The neo-con strategy has failed to secure resources, a key economic rationale in the expansion of empires throughout time. We have little to show for it, although the oil companies have secured massive new oil contracts on Iraq's existing fields (vs. the promise early in the occupation that outside firms would only be brought in to develop new oil fields.) Still, to preserve the public impression of success, prices at the pump would need to come down. The little guy needs to see some personal benefit, or the empire doesn't deliver on expectations.
Flaunting of superpower status leads to the temptation to entangle ourselves in places where the US has little economic interest, like Georgia. The shock-and-awe became an end in itself, and the perception management of "Mission Accomplished" doesn't ring true.
Rather than creating the dream of a new American century, the twisted neo-con project has shown to the world the limits of US military power and drained its economic vitality.
Throughout time, many empires have risen; likewise they've fallen. Harder is preserving empire; even a great conqueror like Alexander of Greece (Macedonia) would die and his empire fracture.
The length of time the world's dominant empire spends at the top is shrinking. The Greeks and Romans both lasted many hundreds of years, the Incas and Mayans less so. The Spanish only lasted 200 years or so, and the English perhaps 150, although these time spans are only very rough estimates.
The most powerful empire currently in existence, the American, is already beginning to crack. American culture has lost its global popularity. The mass consumerism which is a hallmark of American society has been emulated throughout the world.
Consuming less may become a popular lifestyle choice for many people around the world who've only recently raised their standard of living to the point that living simply can be a choice. Can the world tolerate the habits of Americans reproduced on a wider scale? Already China is ramping up coal-fired power plants to meet its American-like appetite for cheap energy, whatever the ecological consequences.
The sustainability of investor-class capitalism in the face of Global Climate Change appears highly doubtful. With the American model consuming so much fossil fuel-based energy, hyper-consumerism might lose much of its appeal. Unsustainable levels of greenhouse gas emissions and waste might become associated with Americanism, and be rejected alongside the American ideal.
Since Vietnam, the US military has been proven to not be impotent. Empires don't need to win all their battles, but they do need to emerge victorious over other, theoretically weaker states when challenged in battle. Coincidentally, conquering Vietnam has been a challenge for the Chinese, who've repeatedly been thrown out in the course of history. So much for learning from history--like the British occupation of Iraq in the 1920s or in Afghanistan in the 1880s, both of which became dismal failures.
Perhaps if an empire suffers a defeat or two, it will not die, but cracks appear, cracks which can have repercussions in the way other vassal (client) states view the empire. All of a sudden, countries that have affiliated with the empire may not appear so invulnerable, nor the ability of the empire to come to their aid so readily apparent. Even if the weakened empire wants to help, it's limited by supply lines and military constraints in what it can do, so we see nothing more than recompensatory gestures like humanitarian aid, hardly much of a comfort for victims of imperial blowback in the client state, as the situation in Georgia is demonstrating.
Arguable, wars like Vietnam are really directed towards other empires--in this case global communism, which was a kind of philosophical empire. By throwing the considerable resources of one empire against the weaker client states of another, the empire can look stronger. Georgia is precisely such a warning to US empire to stay out.
The greatest benefit of military action therefore is not in simply using the military, it's in the impact as a strategic deterrent. Weaker nations and other empires will reconsider any territorial aggression. Teddy Roosevelt called this style of diplomacy "talking softly and carrying a big stick."
The opposite also holds true--when an empire fails to display overwhelming dominance, rather than project its authority it exudes weakness, which other empires take as a green light for incursion and challenging it. Our military, drained by years of unending ground occupation, isn't the big stick it once was. Nor have the neo-cons ever spoken softly. Now, in Georgia, Bush and his crew are flailing about, trying to intimidate, filling itself with air like a puffer fish. Or a paper tiger. Roarrrr...
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
