by dorlomin » Wed 21 Oct 2009, 18:04:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'A')fghanistan is the premier signal that the empire is cracking. It was among the British empire's final gasps of imperialism, it marked the final breath of the USSR, and future history books may very well mark this disaster as the end of the American Empire too.
Much like fiddling during the inferno, the American public is strangely silent on this and other deadly US military transgressions worldwide. In fact, the American public demanded by a greater than 98% margin the pouring of more gas on the Afghanistan inferno while 'fiddling' mindlessly with pro sports, pop music, and screaming about relatively irrelevant minor social issues.
Afghanistan is the sign that the USA is dying. This should be clear to all.
I disagree, actualy I disagree quite strongly. Defeat in a asymetric war is not a good sign of strength. The US was defeated in Vietnam yet went on to have near 30 year streak in growth of dominance that seen its major rival totally collapse. It is not millitary strength but political failure that is killing the US in Afghanistan.
The UK analogy is also a bit weak, the UK never really tried to rule Afhanistan directly but used it as a buffer state between India and Russia. The two major Anglo Afghan wars, both of which the UK achieved its goals.
The British empire died from two causes one was the rise of compatative industrial economies that caught up with the indistrial revolution and reduced the UKs industrial advantage. The second was the arrival of nationalism too the educated classes. The growth of nationalism from its nacsent forms (such as the declaration of Arbroath) through to the post Treaty of Westphalia world and finaly into Wilsonian self determination is a long and windy one, but this spread of nationalism had a long history in Ireland and had finaly reached the Indian middle classes around the time of the Armistar massicare. This lead to widespread civil dissobediance and open revolt that made colonial possesions ungovernable, or at least uneconomic to govern.
Offcourse the rise of two world powers who had their own agendas and reasons to support anti colonial forces (the US and the USSR) also had a huge impact, especialy in Africa (the breaking of the imperial prefference trade block for example made governing Africa uneconomical).
The US has much less of a formal empire and is largely an 'empire' of willing treaties and mutually beneficial trade agreements. Nations it has conquered have gone on to stellar perfromances in economic and social development such as Germany and Japan. That is not to whitewash the occasional brutality excesized by proxies to keep nations within the US sphere of influence (such as Honduras, El Salvador, Chile).
The US is nothing like the UK in either 1909 or 1946. There is no similarity I can see between the positions (other than being indebt in 46 but even then China is hardly to the US what the US was to the UK in 46).
I feel that the whole end of empire thing is very over done and mistakes a clawing back of America to still be the worlds only super power, but not quite as far ahead as it was for a complete loss of 'empire'.
The US is redrawing the 'limes' a la Hadrian, but its soldiers sit on top of Kurdish and Saudi oil fields, not Chinas. Its fleets are real and built not Russias, it has more land than people, more water than mouths and is for the moment the worlds science heavy weight. It can afford to lose in Afghanistan and still dominate the world.
Controversialy I think that peak oil and cliamte change will strengthen Americas power.
Rome did not die with Teutoburgwald, nor Britain with Ishandwala.
Its an opinion anyway.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'T')he path of progress forged by the USSR was lost sometime during the 70's. Their party leaders too started fiddling. Just like ours are now.
Actualy the USSR went of the rails when it addopted state capitalism and started waffling about socialism in one country. The whole point of Marxism was worker ownership of the means of production not the state. Were I comunist orientated I would strongly favour anarcho-syndicalism. Perhaps its the romantic inspired by Homage to Catalonia in me.