Beware Empires in Decline

[bigtree]

Michael T. Klare | October 13, 2006

Editor: John Feffer, IRC

The common wisdom circulating in Washington these days is that the United States is too bogged down in Iraq to consider risky military action against Iran or—God forbid—North Korea. Policy analysts describe the U.S. military as “over-burdened” or “stretched to the limit.” The presumption is that the Pentagon is telling President Bush that it can't really undertake another major military contingency.

The decline of an empire can be a hard and painful thing for the affected imperial elites. Those who are used to commanding subservience and respect from their subjects and from lesser powers are often ill-prepared to deal with their indifference and contempt. Even harder is overcoming the long-inbred assumption that one's vassals are inferior—mentally, morally, and otherwise. The first malady makes the declining elites extraordinarily sensitive to perceived slights or insults from their former subjects; the second often leads elites to overestimate their own capabilities and to underestimate those of their former subjects—an often fatal error. The two misjudgments often combine to produce an extreme readiness to strike back when a perceived insult coincides with a (possibly deceptive) military superiority.

But what about the problem of the over-stretched U.S. military and all those American soldiers now bogged down in Iraq? This is where the second post-imperial malady comes in. Yes, American ground troops are bogged down in Iraq, but American air and sea power, currently under-utilized in the Iraq conflict, can be used to cripple Iranian military capabilities with minimum demand on U.S. ground forces. Despite the Israeli inability to emasculate Hezbollah with airpower during the Lebanon fighting last summer, American air and naval officers, I suspect, believe that they can inflict punishing damage on the Iranians with airpower alone, and do so without suffering significant casualties in return. I also suspect that well-connected neoconservatives and, no doubt, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld are whispering this message into the ear of President Bush.

And what about all the forms of retaliation we might expect from the Iranians, like an upsurge in Shiite disorder in Iraq and chaos in the oil markets? These and other likely Iranian responses are also said to be deterring a U.S. military strike. But the Iranians will be incapable of such coordinated action after the U.S. Air Force subjects them to Shock and Awe, and anyway there are contingency plans in place to deal with the fallout. Or so say the neocons, I would imagine.

So I believe that the common wisdom in Washington regarding military action against Iran is wrong. Just because American forces are bogged down in Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice appears to enjoy a bit more authority these days, does not mean that “realism” will prevail at the White House. I suspect that the response of declining British and French imperial elites when faced with provocative acts by a former subject power in 1956 is a far more accurate gauge of what to expect from the Bush administration today.

The impulse to strike back must be formidable. Soon, I fear, it will prove irresistible . . .

more: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3596


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[seemslikeadream]

1. does not mean

that “realism” will prevail

[bigtree]

2. realism, thy name is

not Condi

[BurtWorm]

3. I just had a similar thought

while reading the Washington Post story about Bush's use of the word "unacceptable." He's becoming more and more like a snake being pushed into a corner.

[bigtree]

4. It occurred to me right before I saw this article

the story about Bush having no plan if he loses . . . I thought, sure, no plan

He'll be pushing to make himself 'relevant' in whatever idiotic way he can. Up to this point, military action has been his favorite game.

[BurtWorm]

7. That's an excellent article.

Thanks for posting it!

:toast:

[Jcrowley]

5. Cautionary tale

K&R

[calimary]

6. Hey, bigtree, a really neat find. I liked this site. Decided it was worth

subscribing to (OY!!! My email overload!!!) - thanks for posting.

This essay makes a lot of sense. It bolsters what I've been thinking about the dilemma now gathering momentum in North Korea, but didn't have enough background info to use as a proof. I really love stuff like this, think pieces that give you historical perspective that informs a current condition, 'cause I really believe in that saying about those who don't study history - who are then doomed to repeat it. Interesting comparison to the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 which I've done next to no reading about. Sure do learn a lot of things from DU! This "Foreign Policy in Focus" site calls itself "a think tank without walls." Which, I think, describes the Democratic Underground to perfection. That's what we are, too.

[bigtree]

8. cool. I noticed it wasn't one I've run across. The author seems familiar

Success in the midterms or not, Bush has another military outrage planned. We need to have a majority in place to stand up to him.

Neat, that you subscribed. Bookmarked.

[bigtree]

9. kick

[sweetheart]

10. the whole idea of such a strike...

is a collosal error in judgement that would spark and polarize a world war.

The navy and the airforce are not ready for the global blowback after such an event,
nor will a bankrupt economy win hearts and minds with the legendary soft power that
came from the moral high ground of democratic administrations eschewing such criminal
violence as a tool of government.