Maintaining US Hegemony

Robert M. Gates, US Secretary of Defense, wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon - that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire.”

This statement is close to admitting that the invasions were mistakes, that the dangers they were designed to suppress were not commensurate with the cost of suppression. One might then ask, why not bring the troops home at once, or as soon as logistically possible? Why plan on leaving 50,000 or more “residual” American troops in the occupied lands as an additional potential sacrifice in pursuit of a mistaken policy?

Gates continued: “In these situations, the effectiveness and credibility of the United States will only be as good as the effectiveness, credibility, and sustainability of its local partners.” Clearly, our local partners in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have these qualities. Their weakness requires US occupation and military sacrifice because the local elites do not have the power and ability to manage their countries nor the popular support to enforce their will.

The result was predictable: total reliance on the US military and US occupation forces. From time immemorial, these factors have always generated great increases in popular resistance. The foreign occupier violates native territoriality whether in Concord/ Lexington or in Jerusalem. The Tories were too weak to help the British occupiers of Massachusetts in 1776 and Herod could not control the Hebrews who revolted against Roman control of holy places..


The US had experienced this human phenomenon more recently. The leaders of South Vietnam made a mess of governing, alienated the population, crushed the subsistence farmers, created enemies of their regime as well as intense hatred of their American allies. After their complete victory in World War II, the allied forces were wiser, handing over power to the traditional elites in Germany and Japan, who were strong enough to manage their countries while taking general orders from the American conquerors who remained in the background – a strong contrast with Iraq and Afghanistan where the corrupt leaders alienated the local population. It is difficult if not impossible for a foreign occupier to rule without an effective native government to do its bidding. Such governments do not exist in Iraq and Afghanistan, another reason for immediate withdrawal.

Theoretically, as the only superpower, United States hegemony over Planet Earth can be maintained in a variety of ways. The current structure of military dominance relies on supporting the elites in the more than 140 countries where there are at least 750 US military bases. This military system puts the US in defense of ruling regimes in case of insurgency even without formal treaties. However, the military and financial costs may be too great even for the USA, a nation with only 6% of the earth’s humans but a grand 25% of the world's product. The military bases imply ultimate protection of the rulers and a degree of military occupation that inspires resentment of the US by local nationalists who will find ways of attacking the superpower.

But America has other traditions - of openness, of welcoming immigrants, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of constitutional government, of breaking social and sexual and racial barriers. It does not need to follow the Roman model of military empire of crushing resistance wherever it appears. America’s soft powers, its leadership in assimilation, its remarkable prosperity, its richness in ideas and technology, give it the opportunity to break the Roman pattern of legionary discipline with a benevolent leadership that relies on economic, social and moral persuasion. Even the flaws of America, its aggressiveness, its occasional meanness, its arrogance, so perfectly reflect the best and the worst of the human condition – a sort of Paradise Lost – but remembered.

The Expansion of Presidential Power

Presidential power is one of the mysteries of the American political system, certainly not justified or suggested in the United States Constitution. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was a king, an American George III, with the power to tax, to levy armies, to initiate wars. Yet that is our current system and presidential power is growing as the democratic spirit weakens under the pressures of maintaining world-wide hegemony.

The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.

Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.

This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.

That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.

This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton's famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.

In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.

Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.

Military Influence in the US

In this period of American military dominance, generals and admirals have acquired influence well beyond the battlefield. Four-Star General David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command, oversees US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of the greater Middle East. He is the likely choice to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he will again be in the public spotlight. His recent lower profile was suggested by the Obama White House.

His extensive wartime experience and proven ability to negotiate on Capitol Hill have made General Petraeus a formidable political personality should he choose that venue after retirement. He regularly denies interest in becoming president of the United States, sometimes without being asked. He invokes the famous remark of William Tecumseh Sherman, the Civil War general who made the stunningly clear response to presidential ambition: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." Other notable generals found the call irresistible: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight David Eisenhower, so far.

However, that is not the end of the matter. The ascendancy of Petraeus has come during a period in American history in which military leaders have acquired influence well beyond the battlefield. Petraeus and his counterpart commanders in the Pacific, in Europe and in Latin America meet regularly with the politically powerful in foreign capitals, as well as in Washington, DC. Some observers point to their clout as evidence that US foreign policy has become militarized under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is difficult to deflect this argument when the US is engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is intervening in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, is authorized to chase Al Qaeda militarily into any or all of the 192 countries on earth, and operates 761 military bases in 147 countries.

The Crisis in U.S./Muslim Relations

The Crisis in U.S./Muslim Relations
By Jerome Grossman

In Cairo, President Barack Obama addressed the world's billion Muslims preaching the values of political freedom, democracy and human rights. Remarkably, he virtually apologized for the repeated Western interference in the affairs of Muslim nations, citing the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 by the U.S. CIA and its British counterpart, then the installing of a dictator in that country. While this act of contrition was widely welcomed, it had already been performed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the Bill Clinton Administration without improving the relationship. Iran was placed on “The Axis of Evil”.

If President Obama was promising a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East, it did not reflect the operating situation there. The U.S., under Democratic and Republican presidents alike has gone to war, sometimes to protect, sometimes to oust regimes in the area: e.g. in 1991 to protect Kuwait from Iraq, in 2002 to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq. Another rarely discussed U.S. intervention but high in the consciousness of Iranians is the support the U. S. gave to Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran in 1980. In this eight year war, Iran lost more than one million lives and suffered Saddam's repeated use of poison gas on civilians and the military.

Obama promises to change the historical behavior of the U.S. in the area. Will his preaching lead to the over-throw of America’s favored dictators? Apart from Israel, the countries we support there are dictatorships, any elections held are merely automatic endorsements of reigning corrupt dictators in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc. For generations, starting with the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our politicians, business leaders, military and intelligence staffers and diplomats have found it easier to deal with dictatorial establishments than with the messiness of prolonged negotiations involved in democratic procedures. Guarantees of military support or well-placed financial contributions often produce policies more quickly and efficiently.

Literal adoption of Obama’s good government recommendations would likely impede the U.S. system of dominance in the Middle East, opening it up to competition from other nations now frozen-out. The commercial position of the U.S. oil companies might be in danger. The price of oil might be driven to new heights. The Arab countries might decide to leave the U.S. dollar for better deals with rival currencies and to invest their surplus funds in venues other then American Treasury Bonds. Rival countries might try to play the game of bribing government officials. In a democracy, the possibilities for change and competition are endless when the pool of competitors is expanded.

The crisis in Iran highlights the possibilities for change in all Muslim nations by breaking established patterns of conduct. In Cairo, President Obama set forth the ideals that might not support the current system and world American hegemony. Is the U.S. prepared to sacrifice its preeminence for the ideals of openness and democracy? Will the dominant interests in America, big business and the military, allow such a sacrifice, such a transformation?