US Diary: We're fucked, fucked, totally fucked

Two articles about how fucked we are. Myself, I don't think we're that sunk -- in three years, when Bush is gone, we'll do some climbing back. But boy, has he ever dumped us in a hole. No other leader in the history of the post-war world has shredded his country's reputation to this extent. I can't even remember how high our reputation once stood.

1. 2005: A Year of Blowback -- by Bob Burnett

In "Blowback" Chalmers Johnson defined the term "as a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's activities." Blowback was first used to describe the impact of our policies in Iran, where our support for the tyrannical Shah ultimately produced Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. Later, the term captured the dreadful irony that the CIA trained and equipped Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan. 2005 was a big year for blowback.

One example was the deplorable response to Hurricane Katrina. The gross ineptitude indicated that because of their tight focus on Iraq, the Bush Administration failed to heed the lessons of 9/11.

Yet, there were other less visible examples of blowback. In international relations, the U.S. lost all of our allies of consequence. In the four years since the attacks of 9/11, the Bush Administration managed to turn the entire world against America. Europe changed when we invaded Iraq, and France and Germany didn't join the coalition. One by one the others left, beginning with Spain and Portugal. This year we alienated our remaining European allies by our high-handed manner. It was revealed that we kidnapped EC citizens accused of being terrorists and stashed them Eastern European prisons, in violation of the laws of those countries. Even Britain turned against us when we stiffed Tony Blair on global climate change.

South America used to be a reliable sphere of American influence. Not any more. This began to change with the election of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Then came the election of Nestor Kirchner in Argentina. December saw the election of socialist Evo Morales in Bolivia. In 2006, Paraguay and Peru will likely also elect socialist governments. Our southern neighbors are making a left turn, primarily because of our policies on trade.

In the Far East, America has been superseded by China. The December meeting of ASEAN- the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - invited China, but not the U.S. China, and others, rebuked our economic advice.

Randy Newman penned a satirical song that begins, "No one likes us, I don't know why. We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try. But all around, even our old friends put us down." That's the way it was in 2005. Even our faithful sidekick, Canada, turned on us because of Iraq and our environmental policies.

Another example of blowback occurred in the arena of national competitiveness. Surprisingly, the Bush Administration is no longer good for business. (Except, of course, if you are in the petroleum industry.) For several years, international analysts cautioned that the Bush Administration's foreign policy strained the tolerance of our global partners. They observed that America acted as bully in military affairs, and as a loner in international social matters - such as global climate change. Nonetheless, we expected other nations to be friendly trading partners. In 2005, the situation they warned of finally came to pass: the U.S. lost its role as "Mr. Big" - the world's favorite capitalist. The Administrations' arrogant foreign policy began to impact the world of business. Firms with an American image began to be discriminated against. Not only in the Middle East where KFC and McDonald's had long been the subject of assaults, but throughout the world. This trend also affected mainstream corporations like Disney and Microsoft.

The flipside of this antipathy is that multi-national firms no longer want to build plants in the United States. In the spring, Toyota decided to construct a manufacturing facility in Canada rather than in the U.S. The reasons cited included the poor literacy of American workers and the cost of health-care. Not surprisingly, Toyota found the average Canadian job applicant was better educated than his U.S. counterpart. The carmaker also discovered Canada's national health insurance system saved them money in terms of benefit payments. It's became commonplace to hear of technology workers moving out of the U.S. into the European community, where housing is cheaper and the infrastructure superior to that in the states.

Finally, there is the matter of our national debt. In 2005, America solidified its position as the world's foremost debtor as our debt raced pass $8 billion. This was a direct consequence of the fact that the Bush Administration lost control of the Federal budget. On the one hand they continued to spend billions on the war in Iraq, and on the other they persisted with tax cuts for the rich. So far, this hasn't affected the U.S. consumer who is financing his or her lifestyle by the proceeds from a recent house refinance or credit cards. However, economists - outside the Bush Administration - are unanimous that a day of reckoning will soon be upon us.

The common thread in these examples of blowback is the absence of a long-range perspective. George Bush and his advisors seem to be unaware that they are painting the US into a corner. One where our economy is in a deep hole, our infrastructure in shreds, and everyone in the world hates us. Not a pretty picture. Still, an accurate view of the long-range impact of the blowback resulting from the policies of the Bush Administration.

(Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at bobburnett@comcast.net.)


2. This Won't Be the American Century -- by Rupert Cornwell

Whatever happened to the new American century? On the eve of 2000, I remember (with some embarrassment) writing with absolute conviction how the future would belong to the United States.

I based that assertion on the status of the United States as the only country with a truly global reach. It spent more on the military than the next dozen countries combined. Its economy accounted for more than a quarter of global output. Its budget was in surplus, American technology ruled the world. Not since ancient Rome had a single state been so dominant.

After a pretty wretched 2005, how different everything appears.

Yes, the U.S. economy is still the largest. But the gap is shrinking. Last year China overtook Italy to become the world's sixth-largest economy, and in 2006 should surpass Britain and France. By 2035, it should have caught up with the United States.

The United States remains far and away the greatest military power on Earth. But Iraq has brutally revealed the limits of American "hard power."

The 2003 invasion will go down in the textbooks for the brilliance of its execution. But despite spending $5 billion a month, and 140,000 troops on the ground, the United States can not ensure stability or security in Iraq.

Instead, Iraq has stretched the United States' all-volunteer military close to the breaking point. Washington intends to cut that force by a third this year. In truth, it has no choice.

Yes, the Pentagon can send unmanned drones to kill al-Qaida operatives on the furthest frontiers of Yemen and Pakistan. But the major U.S. military operations against Iran, three times larger than Iraq, or even little Syria -- that seemed all too likely after the triumphant march on Baghdad -- are now virtually inconceivable. So much for U.S. "hard power" that was supposed to impose a Pax Americana on the world, stretching into the 21st century as far as the eye could see.

What of its "soft power" -- the innate appeal of the United States as projected by its ever-growing economy, its culture and the unstoppable advance of the English language?

Soft power was supposed to be the U.S. long-term trump card. Now it looks more like the six of clubs than the ace of spades. In economic terms, not only China, but also India and the countries of the Asian rim are snapping at the United States' heels. After its post-Cold War eclipse, Russia is re-emerging as an energy superpower.

The U.S. social model, with its increasing conservatism and the "winner-take-all" ethos of the Republicans who dominate national politics, has become less attractive. Even U.S. popular culture has lost some magnetism. Anti-Americanism grips much of the globe, and Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry no longer sweep all before them.

Americans furiously resist any suggestion they are imperialists. They did not shake off British rule, they say, to build an empire of their own. Americans see their country as an international good cop that keeps the world safe for the advance of liberal democracy and global capitalism. But that role has many ingredients of empire: armed forces around the world, a currency accepted on every continent, and the ability to bend many other countries to its will.

But six years into this imagined second American century, the weaknesses of this approach are all too apparent. The two world wars of the 20th century are supposed to have replaced a British empire with a U.S. empire. But there are two crucial distinctions.

The British, for better or worse, made a huge long-term commitment to their subject nations. Entire civil service careers were spent in the colonies. Officials immersed themselves in local languages and culture.

The U.S. approach is utterly different, as Iraq has proved miserably.

The ideal U.S. war now is a massive strike to achieve the immediate military objective, followed by quick withdrawal. No cultural immersion, no direct long-term involvement, and perish the thought of "nation-building."

In Iraq of course, there was no alternative to nation-building. But the United States must go about that task with few people who truly know the country, and only a handful of fluent Arabic speakers -- hardly the way to make friends and influence people.

The second difference is economic. Pax Britannica was built not only on the Royal Navy but also on Britain's position as the world's biggest creditor nation. The United States, however, is the world's biggest debtor, needing to attract $2 billion a day of foreign investment to cover its huge external deficit.

The global reserve role of the dollar means the United States can print its currency to pay those foreign debts. But ultimately its financial stability relies on the assumption that the central banks of China and other Asian countries will keep buying U.S. stocks and government securities.

That assumption is probably correct. The United States and its citizens with their overused credit cards are the world's consumers of last resort. A serious run on the dollar would devastate the economies not only of the United States but China, as well.

There you have it: a country living beyond its means, heavily reliant on an overstretched military, which flinches from imposing tax sacrifices to get its accounts in order. History has not been kind to great nations that get themselves into this position.

Back in 2000, I was of course naive in my belief that U.S. power was boundless and almost timeless. The equally dangerous temptation now is to write off the United States prematurely.

History is shaped not only by events but by individual humans. It is impossible to imagine the United States' reputation would have sunk so far and so fast, had Bill Clinton or Al Gore had been president. The next president, or presidents, will be able to regain some lost ground.

But on the eve of 2006, I offer this assertion. This will not be the American century. In all probability, the zenith of American power has passed.

(Rupert Cornwell writes for The Independent in Britain.)