Читаем Dismantling the Empire полностью

Almost thirty years after those words were written, the situation has grown far worse. Until we decide (or are forced) to dismantle our empire, sell off most of our military bases in other people’s countries, and bring our military expenditures into line with those of the rest of the world, we are destined to go bankrupt in the name of national defense. We are well on our way, which is why the Obama administration faces such critical—and difficult—decisions when it comes to the Pentagon budget.


_____________

* After a bruising lobbying battle in the Senate, the Obama administration was able to kill the F-22 program in July 2009. Lockheed, however, hardly lost out. A month later, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced his support for the F-35 and even pressed for a production ramp-up for that plane, while publicly emphasizing the need to keep the program on budget and on schedule. Plans were then announced for the purchase of 513 F-35s through 2015 and, ultimately, a fleet of 2,443 planes. In November, word emerged that the program was already behind schedule and over budget. As a result, in January 2010, the Pentagon proposed delays and production cuts for the F-35. Lockheed, however, would still not lose out, since such delays would only curtail the program in the short term, while the total number of planes purchased would ultimately remain unchanged.






PART V


HOW TO END IT






    15    

DISMANTLING THE EMPIRE

July 30, 2009

However ambitious President Barack Obama’s domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the American living room: our long-standing reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy more than 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there—49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.

These massive concentrations of American military power outside the United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries. They are also unimaginably expensive. According to Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website Foreign Policy in Focus, the United States spends approximately $250 billion each year maintaining its global military presence. The sole purpose of this is to give us hegemony—that is, control or dominance—over as many nations on the planet as possible.

We are like the British at the end of World War II: desperately trying to shore up an empire that we never needed and can no longer afford, using methods that often resemble those of failed empires of the past—including the Axis powers of World War II and the former Soviet Union. There is an important lesson for us in the British decision, starting in 1945, to liquidate their empire relatively voluntarily, rather than being forced to do so by defeat in war, as were Japan and Germany, or by debilitating colonial conflicts, as were the French and Dutch. We should follow the British example. (Alas, they are currently backsliding and following our example by assisting us in the war in Afghanistan.)

Here are three basic reasons why we must liquidate our empire or else watch it liquidate us.


1. WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD OUR POSTWAR EXPANSIONISM

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

История экономического развитие Голландии в XVI-XVIII веках
История экономического развитие Голландии в XVI-XVIII веках

«Экономическая история Голландии» Э. Бааша, вышедшая в 1927 г. в серии «Handbuch der Wirtschaftsgeschichte» и предлагаемая теперь в русском переводе советскому читателю, отличается богатством фактического материала. Она является сводкой голландской и немецкой литературы по экономической истории Голландии, вышедшей до 1926 г. Автор также воспользовался результатами своих многолетних изысканий в голландских архивах.В этой книге читатель найдет обширный фактический материал о росте и экономическом значении голландских торговых городов, в первую очередь — Амстердама; об упадке цехового ремесла и развитии капиталистической мануфактуры; о развитии текстильной и других отраслей промышленности Голландии; о развитии голландского рыболовства и судостроения; о развитии голландской торговли; о крупных торговых компаниях; о развитии балтийской и северной торговли; о торговом соперничестве и протекционистской политике европейских государств; о системе прямого и косвенного налогообложения в Голландии: о развитии кредита и банков; об истории амстердамской биржи и т.д., — то есть по всем тем вопросам, которые имеют значительный интерес не только для истории Голландии, но и для истории ряда стран Европы, а также для истории эпохи первоначального накопления и мануфактурного периода развития капитализма в целом.

Эрнст Бааш

Экономика