07 September 2005
Is Hurricane Katrina a turning point?
A number of political commentators suggest that the fallout from Hurricane Katrina is a lesson on the limits of America's unchallenged military power.
In some ways, they are absolutely correct. But I think the lessons are actually lost on those who need to understand it the most - the ruling class in the US and the voters who provide superficial legitimacy to the "democratic" process of installing an emperor.
Many learned historians and analysts like Professor Chalmers Johnson (The Sorrows of Empire) believe the militaristic imperial state such as that of the Roman Empire, has taken hold in the US and grown past the point of no return. I had heard this theory before but disagreed with the proposition that it had gone past the point of no return. But lately, I'm leaning more towards this view because of a couple of events.
It's unlikely either country will acquire the same ruthless ability to organise extreme violence in such a scientific and efficient manner as that of the US. It took the US about sixty-five years of gargantuan military spending to gain their current size, and as long to hone their war-fighting skills by prosecuting numerous wars around the world.
In addition, I doubt China's and India's populations have the social and cultural values required to glorify the military and war to the same high status as the American public has done. The reason the US military is what it is today, is due to the American public directly or indirectly supporting it.
How else could various presidents have engaged the country as a principal protagonist in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cold War, 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars, and a few little direct or proxy wars in Central and South America (eg Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala)? If the majority of voters had been against any of these wars, then they would have spoken thus through the ballot box.
I know many people support their troops in good faith, even though they may disagree with the presidential decisions placing them in harm's way in the first place. But the question is what would they have done if Hitler was in the White House and had ordered the troops to invade Poland?
Preposterous scenario! I imagine many people would claim. But is it really?
In September 1939, Hitler ordered Heinrich Himmler to stage a series of anti-German incidents (Operation Himmler) to give Germany an excuse to invade Poland. Hitler claimed the invasion was to protect Germany's security and that of Germans living in Poland.
Fast forward to Iraq 2003. We now know that Bush fabricated evidence of Saddam Hussein having NBC weapons that directly threatened the national security of the US. Even Bush's own chief weapons inspector said the evidence was false. But yet Bush was re-elected and a majority of the American public still support the war.
So it begs the question, if Chalmers Johnson is wrong about the US passing the point of no return in being a militaristic state ala the Roman Empire, then the supporting evidence in the form of the reversal of at least two of the four key events highlighted earlier, has yet to occur.
In some ways, they are absolutely correct. But I think the lessons are actually lost on those who need to understand it the most - the ruling class in the US and the voters who provide superficial legitimacy to the "democratic" process of installing an emperor.
Many learned historians and analysts like Professor Chalmers Johnson (The Sorrows of Empire) believe the militaristic imperial state such as that of the Roman Empire, has taken hold in the US and grown past the point of no return. I had heard this theory before but disagreed with the proposition that it had gone past the point of no return. But lately, I'm leaning more towards this view because of a couple of events.
- Subversion of the Florida ballot in 2000; that was explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
- Appointment of Rehnquist's successor by the beneficiary (Dubya) of the subverted ballot. The implications are dire for future constitutional challenges (such as another disputed electoral college ballot) heard by the Supreme Court under John Roberts.
- Renewal of the USA Patriot Act by a Congress controlled by the same party as the person who stole the presidency. Few Americans realise that this act has become a de facto circumscribing amendment to their treasured bill of rights! Every renewal renders subsequent repeal less likely even when emergency times pass.
- The government today is larger than at any other time except during the days of WW2. But in WW2, the country was fighting a world war. Today's supersized government is devoted to growing one branch - the military. Just about every other branch is smaller than before. Yet in a democracy, isn't the reverse is supposed to be true?
It's unlikely either country will acquire the same ruthless ability to organise extreme violence in such a scientific and efficient manner as that of the US. It took the US about sixty-five years of gargantuan military spending to gain their current size, and as long to hone their war-fighting skills by prosecuting numerous wars around the world.
In addition, I doubt China's and India's populations have the social and cultural values required to glorify the military and war to the same high status as the American public has done. The reason the US military is what it is today, is due to the American public directly or indirectly supporting it.
How else could various presidents have engaged the country as a principal protagonist in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cold War, 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars, and a few little direct or proxy wars in Central and South America (eg Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala)? If the majority of voters had been against any of these wars, then they would have spoken thus through the ballot box.
I know many people support their troops in good faith, even though they may disagree with the presidential decisions placing them in harm's way in the first place. But the question is what would they have done if Hitler was in the White House and had ordered the troops to invade Poland?
Preposterous scenario! I imagine many people would claim. But is it really?
In September 1939, Hitler ordered Heinrich Himmler to stage a series of anti-German incidents (Operation Himmler) to give Germany an excuse to invade Poland. Hitler claimed the invasion was to protect Germany's security and that of Germans living in Poland.
Fast forward to Iraq 2003. We now know that Bush fabricated evidence of Saddam Hussein having NBC weapons that directly threatened the national security of the US. Even Bush's own chief weapons inspector said the evidence was false. But yet Bush was re-elected and a majority of the American public still support the war.
So it begs the question, if Chalmers Johnson is wrong about the US passing the point of no return in being a militaristic state ala the Roman Empire, then the supporting evidence in the form of the reversal of at least two of the four key events highlighted earlier, has yet to occur.
