Analysis:
The 21st Century: Opus Two
Were such bold statements nothing more than the silly blather of the Project for the New American Century, the implied prescriptions and plans would be nothing but fodder for a good round of derisive laughter by people everywhere. Were these bold statements nothing but the platform and fanfare of the ruling party in Washington, they would merit no more than a furrowed brow and a grumble of dismissal. But these are not the fanciful dreams of foolish hawks in neo-conservative think-tanks, nor are they the bluster of craven politicians sucking at the breast of tough-talk-loving military/industrial campaign contributors; these are the stuff of hard-wired blueprints already being operationalized in the Pentagon, according to the not-easily-dismissed conservative newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, in a March 11, 2005, article by Greg Jaffe entitle, "Rumsfeld details big military shift in new document," which laid out the details of these military/empire plans.
The most interesting part of this document, some might argue, is not its contents, but rather how those contents came into the possession of a reporter who swiftly brought the plans to the attention of the world. While not the subject of the current article, it would be of no small interest to determine why exactly a person or several persons unknown at the Pentagon are so vitally interested in exposing what the neo-conservatives are doing. Such a line of inquiry might reveal a deep rift among factions in the Pentagon, a schism that could not only determine the military posture of America for generations to come, but could also provide a window on a schism threatening the readiness of the armed forces to deal with real threats because of operational and command structure differences among and even within the branches of the armed forces.
To the subject of today's analysis, however, important details of the Pentagon's operationalization of the Project for the New American Century must be brought to light. The first installment in this series provided an overview of the plan, along with assumptions underlying the plan concerning major nation-states that will be affected by it. Disturbing to many is the neo-conservatives' firm belief that a united Europe will willingly or otherwise follow the United States in transforming its economy from one primarily oriented toward production of consumer goods to one primarily oriented toward production of military goods, with both the U.S. and its European counterpart allocating to Third World countries the manufacture of such goods and services as are not necessary to the arms race that will fester throughout the century.
As disturbing as this assumption might be to those who believe that Europe would never become such a reflection of America, the assumption of who will be America's most powerful ally is equally troubling to others: if the neo-conservatives have their way, China and the U.S. will lock arms in a paired predator control of nations and the resources within them, thereby holding the nation-state of Europe in economic dependency as it must negotiate access to and use of resources vital to the function of its economy and its society.
The Mission
The four-fold mission of the U.S. military in the 21st Century is keyed upon the central intent to no longer plan for the use of American military forces defensively or even pre-emptively. The United States armed forces will instead pose as constabulary, meaning that the personnnel of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force will be the world's policemen (or "constables," if you will). The Pentagon document, and Project for the New American Century writings before it, drop all forswearing of offensive strikes and embrace an aggressive and provocative posture throughout the world.
Mission One
The first component of the four parts is the propping up of "failed" regimes against internal threats. This, of course, makes the rulers of those nations wholly dependent for their survival upon the good will of the Americans, which means that such regimes—be they democratic, despotic, or some combination of both—will not be able to decline or even modify the will of Washington. Although, as was the case in Iraq, the President and his subordinates will insist that the "light of democracy" is the necessary end result for these propped-up regimes, it is highly unlikely that Washington will want anything to do with the prospects of any democratic outcomes that put people into power opposed to American interests. As a consequence, the United States will be forced to commit to a nearly permanent, de facto occupation force in each country that it so manages, lest the subject country become strong enough to take care of its own internal problems and thereby lose its incentive to follow America's dictates.
While this might seem like a prescription for massive numbers of U.S. troops, the neo-conservatives might contemplate some approximation of the experience of Great Britain, a nation that, at the peak of its control over peoples of the world, was able to adminstrate and defend its empire with perhaps 50,000 personnel. This to many is a staggering testimony to the effectiveness and efficiency of the British as colonial rulers. No one can say whether or not the neo-conservatives are actually attempting to emulate Great Britain in this regard, but it is fair to note that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was able to successfully ignore the counsel of both politicians and seasoned military commanders in putting a surprisingly low number of boots on the ground in Iraq. Critics point out that the consequence of this was a far longer and bloodier war there than would otherwise have been the case, but that misses the point. To the neo-conservatives, the war against Iraq was successful: the dictator was ousted, American corporate interests were advanced enormously there, and the entire region is now under undeniable notice that the United States is capable of invasive violence on a scale that had not previously been believed possible. To the neo-cons, Iraq goes in the "Win" column; and as such, the methods and strategies—among them, the manpower levels—were a success. Thus, the United States can proceed with the fair knowledge that occupation forces around the globe will not substantially over-tax the military in terms of recruitment, retention, and even casualties, despite the faint groans in the media that recruitment goals not being met will eventually lead to a re-instatement of the draft. To the neo-conservatives in general, and to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular, complaints and ominous howls of this sort are just the latest whining by the old guard of the military establishment whose days are numbered anyway.
Mission Two
Defense of the United States, be it within the borders or within embassy compounds scattered throughout the world, is best achieved by neutralizing threats before they can become lethal. This means attacking terrorists where they live, where they train, and where they recruit. And only part of this can be done with traditional military forces, although small, cellularized special operations clusters will be vital to wiping out certain hard targets. But beyond the stuff of Tom Clancy thrillers wherein elite teams of soldiers land, kill the enemy in their tents, then bug out, a clandestine aspect must also be ready, and the neo-cons have no interest in tasking assassinations to the CIA. Instead, the Pentagon will play a far more active and offensive role in the extrajudicial executions of perceived threats, which could range from small-time Islamic freelancers running Websites on through to fiery imams braying in mosques in impoverished, Third World recruiting grounds.
The argument goes that the Cold War mentality of a spy versus spy balance of threat approach—the one to which the CIA is accused of still adhering—is ineffective when the enemy can no longer always be associated with a specific country or bloc.
To what extent this misson component will require continued use of the controversial practice of rendering prisoners to countries that allow torture is unclear; but the fact that such prisoners will not be acquired as the result of any declared war, along with the obvious fact that no one outside of a cell of tasked soldiers will know that it has happened in any given situation, makes for a plausible deniability, even if some of the victims survive to tell their stories, a situation that, in and of itself, is unlikely.
Although this particular mission component appears to be defensive in nature, it is not. Any plan to neutralize terrorist threats must of necessity have as its goal working its way backwards from cells on the verge of causing damage to those bringing the resources together, and on back until, eventually, neutralizations are being done before organizers can even begin to consider early-stage implementations. At its highest level of refinement, then, "defending the homeland" means killing the enemy before even he knows he's ready to be a real enemy. Ideally, there comes a time when the assassinations would serve more as a deterrence signal than as any sort of defense against actual terrorism.
Mission Three
A powerful, pan-global military presence protects vital American interests around the world, especially where resources exist that nations and the peoples of those nations need for a functioning, modern society to survive and grow. By controlling the countries in which resources exist, and by dominating the lanes through which those resources flow from countries of origin to countries where they are demanded, the United States can dictate even to huge nations the political, military, and even social terms by which supply lines will not be closed or narrowed.
In practical terms, countries like Russia will have a choice: either act in such a manner both internally and in foreign affairs as to support American interests, or risk supply disruptions. For Europe as a nation-state, this sets forth a most painful choice: either spend an increasing porion of gross domestic product on building a military that can, itself, establish and protect supply lines, or acceed to U.S. demands of an increasingly intrusive and divisive nature. One way or the other, the character and quality of Europe will be altered. And if this is the fate of a powerhouse like Europe, small states of Africa, Asia, and South America will have even less prospect of going against the rules and requirements of the American empire builders.
Mission Four
In any discussion of mission, there must be a head-on acknowledgment that most of the countries on Earth want weapons of mass destruction. Of more concern than an undesirable country having them is the possibility that a weapon from one of these countries will be acquired by or transferred to a terrorist group. A state that is clearly and openly an enemy of America is not a particular threat just because it has, say, a small stockpile of nuclear bombs. North Korea, for example, is very unlikely to ever use its nuclear weapons; to do so would ensure total annihilation in a reactive strike by the United States.
Terrorist organizations are different, though. In some cases, they can reasonably assume that any retaliatory strike in response to their use, for example, of a nuclear device might damage and maybe even cripple the organization, but the strike would not destroy it. Worse still, because terrorist organizations are not bound by geography, nor are they concerned about the value of fixed physical capital in buildings and cities, the United States might be unable to even identify, much less effectively neutralize, operational command and control within the terrorist organization.
Although from a purely logical point of view, it is highly unlikely that any nation is going to hand over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, it is possible; as such, it is incumbent upon the United States to stop any and every undesirable nation from developing or otherwise acquiring such weaponry. The United States will not long suffer the negotiations going on between Europe and Iran: soon, the United States will simply stop Iran's nascent, bomb-building program before the Iranians start to stockpile nukes for their own purposes, and before they start transferring technology and even entire bombs to organizations that have an insufficient fear of using them.
It should not be inferred from this that the United States will thwart all state-sponsored weapons of mass destruction development plans. Specifically, the nuclear axis that spans India, Israel, Brazil, and Taiwan is strategically advantageous to the United States for at least two reasons: first, all of these countries have Right-wing political forces of legitimacy, historical breeding, and interconnections to U.S. interests; and second, every one of these countries is, in its own way, a counterweight to an interest or set of interests counterproductive to the U.S. For example, India is rival to the Islamic state of Pakistan, which has shown itself as aspiring to be the nuclear feeding ground to both Arab and Asian Muslim states. Israel is rival to many Arab states, as well as the Persian state of Iran, whose nascent nuclear program it might very well soon be forced to neutralize. Brazil will provide an effective deterrent to any resurgence of Leftist governments in South America. And Taiwan will do nicely to keep an otherwise decent ally in China from looking to military options as it begins to project power throughout the Asian theatres of the 21st Century.
A Look Ahead
In the final installment of this series, the focus turns from what the neo-conservatives believe will happen to what the Pentagon's operational plans will likely cause to happen. Had the Project for the New American Century not been embraced by the top of the chain of command of the U.S. armed forces, its prescriptions, assumptions, and ideas would have been nothing more than endless debate among academics. Even as a guide for Republican politicians crafting law, its effects would have been relatively short-lived and correctable over the course of Presidents and Congresses where more reasonable minds would have prevailed upon budgets, priorities, and policy initiatives.
Now, though, the United States military has become involved, and plans are in motion that cannot simply be turned around, swept away, or substantially modified by those who will come later without ambitions of empire. The United States is in a precarious position financially, owing as it does enormous debt to the rest of the world, losing its status as the financial bulwark of global trading, and having already reshaped budgets and plans for tax policy to redirect the American economy into permanent, capital-intensive, and very expensive war footing. The United States, its citizens, and all of the other people of the world are now committed to a project that will hurtle America along an irreversible trajectory into the new century.
Whether or not that project is doomed to ultimate failure is moot; the new century and the project for it have already begun.
The Dark Wraith will proceed with this series in the weeks to come.
Go to The 21st Century Opus 1 Opus 2 Opus 3 Opus 4
Published 4/04/2005 01:37:00 AM
<< 49 Comments Total
"Thou that hast sown the wind with conquest shall reap the harvest and the whirlwind of desolation". -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton, The Last Days of Pompeii
Great article!
My guess to how the info got out...because of some politico's connection to a weapons manufacturer (one that doesn't make fake science fiction weapons and robots) who was upset about being shut out of bidding for weapons contracts
Good morning, Ron Brynaert.
Although I didn't go into that speculation in the article, I actually heard a rumor very much to the effect of what you hypothesized about the who and why of that document's leak. Apparently, this has happened on several occasions during the past couple of years, with disgruntled military contractors linking up with alienated military people to spill some beans.
And if this is what we know, imagine what we don't know. It's enought to turn a conspiracy theorist into a raging lunatic.
The Dark Wraith tries to maintain his balance.
Well, Peter of Lone Tree, I don't think there's a better quote to go with that article.
I wish I had known it when I put the copy to press last night; it would have been the opening line for the article.
The Dark Wraith sometimes wonders why the neo-cons cannot see that we have passed this way before.
It's an expansion upon this Bible verse:
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up."
(Hosea 8:7, King James Version)
- oddjob
Hi there - thanks for popping by my little patch in Blogdom and for your comments. This article is fascinating.
Good morning, lucretia.
I am going to put your blog into the Dark Wraith BlogRing, if for no other reason than to give the readers here a chance to see a flavor of blogging outside of the States and to give you an opportunity for greater exposure.
Do good work, lucretia; your blog will be read.
The Dark Wraith welcomes lucretia.
We Must Crush the NeoCon/RNC Facist Pigs!!
Everyone should read
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
To see a Bush-Vedar video clip visit
http://pissedonpolitics.blogspot.com/
Ofcourse, Bucking-Flogger is not loading my blogs right now....
Am I an enemy comabatant? If I disapper Dark Wraith please come look for me...My guess would be Syria or Gitmo or Abu Ghraib....
Good Evening Dark Wraith,
In regards to troop size and movement, what do you think the future holds? Will we see small action in many countries, or huge invasions followed by a long periods of rebuilding the country and regrouping, then packing up and heading towards the next conquest. I would say with the first you run the risk of not enough forces and consequentially quite a few more casualties. Yet with the latter, any country that knows they are on the American "To Do" list is going to have at least 10 years to prepare.
You also mention China and the U.S. must be arm in arm, yet to me it seems like we would almost become the military arm of China. I guess I just don't see China actually assisting in the "physical conquest" side of global domination. Do you see them actually using their troops in a country not named Taiwan?
lowlyredstater
They've done it before when they've felt the need (admittedly not a common occurence).
- oddjob
Good evening, NeoConCrusher.
Interesting links.
And I wouldn't worry right now about being disappeared. The action for the time being is on collecting information about progressive and Leftist bloggers.
If you are the paranoid sort—in other words, if you are like me—you need to get a good firewall put up; and get one that keeps records of what is happening as far as attack traffic goes. That means you don't get the garden variety stuff that's on sale at Walmart. That also means you don't get the stuff that can't be customized.
Once you see the frequency and types of attacks, any paranoia you had previously will be replaced by mad, blithering, paranoid-schizonphrenia... until, that is, you decide to get good enough to understand that it can be a two way street.
Then, you might decide to get even better.
Live for this century, NeoConCrusher. It could be more fun than you think.
The Dark Wraith peruses the IP attack logs.
Good evening, Lowly Red Stater. I am glad you're still among the living. I was wondering if something had happened to you; then it came to me that you really do need time to study on occasion, so I figured you were on hiatus from the Blogosphere in order to keep that four-point average of yours going.
I must give only a summary on couple of points, right now; I, too, have college duties, and tonight's is a macroeconomics exam I need to finish writing. Once I've completed that task, I shall return.
Now, on to a couple of quick points. I shall be bringing up one matter in the third installment, but as a forethought to it, I should tell you that part of the neo-con strategy is to construct a military that uses such potent, expensive weapons systems that no country on Earth could compete for dominance of the land, sea, or skies.
This idea flows from the myth that the Reagan Administration spent so much money on weapons that the Soviet Union bankrupted itself trying to keep pace. That nonsense has been repeated so often that it has all the authority of unquestionable fact, now.
To that idea, I can say only one thing: BURRRRP.
That is one of the biggest pieces of horsecrap the neo-cons have swallowed in their all-U-can-eat smorgasboard of ridiculous assumptions about the so-called "lessons of history."
But whether or not the Reagan-era, spend-ourselves-silly-on-weapons-systems plan worked back then, it's in full bloom now.
Build so many different kinds of weapons, infuse so much proprietary technology in each one, and make them so expensive and exotic, and the result will be that no country in its right mind will even dream of challenging the Americans as they roll across the globe.
There are at least three problems with this idea:
First, there are countries that will be able to compete with us on that turf. Europe and China stand out nicely. They can sustain massive expenditures on weapons research and development.
Second, the fiscal base to cut discretionary spending in order to increase military expenditures is so thin that we're almost guaranteed continued budget deficits that will be harder and harder to close as the tax base narrows down more and more onto income from labor and away from income from capital.
Third, by creating a supply of weapons that are extremely expensive to design, build, deploy, and maintain, the United States is actually creating a demand for cheaper, more effective, more mobile weapons systems that can be afforded by smaller countries in need of defensive military capital. As a perverse analogy, by making cocaine terribly expensive, the United States government induced the innovative technology that made crack cocaine so cheap, so prevalent, and so potent. In other words, by creating insurmountable barriers to entry into the league of giants, we consequently pose for evolution a challenge it can neither resist nor keep itself from overcoming through smallness, efficiency, and ultimate dominance of an eco-niche to which we were inattentive.
Let the good times roll. As I noted to NeoConCrusher, above, this could be a fun century...
...provided, that is, we don't get caught in the crossfire on our way to the grocery store.
The Dark Wraith dons his bullet-proof vest.
[Confound it! I told the tailor I didn't want the split tail in the back! Now my ass is exposed to flack.]
Thanks Dark Wraith...
I'd take one for the team if it ment Crushing the NeoCon/RNC once and for all...
I'm not that paranoid yet...then again, GW Bush has 3 more years to F*&K things up more than he has already.....
I am half expecting him to announce himself as "Perminent President" in 2008 "until the threat of terrorism is defeated..."
I am not worried yet, but I will worry if/when they pass Patriot Act 2, get rid of the Filibuster, and if people I know (like you) start getting hauled off to Syria....
Be Brave Dark One...The Battle has yet to begin...
Dark Wraith:
Did You read what Sen. Cornyn said?
http://bunkport.blogspot.com/ has it
Her is the article:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/...ornyn-r- tx.html
Here is an excerpt:
BREAKING: GOP Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) says violence against judges is understandable
by John in DC - 4/4/2005 07:36:00 PM
UPDATE: The transcript is attached, in context, at the end of this post.
Senator John Cornyn should resign immediately.
At 5PM today on the Senate floor, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) gave an astounding account of the recent spate of violence against judges, suggesting that the crimes could be attributed to the fact that judges are "unaccountable" to the public. Sources on the Hill went and pulled the transcript of what Cornyn said, and it read:
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence." [Senate Floor, 4/4/05]
THE NEOCON/RNC ARE GOING AFTER THE JUDICIARY NOW!!
Good evening, NeoConCrusher.
Dear God. An elected member of the federal legislature saying something like that.
The Dark Wraith wonders if there is a cure for this cancer... other than the obvious.
Well since they are a "culture of life" I guess they can't pull the plug...Although Delay pulled the plug on his own Father and Bush signed a law in Texas so that the plug can get pulled on people who can't pay their medicare bills.
Just a quick note to add to the discussion and among others the new "weapons race" comments on this thread: taking some lessons from the past and history, and thinking about an old Empire, my neighbour Spain, do you still remember what happened to the "invincible armada" and their wish to conquer England?
Good evening, Joseph.
Darned those counterpoints of history.
It makes me wonder if the next editions of history books here in the U.S. will casually avoid mentioning a few historical examples that don't conform to the neo-cons' slam-dunk attitude about their plans.
The Dark Wraith checks to see which way the wind is blowing.
That's a perfect example of what's wrong with such thinking José! If the neo-con's thinking on such things necessarily includes anti-ballistic missiles (and it would appear that it does, zealously so) then we have a perfect example of the same flapdoodle in effect right now, in their fantasies - a very expensive system that will accomplish exactly nothing except an acceleration of rivals' efforts to defang whatever few fangs it may end up having.
- oddjob
Good Day All!
If you are in need of a good laugh, check out either
http://pissedonpolitics.blogspot.com/
or
http://bunkport.blogspot.com/
For a Rush Limbaugh Nazi Cartoon...Its priceless....
Great day to everyone!
You know, everytime I come over here, I get the willies.
Hey, Lab Kat! I'm glad you stopped by.
I know what you mean. Just because I'm a wraith doesn't mean I don't get creeped out in darkened rooms where the conversations tend to subjects like world annihilation. Ah, but after the visit, the sun does seem to shine more brightly.
We can all hope that, if this era of Rightist thuggery does end, the people who have been in darkness for so long will never again allow the light of freedom to become so deeply and perilously dimmed.
Well, we can hope for that, anyway.
The Dark Wraith can also hope for Free Cheeseburgers Day at the local diner, too.
[Oh, and a free cup of coffee with every cheeseburger eaten.]
Hey DW, I was watching the CBS evening news tonight which when it was not looking like an episode of inside edition focused on the Vatican mentioned something very very briefly almost like they didn't want people to hear it.
They said that the US Govt was in the not so distant future going to start requiring a Passport to re-enter the USA from Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas. I'm going to look some more for a link to see if I find more substance on this because this sounds to me like the beginning of something spooky.
Also did you see how GW was running his mouth at social security event talking about how the US Govt could default on its debt. Thread on Treasury Default from DKos
-Gary A
Thus, the true cost of the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy is revealed at last. In exchange for them the President openly speaks of US Treasury default on its bonds (which he incredibly ignorantly dismisses as "a bunch of IOU's")!
- oddjob
Good evening, Gary.
On your first note about visas being required to re-enter the U.S., I am the personal acquaintance of several executives in a large U.S. corporation that does business in Canada, and they told me weeks ago that the word came down that everyone in the company who travels to Canada needed to get a visa as soon as practicable. The situation caused a lot of confusion because of the way the U.S. Postal Service is handling some of the applications. Specifically, just about all of the applicants went in with a certified copy of the birth certificate, only to be told that this was not "valid" because only a state-certified copy was acceptable.
This is just plain ludicrous since birth certificates are maintained at the city or county level in the office of the recorder. The state is not the primary repository of birth records. It never has been, in fact. If you look at Census records going back to the 1800s, you'll see that people's record of life was recorded by county within a state.
Furthermore, when I applied for my visa years back, I walked in there with a birth certificate copy prepared and certified by the county recorder herself (while I stood there talking to her about her second son, who had gone to school with one of my brothers). I recall the specifics of the visa application that clearly; and yet, now, the Postal people are claiming that it's "always" been the way they are now interpreting the rules.
Such a fiasco.
Now, your second point. I got wind of what Bush was supposed to have said; and my only reaction is that not even George W. Bush would be stupid enough to come within a million light years of standing as the President of the United States to say the word "default" anywhere within flying distance of the term "U.S. debt."
I need to see more corroboration before I believe this story. If it turns out to be multi-sourced and credible, I would argue that it is an impeachable offense of simply stunning proportions and gives evidence of a man who is utterly unfit to hold any federal office in the Land.
Then again, we have a Republican United States Senator now intimating that violence against judges is to be expected because they applied the rule of law instead of the rule of Republican thuggery in one case out of millions.
I am tempted to ask, "What is this country coming to?"
The Dark Wraith does not, however, want to hear the frightening answer to that question.
DW and others here are those links I wanted to find about the Passport thing....
Boarder Crossing Rules to Tighten
Passports For Mexico, Canada Trips
-Gary A
Good Morning, all.
I found the following article via a link on Wolcott's site, and thought it would prove of particular interest to the readers of this forum.
It begins with the standard discussion of peak oil, and then moves on to explore some interesting hypotheticals about the type of changes our society will have to endure once cheap energy becomes a thing of the past. I thought it acted as a stark counterpoint to the Neo Con fantasies currently under discussion.
Mr. Shakes (or anyone else), while I am more inclined to follow the logic of this than not, I do nonetheless notice that its tone is what some would call malthusian, and malthusianism isn't a train of thought with a particularly good track record, no?
(I'm not trying to be a wishful thinker here so much as I'm playing devil's advocate.)
- oddjob
Good afternoon, Oddjob.
It is an interesting question. Every malthusian since Malthus himself has been proved wrong, and so one does have to wonder if we are simply making fools of ourselves here. In the time since Malthus our civillization has displayed an incredible ingenuity for creating the exponential increases in energy and food production required to maintain rapid population growth. However, I do not believe that this has been the case for all civillizations in all times.
Take the Romans, for example. Pretty ingenious bunch, the Romans, and yet when push came to shove they were unable to put aside their main source of energy: slave labor, and make the transition to an industrialized society. To put it another way: when the Romans reached "peak slave labor", they continued to try and eke every last drop of sweat they could out of the slaves they had available, rather than search for alternative methods of production. Whether this was a symptom of the decay which was eating away at the Roman system, or a cause of the decay I don't know, but the point is that their blinkered faith in one dominant source of energy was really bad news.
So, I suppose what I'm saying here is that while I'm sure that if we really put our minds to it we could develop sufficient alternative sources of energy, I am not certain that the desire or ability to do so is still extant in our society. I think that Malthus was wrong when he said that population growth would inevitably outstrip the growth of resources, but this will be true only as long as a civillization remains vibrant and inventive. Once a civillization loses its capacity for inventiveness, as we appear to have done, at least with respect to energy production, then a malthusian style crisis becomes inevitable.
So the question of whether we are fools or geniuses will be predicated upon the veracity of our pessimistic assesment that western society has lost the gunption to tear itself away from oil in a timely fashion. There are those who say that necessity is the mother of invention, let us hope this holds true for us again, for as the Romans teach us, it is not always so.
That's how I see things, anyway.
Many thanks, Dark one! You have answered a puzzle for me. I had never thought of slaves as an energy source before, but I can see how one could do that. If you are correct in your characterization, I think I can fill in the missing detail of the scenario you depict for Rome.
Whether this was a symptom of the decay which was eating away at the Roman system, or a cause of the decay I don't know, but the point is that their blinkered faith in one dominant source of energy was really bad news.
Certainly to our sensibilities the dependence upon slavery is viewed as an inherent moral evil, and thus we're naturally inclined to assume it was a symptom of a rot built into the system from the get-go, but Roman slavery was not identitical to American slavery, and slavery was a societal norm in the Mediterranean and had been for millenia prior, so I don't find that explanation plausible.
Think rather about it this way, they relied upon slavery to such an extent that they allowed the society quite literally to depend upon it. It became a sine qua non. Indeed, they pushed themselves into a place where their paradigm became fragile, vulnerable to the unexpected. For them "the unexpected" were the conquering tribes of Asia that went on a marauding migration westward.
That upended everything, leaving the empire halved.
(I know very little about the Byzantine Empire that survived except that for some reason or other it was later unable to withstand the Arab armies of Islam, or was it the Turks that did them in??)
It's kind of like what happens when you let yourself get to the place where you have to live paycheck to paycheck, only to unexpectedly face a serious hospital bill, isn't it?
- oddjob
The paycheck to paycheck scenario got me thinking.
Does anyone else think it twisted that the powers that be in the United States do not "allow" people to live within their means and even reward those who do not?
For example, even finding a minimum wage job requires education any more. Education costs money. Borrowing money automatically makes someone servant to the lender. People are less likely to turn down shady employment when back money is owed. Therefore, the person is slave to not only the lender, but the employer, even though the employer is not directly owed the money.
In a world where people will allow you to be successful only if you promise to use your success to enslave others, there is not much incentive to be kind to the underlings while moving up.
I think the Dark Wraith is right. There really was some instrinsic fault in the Roman way of life that translates, unfortunately, directly to the American way of life.
Wealth that is continually revolving and helping many people in the process is looked at with much disdain by greedy leeches. They seem to imagine that money is best kept in a safe where it can do no good to help people, only to be flaunted at the next business meeting, like a professional prostitute-dancer who says "look but don't touch."
What I do find troubling is that the accumulation of wealth has been claimed to determine ones acceptance in the world's eyes and even God's eyes.
There may be reasons why people suffer, some self-inflicted, some suffering on behalf of someone else, some from events for which there is no explanation. Our pity typically goes out to those who suffer, but rarely do we pity the rich.
Merely having enough to go on does not seem like a fulfilling life. There is nothing left to give that way. I think the greatest problem we have here in the United States is not that people do not have enough to live on as profound a problem as that is, but Americans are not truly free to help people because to give one must have something left over after "working" to give.
As much as the poor like to complain to their employers about decent living wages, even if such are legitimate claims, they should not envy the rich. A man's life is worth more than the linen, rocks, papers, bricks, shells, or other means of money he owns. If money is seriously devalued, the rich are seriously devalued. The poor have no such fear.
wiseguy
Afternoon, all.
I am afraid it was not the Dark Wraith who posted the piece on Roman slavery, but I, Mr. Shakes; though I am very flattered to have been confused with our dear host.
Oddjob - thank you for fleshing out the analogy between Rome and the U.S. a little more thoroughly than I was able to. From what you say, it does sound as though the infelxibility of Rome's slavery paridigm had a great deal in common with our own addiction to oil. And yes, we do seem to be behaving a lot like someone clinging to the bottom rung of the middle class; who is one unforseen calmity away from ruin.
I'm not certain what became of the Byzantine's, either. I have some vague memory of reading somewhere that the Turks were responsible, but then Turkey is a mostly Muslim nation, so this makes me doubt that assertion. Perhaps Dark Wraith would be kind enough to clear that one up for us.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen the old devil today? It occurs to me that should powers unknown decide to play dirty with bloggers, then by setting up BlogScream he has put himself at the top of the list of potential kidnapping victims. We really ought to look into developing some sort of contingency plan for such an eventuality. Is Mr. Wraith the only person able to issue a BlogScream alert, or can anyone subscribing to the service issue one?
Wiseguy - It is curious that America, the original "classless" society, seems to be developing in such a way that many of its citizens feel that the poor are poor because they "deserve to be", or because "God destined them to be". Not so different from feudalism, the caste systems prevalent in parts of India, or the slavery indulged in by ancient Rome.
What the heck happened to the American Dream, or was it only ever available to the Anointed Ones?
Land of the Free, ha.
Greetings from NeoCon Crusher
Pleae watch this cartoon
Save Phil A Buster
at
http://www.savephil.com/main.cfm
or
http://pissedonpolitics.blogspot.com/
Save Phil A Buster from the Evil NeCon/RNC!!!
In lieu of the wonderful article/posts concerning peak oil and it's repurcussions on the U.S., combined with the PNAC discussion, I was wondering if DW(also Mr. Shakes, wiseguy, and oddjob) could expand on the condition of other nations in terms of energy reliance and how it factors into the PNAC. Surely we won't be the only ones who will suffer during the transition. Who else will suffer, and what nations are best prepared for it?
lowlyredstater
Mr. Shakes, as far as my attributing your manner of speaking to the Dark Wraith, what can I say? When you're good, you're good.
Speaking of, I do agree we need to keep an eye on the Dark Wraith. If for no other reason, we need to know which jail they throw him in so we can send him a card or something.
About the classless society, I'll have you know I have plenty of class. The best class a redneck can offer.
wiseguy
OOOPS!!
What the heck happened to the American Dream, or was it only ever available to the Anointed Ones?
You got different sets of values in different colonies, originally, some of the relatively egalitarian (Pennsylvania, since it was a Quaker colony might be one such), but also ones as aristocratic as anything in England (Virginia comes to mind immediately), and also some that were unlike anywhere else (unless perhaps Calvin's Geneva or John Knox's Scotland) because they were Calvinist (Massachusetts). The Calvinism has had a way of reappearing in American political thought, and this is especially true of the late 19th/early 20th Century era. During such times there are also rags to riches stories, sometimes real, but also in fiction (Horatio Alger is the most famous), while the reality of more people's lives was fairly grim. Carnegie was an immigrant who worked the same nasty jobs as the others, but he also prospered (I forget why), and became a profoundly wealthy man, but he was a big exception.
That's why the populists came to the fore. I'm hoping it happens again because we're in a second Gilded Age now.
- oddjob
(ps: The Turks weren't always in Asia Minor, either. They migrated there out of Central Asia, but I don't know when. My knowledge of eastern Mediterranean history is weak once you get to the Byzantine Empire.)
Don't ever kid yourself, Americans are highly class conscious, but it's in an unconscious way. ("Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous"?? I mean, come on!)
- oddjob
No, my good friends, I was not rendered to a Third or Second World country that countenances torture.
Today was one of those days when I spent the entire afternoon doing the impossible for the incurable at the bidding of the inscrutable. You see, a huge local factory laid off more than a thousand people last year. To show its concern for the welfare and future prospects of these hapless souls, it has entered into a contract with a local college to give these people "training" of various sorts.
My part in this is to spend one afternoon of four straight hours running a class called "Algebra Review."
Now, you must appreciate that the people sent to this class are mostly in their late forties to late fifties; they have been factory workers since the day the left high school or got discharged from the military; and they are living on next to nothing, scrounging for any kind of employment in a region of the country where there are the Haves, who preen themselves on their Yuppie-hood status, and then there are the Have-Nots, who try their best not to live in what have become impressively violent neighborhoods thanks to another corporation that has been using state grants to build low-income apartment complexes that are then used to move people out of the condemned projects of a huge city not all that far away.
So, this huge corporation does this "We care" routine by paying for this training for the people they kicked out. All kinds of fanfare; and the corporation pays me pretty decent money because I really can't stand doing this until I get into that classroom and flex my nearly two-and-a-half decades of experience in remedial training.
God, I'm such a whore. Fifty bucks an hour (about five times what the college, itself, pays me for actual college-credit classes), sometimes a nice write-up in the corporate-controlled area press, and another twenty of those one thousand-and-counting workers who come out thinking that they got something that might give them an edge in finding a job somewhere in the area.
The Dark Wraith has now returned to the world of cyberspace... which sometimes seems quite a bit more real than the world of solids and meat puppets.
On a more serious note, the United States was founded by thieves looking to conquer the land that had been so painstakingly cared for by Native Americans whose only thanks they were given was to be robbed of their food, have their land stolen from under them and forced to work it under hire, while enduring tribe after tribe being killed off because of the White Man's blind quest for gold.
From its very inception, the United States has borrowed money to finance war. War has always been the underlying economic stimulator. Go clear back to the inception of the coal mines, railroads, factories, assembly lines, and you will see war written all over them; the products themselves may or may not have been directly used in combat, but the money siphoned from those industries was and is.
Abraham Lincoln got in trouble and eventually assassinated because he wouldn't charge the common people for the Civil War to end slavery.
I'm inclined to believe much of our "Proud to be an American" chest-beating is founded on inflated hubris unstable as quicksand.
wiseguy
wiseguy, I can't now remember where I saw it, but early on in the Iraqi stuff (or maybe even before) I can remember reading a quote from some neo-con or other to the effect that American history demonstrated that were war-like, liked it, and had generally always approved of it. (Wish I could remember the source now.)
- oddjob
Interesting to come here and read the comments about class. I have many customers talking gas prices, as we well know...most are pretty fatalistic that this is as cheap as they will ever be again (we just went to 2.199/gal reg). But one lady and I had a conversation I wish I could recall, but basically the conclusion was that we are becoming the new serfs to the corporate moneybags...it started with the joke about getting a second job to pay for the gas to get to job #1, then needing the third job to fund gas for the second. I wish I could recall how precisely the chat flowed. Another interesting thing I've noticed....As an employee, I try to couch any political staements as nuetrally as possible until I see if I'm going to offend some rabid right-winger. They are customers,and I can't preach to them(much), so a lot of my comments are in almost a code. The interesting thing is that the customers themselves often don't name names. Identifiers like "_I_ didn't vote for him OR his dad" rather than "I did not vote for the idiot Bush". Whether they are being PC in response to the style I use(at least until I know I'm talking to a soulmate)or whether all of us rebels are a bit paranoid, I am not sure.
People are getting pissed, yes they are. I have a feeling that if the People rise up and destroy the bastards, that even with all the damage the neocons have done, the change in the country's direction will give us breathing space because the rest of the world will give it to us. Until then, I'm hanging on to the coaster for dear life, hoping to get past the gap in the tracks with no brakes.
Good evening, Wild Clover.
In my part of the country, I have definitely noticed two things about how people are talking, these days: first, virtually no one is bragging about being a Bush supporter, anymore; and second, given that I don't pull my punches very much about what is going on with the economy and gas prices, I am surprised at the number of people who don't disagree. Usually, I get nods of agreement or approval. Now, some of that can be attributed to the fact that I am widely known as a professor, and people in this part of the country still tend to give that profession deference; and part of it comes from my hard-boiled script that sometimes goes something like, "I'm what they used to call a real conservative, not one of these Pansie-ass draft-dodger types the Republicans go for these days."
I wish someone in the Democratic Party had a style like that was sort of a cross between, say, Barbara Boxer and Wesley Clark. It seems to resonate with Middle America really well.
People want an alternative. I almost think many of the voters wanted one in the last election; but instead, they were offered John "I'm too wealthy to act like a bitch" Kerry and his running mate, John "Even On a Rainy Day, the Sun is Still Shining on America" Edwards.
Forgive me for that. Kerry and Edwards are good men. They just couldn't command enough of a majority to overcome the shenanigans of Jeb Bush and Ken Blackwell.
Nevertheless, I just wish some Democrat would stand up and hold out a giant new campaign bumper sticker like this:
Tough enough to be a Republican;
smart enough to be a Democrat.
The Dark Wraith considers making those bumper stickers to sell at his e-store.
Oh, I forgot that I'm already working on a new bumper sticker:
If you voted for Bush, THANKS!
(You asshole.)
The Dark Wraith thinks they'll sell like hotcakes.
MY what inspired ranting! I haven't ever put bumper stickers on my automobiles, but for those I just might make an exception!
- oddjob
(Clarification: I've never had more than one at a time. I'm not a "car guy".)
Lowlyredstater, I hope you don't think your question has been buried. We just keep on a talkin when we're on a roll like that.
I should think that oil isn't the only energy keeping the PNAC going full tilt.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for them to play the kinetic card; even though they procrastinate doing so because any alternative energy frightens them.
The ones who will fare better will be the ones who have been around much longer than they have.
wiseguy
I think so too, wiseguy, and the ones who have been around longest (who are involved in this particular geopolitical game of the present and imminent future) speak in a uniquely tonal language....
- oddjob
Good evening, Lowly Red Stater. Wise Guy is right: sometimes, the blog gets rolling a bit too fast. I have to swing back and grab some good comments to which I can respond, hoping the original commentor comes back to see my response.
As far as the reliance of other nations on petroleum-based energy and how this factors into the Project for the New American Century, the answer is that the neo-cons assume that pretty much every Western and Asian country of any interest to us is going to be, at least for the next couple of decades, wholly dependent upon oil. Hence, the nation that controls not just the source of oil, but more importantly, the transit of oil, will have all the power in the world.
Does this sound like fantasy? Aren't Europe and Japan way ahead of us on switching to alternate forms of energy production and energy usage?
Well, yes and no. Other countries have made considerably greater strides than we have away from petroleum dependence, but they have not made anywhere near enough to be able to withstand a choke-off of oil because they ran afoul of American interests.
Even more to the point, nations like China are turning into petroleum gluttons as they crank up industrial production using a whole lot of 20th Century technology. As the Chinese siphon off world oil supplies, the cost of the last unit of energy will skyrocket for every country on Earth; and the last unit of energy—the marginal unit—will be oil.
Now, in economics, we know that decision making is not made based upon average costs; decision making is based upon marginal costs. That means the skyrocketing cost of oil will be the driving force not just in production technologies that come online, but it will also determine what the cost of other sources of energy will be. That's simply the way markets work: the cost of the last unit affects (and often determines) the price of every unit in a world where the supply of a good (in this case, energy) is far more limited than the universe of demand for it.
So, by the neo-conservative way of seeing things, as long as we control the oil, we control the fates of nations as long as those nations function on a planet where some remain in large or small part dependent upon oil.
Rather disturbing, isn't it?
The Dark Wraith heads back up to the top of the blog.
It's sure as hell disturbing if the neo-con answer is to create a Wehrmacht full of extraordinarily expensive toys, some of them useful, others only useful in their imaginations!
I can confirm that oil is going to be a very painful topic in Europe despite the extent to which they've learned to sip instead of gulp the stuff. I have an American born Swiss friend who works for the Swiss railroads (forget their name for that), and we've emailed about exactly this topic. Despite their considerably higher rate of public transportation use, it is still used only by a minority of the Swiss, and the majority travel by auto.....
Checkmate.
- oddjob