From SLMN News and Information and Third Palmetto Republic:

Against the Empire: Defeating imperialism through secession


On June 24, 2010, in SC, Secession, US Empire, issues, by Michael Cushman ....

X

 Attempts to reign in US military spending and foreign interventionism from both the Left and Right have failed miserably in the past couple of decades. Well intentioned people on both sides of the political divide have been defeated by hawkish politicians and the enormous resources of what President Dwight Eisenhower labeled the “military-industrial complex”. The peace movement which grew during the 1960s and dominated political attitudes towards foreign war through the late1970s is dead and gone. Little meaningful opposition to US foreign interventionism exists today. Indeed, it would seem that despite the enormous cost of funding the wars (which has surpassed $1 trillion) as well as supporting all the US bases around the globe, a strong anti-war movement is nowhere to be seen on the horizon.



Americans are reluctant to talk about what amounts to a world empire, says economist and writer Chalmers Johnson. “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize — or do not want to recognize — that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire — an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class.”

Columnist and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Doug Bandow writes, “Washington’s policy of promiscuous intervention is not providing for America’s ‘common defense.’ Rather, the U.S. is protecting virtually every other nation. That’s one reason why the Pentagon was incapable of defending Americans when the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. Indeed, the ‘Defense Department’ has become anything but. Most of America’s forces do nothing to secure the U.S. They instead are employed to remake failed societies, impose Washington’s meddlesome dictates, and subsidize populous and prosperous allies.”



Writer Tom Englehardt argues that the former imperial power of Britain and Rome empires are dwarfed by the United States. “At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planet-wide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military ‘sites’ abroad.” In fact, Englehardt’s numbers are a bit dated now. More recent counts put the number at over a thousand.







http://www.jonahhouse.org/militarybases.htm

With the US in financial and economic crisis it would seem that an obvious way to cut spending would be to eliminate costly foreign bases. George Mason professor Hugh Gusterson says, “Excluding U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States spends about $102 billion a year to run its overseas bases, according to Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies.”



The foreign wars and military spending have been opposed from the Right by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and Pat Buchanan. Ron Paul, in his unsuccessful bid for the White House and long career in Congress, has argued that spending cuts should begin with the US military, especially its overseas expenses. Yet Paul was alienated in his own party for this very position and received a tiny portion of the Republican vote in the GOP primaries. Columnist, Nixon speech-writer and former GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has also championed bringing the troops home and liquidating the empire. After the Cold War ended Buchanan pushed for the US back away from foreign interventionism and yet he failed to convince his party. He continues to promote a much smaller US military “footprint” around the world, but he and Paul are voices crying in the wilderness when compared to the influence of Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, Kristol, Podhoretz, Feith, Pearle and Frum.



From the Left, US imperialism was opposed in Afghanistan with the sole vote of Democrat Barbara Lee. She remains anti-war but also remains virtually alone. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel made long-shot runs for the White House on pro-peace platforms but were thoroughly rebuffed by voters in the primaries. Bellicose Hillary Clinton nearly won the Democratic nomination while advancing a pro-interventionist agenda. And Barack Obama, while critical of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, was elected though he promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Though liberal anti-war groups still exist, the movement has been largely deflated by Obama’s win and are well outside the Democratic mainstream.



It would seem clear that the prospects of reducing US military spending and foreign interventionism are not too encouraging. Within the system, especially on the Federal level, attempts from both the Left and Right have repeatedly failed. Each military base has a constituency that would be economically harmed if the base were eliminated. When a base is known to be in danger of being cut local business groups and politicians rally to save it and keep the Federal tax dollars streaming into the area. When a weapons project is in danger of being shut down the military-industrial complex can funnel almost limitless amount of dollars into lobbying efforts to sustain such projects or devise new ones to replace what was lost. Anti-war groups can not hope to compete with such spending and lobbying.



Until now anti-war efforts have centered around gaining control of the US Federal Government, a cause which after reading this article should seem almost hopeless. It has failed to this point and seems likely to continue to fail going forward given the money and concentrated power stacked against us. Rather than focus on the macro level of the US government, we should instead put our energies into more localized efforts. Rather than trying to take power at the heart of the Empire, we should instead concentrate on taking local and State power. And ultimately, rather than trying to turn around the entire, vast US regime, we should attempt to decentralize control of that regime’s powers.



Consider a couple historical examples. When the French, Spanish, Portuguese, African, Greek and Balkan regions ultimately gained local autonomy and independence from the Roman Empire, Rome itself lost the power to invade and conquer foreign lands. When Ireland, India, the Middle East, America, Australia and Africa broke away from Great Britain, London lost most of its imperial power (aside from piggy-backing on US interventionist efforts). So too, if California, Vermont, Alaska, South Carolina and other States refused to allow their resources to be used aggressively abroad, Washington, DC would find it much harder to sustain foreign wars and the global network of hundreds of bases. Ultimately, if a State were to become independent it would mean a loss of offensive power for Washington, DC. The more States that seceded, the weaker imperial USA would become. This would translate into fewer foreign bases, fewer predator drone strikes and a military budget that could no longer equal that of the rest of the world combined.



This is not fantasty. Anti-war, progressive-secessionists in Vermont and anti-war, libertarian/paleo-conservative-secessionists in South Carolina agree on the essential issues here. Both sides of the political divide can come together and agree on secession and ending the Empire. North and South, progressives, libertarians and paleo-conservatives, can join in opposing Washington, DC’s foreign aggression. Rasmussen has a new poll out showing that 28% of the public believes the US will likely split up in coming years. Seventy-two percent are not confident Congress knows what it’s doing when it comes to the economy. Less than half of the people think the US can win the war in Afghanistan. Less than a third think the US is on the right track. Fifty-nine percent favor letting a State opt out of a Federal program. And perhaps most damning of all, only 21% think the US government has the consent of the governed. The opportunity is there for a professionally-ran devolutionist/secessionist campaign appealing to popular discontent with Washington politics and opposing foreign wars. Even if they were not able to make the final break with DC, strong independence movements in several States might act as a constraint on Federal aggression. Plus, local and State governments (especially in small States like Vermont and South Carolina) are far more within our reach than is the Federal Government. No empire lasts forever – not Rome, the Mongols, the Soviets, the British Empire or the Feds. So what are you still waiting for? Now is the time to get active for local autonomy. If you support peace and reigning in the Empire, now is the time to raise up that secession banner!