Replies to post #121597 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Wow! Post of the century hyperbola t'would be, maybe, but post of the day t'will be. Oh, to understand
the guts of things as, Michael Hudson, does ... what a f%$^&*g thrill to read that Real News.

There is so much in the interview. a couple of excerpts .. one present day reality ..

"HUDSON: Well, as you know, in 1971, President Nixon had to take the dollar off gold. So it was the Vietnam War that forced the dollar off gold and ended its role as a monetary standard as good as gold. I've just got back from a tour of Asia and Brazil, and these countries are saying, because the dollar is being used so much to fund the military deficit, when we run a balance of payments surplus with America, we get dollars, we export, the dollars are turned over to the central bank. There's nothing central banks can do with dollars but buy US Treasury bonds. And we've been financing, with our Treasury bond purchases, the military spending that's responsible for the US federal deficit, for our encirclement. So by keeping the dollar, we're keeping ourselves encircled. We don't want any more dollars. That's what I'm told--Brazil, China, even Australia."

JAY: Yet everybody's buying American Treasury bonds. [...]

"So China and other countries--Brazil, Venezuela, the oil-producing countries--are all now shunning the US dollar. That means that the whole world economy is fragmenting into a dollar bloc, meaning--." [...]

Yessiree! One talking point, to be used to in the prodding of some flea-ridden, rabid, cement-headed,
in the past, conservative, fear-ridden, antique mentalities, oh no that's socialism!!!, dinosaurs here ..

"HUDSON: [...] That's how America got rich in the 19th and 20th century. It's how England got rich in the 18th and 19th century. You need a mixed economy in order to get rich. But if in the process of fighting labor you say, oh, it's socialism to have government, then you're not going to have the government able to help industry as well as able to help labor, and the economy's going to shrink. So you have a kind of junk economics that's in the mind of the policymakers today that by cutting away government, they prevent the infrastructure from essentially enabling this economy to lower its costs." [...]

"JAY: So then what's the point of the 800 bases, then? I mean, when Britain was in a somewhat analogous situation
with these colonies costing so much, they said, well, let's get rid of the colonies 'cause they're like boat anchors.

HUDSON: That's right.

JAY: Well--but you don't hear that in the United States very--I mean, you hear it from
very few people saying, let's get rid of 800-plus military bases 'cause they're boat anchors.

HUDSON: The reason you don't is, in the past, all of the money that the military spent abroad would be spent on foreign economies, and then they'd siphon up into the central banks. And the central banks would have nothing to do with these dollars but to keep their currency stable by recycling the dollars into US Treasury bills. If it weren't for the military deficit, America would have had to finance its own domestic budget deficit. It's been foreigners that are financing the budget deficit. Now that foreigners are essentially saying, we don't want any more dollars, we're not going to fund your deficit, all of a sudden they think: who's going to fund the deficit if not foreign central banks? The answer is: American labor, the American middle class and working families are going to fund it, not the military."

Thanks to Paul Jay, snr. ed. TRNNJAY, to, Michael Hudson, to Edger of Daily Kos and to you. Definitely another revisit.

Yawn .. 8am ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmdPQp6Jcdk

G'day from this ex gamblin' man!!! ... gulp, rotflmao, ugh .. out for cancer sticks.

[StephanieVanbryce]

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its
superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.

— Samuel P. Huntington

[fuagf]

U.N. maps belie claims of Afghan progress
Monday, Dec 27, 2010 14:17 ET

Internal security documents show the situation in Afghanistan deteriorating, despite Obama's claims to the contrary.
By Justin Elliott


President Obama meets with troops at Bagram
Air Force Base in early December. AP/Jim Young

The big takeaway from the Obama administration's review of the Afghan war this month was that the strategy is working. But a new independent assessment suggests just the opposite: that, in fact, the situation is deteriorating.

It comes in the form of United Nations security maps obtained and described by the Wall Street Journal. These maps are used by UN personnel to make decisions about where they can operate within the conutry -- so presumably the UN takes their composition seriously. According to the Journal, this is the change that occurred between the March and October editions of the maps:

In the October map, just as in March's, nearly all of southern Afghanistan—the focus of the coalition's military offensives—remained painted the red of "very high risk," with no noted improvements. At the same time, the green belt of "low risk" districts in northern, central and western Afghanistan shriveled.

The U.N.'s October map upgraded to "high risk" 16 previously more secure districts ...

This, coming from an apparently disinterested and credible source, is a big deal, one that probably won't get the attention it deserves because of the holidays. It directly contradicts President Obama's claims of progress in Afghanistan. The White House has not commented on the report.

* Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at [e-mail] and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/27/un_maps_afghanistan/

Car bomb hits southern Afghan city

At least three people killed and a dozen others injured after an explosion in a crowded bank in Kandahar.
Last Modified: 27 Dec 2010 10:11 GMT


Recent months have seen more international troops in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban's stronghold [Reuters]

At least three people have been killed and many more injured after a car bomb exploded near a crowded bank in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbarra, reporting from Kabul, the Afghan capital, said that the blast took place near Kabul Bank at a time of the month when many police officers were at the branch to draw cash.

"The bomb was apparently planted in a car near the bank," he said.

"Eyewitnesses told Al Jazeera that they saw many people being taken to the hospital."

Khan Mohammad, the city's police chief, confirmed that the explosion was a car bombing and one of the dead was a police officer.

The blast partly destroyed shops, some buildings and several police and army vehicles, a witness said.

Series of attacks

Several members of the Afghan security forces fired into the sky in panic after the blast, Mohammad said.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but Taliban fighters have previously carried out suicide attacks in the province, which is a stronghold of the group.

Earlier this month, four policemen and two children were injured in a car bomb close to the police headquarters in the city.

Kandahar, the biggest city in southern Afghanistan and the birthplace of Taliban leader Mullah
Omar, is at the heart of a nine-year Taliban battle with some 140,000 US-led international troops.

It has been flooded with international troops in recent months and there is a regular stream of convoys and patrols on the streets.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/12/201012278273680716.html

[F6]

Tomgram: Alfred McCoy, Taking Down America

Posted by Alfred McCoy [ http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/mccoy/ ] at 5:11pm, December 5, 2010.

Trying to play down the significance of an ongoing Wikileaks dump [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables ] of more than 250,000 State Department documents, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently offered [ http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4728 ] the following bit of Washington wisdom: “The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets... [S]ome governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.”

Now, wisdom like that certainly sounds sober; it’s definitely what passes for hardheaded geopolitical realism in our nation’s capital; and it's true, Gates is not the first top American official to call the U.S. [ http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/madeleinea144932.html ] “the indispensable nation”; nor do I doubt that he and many other inside-the-Beltway players are convinced of our global indispensability. The problem is that the news has almost weekly been undermining his version of realism, making it look ever more phantasmagorical. The ability of Wikileaks, a tiny organization of activists, to thumb its cyber-nose at the global superpower, repeatedly shining a blaze of illumination on the penumbra of secrecy [ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ ] under which its political and military elite like to conduct their affairs, hasn’t helped one bit either. If our indispensability is, as yet, hardly questioned in Washington, elsewhere on the planet it’s another matter [ http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175299/tomgram%3A_dilip_hiro,_the_waning_of_america/ ].

The once shiny badge of the “global sheriff” has lost its gleam and, in Dodge City, ever fewer are paying the sort of attention that Washington believes is its due. To my mind, the single most intelligent comment on the latest Wikileaks uproar comes from [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks ] Simon Jenkins of the British Guardian who, on making his way through the various revelations [ http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/top-ten-middle-east-wikileaks-revelations-so-far.html ] (not to speak of the mounds [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/world/europe/01wikileaks-france.html ] of global gossip [ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101129/wl_nm/us_wikileaks_russia (expired link)]), summed matters up this way: “The money-wasting is staggering. [U.S.] Aid payments are never followed, never audited, never evaluated. The impression is of the world's superpower roaming helpless in a world in which nobody behaves as bidden. Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the United Nations, are all perpetually off script. Washington reacts like a wounded bear, its instincts imperial but its power projection unproductive.”

Sometimes, to understand just where you are in the present, it helps to peer into the past -- in this case, into what happened to previous “indispensable” imperial powers; sometimes, it’s no less useful to peer into the future. In his latest TomDispatch post, Alfred W. McCoy, author most recently of

Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State [ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0299234142/ ], does both. Having convened a global working group of 140 historians to consider the fate of the U.S. as an imperial power, he offers us a glimpse of four possible American (near-)futures. They add up to a monumental, even indispensable look at just how fast our indispensability is likely to unravel in the years to come. Tom

*

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire


An artist's rendering of the F6 "Fractionated, Free-Flying" satellite system, with dispersed components for greater resilience, now under development by the U.S. Defense Department.


An artist's rendering of the F6 "Fractionated, Free-Flying" satellite system, with dispersed components for greater resilience, now under development by the U.S. Defense Department.


The X-37B unmanned space shuttle before its test launch into orbit by the U.S. Air Force in April 2010.

Four Scenarios for the End of the American Century by 2025

By Alfred W. McCoy

A soft landing for America 40 years from now? Don’t bet on it. The demise of the United States as the global superpower could come far more quickly than anyone imagines. If Washington is dreaming of 2040 or 2050 as the end of the American Century, a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends suggests that in 2025, just 15 years from now, it could all be over except for the shouting.

Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003.

Future historians are likely to identify the Bush administration’s rash invasion of Iraq in that year as the start of America's downfall. However, instead of the bloodshed that marked the end of so many past empires, with cities burning and civilians slaughtered, this twenty-first century imperial collapse could come relatively quietly through the invisible tendrils of economic collapse or cyberwarfare.

But have no doubt: when Washington's global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.

Available economic, educational, and military data indicate that, when it comes to U.S. global power, negative trends will aggregate rapidly by 2020 and are likely to reach a critical mass no later than 2030. The American Century, proclaimed so triumphantly at the start of World War II, will be tattered and fading by 2025, its eighth decade, and could be history by 2030.

Significantly, in 2008, the U.S. National Intelligence Council admitted for the first time that America's global power was indeed on a declining trajectory. In one of its periodic futuristic reports [ http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175113/Michael_Klare_the_great_superpower_meltdown ], Global Trends 2025, the Council cited [ http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html ] “the transfer of global wealth and economic power now under way, roughly from West to East" and "without precedent in modern history,” as the primary factor in the decline of the “United States' relative strength -- even in the military realm.” Like many in Washington, however, the Council’s analysts anticipated a very long, very soft landing for American global preeminence, and harbored the hope that somehow the U.S. would long “retain unique military capabilities… to project military power globally” for decades to come.

No such luck. Under current projections, the United States will find itself in second place behind China (already the world's second largest economy) in economic output around 2026, and behind India by 2050. Similarly, Chinese innovation is on a trajectory toward world leadership in applied science and military technology sometime between 2020 and 2030, just as America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation.

By 2020, according to current plans, the Pentagon will throw a military Hail Mary pass for a dying empire. It will launch a lethal triple canopy of advanced aerospace robotics that represents Washington's last best hope of retaining global power despite its waning economic influence. By that year, however, China's global network of communications satellites, backed by the world's most powerful supercomputers, will also be fully operational, providing Beijing with an independent platform for the weaponization of space and a powerful communications system for missile- or cyber-strikes into every quadrant of the globe.

Wrapped in imperial hubris, like Whitehall or Quai d'Orsay before it, the White House still seems to imagine that American decline will be gradual, gentle, and partial. In his State of the Union address last January, President Obama offered [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address ] the reassurance that “I do not accept second place for the United States of America.” A few days later, Vice President Biden ridiculed [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302913.html ] the very idea that “we are destined to fulfill [historian Paul] Kennedy's prophecy that we are going to be a great nation that has failed because we lost control of our economy and overextended.” Similarly, writing in the November issue of the establishment journal Foreign Affairs, neo-liberal foreign policy guru Joseph Nye waved away [ http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66796/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-future-of-american-power ] talk of China's economic and military rise, dismissing “misleading metaphors of organic decline” and denying that any deterioration in U.S. global power was underway.

Ordinary Americans, watching their jobs head overseas, have a more realistic view than their cosseted leaders. An opinion poll in August 2010 found [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38996574/ns/politics/ ] that 65% of Americans believed the country was now “in a state of decline.” Already, Australia [ http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Australia-China-Conduct-Live-Fire-Naval-Exercise-in-Yellow-Sea-103780194.html ] and Turkey [ http://www.acus.org/natosource/new-questions-about-turkeys-secret-military-exercise-china ], traditional U.S. military allies, are using their American-manufactured weapons for joint air and naval maneuvers with China. Already, America's closest economic partners are backing away from Washington's opposition to China's rigged currency rates. As the president flew back from his Asian tour last month, a gloomy New York Times headline summed the moment up [ http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/12/gergen.america.economy/ ] this way: “Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage, China, Britain and Germany Challenge U.S., Trade Talks With Seoul Fail, Too.”

Viewed historically, the question is not whether the United States will lose its unchallenged global power, but just how precipitous and wrenching the decline will be. In place of Washington's wishful thinking, let’s use the National Intelligence Council's own futuristic methodology to suggest four realistic scenarios for how, whether with a bang or a whimper, U.S. global power could reach its end in the 2020s (along with four accompanying assessments of just where we are today). The future scenarios include: economic decline, oil shock, military misadventure, and World War III. While these are hardly the only possibilities when it comes to American decline or even collapse, they offer a window into an onrushing future.

Economic Decline: Present Situation

Today, three main threats exist to America’s dominant position in the global economy: loss of economic clout thanks to a shrinking share of world trade, the decline of American technological innovation, and the end of the dollar's privileged status as the global reserve currency.

By 2008, the United States had already fallen [ http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres09_e/pr554_e.htm ] to number three in global merchandise exports, with just 11% of them compared to 12% for China and 16% for the European Union. There is no reason to believe that this trend will reverse itself.

Similarly, American leadership in technological innovation is on the wane. In 2008, the U.S. was still number two [ http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IP.PAT.RESD ] behind Japan in worldwide patent applications with 232,000, but China was closing fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400% increase since 2000. A harbinger of further decline: in 2009 the U.S. hit rock bottom in ranking among the 40 nations surveyed [ http://www.itif.org/publications/atlantic-century-benchmarking-eu-and-us-innovation-and-competitiveness ] by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation when it came to “change” in “global innovation-based competitiveness” during the previous decade. Adding substance to these statistics, in October China's Defense Ministry unveiled the world's fastest supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A, so powerful, said [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/technology/28compute.html ] one U.S. expert, that it “blows away the existing No. 1 machine” in America.

Add to this clear evidence that the U.S. education system, that source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. After leading the world for decades in 25- to 34-year-olds with university degrees, the country sank [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/education/23college.html ] to 12th place in 2010. The World Economic Forum ranked [ http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2010-2011-0 ] the United States at a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are now foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once would have happened. By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of talented scientists.

Such negative trends are encouraging increasingly sharp criticism of the dollar's role as the world’s reserve currency. “Other countries are no longer willing to buy into the idea that the U.S. knows best on economic policy,” observed [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/business/economy/11currency.html ] Kenneth S. Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. In mid-2009, with the world's central banks holding an astronomical $4 trillion in U.S. Treasury notes, Russian president Dimitri Medvedev insisted [ http://michael-hudson.com/2009/06/washington-cannot-call-all-the-shots/ ] that it was time to end “the artificially maintained unipolar system” based on “one formerly strong reserve currency.”

Simultaneously, China's central bank governor suggested [ http://www.cfr.org/publication/21189/chinas_foreign_exchange_reserves.html ] that the future might lie with a global reserve currency “disconnected from individual nations” (that is, the U.S. dollar). Take these as signposts of a world to come, and of a possible attempt, as economist Michael Hudson has argued [ http://michael-hudson.com/2009/06/washington-cannot-call-all-the-shots/ ], “to hasten the bankruptcy of the U.S. financial-military world order.”

Economic Decline: Scenario 2020

After years of swelling deficits fed by incessant warfare in distant lands, in 2020, as long expected, the U.S. dollar finally loses its special status as the world's reserve currency. Suddenly, the cost of imports soars. Unable to pay for swelling deficits by selling now-devalued Treasury notes abroad, Washington is finally forced to slash its bloated military budget. Under pressure at home and abroad, Washington slowly pulls U.S. forces back from hundreds of overseas bases to a continental perimeter. By now, however, it is far too late.

Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying the bills, China, India, Iran, Russia, and other powers, great and regional, provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace. Meanwhile, amid soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a continuing decline in real wages, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over remarkably irrelevant issues. Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.

Oil Shock: Present Situation

One casualty of America's waning economic power has been its lock on global oil supplies. Speeding by America's gas-guzzling economy in the passing lane, China became the world's number one energy consumer this summer, a position the U.S. had held for over a century. Energy specialist Michael Klare [ http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175297/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_china_shakes_the_world/ ] has argued that this change means China will “set the pace in shaping our global future.”

By 2025, Iran and Russia will control almost half of the world's natural gas supply, which will potentially give them enormous leverage over energy-starved Europe. Add petroleum reserves to the mix and, as the National Intelligence Council has warned [ http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html ], in just 15 years two countries, Russia and Iran, could “emerge as energy kingpins.”

Despite remarkable ingenuity, the major oil powers are now draining the big basins of petroleum reserves that are amenable to easy, cheap extraction. The real lesson of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was not BP's sloppy safety standards, but the simple fact everyone saw on “spillcam”: one of the corporate energy giants had little choice but to search for what Klare calls [ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128212150 ] “tough oil” miles beneath the surface of the ocean to keep its profits up.

Compounding the problem, the Chinese and Indians have suddenly become far heavier energy consumers. Even if fossil fuel supplies were to remain constant (which they won’t), demand, and so costs, are almost certain to rise -- and sharply at that. Other developed nations are meeting this threat aggressively by plunging into experimental programs to develop alternative energy sources. The United States has taken a different path, doing far too little to develop alternative sources while, in the last three decades, doubling [ http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTNTUS2&f=M ] its dependence on foreign oil imports. Between 1973 and 2007, oil imports have risen [ http://www.answers.com/topic/oil-crises ] from 36% of energy consumed in the U.S. to 66% [ http://centexresources.com/investors.php ].

Oil Shock: Scenario 2025

The United States remains so dependent upon foreign oil that a few adverse developments in the global energy market in 2025 spark an oil shock. By comparison, it makes the 1973 oil shock (when prices quadrupled in just months) look like the proverbial molehill. Angered at the dollar's plummeting value, OPEC oil ministers, meeting in Riyadh, demand future energy payments in a “basket” of Yen, Yuan, and Euros. That only hikes the cost of U.S. oil imports further. At the same moment, while signing a new series of long-term delivery contracts with China, the Saudis stabilize their own foreign exchange reserves by switching to the Yuan. Meanwhile, China pours countless billions into building a massive trans-Asia pipeline and funding Iran's exploitation of the world largest natural gas field at South Pars in the Persian Gulf.

Concerned that the U.S. Navy might no longer be able to protect the oil tankers traveling from the Persian Gulf to fuel East Asia, a coalition of Tehran, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi form an unexpected new Gulf alliance and affirm that China's new fleet of swift aircraft carriers will henceforth patrol the Persian Gulf from a base on the Gulf of Oman. Under heavy economic pressure, London agrees to cancel the U.S. lease on its Indian Ocean island base of Diego Garcia, while Canberra, pressured by the Chinese, informs Washington that the Seventh Fleet is no longer welcome to use Fremantle as a homeport, effectively evicting the U.S. Navy from the Indian Ocean.

With just a few strokes of the pen and some terse announcements, the “Carter Doctrine [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine ],” by which U.S. military power was to eternally protect the Persian Gulf, is laid to rest in 2025. All the elements that long assured the United States limitless supplies of low-cost oil from that region -- logistics, exchange rates, and naval power -- evaporate. At this point, the U.S. can still cover only an insignificant 12% [ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/execsummary.html ] of its energy needs from its nascent alternative energy industry, and remains dependent on imported oil for half of its energy consumption.

The oil shock that follows hits the country like a hurricane, sending prices to startling heights, making travel a staggeringly expensive proposition, putting real wages (which had long been declining) into freefall, and rendering non-competitive whatever American exports remained. With thermostats dropping, gas prices climbing through the roof, and dollars flowing overseas in return for costly oil, the American economy is paralyzed. With long-fraying alliances at an end and fiscal pressures mounting, U.S. military forces finally begin a staged withdrawal from their overseas bases.

Within a few years, the U.S. is functionally bankrupt and the clock is ticking toward midnight on the American Century.

Military Misadventure: Present Situation

Counterintuitively, as their power wanes, empires often plunge into ill-advised military misadventures. This phenomenon is known among historians of empire as “micro-militarism” and seems to involve psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying new territories, however briefly and catastrophically. These operations, irrational even from an imperial point of view, often yield hemorrhaging expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the loss of power.

Embattled empires through the ages suffer an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle. In 413 BCE, a weakened Athens sent 200 ships to be slaughtered in Sicily. In 1921, a dying imperial Spain dispatched 20,000 soldiers to be massacred by Berber guerrillas in Morocco. In 1956, a fading British Empire destroyed its prestige by attacking Suez. And in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. With the hubris that marks empires over the millennia, Washington has increased its troops in Afghanistan to 100,000, expanded the war into Pakistan, and extended its commitment [ http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175324/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_general_petraeus%27s_two_campaigns/ ] to 2014 and beyond, courting disasters large and small in this guerilla-infested, nuclear-armed graveyard of empires.

Military Misadventure: Scenario 2014

So irrational, so unpredictable is “micro-militarism” that seemingly fanciful scenarios are soon outdone by actual events. With the U.S. military stretched thin from Somalia to the Philippines and tensions rising in Israel, Iran, and Korea, possible combinations for a disastrous military crisis abroad are multifold.

It’s mid-summer 2014 and a drawn-down U.S. garrison in embattled Kandahar in southern Afghanistan is suddenly, unexpectedly overrun by Taliban guerrillas, while U.S. aircraft are grounded by a blinding sandstorm. Heavy loses are taken and in retaliation, an embarrassed American war commander looses B-1 bombers and F-16 fighters to demolish whole neighborhoods of the city that are believed to be under Taliban control, while AC-130U “Spooky” gunships rake the rubble with devastating cannon fire.

Soon, mullahs are preaching jihad from mosques throughout the region, and Afghan Army units, long trained by American forces to turn the tide of the war, begin to desert en masse. Taliban fighters then launch a series of remarkably sophisticated strikes aimed at U.S. garrisons across the country, sending American casualties soaring. In scenes reminiscent of Saigon in 1975, U.S. helicopters rescue American soldiers and civilians from rooftops in Kabul and Kandahar.

Meanwhile, angry at the endless, decades-long stalemate over Palestine, OPEC’s leaders impose a new oil embargo on the U.S. to protest its backing of Israel as well as the killing of untold numbers of Muslim civilians in its ongoing wars across the Greater Middle East. With gas prices soaring and refineries running dry, Washington makes its move, sending in Special Operations forces to seize oil ports in the Persian Gulf. This, in turn, sparks a rash of suicide attacks and the sabotage of pipelines and oil wells. As black clouds billow skyward and diplomats rise at the U.N. to bitterly denounce American actions, commentators worldwide reach back into history to brand this “America's Suez,” a telling reference to the 1956 debacle that marked the end of the British Empire.

World War III: Present Situation

In the summer of 2010, military tensions between the U.S. and China began to rise in the western Pacific, once considered an American “lake.” Even a year earlier no one would have predicted such a development. As Washington played upon its alliance with London to appropriate much of Britain's global power after World War II, so China is now using the profits from its export trade with the U.S. to fund what is likely to become a military challenge to American dominion over the waterways of Asia and the Pacific.

With its growing resources, Beijing is claiming a vast maritime arc from Korea to Indonesia long dominated by the U.S. Navy. In August, after Washington expressed [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/asia/24diplo.html ] a “national interest” in the South China Sea and conducted naval exercises there to reinforce that claim, Beijing's official Global Times responded angrily [ http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0817/China-and-the-US-battle-to-assert-presence-in-South-China-Sea ], saying, “The U.S.-China wrestling match over the South China Sea issue has raised the stakes in deciding who the real future ruler of the planet will be.”

Amid growing tensions, the Pentagon reported [ http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA526678 ] that Beijing now holds “the capability to attack… [U.S.] aircraft carriers in the western Pacific Ocean” and target “nuclear forces throughout… the continental United States.” By developing “offensive nuclear, space, and cyber warfare capabilities,” China seems determined to vie for dominance of what the Pentagon calls “the information spectrum in all dimensions of the modern battlespace.” With ongoing development of the powerful Long March V booster rocket, as well as the launch [ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/17/content_12822615.htm ] of two satellites in January 2010 and another [ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67005R20100801 ] in July, for a total of five, Beijing signaled that the country was making rapid strides toward an “independent” network of 35 satellites for global positioning, communications, and reconnaissance capabilities by 2020.

To check China and extend its military position globally, Washington is intent on building a new digital network of air and space robotics, advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, and electronic surveillance. Military planners expect this integrated system to envelop the Earth in a cyber-grid capable of blinding entire armies on the battlefield or taking out a single terrorist in field or favela. By 2020, if all goes according to plan, the Pentagon will launch a three-tiered shield of space drones -- reaching from stratosphere to exosphere, armed with agile missiles, linked by a resilient modular satellite system, and operated through total telescopic surveillance.

Last April, the Pentagon made history. It extended drone operations into the exosphere by quietly launching [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/science/space/23secret.html ] the X-37B unmanned space shuttle into a low orbit 255 miles above the planet. The X-37B is the first in a new generation of unmanned vehicles that will mark the full weaponization of space, creating an arena for future warfare unlike anything that has gone before.

World War III: Scenario 2025

The technology of space and cyberwarfare is so new and untested that even the most outlandish scenarios may soon be superseded by a reality still hard to conceive. If we simply employ the sort of scenarios that the Air Force itself used [ http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123175083 ] in its 2009 Future Capabilities Game, however, we can gain “a better understanding of how air, space and cyberspace overlap in warfare,” and so begin to imagine how the next world war might actually be fought.

It’s 11:59 p.m. on Thanksgiving Thursday in 2025. While cyber-shoppers pound the portals of Best Buy for deep discounts on the latest home electronics from China, U.S. Air Force technicians at the Space Surveillance Telescope [ http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/sst/index.html ] (SST) on Maui choke on their coffee as their panoramic screens suddenly blip to black. Thousands of miles away at the U.S. CyberCommand's operations center [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/us/politics/13cyber.html ] in Texas, cyberwarriors soon detect malicious binaries that, though fired anonymously, show the distinctive digital fingerprints [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/science/06cyber.html?pagewanted=all ] of China's People's Liberation Army.

The first overt strike is one nobody predicted. Chinese “malware” seizes control of the robotics aboard an unmanned solar-powered U.S. “Vulture” drone [ http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1425 ] as it flies at 70,000 feet over the Tsushima Strait between Korea and Japan. It suddenly fires all the rocket pods beneath its enormous 400-foot wingspan, sending dozens of lethal missiles plunging harmlessly into the Yellow Sea, effectively disarming this formidable weapon.

Determined to fight fire with fire, the White House authorizes a retaliatory strike. Confident that its F6 [ http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/systemf6/ ] “Fractionated, Free-Flying” satellite system is impenetrable, Air Force commanders in California transmit robotic codes to the flotilla of X-37B space drones orbiting 250 miles above the Earth, ordering them to launch their “Triple Terminator” missiles [ http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/t3/index.html ] at China's 35 satellites. Zero response. In near panic, the Air Force launches its Falcon Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle [ http://air-attack.com/page/32/USAF--DARPA-FALCON-Program.html ] into an arc 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and then, just 20 minutes later, sends the computer codes to fire missiles at seven Chinese satellites in nearby orbits. The launch codes are suddenly inoperative.

As the Chinese virus spreads uncontrollably through the F6 satellite architecture, while those second-rate U.S. supercomputers fail to crack the malware's devilishly complex code, GPS signals crucial to the navigation of U.S. ships and aircraft worldwide are compromised. Carrier fleets begin steaming in circles in the mid-Pacific. Fighter squadrons are grounded. Reaper drones fly aimlessly toward the horizon, crashing when their fuel is exhausted. Suddenly, the United States loses what the U.S. Air Force has long called [ http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/sum06/harter.html ] “the ultimate high ground”: space. Within hours, the military power that had dominated the globe for nearly a century has been defeated in World War III without a single human casualty.

A New World Order?

Even if future events prove duller than these four scenarios suggest, every significant trend points toward a far more striking decline in American global power by 2025 than anything Washington now seems to be envisioning.

As allies worldwide begin to realign their policies to take cognizance of rising Asian powers, the cost of maintaining 800 or more overseas military bases will simply become unsustainable, finally forcing a staged withdrawal on a still-unwilling Washington. With both the U.S. and China in a race to weaponize space and cyberspace, tensions between the two powers are bound to rise, making military conflict by 2025 at least feasible, if hardly guaranteed.

Complicating matters even more, the economic, military, and technological trends outlined above will not operate in tidy isolation. As happened to European empires after World War II, such negative forces will undoubtedly prove synergistic. They will combine in thoroughly unexpected ways, create crises for which Americans are remarkably unprepared, and threaten to spin the economy into a sudden downward spiral, consigning this country to a generation or more of economic misery.

As U.S. power recedes, the past offers a spectrum of possibilities for a future world order. At one end of this spectrum, the rise of a new global superpower, however unlikely, cannot be ruled out. Yet both China and Russia evince self-referential cultures, recondite non-roman scripts, regional defense strategies, and underdeveloped legal systems, denying them key instruments for global dominion. At the moment then, no single superpower seems to be on the horizon likely to succeed the U.S.

In a dark, dystopian version of our global future, a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral forces like NATO, and an international financial elite could conceivably forge a single, possibly unstable, supra-national nexus that would make it no longer meaningful to speak of national empires at all. While denationalized corporations and multinational elites would assumedly rule such a world from secure urban enclaves, the multitudes would be relegated to urban and rural wastelands.

In Planet of Slums [ http://www.amazon.com/dp/1844671607/ ], Mike Davis offers at least a partial vision of such a world from the bottom up. He argues that the billion people already packed into fetid favela-style slums worldwide (rising to two billion by 2030) will make “the 'feral, failed cities' of the Third World… the distinctive battlespace of the twenty-first century.” As darkness settles over some future super-favela, “the empire can deploy Orwellian technologies of repression” as “hornet-like helicopter gun-ships stalk enigmatic enemies in the narrow streets of the slum districts… Every morning the slums reply with suicide bombers and eloquent explosions.”

At a midpoint on the spectrum of possible futures, a new global oligopoly might emerge between 2020 and 2040, with rising powers China, Russia, India, and Brazil collaborating with receding powers like Britain, Germany, Japan, and the United States to enforce an ad hoc global dominion, akin to the loose alliance of European empires that ruled half of humanity circa 1900.

Another possibility: the rise of regional hegemons in a return to something reminiscent of the international system that operated before modern empires took shape. In this neo-Westphalian world order, with its endless vistas of micro-violence and unchecked exploitation, each hegemon would dominate its immediate region -- Brasilia in South America, Washington in North America, Pretoria in southern Africa, and so on. Space, cyberspace, and the maritime deeps, removed from the control of the former planetary “policeman,” the United States, might even become a new global commons, controlled through an expanded U.N. Security Council or some ad hoc body.

All of these scenarios extrapolate existing trends into the future on the assumption that Americans, blinded by the arrogance of decades of historically unparalleled power, cannot or will not take steps to manage the unchecked erosion of their global position.

If America's decline is in fact on a 22-year trajectory from 2003 to 2025, then we have already frittered away most of the first decade of that decline with wars that distracted us from long-term problems and, like water tossed onto desert sands, wasted [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html ] trillions of desperately needed dollars.

If only 15 years remain, the odds of frittering them all away still remain high. Congress and the president are now in gridlock; the American system is flooded with corporate money meant to jam up the works; and there is little suggestion that any issues of significance, including our wars, our bloated national security state, our starved education system, and our antiquated energy supplies, will be addressed with sufficient seriousness to assure the sort of soft landing that might maximize our country's role and prosperity in a changing world.

Europe's empires are gone and America's imperium is going. It seems increasingly doubtful that the United States will have anything like Britain's success in shaping a succeeding world order that protects its interests, preserves its prosperity, and bears the imprint of its best values.

Alfred W. McCoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author, most recently, of Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State (2009). He is also the convener of the “Empires in Transition” project, a global working group of 140 historians from universities on four continents. The results of their first meetings at Madison, Sydney, and Manila were published as Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State and the findings from their latest conference will appear next year as “Endless Empire: Europe’s Eclipse, America’s Ascent, and the Decline of U.S. Global Power.”

Copyright 2010 Alfred W. McCoy

*

© 2010 TomDispatch.com

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175327/tomgram%3A_alfred_mccoy%2C_taking_down_america/ [the McCoy piece itself also at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/index.html (comments at http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/view/?show=all )]

---

and see (items linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58238257 and preceding and following

[StephanieVanbryce]

Want recovery? Then tax the freaking rich!

January 2 2011

Michael Hudson, esnl’s favorite economist, offers a devastating takedown of the Obama administration’s endorsement of the Bush “tax the poor” economic strategy in this interview with Paul Jay of The Real News Network.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CnrEHFwZ9hk

America’s economy has been most powerful and employment numbers the highest precisely at those times when taxes on the wealthiest were at their highest, Hudson observes.

A couple of standout quotes:

GDP, national income, and prosperity and wealth grows fastest when income tax rates are highest. . .the economy slows when taxes are cut. That’s counterintuitive, but if you look at any chart comparing tax rates and economic growth rates, that’s what you find. The 19th century knew it. The 18th century knew it. But today you have a kind of counterrevolution of junk economics that is basically anti-labor economics.

Today the capital gains rate is only 15 percent. That’s less than the 15.3 percent FICA withholding tax that workers have to pay in their Social Security and Medicare. So now you have, all of a sudden, the economy encouraging speculation in real estate, in stocks and bonds, instead of direct investment. So the result of lowering the taxes, of steadily lowering the taxes on the rich, has been to encourage money to be made in the way that the rich make their money, which isn’t on building factories. It’s not on employing labor. It’s on speculating on real estate, stocks, and bonds.

A transcript of the interview is here. [ http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6000 ]

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/want-recovery-then-tax-the-freaking-rich/