Читаем Dismantling the Empire полностью

Shortly after his election as president, Barack Obama, in a speech announcing several members of his new cabinet, stated as fact that “[w]e have to maintain the strongest military on the planet.” A few weeks later, on March 12, 2009, in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., the president again insisted, “Now make no mistake, this nation will maintain our military dominance. We will have the strongest armed forces in the history of the world.” And in a commencement address to the cadets of the U.S. Naval Academy on May 22, Obama stressed that “[w]e will maintain America’s military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen.”

What he failed to note is that the United States no longer has the capability to remain a global hegemon, and to pretend otherwise is to invite disaster.

According to a growing consensus of economists and political scientists around the world, it is impossible for the United States to continue in that role while emerging into full view as a crippled economic power. No such configuration has ever persisted in the history of imperialism. The University of Chicago’s Robert Pape, author of the important study Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

, typically writes:


America is in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today’s world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back on the Bush years as the death knell of American hegemony.

There is something absurd, even Kafkaesque, about our military empire. Jay Barr, a bankruptcy attorney, makes this point using an insightful analogy:


Whether liquidating or reorganizing, a debtor who desires bankruptcy protection must provide a list of expenses, which, if considered reasonable, are offset against income to show that only limited funds are available to repay the bankrupted creditors. Now imagine a person filing for bankruptcy claiming that he could not repay his debts because he had the astronomical expense of maintaining at least 737 facilities overseas that provide exactly zero return on the significant investment required to sustain them. . . . He could not qualify for liquidation without turning over many of his assets for the benefit of creditors, including the valuable foreign real estate on which he placed his bases.

In other words, the United States is not seriously contemplating its own bankruptcy. It is instead ignoring the meaning of its precipitate economic decline and flirting with insolvency.

Nick Turse, author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, calculates that we could clear $2.6 billion if we would sell our base assets at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and earn another $2.2 billion if we did the same with Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. These are only two of our more than eight hundred overblown military enclaves.

Our unwillingness to retrench, much less liquidate, represents a striking historical failure of the imagination. In his first official visit to China since becoming treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner assured an audience of students at Beijing University, “Chinese assets [invested in the United States] are very safe.” According to press reports, the students responded with loud laughter. Well they might.

In May 2009, the Office of Management and Budget predicted that in 2010 the United States will be burdened with a budget deficit of at least $1.75 trillion. This includes neither a projected $640 billion budget for the Pentagon nor the costs of waging two remarkably expensive wars. The sum is so immense that it will take several generations for American citizens to repay the costs of George W. Bush’s imperial adventures—if they ever can or will. It represents about 13 percent of our current gross domestic product (that is, the value of everything we produce). It is worth noting that the target demanded of European nations wanting to join the Euro Zone is a deficit no greater than 3 percent of GDP.

Thus far, President Obama has announced measly cuts of only $8.8 billion in wasteful and worthless weapons spending, including his cancellation of the F-22 fighter aircraft. The actual Pentagon budget for next year will in fact be larger, not smaller, than the bloated final budget of the Bush era. Far bolder cuts in our military expenditures will obviously be required in the very near future if we intend to maintain any semblance of fiscal integrity.


2. WE ARE GOING TO LOSE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN AND IT WILL HELP BANKRUPT US

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