Jesse Jackson: Abuse of power makes U.S. weak

[TahitiNut]

Abuse of power makes U.S. weak
June 22, 2004
BY JESSE JACKSON

Is America's security grounded in its military strength or its moral strength? Today, America dominates the world's militaries, but has relinquished much of its moral authority. Does that make us safer or more vulnerable?

America is now spending about the same as the rest of the world combined on its military. We have the capability to go anywhere and do pretty much anything. But the way we are going there and doing it is making us less rather than more influential.

<snip>

Everything this administration has told us about the war in Iraq has turned out to be false.

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam wasn't collaborating with al-Qaida and had nothing to do with Sept. 11. The Iraqis didn't treat us as liberators. Our soldiers were put into an occupation without the forces or the training or even the basic equipment needed to meet the task. Everything Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Security Council turned out to be wrong.

The loss of moral authority, the loss of legitimacy, across the world is staggering. In only a few short months since Sept. 11, this administration squandered the global goodwill we had in the wake of the horror.

<snip>

[struggle4progress]

1. kick for jesse

:kick:

[tom_paine]

2. It doesn't make the "US" weak. That place is GONE into the pages of

history and I'm not sure it will ever return no matter WHAT we do.

Thohgh that is NOT going to stop me from doing everything I can to Restore the Old Republic!

It makes Imperial Amerika weak. But then, when Imperial Amerika was born on 12/12/200, it was already an infintiely weaker nation than the one which proceeded it the day before.

[IrateCitizen]

3. It doesn't "make" US weak -- it shows how weak we already are

The current abuses of military power are nothing more than a plain display of how the position of the United States has diminished in the world over the past 25-30 years. Where we once generated over half of the world's production, we have been supplanted in this area by both Europe and the Pacific Rim. The irrationality exhibited by the Bush Administration is nothing more than a desperate attempt to hold on to a global hegemony that no longer exists.

At least George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were smart about holding on to what US hegemony was left in the world. They realized that any continuation of US hegemony -- especially economic hegemony -- was dependent upon an increasingly independent Japan and Europe willingly going along with it. The great fault of the Bush administration, and the neocon cabal in particular, is the hubris in ignoring this basic reality, which will only accelerate the inevitable decline of the United States to the status of "just another industrialized country" in the end.

The wheels are already coming off as we speak. The Euro is essentially becoming the currency of choice for the rest of the world. The US has thus far prevented a switch from petro-dollars to petro-Euros, but it's only a matter of time -- especially as Russia's significant reserves come on line. I believe that Venezuela has also made moves toward doing a similar thing, which could be a big reason for US opposition to Hugo Chavez. Even with the decline of the dollar, our trade deficit has only worsened, proof of both our out-of-control consumer spending and the sad state of our manufacturing base.

I'd give our decline about another 20-25 years before it's fully realized.

[Karenina]

4. Do you really think it will take that long?

I give it 10 MAX, and that's being generous.

[struggle4progress]

5. IMHO: Everything depends on how quickly oil prices rise because ...

that determines the intensity of the conflict. US corporate elites will continue to push for aggressive use of US power to control resources. But if prices rise slowly, the US public will remain uncomfortable with extensive intervention and the rest of the world will militarize, forming new alliances to confront US power; political environment here will remain open longer. But if prices rise quickly, and the economy here really collapses, I am afraid the US public will support seizing resources abroad, while the rest of the world will remain relatively unmilitarized; we'll rapidly find ourselves in a widespread war, with a draft and increasing intolerance at home.

[Karenina]

6. Please expand on your thought

"while the rest of the world will remain relatively unmilitarized..."

[struggle4progress]

7. Half of world military spending is currently US spending;

so now "rest of the world" is "relatively unmilitarized" in comparison with US. Of course, a chunk of current US spending maintains troops and bases abroad, and arms foreign governments, so some parts of the "rest of the world" already see a lot of US military material.

IMO if US continues to insist on playing bully boy, a new arms race will result as country after country decides they can't afford to ignore the military disparity; but an arms race takes time to develop. So there's some relation between how quickly US aggression escalates and how effectively the rest of the world could respond.

[Karenina]

8. Work with me here for a minute.

The "arms race" in Europe is a highly unreported phenomenon. The is also a clear understanding that ECONOMIC rather than military strength is MUCH QUICKER AND MORE EFFECTIVE. Having experienced the effects of sustained bombings these countries are QUITE AVERSE to military "solutions" and rightly so. WHADDYA THINK?

[struggle4progress]

9. Yes, I think Europe is highly adverse to military solutions.

I also think Bush scares the daylights out of the rest of the world, in part because his regime is willing to threaten widespread use of military power to control resources. A certain fraction of the American ruling class has always supported such use of the US military, and as resources become scarcer this view will attract additional adherents.

You say "There is also a clear understanding that ECONOMIC rather than military strength is MUCH QUICKER AND MORE EFFECTIVE." Understanding between what parties? The Bush administration certainly has not taken this approach with Iraq, although in both Haiti and Venezuela they have used economic manipulation in conjunction with covert military forces to attempt to seize control, and they seem to be playing the same game now with Cuba.

Do I think other financial powers might attempt to restrain America by economic means? We have a gigantic debt burden, so sure, why not? But the danger is that as resources become scarcer and the American economy suffers, we'll increasingly be told that nationalist movements to maintain resource control around the world are "terrorist" groups requiring military intervention; this sort of propaganda works well at home, but other nations are less likely to buy, especially if it looks like a greedy grab by the US. Meanwhile, other countries are also capable of engaging in this sort of cynical realpolitik, and strategic realignments are already occurring.

I'm unfortunately convinced that Iraq really has been an escalation of the resource wars. Nothing is inevitable, of course, and an intelligent international effort to raise the standard of living in the developing world while moving towards sustainable economies everywhere might really succeed. But the window of opportunity has been closing for at least thirty years, and at some point predictable resource pressures could become so strong that they sweep all other considerations aside.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.