[Carlhole]

Watch the interview with Brian Lamb on C-Span 6/11/06:

Chalmers Johnson: ”The Last Days of the American Republic.”

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C-SPAN Interview', ' ')The largest element in our budget of discretionary spending goes for national security. We are spending today more on national defense, so-called really on war, than all the other nations on earth combined. That’s an astonishing figure. Its also amazing to see that perhaps, 20,000 insurgents in Iraq have fought to a standstill 130,000 of the most-highly trained, heavily equipped troops on earth.
...

CHALMERS JOHNSON, AUTHOR: The third book is done and it’s called, ”Nemesis.” The subtitle is, ”The Last Days of the American Republic.” It’s to say I don’t see the wait out any longer. That the Congress – or that the separation of powers has clearly broken down; the President has achieved virtually anything he might’ve wanted to do in that area. I don’t think the political system will save us. The military could conceivably take over; they’ve threatened this but I don’t think so for reasons that I think are pretty obvious, above all, the fact that no enlisted – only enlisted men have been convicted in the prison torture scandals, none of the officers. The result is that within the armed forces today, enlisted men are extremely sensitive to illegal orders, saying, you’re going to take the rap for it, not us. There’s no more illegal order than to take over Congress, so the officers I just don’t think believe innocent men would follow their orders today, so my wife keeps saying to me, come up with something optimistic and I come up with bankruptcy. Its – that looks like it might be the thing that will bring the republic to an end.

LAMB: You know that there are people watching right now that say that guy’s a wacko. I mean that’s an extreme of it but it’s like the conspiracy theorists and all that …

JOHNSON: ... you and I were having this conversation in say, 1985 and I said to you, four years from now the Soviet Union will disappear. You’d have thought that’s not really a reliable analyst. Well, it’s gone. It’s disappeared. Its – Russia today is a much smaller place than the Soviet Union was. Empires go very, very rapidly and we’re getting extremely overextended; really very serious thin ice. It’s reported and this is not terribly novel with me, right now and a lot of people know this, understand it and are worried about the trend of event.

[Heineken]

I read Johnson's earlier "The Sorrows of Empire"---it blew me away. Should be required reading for every American, liberal, conservative, and in-between. Johnsons describes how we are a military empire of 750 bases circling the globe, into which we pour our national treasure for very little positive return, or negative return, for the average citizen. Most of these activities are conducted in near-total secrecy.

[crude_intentions]

After watching that Interview I have to say I'm impressed. I'm certainly going to be purchasing Mr. Johnsons books in the near future.

[Colorado-Valley]

"The Sorrows of Empire" and "Confessions of a Corporate Hit Man" are basically all you need to know about the shadow government, the military-industrial complex and the Bush regime ... err ... administration.

I'm with Chalmers. Be optimistic and hope for bankruptcy.

[Petrodollar]

In his 2004 book, The Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson observes that America has started down the path “already taken by its erstwhile adversary in the cold war, the former Soviet Union.”

He describes how America’s refusal to dismantle its empire of military bases following the demise of the Soviet Union, combined with Bush’s misguided response to September 11, engendered blowback and made a decline of America virtually inevitable. Johnson offers these sobering words:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he US still has a strong civil society that could, at least in theory, overcome the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex. I fear, however, that the US has indeed crossed the Rubicon and that there is no way to restore Constitutional government short of a revolutionary rehabilitation of American democracy. Without root and branch reform, Nemesis awaits. She is the goddess of revenge, the punisher of pride and arrogance, and the United States is on course for a rendezvous with her.

[kochevnik]

Chalmers Johnson is a fucking genius - one of the last honest men in America.

To watch this little old man rip apart the current state of affairs in American life and politics is a mindblowing experience.

[Heineken]

Of course, the same thing happened in ancient Rome, as the Republic was gradually squeezed out by a series of iron-fisted leaders (starting with Julius Caesar) who cited a perpetual state of "emergency" as their justification for not restoring the Republic and its democratic principles. The "emergency" was the result of military overextension and financial mismanagement, just as we have with the US today. Bush may one day be seen as our first emperor. I'm not sure the wounds he's inflicted can ever be healed.

[SupplyConcerns]

They've got to be kidding. The book is done, but it's not coming out until February 2007 (according to Amazon.com)? It might actually be behind the curve by then. I guess what I'm really saying is "I want it now!".

[Fergus]

Anyone basing our collapse on the ability of 20,000 guerilla's to hold off a major national power is stupid.

We are fighting guerillas that look like every other civilian. No uniforms, no bases, no nothing but just like every other person you see over there.

You tell me how you kill all guerillas when they live and hide, and fight, from civilian centers of population. Do we just bomb the city and hope few innocents die?

No you have to pretty much wait for them to shoot at you and then hope they dont disappear to pop up again tomorrow.

Isreal has the same issues in lebonon today. Russia had the same issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 80. USA had the same issues in the 60-70 in vietnam.

Guerilla war fare is slow, bogging down, inch by inch fighting. Not an indication 20,000 idiots are better then the highly trained and well equiped American Army.

I have never heard of this guy, but if hes basing our collapse around this war and the fact we cant beat 20,000 guerilla's, then hes an IDIOT.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Fergus,

The point is, that guerilla wars are very often lost by occupying army.

Look on Vietnam for example.
Regardless of total air & cities control and superior forces war was lost anyway.

Now look on Afganistan & Soviets.
They not only lost this war, but their conventional forces got backbone broken, precipitating faster collapse of Soviet Empire.

US fighting in Iraq is more and more following the infamous path of Soviets in Afganistan, and may easy lead to failure, if strategy is not changed on time.
You can already observe weak puppet government, collapse of law & order, you have many fanatic fractions fighting each other and yet all cooperating to fight US Army. This is very much the same, what Afganistan was about.
Even best trained soldiers who cannot distinguish between friend and foe on the battlefield are simply USELESS.

The best bet for US is to secure Iraq oil infrastructure (if there is still such a thing), drain as much oil as possible and get out.
Doing so US could still be seen as victorious.

All meddling with democratic Iraq and directly involving US troops into something, what essentially is a tribal warfare is bound to fail with many more bodybags coming home meantime.
May be Saddam should be "reinstalled" there? He is still alive...

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fergus', 'I')sreal has the same issues in lebonon today. Russia had the same issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 80. USA had the same issues in the 60-70 in vietnam.

[o2ny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fergus', 'A')nyone basing our collapse on the ability of 20,000 guerilla's to hold off a major national power is stupid.

...

I have never heard of this guy, but if hes basing our collapse around this war and the fact we cant beat 20,000 guerilla's, then hes an IDIOT.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Fergus', 'N')o you have to pretty much wait for them to shoot at you and then hope they dont disappear to pop up again tomorrow.

[elocs]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'F')ergus,

The point is, that guerilla wars are very often lost by occupying army.

Look on Vietnam for example.
Regardless of total air & cities control and superior forces war was lost anyway.

Now look on Afganistan & Soviets.
They not only lost this war, but their conventional forces got backbone broken, precipitating faster collapse of Soviet Empire.

US fighting in Iraq is more and more following the infamous path of Soviets in Afganistan, and may easy lead to failure, if strategy is not changed on time.
You can already observe weak puppet government, collapse of law & order, you have many fanatic fractions fighting each other and yet all cooperating to fight US Army. This is very much the same, what Afganistan was about.
Even best trained soldiers who cannot distinguish between friend and foe on the battlefield are simply USELESS.

The best bet for US is to secure Iraq oil infrastructure (if there is still such a thing), drain as much oil as possible and get out.
Doing so US could still be seen as victorious.

All meddling with democratic Iraq and directly involving US troops into something, what essentially is a tribal warfare is bound to fail with many more bodybags coming home meantime.
May be Saddam should be "reinstalled" there? He is still alive...

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'B')ush may one day be seen as our first emperor. I'm not sure the wounds he's inflicted can ever be healed.

[gg3]

A conventional military force can do two things well: One, attack or defend against other conventional military forces. Two, use its logistical capabilities to provide emergency aid in natural disasters. Trying to use it for other tasks (e.g. counter-insurgency warfare, nation-building, etc.) is like trying to mix concrete with a hammer and only proves the stupidity of the civilian leadership.

An insurgency is like a weed with deep roots: for every active fighter there are numerous individuals at various stages of recruitment from "sympathizer" to "fighter-in-training". The recruits are still indistinguishable from civilians. There are two ways to successfully defeat an insurgency. One, provide economic aid that gives civilians a stake in normalcy, thereby drying up the recruitment pool. Two, conduct all-out genocide against the entire population (which can be done via a conventional military but at the cost of breaking its spirit in the process).

A war is an action where one country attacks another with the intention of defeating the latter's military and removing its government from power. We won the actual war in Iraq in three weeks, and our military did its customarily superb job, quickly accomplishing the goals of defeating the Iraqi army and removing the old regime from power. (Yes, the war was based on a set of lies and was therefore illegal, but responsiblity for that rests with the civilian government.)

What has been going on since that point has been an occupation and an insurgency, which has been an unmitigated disaster for which our civilian leadership is also 100% responsible.

And by the way, the cost of Iraq to date, of about $400 billion, could have instead built 400 gigawatts (400,000 megawatts) of climate-clean nuclear and wind power: 320 new reactors, and 800 new wind farms each having 100 utility-scale wind turbines.

---

The US military has a long tradition of professionalism, i.e. not messing with the civilian government. (Would you prefer a military that steps in any time it doesn't like the result of an election?)

However that being said, there has been extensive discussion over the past five years, among officers as well as enlisted, of the following subject: What do you do when the part of your oath about obeying the orders of the President of the United States, comes into conflict with the part of your oath about defending the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...?

Bottom line is, about 60% of the officers would appear to be "loyalists" (i.e. loyal to the Regime) and about 40% would appear to be hardcore "patriots" (i.e. defend the Constitution). In the event of serious domestic tyranny, the military would split 60-40 in that manner.

The 40% of hardcore patriots would be counting on civilian support, typically in noncombat roles that were nonetheless exposed to risk. (This, by the way, is where the 2nd Amendment comes into the picture.)

---

As for me, I hope the hell we find a way to save the Republic without going through that or even going through national bankruptcy. This starts with you and I and all of us, making darn sure we go to the voting booth and that our votes are counted.

This year, vote as if your life depends on it!

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')here are two ways to successfully defeat an insurgency. One, provide economic aid that gives civilians a stake in normalcy, thereby drying up the recruitment pool. Two, conduct all-out genocide against the entire population (which can be done via a conventional military but at the cost of breaking its spirit in the process).

[Livewire713]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ere the Romans dealing with guerillas?

[highlander]

Does anybody have a real example where appeasing insurgents actually led to a ceasation of hostilities?