What If The Sky Really Is Falling?

I am often asked about the value of learning history, especially the history of peoples so far away and long ago that it would seem to require a great effort to find any connection between the here and now and the then and there. It is true that times, as they say, change...but what does that mean? Nations change...technologies alter...beliefs and knowledge evolve...but do the core elements of history; human nature and social interaction really differ that much today from what they were a couple of thousands of years ago? There have been great leaps, but since the realization that some sort of established community has benefits and costs which make it a superior existence to lone survival, the basic components of human interaction have altered little. Without going into a great deal of material to prove it, it is enough to state that the benefit of understanding history, to a degree, is twofold; it gives perspective, and it reveals patterns of human behaviour.

Anyone who has spent any time researching that particular historical animal called imperialism knows two almost universal truths about the various empires of history; first, that they all come to an end, and secondly that most of the people who lived in those empires thought that the first wouldn't apply to them...or at least not anytime soon. Almost every superpower in history has ended, whether in a sudden flash of military overhaul or a slow grinding decrease in power, amidst an attitude of general incredulity.

An individual human life is comprised of a series of moments of complete individuality, and we have no replay button, and as such we have no comparative experiment upon which to base conclusions of the events of our present lives with any sort of empirical collective...and we are surrounded by others in likewise situations. As such, we tend to assume that, contrary to the evidence of the past, what is shall always be, at least as far as it relates to us. The closest thing we have to any sort of scientific study to enable us to evaluate our present circumstances in any context is the inexact study of history, and yet it is that very scope which is inevitably dismissed as irrelevent by those who don't want to see the implications, usually with some sort of variation on the phrase " That was then, this is now."

That is the most discouraging aspect to the whole Iraq/SOTUA/NIE/WMD/Patriot Laws stuff; that those who dismiss the possible implications do so simply because this is the United States, this is now, and nothing really bad can happen here, unless it comes from nefarious outsiders. That is, of course, a ludicrous assumption. For one thing we do know, if we have any kind of sense of reality, that the position the United States currently enjoys as the most powerful nation is a temporary one...it could end tomorrow, it could end in a couple of centuries, but it will end. To contend otherwise if to play ostrich. Now if you accept that it will end, then the attitude that it can't end here and now because this is the USA is, obviously, without merit. At whatever point it does end it will catch people unaware...it will be the first time.

So if you accept that A) we are the most powerful nation on earth, and B) that we will end at some point, you need to examine the surrounding data to try and evaluate, and if you are thus interested, prevent said occurence from happening. Given our position in the world today, it stands to reason that, as with most superpowers in history, the greatest current threat to our continuation in power comes not from some shadowy terrorist organization, nor from petty tyrants, but from within. Think about it...what are we, what do we stand for, what do we think seperates us...and who is the greatest threat to those things?

Unless you want to revisit eugenics or the beleief in culturally biased dieties, if you feel that the United States is superior to most of the world, it has to come down to a combination of a few basic elemets: luck, for lack of a better word, geography, and system. We have no control over the first, the effects of the second alter and what effect we are having is largely negative, but the third is the area of greatest control...or should be. Our system is and always has been flawed...and at times it has been improved...but history shows that the improvements have usually come at the cost of security, fear, and comfort for the benefit of the whole...slavery, civil rights, etc. Those alterations made to respond to elements like fear, comfort, etc. have largely been for the worse; McCarthyism, the Exec. Priv., etc. Why is this true? Simple answer...freedom costs.

We have forgotten this....our ancestors knew it well. If you want true freedom you have to by nature allow the same freedom to your potential enemies. As such you will have to allow a greater chance for things like 9-11 than you would in a nation that is not free. The USSR had very few terrorist attacks...Nazi Germany had incredibly low crime rates...On the other hand many European and Middle Eastern nations have suffered far more terrorist casualties than we have, 9-11 included, and yet did not respond by abandoning their systems. The only thing that changed with 9-11, contrary to popular notion, is the gheographic location of the attacks. Many other nations have suffered the deaths of millions in the pursuit of freedom, have we grown so soft that we abandon it because of thousands? It's really pretty simple thinking. When you start to restrict freedom for the sake of reducing the potential power of potential enemies, you are by nature taking that same power and freedom out of the hands of the general populace...and putting it in someone else's hands. Whatever their initial motivation or intent, history shows us that that has an inevitable effect: corruption and tyranny of one form or another.

And yet, both in terns of our attitude towards the government and the people of these United States, or towards the United States and the rest of the world, the current trend, at least in this administration, is just that: to more and more circumvent the systems and morals of popular decision making and instead have those with the power decide for the rest, irrespective of their wants. And sadly, in the United States alone, that attitude is going largely unnoticed. And why? Because it can't happen here...at least not now.

There are precedents; well over half way into the Watergate investigations, when connections had already been made between White House officials and covert operations to sabotage political opponents, more than half of the population had never heard of the word "Watergate", and less than a quarter were concerened. Why not? Can't happen here...at least not now.

Long before the war in Vietnam was accepted by the populace as being, if not unwinnable, at least not what the government was selling, a pretty simple calculation showed that the claimed KIAs of the US against the Viet Cong superceded the entire population of the enemy nation, and yet doubters were originally said to be alarmists, commies, or cowards for pointing this out. Why? Can't happen here...at least not now.

When McCarthy was doing his thing, or the lynchings were not uncommon, the general populace still believed itself to be pretty damned close to perfect, and as such the threat these events had on our way of life were dismissed at the time because of that absolute and blind faith in, if not the particulars of any administration, at least the fact that this was America and it would work itself out.

See, that's the thing. People always believe that those in the past thought they were the pinnacle of knowledge, but now we know that we are. We will be looked back on in history as quaint and misguided in that belief as we now look on those who called Rome the Eternal City, and meant it. We laugh now at Hitler's belief that the Third Riech would last a thousand years, but believe me, our ticket has an expiration date just like the Nazis did, albeit it later. When we overcome the hidden beleif that we will never see significant change in our lifetimes simply because it is our lifetime we can begin to examine the current events for what they are and for what they might mean. But so long as we dismiss those with the foolish belief that we are superior simply because we are American, then so long will we be the self agrandizing fools that much of the rest of the world thinks we are.

So let's examine the motivations and effects of the administration manipulating information, misleading the public, using unsound or selective intel, restricting our civil liberties, alienating much of the rest of the world, abandoning previously advocated and enforced policies of international relations, and overlooking it all in the pursuit of security in the light of possibilities; We will come to an end...it may not be now. But our system has worked because it was accountable...because the government had to answer to the people. When we stop asking the questions merely because we are we, the system breaks down. That might not be the end, but on the other hand it might...and I do know this. The end, when it comes, will not be brought on because of people who challenged our leaders to be responsible to the people, who demanded answers...it will not even be brought on by the alarmists. The road to the end is not lined with alarmist signs, quite the opposite...it is paved with stones of people who turned a blind eye, sneered, and said that it couldn't happen here.


PEACE


JAG

 

Totally disagree with your first point, in fact the opposite was true. Roman citizenship was the greatest commodity in the world, it was desperately sought by the upper class and some middle class peoples of almost the entire empire, which was far vaster,and teeming with peoples of much more diverse cultures than the United States, and yet they recognized one law, built cities along one plan, spoke one language, used one currency, etc.

Furthermore, as it stands, the parallel peoples to the 'outskirts' of the present American empire are Iraqis and Afhganistanians, and they consider themselves a lot less American than a Gaul thought himself a Roman. We don't always exert physical force...we seek different kinds of conquest, more like Athens of the Imperial age...but we still use force to back up the idea of the US with tanks when we want to.

And the news is controlled, especially, as we know, in areas and times of conflict. Furthermore we have become desensitized...look at the fact that almost a quarter of Americans believe that Iraq used WMDs against us in the war. We believe, by and large, what our government tells us. We believed before the war that nuclear attack was imminent, and that waiting just tempted the deviil...so we struck. Television is here, we now know that nukes weren't imminent, but we'd still rather not look at that, because that makes US wrong and THEM right...so we ignore it and move on. When you're at the point where you ignore truths because they make you look bad, you're losing. When you're at the point where it no longer matters as much whether a position on an issue is right or wrong for many people, merely whether it is Republican or Democrat, you're losing.

But I agree that there is more than one way to lose an empire...in the recent past the more common way has been to alienate the other, less individually powerful nations and as such build unity within otherwise incongruant societies by making objection to yourself a priority above others...and this is happeneing. We saw it with Napoleon...we saw it with Louis XIV...we saw it with Hitler....we saw it with the USSR...we saw it with several other lesser examples; That was the way superpowers tended to fall in the age since Louis...the world recognized that unchecked superpower is a threat to alll but that nation, especially when that nation looks out for itself and ignores the interests and positions of others...and we have lead that kind of thinking for 50 years...ironic that now that we have no clear enemy to warn the world about, we ourselves have become the nation the world most fears.

But that's just it...internal threats often increase external ones...Rome started to implde due to increased power in the hands of individual commanders, and a decrease in individual farmer/soldiers, and the richer sons bought their way out of military service...as such Rome relied more and more on mercenary and/or foreigh troops, to the point where they trained and equiped their eventual enemies.

In this case it can be seen as dual: Our reactions to 9-11 have challenged our future at home, y starting to alter the very system that defines us merely to make it harder for our enemies...while at the same time our external policies have destroyed 50 years of diplomatic building, and the world now sees us as it's greatest threat...which is in itself a threat to our future. When the world had to choose between us and the USSR, we often seemed to better choice. But now that we stand alone, and go back on the policies we advocated and enforced...now that we lie to the world and tell them to trust us, and when they don't we do what we want in another part of the globe anyway...we risk uniting enemies with nothing in common except their fear of us. It's not their yet...but I dread in my heart what four more years of Bush could do to cement that concept of us in the world's eye.


It probably is happening now, to an extent, internally. It is starting to happen externally. We can rolll our eyes and sday Chicken Little, or we can take a good look in the mirror, and get back to what we're actually about, which is a great place to be. We could be great for this planet....but right now we aren't even being good to ourselves, all in the name of fear and comfort. A sad way to have come down a road begun in the pursuit of freedom.

 

"...but it's notable that the "idea" of Rome died long before the structures that held it together - centuries before, in fact."


I have no idea what the basis for this is. I would vehemently argue the opposite. The Byzantine Empire styled itself as the true Roman Empire long after Rome itself had fallen to invading 'barbarians'...Germany, or what became Germany, styled itself the Holy Roman Empire until Napoleon Bonaparte disbanded it, which was roughly 1200 years after the structures of the Roman empire...including Rome itself, had fallen into decay.

Do you mean the structures of the Roman Republic? That would be a valid argument, but seperate and not supporting your claim about power vs. ideas. Rome was simply the greatest 'idea' of it's kind in the world's history.


"But those aren't really good analogies. Those were at best (even w/the USSR) generational empires. The US already has far more history and weight than that."

FIrst of all, you are choosing your appropriate analogies with interesting distinction. The France which Louis XIV had ruled had been the most powerful nation in Europe for quite some time, although not as high as at his pinnacle, and the United States has been the most powerful nation for only, at most, 60 odd years, even if you assume that the Cold War was a fait accomplis, which is a tenous position. In terms of unchallenged supremacy, we have been the single most powerful nation for approx. 15 years. Even if you call it 60, Louis himself ruled for that long, not to mention the power exerted by his antecedents and decendants. If you call it 15, then we are well into the Napoleon/Hitler realm. But I would concede that the US has been a superpower for approximately 60-70 years, which might make some of these slightly innapropriate analogies...but what is interesting is that you argue the distinction of whether or not a difference of some 20 or 30 years invalidates a comparison, but you see no problem with comparing the US, a superpower for 60 ish years and the superpower for 10 or 15 with Rome, which was a superpower for almost 700 years, and the superpower for 400+ years...and that's if you discount the Byzantine Empire as the Eastern Roman Empire, which is what it was, in which case it was a superpower for 1500+ years...Which analogy is innapropriate?


"Let's not overstate the last 50 years of "diplomacy." We had a big stick and a velvet fist. The Soviets just had a big stick and an iron fist. "

Sort of agree, sort of disagree. The problem has been that there has often been a large distinction between what we said we stood for and what we actually did. I don't know whether it is to our credit or discredit that for much of that time the general populace bought into the former while we practiced the latter. But I will say that there have been several examples of us enforcing the doctrine of global will, non-preemtive defense, and other things we currently practice on other nations. That is what I mean...it can be argued that many of our covert actions completely contradicted the postions we as a people believed we held, and also those we enforced on others, but this is the first time we are opnely defying the doctrines we made others follow, and that is a huge step. Moreover we have never, in that 50 years, done what we did with regards to global opinion and the UN, ie spit in it's face...and we have never invaded another country with anything like the opposition we faced this time. This is undoubtedly a first for us, and it isn't a good one.



"I think individual liberty is in danger... but I'm not sure that will lead to a decline in power for the US, at least in the short to medium term."


I don't know about your first point...it might coincide, it might not. What the dangers to individual liberty do threaten in the short and medium term is the way we do things. It sends us down the road of many other failed experiments in representative government. It is true that some, Rome in particular, survived and even flourished long after representative government had given way to power politics, but that in itself would be a tragedy for us. Either way, the dangers to individual liberty upon which our system has been based do threaten that system, and that system has been the basis for our rise in power...as such, while not a certainty, said threat is a serious one in terms of it's ramifications on our nation, our way of life, and consequently our power.


"Regarding a decline in US power, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The US, as a hegemon, hasn't been that bad... I just think bipolarity is certainly b etter... and multipolarity might be. "


Here we agree...If this is the route we are going to take...if we are giving up on the Great Experiment, if we are turing our back on global will, if we are indeed becoming just another bully, than I too don't see our decline in power, if it is the gradual one you attest to, as a negative. But I have dealt with that elsewhere...this thread was more of an examination of the practical failings of our current practices, and an expression of frustration with the " Can't happen here." dismissal of the portents of our current actions in the face of historical comparison...sort of a practical complement to the moral argument I have often espoused.

This was for those who either say " It can't happen here." when they have no other argument, or for those who don't care whether we wear the white hats or black hats so long as we wear the biggest boots....Our current policies have many moral and ethical flaws, but they also have practical ones, and this was addressing those. They will continue so long as we choose to wear red white and blue blinders.

 

Exactly. People act like we've been there, done that as an assurance of the fact that we will act according to our past, but we don't really have any past to speak of in terms of unchallenged supremacy. We have excused many of our past behaviour due to it having happened during the Cold War, but since that war ended we have continued with several 'cold war' practices, and in this administration we have exceeded them, this time nominally to somehow indirectly defeat terrorism while simultaneously avoiding dealing with terrorism where we know it to be with any sort of direction.

These are our first steps down the road of supreme power, and sadly they are seeming to echo those empires who went before us. What basis do we have other than blind faith to assume that we will be different? Nothing in our current actions, at home or abroad supports that view, but it is that view itself which is allowing the current administration to lead us there...the assumption that we are better, the supposition that it can't happen here....the premise that we stand for freedom...We need to wash out our eyes and take a good look at where we are actually heading.

 

If people want some perspective on what we have lost as a nation, listen to this true story:

At the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy sent ambassadors to the key allied states to inform them of our discoveries, with all the supporting evidence. When the ambassador to ( gasp!) France arrived to meet with DeGaul, he began to state the case and reached to get the evidence to begin proving the US position...and DeGaul waved him off, saying " The President of the United States isn't going to risk World War Three unless it's for a good reason. Tell me what we can do to help."

That is factual...where are all the French jokes? We had their support...almost without question. WHere did it go, and why? Surely they could have been jealous then, when memories of global power were even more recent? Surely they could have been the genetic cowards we call them now?

But according to any poll, diplomatic study, etc. you want to examine, we have lost that respect and support, and it can't all be everyone else's fault. As we have increasingly looked out for ourselves, those in power in other nations have increasingly questioned our motivation for advocating that they do what we suggest. Now this...in the wake of 9-11, and alomst unparalleled popular support around the world...support, mind, that garnered us the backing to invade Afghanistan almost without qustion, we advocated another move, this one harder to connect with 9-11. And we made calaims of connections, claims of nukes, claims of imminent peril...and the allies asked for evidence. Remember the French sent troops to Afghanistan...so this crap about jealousy and cowardice is just that...the Germans wanted proof, the Canadians wanted proof, most of the world wanted proof. We huffed and puffed and demanded trust...


...and now it is revealed that we either didn't know what we were talking about, or we lied. We, the indignant ones, the ones who called the UN irrelevent for not hopping to it, the ones who called the Germans trators, the ones who questioned the manhood of the French while their troops were figthing alongside ours in another part of the world...we were wrong.


What effect do you suppose that will have? Where did all the 9-11 support go, and why? Why is it always either all everyone else's fault ( jealousy, commies, etc.) or else it's covered with " Well, yeah, we made mistakes, BUT..." Would we be so quick to excuse the French for demanding the world go to war on their say so, insulting us when we didn't, ignoring the UN, ...and being wrong? Sopmehow I don't think so.

 

Exactly...It is actions and attitudes like that demonstrated now that began this whole thing...Why did the Middle East wake up one sunny morning and say " I know...let's hate the US. It beats water polo in the desert." We used the Middle East as a playground for US politics...we overthrew popular leaders and helped prop up murderous tyrants...including Hussein...and we expect the people there to forgive and forget the millions of dead as a result because we really weren't after them, but the Soviet Union, and they just got caught up in our underground war. And had oil. Before you freak out, in '51 our 'intervention' which put the popular leader out and the Shah in power, the Shah who murdered hundreds of thousands...was admittedly for oil. That is what they know of us...that and the fact that we invariably have supported Israel, for reasons which have little to do with the Arabs.

And yet we continue to act like their attitudte towards us is the starting point in this whole thing, and we are merely responding. Get up every day and go punch your neighbour in the face, and kick his dog...and after a few years, when you hear that he is really pissed with you and wants to hurt you, and might even be behind that slashed tire you had last week, go and shoot him and tell the cops you were just protecting yourself from your neighbours irrational hatred...