On imperialism, I agree with you that the US is not yet in an openly imperial mode. Rather, I compare it to the Roman Republic in the period leading up to Empire, when the economic and political forces were in extreme tension between traditional republican institutions and emerging military dictatorship. I hope the US never gets to the dictatorship stage, but the crazy scale of its military expenditure, together with the problem of the current financial collapse, suggests to me that this unlikely result is not as farfetched as you might think.

The U.S. at one time did seek to build and maintain an overseas empire, from about the mid-1890s, and then it relinquished most, but not all, of its imperial territories over the course of the 20th century, culminating in the return of the Panama Canal to Panama at the end of 1999. So imperialism is part of the U.S.'s past, and the trend is away from empire, not toward it.

Respecting military expenditure, according to the versions of Statistical Abstract of the United States available at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ , the ratio of U.S. military expenditure to GDP was 54% in 1944; 8% in 1970; 4.8% in 1980; 5.2% in 1990; 3% in 2000; and 4.5% in 2007, the latest year for which we appear to have accurate and complete U.S. GDP figures. These levels of military expenditure do not appear to me to be "crazy." The 2007 figure is lower than the figure at the height of the Vietnam War, lower than in 1980 during the Cold War and lower than in 1990 at the end of the Cold War. Over the 20th century the overall trend was downward; during the last 37 years the overall trend has been downward. I would not characterize this downward trend in military expenditure as "crazy."

Further, the U.S. military is under civilian control, exercised by the President of the United States, who is commander in chief of all U.S. military forces, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense. I see no evidence that such civilian control is threatened in any respect by any component of the U.S. armed forces.

Thanks Richards. The site you gave lists US military spending here. In 2008 the estimated total was $693.9 billion dollars. In real terms, corrected for inflation, this was about 23% higher than in 1970, and was an annual increase of 10.9% on the 2007 level. Your presenting the numbers as a percentage of GDP distracts attention from the massive, unaffordable, dangerous and rapidly rising real amount.

My description of this spending as 'crazy' may look harsh, but I see US military spending as largely wasted, and as counter-productive for American national security, reflecting a dangerous militarisation of American culture. What are all the weapons really for? Diverting 10% of US military spending to economic development would enable the world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, alternatives to the oil economy and reversal of global warming. These, in my view are the real security threats. Possible military threats are largely a product of these real economic and environmental problems, which can be better addressed directly than through the indirect approach of building large quantities of purely destructive weapons.

The rich countries give just over $100 billion in aid to the poor countries each year, less than one sixth the amount the US spends on its military. In my view, development aid does more to improve security than military spending. A rebalancing to focus better on development would make the US a world hero rather than its current ambiguous status.

I don't think Kadima endorses Security Council Resolution 242 calling for retreat to the 1967 borders. Until 242 is applied, I think it is fair to say that Israel is maintaining an imperial occupation of the West Bank.

Respecting Resolution 242, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION ... penElement , the provision respecting withdrawal from the occupied territories is hortatory, not mandatory: the auxiliary verb is "should," not "must." Further, the text refers to withdrawal "from territories occupied," not "from all territories occupied." Given the plain wording of Resolution 242, Kadima's policy seems consistent with the letter of the resolution.

Your presenting the numbers as a percentage of GDP distracts attention from the massive, unaffordable, dangerous and rapidly rising real amount.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense commonly characterizes the U.S. defense budget as a percentage of GDP, see, e.g., http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/spe ... echid=1199 , because the U.S. defense budget is paid for with tax dollars, and many economists and policymakers view percentage of GDP as a useful, and perhaps the best, measure of the ability of the U.S. economy to support the tax burden required to fund the defense budget. In the linked document, Secretary Gates says, "Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime periods." Accordingly, I view the U.S.'s current levels of defense spending as affordable, and not massive.

What are all the weapons really for?

Those weapons are for defending the U.S. and its allies against many enemies. Here are some of the relevant circumstances. Russia and China have nuclear weapons aimed at the United States, and both countries sell arms to U.S. enemies, both state and non-state actors. China has nuclear weapons pointed at Taiwan, a U.S. ally, and threatens to invade Taiwan. Last August, Russia invaded Georgia, an ally of the U.S. The U.S. provides substantial military defenses for Japan, a key U.S. ally. As part of NATO, the U.S. defends Europe against possible invasion by Russia, a threat that the Georgia invasion demonstrates is not speculative. In Nov. 2008, Russia threatened to place short range nuclear weapons on its western border, threatening the U.S.'s Central and Eastern European allies. North Korea has nuclear weapons aimed at the U.S.'s ally, South Korea, and still threatens to invade South Korea. Iran has long-range conventional missiles aimed at Israel and the European nations, all of them U.S. allies, and Iran threatens soon to develop nuclear warheads to place on those missiles. Iran's policy is the destruction of Israel, the U.S.'s chief ally in the Middle East. Iran also arms Hezbollah and Hamas, who make war on Israel. Iran arms insurgents in Iraq who have killed dozens of U.S. military. The U.S. is a founding member of NATO, and frequently sends more than its share of troops to carry out NATO missions when other NATO members decline to send their share of troops, as the U.S. is doing now in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda forces now based in Pakistan have killed thousands of U.S. civilians in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and have attacked U.S. military forces and civilians abroad. The Taliban forces who arm and harbor al Qaeda are threatening to take over both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. State Department identifies approximately 40 terrorist groups, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/45323.pdf , who threaten the U.S. or its allies.

The activities of these state and non-state actors, hostile to the U.S. or its allies, in my view justify the U.S.'s maintenance of a strong military.

richards1000 wrote:The U.S. Secretary of Defense commonly characterizes the U.S. defense budget as a percentage of GDP, see, e.g., http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/spe ... echid=1199 , because the U.S. defense budget is paid for with tax dollars, and many economists and policymakers view percentage of GDP as a useful measure of the ability of the U.S. economy to support the tax burden required to fund the defense budget. In the linked document, Secretary Gates says, "Overall, our current military spending amounts to about 4 percent of GDP, below the historic norm and well below previous wartime periods." Accordingly, I view the U.S.'s current levels of defense spending as affordable, and not massive.

The Secretary would say that wouldn't he, given that the GDP ratio is a useful statistical camouflage for the massive ongoing 10% annual real increase in military spending. In discussion on neoliberalism I am using the same argument to pursue the need for balanced budgets. The profligacy of US military spending is a key theme in Bacevich's analysis of The Limits of Power. I suspect that American military profligacy is a key reason for the global financial crisis, by diverting American investment from productive uses into useless weapons, and by underpinning the ideological distraction from good regulation of the finance sector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt shows how the military expansion since Reagan has ruined American public finances.

Those weapons are for defending the U.S. and its allies against many enemies. ... The activities of these state and non-state actors, hostile to the U.S. or its allies, in my view justify the U.S.'s maintenance of a strong military.

But $700 billion per year growing at an annual rate of 10%?? The threats you list are real, except that you have to ask why Israel is America's only friend in the Middle East, and why Israel has almost no friends except America (and Micronesia and Australia). If the US and Israel were less arrogant in their relations to the Muslim world they would do much better in winning hearts and minds, through political alliances that would reduce the need for weaponry. Concerted effort to promote economic development is the best way to build human capital and reduce the attraction of terrorism.

You have to consider the geopolitical relations with Russia and China against the legacy of colonialism and the cold war. In both countries, socialism arose as a monolithic ideological response to western imperialism. Lenin and Mao were able to argue that the velvet glove of neoliberal economic growth masked the steel fist of support for corrupt elites. Other countries have good reason not to trust the USA, but the USA has no good reasons to be untrustworthy.

An underlying problem here is the superficiality of the religious debate. You may see this as a tangent, but I would argue it is central to the legitimacy and credibility of US relations to the Arab world. So-called “Evangelical Christians for Israel” argue that the Bible tells them to support Israel, but reading the actual words of the Biblical prophets gives a very different message. Perhaps the best example is the prophet Jeremiah. He observed that in the Israel of his day, spiritual apostasy sought to cloak itself with ardent, but hypocritical religious activism. In Jeremiah's view the problem is not that Israel worships false Gods but that they say the wrong thing about the true God. This looks like a very relevant message for mainstream American Christianity – that the Bible does not provide an absolute support for any nation, only a support conditional on ethical standards. Other prophets, such as Nahum and Obadiah, list behaviours which lead to the collapse of states. Nahum identifies the collapse of Nineveh as caused by cruelty, lying, stealing, idolatry, immorality and insincerity. Obadiah's critique of Edom emphasises the sins of military arrogance, political cunning, humanitarian indifference and materialistic greed. This prophetic Biblical critique is very relevant to contemporary Israel.

why Israel is America's only friend in the Middle East

The U.S.'s allies in the Middle East include Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait, as well as Israel. Israel's allies in the Middle East include Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq. Syria and Lebanon may become allies, if a peace agreement can be concluded between Israel and Syria.

There is a difference between a friend and an ally. Yes, it is expedient for the governments of some countries in the Middle East to enter alliance with Israel and the US, but these alliances are strongly opposed by large groups within those countries, and do not have the emotional bonds of friendship that exist between Israel and the USA.

Gershom Gorenberg and David Frum have a very interesting Bloggingheads discussion this week about Israeli politics and the settlements: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17943 .

richards1000 wrote:Gershom Gorenberg and David Frum have a very interesting Bloggingheads discussion this week about Israeli politics and the settlements: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17943 .

Another really good discussion is at the Jerusalem Post: Encountering Peace: Bibi or Tzipi, Bibi and Tzipi - what does it really matter?.

This thread takes up issues discussed at length in the "Throwing Shoes at Bush" thread, notably the merits of a large US military spend in the context of Middle East politics. My concern is that if, as I believe, conservative economic policy is the best way to maximise economic growth, then why does conservative policy also need to be accompanied by massive military spending? Shouldn't the force of ideas be more effective in delivering security?

My concern is that if, as I believe, conservative economic policy is the best way to maximise economic growth, then why does conservative policy also need to be accompanied by massive military spending?

Robert:

Would you please clarify? I don't understand your point here. In the sentence quoted here, whose "conservative economic policy" are you referring to, and do you mean "conservative economic policy" as applied to the economies of Middle Eastern countries, or to other countries' economies? And again, whose "military spending" do you refer to, and where are the resources paid for with that military spending deployed?

Also, I don't understand the relationship between the quoted sentence and the Bloggingheads conversation or the Jerusalem Post article; would you please explain that? Thanks.