by Eric Martin
John Quiggin, in musing on the relatively short lived era of the "hyperpower" (as measured by Thomas Friedman's arc of enthusiasm), distills what is the essential moral:
A central lesson of this experience (of course, not one that Friedman or Joffe is ever likely to learn) is that the whole idea of a military hyperpower is a nonsense. The idea that military force can be used for any positive purpose (that is, other than as a defensive response to the use of military force by others) persists despite a lack of any significant supporting evidence. The US crusade in Iraq has cost, or will cost $3 trillion (not to mention the lives of thousands of American, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). That’s more than the US would spend on official development assistance for the whole world in 100 years at current rates (and the lion’s share of ODA goes to supporting military/geopolitical goals – the poorest countries get less than $10 billion a year between them). Things have gone pretty badly in Iraq, but even supposing that the ultimate outcome had been a stable and prosperous democracy, it’s clear that the benefit-cost ratio would be very low. You get a similar answer if you look at the whole period since Macarthur pushed on to the Yalu river back in 1950. And by comparison with other countries that have tried to use military power to pursue foreign policy goals, the US has done much better (or rather, much less badly) than anyone else.
Or as I have been fond of arguing over the years, falling prey to the seduction of "unipolarity," and vastly overestimating its scope and permanence, only accelerates its unraveling.
As to the utility of military force in the larger sense, I was making a similar argument -if smaller bore - on Democracy Arsenal today
A bit digressive, but I'll say this is some of what you get when you try to be a hyperpower, and also do it very stupidly.
There's a whole lot more.Matt Osborne also had an excellent post here on this.
Entirely separately, it's clear that Colin Powell has gone dhimmi.
Excellent post at DA, as well, Eric.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 09, 2010 at 08:53 PM
That's not what I see as the lesson. There are any number of purposes that would count as non-positive by the definition above where the US military can be used. It can be used successfully to topple governments, to assassinate or take as hostage foreign leaders, to destroy foreign infrastructure, to enforce blockades and embargoes, to disrupt the activities of pirates, to restrict the use of airspace, to manipulate public opinion at home, and to drive invading armies out of the home territory of allies.
It can't be used to invade a hostile territory, hold it, govern it and then enforce peace in it. Technological innovation in the last half of the 20th century improved the chances of guerilla fighters in that situation.
A trio of 2 fighters with RPGs along with a fighter with an AK-47 to cover them have chances orders of magnitude better than those facing imperial powers did 100 years ago.
But that is only one use case, in many ways imperial armies (or hyperpowers as you now call them) are more effective now than ever before. A country like the US can bomb civilians from drones on a daily basis without any American getting his hands bloody in any non-figurative way.
Posted by: Duff Clarity | September 09, 2010 at 09:05 PM
Joe "they shall not pass" (not referring to kidney stones) Joffre? Tom "suck on this" (for six months) Friedman? They are pikers compared to modern day imperialists like Niall Ferguson. I mean really, just because the Brits could build a world empire on the cheap doesn't mean we, or anybody else, can do the same.....although we have vastly exceeded the Brits in the level of our enthusiastic conceit regarding our Empire's scope and permanence.
On the other hand, we may compare more similarly to Rome in the last decades of the Republic...we're a couple hundred years along, on top of the international heap, have learned the how of empire in Latin America, and have had amazing success in international war.
It can only go up from here. So where's our Caesar?
Posted by: bobbyp | September 09, 2010 at 09:43 PM
"So where's our Caesar?"
Probably coming from the Air Force Academy. (See also, if you're not exhausted by Sharlet.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 09, 2010 at 10:24 PM
I know who I'd like to pelt emperor Friedman in his new clothes with some tomato ketchup.
Posted by: Pinko Punko | September 09, 2010 at 10:44 PM
Gray, cut them some slack! They had to replace all the gay translators they fired [/sarcasm]
Posted by: Hartmut | September 10, 2010 at 03:15 AM
Amid a bunch of dubiously positive possible uses, Buff clarity does have one very good example. There really isn't any good way to deal with pirates other than military force. It's not only true when they are government sanctioned (or at least tolerated) as in Tripoli a couple of centuries back. It is also true even when, as in Somalia, they are coming from a place where there isn't any government to deal with.
Posted by: wj | September 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM
A country like the US can bomb civilians from drones on a daily basis without any American getting his hands bloody in any non-figurative way.
Not exactly. Blowback is a bitch.
It can be used successfully to topple governments,
But this is not wise considering the chaos that follows. It would be extreme folly in almost all settings.
to assassinate or take as hostage foreign leaders
I'd like to hear an example of how and where this would be feasible, given the likely response/countermeasures.
to destroy foreign infrastructure
see above
to enforce blockades and embargoes, to disrupt the activities of pirates, to restrict the use of airspace,
This is your strongest argument, and I tend to agree. Though such actions are increasingly of limited utility (with the exception of the pirate thingy).
to manipulate public opinion at home,
This, I don't believe, would be a positive, and the costs would be huge to any democracy/imperial entity as eventually it would take it down.
and to drive invading armies out of the home territory of allies.
I think this falls under Quiggin's self defense category - as defense of others is recognized under similar doctrine legally.
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 10, 2010 at 10:52 AM
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
One of the ironies of the Oughts -- advocates of the Iraq War could not resist the temptation to extend American hegemony, but in so doing, weakened its grip. The PNAC showed the rest of the world that the hyperpower wears no clothes.
Posted by: Model 62 | September 10, 2010 at 11:26 AM
"Do you think that there have maybe been more than 3 Americans assaulted for being black, white, gay, married interracially, etc? Does that make you think that Americans are a violent type that can't be trusted?"
Here's a test: Is prejudice against blacks, interracial marriage, and so on, common enough in this country that the media self-censor out of fear of it? Not so I've noticed.
So let me get this straight- you claim that a few individuals have been attacked by nutjob Muslims and this proves how violent Muslims are and how the entire category of "Muslims" is somehow responsible for this behavior. I ask about the many more indviduals attacked by nutjobs because of race etc and if it tells you anything about group responsibility of white people, males, heteros, etc.
And you blatantly yank the goalposts up and run with them. Why should I bother responding to your argument this time- if I come up with an effective response, history suggests that you'll just take your goalposts and move again. [Well, that and your point is already in smouldering ruins, no need to pile on].
Posted by: Carleton Wu | September 10, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I think you're looking for that thread over there...
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 10, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Actually, the pirate thingy is an illustration of the limits of hyperpower. Despite having far more naval power than all other countries combined, the US has been no more successful than anyone else in dealing with Somali pirates. The occasional successes, like one we've just seen are just like the capture of "drug kingpins", or the killing of "Al Qaeda's No 3". They make good headlines, but don't change anything.
Posted by: John Quiggin | September 11, 2010 at 12:20 AM
No, the pirate thingy is not an illustration of the limits of hyperpower. Which is a stupid word, just use the word imperial for f***'s sake.
What is the %age of GDP that the US spends on the military? 5% give or take? And what percentage of that is spent on killing Somali pirates? One tenth of 1% if we're being generous?
OK, so if that was increased by an order of magnitude or two do you think it wouldn't have an effect? Of course it would. Killing Somali pirates is not a priority of the US military today. If Somali pirates start to seriously cut in to corporate profits, it will become a priority, but for now it's not.
Would be? You don't need to travel into the future. Ever hear of Panama? Noreiga would be thrilled to discuss your theories of how the US can't take foreign leaders hostage.
Ever hear of Iraq? If the mission in Iraq had been framed as find Saddam and capture or kill him it would have been a success.
Your argument is.....well.
Precisely zero people have been killed in America due to blowback from drone attacks. It has been completely bitch free to this point.
Point one here, we are not talking about what is wise. We are talking about what is possible. The argument Mr. Quiggen made is that "these things are not possible". Not that they are unwise.
Point two, plenty of governments have been toppled by the US in the last 50 years, many of them relatively chaos-free.
Plenty of examples of the US military destroying infrastructure. Serbia gives us lip, the Chinese embassy is no more. Etc.
We're not arguing utility, we're arguing possibility. Can the US military do these things? It can. Will it? If the price is right.
Eventually? Quick wars win votes. Occupying foreign lands full of RPG and AK wielding adversaries will lose votes.
Hyperpower is a silly term. Belittling the power of the US military is also silly.
There are three powers on the earth today, the US, the EU, and China. Two of those don't want to play soldier quite yet. Until they do, the US is the imperial power.
Posted by: Duff Clarity | September 11, 2010 at 01:48 AM
Duff Clarity,
It's a bit confusing when you quote different commenters making different comments. Is your point that the US should continue to be an imperial power because it is a good thing, or they should continue because the alternative is not possible?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 11, 2010 at 07:04 AM
Would be? You don't need to travel into the future. Ever hear of Panama? Noreiga would be thrilled to discuss your theories of how the US can't take foreign leaders hostage.
Well, yeah, we would have to travel into the future because the proposition is a forward looking one.
But yeah, I think we have the power to do so in certain small third word countries.
Ever hear of Iraq? If the mission in Iraq had been framed as find Saddam and capture or kill him it would have been a success.
Not really, the place woud still be a massive cock-up, smack dab in the middle of oil country with many a neighbor/ally with massive threats on their borders.
Besides, what good would killing Saddam be if you left his sons in place. And if you killed them to, you have the Baath in power still.
That would be a positive use? Worth it? Um, no.
Precisely zero people have been killed in America due to blowback from drone attacks. It has been completely bitch free to this point.
Well, there have been attempts, for sure, and there have been attacks overseas on Americans as a direct result. And Nidal was motivated by the general unleashing of violence in Muslim lands, there and elsewhere. And he killed Americans.
And the clock has hardly run, right? I mean, blowback is not a real-time phenomenon in all circumstances. Odds are, we will suffer some attack as a result - not just of those attacks, but others. Not free.
Point one here, we are not talking about what is wise. We are talking about what is possible. The argument Mr. Quiggen made is that "these things are not possible". Not that they are unwise.
I don't think so. If you read the context, it is pretty clear that "possibe" is meant within acceptable costs. There are many things that our military could "possibly" do that Quiggin and I would acknowledge. But it's about whether the action makes sense in a cost-benefit frame.
Point two, plenty of governments have been toppled by the US in the last 50 years, many of them relatively chaos-free.
Militarily? Not so sure. Most involve some type of nasty blowback/future headache/present chaos.
Iraq didn't work out so well. Ditto Afghanistan. Panama/Grenada are kind of exceptional in that they woud be hard to replicate.
If you're talking CIA coups, that's another story, but even then, there tends to be lots of nasty outcomes. Iran?
Plenty of examples of the US military destroying infrastructure. Serbia gives us lip, the Chinese embassy is no more. Etc.
Plenty? I'm not aware of plenty in the hyperpower era.
We're not arguing utility, we're arguing possibility. Can the US military do these things? It can. Will it? If the price is right.
No, I'm talking utility in a cost-benefit frame. Shoot, if we're talking possible, the US could nuke the world. But that's not really the conversation. At least not the one I was engaged in.
Hyperpower is a silly term. Belittling the power of the US military is also silly.
Not belittling at all. Putting a realistic stop on some of the unipolar, hyperpower fantasies.
Many of the things we "can" do, would end up being far more costly in the long run.
As we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. See, also, Somalia.
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 11, 2010 at 01:00 PM
That's not how I read Quiggin's argument. In his piece he links to what he calls his "end of hyperpower argument" where he states:
He's saying the US can't impose its will on Iran through military force. It can. Quiggin is taking the results of two long term occupations of hostile countries that were done without raising taxes and without conscription and using the results from those to make conclusions across the board about military options in general.
Most people thought the first war with Iraq worked out pretty well. It wasn't a long term occupation of a hostile country. The second war with Iraq and the war in Afghanistan were. Panama and Grenada weren't. I'm starting to see a pattern here.
If it isn't a unipolar world with the US as the sole imperial power, who are the other players? What other powers can invade and occupy two hostile nations halfway across the world while maintaining an army in Europe, an army in South Korea, an army in Japan, and military forces in 150 countries across the world?
The lesson to be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan isn't that US military power is exaggerated or that it's role as an imperial power is in decline. The lesson to be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that invading countries is easy and occupying them is hard.
Posted by: Duff Clarity | September 11, 2010 at 03:06 PM
He's saying the US can't impose its will on Iran through military force. It can.
But it can't - at acceptable costs. If it could, the Bush administration would have already done so years ago. This argument is correct, and demonstrably so. The Bush admin definitely wanted to impose its will on Iran, Iran not only refused to comply, it openly countered us in Iraq. And we took it relatively meekly because we know the costs of starting a war with Iran would be too high.
Most people thought the first war with Iraq worked out pretty well. It wasn't a long term occupation of a hostile country.
Right, and that wasn't a war to topple a government. Which was what that comment addressed. In my first comment, I said that we could expel foreign invaders of allies, and I said that such action fell in Quiggin's self defense penumbra.
The second war with Iraq and the war in Afghanistan were. Panama and Grenada weren't. I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Grenada is so small it doesn't belong in this conversation. You don't have to be a hyperpower or even a superpower to pick of Grenada.
Panama is the one strong counterargument. But it seems distinguishable in many ways, not least of which was proximity to the US, historical relationship and the fact that, really, there was a ready made replacement that didn't require us to stick around.
If it isn't a unipolar world with the US as the sole imperial power, who are the other players? What other powers can invade and occupy two hostile nations halfway across the world while maintaining an army in Europe, an army in South Korea, an army in Japan, and military forces in 150 countries across the world?
Two thoughts: First, the question isn't whether or not we are a hyperpower, or whether the world is still unipolar (I would say it is, but it's changing quick with the ascension of China).
The question is what does unipolarity entail. What does it enable us to achieve, in a strategic sense, at acceptable costs.
The answer: not nearly as much as the cult of unipolarity and hyperpower would have had us believe when they were counseling a series of invasions from Iraq, to Syria to Iran - with Afghanistan still smoldering.
Shoot, we couldn't even get just Iraq and Afghanistan right at acceptable costs.
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 11, 2010 at 03:39 PM
"Shoot, we couldn't even get just Iraq and Afghanistan right at acceptable costs."
Given that I have a brain that likes to wander, I wonder if, fifty years from now, we might possibly look back, and conclude that the mistake of the Iraq invasion prevented the far worse mistakes possible if somehow America had smoothly and easily digested Iraq and Afghanistan, in which case we would have proceeded to keep invading and occupying countries until we truly were in a massive set of wars we both couldn't win and couldn't get out of, wars which wouldn't only be fought by our military in distant lands.
It's hardly difficult to outline counterfactuals, and then possible future outcomes, that are a hell of a lot worse than the horrorshow we wound up with.
This is NOT AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY anything about what America did in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm simply contemplating that it's always possible to do even far worse, and that the law of unintended consequences always holds mysteries. A America emboldened by successfully conquering Iraq and Afghanistan seems unlikely to just stop at that.
And bullies don't tend to think of themselves as bullies.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 11, 2010 at 04:09 PM
Not a single true Scotsman to be found, huh?
The US has the military capability to strike Iran. It has plans drawn up and ready to strike Iran if the unlikely event occurs that Iran gets close to being able to produce nuclear weapons before Israel strikes Iran. The US has almost certainly already been positioning forces in the region and scouting locations within Iran in preparation for a possible attack. The fact that it has not yet done so is not in any way an indication of a decline in US military power.
I don't know what the word "even" is doing in that sentence. Those two wars are precise examples of the types of conflicts which have become particularly difficult since the end of World War 2.
They aren't difficult due to any lack of military, diplomatic, financial or moral resources. They are difficult because the world is awash in cheap, effective, easy to use and easy to hide Soviet-designed weapons that last forever and that allow guerilla fighters to carry out hit and run attacks on their own terms and to slowly bleed their enemy over months and years and decades.
That has little to do with the ability of the US to project military power on a global basis in other scenarios - such as destroying infrastructure that can be used to produce nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Duff Clarity | September 11, 2010 at 07:07 PM
Duff, when you say
hey are difficult because the world is awash in cheap, effective, easy to use and easy to hide Soviet-designed weapons that last forever and that allow guerilla fighters to carry out hit and run attacks on their own terms and to slowly bleed their enemy over months and years and decades.
and earlier
There are three powers on the earth today, the US, the EU, and China. Two of those don't want to play soldier quite yet. Until they do, the US is the imperial power.
I get the impression that you think the US is an imperial power because we have no choice, but I want to make sure. Obviously, if you are arguing that this is unavoidable, the response will be different than if you argue that this is a good thing to do.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 11, 2010 at 07:57 PM
Lj, I'm a Buchananite on foreign policy, if on nothing else - other than perhaps animal welfare. I don't find much in his 2000 campaign platform on foreign policy to which to object. I agree with him that "Either America finds an exit strategy from empire, or we lose our republic" and I agree with him that "America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital".
What I am describing is not the world I want to exist but rather the world that actually does exist.
The US sent an army halfway around the world to invade a foreign nation, the army went in and overthrew the government in a few weeks, held the country as an occupying power for years, set up elections for the country to choose its own leaders, and then pulled most of the troops out while keeping a strategically valuable military presence in the country. It did so at the cost of a few thousand US lives and it did so without conscription and without raising taxes to pay for the war. Yes, the deficit went up but the US dollar is still the world's strongest currency and the currency people flock to when financial markets go to hell.
And you people are acting like the US got its ass kicked.
The majority of the countries in the world host US military forces. That's an imperial power.
I thought about not putting in the "Soviet-designed" bit. It's just interesting to me that a country based on forcing various nations to co-exist under one flag against their will designed and developed the weapons that made that so much more difficult.
Posted by: Duff Clarity | September 11, 2010 at 08:43 PM
"It did so at the cost of a few thousand US lives...."
And over thirty thousand wounded in Iraq alone, as of last February, many with limbs gone, or parts of their brain, or both.
And hundreds of thousands of soldiers rotated through repeated tours of duty, changing their lives and that of their families forever.
And at no cost to Iraqis, no cost to the region, no cost to U.S. standing in the region and the world, no cost in recruiting jihadis, no cost to the Army as an institution, nor any other cost you consider worth mentioning.Posted by: Gary Farber | September 11, 2010 at 09:12 PM
But Gary, we're an empire now. We make our own reality.
[sorry, I couldn't resist.]
Did we get our ass kicked? No, we kicked it ourselves. Sure, the interest rate is low now but so is our standing. Are we more secure than before? Signs point to "no."
Posted by: ral | September 11, 2010 at 09:47 PM
I am inclined to say that mo Iran was not attacked (openly) by the US military under Chain-Eye/Bush not because of fiscal or capacity reasons but because the WH thought that the political costs were to high (and I mean internal costs, not international relations). Had they 'gone to Tehran', they would have almost certainly lost the elections. And provoking Iran into open conflict ('they fired the first shot') did not really work despite some serious attempts after the Iraq justification fiasco. The world might have been saved for once because of political cynicism being stronger than fanaticism (there were enough people close to the administration beating the war drum without regard for costs).
Posted by: Hartmut | September 12, 2010 at 05:37 AM
Well, Duff Clarity, the opposition to a Buchananite foreign policy, at least for me, comes from where it springs from (basically, the dark dark heart of Patrick Buchanan) I think his words probably damn him more than anything I could point out.
But I'm not going to saddle you with that baggage, but when you invoke it admiringly, you have to remember, it comes from an idea that people who are not American do not deserve the same consideration and respect that Americans do. (A sampling of his views on immigration are here) My own feeling is that if this notion of let's get out of the empire business originates in a notion that we can pull up the drawbridge and keep the rest of the world out, it's not going to lead to anything I'd want.
As far as existing worlds versus desired worlds, you seem to want to get to a world where US troops are not stationed around the globe. But if you argue that there is no cost to it, it doesn't seem like the best way to convince people that those troops need to be brought back. Taking your argument that we can do anything we want at little or not cost, why precisely should we then say 'so that's a good reason to stop being an imperial power'. This is not agreeing with your argument, but just pointing out that it seems to lack logical consistency.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | September 12, 2010 at 06:48 AM
Not a single true Scotsman to be found, huh?
Not at all. The very first commment I acknoweldged that expelling foreign armies from allies countries was what Quiggin and I - or at least I - was acknowledging that we had the power to do within acceptable means.
Further, in follow up questions, I was discussing the chaos that follows toppling a government to be unacceptable, and you brought up Gulf I. So I pointed out that this didn't involve toppling a government.
Please look at the conversation upthread
Thus, it's not a true scotsman question at all.
And, really, Grenada? Again, you don't have to be a hyperpower to overthrow the govt of Grenada.
Panama is he exception, as I acknowledged more than once.
Though I find it hard to believe that the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan will be, due to our experience in Panama, such ventures are doable.
The US has the military capability to strike Iran. It has plans drawn up and ready to strike Iran if the unlikely event occurs that Iran gets close to being able to produce nuclear weapons before Israel strikes Iran. The US has almost certainly already been positioning forces in the region and scouting locations within Iran in preparation for a possible attack. The fact that it has not yet done so is not in any way an indication of a decline in US military power.
Not a decline in military power per se, though we are overstretched at the moment. It's just that we can't do so at acceptable costs given our current commitments, and the sate of our economy, and the potential oil shock.
That is evident. That is also what Quiggin and, at least I was saying. Not that we are incapable, just that we've had to realize what the constraints are even though we are, technically, militarily capable.
And you people are acting like the US got its ass kicked.
Closer to 5 thousand lives than a few. Didn't raise taxes, but we had to because the costs of that war will top a few trillion all said and done. And we've installed an Iran-friendly regime comprised of parties formed in Iran, by Iran. Big win.
And either way, I never said we got our asses kicked.
I merely said that it illustrated the limits of unipolarity and hyperpotency.
Heck, I'm not even saying that the lesson was learned by one and all, but the lesson is clear.
And, yes, it was because of Iraq and Afghanistan that we haven't gone after Iran yet. You think Cheney et al were just waiting for the right time?
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 12, 2010 at 07:40 AM
Precisely zero people have been killed in America due to blowback from drone attacks.
That's because Faisal Shahzad is a screwup.
Just saying.
Posted by: russell | September 12, 2010 at 09:05 AM
Military intervention can succeed, it depends on a lot of factors. The US intervention in Liberia was a success as was the British intervention in Sierre Leone and the French in Ivory Coast. The interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia were also largely successful. Working out why some succeed and others fail is not a simple problem.
Posted by: Brett Dunbar | September 12, 2010 at 07:10 PM
I think Duff Clarity is completely wrong about modern weaponry and the guerrilla.
A hundred years ago, the Afrikaner guerrillas had much more parity with the British imperial forces in the South African War, than did Iraqi guerrillas facing American imperial forces a century later.
Recent developments have all been against the guerrilla.
1. Modern body armour is highly resistant to the abundant Kalashnikov-type automatic rifles.
2. Modern night fighting equipment has enabled imperial forces to close the night-time gap which in the past always heavily favoured the guerrilla.
3. Modern communication and remote-sensing equipment help the imperial forces. Guerrillas can't use radio bandwidth much because they want to avoid traceable emissions. But now every single imperial soldier in battle has a real-time link to his fellows and superiors.
4. Counter-battery radars are cheap and deployed down to a quite low echelon among imperial forces. This greatly inhibits the guerrilla's use of mortars. From my study of Iraqi mortar use, a typical attack involved only firing about three rounds. One cannot find the range with only three rounds--mortars just aren't accurate enough.
But the Iraqis had little choice. By the time the third round or so is in the air, American radar has already determined their firing position, and the US retaliation fire is on its way.
In other wars, the guerrillas could often engage in protracted mortar bombardments of imperial positions, inflicting significant losses.
5. Aircraft and armoured fighting vehicles heavily favour the imperial forces. Guerrillas cannot produce, conceal, or logistically support such weapons. The only good answer the guerrilla might have are RPGs and MANPADS. But guerrillas cannot produce those weapons either--they must be supplied from the outside.
Soviet-era RPG-7 and Strela are still plentiful, but they're quite obsolete. The USA was able to drive even their lightest AFV around Iraqi cities with little to fear from RPGs. Meanwhile American helicopters would laze about in the skies overhead, fearless of anything the Iraqis might have to shoot at them (I suggest you watch the Wikileaks "collateral murder" video, and use a stopwatch to time just how long that chopper is cruising about in plain view--something unthinkable 20 or 30 years earlier).
Note that even the supplies of obsolete AT and AA material was a result of a preceding great-power conflict. Until such a time as other coutries in the world provide guerrillas with state-of-the-art light weapons to counter imperial forces, I don't see any reason why imperial adventures would not continue.
The Iraqis received no aid whatsoever from any of the world's major powers. By 2006 the only effective remaining tactic for the guerrillas was to employ remote-controlled landmines. These weapons could do some damage, but such tactics are completely passive. Preparing such attacks also renders the guerrilla exposed and vulnerable.
Even guerrillas need to be able to attack, to take the battle to the enemy. The Arab guerrillas fighting the Turks were almost always mobile and on the offensive. The Vietnamese guerrillas initiated many attacks. While both of these forces employed IED's, in neither case were they so dependent on them.
But then again, when an NVA soldier shot an American with an AK, he could kill his target. An Iraqi guerrilla simply couldn't, unless he was a crack shot.
So this silly notion that cheap AK's and Strelas mean an end to empire has to be put to rest. Those who espouse such ideas have failed to pay any attention to actual fighting in recent guerrilla conflicts.
Finally, I'll repeat what I wrote on another thread here: the American victory in Iraq, while much slower and more expensive than was intended, nevertheless was quite cheap.
The human cost was very cheap, about 50,000 or so total casualties spread over 7 years--fewer than 5000 fatals. Note the historically unusual high ratio of wounded to killed (historical average is 3 or 4 to 1). This was partly due to modern body armour.
Financially the cost was cheap, too. Even if we take the fully-accounted lifetime cost of pensions etc. into account, it only cost 3 trillion to install a client regime in a country of over 25 million people, possessing over 8% of world proven petroleum resources.
Given that the Americans were able to borrow the whole sum at record-low interest rates, and that the whole debt is denominated in their own currency, which the Americans can inflate at will, it is clear that the USA successfully externalized its investment risk onto its allies and trading partners. In effect, the Chinese have subsidized the extension of American control in the Middle East.
Now American citizens might wonder where they come out ahead. As individuals, most of the won't.
But since when has an empire ever been about benefit to the mass of the people? That's not why ruling classes build empires. The common people of an imperial country only get the vicarious thrill of knowing that the world fears them, that they, insignficant as they are as individuals, nevertheless in serving the empire, partake in the glory of their rulers.
Posted by: Roland | September 13, 2010 at 12:41 AM
The US has the military capability to strike Iran. It has plans drawn up and ready to strike Iran if the unlikely event occurs that Iran gets close to being able to produce nuclear weapons before Israel strikes Iran. The US has almost certainly already been positioning forces in the region and scouting locations within Iran in preparation for a possible attack. The fact that it has not yet done so is not in any way an indication of a decline in US military power.
Does the US have the military capability to keep the Straits open to oil shipping if it does?
Or, to put it another way, how many Tomahawks would it take to sink Asia?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | September 13, 2010 at 05:26 PM