US: A "Paper Tiger"?

Distinguished Professor Immanuel Wallerstein has suggested that bin Laden's
attack reveals to the world that the US is a "paper tiger."  I think his
more recent conclusions regarding the uncertainty of US success over the
middle run is more astute, though I agree US vulnerability has been proven.
However, the implied certainty of US failure is too easy.  Failure could be
success.

Yes, US political power will continue to decline over the next fifty years
relative to Europe and Japan, but as I've been arguing, precisely the kinds
of events that we are now witnessing could lead toward the formation of a
world-empire and global apartheid that is at first organized under the
continuation of the US "mafioso protection racket".   The decision to keep
Saddam Hussein in place is indicative: it has justified the continuation of
a heavy military presence in the Middle East and the cycle of US military
hardware purchases from oil revenues and loans (e.g. Saudi Arabia is
billions of dollars in debt to the US), as well as the re-cycling of capital
flows into the once safe shores of the US market.

Today we read (below) that the US is preparing to spread its war on
terrorism to the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.  Wallerstein's
argument that the US will instigate "the emergence of a hydra-headed
monster" (and so not just in the Middle East) is certainly correct.  (See
74. "The Outcome Could Not Be More Uncertain" Oct. 1, 2001 at
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm ).  But are we not witnessing the
creation of conditions and alliances that are justifying as never before the
role of the US as a world "robo cop" of liberalism and civilization?

The question in my view is this:  How long can it last?  Perhaps as long as
there is a hydra-headed monster to legitimize US authority.  The US and its
allies have the most vulgar domestic support to do all it can to encourage
that monster.  Failure to destroy the monster would in fact be success, for
it would sustain the legitimacy of the endeavor.  In this respect, are these
two sides not unlike those of the Cold War in that they both need each
other?  The difference of course is that this conflict will not be as
predictable and "institutionalized."  It is not a "cold" war nor a "great
peace."  It's just the opposite.  Images and the mood of the movie "Brazil"
comes to mind.

Elson Boles
Dept. of Sociology
Saginaw Valley State University

-------------
New York Times

American Action Is Held Likely in Asia

By TIM WEINER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9  Terrorists tied to Osama bin Laden's network and based
in the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia are among the likely targets of
future covert and overt American actions, United States officials said
today...