AMERICA'S BID FOR EMPIRE

Casander

gov@coolissues.com

Having delegated its legislative and war making powers to the wide discretion of federal judges and the president, Congress has kept Americans uninformed about the objectives and hard choices necessary for meeting the terrorist threat. The president's decision to invade Iraq, unsupported by evidence of a mortal threat and without a substantive debate in Congress, offers no tangible payoffs of peace, economic development, and the defeat of terrorism.

In the mid 20th century, WWII was a defining war in the history of mankind. The combined forces of capitalism and communism united to defeat Japan and the Axis powers only to find themselves becoming opponents after that war ended. But, by the end of the 20th century, capitalism had prevailed over communism and the globalization of capitalism began in earnest. During this period, a number of small wars were fought with opponents supplying the funds and arms to their proxy allies who did the actual fighting. It was only in Korea and Vietnam where American troops fought in wars, as they did later against new opponents in Afghanistan and twice in Iraq. With the defeat of communism, the global environment became more conducive to capitalist commerce and exploitation of the world's resources. Huge capitalist corporations scoured the world for cheap labor, materials and resources and, in a worldwide division of labor, production tasks were parsed from developed to developing countries. The United States stood alone among its competitors, namely, the European Union (EU), Japan and the Southwest Asian countries. It was inevitable, therefore, that America's worldwide economic interests be accompanied by its military might.

America's penetration of the world's markets enabled its citizens to become the world's mass consumers and tourists. The world's resources were channeled to America and, at home and abroad, Americans were rich and free to enjoy their unprecedented material cornucopia and comforts. They flocked abroad bringing their culture, trade and technology, and their dollars bought materials, products and services, and they established industries and incomes for their worldwide trade partners. However, a new reality has developed between America's expanding commercial empire and the peaceful desires of Americans to enjoy their new wealth. Americans now find that empire has both internal and external consequences.

INTERNAL CONSEQUENCES OF EMPIRE

The internal consequences of America's bid for empire are apparent from the way the American system works. The sword is distasteful to the American public for a number of reasons critical to America's bid for empire. The biggest internal impediments to world dominion are the idea of democracy, America's Constitution and its Rule of Law which Americans believe a ruler must follow, public expenditures, and the comforts of life which Americans take for granted.

Americans believe that they are a democracy but in fact, as the founders knew, democratic societies are inherently ungovernable so that a republican government was formed since fewer voices are preferred over many. Going from a democracy to a republic means shifting the votes of the many to votes of the few ever mindful of the risks of power winding up in the hands of too few. From its birth, the American system was authoritarian light. Americans also believe that they are governed by a Constitution and a Rule of Law. While these serve as ideals for democracy they are far from practice in a republic. Constitutions and rules of law are for people to believe in but rulers need freedom to act. This is more evident in authoritarian heavy societies than in authoritarian light ones. In America, wealth controls. America's Congress depends both from actual votes of citizens and virtual votes of special interests, namely, "campaign contributions" and "district pork contracts", funding of politicians and contract awards to their districts by government and corporate special interests.¹ In turn, Congress in theory sets common policy but in practice writes laws in manner that benefit the special interests with due care not to overtly or grossly offend the voters. No law is passed by Congress that does not benefit some special interest or as a minimal quid pro quo made to placate voter demands. The great social and civil rights programs insure that citizens do not take to the streets, and polls on a variety of issues of interest to the public are closely watched by Congress and politicians.² To a large extent, when the public eye is absent and the polls show green, American policy is driven by the special interests which dominate the legislative, executive and judicial actions. Resulting is the special interest welfare state, a complete high jacking of the republican structure of government by wealth and capitalism, in which Congress is mainly a source of public funds for capitalism. Jefferson's principle states that it is only a matter of time that dominant groups in a society will usurp all powers and oppress the individual.

While Congress writes the laws, the power to say what the law means, and who gets the money, privileges and power, rests with America's judiciary which consists of some 800 federal judges who are appointed for life after being vetted and voted by Congress. Since politicians receive campaign contributions and district pork contracts it is natural that their work products, the laws, judges and lawyers will protect the special interests, unless the public eye is cast upon them and the polls turn red. It is the unwritten law in all countries that laws, judges and lawyers preserve and protect the system they serve. Justice is not the end of the unwritten law but protection of the controlling special interests is. Special interests hire the legislators, executives and judges to write, effect and rule the laws in their favor. Laws are made and judges use them to protect corporations from claims by individuals. This is most evident in patent³ and insurance⁴ claims made by individuals which, since the public eye is usually absent, write and arbitrarily "interpret" the laws with impunity.⁵ To keep the public eye from casting its gaze on important issues sponsored by the special interests, the media and Hollywood dispense irrelevant or surrealist entertainments far from depicting the capitalist reality.

In America, the courts are designed to resolve disputes between special interests, to protect special interests from societal claims and from claims by individuals. To this end, the rule of law is uncertain and, in effect, is replaced by the rule of some 800 unelected, unaccountable men chosen by Congress.⁶ These hand picked judges have been given wide discretionary powers to make decisions by "interpreting" the law which should not be confused with "applying" the law, and the power to declare any law of Congress unconstitutional. For example, after going through a nationwide vote which resulted in a 50%-50% tie between presidential contenders Bush and Gore, the election dispute was resolved by the Supreme Court arbitrarily invoking the law, arbitrarily exercising jurisdiction, arbitrarily refusing to decide all claims presented and arbitrarily using equal protection to decide a political question.⁷ The power to declare any law unconstitutional is not a judicial power conferred by the Constitution but a power which the judiciary conferred upon itself in the famous Marbury v Madison case. Thus, in theory we have a rule of law but in practice we have a rule by men. Absent a rule of law which restrains a rule of men, the system is undemocratic. Winston Churchill acknowledged as much when he said that parliamentary democracy is bad but we have yet to find a better system. Nevertheless, democracy is the ideal against which Americans measure their system.

There is no easy way to govern a multiethnic society internally and to bid for empire externally unless the ruler has a freedom to act, as well as economic and military muscle and a motivated public. America is a commercial society preoccupied with making money and obtaining the comforts of life. It favors throwing money not soldiers at its problems. It is now in debt and mainly depends on a volunteer army to fight its wars. Conditioned by the media and a formidable military technology, Americans expect their wars to be brief, less expensive, and final. They are not prepared for extended overseas commitments in time, blood and treasure. Except for public expenditures, which must be kept low to avoid public scrutiny, there is no talk of sacrifice by the public which feels safe behind its ideals of democracy, the Constitution and Rule of Law. Governing such a docile, misinformed and complacent populace is easier than dealing with a widespread and high public participation in policy making and execution since, to work at all, undemocratic government must be relatively free to act without interference by dissenting voices. This leaves the opportunity open for the poll driven rule of men which takes its cues from the special interests. Many of the internal and external problems America faces are due to this competition between rules of law and men. Americans get not what they vote for in elections or claim in courts but only what the special interests allow them to have, as insurance against instability or even rebellion. Their lives are tethered to the fortunes of the special interests protected by federal judges and the president. This leads to a mutual dynamic, namely, through generous legislation, awards and domestic and international subsidies and contracts the special interests generate wealth for themselves and their officers, for politicians and their districts, for revolving door executives and bureaucrats, and jobs for the citizens who in turn vote for the politicians to keep the system going, a delicate dynamic indeed.

EXTERNAL CONSEQUENCES OF EMPIRE

The external consequences, less apparent in the numerous small wars fought by American funded proxies, became more apparent in the wars fought by American troops. The Korean and Vietnam wars were conducted against communist regimes fighting as proxies for China and the Soviet Union. In each case, these wars ended in military standoffs, with America withdrawing from these communist territories but, in its global policy, maintaining both a heavy military and economic pressure upon the Soviet Union which eventually succeeded in bringing down that adversary and rendering its proxies irrelevant to the globalization of capitalism. The wars against Soviet proxies were managed within America's military budget and, except for Vietnam, provoked little opposition by America's citizens. The Vietnam war was the first war that stressed America's budget and bloodied America's troops causing the formation of a vocal opposition at home which demanded and obtained an end to this war. The first Iraq war (Persian Gulf War) was made in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, America's ally and important oil supplier. The Afghanistan and second Iraq wars were made as America's response to the destruction of New York's Twin Towers skyscrapers and damage to the Pentagon by 19 young Arabs in highjacked American airliners. The damage to America's economy by these 19 Arabs was enormous, a trillion dollars worth. The airline and tourist industries collapsed and, for the first time, Americans realized that America itself was now part of the battlefield. The costs of wars have now increasingly stressed America's budget and appear without end. Open ended authorizations for military weapons have been made, a new homeland department and new anti terrorist laws have been passed. The entire country has been mobilized at the federal, state and even local city levels. Armed guards now patrol airports, train and bus stations and other critical points. And, some civil rights have been suspended. Unlike all previous wars, in which civilians were spared, this new environment puts civilians at risk.

Today America's main competitors are the United Nations, the EU, Japan, Russia, China, India and the Muslim countries. Relative to America, they are weak politically, economically, and militarily but may well become formidable competitors and even opponents in the future. Although some are friendly towards the United States, others are not. America's policy obviously seeks to compromise, divide and conquer and to preemptively suppress, fight and prevail as actual threats develop. The biggest external impediment to world domination is America's ability to control and manipulate world public opinion and funding quid pro quos. In peacetime these tasks prevent competitors from becoming opponents but in wartime they secure a sharing of the gains and costs of empire. In the first Iraq war, America successfully led a United Nations expedition which freed Kuwait and, as consequence, the risks and costs of wars were spread among a large number of allied nations. In the second Iraq war, America found itself alone, with world public opinion opposed⁸ and funding for that war by allies lacking. It might be said that this outcome was a result of the failure of America's diplomacy, a situation that is ominous for the future. Ironically, America now seeks help in running defeated Iraq from those who refused to sanction war in the first place.⁹ But giving up Irak means giving up the rule of men, the freedom to act, and the bid for empire, and adopting a rule of law, as one of many in the community of nations. Inopposite this, America has a vital interest in turning Iraq into a showcase for its brand of democracy and capitalism.

While a ruler seeks freedom to act, the ruler's freedom inevitably leads to authoritarian rule internally and externally. Internally, the ruler faces voters and special interests. To compromise voters, the ruler uses economic doles and propaganda. To compromise the special interests, the ruler accommodates their economic and political demands. Thus, to condition his society to his program, the ruler must create a uniformity of viewpoints by the government and media. This is relatively easy because, in America, the dominant special interests provide the executives of government and they own newspapers, TV and radio stations. Like the Delphic oracle and its priests, briefings held by the president are attended by the media reporters who then pass his words on to the public. Such media events are propaganda sessions intended to split the popular vote and thus avoid serious public debate and the raising of serious issues. In turn, voters vote for politicians whose personalities and pronouncements appeal to them. Knowledge for most people is less tested by experience but more by internal feelings and passions. In contrast, politicians vote issues requested by and protective of the special interests. Externally, the ruler faces competitors and opponents. To compromise competitors America uses economic incentives and diplomacy. Indeed, America funds and sustains many countries and regimes for a myriad of reasons without regard as to the nature of their governments. To assure its oil imports and strategic interests, money and arms flow to places like Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Venezuela. To satisfy the domestic Jewish vote and financial power, money and arms flow to Israel. To dismantle its war machine and keep its scientists from employment by opponents, money flows to Russia. To win its wars America uses proxy allies and its own military machine. Proxy allies are least reliable because, with few notable exceptions in WWII, they fight for money. On the other hand, the American military machine was designed to overwhelm the Soviet Union in peace or to destroy it in war. Its emphasis was on nuclear tipped missiles and sophisticated technology which are least effective in the smaller wars. Fortunately, the Soviet Union collapsed economically and war, a nuclear holocaust by both sides, was avoided. As always, military planners are fighting todays wars with yesterday's technology.¹⁰ Today, America must put up ground troops as well as its superior technology to meet its global police tasks for which its army is not prepared.

The wars America made after the collapse of the Soviet Union have been against minor opponents. America's vast nuclear arsenal was never used against a major opponent but her troops were needed to contain and destroy minor opponents. Unlike America's citizen troops in WWII, troops today are volunteers taken from the poorest section of the population. America's citizenry views war through the prism of opinion polls and public expenditures and the ruler likes the idea that the poor, who join willingly for pay and other benefits, avoid bringing citizen's complaints. Nevertheless, they and the public expect wars to be short and over and this puts stress on military planners not to take on the larger and more dangerous opponents who might cause both citizens and soldiers unrest. Wars must now be fought with smart technology and the fewest troops in the shortest time and at least cost. If these parameters are exceeded, the ruler faces a public backlash.

DELEGATION OF POWERS

It is instructive to briefly review how America involved itself in some wars. In WWII, 1941-1945. Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor brought a Declaration of War by America against Japan and its allied Axis powers. America, which had no significant civilian losses, sustained more than 400,000 military deaths. WWII changed the world balance of power. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan ceased to be great powers leaving only America and the Soviet Union.¹¹ A cold war ensued for about 50 years between America and the Soviet Union during which these powers flexed their economic, geopolitical and military powers against each other. In this process a number of wars were fought. North Korea's attack on South Korea, an American ally, brought about America's involvement, and China joined on North Korea's side. Nearly 2 million American troops served in the 1,127 day war, from1950 to 1953, under an American led allied contingent operating under the United Nations flag. That war cost 36,000 American lives with more than 8,000 still missing in action. About 140,000 South Korean soldiers and 3,200 from the 15 other nations that joined America under the U.N. flag also died. Today, 50 years later, some 37,000 American troops are stationed at the 38th parallel guarding against another invasion by North Korea. The potential for a larger even more destructive conflict still exists.¹² In South Vietnam, between 1959 and 1965, America helped create, funded and armed its proxy ally to fight its native communist guerillas. When this policy failed, in 1965 America brought in its own troops to prevent its proxy from collapsing. Like earlier North Korea, communist North Vietnam, acting as proxy for America's opponents China and the Soviet Union, invaded South Vietnam and the war escalated. Ultimately, however, America failed to achieve its goal and in 1975 Vietnam was reunified under Communist control. Street protests mounted in America and public opinion demanded an end to the war. During the conflict, approximately, 3.2 million Vietnamese were killed, as were another 1.5-2 million Lao and Cambodians who were drawn into the war. While America had no significant civilian losses it sustained 500,000 casualties and nearly 58,000 American soldiers lost their lives.¹³ In 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, an American ally and important oil supplier. In a two month early 1991 war involving about 175 American military casualties, Iraq was driven from Kuwait by an international coalition of forces led by America. Coalition forces withdrew from Iraq which then was sanctioned and restricted from spending its oil income on military weapons. Making exceptions to the Constitutional provision, the Korean, Vietnam and first Iraq wars were fought without Declarations of War. By 1991, under American economic and military pressure and corruption of its theory and leadership, the Soviet Union dissolved leaving America the only world superpower.¹⁴

By the end of the 20th century, American presidents were no longer constrained to take military actions and at their urgings Congress provided "war authorizations", in effect handing over its war powers to the president who now makes "preemptive" war as he sees fit. In Afghanistan and the second Iraq wars in 2002-2003, America invaded and occupied these opponents on the pretext that they were the instigators of the attacks and destruction of the Twin Tower skyscrapers in New York and parts of the Pentagon in Washington in which several thousand American civilians perished. However, America's diplomacy and economic assistance offers were unable to persuade the United Nations to declare war on Iraq and this has deprived America of obtaining needed proxy troops and funds to fight this war and to tend to postwar tasks. The costs are clear, America has shredded long-standing alliances and committed 150,000 troops to a long term occupation of Iraq.¹⁵ While America claims it leads a coalition of thirty nations in helping to rebuild Iraq, its coalition partners are minor nations strongly dependent on America for help themselves.¹⁶ To bypass the UN, France and Germany, it seeks to implicate NATO in its war on terror.¹⁷ America stands alone in its global bid for empire. It now has 368,000 soldiers deployed in 120 countries and uses troop rotation to counter discontent in the ranks.¹⁸ America's debt is $5.3 trillion and the budget deficits for the foreseeable future are about $455 billion annually.¹⁹ About 1/3 of America's debt is held by foreigners who, up to now, have valued American financial stability and security.²⁰ If America stumbles in its bid for empire, a crisis can happen and foreigners can be expected to withdraw their funds.

In England and America, the two major partners in the second Iraq war, we now have recriminations for making war in Iraq.²¹ Inevitably, the ongoing and ever-increasing finger pointing will play out to sink both governments on the war issue. The problem is the competition between the rules of law and man that I spoke about earlier. The "war authorization" passed by Congress gave president Bush a wide discretionary power to make war against any offender he sees fit, a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.²² President Bush justified his decision on his assertion that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction but non have been found so far in Iraq.²³ Moreover, the costs of the Iraq war, perhaps 200-600 billion, are being questioned.²⁴ Congressional Democrats and some Republicans, even those who handed the president the power to decide going to war, are now questioning the president's decision. Critics say, president Bush's motive for war was a grab for Iraq's oil, or acting on behalf of the Israelis, or shifting blame from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, since 15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudis. The Saudi authoritarian heavy rulers, America's premier oil suppliers with long ties to American oil and political elites, have been brought under the public spotlight.²⁵ The administration is defending itself by claiming faulty intelligence but insisting that the weapons of mass destruction will eventually be found and, in any case, Saddam Hussein, Iraq's ruler was an evil that had to be removed. It is not the execution of the war that is being questioned but why the war was made. But, having been given the power by Congress to make war, president Bush made war and it is now irrelevant what his intelligence or motive was. Here Congress has replaced its Constitutional make war power by an "abuse of power" standard which judges and lawyers use to cover their decisions. Had a declaration of war been made by Congress, as required by the Constitution, president Bush could not have been attacked for making war policy and only Congress made responsible for it. Now, absent a declaration of war by Congress, congressional politicians, including those that voted for the "war authorization", are after president Bush for making his war decision which Congress gave him the power to make. If you see the approaching tornado (impeachment), don't call it a spring shower (intelligence). ²⁶

Delegating its powers to other branches of the government is what Congress has been doing for some time and certainly since the Marbury v Madison decision which delegated legislative power to the judiciary. America's law making power is now made by the 800 federal judges. Likewise, America's war making power is now made by the president and both the president and the 800 federal judges have wide discretionary powers for making as well as executing policy. Apparently the difference between authoritarian and democratic rule is the number of officials having the widest discretionary powers. In authoritarian heavy states few men hold all power, for example Saddam Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia. In authoritarian light states, many men hold all powers, for example in America's republic all powers are held by 1 elected president and some 800 unelected unaccountable federal judges. This is a rule of men not contemplated by the separation of powers doctrine of our Constitution. Also, not contemplated by the Constitution is the highjacking of America's republic by wealth and capitalism.

ROUGH ROADS TO EMPIRE

The price America pays for its corporate special interest welfare government and empire is authoritarian rule domestically and risk taking internationally. America's practice of rule of men, namely, of corporate special interest welfare government at home and empire abroad are doomed to failure because its system is perceived designed for rule of law which restrains the rule of men. The system cannot support domestic and empire rule because these require capturing the minds of men as well as having economic and military power over their lives It is not enough to project naked power under the rule of men when people everywhere can easily distinguish between America's ideals and its practice. Rather, the essence of domestic and international empire is a practice of rule of law. It is unlikely that America can practice a rule of law at this stage of its development as a capitalist state. In theory, however, America has two choices.

In a first choice America might follow the Roman practice of jus gentium rule of law and discretionary rule in matters of empire. Following this practice means taking away the wide discretionary powers of the 800 federal judges, i.e., removing its rule of men domestically but leaving intact the president's discretionary powers to act in matters of empire. This practice worked for the Romans and may be possible for America since only domestic change is needed. The main problem with this choice is that replacing a rule of men by a rule of law is unlikely because change depends upon a highly motivated citizenry not one without power and motivation beyond creature comforts, tethered to handouts by the state and fed viewpoints that split votes and maintain the status quo. Since all consequences and costs of empire are borne by America, this dependence upon a soft public unable or unwilling to act, or even opposed to the ruler's plans, puts stress on the ruler to prepare citizens for long wars. Empire building means making heavy sacrifices to the God of War by highly motivated citizen soldiers. This first choice is a going it alone policy which views diplomacy and coalitions as complimentary, if not disdainful, efforts.

In a second choice, America might follow a rule of law universally. Following this practice means taking away the wide discretionary powers of both its president and 800 federal judges, i.e., removing its rule of men both domestically and internationally, thus abandoning its rule of men by judicial fiat at home and becoming the world's consensus leader rather than its self anointed emperor. This choice bests the Roman practice but is doubly unlikely that it can work for America, first, because replacing America's rule of men by a rule of law by a soft public is unlikely and, second, because among nations consensus for empire cannot be expected, even when a rule of law is practiced. However, since all consequences and costs of empire are shared with other nations it is easier for the ruler with a soft public to follow this choice. This second choice is a going with others policy which views diplomacy and coalitions as prime policy.

Either one of America's choices projects a rule of law, America's ideal, as a world wide principle, and of getting rid of the corporate special interest welfare government currently in place. Today the American actual practice falls far short of its ideal. The problem, of course, is effecting change but change does not mean for the better. Change for the best or worst can occur if some powerful character comes along and assumes Caesar's authoritarian powers, or if a revolution happens, at the time of some depression, disaster, or defeat. To prevent change for the worst, and the destruction of wealth and resources, it is preferred that change be peaceful not violent. However, there is no likely way this can be done in the present American system. As things stand, America's corporate special interests control all branches of government and are unlikely to give up their privileges and powers. Moreover, a strong economy and a strong military are necessary for either choice to work but are not sufficient absent a strong rule of law ethic and will power now lacking by the public.

Historically, global empires sustained themselves by extracting wealth and privileges from their dominions. However, smarting from the treatment and rearming of defeated industrial opponents after WWI and to combat communism after WWII, America spent treasure in reviving and reconstructing Germany, Japan and a host of other countries and bringing them under its military umbrella. The public expenditures were clearly visible and repaid by the relative peace gained, the unprecedented economic development in the West, and the defeat of the Soviet Union which then presented a mortal threat to America. Today, it is not clear that this same policy can bring the same results in trying to reconstruct defeated opponents in the third undeveloped world who do not present immediate mortal threats to America. Afghanistan is a basket case which only produces opium and America has shown an unwillingness to commit troops and make expenditures long term to reconstruct it. Iraq has oil but it is not clear that America's troop and investment can be recovered by taking its oil. Yet, some say a payoff will happen if America succeeds in transforming Iraq into a "constitutional democratic society", whatever that term means, which puts pressure on every other Arab regime to change.²⁷ This is a tall order which equals bringing Renaissance and the Reformation to Islam. Thus, while 20th century expenditures were repaid by tangible relative peace, domestic and international economic development and defeat of the Soviet Union, 21st century expenditures are unlikely to bring peace, economic development and defeat of Islam. Absent a clear-cut visibility of ends, taxing American citizens to pay for the revival and reconstruction of Iraq, a small part of Islam, is a sensitive point with Congress which depends on the votes of citizens who pay, and are expected to suffer casualties, as well as the votes of the special interests who benefit from the revival and reconstruction contract awards.²⁸ Being egged on by the special interests to make war is no longer in the best interests of American taxpayers and their elected representatives. The impact of rule of men of capitalism on the Republic is up for a critical review.

Islam has about a billion adherents but has made no serious effort to come to terms with reason, in the western sense. It learns solely from the Koran and puts what it learns into history and its daily life. It recognizes Western thought, civilization and culture as a threat and separation of church and state is unreal for Islam as it is real for the West which has taken several thousand years of philosophical and cultural development to reach. Clearly, Islam is more burdened by the Koran than the West is by the Bible. With this burden, Islam society is characterized by authoritarian heavy rule, theocratic rule, as in Taliban Afghanistan and Ayatollah Iran, quasi secular rule, as in Saddam Iran, Mubarak Egypt, Musharraf Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Absent several thousand years conditioning by a Renaissance and Reformation, there is no other way Islam society can be governed. Democracy and Islam are philosophical and cultural opposites.²⁹ The Sword and the Koran are the two powers which form the basis of Islam's rule, singly or combined. Whether theocratic or secular, to survive, Islam rulers ruthlessly suppress their internal rivals. It is hubris, therefore, to think that America can transform defeated Iraq, a small part of Islam, into a "constitutional democratic society"³⁰ and thus effectuate conversion from Koran mandated authoritarian heavy states to democratic states throughout vast Islam, and thus to achieve tangible payoffs of peace, economic development, and the defeat of Islam. At best only a relative peace shared with incidents of terrorism might be secured by America's bid for empire at the expense of her treasure and resources.

A likely scenario is that, like the Soviet Union, America will collapse internally because of fiscal mismanagement, with its resources spent on corporate special interest welfare, domestic and foreign defense expenditures, expensive, ineffective and useless government programs, and because its practice fails its ideals. For example, in the state of California overspending benefiting the special interests has driven that state to political turmoil and de facto bankruptcy.³¹ In the meantime, other nations will probably evolve as America's opponents and the small wars and terrorist attacks are almost certain to go on draining away America's resources a bit each time. Like Sisyphus, America is destined to increasingly mount increasing domestic expenditures and foreign expeditions with uncertain public and international support, depending on quick ephemeral gains or losses. This all means that America's rule of men will continue unabated until the system collapses internally or its society reaches a boiling point which asks for and makes change or some new Caesar appears on the scene.

¹ Special interests include entities that can afford to lobby Congress and make contributions to politicians. Some entities are dominant and, more so than voters, they set public policy.

² John Harwood and Jeanne Cummings, Despite Instability in Iraq, Bush Retains Strong Support, Poll Finds, Wall Street Journal 7/31/03. Mr. Bush's popularity has declined in recent weeks to 56% from 62% in May.

³ Federal Courts Crush Inventors at http://inventors.coolissues.com/fcourts.htm

⁴ Gerry Spence, With Justice for None, Penguim Books, 1990. Chapter 9 (Insurance)

⁵ Nonexistent Discipline of Federal Judges at http://inventors.coolissues.com/djudges.htm

⁶ James Constant, Uncertainty of Law and Constitutional Government at http://law.coolissues.com/law.htm

⁷ U. S. Supreme Court Decision Bush v. Gore at http://supremecourt.coolissues.com/bushvgore.htm

⁸ Fouad Ajami, The Anti-Americans, Wall Street Journal 7/3/03; Albert Hunt, The Faux Foreign Policy Leadership, Wall Street Journal 8/14/03.

⁹ Edith Lederer, U.S. Brokers U.N. Mission for Iraq. Associated Press 8/14/03

¹⁰ Chuck Spinney transcript interview with Bill Moyers at http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_spinney.html

¹¹ WWII at http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761563737&pn=8

¹² Korean War at http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761559607 ; Will Matthews, An Unfinished War, Daily Bulletin 7/26/03; James Woolsey and Thomas McInerney, The Next Korean War, Wall Street Journal 8/4/03. Let's not be in denial. Force is an option in Korea.

¹³ Vietnam War at http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761552642

¹⁴ Cold War at http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761569374

¹⁵ Jay Bookman, Will Bush strategy make U.S. Secure? Atlanta Journal Constitution, 8/10/03. The Bush Doctrine seeks to enhance U.S. Security by projecting power, seeking permanent military dominance over every region of the planet. This doctrine asserts the right to preemptively attack any nation that threatens our interests. If others want to help, they will do so on our terms.

¹⁶ Editorial, The Coalition Grows, Wall Street Journal 7/30/03. Thirty nations are joining the U.S. In helping to rebuild Iraq.

¹⁷ Editorial, From Bonn to Baghdad, Wall Street Journal 8/11/03. NATO forces join the war on terror.

¹⁸ Barry McCaffrey, We Need More Troops, Wall Street Journal 7/29/03. We should be skeptical about our allies' military effectiveness, independent funding, and logistics support. The U.S. Army is very close to being overextended. The risk is too great. Our active strength of 491,000 is too small. Twenty four of our 33 active brigades (73%) are deployed. Fifteen of our 45 National Guard battalions are deployed. Some 368,000 Army soldiers are deployed to 120 foreign nations. We are in a global war on terror with inadequate forces; George Edmonson, Army to rotate soldiers in Iraq, Cox News Service 7/24/03;

¹⁹ Jeff Jacoby, Republicans go on a spending orgy, Boston Globe, 7/23/03. The federal spending train is racing out of control.

²⁰ David Goldman, The World is a Closed Economy, Wall Street Journal 8/12/03. The world market sets American asset prices. Europeans and Japanese fund their pensions, and the world places its savings, with higher returning U.S. assets. America is at little risk for the foreseeable future because the world's capital has nowhere else to go. Global instability makes U.S. Markets look better by comparison.

²¹ Marc Champion, A Besieged Blair Could Lose Ally - and Latitude, Wall Street Journal 7/31/03; Thomas Friedman, The war over the war against Saddam, New York Times 8/7/03; Maureen Dowd, Wolfowitz under fire by skeptical senators; New York Times 8/1/03; Vin Weber, As They Were Saying . . ., Wall Street Journal 8/13/03. The Bush arguments for war were widely shared before Saddam's regime fell - and often by present day critics.

²² Library of Congress, Declaration of War at http://www.daveross.com/war.html ; Margaret Burnham, War Powers: Towards Unchecked Executive Authority at http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew99.php

²³ Francis Fukuyama, The Real Intelligence Failure? Wall Street Journal 8/5/03. There are no WMDs, Iraqi scientists say. We have to confront the possibility that they are telling the truth.

²⁴ Alan Murray; Forget Yellowcake; How About Truth On Iraq War's Costs?, Wall Street Journal, 8/5/03; Alan Fram, Associated Press, 8/12/03. Iraq Price could hit $600B.

²⁵ Maureen Down, Wielding weapons of mass redaction, New York Times 7/25/03; Editorial, Our Friends the Saudis, Wall Street Journal 8/8/03. The kingdom's terror cooperation, or lack thereof, becomes a political issue.

²⁶ Casper Weinberger, The Anatomy of a Campaign, Wall Street Journal 7/18/03. The 'investigation' into Niger's yellowcake uranium is a sloppy device to discredit the president; Nicholas Christoff, White House deception on Iraq pattern of dishonesty, New York Times, 7/20/03; Editorial, The Imminence Invention, Wall Street Journal 8/5/03. The Iraq debate takes a false and dangerous turn.

²⁷ Noah Feldman, Operation Iraqi Democracy, Wall Street Journal, 7/15/03; Thomas Friedman, Iraq's fate could shake up neighbors, New York Times 8/12/03.

²⁸ Editorial, Saddam's Counterattack, Wall Street Journal 7/7/03. The public will endure casualties if it thinks its leaders have a strategy to win; http://www.wisenut.com/search/query.dll?q=Iraq+reconstruction+contracts ; Matthew Karnitschnig and Vauhini Vara, French, Germans Seek Business in Iraq, Wall Street Journal 8/15/03. Despite Fears of Exclusion by a Resentful U.S., Many See Postwar Opportunities.

²⁹ Economist Thomas Sowell has shown that cultural values of a people strongly influence their skills, choices of work, and level of success.

³⁰ Democracy in Iraq Unlikely, CIA warns, The Boston Globe 8/15/03; George Will, Spreading democracy, even if it's unwanted, Wall Street Journal 8/18/03.

³¹ Editorial, Buffettting California, Wall Street Journal 8/18/03. How the state's tax-and-regulate political culture has damaged its economy.

Copyright © 2003 Casander

By the same author:

Holy War at http://holywar.coolissues.com/hwar.htm