Freedom is whatever the president says it is, pending revision.
James Bovard
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

May 11, 2005

US Economic Collapse: The Real Tipping Point?

by Leon Hadar

The American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have ignited hopes among Washington's neoconservatives that the U.S., taking advantage of the post-Cold War unipolar moment and its dominant military power, will gradually transform into a global empire.

So the debate among neocons rages over such topics as: Will Iran and/or Syria and/or North Korea be the next target(s) for American-led "regime change"? Will America take steps to contain the rise of China as a potential challenger to its hegemonic power, which could lead to war between the two powers? Is the U.S. encouraging a split in Europe to prevent the emergence of a European Union that could contain U.S. economic and military power?

But the insurgency in "liberated" Iraq, two years after President George W. Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" before a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," has raised doubts about whether Washington can produce reruns of Iraq in Iran or other countries.

Winning the War of Images

So it's not surprising that much neocon propaganda in recent months has aimed at countering the depressing reality in Mesopotamia by suggesting that a "tipping point" is about to be reached in Baghdad, one that would mark the defeat of the anti-American insurgency and the triumph of "freedom."

These neocons have already celebrated several such tipping points – the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad, the capture of the dictator and the killing of his sons, the "handover of sovereignty" to a provisional Iraqi government, the invasions and destruction of Fallujah, and finally, the parliamentary election on Jan. 30 in that country.

As journalist Mark Danner noted, each of these events has been highly successful as an example of "the management of images – the toppling of Saddam's statue, the intrusive examination of the unkempt former dictator's mouth and beard, the handing of documents of sovereignty from coalition leader L. Paul Bremer to Iraqi leader Iyad Allawi, the voters happily waving their purple fingers – and each image has powerfully affirmed the broader story of what American leaders promised citizens the Iraq war would be."

What they promised, Danner pointed out, was "a war of liberation to unseat a brutal dictator, rid him of his weapons of mass destruction, and free his imprisoned people, who would respond with gratitude and friendship, allowing American troops to return very quickly home."

But as these images dissolved into thin air, it became difficult to fit the "pseudo-events" into the storyline promoted by the neocons that was supposed to bring about freedom and peace in that country.

The anti-American insurgency has resumed in full force. The election proved to be not a triumph of American-style liberty but the victory of Shi'ite identity and Kurdish nationalism over the Sunnis. America is being drawn into what is gradually evolving into a low-level civil war.

Apparently, we have to wait for another of those tipping points.

Meanwhile in the Real World, as opposed to the universe of "pseudo-events" and wishful thinking, there are some indications that economic and military pressures are making it a Mission Impossible to accomplish the imperial fantasies concocted in think tanks in Washington by American intellectuals who have never met a war they didn't like (as long as they didn't have to actually fight in it).

Both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times reported last week that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded in a classified analysis presented to Congress that the strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it far more difficult for the U.S. military to beat back new acts of aggression and launch a preemptive strike or prevent conflict in another part of the world.

Indeed, in what the L.A. Times described as "a sober assessment of the Pentagon's ability to deal with global threats," General Richard B. Myers concluded that the American military is at "significant risk" of being unable to prevail against enemies abroad in the manner that Pentagon war plans mandate.

It seems that empire-building is a costly and risky business, and according to several polls, that is certainly the conclusion of the American people, some of whom actually have to get into real tanks and fight in real wars in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Recent polls have indicated that the majority of Americans don't believe that the costs of the war in Iraq in terms of U.S. dollars and casualties were worth the results. That in turn should place major constraints on the willingness of the Bush administration and Congress to launch new preemptive wars and expand the empire.

But will it? In the short run, one should expect the imperial project masquerading as the neocon narrative of freedom to continue its advance as long as the costs are perceived by Americans to be bearable.

But the combination of an overstretched U.S. military – the U.S. Army, for example, fell short of its recruiting objective in April, the third straight monthly deficit – as well as rising budget deficits and a weakening U.S. dollar are bound to have some effect on the policies pursued by Washington.

Interestingly, the notion of the U.S. experiencing an "imperial overstretch" as a result of rising military budgets and of maintaining its hegemony was very popular in the late 1980s, when it was promoted by such strategic thinkers as Paul Kennedy.

It seemed to have lost its appeal at a time when the high-tech boom and stock market euphoria reduced budget deficits and there was a growing sense that Americans would be able to secure their military predominance without engaging in major wars.

But now things are starting to look different. Interest in Kennedy's thinking seems to have reignited as the deficit explodes, reflecting growing defense spending.

In practical terms, the U.S. needs to attract around a billion dollars a day to prevent the dollar's collapse and keep interest rates low.

Were foreigners to decide to shift a portion of their dollar reserves into euros, the U.S. could face an economic crisis. Now that could be a real "tipping point."

Reprinted from the Singapore Business Times, reprinted with author's permission. Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd.

comments on this article?

  • The Pillorying of Charles Freeman and America's Loss

  • The Return of Realist Interventionism

  • Islam and the West:
    The Myth of the Green Peril

  • Israel's Not-So-Future Perfect

  • Beware of Big Ideas

  • Peace Not Near on Middle East's 'Time Horizon'

  • Who Lost the Middle East?

  • Military Humanitarianism Won't Help Myanmar

  • Need a (Nuclear) Umbrella? Call Hillary

  • Futile Surges and Bailouts

  • The Pitfalls of Forecasting Foreign Policy

  • Balance of Power Is Continuing to Shift From the US

  • Bye, Bye Tora Bora; Hello Subprime Mortgages

  • Neocons Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Iran 'Threat'

  • The Mideast Strategic- Consensus Fantasy

  • Look Who's Downplaying Iran's Nuclear Threat

  • US Cannot Force Regime Change in Pakistan

  • The Tunnel at the
    End of the Light

  • When Reel Tales Rewrite
    Real History

  • The Costs of Isolating Myanmar

  • The Surge Scam: Getting Rid of the Goat

  • Dangerous Delusions

  • Hayek's Insights Apply to Iraq War as Well

  • Time to Ignore the Middle East?

  • The Wolfowitz Touch – or How to Lose US Credibility

  • Iraq War May End With an Isolationist US

  • The Bush Legacy:
    Headed for Hisses?

  • Another Victim of the Anti-Neocon Revolution?

  • Is Washington Being Sidelined on the Middle East?

  • The Axis of Evil: And Then There Was One

  • Listen to the Foxes, Not Hedgehogs, on Iraq

  • Expanding the War to Iran: Another 'Urban Legend'?

  • A Military 'Surge' to a
    Political Nowhere

  • Brace Yourself for 2007

  • The Right Men, the Wrong President

  • The Baker-Hamilton Recommendations: Too Little, Too Late?

  • A Losing War, a Failed President, a Weak Dollar: We've Been Here Before

  • Rumors of Neoconservatism's Death Exaggerated

  • Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword

  • Can Jim Baker Save the American Establishment?

  • The Humbling of the Hegemon

  • A New Kind of Neocon?

  • US-Iran Shootout Is Inevitable

  • Has the Hegemon Been Humbled in Lebanon?

  • And the Loser Is... Everyone

  • Playing Cowboy – and Falling Off the Horse

  • Baghdad, Beirut, Doha

  • The US Can't Run the Show in the Middle East

  • 'Birth Pangs of a
    New Middle East'?

  • All Hell Breaks Loose in the Middle East

  • Is Anyone Still Listening to the Flaming Bush?

  • Israel's Failed Strategy: The Writing Is on the Wall

  • Nationalism: The Last Refuge of the Political Loser

  • The Ever Elusive 'Tipping Point' in Iraq

  • US Stumbles Onto Road to Diplomacy With Iran

  • Iraq Like Water Off a Duck's Back to Bush, Blair

  • Why Can't the US Apply Its New North Korea Policy to Iran?

  • US-Iran Ties: Is the Pen Mightier Than the Sword?

  • Bush's Slow Race
    in the Last Lap

  • If Only Bill Gates
    Made Foreign Policy

  • The War on Terror Is Over,
    and China Won

  • From the China Lobby to the Israel Lobby

  • 'Democratizing' Iran:
    A Case of Déjà Vu

  • Muddling Through

  • Saying Good Bye to Dubai; Bidding Adieu to Globalization?
  • Leon Hadar is the author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East (Palgrave Macmillan). He is the former United Nations bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post and is currently the Washington correspondent for the Business Times of Singapore. Visit his blog.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2017 Antiwar.com