearly not Empire building - that's never been America's goal in any war. The goal there is diplomacy through strength, to redirect the efforts of terrorists and change the political balance in the middle east. That's why withdrawall has always been the intended outcome and we've had the clear objective from the start of not taking the country over.
I realize that Adam and Shark and many others are full of unreasoning hatred of Bush based on the conception of him which they have been fed by their leaders and the media, but that fear completely blocks any real understanding of what Bush has tried to do as president or what his real motivations are. The extremists who form your thoughts for you throw out the neocon boogeyman allusions and it totally blinds you to reality.
That aside, some of the other misconceptions here are staggering. Suggesting that the EU is competition for the US or that the Euro is a threat to the dollar is pure leftist wishful thinking. The EU is literally falling apart, the Euro is on the verge of being abandonned as unviable, and Europe's economy is barely holding on by the skin of its teeth. European leaders have been reluctant to take the bold steps Bush has to encourage economic recovery (except Ireland, of course), and though they are reluctantly taking those measures now in some countries, it's probably too little and too late for a fast recovery.
The errors here go on and on. You suggest that the outcome of the Iraq war will be an alliance between Iran and Iraq. That's completely inconceivable. The Iraqis hatred for Iran is so entrenched that it transcends religion. Just because both countries have shiites in them doesn't mean they are going to suddenly start loving each other. Nationalism runs strong in both countries, and Iraqis are not about to forget Iran's interference in their country or the role Iran is playing in the current insurgency.
I could go on and on. Every paragraph of this essay has major misinterpretations of reality. It reads like a summary of propagandistic talking points which have a basis in wishful thinking not reality.
Dave
21 - KC
Adam:"I hope Hillary becomes president."
I'm with you all the way up until this point. Please, it's only 2005 can't there be someone else who shows up in 2008? Anyone?
22 - adam
Dave, There's going to be an alliance of Shiites between Iraq and Iran, them being the only Muslim states with Shiites in power. The Iraq and Iran Shiites love each other. Even Achmed Chalabi, a Shiite, is making common cause with Iran's Shiites. Al-Sistani, the chief Iraqi Shiite cleric, actually comes from Iran. The Sunni Iraqis started the war against Iran, and now Iran has been helping the Iraqi Shiites to make sure this like-minded majority takes over their next-door neighbor. We're there now to principally fulfill an Iran agenda. And that's totally ironic.
In terms of whether America had an empire or not, maybe it wasn't a hard empire like Russia, except in South America, where it was hard, harsh and cruel. But everywhere else -- Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Philippines -- it was a powerful "soft" empire, with a ruling voice in all the economic bodies in its "empire." When it said jump, our client states jumped like puppies.
As for the EU being on its last legs, watch out. The EU, now with a single currency, and a strong social safety net, is a model we'd be wise to follow. Let's not forget that our infant mortality rate is somewhere close to Albania's. When it comes to actually taking care of our citizens, we're kind of backward. Then Bush wants to destroy Social Security -- the only safety net we have! Outrageous!
I think your view of Bush will be shattered by history. You should wake up to the fact that when Bush says something -- like being a "compassionate" conservative -- it's always a cover for privileging his base, which are other rich guys. What kind of ruling class makes it impossible for people down on their luck to declare bankruptcy? Bush is basically anti-poor, anti-women, anti-gay -- he's as compassionate as a rattlesnake. He's always got the BS going -- WMDs, saving Social Security, leave no child behind -- but behind it is a guy born to privilege who'll never understand how normal Americans live. Maybe that's why I like Bill Clinton so much. He comes from poor: he understands the average American who works hard and plays by the rules. You may think Bush is a good, honest man. I think he's at best misguided, and at worst a cunning, lying sonofabitch. Talk to Shark about why he hated Bush as governor, he may have a few stories to tell.
I actually liked Bush when he campaigned for his first term: the compassionate conservative who thought we should be humble in our foreign policy. That's what he said. But when he became president, he changed. Everything he ran on turned out to be a smokescreen (just like the reasons for his war). He's nothing but an old-fashioned shill for Robber Barons, an oil man who went into Iraq for the oil, and got nailed there by his own incompetence, in the shape of Bremer, who spent his time there disbanding the army and making decrees trying to make it easy for us to buy the whole country and capping corporate taxes in Iraq at 15%. What a bunch of loons we've got running our country!
I agree with Shark: history will kick Bush's ass.
Shark makes a brilliant point: "I also predict that when they leave office, the retired whistle-blowers and the assholes who suddenly develop a conscience or a book deal, etc. -- will provide explicit evidence for the most corrupt administration in American history."
The difference between you and me, Dave, is simply that I got disappointed in Bush earlier than you. We'll see what you think five years from now.
23 - Nancy
Thank you, Adam & Shark. Dave, time will tell, won't it, who's right: you or the rest of us who aren't as blinded by wealth & privilege. Bush & the neocons will only be able to hide from history for so long, unless the neos are planning a coup that will disenfranchise every non-neo voter in the US ... which I wouldn't put it past them to do, actually: rig another 9/11, declare a state of emergency, suspend elections, etc. Worth a try on their part, what?
24 - Shark
DaveNulle ON IRAQ: "...The goal there is diplomacy through strength, to redirect the efforts of terrorists and change the political balance in the middle east."
Even though Dave's Invasion Initiative sounds kinda like Jabberwocky, it's more than Bush has provided.
Even then...
-- "Diplomacy through strength" sounds like a euphemism for "simulating manners and concern by kicking some ass".
-- "redirect the efforts of terrorists" has been a resounding success: we've given them even MORE reasons to hate us, and set up a Petri Dish/Training Ground for future urban terrorists. Wait until the car bombs start in downtown Manhattan.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
-- "change the political balance in the middle east" -- once again, we've damn sure done that: in Iraq, we're faced with anarchy, a potential civil war, a possible alliance between a Shiite government and the Iranians, and/or a 'democracy' that votes for a radical Islamic theocracy.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Oh, and by the way: what happened to the goal of disarming Iraq's WMDs?
Davey, your memory is almost as short as that of the American public!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
swish ~ Gay marriage...
tick-tock ~ Ten Commandments...
to and fro ~ Flag burning...
...And uh, keep yer eye on the shiney swinging pocketwatch, America!
~zzzzzzzzzzzz
25 - JR
What I hate most about Bush is the badgering. He pushes his agenda like horny teenager trying to get a girl to put out. He doesn't respect the objections of others, and the fact that they may have genuinely different goals; all he cares about is that he gets what he wants and damn the consequences. He just repeats shit over and over, and his lines aren't even particularly clever.
Which brings up the other big thing I hate: he lowers our standard of competence. When he speaks they preempt the entire TV schedule - hell yes, he should be able to speak in complete sentences! And he ought to have something interesting to say, and it ought to be unequivocally true.
Much has been made of the fact that politicians are lawyers. Well the fact is that our president is our advocate to the world. He's the guy we send to all the big summits (like when we're trying to get allies to go to war with us). We can win a hell of a lot of arguments just by having the biggest military, but there are going to be some where we're going to need someone to argue a great case for us. Seriously, if you were up on a murder rap, would you want George W. Bush as your lawyer?