"The British left us things we still use to this day – bridges, institutions," says Sheikh Hashim, a descendent of the prophet Muhammad, talking about Iraq's legacy of foreign occupiers.

And the American legacy? "Until now the most important goal was getting rid of the dictatorship," he says. "The other things we'll see later. The Americans did not come here for no reason."

Now that it is no longer useful to court his (limited) favor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1215/p25s06-wome.html , people are telling us how they REALLY feel:



That anger was on full display at Bush's press conference with Mr. Maliki. An Iraqi reporter hurled both of his shoes at the president's head – narrowly missing Bush – and shouted, "This is a farewell kiss, dog."

I know it's old news now; The complex and intractable political quagmire having been red-white-and-blue washed by The Surge (born to be the title of a retrospective action show on TNT or FOX) into simple platitudes and non-comprehension in the face of withering facts.

However, the situation in the Middle East is far worse now than it was in 2003 and we are well not to forget it in the face of a more local mess. (A mess we should have been taking care of first ... thirty years ago when the Nixon administration -- bleeding heart liberals by today's standards -- were actually seriously considering anti-poverty measures that smell like OMG socialism). This disaster in progress will still be waiting for us in 2012 and 2016, long after the current administration has likely been let off the hook for war crimes against both Iraq and the US and god only knows who else[1].

Responsibility starts at home.


[1] Anyone got bets on how long the current clown posse will be dead and buried before the current White House records are released as required by law? If we see them before 2100 I will be shocked. Bush has already pushed the prior administration's records sell-by-date out by several decades.

OMG...Malse is thinking unpatriotic again.

*throws shoes at Malse's head* Stop being unpatriotic!

Political and social stagnation in a constitution or system that has believed itself to reach perfection - so much so that it feels confident about forcefully exporting it abroad - is a common feature of states at the height of their power, ie Rome in from 1st BC onward, Spanish in 16th century, French in 18th century, Victorian Britain and post-1945 America.

It often leads to that system seeming somewhat outdated when economic or military decline sets it and people begin to think "hold on - are we so thoroughly confident in our own system?" ie revolution from Republic to Empire in Rome, the "black legend" in Spain (trying to regain former glory for most of the seventeenth century), the French revolution, the "Labour Party" and Welfare system in Britain (followed rapidly by decolonization and withdrawal of the "pax britannica" to be replaced by American forces and money) and finally, what in America? We shall wait and see.

There are huge, recurring patterns and trends throughout history, especially in Imperial history. I tend to cite them on this forum quite a bit, but I think it's rather relavent. I think we're seeing for America something of a twilight, not quite the decline yet (look at the statistics, economic power and defence spending, no one can prove a fall yet) but definately the foundation for a coming decline, how long, who knows? It might be as long as the Spanish or as rapid as the British. A good measure is usually the rising powers of others, ie measure American growth against Chinese growth, as doing in the 1890-1900 with Britain v America or Germany. Telling indicators - the British were still the biggest manufacturers, and the largest trading and financial nation, with the biggest fleet and the most expansive empire, but these were rapidly dwindling in the face of American and German growth.

Sorry for the ramble.

Perfectly fair point, now can you please convince those who are in charge of the US of this history?

Kinda funny. People talk about some kind of huge great decline. Well, granted if you label decline as there no longer being a United States hegemony over everyone a decline then yes, perhaps there is a decline in the works. Perhaps less military spending is also perceived as a decline. Still the US is not going to have its ass handed to it either. This is not the fall of Rome about to usher in another Dark Ages. Quite a few argue there is enough room in the world for there to be regional global powers with strong economies, and modern defense postures, with no single one having over arching authority over the other, at least in the immediate future. China is going to continue to do well, and become the dominate East Asia power. India to a lesser degree. Brazil will be the prime mover in South America and Europe will be doing their thing as well. The US will continue to enjoy being the driving force in North America. Russia, the Middle East and Oceania will continue to be wild cards of a sort.

Its easier to say this than argue that China is going to be the one writing the world's marching orders. The cultural differences between China and a good deal of the rest of the globe would make a Chinese planet very difficult. Granted they have the mindset of "We are number 1 and everyone else is number 13", and may not care much that their stance on religion, human rights etc etc might not sit well. Still it won't stop them from trying to do as many deals as they can to snatch resource rights. Did it take Bush to usher this in? Probably not but he sure did help the process along. Many nations will align themselves with regional powers and tell the US to go pound sand which might actually be good for the US citizens in the long run. More markets to open up and more ideas flowing from more educated citizens. Regional powers can watch over their regions and that would mean no more "Team America: World Police", along with the need for a huge military budget. Ultimately it would mean more decisions being made globally and not just by one or two countries. If there was ever to be "one ruler of the planet" it would have to wait for humanity as a whole to be so culturally watered down that there is no perceivable differences between any nation.

/shrug. Just my 2 cents.

How many periods in history have seen an ascending world power that's content to stop at an arbitrary "fair" point and not continue to expand its influence? I don't think that sort of moderation is realistic to hope for. It's not in our nature.

People like to focus on China because their minds have been wrapped around this "one world superpower" concept, but throughout history that has rarely been the case. Even at the height of the British, Roman, several prior Chinese, Sassanid, Phoenicia, Egyptian, et al, empires there were always many other forces at play beyond their expansive borders.

The US hegemony is an interesting case in that while we did not claim much in the way of territory, we claimed substantial authority. One can cast many of the wars of the latter half of the last century not as ideological conflicts but ones of authority -- we won, most of the time, due to a happy accident of immense economic superiority.


You can argue the USofA has done a lot of good in the world. If you pick your cases well, immense, wonderful, world-altering things. Unfortunately we have much of that same nationalistic contempt that is more visible in the Chinese world view; outside our view of the first world, we've done things just as bad as Tibet or Darfur or .. well, we're still doing Iraq now.

I don't rule out a bi-polar world, a la Chirac. And I very much subscribe to the theory of superpower-blocs, Asia led by China, North America by the US, S America by Brazil, Europe by the EU, etc. Indeed I do believe that to be the pattern emerging over the next century, much like eighteenth century Europe.

But that is not to argue against US decline. Is it absolute? Of course not. It's very much relative. The US will never be insignificant, with its size, population and natural resources. Much like Russia has been consistently at the forefront of Great Powers since 1720. But I do believe a pattern has been emerging in the last decade that has the beginnings of a global hegemonic decline. And I'm not so sure it's an inherent American decline, but more due to the growth of neighbours.

/agreed Halo.

It's very chic over here atm to all out the sky is falling however. I tend to believe along the lines of your stated position.

I'd love for us to yank all our bases back stateside and let each bloc maintain their own. Would allow us to work on our own issues and of course help our neighbors should they ask for it.

Of course - why not?

But with global, economic dominance must come global hegemony. You can withdraw from the world, but so must your commerce and trade.

Nah didn't mean isolate ourselves. We don't have English/German bases over here as they are not needed. With the growth of the EU , and other allies, I merely suggest we consider bringing those bases home.

Our military is sleeker and quicker to respond than we've been in the past, don't know that we need to pay leases on chunks of land in other countries and then supply said areas at a growing cost.

As for economic power abroad I don't think that'll change anytime soon. I am hoping Obama finds a way to bring our manufacturing base home so we can maintain our base there.

I am hoping Obama finds a way to bring our manufacturing base home so we can maintain our base there.

2 words:

Tax incentives....

Its going to take three words

HUGE tax incentives.

The manufacturing base hasn't left the US because of taxes, it left to take advantage of really cheap labor and to a lesser extent low environmental overhead to increase margins of profit. All hasn't been peaches and cream though. At some point US companies will bring the manufacture of their products out of China to protect their IP. The Chinese are notorious for copying and counterfeiting every technology they build for other countries and no one wants to fund/create their own competition.

You'd be amazed how little hindsight these manufacturing giants have.

2 words:

Tax incentives....


LOL...and with the loopholes in the US tax code most corporations pay a rate of somewhere around 8-10% so whats the incentive.

There are incentives and there are incentives.

Relief on tax costs of stored and unused inventories for one. Relief on lease costs/burdens.

Tons of things that can and should be done. I know the right to work states are still attracting manufacturing work since they don't have to treat with the unions.

LOL...and with the loopholes in the US tax code most corporations pay a rate of somewhere around 8-10% so whats the incentive.

One of those loopholes is offshore facilities.

While I would like to see many of our foreign bases closed, I do see some rationale for keeping some. The availability of medical/hospital facilities in Germany has been huge for our folks in the gulf area of operation. And, the ability to have joint exercises makes maintaining a base in the area, with Germany being a good central locale, a priority.

At the same time, I would not be adverse to seeing the EU have a base over here.

'At the same time, I would not be adverse to seeing the EU have a base over here.'

- Really? That took me by surprise. What are your reasons?

Unfortunately we have no "army" yet, so to speak of. We have a young international peace-keeping police force, and an embryo "rapid defence force", but nothing solid, except the various armies of the nation-states (who don't even have bases in eachother's countries..).

'At the same time, I would not be adverse to seeing the EU have a base over here.'

- Really? That took me by surprise. What are your reasons?

Unfortunately we have no "army" yet, so to speak of. We have a young international peace-keeping police force, and an embryo "rapid defence force", but nothing solid, except the various armies of the nation-states (who don't even have bases in eachother's countries..).

Basically the same as the rationale for us having bases over there; increased communication, ability for some combined exercises, increased interaction among people of different nationalities, etc.

We have several bases that are being considered for closing, and to keep one open with an EU contingent seems to be a sound idea. The same opportunities that are provided the American soldier based abroad would then be available to those EU troops stationed over here.

The same opportunities that are provided the American soldier based abroad would then be available to those EU troops stationed over here.

To be reviled by the local populace for impregnating their daughters, then shipping back to thier country of origin before the birth? :eek:

Sorry I couldn't resist....LOL

I can't see the US population tolerating a foreign base on our soil - I imagine they'd flip out and riot that we were selling out our country.

I wouldn't have a problem with it. I had many good experiences working with various militaries throughout the world while I was in the USAF.

Better chance to expand my military patch collection!

Imagine how Europe feels, Kanyli?

(I liked the idea, Byl, except we don't really possess that kind of military unit yet, ie a regular armed force for the EU. We'll see how the recent mission take-over in Kosovo does)

I can't see the US population tolerating a foreign base on our soil - I imagine they'd flip out and riot that we were selling out our country.

Certainly the black-helicopter fearing crowd would point and say "Look...proof of the NWO conspiracy for a world government!"

I think most people would not particularly be upset (especially if it boosts a local economy). At least not until the EU troops start behaving as badly as some of our troops do on occasion.

Do people honestly believe our overseas bases are anything other than our attempt to prop up our attempt at empire building? That fascinates me.

Do people honestly believe our overseas bases are anything other than our attempt to prop up our attempt at empire building? That fascinates me.

Fascinates me that you ignore 2 world wars and the treaties that required said bases as a form of support.

Not everything is a conspiracy or an overt attempt to dominate everyone!

Heh, you think it's a conspiracy theory that most countries would rather us butt out of their affairs? Honestly?

Considering the monies that flow into the local economies from our bases I'd say yes you are wrong.

Not saying projecting our power isn't part of the equation but it's definately not the big , or sole, reason for those bases.

We've been shutting down bases overseas and just like our states that lose bases there's been a loss of funds when that happens.

In the case of South Korea, US bases were desired by the South Korean government to insure US involvement if the North came crashing down once more. In the case of Japan, the strict postwar limitations placed on their military made it desirable to have US involvement as a counter to China/Russia. The former bases in the Philippines were purely colonial hangovers and have been closed down for quite a while now.

There is really no urgent need for any US bases in Europe (short of convenience for supporting other theaters), but the areas housing bases have become economically dependent on those bases to some degree. As a result there is usually some local political resistance to closing them. Plus, they *are* more convenient for projecting power into strategic areas like the Middle East.

Considering the monies that flow into the local economies from our bases I'd say yes you are wrong.

Not saying projecting our power isn't part of the equation but it's definately not the big , or sole, reason for those bases.

We've been shutting down bases overseas and just like our states that lose bases there's been a loss of funds when that happens.


This is true at least twice a month business in surrounding towns see a great increase in revenue.

We're in Japan by obligation, but Japan would love for us to leave early if we would. Our bases in Japan are a blight on them, not a boon. The number of Japanese girls we've raped and/or murdered over there is deeply shameful.

South Korea, I can see as making sense.

Of course, there may always be legitimate places in need of a presence, like South Korea. But, explain then why we aren't in places like Darfur and Rwanda, if this is all about humanitarian assistance to those in peril.

Anyone who thinks we have 761 (disclosed) overseas bases because we're interested in the well being of those countries is delusional.

Meanwhile, as we fund this empire abroad, we have people at home starving (and more every day lately). It's lunacy.

Of course, there may always be legitimate places in need of a presence, like South Korea. But, explain then why we aren't in places like Darfur and Rwanda, if this is all about humanitarian assistance to those in peril.

In the case of Darfur at least, the conflict is a civil war. The people being killed do not have their own government with which to negotiate any sort of base. China and Russia consistently veto any UN military action there, so unilateral US action would definitely be illegal from an international standpoint. Not that we shouldn't act to prevent the genocide regardless.

The government of Rwanda, such as it is, deeply distrusts white European/US involvement and doesn't want US bases there. For that matter, most of Africa had a cow when the Pentagon created Africom let alone propose a US presence in Africa. To have a base, you need permission of the host.

To have a base, you need permission of the host.

Tell that to the people in Iraq...

The government of Iraq (such as it is) recognizes that temporary US bases will be necessary for a few more years at least to maintain order, else they would not have agreed at all. They aren't granting a 99 year lease or anything.

So, our puppet government in Iraq supports our staying there to protect their power structure? There's a shocker.

Come on.

Speaking of SK: http://www.popgive.com/2008/12/temper-of-south-korean-politicians.html

Yeah, they don't all agree about our involvement there...

Speaking of SK: http://www.popgive.com/2008/12/temper-of-south-korean-politicians.html

Yeah, they don't all agree about our involvement there...

Find me something, anything, where everyone agrees about it.

So, our puppet government in Iraq supports our staying there to protect their power structure? There's a shocker.

Come on.

Puppet or not, they have given at least tacit permission and are internationally recognized. We have no such government in place in Rwanda do we. So my point stands.

The only way to get US bases in Rwanda would be to conquer them in a war. Ain't gonna happen.

Find me something, anything, where everyone agrees about it.

Your non-sequitur is convincing. I'm just not sure of what.

Puppet or not, they have given at least tacit permission and are internationally recognized. We have no such government in place in Rwanda do we. So my point stands.

The only way to get US bases in Rwanda would be to conquer them in a war. Ain't gonna happen.

So what would be the difference if we "liberated" Rwanda, installed a puppet government, and then got permission to set up bases there to "help" them too?

I'm not saying you're technically wrong, but it should be very obvious that the people of Iraq do not want us there regardless of technicalities.

Speaking of SK: http://www.popgive.com/2008/12/temper-of-south-korean-politicians.html

Yeah, they don't all agree about our involvement there...

South Korean politics sure are lively! Reminds me of the slugathons in Taiwan's parliament. But in any case, a free trade agreement =/ military base agreement. Not that all South Koreans agree about that either.

The only way to get US bases in Rwanda would be to conquer them in a war. Ain't gonna happen.

*Braces for the obligitory 'Since there isn't any oil there, we won't get involved.' comment.*

So what would be the difference if we "liberated" Rwanda, installed a puppet government, and then got permission to set up bases there to "help" them too?

I'm not saying you're technically wrong, but it should be very obvious that the people of Iraq do not want us there regardless of technicalities.

Nobody is arguing that average Joe in Iraq doesn't want the US (and all other foreigners) out. His government, however, knows that civil war between Shia and Sunni is in the offing if the US forces pull out before the government cements its control (which has not happened yet). Hell, our own government occasionally does shit that the majority of American citizens don't like (the most recent voting by Congress to boost their own pay in a recession comes to immediate mind).

As far as Rwanda goes, I think that given sufficient incentive and political cover some in the US would consider it. But let's face it, Africa is the red-headed step child of the world. The US can get what it wants (i.e. minerals and oil) from Africa via trade without the massive expense of military occupation. So why establish a military presence there at all? No other force is in a position to cut us off from what we want/need, so defense of Africa is a non issue. Iraq was far different. Ole Saddam was in a position to screw us badly sooner or later due to his proximity to the source of much of the world's oil and his crazy-assed ambition to rule the Middle East. We had much more economic/political incentive to remove him.

*Braces for the obligitory 'Since there isn't any oil there, we won't get involved.' comment.*

Rwanda is rich in other strategic minerals though. From a purely mercenary perspective, they have stuff we want. Just not as much as we want oil.

Nobody is arguing that average Joe in Iraq doesn't want the US (and all other foreigners) out. His government, however, knows that civil war between Shia and Sunni is in the offing if the US forces pull out before the government cements its control (which has not happened yet). Hell, our own government occasionally does shit that the majority of American citizens don't like (the most recent voting by Congress to boost their own pay in a recession comes to immediate mind).

A decade from now, this phony government we set up in Iraq will likely be gone. Anything they're complicit in with us is irrelevant to any real analysis of what's going on over there.

Our staying there under the pretense of maintaining stability is nothing more than a self serving ploy to keep sandbagging as long as we can. It's an inherently unstable region. We could stay there to maintain "stability" indefinitely.

For that matter, our being there keeps it unstable. It's circular logic for us to stay there to maintain stability until it's stable, while contributing to its destabilization. There's no happy ending to that game.

But that wasn't my point. The point was, if you think we need permission to roll in and set bases up, ask your average Joe in Iraq about that. That's who we're ostensibly purporting to protect, not the puppet government we set up.

Make no mistake, our forces are still there to prop up a stable friendly government (puppet or not) because it is in *our* interest. Instability means low oil production which in turn means higher costs to our economy and more power in the hands of people we don't like (*cough Iran cough*).

The average Joe in Iraq hated Saddam's guts too, but he stayed in power for a long damned time. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that the current government won't last as long.

BTW, apparently there has been some contact about military cooperation with Rwanda, so maybe you will see an American base there at some time.

Our government there can't use Saddam's tactics to remain in power. When we eventually have no choice but to pull out, it will probably be a repeat of Iran 50 years ago.

Our government there can't use Saddam's tactics to remain in power. When we eventually have no choice but to pull out, it will probably be a repeat of Iran 50 years ago.

And, 50 years ago Iran was not doing all that badly, with the exception of the U.S. tampering with their government with the intent of getting someone we wanted running the country.

But, your jumping on the Iraq issue to cloud the discussion of military bases on foreign soil does not go too far, since it is basically a separate issue. Our bases in Europe and Japan were a part of the treaties signed ending that war, and I agree that Japan does not like us being there ( I witnessed many protests while at the 249th Air Force Hospital for surgery and transfer back to the states, and that was almost 40 years ago). Our bases in Korea are also part of an agreement involving the host country and the U.N.

I think American citizens would rightly be wary of hosting any troops from Russia or China, but we are on good enough terms with most other countries so that the economic impact on the area would likely trump any arguments against.

'Your non-sequitur is convincing. I'm just not sure of what.'

- You very rarely are.

I'd highly recommend The Sorrows of Empire by Johnson to anyone who ever wondered why our bases are where they are. The stated (ie, actually budgeted in public knowledge, not lied about) base count exceeds any sort of reasonable basis by orders of magnitude.

Diego Garcia anyone?

In any event, the book will likely be eye opening or sobering regardless of whether or not you think the base infrastructure is a good idea. Even those most hard-core flag waivers will have trouble swallowing the costs to either us or the host nations. As I mentioned in another thread, we are not an empire of territory, but of authority; and we like flexing it.

Diego Garcia is leased from the UK, we do not own it. It was also the only landmass available for the US to use in that whole chunk of the world. Given the amount of shipping that goes on in that area (i.e. the Indian Ocean), it is highly valuable to protect US shipping.

Diego Garcia is leased from the UK, we do not own it. It was also the only landmass available for the US to use in that whole chunk of the world. Given the amount of shipping that goes on in that area (i.e. the Indian Ocean), it is highly valuable to protect US shipping.


Or disrupt Soviet shipping during the cold war. Most US bases are sold to the public as existing as protectors of freedom when in reality they are simple strategic placement of forces and logistics.