It's all HIS fault. When he was a young cat, he'd hang out on the patio He still likes to laze in the shade.

next>>

... Link (0 comments) ... Comment

... Link (2 comments) ... Comment

Glenn over at glennfrazier.com has read my post about taking Mugabe down, and wonders a few things. He notes the similarities of the US to the late Roman Republic, which happens to be the one part of Roman history I can quote chapter and verse. He then asks if we are indeed unstoppable, and what the limits of American Power might be. Now go read the whole thing.

Most of what follows here is posted there as comments to his article, but, being a belt-and suspenders kinda guy, whenever I put very much effort into a post, I like to have it on my server also, in case of a something like the blogger archives being screwed up, which they seem to be more often than not these days. Plus, I know some of you, (hey macker!) are too lazy to click on a link.

Here's my reply:

It's interesting that you should use the parallel between post-Punic War III Rome and the post-Cold War US. I've always (well, for the last decade) thought that the similarities are remarkable.

In both cases, the nations found themselves the overwhelming superpower. In both cases, they became so after three major wars, and numerous smaller ones. And in both cases, how to deal with the transformation became the most important issue the nations faced.

Having said all that, the differences are important, especially as they impact on our ability to maintain and properly use the "Empire."

Most important of these differences is the relative abilty to move on a strategic level, communicate, and project force. Despite it's size, there were whole sections of the globe where the Romans could not trade, or project force. There is nowhere that the US cannot. I would also argue that the military and economic superiority we currently have is even greater than that of the Romans.

The most important social factor is the reluctance of the American people to build an Empire in the traditional sense you mention, that of physically occupying or colonizing the land outside our current boundaries. The Romans territorial aggression can be largely explained by the need for the Men On Horseback, the Sullas and Marius' of the world to get loot and land to pay off their armies. I don't see too many enlistees in the Army hopin' they're gonna get 40 acres and an oil well in northern Iraq at the end of GWII.

We simply don't need to go occupy the liberated nation. We don't need their people as slaves for our latifundia, we don't need their land, and we don't in most cases, need their resources. All we need is for them to do is treat their folks humanely and be peaceable. Some trade would be nice, but it will help them more than it helps us.

Finally, the Romans as a culture were much more violent and militaristic that we are today, but that's a whole 'nother essay.

There are few practical limits on our power. The gigantic trump card that the US has is the Navy. All maritime trade today moves only with our permission. If every single nation in the world combined against us, in an effort to control the seas, the effort would still be about as successful as a Little League team playing the Yankees. In the modern world, if you control the seas, you control the economy. No oil could leave the Middle East, save through the few existing pipelines, which are themselves easily destroyed. Until such time that the other nations of the world garner the political will to build larger navies, which I don't see happening, then this situation will not change.

Not that I see how it could ever come to a military confrontation - even economic sanctions against the US could never work, as it would hurt the sanctioners much more that it would hurt us. There is no one important that can afford not to be our trading partner.

So, what does this mean to the tin-pot despots of the world? Only bad things. They are doomed, if we only generate the selfless will to make it so.

I am well aware that we cannot be everywhere, doing everything. To topple North Korea, for example, at this point would probably cost more than we are willing to pay. Some rotten fruits will of neccessity have to be left hanging on the tree, to eventually succumb to natural entropy, as Cuba continues to do. But that should not then mean we should not intervene where the task is relatively easy, the price low, and people are dying every day we delay - such as the situation today in Zimbabwe.

We need not fix the whole damn planet before the decade is out. Every regime change where a new liberal democracy can be planted is one less to worry about, a job well done, and worth doing for simple goodness' sake. Eventually, though it take a generation or two, the task will be completed.

There's little doubt that the various peoples involved will welcome the transition to liberal little-r republican rule, once the mechanisms are set in place. In the meantime, the various hand-wringers, negotiators, and worrywarts here and abroad might best occupy themselve by designing a default gov't, a template, if you will, for good governance in the newly liberated countries.

This is my idea of one way this might come about. We can establish a constitution with independent branches of government, and a default civil and criminal code, under the auspices of a governor of near-dictatorial power. He would be given the mission of designing things such as electoral districts, co-ordinating humanitarian relief, etc. This government would be initially staffed with a multinational group of experienced outsiders, perhaps retired statesmen, (paging Jimmy Carter) Senators and MPs and such, holding the offices that will eventually be filled by citizens of that country. Allow those outsiders a single, fairly long term of office, say, six years. During the last four years of that term, they will have as an understudy someone that they identify and choose during the first two years. That understudy will then take office for a term. They will be the last unelected officeholders that country will ever have. The hand-picked incumbent would be allowed to run for re-election, though subject to subsequent term limits.(An exception might be made for the judiciary, where the judges would be appointed for life.)

Of course, this plan would be accompanied by liberal doses of economic aid, perhaps encouraged by allowing Stateside corporations ample incentive to invest there, say by allowing any such profits legitimately generated there to be untaxed for a decade or two.

After a few sucesses of this type, the remaining nations of the world will end up begging for us to come in and straighten their messes out.

... Link (3 comments) ... Comment