Towards dismantling the empire

Chalmers Johnson and Bruce Gagnon have both written important essays about the necessity of dismantling the American empire. Chalmers Johnson has recently written the third of his trilogy of books about American Empire, "Nemesis". In an article at TomDispatch.com, he wrote:

"I believe that there is only one solution to the crisis we face. The American people must make the decision to dismantle both the empire that has been created in their name and the huge (still growing) military establishment that undergirds it. It is a task at least comparable to that undertaken by the British government when, after World War II, it liquidated the British Empire. By doing so, Britain avoided the fate of the Roman Republic — becoming a domestic tyranny and losing its democracy, as would have been required if it had continued to try to dominate much of the world by force."

Johnson's article is important not just because of his analysis of the American empire, which is peerless as usual, but because he also lays out a goal toward which the American Republic (or what is left of it) should strive. These include:

1) Drastically curtailing the military budget (about which more later);
2) Closing 700 of the 737+ military bases worldwide
3) Stop treating foreign territory like American territory (or worse)
4) A nonunilateral foreign policy, such as no U.N. vetoes and respecting international law.
5) Close down the covert operations arm of the CIA and other intelligence organizations.
6) Use tariffs and industrial policy to revive the manufacturing economy.

One important statistic he cites: $934 billion as the true national defense budget. Of that, let's say the $69 billion for the homeland security department is useful (and should probably be increased for cargo inspection), $245 billion for interest payments and retirement can't be cut, and the $70 billion for treating wounded soldiers should probably also be higher (judging from the Walter Reed scandal, at least). That means that there is this big, juicy, pot of cash to the tune of $550 billion just sitting there waiting to be used for something useful. Let's say we keep $100 billion per year for the military, which would be plenty to mothball all the military equipment we have, keep a small corps of people trained on the equipment, and most importantly, have a force available to do important things like prevent fishing bottom trawlers from scraping the ocean floor or keeping people out of rainforests. That leaves $450 billion for some real programs.

Which brings us to Bruce Gagnon's piece, "Global warming or conversion of military-industrial complex?". Bruce, Coordinator of Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, and a Friend of This Site, has been a peace activist and observer of the Pentagon's designs on space for many decades now. In his article, he discusses the various forces maintaining the political machine known as the Department of Defense, as well as the role our military has in contributing to global warming. To quote near the end of his article:

"It is abundantly clear that no real alternative sustainable technology investment will be possible on the scale needed to avert catastrophic global warming without conversion of the military industrial complex. It is imperative that the peace movement, environmental movement, social justice movement, and labor movements create a unifying vision and political demand calling on Congress to use our hard-earned tax dollars for conversion of the military industrial complex.

May I humbly submit that a great way to build support for such a conversion is to propose an attractive package of programs that a conversion would make possible? For instance, look at the program proposed at the top of this blog, and picture the government doing the following:

1) putting solar energy systems on most buildings in the country, 2creating a huge network of dispersed wind and solar energy farms, 3) constructing high-speed intercity train networks and streetcar systems for every town and city; 4) consider each major city buying land for local permaculture food systems, and 5) starting up local manufacturing firms to rebuild our manufacturing economy.

$450 billion per year would go a long way toward the funding of such a program, and if we restored taxes on the rich and corporations comparable to those that we had before Reagan, not George W. Bush, we could probably approach one trillion dollars a year to transform our society from one based on fossil-fuels to one based on truly sustainable energy, agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing. And have lots of jobs for everybody (I'm not promising a cure for acne, however).