Posted on 03/15/2008 9:38:35 AM PDT by BGHater
One might assume that the approaching end of the George W Bush presidency is the beginning of the end of the American empire, at least as empire-building is usually seen - as an attempt to impose power on others by force.
The reason is simple: US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are badly stretched, and the pleas of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to European countries to send more combat troops have fallen on deaf ears. Still, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, notes that the war could proceed "for a hundred years".
The war in the Middle East is qualitatively different from the Vietnam War, in which McCain participated. In withdrawing from Southeast Asia, the US actually put itself out of danger, its battered prestige notwithstanding. The point is that Vietnam would not make any attempt to create problems for the US at the end of formal hostilities.
The situation is entirely different in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US debacle will lead to intensifying efforts to harm American interests - and not only those of the US, but countries all over the globe.
From this perspective, the current wars are open-ended conflicts from which the US cannot extricate itself. Therefore, one could argue that the American empire is coming to its end and its global span could well be replaced by other powers, with China as the major candidate. The present situation in Africa serves as a prime example.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
This aspect of America's global influence has not been discussed by any of the contenders for the presidency. And this is easily understood: the average Joe believes that the American system in both its internal and external applications works perfectly well. Just replace a "bad" president with a "good" one, whoever he or she will be, and the problems will be solved. '
Empire?
Have you goofballs lost your mind?
If it were not for our country, most of those in Europe and the far east would be under the Russian empire. How soon they forget.....
Russia hasn’t forgotten
How true....
Is there anthing to exspensive for the US tax payer? For, if the europeans won't help defend them from the terrorist, why not just do it for them? After all we wouldn't want to have to pick lettuce for only 50 dollars an hour.
If the author is too stupid to comprehend what McCain actually said or too disingenious to report it accurately, there's nothing of value in the rest of his piece.
McCain never said the war could last for 100years.
Just as we wore down the old Soviet - causing it to spend itself out of existence, are the folks from China & Russia doing the same to us, via surrogates in the ME.
And 'Empire', as used contextually, is probably accurate.
Pax Britannia came and left. Now, Pax Americana may be on its way out.
Libs always take it out of context—his point was that we should stay as long as it takes to win in Iraq. A snotty reporter asked the very stupid question, how long would that be (apparently too dumb to understand what McCain was saying,) so McCain replied sarcastically one hundred years—I am sure he was thinking (I have to be around these dumb turds in the press?)
Pax Americana will be around for a long time. No other power even comes close to matching our military and we are pulling away from most of the contenders at a rapid pace.
One could in the past, honestly speak of mercantile empire, but that has NEVER been solely an American undertaking.
Today, the mercantile empire builders, are the State run enterprise such as comes from China & present day Russia.
If one wants to honestly speak of "empire" and hegemony seeking, than one needs to look honestly at the mercantile rulers of China today. They have become the running imperialistic dogs of capitalism, they so long accused the U.S., and the West as being.
The writer [Dmitry Shlapentokh] ends his piece talking about how China's expanding spending and influence in Africa will lead to China becoming wealthier in the long run, and how that isn't much noticed by many or most Americans;
This is completely understood by those competing for the White House, and none of the presidential candidates will tell the public about losing the "checkbook" war to China and the implications of the defeat, which might be more serious in the long run than American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan. "
Our defeats in Iraq & Afghanistan??? Huh? The writer is projecting his fondest hopes perhaps???
In formulating this post, I went and dug up a few of Dmitry's other articles. (there are about a hundred, and additionally a few books) In one article, entitled;
So America is doing the itself, and the world a favor by being in Iraq, and Afghanistan, huh Dimtry? I mean, you made mention [in another article] that the Russians spoke favorably of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, in the beginning of that effort.
You know, my own father was right, way back when, back in the 1980's. The U.S. should not have been helping the "brave mujahadeen". We should have been helping the Soviets!
Dmitry! You talk a who-oole bunch. By doing so, you frequently end up talking out of both sides of your face, whether you realize that, or not.
Is there anything too expensive for the US tax payer?
Yes.
Handing over military control of the Persian Gulf geographic region that controls 70% of the World's know oil reserves to Iranian Islamist fanatics actively seeking nuclear weapons and ICBM's to deliver them to the soil of the "Satan Incarnate" aka, the United States of America.
"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." -- Oscar Wilde
I think “Empire” is more of an inflammatory phrase throughout the world than it is here because we exited from an empire and have no wish to create one. It is an irrelevant word.
Can we continue to pour so much of our treasure into a world, where others will not lift a hand? The demographics of America have changed, we no longer have families of 5, 6 or 10 children. Can we afford to send off our best to fight for Europe, when they will not? (Kosovo, etc)
Actually, the socialism of the twenties that Britain adopted is what put a lid on their culture. According to a Brit friend of mine the empire was parted because that was the popular thing to do. Don’t know how true this is.
Use the force we have to win, stop worring aobut what others think and say, jsut fight to win. We were attackted, let's stop playing around with the likes of murtha and his ilk. Order the fighters to fight, and let the CIC cover their coolective butts.
didn't we learn anything about troop morale from Nam?
Agreed.
That is why I want John McCain to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Back when Rumsfeld was firing any General that wanted a Surge in Iraq and Bush was meekly going along with Rumsfeld's opinion that war can be fought on the cheap, McCain was adament about the need to fight the war to WIN.
And second, it is time for those countries over their whose freedom we are insurring give us oil, not sell it cheap, give it.
To be blunt about it, we are not in the Persian Gulf to bring "freedom" to Iraq. We are in the Persian Gulf to protect the lifeblood of modern Western civilization (a reliable supply of oil).
Even if Iraq were populated by nothing but sand fleas, we would still need to be there "protecting" it.
We control the sea lanes and we control whether or not Iran controls the oil supply. Once Iran is dealt with, the U.S. Navy could impose a surcharge on Western European oil tankers taking advantage of oil ports American military might has kept open for them.
Isolationists can pretend it isn't happening if they like, but it is how China and Russia and Iran, et al, see the world, and it drives their actions. If the US disengages they will grab things and consider it geopolitics as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.