Sun sets early on the American Century

The disastrous outcome of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused a crisis in the power elite of the United States deeper than that resulting from defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago. Ironically, it is the very coalition of ultranationalists and neo-conservatives that coalesced in the 1970s, seeking to reverse the Vietnam syndrome, restore U.S. power and revive "the will to victory" that has caused the present crisis.

There has been no sustained popular mass protest as there was during the Vietnam War, probably because of the underclass sociology of the volunteer U.S. military and the fact that the war is being funded by foreign financial flows. However, at the elite level the war has fractured the national security establishment that has run the United States for six decades. The unprecedented public critique in 2006 by several retired senior officers over the conduct of the war, plus recurrent signs of dissent in the intelligence agencies and the state department, reflects a much wider trend in elite opinion.

Not all critics are as forthright as retired general William Odom, who tirelessly repeats that the invasion of Iraq was the "greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history"; or Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who denounced a "blunder of historic proportions" and has recently suggested impeaching the president; or former National Security Council head Zbigniew Brzezinski, who called the war and occupation a "historic, strategic and moral calamity."

Most public critiques from within the institutions of state focus on the way the war and occupation have been mismanaged rather than the more fundamental issue of the invasion itself. Yet discord is wide and deep: Government departments are trading blame, accusing each other of the "loss of Iraq." In private, former senior officials express incandescent anger, denounce shadowy cabals and have deep contempt for the White House. A former official of the National Security Council compared the president and his staff to the Corleone mafia family in The Godfather. A senior foreign policy expert said: "Due to an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt clique we are about to lose our hegemonic position in the Middle East and Gulf."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/266411

doesn't pull punches, does it? Spot-on, though.

be. The silver lining is that we will necessarily cease to consider ourselves to be the policemen of the world and can turn to solving our internal problems - which are many. No debt-ridden, energy dependent country can hold hegemony over the world.

Must world order always be dependent upon a hegemon?

What happened to the shining city upon the hill? Can we not lead with the strength of our ideas, of a fair and thriving economic system, and towards a sustainable future for this planet?

We're definitely not there, but isn't that where we need to go?

If we are to return to anything is to the republic our Founders envisioned, not an empire.

Believeing the BS is bad because it sustains the smokescreen for military hegemony in which the people give their blood and treasure for the benefit of the wealthy elite.

It's good to the extent it represents the values of the people and what they want our country to be.

If the BS smokescreen can be exposed for what it is, the vision of our Founders can be more fully realized.

to fully read in am.

The real problem goes back to Korea -- the first hegemonic Asian war that we couldn't manage to win, and also the war in which the peculiar susceptibility of American prisoners of war to "brainwashing" first revealed the lack of that "will to victory."

The truth was that the Korean War, like every war since, was fought for the benefit of Wall Street and not for any authentic national purpose. The American soldiers knew it, the North Koreans and Chinese not only knew it but knew how to use that knowledge against us, and any American prisoners they took had no ready way to deny it.

Everything happening on the right since then has combined a denial of that fact with an attempt to come up with almost any device -- drumbeat patriotism, old-time religion, rejection of anything that smacks of license or hedonism -- that might restore the faltering national will. Anything, in fact, except admitting the truth that the children of the poor keep being sent off to die for no better purpose than to fatten the pockets of the rich.

If conditions have finally gotten so dire that it's no longer possible to hide that bedrock truth, that may not be altogether a bad thing. If the whole house of cards comes crashing down, it may be possible to get real with ourselves again.

Although we had precursors in the Spanish=American war, with Hearst drumming up support for Empire in his yellow journalism, in fact, just about every war, including the Civil War, were for building the Empire. Even WWI and WWII got twisted into Empire, although started to succor allies.

And sell the poor and ignorant on the Manifest Destiny bullshit. Empire doesn't benefit the poor, never really has. Until we cease to be a top heavy ultra capatalist (read facist) society, we will continue to strive for empire in the name of "Freedom and Democracy".

May the 21st century be the socialist century, and may all wars finally cease.

to enrich themselves.
We have to create our own vision of what is possible and act to bring that vision to reality.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish..."

Yes, American supremacy is over. We are in the death throes. Actually, for the world, this is a good thing in that America has become a mean spirited gorilla with no soul.

Perhaps the world will look back years from now on the presidency of the foolish boy-king as being partly a good thing. Yes, the destruction brought on by this diminutive man Bush is beyond terrible, but it has hastened the decline of American military supremacy. Because of Bush's disaster, it is likely that we will begin to pull back from our "colonies". Because of Bush's foolishness, we no longer have money to spend on empire. We will have to look inward and reassess what is important for our citizens and ultimately the world.

Nature does abhor a vacuum, so the question now is, "Who will fill the void and will it be bad or good."

Stay tuned.

as for the first time in history, population and environmental factors will limit the scope of desired imperial ambitions and domination. It is sure the world is yet to witness more resource wars that will attempt to preserve economic power, but the cause and effects of a finite planet stretched beyond its means will eventually curtail the fantasies of hoarding ever lasting affluence. Rather than humanity being herded by the powers of nationalistic economies, the powers that shape the worlds future will likely be global blocks of elite economic self interest. There will be but two classes, and eventually, one destiny; pursuit of human survival with order, or realizing the effects of failure.

In the end, the struggle against the finite resources and environmental limitations, will weaken and conform, or face helter skelter chaos. Egotistical humans will be forced to adapt to more environmental, social, and spiritual synergy, or will witness greatly reduced numbers struggling for survival in social lawless disorder.

For mother nature or the physical laws of cause and effect, it matters little if this occurs over a decade, century, or millennium. To believe humans can to continue to struggle against constraints of their very genesis, is comical. Nature does not bat last, she makes and enforces the rules, of survival.

Politicians, preachers or economic titans, cannot compete with this reality.

It is doubtful the weak or the meek will inherit the earth, or in the end, want to. Future nationalistic hegemony in this light, seems less important.