Tomdispatch: Are We Going Down Like The Soviets?

[Hissyspit]

Are We Going Down Like the Soviets?
The Soviets made a devastating miscalculation: they mistook military power for power on this planet. Sound familiar?

June 21, 2010 |

Mark it on your calendar. It seems we’ve finally entered the Soviet era in America.

You remember the Soviet Union, now almost 20 years in its grave. But who gives it a second thought today? Even in its glory years that “evil empire” was sometimes referred to as “the second superpower.” In 1991, after seven decades, it suddenly disintegrated and disappeared, leaving the United States -- the “sole superpower,” even the “hyperpower,” on planet Earth -- surprised but triumphant.

The USSR had been heading for the exits for quite a while, not that official Washington had a clue. At the moment it happened, Soviet “experts” like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (then director of the CIA) still expected the Cold War to go on and on. In Washington, eyes were trained on the might of the Soviet military, which the Soviet leadership had never stopped feeding, even as its sclerotic bureaucracy was rotting, its economy (which had ceased to grow in the late 1970s) was tanking, budget deficits were soaring, indebtedness to other countries was growing, and social welfare payments were eating into what funds remained. Not even a vigorous, reformist leader like Mikhail Gorbachev could staunch the rot, especially when, in the late 1980s, the price of Russian oil fell drastically.

Looking back, the most distinctive feature of the last years of the Soviet Union may have been the way it continued to pour money into its military -- and its military adventure in Afghanistan -- when it was already going bankrupt and the society it had built was beginning to collapse around it. In the end, its aging leaders made a devastating miscalculation. They mistook military power for power on this planet. Armed to the teeth and possessing a nuclear force capable of destroying the Earth many times over, the Soviets nonetheless remained the vastly poorer, weaker, and (except when it came to the arms race) far less technologically innovative of the two superpowers.

In December 1979, perhaps taking the bait of the Carter administration whose national security advisor was eager to see the Soviets bloodied by a “Vietnam” of their own, the Red Army invaded Afghanistan to support a weak communist government in Kabul. When resistance in the countryside, led by Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas and backed by the other superpower, only grew, the Soviets sent in more troops, launched major offensives, called in air power, and fought on brutally and futilely for a decade until, in 1989, long after they had been whipped, they withdrew in defeat.

Gorbachev had dubbed Afghanistan “the bleeding wound,” and when the wounded Red Army finally limped home, it was to a country that would soon cease to exist. For the Soviet Union, Afghanistan had literally proven “the graveyard of empires.” If, at the end, its military remained standing, the empire didn’t. (And if you don’t already find this description just a tad eerie, given the present moment in the U.S., you should.)

MORE

[DarthDem]

1. Got A Link to the Rest?

Just want to read the rest of the piece.
:) Great opener, great premise.

[Hissyspit]

19. Apologies about the link. I fell asleep.

[HughBeaumont]

2. Great piece.

Now all we need is that link . . .

[Swamp Rat]

3. How hard we're gonna fall will also surprise many Americans...

... and our downfall IS at hand.

[YOY]

4. but they only had one party in power.

Not two parties on the same wing. You see...that's our strenght.

[kgnu_fan]

5. I think so, unfortunately...

[dipsydoodle]

6. Was this the missing link ?

http://www.alternet.org/world/147261/are_we_going_down_like_the_soviets/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet_world

[DarthDem]

14. Thanks - -

Much appreciated!

Actually I was a litle disappointed in the story. The premise and the Afghani parallel are really interesting, but there wasn't really much evidence to back it up.

[Hissyspit]

20. Thanks. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. I've maintained before that we were following the USSR model:

Spend away all the national wealth on an arms race with ourselves (at least the Soviets had an actual opponent - us)

Collapse financially.

Be completely taken over by the oligarchs and corruption.

Have a resulting society mainly comprised of 2 extremes, the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor and watch the middle class disappear.

I would say we're well down the path.

[sendero]

8. We are in the 11th hour..

... that is for sure. One wonders what the response from our brilliant leaders will be to the clear, obvious and in your face deterioration of conditions in Afghanistan.

Once again our illustrious military leaders have promised something they simply cannot deliver. A savvy leader would come up with a pretext and exit ASAP, but I'm pretty sure Obama is not that savvy.

Another surge? More good lives after bad? More slogging month after month while things slowly fall apart while everyone acts like we are making progress?

Probably some combination thereof.

[RainDog]

9. well, one guy who predicted the fall of the Soviet Union in 1976

also predicted the fall of the American Empire back in 2001.

His prediction about the Soviets came while the neo-cons were scaring the U.S. into putting money into "Star Wars" weapons systems. Emmanuel Todd's prediction was more than a decade ahead.

http://www.truth-out.org/article/emmanuel-todd-the-specter-a-soviet-style-crisis

his reaction to the American response to Hurricane Katrina:

American industry has been bled dry and it's the industrial decline that above all explains the negligence of a nation confronted with a crisis situation: to manage a natural catastrophe, you don't need sophisticated financial techniques, call options that fall due on such and such a date, tax consultants, or lawyers specialized in funds extortion at a global level, but you do need materiel, engineers, and technicians, as well as a feeling of collective solidarity.

[glitch]

22. excellent book. nt

[RainDog]

24. agree.

the issues that Todd discusses.. the "hypermilitarism" of the U.S. - not simply in Afghanistan - have also been noted by others like Chalmers Johnson.

Todd's analysis of other societies and the determination of the composition of strong democracies is also great reading as part of that one. Women who are not under the thumb of patriarchal religious beliefs and who are able to receive educations is the strongest indicator of democracy or a trend toward democracy across the world.

this is why I am hopeful that the right wing religious backlash is on the way out in the U.S. - that's really necessary in order to address our current problems.

honestly, I would rather be a community of nations - Americans are too uneducated about other cultures, for the most part, to make wise decisions about others' lives - at least that's what I've seen over and over again.

[WeDidIt]

10. DOOM GLOOM DOOM GLOOM DOOM GLOOM DOOM GLOOM

Love the sounds of those drums.

Not a bad article, but the author definitely wants to appeal to the reptile brain. You can tell by the title.

[dionysus]

16. ZOMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE11!1!111!!

:D

[Fumesucker]

48. I bet they were saying that in the Soviet Union in 1990.

DOOM GLOOM DOOM GLOOM..

Note that even the much vaunted CIA did not predict the downfall of the Soviet system, it was only a few dirty fucking hippies who were not "Serious People" (tm) who got that right.

[jp11]

11. O Canada! Our home and native land!

<-Eyes the border.

[RainDog]

12. interesting and not surprising that wdi cannot respond to the substance of the article

and instead tries to use the same sort of propaganda he accuses in the article.

and cannot respond to the substance of information about an earlier prediction by a respected demographer who was, in fact, correct in his prediction about the USSR when people like wdi would pooh-pooh the very same predictions.

but not at all surprising. boringly predictable, in fact.

and entirely substance free.

[Statistical]

13. Military power comes from economic power.

The Soviets forgot (or more likely couldn't face it). when their planned economy began to fail around the edges they didn't cut military spending and retool for economic growth. As a result they sealed their fate.

Look at our economy over last two decades. Even the boom under Clinton was largely due to the once in a lifetime expnasion from comercialization of internet. What is the next "internet" going to be?

Meanwhile we shovel trillions into the DOD furnace, we maintain our network of hundreds of bases around the world, and continue two massively expensive foreign campaigns.

Treasury is flowing out of the country at an alarming rate. The military power is no longer matched by the economic power. Sad & Ironic is we implode from the exact same reason the Soviets did.

[depakid]

15. Correction

Relative economic power.

and the current debt freak out among some has little to do with it- other than it might cause a cascade of stupid decisions to be made.

[newspeak]

17. so interesting that you should mention it

my cousin who is a historian visited the USSR before the collapse. A couple of years ago we had a discussion-he was saying how the environment in the US was mirroring the environment in the USSR before the collapse. What we discussed was is it intentional? Let me put my tinfoil hat on. :tinfoilhat: With the break up of the USSR-land is fractured into smaller states; thus, less centralized power. There is a reason that Kissenger and Poppy publicly talk about the NWO (and it's not the RW fear of the UN)--I believe that it has to do with global corporate power-as they gain power, and nations lose power, they become the "big man on top" superseding even democratic countries. So, corporations wind up dictating policy over the will of the people. I remember the collapse in Russia, with no social safety net-the elderly being displaced, selling their family heirlooms for food-and real corruption took a foot hold-ya know, like the mafia. And, the russians make the Italians look like boy scouts.

Anyway, I see this country doing a hell of a lot of corporatizing public responsibilities-and some corporations have made a windfall of profit (some overcharging) at our expense. Plus, the MSM talking heads and people like Norquist repeating the meme that government is incompetent, we need smaller government, all of the other shite, that leaves citizens (like in Russia) more exposed. I'd say they are bankrupting as fast as they can-* did a hell of a job pushing money to his war profiteering friends (and still doing so), while fighting a costly, bogus war-while we are militarily overstretched, and cutting taxes, especially to the obscenely wealthy. I believe that the actions taken, especially by the previous administration, sets us up for a collapse.

[glitch]

23. Deliberate.

"I believe that the actions taken, especially by the previous administration, sets us up for a collapse."

[RainDog]

25. A corporate power structure is a dictatorship.

this is why the right wing likes it so much.

[glitch]

44. Explains them to a T. (wonder where to a T came from, damn now I have to google)

edit: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/to-a-t.html

[MadMaddie]

38. Another important factor in all of this is they had to destroy

the strong working class. How did they do it?
NAFTA, CAFTA, outsourced all of our textile jobs etc.
Next attack the Unions for without them them there are no worker protections or rights to fair wages.
Next gut all government agencies that provide regulation....we can thank St. Ronnie for the start of that revolution...

Add in all of the facts you stated and we have today's environment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Gorbachev had the courage to acknowledge the war was lost and get out. Obama hasn't.

[Robb]

21. Conveniently forgotten in the USSR comparison

...is that the mujahideen numbered about ten times today's Taliban, and they were flush with cash from US.

We spent a boatload of money making sure the Soviets didn't gain ground in Afghanistan. There's no one filling that role for the Taliban at the moment, not even close $$-wise.

So yes, Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires" every time another "empire" is funding things.

[MadHound]

28. No one funding the Taliban?

LOL, look to Saudi Arabia and other such Mid East countries. That's where the funding is coming from, and frankly it is enough to keep the US locked down in a quagmire of a war for a long, long time.

We can't win this war, but it looks as though our so called leaders are willing to bankrupt this country trying.

[Robb]

31. Well, I disagree, clearly.

The numbers from SA and even Pakistan don't add up to a quarter of what we spent thwarting the Soviets. That history's not exactly top secret anymore.

The USSR comparison falls flat in so many places... for example, we have the same number of NATO/ISAF troops committed at the moment that the Soviets did at the height of their effort. Come December we will have been there just as long, and suffered 10% the casualties they did.

It's the same real estate, but the players have changed more than most care to admit. Now, there are plenty of arguments against the war in AfPak, don't get me wrong, I even agree with a bunch of 'em. But this is just bad history right here.

[KillCapitalism]

40. The Taliban uses Afghan farmers to bankroll their operations.

Opium is pretty valuable commodity.

[RainDog]

29. The U.S. has military bases around the world - it's not just Afghanistan

the article doesn't provide the larger picture that others, like Emmanuel Todd, mentioned above, have elucidated clearly.

[Fumesucker]

49. Then we should have soundly defeated them five, six, seven, eight years ago..

This has only been going on for nine years now..

If the Taliban are so weak and underfunded then why are we *still* losing in Afghanistan?

[treestar]

26. Along with the similarities exist the big differences

The Soviet Union was a communist state. We are not.

they didn't have freedom, we do (in spite of rantings that we don't, we really do especially in comparison with the USSR)

[Hydra]

34. Do we have the freedom to stop the MIC?

Do we have the freedom to tell the banks to stop killing our economy?

Freedom is useless without power.

[dkofos]

27. YES

[MadHound]

30. Well D'uh!

Pouring troops, money and resources into a war we can't win while our own population at home is suffering. Yeah, I'd say we're taking the Soviet style of crashing and burning.

[MellowDem]

32. No one goes down like a Soviet...

;-)

[MellowDem]

33. From the first part, the article is really making a stretch...

Afghanistan was not what caused the Soviet Union to collapse, though Reagan would have wanted you to believe that. Nor did just spending a ton on their military, once again something Reagan would want you to think. No, it was their insanely inefficient centralized economy that did them in in a world that was increasingly competitive, capitalist, and efficient.

In that sense the US and the Soviet Union couldn't be more different. Overspending is never a good thing no matter what "empire" you are talking about. But the comparison here is an obvious stretch to say the least.

The only real lesson to learn from the Soviet Union is that Communism is not an effective economic system. Hell, authoritarians have made big, relatively wealthy economies from having capitalist systems, but you don't often see the reverse, if ever. North Korea for example.

[pitohui]

37. yeah it's ridiculous, for one thing, we're not much of an "empire" to begin with

the soviet union was a great many countries crammed together, sure, with russia first among equals, but basically a bunch of countries crammed together that didn't like ea. other much

the united states does not really have all these countries ready to come apart at the seams, well, puerto rico is sort of its own country but it isn't truly interested in going anywhere

anything that blathers on about "empire" and about the usa "empire" is about to fall apart makes little sense to me, ok, say we do "lose" iraq or afghanistan, first off, they're not ours to begin with, second off, it isn't gonna make any bit of difference in our day to day life, any more than losing vietnam did, any more than basically getting stalemated in korea did

fighting over distant lands for "look at me i'm a big important influential country" points is a sad and cruel waste of time, for sure, but it does not compare to the mess of countries in the old soviet union where apparently various ethnic groups were just waiting for the regime to fall so that they could go about the business of killing each other

i don't see a situation possible any more in the usa where, say, all the uzbeks would get run out of an entire country in a few days, at best, we have some race riots and then people settle down and realize nobody's going anywhere

it just isn't analogous

the soviet union was indeed an empire, just a fragile one, but we're actually pretty much a single country, we just have a lot of grumpy people in it

[EFerrari]

35. His interview w/ Amy covering this material:

Prt 1
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/18/afghan

Prt 2
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/6/18/part_ii_tom_engelhardt_on_the_american_way_of_war_how_bushs_wars_became_obamas

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Is this follow dU'ers day?

I've been writing about this for years now... and no, not the Soviet Model. It will have specific traits to the US... but ALL empires have a rise and a fall... we are on the fall side of the curve... and it will be shocking to most Americans. It is at hand...

[amborin]

39. K&R and, yes, we are

[DarthDem]

41. Another Problem with the Article

. . . in addition to the others already mentioned and well-presented in this thread, is that Russia these days is arguably better off than it was before the USSR's collapse. Sure, there's a serious kleptocracy problem and many other issues, but honestly, Russia didn't do so badly. They're about as strong now as they were when they were the dominant player in the Soviet Union.

I feel as though the author noticed that we have been in Afghanistan for about as long as the USSR was and tried to make some huge premise out of it. Fail.

[RainDog]

42. you need to provide some facts to back up that claim

...the one about Russia being better off - the one about Russia not doing so badly.

that whole issue was handled poorly - because the U.S. and its allies failed to institute some sort of marshall plan to bring Russia into a union of democratic nations.

instead, people suffered mightily and unnecessarily while the oligarchs bought up the country. Putin is popular now because he has put brakes on the oligarchs - the Russian people hate them. Sex slavery has become a HUGE industry in former Eastern bloc nations - the increase in human trafficking around the world corresponds with the fall of the Soviet Union and the desperation of people there

Of the top nation in the world that traffick in human slavery, at least four of them are eastern bloc nations. (you can google human trafficking to get the names and the sources for this info.)

On the other hand, as noted above, scholars have looked at the ways that money, resources and power is allocated in failing empires - not just the soviet - and have found striking parallels. One such person is noted in the threads here. Have you ever read them? Do you understand their work?

If so, please explain how this article, that merely notes one aspect of these studies, fails while your blind assertions do not. thanks!

[newspeak]

43. Thank you!

There were a few articles after the collapse--some people do not realize how the oligarchs gobbled up anything and everything, while most of the people suffered. And, corruption, greed was rampant.

[DarthDem]

45. Okay

Amusingly, I think your apparently angry post - - sorry if I upset you, BTW - - would be better directed at the almost fact-free (yet still interesting) original piece. Actually, contrary to what you assert, the article doesn't "note" "one aspect" of much of anything as far as I can tell. It simply indicates that we've been in Afghanistan for about as long as the USSR was, and then makes a huge leap into comparing our society to the Soviet Union's "sclerotic" bureaucracy.

Yes, oligarchs (not to mention organized crime, which you didn't) are a huge problem in Russia. I have no idea what you're talking about with your oblique reference to human trafficking. However, if you seriously think that life was better for the average Russian under the iron fist of an often-brutal communist dictatorship . . . well, I think you're the one who needs to do a little reading. :) It's a bit of a stretch to claim that the United States is headed for collapse JUST BECAUSE we happen to be embroiled in Afghanistan - - especially when "failure" there (and barring some really unforeseen events, any phased withdrawal beginning in 2011 won't be the kind of defeat that the Soviets experienced, even if both wars were tragic and probably unnecessary), as pointed out upthread, will likely not have particularly grave conseqeuences for our national security.

[mmonk]

46. I've been saying that ever since the neoconservative plan

for full spectrum dominance began taking shape. Thing is, people look at me with a dumbstruck look when I do.

[inna]

47. The USSR comparison falls flat on most levels -

the only similarities are long-term involvement in Afghanistan and enormous war/"defense" spending.

Perpetual War is historically a multi-trillion dollar racket and is hugely profitable for the corporations and elites who run them. Insanely overbloated military-industrial complex is the manifestation of American capitalism/imperialism with all of its implications.

We're not going down like the Soviets - or if we are, it's going to happen for entirely different reasons.