Beware Empires in Decline (yes, that means the U.S.)

[marmar]

Published on Monday, October 16, 2006, by Foreign Policy in Focus
Beware Empires in Decline
by Michael Klare

The common wisdom circulating in Washington these days is that the United States is too bogged down in Iraq to consider risky military action against Iran or—God forbid—North Korea. Policy analysts describe the U.S. military as “over-burdened” or “stretched to the limit.” The presumption is that the Pentagon is telling President Bush that it can't really undertake another major military contingency.

Added to these pessimistic assessments of U.S. military capacity is the widespread claim that a “new realism” has taken over in the administration's upper reaches, that cautious “realists” like Condoleezza Rice have gained the upper hand over fire-breathing neoconservatives. Ergo: No military strike against Iran or North Korea.

But I'm not buying any of this.

Just as an empire on the rise, like the United States on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, is often inclined to take rash and ill-considered actions, so an empire on the decline, like the British and French empires after World War II, will engage in senseless, self-destructive acts. And I fear the same can happen to the United States today, as we, too, slip into decline.

The decline of an empire can be a hard and painful thing for the affected imperial elites. Those who are used to commanding subservience and respect from their subjects and from lesser powers are often ill-prepared to deal with their indifference and contempt. Even harder is overcoming the long-inbred assumption that one's vassals are inferior—mentally, morally, and otherwise. The first malady makes the declining elites extraordinarily sensitive to perceived slights or insults from their former subjects; the second often leads elites to overestimate their own capabilities and to underestimate those of their former subjects—an often fatal error. The two misjudgments often combine to produce an extreme readiness to strike back when a perceived insult coincides with a (possibly deceptive) military superiority.

The Suez Blunder
One of the most spectacular examples of such miscalculation in modern times—and an especially illuminating one—was the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. The crisis began in July 1956 when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, angry at the West's failure to support construction of the Aswan High Dam on the Nile, nationalized the Suez Canal, then owned principally by a British-French company and long regarded as a pre-eminent symbol of the British Empire.

The complete article is at: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1016-35.htm

[bemildred]

1. Iraq seems like a pretty spectacular blunder to me.

Not to mention Vietnam. At this point one wonders how long the blundering can continue.

[tom_paine]

2. Not the U.S. The A. E.

Amerikan Empire, that is.

Personally, I find it insulting to that great nation to confuse the old United States of America (1776-2000) with the Empire (2001-?).

Old America stood against most everything the Amerikan Empire stands for.

We used to (try, anyway) stand against torture.
We used to stand aginst Big Brotherism.
We used to stand against Hitlerian "pre-emptive war".
We used to stand against warrantless anything.
We used to stand against a lot of things in those freer days.