The right wing has no intention of destroying the government.

I don’t think the right wing wants to “destroy” the government so much as it wishes to control it, Robert. But often, forces are released which cannot be controlled, which take on a life of their own. Frankenstein’s monsters, you might call these forces.

Politics of war, make little sense as does the politics of politics, I suspect even more so to the people who died for reasons unknown to them.

As I see it, Robaire, the Russians like and prefer a strong central government, even if it’s pitiless (Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, for instance); we Americans don’t. Sure, we haven’t had a rebellion since 1861-‘65, but I’d say we’re overdue for one. We’re an extremely heterogeneous, even fractious people, and a lot of us have arms and ammunition (I myself am armed, though I’m not a troublemaker or militia member).

It’s possible, as you say, that the USA may abandon enormous amounts of military arms and equipment in its overseas garrisons once the long trek home begins; what I fear is that the troops themselves may be stuck far from home because the US government (or what’s left of it) won’t have the money to bring them back. The poor slobs overseas will be told something like “Good luck, you’re on your own”, and then they’ll have to decide whether to put down roots where they are or try to return home on their own.

Whatever occurs in the coming years, as you said in your original message, it’s going to be uncommonly messy—certainly messier than the end of the Soviet Union, I’ll aver.

As long as the plutocrats and corporatists remain in control via their ownership of the vaunted two party monopoly and at least half of the current population meets the definition of “dupe”, this nation will continue to try to fight it’s way out of the paper bag that it placed itself into!

@ Paul_GA

...difference is that this declining empire has nuclear weapons, something the Kaiser’s Germany lacked…

Yes, but so did the former Soviet Union (née Russian Empire) and its demise was relatively non-violent. Certainly no one got nuked.

I don’t think the huge stockpile of weapons, including nuclear, the US maintains is necessarily translated into global violence.

On the contrary, the staggering expense of manufacturing, deploying and maintaining its behemoth war machine is the leading cause of decline.

Five years from now we will see the US walking away from most of its global military commitments and 800+ bases. Planes, helicopters, tanks, Humvees, weapons caches, drones and indoor fast food malls will be abandoned and left behind as the Legions pack up and go home.

If history is any guide, Robaire, there’ll likely be a right-wing movement to re-establish a “better” Empire in place of the crumbling old one, a la the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. The difference is that this declining empire has nuclear weapons, something the Kaiser’s Germany lacked.

Perhaps in the “Tea Party”, we’re seeing such a movement in its birth pangs ...

...the great American “Long War” on global terror and violent extremism was not once mentioned. No one seemed to think it worth attention, although the present national outlook for the U.S. was alluded to, usually in pessimistic terms.

Everyone but USians now recognises the end of the US Empire. It’s pretty much a Fait Accompli.

Now it’s a question of how the political, economic and power relationships will re-align themselves in future.

Which is what this forum was essentially concerned with.

It took hundreds of years for the Roman empire to finally disappear; far less for the British and Russian empires; and the crumbling of the US empire may happen much faster than anyone (especially USians) can foresee.

Less than 10 years, certainly.

It’s pretty much an unstoppable event.

I wouldn’t want to be a USian right now; history tells us that the decline of an Empire (sometimes) can be very, very messy.

My present theory is one of ‘building the new world in the shell of the old,’ to quote the IWW.  That is, we need to create new, non-coercive institutions and relations from the ground up which will gradually supplant state (coercive) institutions and relations.

Quite so, Anarcissie; the State is based on coercion, not on voluntary cooperation. The problem, one could say, is how to reduce the level of coercion without having things spiraling out of control (I’m a minarchist myself; the State must exist for some things, but one wonders, as Juvenal put it, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”).

The logic of the state—some should control others—leads naturally to war and empire—some states should control other states.  The problem is exacerbated when the state is associated with tribalism.

@ Anarcissie

Spot on! Virtually all of the world’s problems, as I see it, can be traced to the desire of certain countries to become “Great States” or “Superpowers”, and remain such once they’ve achieved such levels of power, at all costs—to themselves and others.

On the road to world peace, we will need dissolution or at least fundamental reconfiguration of the nation-state, to say the least.

On the road to world peace, we will need all kinds of mutually advantageous coalitions of nations working together to solve competitive interests before they are allowed to reach crisis proportions. It will be a new way of looking at the future together, involving foresight and mutual tolerance and understanding. 
  Hopefully, it will be more people-centeredd and less profit-centered.  The first signs are beginning to appear, as in this article. We need to think more about what could be, and perhaps a little less about what has been and what is.