There's been lots of recent scholarship around how militarized our society has become and how this has led to a self-perpetuating and self-justifying cycle of wars, military (and intelligence) spending, corruption and imperialism. From the Founding Fathers through at least the Eisenhower administration we were warned about standing armies and the dangers of the military-industrial complex. I won't go into the details here, but it seems to me that more and more people recognize that, at least since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have become that which our forefathers warned against.
I see a lot of discussion about isolationism vs. engagement in other threads, and my point is not to advocate isolationism per se. We can become less militarized yet still remain engaged with those areas of the world where we need to be.
We have already advanced to the point where the militaristic hold on power will be nearly impossible to slow down, much less reduce. The Pentagon effectively runs this country now, and civilian oversight fades further and further into the past.
It's a difficult line of reason to follow, but the facts do seem to support the notion that we the people have lost control to, and in many ways are controlled by, the military and intelligence establishment.
I'm former military, and I didn't used to think the idea of an American Empire was such a bad thing. The way of the world has always been for the strong to sieze the moment and garner every possible advantage you could while the opportunity was there. But empires always end badly and, even though it may take a while, ours will too if we don't recognize the path we're on and do something to stop it.
So the question is whether the idea of reducing the influence of the military-industrial complex (including the intelligence establishment) is a centrist notion fit for discussion as part of this Unity '08 initiative. I think until comparatively recently most people would not have thought much about it and it was viewed more as an extreme leftist proposition. Now, however, people are seeing the costs of the empire we are building and it may be more acceptable to question the validity of where the Pentagon is taking us.
I'd be glad to discuss and point out some of the sources I reference.
Thanks.
then there's no point in discussing it.
I favor American nationalism, the thing we lost after 1898 when we started a huge maritime empire and began to occupy other countries.
We're not good at occupation. Not good at it at all.
I favor American nationalism.
And I remember that there were many anti-imperialist movements in the 1890s. William James and Mark Twain favored nation over empire.
Anti-imperialism is not isolationism.
It's not unilateralism either.
Anti-imperialism is repudiating what America became in the shadow of her elites, and re-defining ourselves in terms of nation instead of imperium.
its to late for nationalism, we are what we are. As for the Soviet Union, dont you believe for a minute the Soviet Union has fallen, it is on its way back to becoming a very powerful nation and an enemy of the US. Dont underestimate Russia, even now they sell weapons to our enemies Iran.
I believe history is clear than sticking ones head in the sand is the beginning of the end for any nation. Peace through strength was and is the policy that protects us from those who would do us harm.
The rise of corporate America and its ceasely drive for cheap labor and higher profits by improper influence in the political process has caused America's inblance in the World's geopolitical setting. What great problems, as presented in our political processes, in our society have been solved in the last two generations. None! If only we could obtain peace and arms treaty as easy as one-sided trade deals! If we could protect fair and living wage labor with the strength of copyright and knock-off laws! If we had concumer protection, by full product diclosure laws, equal to corporate access to our credit history. Need I say more!
As has happened in the past, privilged enterprise has damaged the freedom and well-being of the American people. Regulation of the special interests, lobbyists and others seeking self gain over good for the nation means test; starts the healing process for the nation and our world image and behavior.
It is my belief that the only good defence is a strong one. That said, let us examine America's current defence policy :
We do not use our military to guard our borders. If we did, illegal immigration would not exist as an issue. Note: It is NOT illegal to use our own military on our own land to protect america from people coming here illegally. Posse Commitatus exists to protect our citizens from our military...not to prevent our military from protecting US.
We use our military to protect america's "interests". What are these interests? If we examine them closely, it quickly becomes apparant that these "interests" come down to nothing more than the profits of corporations who have CHOSEN to go into other nations where dictatorships, child labor and in many cases what amounts to slave labor is par for the course. The effect is that americans get cheaper products in exchange for fewer jobs and a growth pattern in our military that is out of control. Then we get to sit around wondering why so many people in other countries dislike us.
We continue building and researching bigger and better weapons while being one of the five largest arms dealers in the world. If we REALLY wanted peace in the world, then why do we continue to sell so many weapons?
A logical defence is one built on the premise that war is the last...not the first option, and that defence should mean just that.
We need to make the primary job of ALL of our military the job of guarding our borders, inspecting incoming containers for weapons and watching out for terrorists that are trying to get into our country.
(As for those who are already here...we already have the FBI, First responders and numerous other agencies)
We need to make sales of weapons to ANY other nation subject to a congressional debate and vote. No exceptions.
We need to stop using our military to force other nations to give our companies the deals that will profit them. That sort of thing should be the responsibility of the state department -- not the department of defence. Diplomacy and salesmanship is always cheaper in the long run than sticking a gun in somebody's face, demanding cooperation and then talking about their having the "freedom to choose".
What effect would this have on multinational corporations? It would force them to abide by the laws of the nations that they choose to do business in without the right to expect our best, brightest and bravest to spill blood for their profits.
What effect would this have on America? Clearly, the advantages for manufacturing right here in the homeland would vastly outweigh the disadvantages of trying to operate in a dictatorship.
The only logical defence is one where the borders of the nation are more important than the lives lost in another 9/11 . Isn't it time we considered it?
Dr. Jennifer Warren
The Warren Report
http://jenniferwarrens.blogspot.com/
To the so called friendly countries. Most really hitech equipment doesn't get exported at all.
If we refuse to vigorously enforce immigration laws with all law enforcement federal, state, and local including visa overstays we lessen our ability to stop the next 911 and increase the possibility of military involvement overseas. America cannot have it both ways. Lax enforcement of immigration laws will never give us security. Vigorous enforcement of immigration laws is not the complete answer however it is an important part of the solution to greater security for all American citizens as well as the rest of the world.
There is no American Empire. If you are suggesting we are running a number of satrapies around the world, you would think we would pick more loyal satraps.
I do think we are stuck in a situation where everyone expects us to fix their problems and when we try, they scream "Imperialism". Personally, I would like to see us let a few countries deal with the consequences of their own problems and refuse to do anything about it until some other folks step up to the plate to help out.
by William Norman Grigg
We wouldn't be where we presently find ourselves – mired in a pointless foreign war, looking down the barrel of undisguised executive despotism, and teetering on the precipice of national insolvency – were it not for the capacity of Americans to believe passionately in things that are patently untrue.
I refer to a specific form of dogmatic credulity, the kind displayed by those who accept as truth – or at least a suitable substitute – practically anything that is said by a political official or apologist, as long as the figure in question is "on the same team," however that "team" is defined. In the Bush Era the most common manifestation of this mind-set takes the form of "Talk Radio Bulimia" or "Fox News Reflux"; those who suffer from such afflictions earnestly regurgitate the pre-chewed soundbites fed to them by the media organs of the Bush Regime, convinced that by doing so they are imparting genuine wisdom and insight.
Most who suffer from those afflictions – and I say this in utter sincerity – are good and decent people. They are not depraved or consciously dishonest. They simply don't understand the extent to which they have surrendered control over their opinions to paid professionals in the art of manipulation.
The rest of the story: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w27.html
The Revolution is not bieng televised (the above is the reason why) but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and expose the Reich Wing Media!
So you are saying that people are stupid and democracy doesn't work? What do you suggest, a benevolent dictatorship where only "the truth" is allowed to be broadcast?
Perhaps if you re-educate them properly, they will be grateful in the end. If not, then what?
I am saying that the People are being conned by the MSM, the small group that owns the MSM and the politicians they protect. If the only place I got news was the MSM I too would know no better than the average person. However, when one gets their news from the internet and foreign press and compares it to the MSM (which includes most newpapers) here in the US they soon realize the MSM is nothing but political propaganda with a few human interest stories thrown in.
The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and show the MSM what it really is, irrelevant!
US not an empire at all. Rather, it is a World's Policeman. But this World needs one and there is no other candidacy yet.
200 years ago world market was not vital for US economy, and yet it was guarded by British Empire.
120 years ago world market became vital for US economy, but it was guarded by British Empire and it was just fine for US and many other countries.
100 years ago world market was vital for US economy, and British Empire could not guard it adequately. US started to help.
After WWII US economy badly needs free world market and nobody except US can handle the task of protecting it, while other countries can enjoy the order maintained (look at Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, China and India).
IMHO, it completely explains US involvement in world conflicts of 20-th and 21-st century.
When new free democratic China will become world's superpower, China will become World Policeman and US will be able to retire from that job, like Holland and England did before.