RE: protection racket

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Threehegemons@aol.com [mailto:Threehegemons@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:45 PM
> To: facbolese@usao.edu; wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> Subject: Re: protection racket
> 
> 
> I saw the article below, and I wondered if any of the "Senior 
> NATO generals, 
> United Nations officials and Western diplomats" quoted do not 
> work for the US 
> government.  My impression is that the US liberal interventionist 
> establishment (epitomized by the Times, among others) was 
> outraged about the 
> isolationist rhetoric Bush was throwing around during his 
> campaign, and wants 
> to pressure him.  For actual European opinion, we should probably watch 
> things like the Op-Ed page for signed statements.  This morning 
> on NPR they 
> had an amusing tape of Clinton begging/threatening Europe to not 
> go forward 
> much with its defense plans.
> 
> Steven Sherman

It is certain that some are working for the US, and I think you're right that 
many in the US Global Robo Cop establishment were alarmed at Bush's suggestion 
that US troops withdraw (even though the main role of the US there is its 
overwhelming force in Europe, logistics, and intelligence-gather capabilities). 
 No doubt, Germany wants an expanded military role and some German officials 
are already "saying no" to Washington on a number of issues, such as SDI, and 
they have the support of Russians among others.  There are, that is, a number 
of competing pro- and anti-US factions.  

The question is, how far will the anti-US factions go and how will the US 
react?  Is a steady US decline of military power inevitable based on the past 
patterns of the world-system?  I think, given the systemic ruptures since 1945 
that the patterns have ended, and the chaos of this period of flux will become 
more intense and prediction more difficult.  In the near future, will Europe 
demand control over the command of US troops and missiles, or request a phased 
withdraw from Europe altogether?  Seems unlikely in the near future.  But if 
such momentum were to build up, would the US flex its military muscles again, 
create regional instability somewhere (possibly near Europe again), and 
demonstrate to its "allies" that they need to continue payments to the US for 
"protection"?  Or perhaps do so also to raise the president's ratings in the 
polls as the US economy stagnates over the next 4-5 years (recall Clinton's 
bombing of Iraq during the Lewinsky scandal or the leak from South Korea that 
he was planning an attack on North Korea).  I think the Mafioso racket is a 
pattern in this chaotic time, and I see no end to it over the next decade.  In 
view of how the dynamics have changed since the end of the Cold War -- which 
has reduced concerns of a global nuclear war resulting from regional conflicts 
in Europe and other strategic areas -- there is less pressure to constrain the 
US mafioso-racket.  And so the US has geared up for short and rapid action 
high-tech wars.  Bush will, sooner or later, use military force somewhere.  
It's something one can bank on.

Elson