LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 23, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Colbert Slams PBS for Appeasing Koch Brothers

A Call to Action

Obama Heckled During Speech, Warren Lands a Book Deal, and More

How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour

Terracide and the Terrarists: Destroying the Planet for Record Profits

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * A Mission on Climate Change

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
A Call to Action
Act of Congress

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

It’s Obama’s Empire Now

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 13, 2010
Karzai and Obama
White House / Pete Souza

President Barack Obama and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai meet in an arrival ceremony at the Presidential Palace in Kabul on March 28.

By Stanley Kutler

The American Empire is alive and well—and as expansive as ever. We have established more than 700 military bases across the world, largely encircling the peripheries of Russia and China, which are now central to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The Cold War in the aftermath of World War II drove the expansion as we searched for security—and markets, to be sure. 

Perhaps we now are the largest imperial power the world ever has known. Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan trivializes the once-massive naval and air facility at Cam Ranh Bay during the Vietnam War, and we have developed “permanent” mega-bases in Iraq. We engage in denial, and euphemisms abound. Stumping for the colonial takeover of the Philippines in 1901, Theodore Roosevelt, so fashionable today, insisted that “there is not an imperialist in the country. ... Expansion? Yes. ... Expansion has been the law of our national growth.” Chalmers Johnson reminds us of Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s liberal “idealist imperialism,” which would make the world safe for democracy. (See Johnson’s “The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic” and other works.) Deceit comes from the top.

Johnson cites neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer, who, as we embarked on the Afghanistan war, touted the British model and remarked that “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.” Oh? Then why did the British with their jodhpurs and pith helmets fail in Afghanistan, as did the Russians, whether Cossacks with swords or Soviets with missiles? Why did the British ignominiously retreat from their empire, and why did the Soviets tuck tail and leave Afghanistan in the 1980s? Rather pathetic models, and hardly to be emulated, one would think.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently visited the Republic of Georgia, which Russia had invaded in 2008 in helping establish independence for two breakaway provinces. George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice expressed outrage and sympathy for the Georgians—who sit astride the oil-rich Caucasus. We are still at it, now in a “bipartisan” manner, pushing for, or appearing to push for, NATO membership for Georgia. When asked to specify why Georgia was so important for the United States, Clinton responded with glittering generalities of support—no blank check here, only evasion.   

Clinton ardently courted an informal alliance. She reiterated the U.S. “commitment” to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  Further, she said that the U.S. “does not recognize spheres of influence”—meaning Russian. In one sense, the statement reflected our foreign policy since 1945, while we of course maintained and expanded our own spheres of influence. The Monroe Doctrine since the 19th century offers ample evidence, and then add the Truman Doctrine, NATO and the now-forgotten CENTO and SEATO.

Advertisement

The Soviet Union is history, but Russia has maintained its “spheres of influence.” After the collapse of communism, Georgia and Russia renewed their economic ties, but tensions over the country’s European ambitions, the desire of some political groups to join NATO, the discord over Georgian involvement with Chechen rebels, and Russian ambitions for the provinces of South Ossetia left Russia less than thrilled with the Georgian government. The 2008 invasion underlined Moscow’s determination to maintain its own “sphere of influence.”

The Obama administration is thoroughly committed to defense of the empire it inherited; there is no or little retreat from the mindless expansion of American ambition. Teddy Roosevelt would be proud. Why are supporters of Barack Obama dismayed and shocked by his Afghanistan course, when, after all, in his 2008 campaign he promised nothing less? In his first presidential campaign debate with John McCain, Obama said: “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. … So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”

Democrats and liberals so fear the war-loving right that they believe they must have their own adventures. But this is not 1961, when President John F. Kennedy told an enthralled nation that we “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” And thus he brought the Vietnam quagmire. There are limits to our power; sadly, presidential candidates will not utter that truth, whatever painful adventures we have had. Obama might remember what he said in 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.” Our diminished capacities and resources make such endeavors problematic. We cannot ignore present realities and forget the past.

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele recently attacked the Obama administration’s Afghanistan war efforts in a thoughtful statement. Typically, the media jumped on him—NPR called it his “gaffe”—and his speech contained the media’s Sound Bite of the Week: “a war of Obama’s choosing.” Steele’s remarks, which include a larger criticism of the war, are worth reading in full. [Editor’s note: Click here to see a transcript of Steele’s comment.]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The Republican ever-ready war hawks assailed Steele, who has no visible supporters within his party, let alone among Democrats. (He is unlikely to lose his position because of this flap; his presence is useful electorally.)  William Kristol invoked our Eleventh Commandment that political differences over foreign policy stop at the water’s edge (has he heard of the Internet?)—the usual ploy to thwart debate. Kristol called Steele’s remarks an “affront” to the Republican Party and to our “commitment to our soldiers.” 

Sen. McCain and his cohorts metaphorically grabbed the microphone and assailed Steele because he undermined and assaulted the basic imperial behavior of the past six decades. Sen. Lindsay Graham, McCain’s faithful sidekick, said, “This is not President Obama’s war, this is America’s war.” But Steele may have been playing good politics. The Afghanistan war is increasingly unpopular, even though for now his critique has not gained traction.

Sadly, there is little debate over the war in Afghanistan, as there is little about foreign policy generally. Steele confronted a longstanding consensus that supports our imperial expansion—again, supported by real and imagined security interests, magnified by economic considerations, not least of which is the health of our domestic “defense industry” enterprise. Our foreign policy course hardly arouses Congress, which has not raised any serious discussion since the Senate ratified the NATO treaty in 1949, or when Congress organized to cut off funding for the Vietnam conflict. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee fulfilled McCain’s prediction that Gen. David Petraeus would be quickly and unanimously confirmed as military commander in Afghanistan. Sen. Robert Byrd’s death diminished the opposition, leaving few in the Senate with the will or courage to challenge U.S. policy in that war. As Petraeus took command of the “international” forces in Afghanistan, he declared that “we are in this to win.” Obama’s promise to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011 may be politely ignored. We can be sure the general did not undertake this command to dismantle an American army. President Obama may look back nostalgically on the simplicity of sacking Gen. Stanley McChrystal.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 16, 2010 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

The struggle for peace and justice.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 16, 2010 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

The struggle for peace and justice.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

I refuse to surrender to negativity. Surrendering to negativity is like being lost in the wilderness, and choosing to lie down and die.

Actually it’s worse than that. It’s like being lost in the wilderness with a group of people; being sent to go for help, and then choosing to lie down and die.

We need to persevere, never give up, make the best available choices, and continue the struggle.

Report this

By Richard_Ralph_Roehl, July 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

I supported and $upported Mr. Obama till the bitter end. I had planned to vote for him back in the 2008 $ellections. And then $enator Obama (at the time) voted with $enator McCain (and the other whores) to give WELFARE to the criminal bankster gambler addicts in the Wall $treet casino. I was also flummoxed on why Mr. Obama, a man of mixed race, would so open-lie support the ethno-racist apartheid policies of Zionist $ociopaths in the theocrazy of Israel.

Like the vicious dry drunk $ociopath (Bush the Lessor), Mr. Obama seems to be playing the role puppet… or even worse, the role of “house nigger” for the Amerikan ruling class. Tell me it ain’t so, Mr. Obama.

Don’t like my rhetoric? Hey! It’s not my fault if the truth is ugly. Old Coyote Knose… if it quacks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, then it’s probably a god damn duck!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 15, 2010 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

It’s a 2 term empire, although Franklin Delano Roosevelt held the American Empire for 4 terms, and if he had not have died, would have held it longer.  The populace Left loved FDR and perhaps President Obama will be able follow to some degree FDR’s plan.  The one thing I know is that one can’t judge what President Obama is doing based upon what the sophists and propagandists in the Conservative Right-Wing Media say.  Here is some of what President Obama has signed:

Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Signed: Friday, April 23, 2010
 
Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, Signed: Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Signed: Tuesday, March 23, 2010
 
Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, Signed: Thursday, March 18, 2010
 
Emergency Aid to American Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act, Signed: Wednesday, January 27, 2010
 
2009 Tax Breaks for Haiti Donations, Signed: Friday, January 22, 2010
 
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, Signed: Friday, October 30, 2009
 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Signed: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
 
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, Signed: Thursday, October 22, 2009
 
Cash For Clunkers Extension, Signed: Thursday, August 6, 2009
 
Homebuyer Assistance and Improvement Act of 2010, Signed on July 02, 2010
 
Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part II, Signed on July 02, 2010
 
National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2010, Signed on July 02, 2010  

Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010, Signed on June 25, 2010
 
A bill to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, Signed on July 31, 2009

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Signed on May 20, 2009
 
Protecting Incentives for the Adoption of Children with Special Needs Act of 2009, Signed on May 15, 2009

To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2011, Signed on May 14, 2010


To permit the use of previously appropriated funds to extend the Small Business Loan Guarantee Program, and for other purposes, Signed on March 26, 2010

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti, Signed on January 22, 2010.

Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009, Signed on February 27, 2010

Credit CARD Technical Corrections Act of 2009, Signed on November 06, 2009

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, Signed on October 28, 2009

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009, Signed on October 22, 2009

Native American Heritage Day Act of 2009, Signed on June 26, 2009

Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, Signed on March 18, 2010

North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Signed on March 25, 2010

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Signed on March 23, 2010

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Signed on March 23, 2010

Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010, Signed on February 24, 2010

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, Signed on February 12, 2010

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, Signed on October 22, 2009

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Signed on January 29, 2009

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, Signed on May 20, 2009

Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, Signed on February 04, 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Signed on February 17, 2009

Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, Signed on May 22, 2009

Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, Signed on May 22, 2009

Report this

By Jahbulon, July 15, 2010 at 10:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And kidnappings, torture, drone murders, Guantanamo live on under Bush II!

Report this

By Bart Roberts, July 15, 2010 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

FTA: ‘Sen. Lindsay Graham, McCain’s faithful sidekick, said, “This is not President Obama’s war, this is America’s war.” ‘

“Sidekick.” Such a nice word. Catamite would have been more accurate, but sidekick is nicer.

Report this

By psw, July 14, 2010 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How much space, let alone geographical space, does it take to conceive and plan a terror attack? It certainly doesn’t take 250 thousand square miles - the area of Afghanistan.

Khalid Sheik Mohammad was arrested in an apartment in Karachi. The perpetrators of 9/11 did their planning in apartments as far flung as Germany and San Diego.

Realizing that our resources in fighting terrorism are limited, how cost effective is it to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, to secure the borders of Afghanistan from Al Queda, when all a few dedicated jihadists need to plan an attack is a tiny apartment here, there, or anywhere?

If the purpose of the war in Afghanistan is to prevent another 9/11 - it’s nuts. Plain and simple.

Report this

By jkehoe, July 14, 2010 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Keep in mind the first duty of all political actors are to get elected-reelected.  In the US you need huge amounts of $ to win so by extention whoever finances campaigns largely tends to pull the winners strings. Its their values, attitudes and beliefs the elected bring to Washington.  Very few actors have had the voter strength to do their own thing, even if they so choose- Ted Kennedy was one of the few. And party leaders,esp. the President, are party point persons, out helping other members get the “message out” to help get them elected. Messages are tailored to the specific audience to maximize their support while minimizing opposition support. As a result speeches tend, in many cases, to appeal to nationalism or the strength of the ecomomic system, with the local spin on them, and few specifics are ever mentioned. In a society controlled by the industrial(union)-finance-military-media complex, those who largely finance the political campaigns, conventional wisdom says foreign policy directions most likely won’t change direction until a crisis situation occurs, say unstable market conditions, or a financial meltdown… then the necessary foreign policy corrections will be made. Until that point its business as usual,ie,the status quo with maybe a few twiches.

Report this

By jstraw4, July 14, 2010 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Great piece here, but he has the reference to JFK wrong.  Kennedy was committed to an early end to the Cold War, to peace with Castro, to a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, to reduced defense budgets, and—to getting out of South Vietnam.  He had a poisonous relationship with the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, and the larger forces of the Military Industrial Complex.  Whether one concludes (as many have) that this led to Dealey Plaza is another question, but excellent scholarship (on the question of his foreign policy) for the past decade has been overwhelmingly convincing.  See the work of John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, James Douglass, James Carroll, James Galbraith, and David Talbott, among others.

Report this

By SoTexGuy, July 14, 2010 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

Kudos to the author for this thoughtful and hard hitting piece.. also thanks to some of the regulars who supplied excellent comments.

Here’s something else not much talked about that may come to have a role in ending our endless wars.. the soldiers themselves.. I saw this recently in a great piece at MMore.com:

“As the American War in Vietnam staggered to a close, U.S. troops were in an open state of rebellion.  Fraggings—attacks on commanders (often by fragmentation grenade)—were rising, so was the escape into drug use.  Troops bucked orders, mutinied, and regularly undertook “search and evade” missions, holing up in safe spots while calling in false coordinates.

AWOLs and desertions went through the roof.  During World War II, Marine Corps desertion rates peaked at 8.8 per 1,000 in 1943.  In 1972, the last full year of U.S. combat in Vietnam, the Marines had a desertion rate of 65.3 per 1,000.  And precious few Marines were even in Vietnam at that point.  AWOL rates were also staggering—166.4 per 1,000 for the much more numerous Army and 170 per 1,000 for the Marines.  In a widely-read 1971 Armed Forces Journal article, retired Colonel Robert D. Heinl, Jr., wrote, “By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state of approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

It didn’t take rocket-scientists to figure out that you couldn’t conduct long-term, wheel-spinning occupations in distant lands with a military like that.”

We may like to think of our soldiers, sailors and airmen as thoughtless automatons, or gun happy un-employed kids.. but there’s much more to them than that..

See the whole article (recommended).. link: http://michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/death-your-doorstep

Adios!

Report this

By News Nag, July 14, 2010 at 2:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey, Call Me Roy, your comment accidentally on purpose left out the biggest Kool-Aid-drinking president of all, Ronnie Reagan.  Your beloved Reagan INVENTED the modern imperial bankrupt-the-U.S. screw-the-people warfare state.  Your blinders must be six inches thick and wraparound.  Your knowledge must be in the negative range to think Reagan brought us morning in America.  Reagan brought us mourning for America, since all that is today comes directly from Reagan’s warfare deprivation economy and privatization mania.

Report this

By peedeecee, July 13, 2010 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment

Follow the money.

It’s that simple.

It’s always that simple.

Report this

By Chris Herz, July 13, 2010 at 10:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I could never have voted for them, but I really hoped for a McCain/Palin administration.  If the USA is to be only another evil empire it may well be better to see it ruled by its stupider, less competent factions. 

Palin 2012!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 13, 2010 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

I will vote for President Obama.  I believe President Obama is doing the very best he can.

Report this

By diamond, July 13, 2010 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

If America stopped having these wars there would be a million unemployed soldiers wandering around with varying degrees of post traumatic stress disorder and an intimate knowledge of guns and bombs. And since making weapons of mass destruction is one of the few manufacturing industries still making lots of money for the American economy the consequences of simply taking away their fake wars and scaling it down would be enormous. It took decades to make this bipartisan mess and it will take decades to dismantle it: IF the Pentagon and the CIA will allow it to be dismantled which I doubt. People who put the blame on Obama don’t know what the situation actually is and how much time will be necessary to end all this. No one man can do it on his own: it’s the work of generations, as was creating it in the first place. The American economy and its foreign policy has been built around the military/intelligence juggernaut for a very long time and the Republicans are waiting in the wings to do it all again once enough voters blame Obama for what the Republicans themselves are chiefly responsible for.

Report this
adc14's avatar

By adc14, July 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

Obama, what a disgrace! I still can’t believe I voted for this man. These wars will bankrupt us. You need to start buying your cat food, now.

Report this
adc14's avatar

By adc14, July 13, 2010 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment

Obama—what a disgrace. Start buying your cat food, now.

Report this

By Bill Jones, July 13, 2010 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Obama was going to make any changes to the Imperial Project He wouldn’t have been allowed to be elected.

Report this

By call me roy, July 13, 2010 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

Oh, come on now, I am sure that Pravda America (I mean MSNBC or CNN) will have some “expert” commentator or a White House “official” who in the next 20 minutes, will remind everyone how the Bush Administration started all the problems. (Personally like many) I realize that Bush was a kool-aid drinker (like Bush 1, Clinton, and Jimmy boy) from the globalist well and all are the cause (with the Congress’s) for the no-job problem for the next thirty years.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, July 13, 2010 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

If push came to shove and each and every voting American was forced (by water-boarding?)to answer the following question:

Should we spend even more on defence to ensure our “freedom?”

You KNOW what the answer would be. YES! When it comes to guns or butter, Americans have always been far more willing to spend on guns.

So, please spare me all the fake outrage and Obama name-calling and the naive notion that the U.S. is anything but a military industrial complex. You all forget that, according to the Media and our leadership in 2002, WE WANTED THESE WARS. Now in 2010, we still want them because the represent production and power and “jobs.”

Please quit pretending that we are anything but a failing empire, destined to disintegrate into nothing more than antagonistic, regional areas. It doesn’t really matter if Obama or McCain or the Dahlia Lama was leading us today. We have all chosen this path and will suffer the consequences.

Report this

By Hammond Eggs, July 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Perhaps we now are the largest imperial power the world ever has known.

This is true now but we’re on our way out.  The bigger they are, the harder they fall.  The average life span of an American male is 78 years.  That seems like a long time because it’s your life but historically speaking, it’s very, very short.  In 78 years the United States will be nothing like it is today.  We will be one of a number of sweating mercantile tyrannies but the empire will be gone.  And Obama?  No one will even remember that contemptible shyster.

Report this

By Jerry Elsea, July 13, 2010 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

“Carl” asks, “Why does anyone support Obama? Where is the outrage? Where
are the anti-war protests?”

Despite my profound disappointment over Afghanistan, I continue to support
Obama because the other major-party choice was McCain-Palin with air
attacks on Iran likely to follow. Yes, campaigner Obama proposed ramping up
in “the right war” in Afghanistan. Am I the only one who thought he said that
just to look tough for election purposes?

I am outraged that Obama couches his doomed Afghanistan policy in terms of
“defending our freedom” and “needing to win.” Unlike predecessor Bush,
Obama is smart enough to know how ridiculous that sounds.

As for Charles Krauthammer’s touting of the 19th-century British model,
“Englishmen self-confident in their jodhpurs and pith helmets,” British author
George MacDonald Fraser (1925-2008) captured the lunacy there in his 1985
novel, “Flashman and the Dragon.” Fictional rogue Harry Flashman, who got his
start in Afghanistan circa 1842, comments 25 years later on British policy in
foreign adventures: “That’s the great thing about policy, and why the world is
such an infernal place: the man who makes the policy don’t have to carry it out,
and the man who carries it out ain’t responsible for the policy.”

Let’s see. Who is making policy in Afghanistan these days?

Obama. As Harry Flashman would say, he don’t have to carry it out.

Who’s carrying it out?

Right now, Gen. David Petraeus. And he ain’t responsible
for the policy.

You bet I’m outraged. And yes, this is a protest against this nation’s policy of empire and perpetual war. It is helping make this world, as Flashman put it, “an infernal place.”

Report this

By balkas, July 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

A corporal only get’s moved up to a seargent. A slave or near-slave, get’s promoted to a free serf [in movement only, tho].]
Of course, serfdom is layered [not all serfs are equal]as is masterhood [not all masters are equally masterful]
In any case, i evaluate as true that in US and many asocialistic lands, there are two-much-tiered groups of people: a minority of people as masterclass and majority of ‘people’ or nonpeople as an underclass.
{OK! An explanation is needed for this: u are either a person or ur not;i.e., in the arena of pie sharing}

As in the old days, a master [agha, bey, king, prince, lord, boyar] needs many servants [cook, maid, gardener, horse groomer]

Similarly, in US with its 10 to 30 mn lords [of various wealth-power], need at least 200mn adult servants.

These servanst serve the lords in mining, army, forestry, transport, fishing, tilling, repairing, etc.

Masterclass realizes that in modern times, peace and masterhood cannot coexist. And that is frightful to them. So waging, poverty, fears, uncertainty, ignorance must go on; it is the only way US can go on and wage wars.

But it does seem to me that more and more americans are espying these facts [? one mn]and if this trend continues, vast mastery by a minority over majority may subside or even evanesce in decades to come! tnx

Report this

By Old Man Turtle, July 13, 2010 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Kutler seems to be completely fooled by appearances here.  “The Empire” is neither alive nor well.  It is a cannibal zombie vampire that has begun to devour itself, even as its massive momentum has it continuing to wreak havoc around the world in the midst of its collapse and disintegration. 

Behind the facade of military might is a hollowed-out shell, bankrupt in every conceivable way.  At its core is a black hole of institutionalized idiocy already sucking all the glamorous pretensions of the “civilized” peoples back into the howling oblivion from which they spewed ages ago, to infect fatally both the “gods” and their bio-engineered human slaves.

All that remains now is to stand back from the thing’s collision with the immovable object of Earth’s Living Arrangement, then when the dust and debris have settled to pull any survivors from the wreckage.

Report this

By ocjim, July 13, 2010 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

I have to think that Obama is too deluded or too political to give up on wasting billions for an empire that sustains the military-industrial complex.

Report this
thecrow's avatar

By thecrow, July 13, 2010 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

“every discussion of Afghanistan should start
with the recognition of the TAPI pipeline in the (southern) Helmund province”

The snake he’s long
seven [hundred] miles

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

Report this

By Carl, July 13, 2010 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

Do any “liberals” or “progressives” realize that Obama is spending more on our military each year than Bush ever did? This was not pushed by a big spending Congress, Obama proposed these large increases over Bush’s massive budgets.

So why does anyone support Obama? Where is the outrage? Where are the anti-war protests?

Report this

By rudyspeaks1, July 13, 2010 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

Look, who needs another article that paints our continued empire-building as a
mania, or mistake, or “mind-set”? Rather than marvel at the wackiness of our
deadly interventions, it’s time to ask what real motivations fuel them. Like “oil”.
With Iraq it’s blatantly obvious, but every discussion of Afghanistan should start
with the recognition of the TAPI pipeline in the (southern) Helmund province,
you know, where Obama sent the “surge troops” instead of the (N.E.) Waziristan
province where the (supposed) target, Al Qaeda fighters (all 50-100 of them)
are holed up. Because it lays bare the undeniable fact that, Global Warming be
damned, the US government is working as it always has, for the oil industry.
Despite the lip service, the vague references to do something, eventually, about
killing the Earth, the fact is, every substantive action actually taken, in the
Caucuses, Middle East or Gulf of Mexico is designed to not interfere with, but
actually increase our reliance on hydrocarbon fuel. Both parties are owned by
those interests. Breathlessly dissecting their serial failures is to buy into that
tired perspective that “if the leaders only knew better…” Don’t fool yourself,
they know everything you do.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.