The American Empire has been long in the making. A green light was given in
1990 to finalize that goal. Dramatic events occurred that year that allowed
the promoters of the American Empire to cheer. It also ushered in the current
25-year war to solidify the power necessary to manage a world empire. Most
people in the world now recognize this fact and assume that the empire is here
to stay for a long time. That remains to be seen.
Empires come and go. Some pop up quickly and disappear in the same manner.
Others take many years to develop and sometimes many years to totally disintegrate.
The old empires, like the Greek, Roman, Spanish and many others took many years
to build and many years to disappear. The Soviet Empire was one that came rather
quickly and dissipated swiftly after a relatively short period of time. The
communist ideology took many decades to foment the agitation necessary for
the people to tolerate that system.
Since 1990 the United States has had to fight many battles to convince the
world that it was the only military and economic force to contend with. Most
people are now convinced and are easily intimidated by our domination worldwide
with the use of military force and economic sanctions on which we generously
rely. Though on the short term this seems to many, and especially for the neoconservatives,
that our power cannot be challenged. What is so often forgotten is that while
most countries will yield to our threats and intimidation, along the way many
enemies were created.
The seeds of the American Empire were sown early in our history. Natural resources,
river transportation, and geographic location all lent itself to the development
of an empire. An attitude of "Manifest Destiny" was something most Americans
had no trouble accepting. Although in our early history there were those who
believed in a powerful central government, with central banking and foreign
intervention, these views were nothing like they are today as a consequence
of many years of formalizing the power and determination necessary for us to
be the policeman of the world and justify violence as a means for spreading
a particular message. Many now endorse the idea that using force to spread
American exceptionalism is moral and a force for good. Unfortunately history
has shown that even using humanitarian rhetoric as a justification for telling
others what to do has never worked.
Our move toward empire steadily accelerated throughout the 20th century. World
War I and World War II were deadly for millions of people in many countries,
but in comparison the United States was essentially unscathed. Our economic
power and military superiority steadily grew. Coming out of World War II we
were able to dictate the terms of the new monetary system at Bretton Woods
as well as the makeup of all the international organizations like NATO, the
United Nations, and many others. The only thing that stood in America's way
between 1945 and 1990 was the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Significant events
of 1990 sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire, with United States enjoying a
green light that would usher in unchallenged American superiority throughout
the world.
Various names have been given to this war in which we find ourselves and is
which considered necessary to maintain the empire. Professor Michael Rozeff
calls it the "Great War II" implying that the Great War I began in 1914 and
ended in 1990. Others have referred to this ongoing war as "The Long War." I
hope that someday we can refer to this war as the "The Last War" in that by
the time this war ends the American Empire will end as well. Then the greatness
of the experiment in individual liberty in our early history can be resumed
and the force of arms can be replaced by persuasion and setting an example
of how a free society should operate.
There are several reasons why 1990 is a significant year in the transition
of modern day empires. It was a year that signaled the end of the USSR Empire
and the same year the American Empire builders felt vindicated in their efforts
to assume the role of the world's sole superpower.
On February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union met and ceded its monopoly political power over its empire. This was
followed in a short period of time with the breakup of the Soviet system with
15 of the 17 republics declaring their independence from Moscow. This was not
a total surprise considering the fact that the Soviets, in defeat, were forced
to leave Afghanistan in February 1989. Also later that year, on November 9,
1989, the Berlin wall fell. Obviously the handwriting was on the wall for the
total disintegration of the Soviet system. The fact that the Communist Party's
leaders had to concede that they no longer could wield the ominous power that
the Communist Party exerted for 73 years was a seminal event. None of this
could have been possible without significant policy changes instituted by Mikhail
Gorbachev after his assuming power as president in 1985, which included Glasnost
and Perestroika-- policies that permitted more political openness as well as
significant economic reforms. These significant events led up to the Soviet
collapse much more so than the conventional argument that it was due to Ronald
Reagan's military buildup that forced the Soviets into a de facto "surrender" to
the West.
The other significant event of 1990, and not just a coincidence, was the "green
light" message exchanged between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25,
1990. Though the details of this encounter have been debated, there is no doubt
that the conclusion of it was that Saddam Hussein was convinced that the United
States would not object to him using force to deal with a dispute Iraq had
with Kuwait. After all, the US had just spent eight years aligning itself with
him in his invasion and war with the Iranians. It seemed to him quite logical.
What he didn't realize was the significance of the changes in the world powers
that were ongoing at that particular time. The Soviets were on their way out
and the American Empire was soon to assert its role as the lone super power.
The US was anxious to demonstrate its new role.
When one reads the communications between Washington and Iraq, it was not
difficult to believe that a green light had been given to Saddam Hussein to
march into Kuwait without US interference. Without this invasion, getting the
American people to support a war with Iraq would have been very difficult.
Before the war propaganda by the US government and the American media began,
few Americans supported President Bush's plans to go to war against an ally
that we assisted in its eight-year war against Iran. After several months of
propaganda, attitudes changed and President Bush was able to get support from
the US Congress, although he argued that that was unnecessary since he had
obtained a UN resolution granting him the authority to use his military force
to confront Saddam Hussein. The need for Constitutional authority was not discussed.
US ambassador April Glaspie was rather explicit in her comments to Saddam
Hussein: "we have no opinion on Arab - Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement
with Kuwait." The US State Department had already told Saddam Hussein that
Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." It's
not difficult interpreting conversations like this as being a green light for
the invasion that Hussein was considering. Hussein had a list of grievances
regarding the United States, but Glaspie never threatened or hinted about how
Washington would react if Hussein took Kuwait. Regardless, whether it was reckless
or poor diplomacy, the war commenced. Some have argued that it was deliberate
in order to justify the beginning of the United States efforts in rebuilding
the Middle East - a high priority for the neoconservatives. Actually whether
the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was encouraged or permitted by deliberate
intentions or by miscalculations, the outcome and the subsequent disaster in
Iraq for the next 25 years was a result of continued bad judgment in our dealing
with Iraq. That required enforcing our goals with military intervention. The
obvious failure of this policy requires no debate.
On August 1, 1990, one week after this exchange between ambassador Glaspie
and Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq occurred. Immediately following
this attack our State Department made it clear that this invasion would not
stand and President Bush would lead a coalition in removing Iraqi forces from
Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, that military operation began. The forced evacuation
of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was swift and violent, but the war for Iraq had
just begun and continues to this day. It also ushered in the climactic struggle
for America's efforts to become the official and unchallenged policeman of
the world and to secure the American Empire.
President Bush was not bashful in setting the stage for this clearly defined
responsibility to assume this role since the Soviet Empire was on the wane.
A very significant foreign policy speech by Bush came on September 11, 1990
entitled, "Toward a New World Order." This was a clear definition of internationalism
with United States in charge in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin
D Roosevelt. In this speech there was a pretense that there would be Russian
and United States cooperation in making the world safe for democracy-- something
that our government now seems totally uninterested in. Following the speech,
the New York Times reported that the American left was concerned about this
new world order as being nothing more than rationalization for imperial ambitions
in the middle 1980s. Obviously the geopolitics of the world had dramatically
changed. The green light was given for the American hegemony.
This arrogant assumption of power to run the world militarily and to punish
or reward various countries economically would continue and accelerate, further
complicating the financial condition of the United States government. Though
it was easy for the United States to push Hussein back into Iraq, subsequent
policy was destined to create havoc that has continued up to the present day.
The sanctions and the continuous bombing of Iraq were devastating to the infrastructure
of that country. As a consequence it's been estimated that over 500,000 Iraqis
died in the next decade, many of them being children. Yet there are still many
Americans who continue to be mystified as to why "they - Arabs and Muslims
- hate us." By the end of 1991, on Christmas Day, the final blow to the Soviet
system occurred. On that date Gorbachev resigned and the Soviet flag was lowered
for the last time, thus officially ending the Soviet Empire. Many had hoped
that there would be "a peace dividend" for us since the Cold War was officially
ended. There's no reason that could not have occurred but it would have required
us to reject the notion that it was our moral obligation and legal responsibility
to deal with every crisis throughout the world. Nevertheless we embarked on
that mission and though it continues, it is destined to end badly for our country.
The ending of the Soviet Empire was a miraculous event with not one shot being
fired. It was a failed system based on a deeply flawed idea and it was destined
to fail. Once again this makes the point that the use of military force to
mold the world is a deeply flawed policy. We must remember that ideas cannot
be stopped by armies and recognize that good ideas must replace bad ones rather
than resorting to constant wars.
It should surprise no one that a policy endorsing the use of force to tell
others how to live will only lead to more killing and greater economic suffering
for those who engage in this effort, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.
Twenty five years have passed since this green light was given for the current
war and there's no sign that it will soon end. So far it has only emboldened
American political leaders to robustly pursue foreign interventionism with
little thought to the tremendous price that is continuously paid.
During the 1990s there was no precise war recognized. However our military
presence around the world especially in the Middle East and to some degree
in Africa was quite evident. Even though President George HW Bush did not march
into Baghdad, war against the Iraqi people continued. In an effort to try to
get the people to rebel against Saddam Hussein, overwhelming sanctions and
continuous bombing were designed to get the Iraqi people to rebel and depose
Hussein. That did not work. Instead it worked to continue to build hatred toward
America for our involvement in the entire region.
Our secretive influence in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation had its
unintended consequences. One was that we were fighting on the side of bin Laden
and we all know how that turned out. Also, in an effort to defeat communism,
the CIA helped to promote radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this
was helpful in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This most likely is not
true since communism was doomed to fail anyway, and the cost to us by encouraging
radical Islam has come back to haunt us.
It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s
caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction
of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare. When Madeleine
Albright was asked about this on national TV she did not deny it and said that
that was a price that had to be paid. And then they wonder why there is so
much resentment coming from these countries directed toward United States.
Then George Bush Junior invaded Iraq, his justification all based on lies,
and another 500,000 Iraqis died. The total deaths have been estimated to represent
four percent of the Iraqi population. The green light that was turned on for
the Persian Gulf War in 1990 stayed lit and even today the proponents of these
totally failed wars claim that the only problem is we didn't send enough troops
and we didn't stay long enough. And now it's argued that it's time to send
ground troops back in. This is the message that we get from the neoconservatives
determined that only armed might can bring peace to the world and that the
cost to us financially is not a problem. The proponents never seem to be concerned
about the loss of civil liberties, which has continued ever since the declaration
of the Global War on Terrorism. And a good case can be made that our national
security not only has not been helped, but has been diminished with these years
of folly.
And the true believers in empire never pause. After all the chaos that the
US government precipitated in Iraq, conditions continue to deteriorate and
now there is strong talk about putting troops on the ground once again. More
than 10,000 troops still remain in Afghanistan and conditions there are precarious.
Yemen is a mess as is also Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine --
all countries in which we have illegally and irresponsibly engaged ourselves.
Today the debate in Congress is whether or not to give the President additional
authority to use military force. He asked to be able to use military force
anyplace anytime around the world without further congressional approval. This
is hardly what the Founders intended for how we dealt with going to war with
other nations. Some have argued, for Constitutional reasons, that we should
declare war against ISIS. That will prove to be difficult since exactly who
they are and where they are located and how many there are is unknown. We do
know it is estimated that there are around 30,000 members. And yet in the surrounding
countries, where the fighting is going on and we are directly involved, millions
of Muslims have chosen not to stand up to the ruthless behavior of the ISIS
members.
Since declaring war against ISIS makes no more sense than declaring war against "terrorism," which
is a tactic, it won't work. Even at the height of the Cold War, in a time of
great danger to the entire world, nobody suggested we declare war against "communism." Islamist
extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be,
they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized
people in the world endorse. But what we must do immediately is to stop providing
the incentive for the radicals to recruit new members and prevent American
weapons from ending up in the hands of the enemy as a consequence of our failed
policies. The incentives of the military-industrial complex along with the
philosophy of neoconservatism that pushes us to be in more than 150 countries,
must be exposed and refuted. Occupation by a foreign country precipitates hatred
and can never be made acceptable by flowery words about their need for American-style "democracy." People
who are occupied are always aware of the selfish motivation of the occupiers.
The announcement by President George HW Bush on September 11, 1990 about the
new world order was well received. Prior to that time it was only the "conspiracy
theorists" who constantly talked about and speculated about the New World Order.
Neoconservative ideas had been around for a long time. They were endorsed by
many presidents and in particular Woodrow Wilson with his goal of spreading
American goodness and making the "world safe for democracy" - none of which
can be achieved by promoting war. In the 1990s the modern day neoconservatives,
led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, enjoyed their growing influence on
America's foreign policy. Specifically, in 1997 they established the Project
for the New American Century (PNAC) for the specific purpose of promoting an
aggressive foreign policy of interventionism designed to promote the American
Empire. This policy of intervention was to be presented with "moral clarity." "Clarity" it
was, but "moral" is another question. Their goal was to provide a vision and
resolve, "to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interest."
It was not a surprise that admittedly the number one goal for the New World
order was to significantly increase military spending and to be prepared to
challenge any regime hostile to America's interests. They argued that America
had to accept its unique role as the sole superpower for extending international
order as long as it served America's interests. Although neoconservatives are
thought to have greater influence within the Republican Party, their views
have been implemented by the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats.
First on PNAC's agenda was to continue the policy designed to undermine Saddam
Hussein with the goal of eventually invading Iraq - once they had an event
that would galvanize public support for it. Many individuals signed letters
as well as the statement of principles and most were identified as Republicans.
Interestingly enough, the fourth person on the list of signatories for the
statement of principles was Jeb Bush, just as he was planning his first run
for governor of Florida. The neoconservatives have been firmly placed in a
position of influence in directing America's foreign policy. Though we hear
some debate between the two political parties over when and whom to strike,
our position of world policeman is accepted by both. Though the rhetoric is
different between the two parties, power always remains in the hands of those
who believe in promoting the empire.
The American Empire has arrived, but there's no indication that smooth sailing
is ahead. Many questions remain. Will the American people continue to support
it? Will the American taxpayer be able to afford it? Will those on the receiving
end of our authority tolerate it? All empires eventually end. It's only a matter
of time. Since all empires exist at the expense of personal liberty the sooner
the American Empire ends the better it will be for those who still strive to
keep America a bastion for personal liberty. That is possible, but it won't
be achieved gracefully.
Though the people have a say in the matter, they have to contend with the
political and financial power that controls the government and media propaganda.
The powerful special interests, who depend on privileges that come from the
government, will do whatever is necessary to intimidate the people into believing
that it's in their best interest to prop up a system that rewards the wealthy
at the expense of the middle class. The nature of fiat money and the privileges
provided to the special interests by the Federal Reserve makes it a difficult
struggle, but it's something that can be won. Unfortunately there will be economic
chaos, more attacks on our civil liberties, and many unfortunate consequences
coming from our unwise and dangerous foreign policy of interventionism.
Since all empires serve the interests of a privileged class, the people who
suffer will constantly challenge their existence. The more powerful the empire,
the greater is the need for the government to hold it together by propaganda
and lies. Truth is the greatest enemy of an abusive empire. Since those in
charge are determined to maintain their power, truth is seen as being treasonous.
Whistleblowers and truth tellers are seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. This
is why as our empire has grown there have been more attacks on those who challenge
the conventional wisdom of the propagandists. We have seen it with the current
administration in that the president has used the Espionage Act to curtail
freedom of the press more than any other recent president. Fortunately we live
in an age where information is much more available than when it was controlled
by a combination of our government and the three major networks. Nevertheless
it's an uphill struggle to convince the people that it is in their best interests
to give up on the concept of empire, foreign interventionism, allowing the
special interests to dictate foreign policy, and paying the bills with the
inflation of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve. The laws of
economics, in time, will bring such a system to an end but it would be nice
if it would be ended sooner through logic and persuasion.
If it's conceded that there was a dramatic change with the green light given
by April Glaspie and President Bush in 1990, along with the collapse, almost
simultaneously, of the Soviet system, the only question remains is when and
who will turn on the red light to end this 25 year war. Sometime it's easier
to establish an empire than it is to maintain and pay for it. That is what
our current political leaders are in the business of currently doing and it's
not going well. It appears that a comparatively small but ruthless non-government
entity, ISIS, is playing havoc with our political leaders as well as nearly
all the countries in the Middle East. Because there is no clear understanding
of what radical Islam is all about -- since it is not much about Islam itself
-- our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere will continue to drain our
resources and incite millions more to join those who are resisting our occupations
and sanctions. The day will come when we will be forced to give up our role
as world policeman and resort to using a little common sense and come home.
This will only occur when the American people realize that our presence around
the world and the maintenance of our empire has nothing to do with defending
our Constitution, preserving our liberties, or fulfilling some imaginary obligation
on our part to use force to spread American exceptionalism. A thorough look
at our economic conditions, our pending bankruptcy, our veterans hospitals,
and how we're viewed in the world by most other nations, will compel Americans
to see things differently and insist that we bring our troops home - the sooner
the better.
Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that
requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world.
If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial,
it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear
that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach
about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are
obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit
that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it's difficult to argue against
it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations
to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the
violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies
in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for
radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American
people in this effort won't work and should be avoided. If one understands
what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become
more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle
should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part,
a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist
foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands
of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States
-- as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.
How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by
the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course
of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain
for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that
be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military
might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that
the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite
of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world
reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace
it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country
runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength
also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective
reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come
when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under
those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have
enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become
difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as
very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve
as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come
suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able
to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our
inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our
extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for
foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not
come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious
nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in
a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road
to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare
to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal
liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy
greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.