LF: Assumption of US dominance in the world has ended, inevitable imperial decline is looming

Title: Assumption of US dominance in the world has ended, inevitable imperial decline is looming
Source: RT
URL Source: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/398234-us-military-dominance-global/
Published: Aug 2, 2017
Author: Danielle Ryan
Post Date: 2017-08-02 17:33:16 by Hondo68
Ping List: *The Two Parties ARE the Same* Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Keywords: challenge US power, Eisenhower warned, MIC, the decline of US
Views: 14283
Comments: 51

In his new book about the decline of US global power, historian Alfred McCoy writes, that faced with a fading superpower, incapable of paying its bills, other powers will begin to “provocatively challenge US dominion” in the seas and skies.

This is happening already with what appears to be increasing regularity, although perhaps “provocative” is not the right adjective to describe it.

The American military has been the chief provocateur in the seas and skies for decades, entering foreign airspace and territorial waters with impunity, expecting no retaliation. Now, powers like China, Iran and Russia are more actively challenging the US’s unchecked behavior.

In January, Iran detained ten American sailors overnight after two US Navy boats entered Iranian territorial waters. American exceptionalists were dismayed at Iran’s apparent show of disregard for US power, many blaming the incident on Obama’s “weakness.” In May, US officials accused Beijing of an “unsafe intercept” when Chinese planes buzzed an American spy plane flying off the coast of China. Later that month, two US nuke ‘sniffer’ aircraft were intercepted by Chinese planes in the East China Sea. In July, Chinese jets again drove off an American spy plane flying over the Yellow Sea. Just last week, a US ship fired warning shots at an Iranian boat in the Persian Gulf after the craft approached within 150 yards and ignored American warnings to stay away.

DETAILS: Iranian craft approached US patrol ship within 150 yards and ignored warnings - Pentagon officials https://t.co/kXRZVRqxdc— RT America (@RT_America) July 25, 2017

Those are just a few examples from a spate of recent incidents that have seen US boats and planes intercepted or harassed. Not to mention, Russian and American jets are always buzzing and chasing each other off over the Baltic and the Black Sea.

This willingness to confront the US military may be indicative of the wider, aforementioned problem for Washington: Its global influence is waning, the country and its military are enjoying less respect and clout internationally, and rising powers are beginning to assert their own national interests more forcefully.

The assumption of US dominance in regions like the Western Pacific and South China Sea has ended. In Europe, Russia has not been shy about challenging the seemingly endless eastward expansion of NATO. In the Middle East, too, Russia has come to be seen as an equal to the US in terms of clout, influence and the ability to arbitrate in regional conflicts. Despite its archipelago of more than 800 bases across the world, the US can no longer dictate to the world in the way it once could.

All these powers, that the US has worked so hard to keep in check, are continuously being pushed toward each other by a common goal: to end US domination and build a more multipolar world.

Most often, these developments are portrayed as “muscle flexing” and “aggressive” by Western media, while American efforts to maintain global hegemony are seen almost exclusively as benign and crucially important for democracy and world peace.

Among American politicians and pundits, there’s a temptation to pick someone to blame for this diminishing power. Republicans often want to blame “weak” Obama, while Democrats prefer to blame George W. Bush. In future years, the focus of their blame will undoubtedly shift to Donald Trump for compounding the image of the once-superpower now in the midst of a flailing and embarrassing decline from within.

Read more

China’s 1st foreign naval base officially opens in Djibouti

If we had to pinpoint the most significant turning point or catalyst, it would probably be the invasion of Iraq under Bush. But it’s not about one president or policy. What sets an empire on a path toward decline is rot from within the system. That system does not change with elections, no matter how radical the candidates.

It is the system Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in a 1953 speech, two months into his presidency. Despite his military background, the former Supreme Commander of Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe warned against “a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.”

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed,” he said.

In his farewell address eight years later, Eisenhower warned again: “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

But it's not just the overuse of the military causing the problem. There are other trends which will eventually affect America's global decline.

US infrastructure is crumbling. About 56,000 bridges across the country are marked as "structurally deficient." The country cannot boast a single airport which ranks among the top 20 in the world. More than two-thirds of American roads are "in dire need of repair or upgrades" — and the American Society of Civil Engineers has given the overall condition of the country's infrastructure a "D+" grade.

Recent OECD literacy, science and math tests have seen students from Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan come out on top, while the US trails 20 or 30 places behind. Over the long run, trends like this may contribute to the US losing its reputation for cutting edge technology and innovation. All of these factors contribute to imperial decline.

Like any declining empire in denial, the top priority becomes to preserve its status at any cost. A desperate attempt to preserve that dominance can be seen in Washington’s haphazard, erratic and nonsensical foreign policies. This is not at all president-specific. Each of the last four presidents has been foreign policy failures.

When speaking of the decline of American empire, people often assume it will happen in one big bang. We wake up one day, and the empire has suddenly fallen. Empires don’t rise or fall in a day. In reality, it can be so slow you barely notice it until it’s no longer possible to correct the course.

The US has, in the past 17 years, invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq, launched a “humanitarian” intervention in Libya which destroyed the country, fueled a proxy war in Syria and aided Saudi Arabia’s slaughter of Yemen. Now, the Trump administration appears to be angling for a war with Iran.

Contrary to the official narrative, none of this has been to do with democracy or fighting for human rights. It has been a scramble to maintain America’s status as the world’s top-decider and go-between.

China, which is forecast to have a bigger economy than the US by 2030, has managed to quietly expand its influence and strengthen its military without deploying it abroad or starting pointless wars. Meanwhile, the US has overextended itself around the globe to little avail. It has alienated powers like Russia and Iran by constantly saber rattling in their directions, slapping sanctions on any nation which fails to do its bidding — ultimately encouraging its so-called enemies to unite against it.

The growing willingness of other countries to outwardly challenge US power on the seas and in the skies may just be a visible example of the results.

“Since 1991, we have lost our global preeminence, quadrupled our national debt, and gotten ourselves mired in five Mideast wars, with the neocons clamoring for a sixth, with Iran,” wrote Pat Buchanan in a recent piece for The American Conservative.

Americans concerned at the direction their country is taking should ask themselves whether continuing on the current course will be worth it.

History would argue it is not.

This is absolutely true. The American population is spoiled rotten and not worth a shit. It is a society that has for practical purposes a 50 % out of wedlock birth rate. A defunct subversive educational system. Is ass deep in debilitating recreational drugs. A substantial number of people who don't know whether they want to be boys or girls or something in between. That elects a cluster of vaudville entertainers as politicians. Which is now applauding psychopathology as a creative civil right. And we are importing more of the same with our immigration policies as fast as we can bring them in.

You can add overweight, lazy and don't give a shit. A bunch of parasites who brag more about scamming the system than getting a job. Who follow Hillary's lead and blame everyone but themselves for their limitations and failures. Whose self-esteem is through the roof, but don't know shit about shit.

But ... the half of the country that does work, pay taxes, and follow the law make this the baddest-ass country in the world.

How do you think it got that way? lies, lying to themselves through the rally round the flag education system which told them they are the best while the rest of us laughed and quietly went about our business

Propagandists crave this kind of repetition but this is pretty crude even for Russian agitprop.

what is the big deal here, the Romans lasted a thousand years, you have had a quarter of that, but then you have had more barbarians to contend with, including many more in your own country, take heart though; decline lasts a long time and remember the Russians know far more about empire than you do, theirs is very old

I think the repetition of the words I listed were the entire purpose of the article, nothing more.

The notion that America is an empire in the sense that the old tsarist empire was or that the Soviet Union was is laughable. And the CIS that replaced it is a pale shadow of what the tsars and commissars had.

I routinely condemn the drift toward an imperial presidency and the vast spread of military bases we have around the world but that is not comparable to a Roman empire or the tsarist empire or the Soviet Union.

That must be a great comfort to the Peons of the world, under the boot-heel of the Donald's Deep State.

You have to admit that Trump made a lot of people very happy with that creepy image. It's a total meme-generator. We'll be seeing that image for years to come.

You'd almost think that PDT posed with the orb just to make Alex Jones really happy.

Ancient Rome used its legions to conquer and rule provinces via appointed governors. Like Herod's family ruled Canaan/Israel. But they directly ruled them, collected taxes, conducted the Roman census (as Joseph and Mary obeyed their Roman census obligation), had Roman magistrates, conducted official business in Latin, maintained the Roman roads, built extensive aquaducts, etc.

Can you say that America does anything comparable? We generally don't conquer anyone (with a few exceptions like Iraq/Afghanistan) and, if we have bases in foreign countries, we don't rule them or tax them or conduct a census or adjudicate in their courts according to American law.

So they are not comparable. Rome directly ruled an empire. America is at most a neoliberal neocolonial superpower with huge economic and military influence.

If you want a closer example, the British empire would be much closer to the Roman empire but even that falls considerably short of a fair comparison.

That would be you with jealousy. Every time we go to war it cost America huge in life and dollars. We never financially make a killing by going to war. We never own the land we conquer and we always try to leave it better if the people will allow it. Who has the blinders on?????

I deal with truth and reality. What do you deal with? Socialist progressive nonsense doesn't stand up to reality and truth.

You didn't even address my salient points; you just ignored them and hoped they would go away.

No, America most certainly is not an empire in the sense that the Roman empire was. It's not even comparable to the British empire. That's not to say that we aren't doing a lot more than we should around the world but you should compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

You just have an ax to grind on this issue because poor Mother Russia and the weak sister (the EU) don't have the clout that America does.

It's not our fault if we are strong and the EU is weak (by choice) or Mother Russia is weak (due to longterm mismanagement and reliance on a gas-station economy in an era of falling energy prices as America ramps up to finally destroy OPEC's power over world economies).

By such statements you expose how your mind and emotions work. You do not care for truth, you care for clout, you have several axes to grind, you are bitter etc ... You have fear of being weak or inferior so you need to put down others etc ... You take your feeling of worth from identifying whith power that you are subject to or group that you belong to, etc ...

Is that your lame-ass Euroweenie version of "I know you are but what about me?"?

Putting your complexes toward Europe aside, it is hard for you imagine that someone is REALLY interested in subject of debates, and not in his ego or gain.

$20,000,000,000,000 (TWENTY TRILLION) in federal debt and you call it fun? What the hell is your background? Another do-nothing, federal employee that sucks the teat of the American taxpayer?

I see two options - 1. multipolar world, where USA can be first among the equals, or 2. bipolar world, where USA will dominate Europe and Latin America, while China will dominate Asia and Russia. (Africa will be zone of proxy conflicts)

I think that because bipolarity is the most common for all complex structures it the most likely.

Obviously, you must be experienced at borrowing over or above your capabilities to pay back debt, just like these elected government monsters in Washington DC.

We haven't heard that one in the last fifteen years, since corrupt President Chiraq and his embarrassing prime minister de Villepain descended on the United Nations (in the runup to the Iraq invasion) to explain to us benighted American clods in condescending tones that the era of America as the lone superpower (hyperpower, unipower) was over and that the EU was the new pivot man in a global Russian/Chinese circle jerk.

You'd better phone the Kremlin. I don't think Vlad would appreciate your idea that his role in history is to be China's bitch.

Islamic jihad. It has shown a remarkable resistance to change over fourteen hundred years and an uncanny abilility to feed off the weakness of other nations.

Dizzy was a cousin of mine's favorite song, according to her high school yearbook. Not sure why I still remember such a stupid fact.

You never addressed the very fundamental differences in governance, central control, courts, taxes, census as I laid them out in my above post. I didn't even get to issues like citizenship by which individuals in the Roman provinces were also full Roman citizens, as was the case with Saul of Tarsus (the apostle Paul).

It's very easy to ignore that someone has pointed out that you are profoundly wrong and just insist instead that they go off on a wild goose chase via google, all so you don't have to admit that you said something stupid and unsupported by historical facts.

212 AD all free people in the Roman International Community / allies get Roman citizenship under Caracalla.

Diocletian - official monarchy until St Constantin the Great, "equal to the Apostles",

Until eruption of Islam. monotheistic-Zoroastrian Persia or Iran the main opponent of Rome

However, America has never had more than a half-dozen foreign territories to protect and administer, like the Solomons and Marianis and Puerto Rico. And we make huge giveaways to them constantly and offer free citizenship to those who want it and tons of benefits as well. Our territories largely have had home rule and elected their own native governors.

You can't possibly pretend that Rome did anything compabable with the provinces of its empire. The Romans were outright conquerors. At most, we employ heavy economic and military influence, a neocolonial empire. Rome's was, as the British empire was, a colonial empire that conquered and annexed foreign nations from beginning to end.

If America was the new Rome, as you say, we would already have conquered Canada and Mexico and be well on our way to conquering all of Central and South America. But we don't. We certainly have influence but we don't conquer. Why? Well, because we are smarter and more ruthless than the Roman, the British and the Soviet empires.

US dominance in the world has ended, inevitable imperial decline is looming

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party