The Sole Superpower

"Of course the United States will always be the superpower…I mean no one else has the projection capability…." stated by Tim Weiner, author of a history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, on Fresh Air 06/28/07

Weiner may be an expert on the CIA, but he's no historian if he doesn't realize that all empires fall--or dismantle themselves gracefully if they are lucky.

What Weiner doesn't address, and no one in the mainstream media seems to even think about is: what's so good about being the superpower? Think of the cost of maintaining superpower status, first of all: about $600-700 billion annually just in "defense" appropriations, and that doesn't count the huge covert budgets (probably another $100 billion), nor the military or imperial components of the Energy Department, the State Department ("security" aid), the Commerce and Treasury Departments, and so on. Empire ain't cheap.

What do Americans get for all this money? Cheap goods from places like China? Not really, since China is clearly outside the US orbit. Cheap oil? Please! The US being a superpower enables us to buy oil in the world market, from all the oil companies, just like everyone else, but the American oil companies are hoping for windfalls in places like Iraq--not for American consumers, but for their companies.

One of my points is precisely this: superpower status does not benefit the average Joe and Jane much at all, but it costs them a lot.

Must the US maintain its superpower status because otherwise all hell would break loose in the world?

American intervention was positive in WWII and possibly in Korea, i.e. we promoted peace in the world, but can you think of other instances since? Putting the Shah in power in Iran? Overthrowing a social democrat in Guatemala? Both caused much suffering and in Iran's case, resulted in a hostile revolution. Intervening in the disintegrating Yugoslavia and in Kossovo may have saved lives, but these could and should have been NATO operations. I would argue that the disproportionate US military allows the Europeans to shirk their responsibilities--and the US taxpayer pays for it.

US intervention as superpower in places like Iraq and Afghanistan has been not just incompetent and ineffective, but with Iraq has measurably increased tensions, violence and war all over the region. Our earlier covert intervention in Afghanistan paved the way for the Taliban that NATO is now fighting there.

Maybe, radical thought, superpower status is not an unalloyed blessing? But the huge US military almost begs our leaders to use it--and then we get into trouble. Maybe the world would be better served by the UN and regional groupings maintaining the peace, preventing genocide and for nothing else. Using any military to cause "regime change," or to accomplish other national "strategic" goals, was prohibited by the UN Charter; that should be enforced and should become US policy.

I can imagine Generals complaining: "But what will we do with the best fighting force on the planet?"

Retire it. Turn over our vaunted "projection capability" to the UN for sending peace-keepers and peace-makers and rescue operations over the globe.

Give up being the sole superpower.

Who really benefits from the US being the superpower? Our military may make it more feasible for corporations to export Americans' jobs (offshoring, outsourcing), and to drive down wages of those who don't lose theirs: "If you ask for higher wages, or union representation, we'll move our operations overseas," say so many companies.

So some employers, or their corporations do probably benefit, but American workers (no matter the color of their "collar") demonstrably do not, except possibly for cheaper goods at Walmart. Superpower status has certainly contributed to increasing economic inequality, but workers pay for it in taxes.

Spending so much on the military (more than the rest of the world combined, which lays out about $500 billion yearly) may be one of the reasons why the US, alone among industrialized nations, does not have a universal health care system, and why other benefits are so niggardly. It is also why we are hard-pressed to fund adequate education for our children, housing for the poor and pensions for our elderly.

Maintaining our imperial establishment also costs us in important intangible ways, like losing our rights because of "security" concerns and the obsession our government has with secrecy.

But superpower status does benefit the wealthy. There are more millionaires now than ever (I heard the figure 9.1 million in the US); their numbers are growing fast, and those with $5 million or more are growing even faster. Why? The stock market.

The Stock market reflects the profits of global corporations, which are facilitated by two aspects of superpower status. The first is the dominance of global corporations at the expense of local businesses and workers all over the world. US corporations are promoted by America's influence in world trade institutions, the omnipresence of our military bases, and the weight these give them. An extreme example was the efforts of US-Iraq occupation's first ruler, Paul Bremer. He not only opened the Iraq market to US firms, but tried to require all Iraq state corporations to be privatized, allowing or encouraging foreign (US) buyers. A more moderate form of that policy is one of the current "benchmarks" Congress and the administration say Iraq must meet.

Iraq points up the other reason why the stock market is surging, creating more and more wealth for a few: the defense industry and oil, the industry it champions. The Iraq war has been a windfall, but what other country spends over half a trillion on war-related goods and services? None. Defense and oil companies have been making huge profits, some emerging from virtually nothing to hundreds of millions of dollars in business, like Blackstone, the security company, solely because of the wars the US is fighting--and their crony connections. Others are more established: their profits depend upon the continuation of America as superpower.

But if you don't own much stock, especially in the defense industry, if you depend on your job for a living, if you don't serve one of the very wealthy who do benefit, then America's superpower status doesn't help you much at all, and probably hurts more than you realize.

For those who build yachts, or sell designer dresses, perhaps times are good, because the US is a superpower, because there is such a surge of wealth at the top. Those few are like the hangers-on and dependents of the great Senatorial families at the end of the Roman Empire, but remember: in the fifth century most Romans were pretty close to the edge. And the majority of people today are getting poorer (relatively, at least: wages are stagnant), or less secure, mostly both. The sub-prime mess is only a symptom.

So, what good is it for the US to be the "sole superpower?" Not much good at all for most of us; good for the wealthy, just as it was good for Roman Senators to hang onto their Empire.

But it won't last forever. It would be better for everyone, even the wealthy beneficiaries, if the US withdrew from its role as superpower; there would be a soft landing, instead of a

collapse.