[Cid_Yama]

For stepping back from the dreary prognosis for Afghanistan, a new reality becomes clear. The long retreat has begun.

Whether it is in the 23 months Gen. Petraeus favors, or the 16 months Obama promised, the United States is coming home from Iraq.

The retreat from Central Asia is already underway. Expelled from the K-2 air base in Uzbekistan in 2005, the United States has now been ordered out of the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, ripped away from Georgia by Russia last August, are never going to be returned. And we all know it.

Georgia and Ukraine, most realists now realize, are not going to be admitted to NATO. We're not going to fight Russia over the Crimea. And the U.S. anti-missile missiles and radars George Bush intended to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic will not now be deployed.

For Washington has fish to fry with Russia, and the price of her cooperation is withdrawal of U.S. military forces from her backyard and front porch. And the warm words flowing between Moscow and Washington suggest the deal is done.

With tensions rising in Korea, too, it is hard to believe President Obama will bolster ground forces on the peninsula, when even Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over a drawdown and a shifting of U.S. troops away from the DMZ.

In Latin America, the United States seems reconciled to the rise of an anti-American radical-socialist coalition, led by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and embracing Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba.

Partisans of President Bush may blame Obama for presiding over a strategic retreat, but it is the Bush administration that assured and accelerated such a retreat.

As Robert Pape of the University of Chicago writes in The National Interest: "America is in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today's world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back at the Bush administration years as the death knell of American hegemony."

link

[eastbay]

It's entirely possible that a military withdrawal from Central Asia and elsewhere could spark an economic revitalization since the vast sums squandered in these idiotic adventures could be diverted to domestic use. You know, the classic guns or butter decision. Rather than degrading the lives of those adversely impacted by a continues US military presence, the USA could improve the lives of its citizens as well as the lives of those in once-occupied lands.

Military withdrawal would definitely be a plus for everyone. I don't see an era featuring a de-proliferation of overseas military action as an economically negative process in itself, especially as economies collapse across the globe.

In fact, such a swift and bold move could result in a positive economic response far greater than the assorted debt-building stimulus packages.

[alokin]

This sounds entirely reasonable.
I can't believe it!
And what were the big words of Obama then that they will deploy much more troops to Afghanistan? Hot air?

[Cid_Yama]

Mearly unrealistic considering the economic crisis in the world.

[Schmuto]

Cid-Yama is a card carrying democrat who still believes that Bush the III is different than Bush the II.

Half or more of his posts are intended to take pot shots at the II while propping up the III.

Until he publicly acknowledges the congruence between Bush the II and Bush the III, his posts are, in my opinion, left wanting.

[dorlomin]

Russia is headed back to the 90s, Iran is running out of foriegn reserves, something it needs to trade for refined oil products, China is about to discover how an alleged 50% bad loan rate suddenly shows up as a banking crisis when your growth is no longer 12% per years and how that reflects on an angry disenfranchised nation.

The US is realigning its force structure, its new comander in chief grew up the child of an anthropoligist, he is far more capable of understanding and manipulating the local cultural differences within the imperium than the frat boy who previously had the job. US ground comanders have learnt how to work with locals to a degree.

Obama is shaping himself up to be Americas Hadrian. The empror who set limits on the expansion and created a more secure frontier. I doubt he has the balls to be a Richelieu or Bismark and by god he is certainly no Vespasian, but Id hazard a guess and say that the proclaimations of Americas death are somewhat premature.

I'd rather be in Americas shoes than Chinas or Russias.

[Schmuto]

. . ., its new comander in chief grew up the child of an anthropoligist, he is far more capable of understanding and manipulating the local cultural differences within the imperium . . . the proclaimations of Americas death are somewhat premature. I'd rather be in Americas shoes than Chinas or Russias.

1. My father was a surgeon, so I'm far more capable of understanding anatomy than most.
2. The U.S. may end up more like Byzantium, and so not dead yet, but the proclamation of its debilitating illness is accurate.
3. Only because we started much higher than China or Russia will the end point of the resultant fall seem higher as well. In the end, China and Russia will have a lot less far to fall, which may mean they survive the impact substantially better than the U.S., which is going to fall very far, very fast, and which has no experience whatsoever at the depths she will plumb.

[Cid_Yama]

Schmuto,

Boy are you wrong. Usually I am accused of being a Socialist/Communist.(Of which I am neither, but a Constutional Libertarian[not the political party] and still think Cheney is the Anti-Christ and Bush his demon minion.[Not really but it was a good line].)

I am constantly accused of anti-neocon bias, which is true as I am diametrically opposed to the core of my soul.

No one has ever accused me of being a Dubya-lover.

I post one Op Ed by Pat Buchanan and get insulted by the left.

I feel like Obama trying to reach across the aisle.

[TheDude]

A month in and he's still well on track for what my expectations were - which is, in partisan terms, neither fish nor fowl. Close Gitmo while killing Pakistanis. My forecast is slow unwind of the MIC's global presence, it will make Lefties feel cuddly and trim spending ever so slightly too. But full retreat and abandon the limes? No way. I really doubt those shiny new bases in Iraq are going to be converted into shopping malls by 2012.

[dorlomin]

2. The U.S. may end up more like Byzantium, and so not dead yet, but the proclamation of its debilitating illness is accurate.

Byzantium lasted 1000 years. Which bit of its history were you refering too?

3. Only because we started much higher than China or Russia will the end point of the resultant fall seem higher as well. In the end, China and Russia will have a lot less far to fall, which may mean they survive the impact substantially better than the U.S., which is going to fall very far, very fast, and which has no experience whatsoever at the depths she will plumb.

The US government derives its legitimacy from the social contract between the state and its people. This is a political bond that the people get too have a say in how the state is run and the state does not undely interfere in there lives. This has been stress tested in the last depression and now that contract extends to provision of basic social welfare.

The current Russian entity has no such bond and lacks the social contract of providing a proletriat republic for its people that the Marxists had or the devine right to rule of the czars. They are popular for providing a moducum of wealth. The regime offers no real democracy and if it cannot provide food and heating or boost Russian standing its legitimacy will erode rapidly. The new czars will then be forced to crack down hard on dissent. Russia will not be a pleasant place when things turn ugly.

Where would you rather have riden out the 30s, the US or the USSR?

[Schmuto]

No one has ever accused me of being a Dubya-lover.

Come on Cid, pay attention. I said you defended Bush the 3rd.

That IS OBAMA.

[lowem]

Military withdrawal would definitely be a plus for everyone. I don't see an era featuring a de-proliferation of overseas military action as an economically negative process in itself, especially as economies collapse across the globe.

A plus for everyone except the military-industrial complex. But then they could always adapt, say Lockheed selling more e-government services instead of more F-16's, -22's or -35's.

Less of an "oomph" there, though. Worse comes to worse, I could always say, I *used to* work for the company that *used to* make the stealth fighters. You know, we never forget who we're working for, and all that.

[dissident]

Everybody is just such a lemming "expert" on Russia. Spare me the crap about social contract between the western regimes and the electorate which supposedly is completely absent in the rest of the world. You have no clue what sort of information bubble you live in. Try stepping out of it *physically* and see reality first hand.

[evilgenius]

All of this because the US did not use a proxy to remove Saddam. Why didn't they? A proxy is the tried and tested method of large States in such situations. A proxy can be left to wither or die if the game doesn't go as planned, while the State Sponsor gets away almost free.

They didn't use a proxy because the Saudis could not live with the most logical, the only proxy that could do the job, the Shia in Iraq. The Sunnis in Iraq would not do it because Saddam was one of their own and they will not betray one of their own, even for a kingdom.

Now begins the job of placing the Sunnis in charge, seeing as the way it was done could only delay, not defeat the inevitable Shia political dominance. The US will withdraw and Iraq will descend into civil war. The US will have to go back, this time firmly behind the Sunni factions because the Shia will be entirely villified as linked to Iran.

This has all been planned to coincide with what Robert Rubin and Dick Cheney both know concerning the Saudi reserve numbers. The crash had to happen or the peak would have come too soon. They knew this years ago.

They must corner the reserves in Iraq and tie them into the Saudi infrastructure or the game for global dominance during the next thirty years (the years winding down from the peak) could be lost.

The fact that there is a better than 50/50 chance, given the preparations that Russia has been making, that the re-entry will end in disaster seems to be lost on those that have planned this game.

One man's opinion.

[pedalling_faster]

For stepping back from the dreary prognosis for Afghanistan, a new reality becomes clear. The long retreat has begun.

what retreat ?

there's not much left to shoot in Iraq.

1 million civilians dead, 4 million civilians homeless. i would say the civilian populace is in a state of profound subdue-ment.

[Nickel]

Cid-Yama is a card carrying democrat... his posts are, in my opinion, left wanting.

No, just usually left-leaning.

[rangerone314]

Everybody is just such a lemming "expert" on Russia. Spare me the crap about social contract between the western regimes and the electorate which supposedly is completely absent in the rest of the world. You have no clue what sort of information bubble you live in. Try stepping out of it *physically* and see reality first hand.

Kinda looks like the social contract got a little stress-tested during the Civil War when the north burned down Atlanta. Was burning down Atlanta "unduly" interfering in the lives of its citizens? Or killing several hundred thousand Southerners?

Social contract is bunk; so is consent to govern. All consent to govern is incorrectly inferred because people have no real choice to govern themselves. There is no place other than maybe Antarctica where you can go to escape some government trying to impose its rule on you. Try "revoking" your consent to govern and see where that gets you!

Republican governments are plutocracy-by-proxy, with the "elected representatives" being proxies for the rich. The Founders -- wealthy land owners mostly -- decided in their wisdom (re: "The Prince" by Machiavelli who advocated republics principally as being stable) to dole out enough rights to keep the people content enough so that the wealthy could continue ruling.

People who think they have real say are less likey to try to seize real control. The less people who are "disenfranchised" in voting (women, minorities) the more the appearance of democracy--hence the driving focus on getting people to vote, no matter who they vote for.

Voting for ANYONE as long as you vote is encouraged, because it is the act of legitimizing the system and maintaining of power that is important. No matter who is picked among the people running, they will be beholden to the money interests that hold the real power. Its all about keeping power -- that is why gov's tend to crack down MORE on vigilanties than rapists and murderers and why gov's try to ban citizien self-defense -- they want a monopoly on power.

All governents fear their citizens get more power.