Here is why it is Impossible to Stop a Clever Terrorist Attack

.

Drmarkan:
Quote from southamerica:

.

NOTE: I found interesting that after watching the news on television on various cable channels - all sorts of programs - Not a single person mentioned the possibility that the "IRA" being involved in today's terrorist bombings in London.

I wonder if anyone still remembers the Oklahoma bombing in the US. All fingers were aimed to the Arabs and then......surprise.


.



This point seems rather ridiculous on your part considering the fact that a group calling itself the Secret Organization of Al-Qaeda in Europe. If the IRA was responsible, don't you think they would come forward and say that they actually did it?


****************


SouthAmerica: After living in the US for a long time I came to the conclusion that according to the American media and the US government there are two types of terrorists:

1) The bad type:
Al Qaeda, and some of the other Middle East groups that the media mentions all the time.

2) The good terrorists:
The “IRA”

I remember seeing in the news Pubs that the IRA had blown up and among the dead they found women and children.

But Gerry Adams the leader of the IRA has no problem coming to Boston and to New York to raise money for his terrorist organization.

The US government plays down the fact that the IRA is a terrorist organization, because Mr. Blair said that the IRA is a British problem and not an international problem.

I don’t know why everybody has ruled out the IRA's participation in the bombings in London yesterday.

It would be very clever of them if they were responsible for the bombings, because the media is blaming someone else for the attack – even a phantom or unknown Al Qaeda group.

The question is: Which group hates more the British - The IRA or Al Qaeda?

.
 
.

Sam123: Here we go again. You know, I just wonder how long it will take before everyone gets it. Never mind that these types of threads push me to repeat myself over and over again, but I fail to understand why people from so many walks of life remain stuck in this endless loop about defeating the tactic of terrorism, while remaining apologetic to the Islamic terrorists. It just makes no sense.


*************

SouthAmerica: I am not apologetic for what the Islamic terrorists are doing around the world.

The radicals in the Bush administration made a major mistake when they jumped in the middle of the Middle East turmoil.

A lot of the stuff that is transpiring in the Middle East was in the process of happening with or without the US involvement. Maybe the US involvement in the Middle East did speed up the developing events.

Every American should read a book by Emmanuel Todd “The Breakdown of the American Order – After the Empire” which was a best seller in Europe, but in the United States the book sold very few copies – and I never saw Mr. Todd being interviewed by any American television show.

Most Americans never heard of Emmanuel Todd. And they don’t know what is Mr. Todd’s claim to fame.

This article was originally published in Neue Zuricher Zeitung (The New Zuricher, Sunday morning).

July 26, 2003

“The Conceited Empire”

A historian credited with predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 1970s now says that the US has been on its way out for the last decade
by Martin A. Senn and Felix Lautenschlager
translated by Andreas Artz


The power and influence of the United States is being overestimated, claims French historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd. "There will be no American Empire." "The world is too large and dynamic to be controlled by one power." According to Todd, whose 1976 book predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no question: the decline of America the Superpower has already begun.

Emmanuel Todd compares the US to 16th century Spain, arguing that US economic power is being undermined by the decline of its industrial base and its increased dependence on other countries to feed its consumption. The power and influence of the United States is being overestimated, claims French historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd. "There will be no American Empire." "The world is too large and dynamic to be controlled by one power." According to Todd, whose 1976 book predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no question: the decline of America the Superpower has already begun.



***** * *


Emmanuel Todd is a 52 year-old Historian and Political Scientist at the National Institute for Demographics in Paris. His research examines the rise and fall of peoples and cultures over the course of thousands of years.

His newest publication predicts the fall of the United States as the sole superpower: Aprés l'Empire: Essaie sur la décomposition du systéme Américain (available in English from Columbia University Press in February 2004).

Todd attracted attention with a similar work in 1976, when he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union based on indicators such as increasing infant mortality rates: La chute final: Essais sur la décomposition de la sphére Soviétique.

Todd studied Political Science at the Institut de Etudes Politiques in Paris and completed his Doctor Thesis in Historical Sciences at Cambridge.



***************


This article was originally published in Neue Zuricher Zeitung (The New Zuricher, Sunday morning).

* * *

NZZ: Mr. Todd, you write that America is economically, militarily, and ideologically too weak to actually control the world. This would gladden many anti-Americans. But how is this anything but the wishful thinking of an intellectual who is the product of the French US critical tradition?

ET: This is neither wishful thinking nor anti-Americanism. Why would I have been so prominently criticized by the left? The French career anti-American paper "Le Monde diplomatique", was the only major paper that remained conspicuously silent on my book. The over-estimation of America is fundamental to these people. It is on this topic that they agree with the American ultra-conservatives: the former to demonize, the latter to aggrandize.

NZZ: You on the other hand can be accused of underestimating the United States.

ET: On the contrary, the US is still the most powerful nation in the world today, but there are many indicators that they are about to relinquish their position as solitary superpower. In my 1976 book, La chute finale (Before the Fall: The End of Soviet Domination), I based my prediction of the fall of the Soviet Union on the relevant indicators of the time. An analysis of current demographic, cultural, military, economic, and ideological factors leads me to conclude that the remaining pole of the former bipolar world order will not remain alone in its position. The world has become too large and complex to accept the predominance of one power. There will not be an American Empire.

Nevertheless, if others are to be believed, this empire has already been long in existence. "Get Used to It" was a recent headline in the New York Times Weekend Magazine.

That is very interesting. Now that the concept no longer corresponds to reality, it becomes commonplace. While there actually was a basis in reality, there was scarcely a mention of the concept.

NZZ: Then you are of the opinion that there was an American empire at one point?

ET: The American hegemony from the end of WW II into the late 1980s in military, economic, and ideological terms definitely had imperial qualities. In 1945 fully half the manufactured goods in the world originated in the US. And although there was a Communist-bloc in Eurasia, East Germany, and North Korea, the strong American military, the navy and air force, exercised strategic control over the rest of the globe, with the support and understanding of many allies, whose common goal was the fight against communism. Although communism had some dispersed support among intellectuals, workers, and peasant groups, the power and influence of the US was by and large with the agreement of a majority throughout the world. It was a benevolent empire. The Marshall Plan was an exemplary political and economic strategy. America was, for decades, a 'good' superpower.

NZZ: And now it is a bad one?

ET: It has, above all, become a weak one. The US no longer has the might to control the large strategic players, primarily Germany and Japan. Their industrial capacity is clearly smaller than that of Europe and approximately equal to that of Japan. With twice the population, this is no great accomplishment. Their trade deficit meanwhile, is in the order of $500 billion per year. Their military potential is nevertheless still the largest by far, but is declining and consistently over estimated. The use of military bases is dependant on the good will of their allies, many of which are not as willing as before. The theatrical military activism against inconsequential rogue states that we are currently witnessing plays out against this backdrop. It is a sign of weakness, not of strength. But weakness makes for unpredictability. The US is about to become a problem for the world, where we have previously been accustomed to seeing a solution in them.

NNZ: Assuming you are right: how did this budding empire slide so quickly into decline?

Further reading:

"The Eagle Has Crash Landed", Immanuel Wallerstein's lead article in Foreign Policy a year ago, made a very similar argument: US power is in decline, but it can still do a lot of damage on its way out.

"'A Dream Only American Power Can Inspire': The Project for the New American Century’s vision of global military dominance", which appeared in issue #1 of the Dominion, examines the thinking of the neoconservatives who hope to wield US military might for a long time to come.


.
 
.

SouthAmerica: Here is another interview with Emmanuel Todd.

Discussion:

This interview was the subject of some discussion at Metafilter.com.

A rift has been developing, slowly at first and then more quickly, between the US and their various geo-political areas of interest. During the early 1970's a deficit in the balance of trade began to open. The US assumed the role of consumer and the rest of the world took on the role of producer, in this increasingly unbalanced global process. The balance of trade went from a deficit of $100 billion in 1990 to $500 billion annually at present. This deficit has been financed through capital flowing into the US. Eventually the same effect experienced by the Spanish in 16th and 17th centuries will come to bear. As gold from the New World flooded in, the Spanish succumbed to decreasing productivity. They consumed and dissipated, lived high and beyond their means and fell into economic and technological arrears.

But America is still the leading example of economic and technological competence.

When I speak of the economy, then I mean the industrial core and the associated technological cutting edge, not the anemic New Economy. It is in the core industrial sphere that the US is falling dramatically behind. European investors lost billions in the US during the nineties, but the US economy lost an entire decade. As recently as 1990 the US was still exporting $35 billion more in advanced technology than it was importing. Now the balance of trade is negative even in this field. The US is far behind in mobile communications technology. The Finnish Nokia is four times the size of Motorola. More than half the communications satellites are being launched with European Ariane rockets. Airbus is about to surpass Boeing -- the most important transportation medium for personnel traffic in the modern global economy is about to be manufactured primarily in Europe. These are the things that are ultimately important. These are by far more vital and decisive factors than a war against Iraq.

Are you saying they are waging the wrong war in the wrong place?

The US leadership doesn't know anymore where to turn. They know that they are monetarily dependant on the rest of the world, and they are afraid of becoming inconsequential. There are no more Nazis and Communists. While a demographic, democratic, and politically stabilizing world recognizes that it is increasingly less dependant on the US, America is discovering that it is increasingly dependant on the rest of the world. That is the reason for the rush into military action and adventures. It is classic.

Classic?

The only remaining superiority is military. This is classic for a crumbling system. The final glory is militarism. The fall of the Soviet Union took place in an identical context. Their economy was in decline, and their leadership grew fearful. Their military apparatus gained in size and stature and the Russians embarked on adventures to forget their economic shortcomings. The parallels in the US are obvious. The process has significantly accelerated in the past few months.

Where do you see the indicators of these developments?

In European politics and in the weakness of the dollar. In my book I postulated an increasing commonality between France and Germany. In the meantime the positions adopted by the German Chancellor Schroeder and the French President Chirac in opposition to Bush have substantiated my "Historian's Theory". The unexpected, immediate, and strong response from US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took aim at "old Europe". It is, in fact, the new Europe that instills fear in him.

In the meantime, however, eight European states have come out in support of the US.

The significant occurrence was in Germany. The US can only maintain its position as sole superpower so long as it can maintain control over Germany and Japan, both of which are huge creditors of the USA. Therefore the historical significance cannot be over estimated, that a German chancellor could win an election on a "no to the war in Iraq", in effect a no to the United States.

What about the weak dollar?

As a historian, the dollar represents a "mentality indicator" to me. It reflects the awareness of international trade and business leaders of the realities of the American economy. The weakness of the dollar is indicative of their assessment that the situation is much worse than is openly acknowledged. The fact is that troops destined for the war in Iraq, which has been represented as a simple mission, are still not totally prepared. After a year of back and forth, the diplomatic heavyweights of France and Germany are trying to prevent this war, and the balance of the allies are participating mostly verbally, not financially. There is an immense risk in engaging in a war on the opposite side of the globe while fettered by a $500 billion trade deficit, a weak dollar and supported only by friends who are unwilling to share the costs.

You write that in the future there will be three, perhaps four strong polarities, of which the most influential will be Europe. Are you counting on an emerging European Superpower?

One of the working propositions of my book, After the Empire is that the concept of military control of the globe no longer makes any sense. In relation to the military, there will be a balance of power in the future. There is still a nuclear balance of power between the US and Russia. The notion that sections of the globe can be controlled through military might is passé, because it is unrealistic. You can destroy regimes and bomb their infrastructure, as the Americans have done in Afghanistan, but the populations -- including those in the developing world -- have become educated and literate enough to eliminate any possibility of re-colonization. The only power that ultimately counts today is economic power.

Do you believe that Europe has the "right stuff" economically for superpower status?

Why not? It is often said that the Europeans are somewhat naïve and passive. They are accused of having neglected their military. But when you understand that military might is no longer the true power, and when you see that presently the Americans no longer possess the economic means to maintain their military apparatus, then you must conclude that the Europeans have done the right thing. They have placed their reliance on their economy. They have introduced the Euro. Their industrial policies are coherent and substantial. Airbus is only one example. Europe is well armed.

For what is Europe "armed"?

For the conflict that is just beginning between the Americans who want a war in Iraq, and the Europeans who in effect don't want a war. Iraq, being close to Europe, is a supplier of oil to Europe as well as Japan. Nevertheless, they can afford to buy their oil with the money they earn from their industrial exports. They are economically strong enough to not have to control Iraq with military intervention. The US on the other hand, as a consequence of their massive trade deficit, barely has the means to pay for their oil consumption. That is why it is vital to exercise military control over this region on the other side of the globe. On the surface this appears to be a question of "war or no war", but in fact it is most likely a question of whose sphere of influence will Iraq fall under, Europe or America?

Who will win this battle of the spheres of influence?

Most apparent is how clumsy the US has been to date, and how far they have moved away from any notion of universality. They don't see the world as it really is anymore. They are failing in any balanced and fair approach to their allies. All of this reminds me of Germany under Wilhelm II. The US is losing allies steadily. One gets the impression that an office somewhere in Washington has been tasked with the duty to daily prepare a scheme to develop new enemies for the US.

Is it conceivable that Europe will one day attain the position America has enjoyed?

There will never be another single super power. In addition to the US, Europe, and Japan, Russia will rise again to prominence. China, despite their presently weak technology, will soon join the fray. Nevertheless, the traditional superpowers are all stagnating. But the developing world is fast gaining. And that is cause for some hope.

.
 
.

SouthAmerica: In August of 2004 I posted the following in the PBS message board.


August 6, 2004

Today, I do understand why Saudi Arabia suddenly became a bad guy after all these years of doing business with the United States. I just finish reading “After the Empire - The Breakdown of the American Order” by Emmanuel Todd. This book was a best seller in Europe last year, but was published here in the US only at the end of February of 2004.

This book gives an extraordinary explanation to what is happening around the world today. The book also mentioned what is happening in the Middle East and in Saudi Arabia. This book is a must read for anyone who really wants to understand what is going on between the United States and the rest of the world.

You might ask me what is so special about this author when compared with all the other similar books that are available on this subject?

Emmanuel Todd has a special credential that nobody else has; in 1976 he wrote a book predicting and explaining in detail the coming collapse of the Soviet Empire. He was away ahead of his time, and he was the first person to spot the coming problems.

Once again, he does a superb job on his new book when he explain in detail all the interactions today between the countries around the world with the US, and the causes for the coming collapse of the American economic system.

After reading this book you will have a better understanding of the reasons behind the change of US government policies towards the entire Arab world, including its old friend Saudi Arabia.

.
 
southamerica:

Only time will tell whether any of your beloved Frenchman's book
has any revelance to reality when it comes to the USA.

The USA is not the Soviet Union.

And everybody already knows that the USA is going to have a
hard time protecting itself from the likes of the terrorists. But
not trying at all would be stupid.

Eventually we will seek out and destroy all terrorists in the world.

It is only a matter of time.
 
.


Version77: Only time will tell whether any of your beloved Frenchman's book has any relevance to reality when it comes to the USA.

The USA is not the Soviet Union.

And everybody already knows that the USA is going to have a hard time protecting itself from the likes of the terrorists. But not trying at all would be stupid.

Eventually we will seek out and destroy all terrorists in the world.

It is only a matter of time.


*******************


SouthAmerica: Emmanuel Todd has a special credential that nobody else has; in 1976 he wrote a book predicting and explaining in detail the coming collapse of the Soviet Empire. He was away ahead of his time, and he was the first person to spot the coming problems.

I just heard of Mr. Todd’s name for the first time in 2003 when his latest book was published in Europe.


********

In September 2002 Brazzil magazine published my article “Countdown to Armageddon” and quoting from that article I said:

“The Soviet Union Collapse

In the summer of 1986 I was present at a dinner party in my mother's house, and she had about twelve guests at that diner. Among their friends, who were present that evening, there were two couples who came to the United States from Rumania, and they had been living in the U.S. since the early 1970's.

Sometime during the evening the conversation turned to politics and economics. Then I told the people at the diner table that from all the information I had been reading about the Soviet Union for a while, I had come to the conclusion that there was a very good probability that the Soviet Union was in the process of going broke.

Remember this was in 1986, Ronald Reagan was telling everyone about the potential dangers and threats from the Soviet Evil Empire. Our friend from Rumania told me in an emphatic voice "Fifty years from now the Soviets still will be one of the major powers in the world. I lived under Soviet rule, and I know how powerful they are."

I never forgot that evening because I became the joke of that dinner. I was the only person in the world to believe that the Soviet Union was going bankrupt. That evening, everyone had a good laugh at my expense. They thought I was out of my mind—the Soviet Union going broke, what a silly idea. Where does this guy get these crazy ideas?

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-1990 nobody was laughing at me any longer. About a month ago I went to a party to commemorate the 50th wedding anniversary of that Rumanian friend. I reminded him of that party in 1986. He told me that he still can't believe to this day what happened to the Soviet Union. The Soviets had made such a big impression on him that after all these years, he still is in shock from the Soviet Union's demise.


************


SouthAmerica: I am quoting the above information to highlight for you or to give you a perspective about the collapse of the Soviet Union. I experienced first hand in 1986 the verbal abuse of people when I said that in my opinion the Soviet Union was going broke and bankrupt.

A lot of very well educated and well informed people thought that I was out of my mind when I said that the Soviet Union was dying a slow death. Some people teased me in a way as if I was an idiot for saying such a silly thing.

Believe me when I say that in 1986 most Americans, maybe 100 percent of the population believed that the Soviet Union was a superpower and a menace to the future of the United States. And when someone like me came out and said that the Soviet economy was collapsing – the reaction of everybody was to laugh at what I was saying. Not a single person at the time believed me, and they thought that I was full of nonsense.

I was going through that experience in 1986, about ten years after Emmanuel Todd wrote his book about the coming collapse of the Soviet Union. I can imagine what people must have been saying about his book at the time in 1976, since in 1986 the idea of a Soviet Union collapse seems to most people like a crazy idea.

Americans are too indoctrinated in the ideas of war, and terrorism.

When I mentioned Mr. Todd’s book for many Americans they become defensive right the way, and they believe that they will beat whoever is going to attack them with an army or in an economic war. Americans are ready for battle. We are going to beat the terrorists, or any army that might attack us.

That is the problem.

Mr. Todd’s book and analysis is not about armies or terrorism. He draws his conclusions based on demographic trends, and education and some other variables that affect populations on their daily lives.

The capitalist system did totally beat the communist system since the communism system was adopted in Russia. The Soviet Empire collapse in the early 1990’s, left a legacy behind that is in the process of inflicting a blow to the economies of the major advanced capitalist countries of the last 50 years.

The communist system left behind a large pool of very well educated people who are ready to work for a fraction of the cost of the workers of the advanced capitalist economies. The communist system placed a very high priority on the education of people.

The communist economic system died, but the large numbers of very well educated people still around, and they are well educated in math and the sciences.

If you have the mentality that America will solve its problems by dropping 500 pounds bombs around the world, then Mr. Todd’s book is not for you.

His book is for people who have brains to think about solutions based on all the variables that are at play inside your country’s economic system.

.
 
.


SouthAmerica: After listening to some of the guests interviewed today in the television program “Meet the Press” – I had a feeling that they started preparing the US population for another terrorist attack in the United States.

I guess from what I hear on television the government wants Americans to go back to their regular jobs, and life should go back to normal the day after the next terrorist attack.

After seeing what the terrorists did to the subway in London – I would rather take the bus or a taxi when I need to go to Manhattan. I can’t imagine the panic and chaos that an attack could cause underground in the New York subway system.

If they had an attack in New York, as they had in London – How many people would be afraid of taking the subway at least for a period of time?

The New York City subway it is over 100 years old – What would happen to the structure of the buildings above ground if a large explosion occurs underground?

I am glad that I don’t live in Manhattan, and if I did I would be selling my house or apartment and would move somewhere else; to a place with a lower probability of being a target of another terrorist attack.

With today’s technologies only fools would stay working in Manhattan and serving as sitting ducks waiting for the next terrorist attack.

If I were a president of a large corporation located in Manhattan, I would move my employees and my business to a safer place in the New York Metropolitan area.

In case of another terrorist attack - I wonder if the employees would have the right to sue the corporation for negligence, because they did not move the employees to a safer place even after the constant warnings in the media of the possibility of another terrorist attack in New York City.

Does it the shareholders of the corporation has the right to sue the management and the corporation because of their lack of common sense by deciding to stay in Manhattan under such circumstances? Don’t we assume that management has the responsibility to protect the assets of the corporation including its intellectual assets – the employees?

Most analysts are not saying that we will not have another terrorist attack in the United States – they are saying that it is just a matter of time, and Manhattan continues to be the number one target in the US for obvious reasons.

.
 
Well, this is all speculation from intellectuals who are selling America short. All that stuff on America's empire and its hegemony, and how it will go down the poop shoot like Rome and so on.

The soft alliance between the Marxists and the Islamists is obvious because they are both selling America short and consequently have common interests.

And this is why we shouldn't expect any practical solutions from the Left on terrorism other than why America will lose, just like a short seller talking about the company he is shorting.

Quote from southamerica:

.

Sam123: Here we go again. You know, I just wonder how long it will take before everyone gets it. Never mind that these types of threads push me to repeat myself over and over again, but I fail to understand why people from so many walks of life remain stuck in this endless loop about defeating the tactic of terrorism, while remaining apologetic to the Islamic terrorists. It just makes no sense.


*************

SouthAmerica: I am not apologetic for what the Islamic terrorists are doing around the world.

The radicals in the Bush administration made a major mistake when they jumped in the middle of the Middle East turmoil.

A lot of the stuff that is transpiring in the Middle East was in the process of happening with or without the US involvement. Maybe the US involvement in the Middle East did speed up the developing events.

Every American should read a book by Emmanuel Todd “The Breakdown of the American Order – After the Empire” which was a best seller in Europe, but in the United States the book sold very few copies – and I never saw Mr. Todd being interviewed by any American television show.

Most Americans never heard of Emmanuel Todd. And they don’t know what is Mr. Todd’s claim to fame.

This article was originally published in Neue Zuricher Zeitung (The New Zuricher, Sunday morning).

July 26, 2003

“The Conceited Empire”

A historian credited with predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 1970s now says that the US has been on its way out for the last decade
by Martin A. Senn and Felix Lautenschlager
translated by Andreas Artz


The power and influence of the United States is being overestimated, claims French historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd. "There will be no American Empire." "The world is too large and dynamic to be controlled by one power." According to Todd, whose 1976 book predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no question: the decline of America the Superpower has already begun.

Emmanuel Todd compares the US to 16th century Spain, arguing that US economic power is being undermined by the decline of its industrial base and its increased dependence on other countries to feed its consumption. The power and influence of the United States is being overestimated, claims French historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd. "There will be no American Empire." "The world is too large and dynamic to be controlled by one power." According to Todd, whose 1976 book predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no question: the decline of America the Superpower has already begun.



***** * *


Emmanuel Todd is a 52 year-old Historian and Political Scientist at the National Institute for Demographics in Paris. His research examines the rise and fall of peoples and cultures over the course of thousands of years.

His newest publication predicts the fall of the United States as the sole superpower: Aprés l'Empire: Essaie sur la décomposition du systéme Américain (available in English from Columbia University Press in February 2004).

Todd attracted attention with a similar work in 1976, when he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union based on indicators such as increasing infant mortality rates: La chute final: Essais sur la décomposition de la sphére Soviétique.

Todd studied Political Science at the Institut de Etudes Politiques in Paris and completed his Doctor Thesis in Historical Sciences at Cambridge.



***************


This article was originally published in Neue Zuricher Zeitung (The New Zuricher, Sunday morning).

* * *

NZZ: Mr. Todd, you write that America is economically, militarily, and ideologically too weak to actually control the world. This would gladden many anti-Americans. But how is this anything but the wishful thinking of an intellectual who is the product of the French US critical tradition?

ET: This is neither wishful thinking nor anti-Americanism. Why would I have been so prominently criticized by the left? The French career anti-American paper "Le Monde diplomatique", was the only major paper that remained conspicuously silent on my book. The over-estimation of America is fundamental to these people. It is on this topic that they agree with the American ultra-conservatives: the former to demonize, the latter to aggrandize.

NZZ: You on the other hand can be accused of underestimating the United States.

ET: On the contrary, the US is still the most powerful nation in the world today, but there are many indicators that they are about to relinquish their position as solitary superpower. In my 1976 book, La chute finale (Before the Fall: The End of Soviet Domination), I based my prediction of the fall of the Soviet Union on the relevant indicators of the time. An analysis of current demographic, cultural, military, economic, and ideological factors leads me to conclude that the remaining pole of the former bipolar world order will not remain alone in its position. The world has become too large and complex to accept the predominance of one power. There will not be an American Empire.

Nevertheless, if others are to be believed, this empire has already been long in existence. "Get Used to It" was a recent headline in the New York Times Weekend Magazine.

That is very interesting. Now that the concept no longer corresponds to reality, it becomes commonplace. While there actually was a basis in reality, there was scarcely a mention of the concept.

NZZ: Then you are of the opinion that there was an American empire at one point?

ET: The American hegemony from the end of WW II into the late 1980s in military, economic, and ideological terms definitely had imperial qualities. In 1945 fully half the manufactured goods in the world originated in the US. And although there was a Communist-bloc in Eurasia, East Germany, and North Korea, the strong American military, the navy and air force, exercised strategic control over the rest of the globe, with the support and understanding of many allies, whose common goal was the fight against communism. Although communism had some dispersed support among intellectuals, workers, and peasant groups, the power and influence of the US was by and large with the agreement of a majority throughout the world. It was a benevolent empire. The Marshall Plan was an exemplary political and economic strategy. America was, for decades, a 'good' superpower.

NZZ: And now it is a bad one?

ET: It has, above all, become a weak one. The US no longer has the might to control the large strategic players, primarily Germany and Japan. Their industrial capacity is clearly smaller than that of Europe and approximately equal to that of Japan. With twice the population, this is no great accomplishment. Their trade deficit meanwhile, is in the order of $500 billion per year. Their military potential is nevertheless still the largest by far, but is declining and consistently over estimated. The use of military bases is dependant on the good will of their allies, many of which are not as willing as before. The theatrical military activism against inconsequential rogue states that we are currently witnessing plays out against this backdrop. It is a sign of weakness, not of strength. But weakness makes for unpredictability. The US is about to become a problem for the world, where we have previously been accustomed to seeing a solution in them.

NNZ: Assuming you are right: how did this budding empire slide so quickly into decline?

Further reading:

"The Eagle Has Crash Landed", Immanuel Wallerstein's lead article in Foreign Policy a year ago, made a very similar argument: US power is in decline, but it can still do a lot of damage on its way out.

"'A Dream Only American Power Can Inspire': The Project for the New American Century’s vision of global military dominance", which appeared in issue #1 of the Dominion, examines the thinking of the neoconservatives who hope to wield US military might for a long time to come.


.
More...
 
Quote from southamerica:






After seeing what the terrorists did to the subway in London – I would rather take the bus or a taxi when I need to go to Manhattan. I can’t imagine the panic and chaos that an attack could cause underground in the New York subway system.


More...

Well, I saw something on the news today (don't remember exactly) about the fact they are coming up with or already have a way of making cell phones unusable in either tunnels or the subway stations.

That will put a dent in the dumb terrorists plans.

More American ingenuity is certainly on the way...

You underestimate the intelligence of Americans... :D

You also forget we like war. It is kind of a challenge type thing with us.

Without us, the French would be speaking German...

Or exterminated... probably gassed... or in slave camps... still... :eek:

What's weird is that the French don't want to help out with the
war with the extemist Islamics... lazy?... scared?... Who knows...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top