War
Cometh Before A Fall
By Dan Lieberman
10 September, 2007
Alternative Insight
War has economic roots; no matter
how it is made to appear. Define it as spreading freedom, fighting terrorism
or protecting citizens, the driving force for war is to gain economic
advantage. Protecting markets, acquiring new markets, crushing competition,
defeating those who impede expansion, and controlling resources are
the usual causes of war that involve industrialized nations. As an example,
Al-Qaeda is a definite threat and must be countered. This valid concern
conveniently allows the war on terrorism to be used as an excuse for
other battles. Nigel H. Maund, in an article, “The Epic Struggle
for World Hegemony,” is more direct. Nigel Maund forcibly claims:
"The War on Terror is nothing other than a massive, albeit obviously
transparent, smokescreen for the real war: the war for resources and
the economic survival of the United States as a global power.”
Can Maund's assertions be
confirmed? The war in Iraq, falsely posed as a war to prevent Hussein
from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, has been redesignated as
a war against terrorism. Syria and Iran, who struggle with their own
local terrorism and have not been proven to support any terrorist activities
against the U.S., are also included in the U.S. war against terrorism.
Why? To protect markets, acquire new markets, and defeat those who hinder
U.S. expansion and its intent to control resources.
The most volatile combination
for igniting hostilities is the rare occurrence of a declining economy
and a still powerful military. Will an all powerful nation, which is
accustomed to the highest standard of living, allow its comfortable
economic lead to be slowly eroded by loss of markets, allow denial of
access to necessary resources and allow an unassailable competition
to its products? Does war cometh before a fall?
It has cometh on previous
occasions - Philip II Spain attacking England in 1588; the age of imperialist
wars that kept the industrialized nations growing, and the fascist nations'
aggressions during the1930's; wars waged to erase competition, secure
resources and as a rescue from possible economic downfalls. It is more
possible to cometh in a climate of declining resources coupled with
increasing demand for the resources; more likely to cometh in an economic
environment of many low cost and highly competitive producers; more
likely to cometh in an atmosphere of regional trade agreements that
prejudice nations which aren't part of an economically strong region.
It is likely to cometh from a nation with increasing defense production
and that uses credit, rather than exports, to support its economy. It
is likely to cometh in the near future. The United States most resembles
the "ice warrior" that cometh. The story is conveyed in a
few statistics. It starts with national defense. Data from the U.S.
Census Bureau shows a massive increase in U.S. national defense spending
during the last five years.
Granted that the 9/11 attack
forced the U.S. to augment its fighting capability. Nevertheless, its
defense budget cruised at an elevated level for decades. Did 9/11 demand
an almost doubling of the defense budget in four years to counter terrorism,
or did the huge appropriations serve to temporarily stimulate a damaged
economy and prepare for the next war; the invasion of Iraq? The reaction
to the U.S.military expansion has been a worldwide arms race with the
U.S. enriching itself by supplying many of the weapons. The United States
accounted for 28 percent of world defense expenditures in 1986 and 34
percent in 1994. Today it accounts for approximately 50 percent.
The war footing has provided
a temporary stimulus to an economy that is now receiving huge shocks
from its credit support. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased
at an exponential rate, but for what reason? Certainly increases in
GDP fuel credit expansion, but is undue credit expansion, equivalent
to printing money, adding a kicker to the gradually increasing slope
of the curve. Statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and data
from the Census Bureau seem to support that supposition.
The huge and constantly increasing
debt has grown more than two times faster than the GDP in the last forty
years and is approaching an almost vertical asymptote that cannot be
sustained. In other words, if this growth curve of Credit Outstanding
is required to fuel GDP growth, the GDP growth also cannot be sustained
and the GDP growth will either slow, or the GDP will decline. The excessive
credit has been used to finance government debt, primarily defense spending
that does not add to the productive resources of the economy, risky
mortgages for a home construction industry, consumer purchases of imported
goods and foreign purchases of debt.
Data from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis shows that the increasing deficit in the balance of payments
(goods and services and income receipts) is tracking the total debt
and is another example of the economic decline of the United States.
Balance of payments turned negative in 1994 and the deficit has monotonically
increased to almost one trillion dollars in 2006. U.S. assets are transferred
to other nations to accommodate the deficit. The dollar slowly shrinks
in value and inflation creeps up as import prices increase. And there
are no apparent polices to combat these trends - just the opposite -
U.S. policies have forged regional trade alliances that don't include
U.S. participation.
The Association of Southeast
Nations (ASEAN) has as members: Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore,
Philippines and Brunei, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos. This dynamic
economic region has a combined gross domestic product of more than $1
trillion. ASEAN also has free-trade agreements with China, South Korea,
and more recently, with Japan.
The European Union (EU) is moving towards becoming a super nation composed
of twenty-seven member states. It is the largest economy in the world
with a nominal GDP of €11.6 (US$15.7) trillion in 2007. The common
currency, the Euro, is slowly replacing the dollar as an international
standard.
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) unites former Soviet Republics
to cooperate on matters of economics, defense and foreign policy. The
principal features of the alliance - it controls vast oil and gas resources
and not all members are friendly to the U.S.
Natural resources, once available
to the U.S. upon command, are being directed to newly developing and
other industrialized nations. A $235 billion trade deficit with China
furnishes the Asian nation with capital to partner with other nations
throughout the world and assists it in developing and acquiring scarce
resources. Nations, such as Venezuela and Bolivia are breaking ties
with "Yankee imperialism," and controlling their own vital
resources.
How do the other nations
respond to U.S. economic upheavals? They are increasing their military
power. Russia has been most prominent in broadcasting a military challenge
by sending its fleet into the Mediterranean Sea, declaring readiness
to deploy new military facilities in Belarus, including nuclear weapons,
and by resuming day long flights of its strategic aviation fleet. The
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Eurasia's mild response to
NATO, conducted military exercises in August. About 6,000 troops from
Russia, China and four Central Asian states participated in maneuvers,
which have been considered signal to Western nations not to interfere
in the affairs of the SCO countries. This attitude was emphasized by
the appearances of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Afghanistan
President Hamid Karzai as invited observers.
How does the U.S. respond to the economic upheavals? The Iraq war has
exaggerated the problem. Instead of appropriations for programs that
reduce deficits, increase exports and increase productivity, funds are
wasted on military programs that yield wounded bodies and destroyed
production. The U.S. has made its commitment - an arms race to support
its weapon manufacturers and a war in Iraq begetting a war against Iran
- more instability and additional economic challenges. The administration
has not proposed creative programs to halt the monotonic increases in
debt that drive the pretentious increases in GDP; has not offered opportunities
to decrease the government deficit and the trade imbalance; has not
decreased energy and raw material imports and has not engaged in effective
agreements that allow U.S. acquisition of natural resources. If the
problems grow and the U.S standard of living declines, the U.S. government
will seek a strong power solution: capture markets, capture resources,
crush competition, silence those who impede expansion. War cometh before
a fall.
Dan Lieberman has been active in alternative politics
for many years. He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly
web based newsletter. Dan can be reached at [email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.