Bruce Sterling on Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:27:03 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Gwynne Dyer on The Short-Lived American Empire |
*Makes some sense to me... Oh, French people, German people, this would mean we Yankees become dazed, harmless tourists again by 2006; please try to keep this potential future prospect in mind -- bruces Begin forwarded message: > From: Nancy_Murphy@gbn.com > Date: Thu Mar 06, 2003 04:25:08 PM US/Central > To: gwynnedyer@gbn.com > Subject: [GwynneDyer] GBN Global Perspectives: Gwynne Dyer on The > Short-Lived American Empire > > > GBN Global Perspectives > Gwynne Dyer > _______________________ > > The Short-Lived American Empire > > Just over two thousand years ago, when the Roman republic turned > itself into an empire and extended the 'pax romana' over most of the known > world -- western Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, plus the > great reservoir of barbarian tribes in eastern Europe and central Asia -- > Rome exercised direct control over about half the total population, and was > able to tax them and raise troops from them. So the Roman empire lasted > over four hundred years. > > Many people in Washington now talk openly of turning the American > republic into an imperial power that enforces a 'pax americana' around the > planet, but the United States has only 4 percent of the planet's > population, and its people are equally averse to high taxes and US > casualties. The demand for US troops and money will rapidly outrun the > supply, so the American empire will last about twenty minutes -- but it may > be a hectic and painful twenty minutes. > > The dream of American empire has attracted American > neo-conservatives for decades, but it gained a much broader following after > the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The only apparent constraint on > US power had been removed, and the idea that the world will be a safer > place if it is governed by multilateral organisations under the rule of law > began to give way to the fantasy that the United States can and should make > the world a safer place (particularly for American interests) by the > unilateral exercise of its own immense power. > > Official Washington was starting to oppose any new international rules > that might act as a brake on the free exercise of US power even in Bill > Clinton's administration. It was Clinton, not George W. Bush, who fought an > international ban on land mines and tried to sabotage the new International > Criminal Court. President Bush's cancellation of the Anti-Ballistic > Missile Treaty, the US veto on new provisions for intrusive inspections > under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Washington's more recent > rejection of similar attempts to write some provisions for enforcement into > the Biological Weapons Treaty simply follow in the same path. > > As Boston University professor and retired US army officer Andrew > Bacevich wrote in a recent edition of 'The National Interest', "In all of > American public life, there is hardly a single prominent figure who finds > fault with the notion of the United States remaining the world's sole > military superpower until the end of time." This is called hubris, and it > is generally followed by nemesis. That will probably arrive during the > next phase of the fantasy: the wildly ambitious project to make the > conquest of Iraq the cornerstone for a wholesale restructuring of the Arab > world along American lines. > > "America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, in the > peace that followed a world war," said Mr. Bush late last month, comparing > the project with the rebuilding of German and Japan after 1945. "We will > remain in Iraq as long as necessary." You don't know whether to laugh or > cry, but tears are probably more appropriate, for that is where this is all > going to end. > > Iraq is no more like Germany than Saddam Hussein is like Adolf > Hitler. Germany and Japan in 1945 were industrial states with strong > national identities, several generations' experience of democracy, > homogeneous populations, and fully professional bureaucracies. Iraq is an > artificial state of competing ethnic identities with no democratic > tradition and a deeply politicised, totally corrupt state apparatus > dominated by a single ethno-religious minority. > > Never mind running the world or spreading democracy throughout the > Middle East; merely occupying Iraq is likely to prove too heavy a burden > for the US public to tolerate for very long. The Kurds in the north will > try to keep the de facto independence they have enjoyed for the past ten > years, and the Turkish army will move in to ensure that they don't set up > an independent Kurdistan that would act as a beacon for Turkey's own huge > Kurdish minority. The Iraqi Kurds will fight if the Turks invade, and > America can either intervene in this no-win situation or leave the north > of Iraq to another round of bloody fighting. > > The Shia Arab majority of Iraq's population, long excluded from > power by the Sunni Arab minority, will also try to leave Iraq unless it > gets the lion's share of power in Baghdad. That won't happen because the > loyalties of Iraqi Shias lie with their co-religionists in Iran, and > Washington will not allow a pro-Iranian government to emerge in Baghdad > that would control Iraq's oil and menace Saudi Arabia's. So the US will > end up running Iraq through the same Sunni Arab elite that Saddam Hussein's > Baath party draws most of its members from, and as a result Shia militants > will soon be attacking American occupation forces in southern Iraq. > > The Romans dealt with this sort of stuff all the time. In fact, > they often had four or five situations like this going on in various parts > of their empire at the same time. They just spent the money, put in the > troops, took their casualties, and killed enough of the locals to make the > rest keep quiet. But does anybody seriously think that the current > generation of Americans is going to pay that sort of price for a world > empire that nobody except a narrow Washington-based elite really wants? > We are probably no more than two years away from a Somalia-style US > withdrawal from Iraq. > ___________________________ > > Gwynne Dyer, Ph.D., is a London-based independent journalist whose articles > are published in 45 countries.For more on Gwynne Dyer, please read his GBN > interview > http://www.gbn.org/members/ideas/society/articles/pub_oneworld.htm # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net