7 ms·

The war on terror primed America for autocracy

292 points by andsoitis 4mo ago

https://archive.is/CBCZM https://archive.is/CBCZM

dartharva 4mo ago
Juvenile ad hominem
IAmGraydon 4mo ago
https://archive.is/CBCZM https://archive.is/CBCZM
rjzzleep 4mo ago
It's interesting that decades into this we are still calling the massmurder and pillaging of dozens of countries, turning entire geographic regions into war ridden wastelands with slave markets, a "war on terror". Meanwhile the leaders of those so-called terror groups are praised and invited to ALL the western capitals.
- anon291 4mo ago
  I mean JD Vance is in Pakistan saying he's as close to the military junta there as his own wife, stirring up unnecessary pain at a full on mass unplanned genocide (I'm referring to the partition of India). People claim Israel has America by the balls and that's probably true. The other country that has us by the other ball is Pakistan.
  - holistio 4mo ago
    The partition of India feels close to when you burn food and instead of washing the pan properly you just throw it in the dishwasher hoping it will sort it out somehow. It isn't exactly the inability of the dishwasher to dissolve crimes against cuisine where the problem is rooted.
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      Calling it the “partition of India” makes it seem like it was imposed on India rather than being a product of the 1940 Lahore Resolution where Jinnah led calls for a separate Pakistan. And in retrospect, it was a huge boon to India and Bangladesh to separate themselves from Pakistan.
      - applicative 4mo ago
        Two million dead Hindu; ten million forcible refugees; thousands of ancient villages burned to the ground — it ‘was a huge boon to India’
        rayiner 4mo ago
        In 2026, it’s a huge boon to India to not have Pakistan within its body politic. It’s like having broken up with a finance who ended up becoming a self destructive addict. Same for Bangladesh, even with all the people who died in the independence war.
        anon291 4mo ago
        This is not about Indian nationalism (which I don't really care about) or whether they should be unified countries (which I don't care about). This is about the forced mass migration of people from their homes and the resulting millions of deaths due to what is basically religious extremism.
        JuniperMesos 4mo ago
        Would those ten million refugees have been better off if the people they were fleeing were their fellow voting citizens in a democracy instead?
        applicative 4mo ago
        Obviously yes, but it didn’t happen. The provinces were granted the right to genocide expel, ethnically cleanse and to destroy their history, by simple majority vote. And they exercised it with 2 million dead.
  - coliveira 4mo ago
    It's easy to control a country when all cybersecurity software used in that country reports to you.
- GolfPopper 4mo ago
  It was just a simple spelling mistake. It was always meant to be 'The War on Terra'.
- applicative 4mo ago
  That isn’t what happened. You are inter alia combining the loony but causally inevitable ‘war on terror’ with … the Arab Spring (which Assadist - Putinist propaganda has linked in your mind to imaginary Libyan slave markets) Ask you preferred AI how many Kurdish language universities there are in the world and where they are and what their students think of your imaginary Putinist antiyankee brain slurry.
marssaxman 4mo ago
This seemed obvious to me at the time. It was hard to understand why people in the cultural mainstream let themselves get swept up in it. I felt like I lost my country, back then, as they pretty much all went off into crazyland together.
- altcognito 4mo ago
  It was obvious to many. It was even a sort of not-funny joke: "The terrorists have already won."
- nullhole 4mo ago
  The OK-ing of torture was a clear step into the totalitarian camp and a clear breach with justice, liberalism, and decency.
  - dnautics 4mo ago
    I'm gonna be that guy and say that the concern about torture is orthogonal to authoritarianism. There were very much "less authoritarian/less centralized" eras in the US when it was general course of action was to do torturous things far worse than many of the things that got labelled 'torture' in the post 1990s era.
    - nullhole 4mo ago
      My first reaction is that the step to torture was a step backwards, a disregard for what we've learned about the efficacy of torture in getting reliable information, and an embrace of sadistic revenge as an end in itself as state policy. It's the state policy part that I find the worst. Individual acts of senseless violence you can blame on the individual; state acts that in retrospect are senseless violence you can - in some cases - blame on what was known at the time. To purposefully do that when you now it's useless is a rare evil; to declare it's useful when you know it's useless is an Orwellian, totalitarian turn. And it was torture, not 'labelled' 'torture'. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, high-volume constant music, others I'm glad I don't know about. It was torture.
xbar 4mo ago
Exactly what everyone said when Patriot Act was passed and renewed repeatedly. America permanently traded away basic freedoms for the bogus promise of safety in the shadow of fear. And the Supreme Court was too scared to stop it despite its obvious constitutional problems. Crying eagle photos in chain-emails were sufficient propaganda to keep it in place.
- nielsbot 4mo ago
  > And the Supreme Court was too scared to stop it Too scared? They may have been on board...
- rayiner 4mo ago
  It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward. Each step led to further centralization of government, a larger and larger security apparatus, and more and more foreign entanglements. We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire.
  - danans 4mo ago
    > We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire. The current military "excursion" seems to be transitioning the US out of being an empire.
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      Rome took some unexpected Ls against the barbarians too. Didn’t change the trajectory of the empire.
      - shakna 4mo ago
        The failure to integrate the barbarian Goth refugees is generally marked as the beginning of the fall - and absolutely changed the trajectory of the empire.
Barrin92 4mo ago
>in 1776 the American colonists rebelled against what they saw as the arbitrary and tyrannical British monarchy. although they didn't just do that, the American founders also articulated the point that the article seems to present as some new insight. That permanent foreign military involvements and the state it requires will eventually diminish freedom at home, that was why many of them wanted to avoid emulating the British empire. Given that papers like the Economist used to regularly be staunch defenders of these interventions until they went wrong, and only ever seemed to disavow them for their practical outcomes rather than in principle they might want to do some reflecting on that.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  I seem to recall the Economist wholeheartedly supporting the Iraq War. Am I wrong?
  - andsoitis 4mo ago
    Yes, they ran a leading editorial titled "Why war would be justified", arguing that confronting Saddam Hussein was "the least bad of the limited range of available options". However, they reversed position in 2007, calling the invasion a debacle.
    - crote 4mo ago
      It would've been more surprising if they hadn't reversed their position, well after it became painfully clear to everyone that the war had been a terrible idea.
      - dingaling 4mo ago
        The idea of overthrowing a vicious dictator can't really be wrong in any moral sense. In terms of realpolitik or execution it can be.
- andsoitis 4mo ago
  > the Economist used to regularly be staunch defenders of these interventions until they went wrong, and only ever seemed to disavow them for their practical outcomes rather than in principle they might want to do some reflecting on that Can you link a couple of examples? Presumably those articles should be easy to find on economist.com
jdw64 4mo ago
In democracy, there is a distinction between peacetime power and wartime power, and in a wartime power state, there is an inherent affinity with authoritarianism. After 9/11, the political language in the United States saw a revival of terms like 'state of emergency' and 'enemy within.' The moment the government is granted the authority to define who the 'enemy' is, the gun inevitably turns toward the citizens. The reason is simple: those in power come to see the state as an extension of themselves, and anyone who speaks against them becomes labeled as the 'enemy.' On top of this, the limitations of the petrodollar system are becoming increasingly apparent. When it worked well in the past, economic distribution could be used to suppress dissatisfaction — the American middle class generation is a case in point. But as dollar hegemony weakens and resource allocation becomes more difficult, the ruling class typically begins to replace economic rewards with emotional rewards like fear and hostility. They point fingers and say, 'Your enemy is these people.' When the system cannot grow the pie, the most efficient resource allocation for authoritarianism is to forcefully suppress internal divisions through coercion. Perhaps the dollar system itself might be a fundamentally flawed system.
Apocryphon 4mo ago
It arguably polarized the public, paving the way to today's sharp ideological divisions, because political differences suddenly were treated as matters of life and death compared to the laid-back '90s.
digitaltrees 4mo ago
Before conservatives hurled TDS at democrats they called them unpatriotic when they said the war on terror would undermine civil liberties. Its rather annoying to see a title like this.
chaseadam17 4mo ago
we're at the stage of the cycle where we know things are wrong but we don't care enough to do anything about them. unfortunately, it might not be until we live through the consequences that we can muster the energy to care enough again.
- Havoc 4mo ago
  Cycle suggest this will revert. Think with current technology it’s possibly to build a silt sustaining autocracy
1970-01-01 4mo ago
I just don't buy this narrative. What primed the USA for decline was it's new allergy to manufacturing, addiction to social media, and Trump taking his spot as POTUS twice. If anything, these wars were something for everyone to worry about, which involved actual critical thinking. They were nowhere near the root cause.
- UncleOxidant 4mo ago
  Social media addiction didn't come around until about 2008 - and even then it took a few years to become widespread. Trump being elected twice isn't the cause of the decline, it's a symptom of it. The GWOT is one cause among many, but probably the one that pushed things over the edge. It led to both Iraq and Afghanistan wars which cost $Trillions that we borrowed and still haven't paid off. Not to mention the lost lives on all sides and further destabilization of the ME. Our over-reaction to 9/11 was the terrorists' dream. It's hard to imagine an outcome that would've been better from their perspective if their aim was to weaken and destabilize the US.
  - pstuart 4mo ago
    I think the War on Drugs was the gateway drug to this insanity. It helped to create a more militarized police, and to condition us to surrender our rights because "think of the children!".
applicative 4mo ago
That my every movement is known to Google, Meta, Apple, et al, is much more disturbing than any autocratic effect of the dismal Patriot Act. The idea that ‘the state’ is the thing to fear, or even worth a moments’ thought, is basically childish and premodern. Witness eg the apotheosis of Snowden for revealing nugatory CIA corner cutting … in the same historical period when the above mentioned are completely hoovering up and relentlessly analyzing every datum about every American.
- roarcher 4mo ago
  Those corporations are certainly to be feared, but they don't have the power to impose violence or prison on you. The state does. It was the state that forced Snowden into exile. It is the state that is detaining people for the crime of walking out of Home Depot while speaking with an accent. Both must be kept in check.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    Google has the power to fire me from my job by deleting my Google account.
    - roarcher 4mo ago
      I don't know why that would be the case, but let's say it is. An overzealous cop and prosecutor can, with a little luck, use the power of the state to get you executed or imprisoned for life for a crime you didn't commit. If you had to choose one of those, which one would you prefer?
      - inigyou 4mo ago
        The cop and prosecutor. At least three people would have to be stupid to take my life, versus zero people at Google
        roarcher 4mo ago
        > At least three people would have to be stupid to take my life And that has happened many times. It is not as improbable as you seem to think. I really can't understand the thought process of someone who thinks it would better to have their life taken than their job. You know you can just...get a new job, right?
solidsnack9000 4mo ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#1750s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#1750s It's time to reconsider some of what we bought.
Animats 4mo ago
Yes. History will record that bin Laden won. There's a pre-9/11 book about bin Laden, "The Man Who Declared War on America". Bin Laden was interviewed. Consider the situation at the end of the Clinton administration. The US was at peace. The Soviet Union was gone. The US got along with China and Russia. No major enemies remained. The federal budget was balanced. Bin Laden looked at that, and realized that America had to be weakened before it could be defeated. That was his plan. Mission accomplished. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden:_The_Man_Who_Declared_War_on_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden:_The_Man_Who_Declare...
- andsoitis 4mo ago
  > bin Laden won are his people better off or are they worse off?
  - wmf 4mo ago
    Was his goal to provide for his people? I thought his goal was to bring down the Great Satan.
    - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
      As mentioned above his main beef was American troops in the holy Land in Saudi Arabia.
      - expedition32 4mo ago
        No Bin Laden's beef was the flow of history. The Islamic world has lost its power and influence to control events. What really hurt Bin Laden was the knowledge that the Saudi elite WANTED American troops in the holy land. His real enemy was never America, the West or crusaders it was his fellow Muslims- who have for the large part rejected his insane ramblings.
  - SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
    Al-Qaeda is larger and their allies in Afghanistan have further consolidated their rule. I might not call that "better off" but it's certainly in the direction bin Laden wanted things to go.
yanhangyhy 4mo ago
What do people really think about Mearsheimer's book? (John Mearsheimer, co-author of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy") His analysis and interpretation of the Jewish lobby provide excellent answers to a lot of questions. Perhaps this is a topic that isn't easy to discuss openly? I don't want to make a sweeping statement that the U.S. is Israel's lapdog, but it is true that regarding many policies—especially those concerning the Middle East—the U.S. is essentially swayed by Israel. Of course, right now J.D. Vance might represent a kind of domestic counter-force in the U.S. that leans more toward 'America First' rather than prioritizing Israel. Rubio is also a more pragmatic individual, and Trump is not your traditional politician who just blindly follows Israel's orders. Unfortunately, Trump might lose the next election, and the Democratic Party will absolutely revert the country back to its past status as a vassal state to Israel."
- jazzpush2 4mo ago
  It's actually incredible that you can share that bottom paragraph with a straight face after we just went to war with Iran. Let's discuss it openly, as you prime: how do you contrast what you just shared with the war, and Israel's actions after the agreed to ceasefire and declaration of war's end?
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    In the last few DAYS the republican party has started putting on an anti-israel face to set up for the midterms, with JD Vance in particular giving a speech about how we need to separate from Israel. The democrat party, in its typical useless fashion, has not. So it looks at this point like the midterms will be another republican landslide.
    - jazzpush2 4mo ago
      I'm not sure if you meant to respond to me, but nothing you've said has addressed what I asked, which was very direct.
      - 4mo ago
40four 4mo ago
[flagged]
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  As I've told people before and I'm sure will tell them again, you're complaining to the wrong people. I'd love to get back to a world where politicians and political decisions are less relevant to hackers and their news; if you want to help get there, you'll have to convince said politicians to stop randomly wrecking relevant things.
bobjordan 4mo ago
I subscribed to the economist from ~2008 for 10+ years before I cancelled. I'm mostly a centrist but admit to leaning libertarian these days, I think both sides do not represent "democracy" anymore, I do not trust the Democrats any more than Republicans in this regard. One only has to look at how the Democrats have turned California into a single party state to stop taking serious their tropes about anyone endangering "Democracy" more than they have when they've got a chance. Reading this article reinforces that I've only saved money and had time for other things than reading these thought pieces from biased echo chamber academics.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  Are there any sides other than democrats and republicans?
- amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
  How did the Democrats turn California into a single party state? By giving the voters what they want? How do you think democracy works?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
arjie 4mo ago
There's always some kind of monocausal influence claimed, but really that was like the Boer War in the early 1900s. America was certainly at top power in the last twenty years, but its alliance was already fracturing. The Western NATO members were pushing more of their productive capacity into social services and forming strong dependencies on Russian fossil fuels. China's ascendance also meant that the encirclement that US's presence in Europe + Taiwan + Japan (and those governments themselves) kept was going to need to be extra tight. But Europe couldn't keep herself together, Taiwan was constrained by circumstances to not defence-spend-up and Japan is just moribund despite attempts to rebuild. Realistically, the US kept everyone together for some 40 years after the Berlin Wall fell and that's a pretty good run. Two generations in "Whitey's on the Moon" is a resurgent and wide culture, and China outproduces any other nation while domestically and internationally repudiating that culture. Perhaps we were doomed to this path by the inexorable nature of success. Two generations have been born and enough time has passed that people have forgotten what it is like to fear the "awesome Soviet threat". The modern empire was a loose confederation of US-Europe and the East-Asian satrapies with a capital in DC perhaps but other capitals in London and Paris as well. And just like that Boer War showed the old British Empire could bleed so will Iran have done the same this time. Doubtless when the need arises we will sweep away environmental law and historical protection law in order to build our factories but already the appetite for war is gone from America. Why Europe couldn't keep herself together and why America couldn't retain the alliance and why the modern Not-Empire fell will probably be written about, but I think it's worth remembering Kipling at the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria who was then queen over an indomitable empire: Far-called, our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire: Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget—lest we forget! Or in the more elementary school warning manner: "This too shall pass". For my part, I certainly hope that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" and that means our mighty opponents should not prevail because that is not their way of life. And certainly I do not think that lashing out at our allies or attempting to take for ourselves land which is nonetheless in this larger Not Empire is the way to ensure that. At best, I hope that the Iran War teaches us where we are weak and we are wise enough to learn this, and I hope that the Not-Empire heals and order is restored in this world.
jmyeet 4mo ago
That's just not looking back far enough. The war on terror was a continuation. I'd say we're seeing the results of not stringing up all the slave owners after the Civil War. American industrialists going back to the robber baron era and beyond have always loved autocracy, specifically fascism. This was heightened by the fear of communism. When FDR was elected, there was an attempted coup (ie the business plot [1]). Hitler was a fan of Henry Ford and named him in Mein Kampf. The Nazi regime enjoyed a certain amount of popularity in the US. There was a rally by the German American Bund in Madison Square Gardens in 1939. But FDR gave concessions to the working class that we still enjoy today (eg Social Security). After WW2, we decided to make an enemy of Stalin (again, because communism). Thousands of former Nazis emigrated to the US (and, no, not just Operation Paper Clip; they were also in the CIA and FBI). Former Nazis gained high positions in the West German military and ultimatly NATO (eg Adolf Heuzinger [2]). The mere existence of the Soviet Union forced the US government to give more concessions to the working class. The 1950s were incredibly prosperous as a result, in an era when the top marginal tax rate was 91% and the ratio of CEO to median wage was a fraction of what it is now. The Fall of the Soviet Union was about the worst thing that could happen for normal Americans because suddenly there was no counterbalance to US global hegemony. The 1990s saw the Democrats abandon the New Deal in favor of Reagan economics and policies despite ~60 years of almost unbroken control of Congress up until that point. They then sowed the seeds for the destruction of American manufacturing and having an economy completely focused on hoarding land and housing. The 1990s is really where that began to go out of control. My point is that history didn't begin with the war on terror. 9/11 itself was blowback from American imperialism that had been around since the 19th century. I'd say if anything primed America for autocracy it was the domino effect from desegregation. This led to the political activation of the evangelical movement (no, it wasn't abortion) and evagelicals are primed to be followers. Add to this that there's no effective opposition because the Democrats decided to be Republican Lite and here we are. All of this came about because a handful of very wealthy people wanted to be even wealthier at the expense of everyone else. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger
- vessenes 4mo ago
  I’d like to pick on a couple points here that I think are not just nits: > more concessions to the working class. The 1950s were incredibly prosperous as a result This is absolutely not a common read of the boom in the 1950s. The common read of the boom in the 1950s is that America leveraged its success in WW2 into a global imperial economy, exporting its goods everywhere in the world. The combination of massive manufacturing expansion at home during WW2, the brain drain into the US and the trade deals, power brokering and treaties that carved out the post war world order made America very wealthy. There is no world in which a “labor value” oriented economic order on its own would have resulted in an ‘incredibly prosperous’ 1950s without WW2. The fall of the Soviet Union ushered in what I would consider more of a golden age, overseen by Clinton in the US, when we had a balanced budget, low global conflict and massively reduced inflation compared to Carter / Reagan early years. If you went back to 1994 and could have gotten 10% of working Americans to vote to return to 1980’s labor market, I’d be shocked. These were qualitatively different economic times. Post Iraq war, gas was at $0.99/gallon. In the earlier era you’re lionizing, there was rationing throughout the US. I agree with your perspective on 9/11 being blowback, although I’d characterize it as blowback from our Middle East policy - I haven’t read a lot about Bin Laden, although I did read his manifesto — and I didn’t take away that he cared much about 18th century American imperialism (such as it was; we got much more effective at this in the 20th century in my opinion).
Pxtl 4mo ago
There are people walking around today who voted Bush twice and regretted it and now voted Trump three times and regretted it. I wonder what war they'll regret next?
- voakbasda 4mo ago
  I have regretted everyone that I ever voted for. Every candidate will ultimately be regrettable, because it’s not the candidate that’s bad - it is the system itself that has become irredeemably corrupt.
  - UncleOxidant 4mo ago
    A friend went to an Obama rally in '08 when he came to town. Later he said, I'm sure I'll regret voting for him, but I'm also pretty sure I'll regret it less than most votes I've taken.
    - _carbyau_ 4mo ago
      Sadly a lot of vote-conversations have boiled down to: "Well, I picked the one I hated most and put that at the bottom of the list. Then worked up from there."
- userbinator 4mo ago
  The big problem is that if the USA doesn't start wars, other countries are certainly more than willing to start them against us.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    Which? Why?
  - wildrhythms 4mo ago
    Peddling the same old "might makes right" ideology I see.
NordStreamYacht 4mo ago
FTA: "In 1776 the American colonists rebelled against what they saw as the arbitrary and tyrannical British monarchy." I like the sly use of "what they saw" - typical British snark.
- JuniperMesos 4mo ago
  There's plenty of American historiography that questions the motivations of the American revolution and how tyrannical the British monarchy was actually.
  - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
    I would guess that average folks living under the "tyrannical British monarchy" had as much or more freedom than Americans do now.
    - NordStreamYacht 4mo ago
      Probably more. The digital world has made us unwitting prisoners.
- The-Old-Hacker 4mo ago
  Rosa Brooks, the author of the piece, is American. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Brooks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Brooks
SubiculumCode 4mo ago
The elevation of the Executive branch the last and this century has led to this primordial autocracy. Say no to the royal perogative, and accept the more limited powers of Execution of Law. https://jach.law.wisc.edu/exec-power-royal-prerogative-founders-presidency/ https://jach.law.wisc.edu/exec-power-royal-prerogative-found...
- pstuart 4mo ago
  It would help if Congress wasn't sabotaged to enable this; and to have a major political party that effectively wants a king. We were rightfully warned on the dangers of political parties and it's well demonstrated that that warning was correct in its assessment. The fact that millions of Americans declare themselves to be loyal to their party first and foremost is terrifying. Evil people have weaponized the tribal stupidity of humans to trick them to vote against their own best interests. I take no satisfaction in saying this, and would love to be proven wrong.
  - frogperson 4mo ago
    You are right. So many parts of are system were designed for minority rule and haven't been changed in 250 years. The senate, fptp voting, no voting holidays, the electoral college and more. the wealthyvhave always and will always try to by pass democracy.
  - beej71 4mo ago
    I left "my" party a long, long time ago. I wish everyone would, but people really, really want to tribe up even if doing so fractures their own nation. (And sometimes especially if it does.) Before I got banned from redstate.com 20 years ago for sharing an unflattering fact about a particular Congress, I remember one person there being genuinely uncomfortable with the fact that I wouldn't declare myself to be in one camp or the other. They really wanted me to be in a certain bucket so they'd know how to treat me. It was unnerving to them.
  - akramachamarei 4mo ago
    Well, more Americans are declaring themselves politically independent, so we may be moving in a better direction, at least nominally: https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-politi...
Mistletoe 4mo ago
After 9/11 is when the country I loved began its descent into this mutated form, a country I don’t recognize today.
0xbadcafebee 4mo ago
The war on terror was a great example of doublethink. First there's the name, which is redundant (war is already terrible/terrorizing). Then there's the fact that we inspired 9/11 to begin with. We trained and funded Al Qaeda in their fight with the Russians. Then we inserted ourselves into Middle East politics for financial reasons (we invaded Iraq the first time after Saddam threatened to take over the global supply of oil, which we were heavily dependent on with a secret deal with Saudi Arabia propping up the petrodollar). Finally we committed terrorism by razing Iraq and Afghanistan, destabilizing the entire region, illegally renditioning/torturing people and keeping them indefinitely in prison without a trial, growing the world-wide heroin trade, and giving birth to more radical militant groups (we directly caused the creation of ISIS and helped strengthen the Taliban). Our War on Terror birthed more terror in the Middle East at one time than has ever happened in history. The War on Terror was also an early sign of kleptocracy in the US Executive by conservatives. There was massive waste, fraud and abuse, in the billions of dollars. People working in the executive directly profited by making sure their corporations won bids, and dollars sent overseas just vanished. The people who decided to wage war got rich off it. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/opinion/afghanistan-war-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/opinion/afghanistan-war-e...)
rob74 4mo ago
> Less than a month after 9/11 President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan, starting a war that would last for 20 years and kill more than 6,000 American military personnel and contractors before its ignominious end. ...and again (despite the Economist being British), the US-centric view that led to Trump declaring that NATO has never done anything for the US. In fact, after the US was the first (and so far only) country to invoke NATO article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, NATO troops were also sent to Afghanistan, and Wikipedia lists the following military casualty numbers: USA: 2420 UK: 457 Canada: 159 France: 90 Germany: 62 Italy: 53 Others: 338 more details, including deaths per million population, where Georgia and Denmark are before the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...
maciejw 4mo ago
I recommend a book 'Silk Roads' by Peter Frankopan. It’s an attempt to show world’s history as a continuous movement of center of civilizational gravity. It’s not without flaws, but interesting nonetheless. Frankopan describes most of modern US history as a series of blunders. This approach is maybe a bit harsh, but it shows how difficult it is for a dominant power to stay on top. I would summarise the book with a sentence „When you reach the top, the seeds of your decline are already planted”. In fact you can look at China or India - future dominant powers, and guess which of their flaws will make them fall.
- civet_java 4mo ago
  > I recommend a book 'Silk Roads' by Peter Frankopan. Thank you for the recommendation! > In fact you can look at China or India - future dominant powers, and guess which of their flaws will make them fall. Are these flaws talked about in the book or are they something you've worked out since after you read the book?
  - maciejw 4mo ago
    I was referring to some factual errors and omissions that make other historians angry. But the narrative is captivating.
throwitaway222 4mo ago
Bush did far more evil things and non-legal killings than Trump. He CREATED Ice, homeland security, etc.. So yeah, Bush was THE authoritarian, no need to jump forward 15 years, that's just TDS. Trump for the most part is just reinforcing existing laws, something that simply stopped happening during Biden's term. If you really think Trump is more authoritarian, then you forgot. Never Forget.
- amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
  He hasn't exactly been out there speaking up against Trump either. I can't tell if he is just simple minded or what. He always appears to be well meaning, and it's tempting to blame his advisors for all the awful stuff that happened on his watch. Maybe the real test of a leader is to see who he chooses as his advisors. Bush was terrible, and Trump is even worse.
rjejrkrk 4mo ago
[dead]
TripleFFF 4mo ago
Actually, it was the acceptance of blatantly and provably wrong information used to justify attacking an unrelated country and then deciding it didn't warrant any further investigation, justification or consequences that proved American fascism
agnosticmantis 4mo ago
Any policy/weapon/tech used against an outgroup (e.g. brown people across the ocean) can and will eventually be used against the ingroup (citizens voting for it) by an inner ingroup. Sooner or later any ingroup will itself be divided into an inner ingroup in power and a powerless outer ingroup who'll be treated just like the old outgroup.
- aa-jv 4mo ago
  A nation willfully ruled by war criminals will always become their final victim. Americans need to start prosecuting their war criminals. This is the only way out of the quagmire.
noduerme 4mo ago
I agree that 9/11 primed America for totalitarianism, but as someone who was tear gassed protesting our invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act, I don't think we're living in an autocracy. I've lived in too many autocratic countries now to think that that's anywhere close to the truth..America cannot possibly be compared to China or Russia in terms of the freedom living in the country to say (and do!) what you want, protected by a fairly rigorous rule of law that is still not subject to the whim of the ruling party. America more closely resembles an anarchic zone between a failed or wannabe autocratic regime and two anti-government movements, one right-wing and one left-wing. It's a nutty situation, but it definitely prevents either party from implementing anything even remotely resembling autocratic rule, to the extent that term has meaning in any other part of the world. Any sort of objective look at American political debate makes this patently obvious. The closest parallel to America right now is Argentina prior to the dictatorship. If or when the real dictatorship comes, you'll know it, because just as in Russia you won't be publishing articles about it.
- aa-jv 4mo ago
  The Military Industrial Complex is the autocracy - the revolving door between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CFR - which are the entities really running the country (for the purposes of massively profitable military mis-adventures). https://www.transparency.org/en/corruptionary/revolving-door https://www.transparency.org/en/corruptionary/revolving-door From a certain angle, it actually looks less like an autocracy and more like a military junta which has captured both 'sides' and puppet-masters either one depending on the mood of the masses, according to the needs of the MIC - which gets everything it wants without interference by "The People".
  - noduerme 4mo ago
    That's nonsense, clearly, because we've just elected two - no, make that four Presidents in a row who used the Military Industrial Complex in radically divergent ways to different ends. If we test the theory that American Presidents are beholden to the military industrial complex and not vice versa, compared to actually authoritarian countries in which the military basically is the government, we can see all sorts of civilian controls which restrain our government versus the others. When I said it was like Argentina in the 60s, I meant that it definitely could become a quasi-mitary autocratic regime, but at the present moment it is not. It's just in the throes of populist movements which might ultimately lead to such a thing. Any objective glance at actual military regimes, any knowledge whatsoever of the rest of the world's history, proves immediately to a casual observer that the United States is not currently comparable to a military dictatorship. The attempt to frame it as one, however, is blatantly ignorant of the current state of the world, to the degree that the motivation behind doing so is suspect. Really, only a shill for a dictatorship is interested in trying to prove that America is analogous to an autocratic state. An objective observer who wasn't being paid or hadn't bought into authoritarian propaganda would at least compare and contrast our legal system with the true, terrible, and numerous actual dictatorships all around the world.
TrackerFF 4mo ago
A bunch of anti-ICE protesters in Texas were recently sentenced to 50-100 year prison sentences. It is one of the more egregious things I've read. The long and short of it is: A bunch of people organized (over group chat) a protest in Texas, where their plan was to conduct noise protest with fireworks. Some of the people knew each others, some did not. When they met up, some of the protesters broke off from the group and started vandalizing gov. property, like slashing up car tires. This all culminated with a gov. guard approaching the people, guns drawn. One protestor fired at the guard from distance with a AR-15, and the guard was struck in the shoulder. The shooter argued that he believed the guard would fire at the group - he was handed a 100 year sentence due to attempted murder. The rest of the group were found guilty in planning and aiding a violent terrorist attack, and handed 50 year and up sentences. If you look into the actual details of what they were charged with, and the things actually done, it gets even more wild. This was possible due to "antifa" being designated a terrorist organization. What this means in practice, at least in Texas, is that if you're part of a organized protest, and something goes wrong, you can and probably will be charged as a terrorist, or aiding a terrorist, and face life behind bars. I have no doubt that if / when dems dethrone Trump and MAGA GOP, all but the shooter will be pardoned, and the terrorist designation of antifa will be removed - but we now see that designated antifa works as they intended: To charge anyone protesting Trump or his controlled organizations as "antifa", and thus label them as domestic terrorists.
- r721 4mo ago
  Here's a flagged discussion of that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48653311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48653311
expedition32 4mo ago
Autocracy is part of American culture. The US parliament has always been weak and filled with people who's only purpose is to clap.
frogperson 4mo ago
make no mistake, the people behind this play the long game. the council for national policy has been working hard towards these goals since the 60s. the people who want to rule, do not want to deal with democracy. they do not want to ask permission.
rurban 4mo ago
It's not a war on terror. It's just a war on civil rights.

292 points by andsoitis 4mo ago

https://archive.is/CBCZM https://archive.is/CBCZM

dartharva 4mo ago

Juvenile ad hominem

IAmGraydon 4mo ago

https://archive.is/CBCZM https://archive.is/CBCZM

rjzzleep 4mo ago

It's interesting that decades into this we are still calling the massmurder and pillaging of dozens of countries, turning entire geographic regions into war ridden wastelands with slave markets, a "war on terror". Meanwhile the leaders of those so-called terror groups are praised and invited to ALL the western capitals.

anon291 4mo ago
I mean JD Vance is in Pakistan saying he's as close to the military junta there as his own wife, stirring up unnecessary pain at a full on mass unplanned genocide (I'm referring to the partition of India). People claim Israel has America by the balls and that's probably true. The other country that has us by the other ball is Pakistan.
- holistio 4mo ago
  The partition of India feels close to when you burn food and instead of washing the pan properly you just throw it in the dishwasher hoping it will sort it out somehow. It isn't exactly the inability of the dishwasher to dissolve crimes against cuisine where the problem is rooted.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    Calling it the “partition of India” makes it seem like it was imposed on India rather than being a product of the 1940 Lahore Resolution where Jinnah led calls for a separate Pakistan. And in retrospect, it was a huge boon to India and Bangladesh to separate themselves from Pakistan.
    - applicative 4mo ago
      Two million dead Hindu; ten million forcible refugees; thousands of ancient villages burned to the ground — it ‘was a huge boon to India’
      - rayiner 4mo ago
        In 2026, it’s a huge boon to India to not have Pakistan within its body politic. It’s like having broken up with a finance who ended up becoming a self destructive addict. Same for Bangladesh, even with all the people who died in the independence war.
        anon291 4mo ago
        This is not about Indian nationalism (which I don't really care about) or whether they should be unified countries (which I don't care about). This is about the forced mass migration of people from their homes and the resulting millions of deaths due to what is basically religious extremism.
      - JuniperMesos 4mo ago
        Would those ten million refugees have been better off if the people they were fleeing were their fellow voting citizens in a democracy instead?
        applicative 4mo ago
        Obviously yes, but it didn’t happen. The provinces were granted the right to genocide expel, ethnically cleanse and to destroy their history, by simple majority vote. And they exercised it with 2 million dead.
- coliveira 4mo ago
  It's easy to control a country when all cybersecurity software used in that country reports to you.
GolfPopper 4mo ago
It was just a simple spelling mistake. It was always meant to be 'The War on Terra'.
applicative 4mo ago
That isn’t what happened. You are inter alia combining the loony but causally inevitable ‘war on terror’ with … the Arab Spring (which Assadist - Putinist propaganda has linked in your mind to imaginary Libyan slave markets) Ask you preferred AI how many Kurdish language universities there are in the world and where they are and what their students think of your imaginary Putinist antiyankee brain slurry.

marssaxman 4mo ago

This seemed obvious to me at the time. It was hard to understand why people in the cultural mainstream let themselves get swept up in it. I felt like I lost my country, back then, as they pretty much all went off into crazyland together.

altcognito 4mo ago
It was obvious to many. It was even a sort of not-funny joke: "The terrorists have already won."
nullhole 4mo ago
The OK-ing of torture was a clear step into the totalitarian camp and a clear breach with justice, liberalism, and decency.
- dnautics 4mo ago
  I'm gonna be that guy and say that the concern about torture is orthogonal to authoritarianism. There were very much "less authoritarian/less centralized" eras in the US when it was general course of action was to do torturous things far worse than many of the things that got labelled 'torture' in the post 1990s era.
  - nullhole 4mo ago
    My first reaction is that the step to torture was a step backwards, a disregard for what we've learned about the efficacy of torture in getting reliable information, and an embrace of sadistic revenge as an end in itself as state policy. It's the state policy part that I find the worst. Individual acts of senseless violence you can blame on the individual; state acts that in retrospect are senseless violence you can - in some cases - blame on what was known at the time. To purposefully do that when you now it's useless is a rare evil; to declare it's useful when you know it's useless is an Orwellian, totalitarian turn. And it was torture, not 'labelled' 'torture'. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, high-volume constant music, others I'm glad I don't know about. It was torture.

xbar 4mo ago

Exactly what everyone said when Patriot Act was passed and renewed repeatedly. America permanently traded away basic freedoms for the bogus promise of safety in the shadow of fear. And the Supreme Court was too scared to stop it despite its obvious constitutional problems. Crying eagle photos in chain-emails were sufficient propaganda to keep it in place.

nielsbot 4mo ago
> And the Supreme Court was too scared to stop it Too scared? They may have been on board...
rayiner 4mo ago
It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward. Each step led to further centralization of government, a larger and larger security apparatus, and more and more foreign entanglements. We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire.
- danans 4mo ago
  > We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire. The current military "excursion" seems to be transitioning the US out of being an empire.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    Rome took some unexpected Ls against the barbarians too. Didn’t change the trajectory of the empire.
    - shakna 4mo ago
      The failure to integrate the barbarian Goth refugees is generally marked as the beginning of the fall - and absolutely changed the trajectory of the empire.

Barrin92 4mo ago

>in 1776 the American colonists rebelled against what they saw as the arbitrary and tyrannical British monarchy. although they didn't just do that, the American founders also articulated the point that the article seems to present as some new insight. That permanent foreign military involvements and the state it requires will eventually diminish freedom at home, that was why many of them wanted to avoid emulating the British empire. Given that papers like the Economist used to regularly be staunch defenders of these interventions until they went wrong, and only ever seemed to disavow them for their practical outcomes rather than in principle they might want to do some reflecting on that.

rayiner 4mo ago
I seem to recall the Economist wholeheartedly supporting the Iraq War. Am I wrong?
- andsoitis 4mo ago
  Yes, they ran a leading editorial titled "Why war would be justified", arguing that confronting Saddam Hussein was "the least bad of the limited range of available options". However, they reversed position in 2007, calling the invasion a debacle.
  - crote 4mo ago
    It would've been more surprising if they hadn't reversed their position, well after it became painfully clear to everyone that the war had been a terrible idea.
    - dingaling 4mo ago
      The idea of overthrowing a vicious dictator can't really be wrong in any moral sense. In terms of realpolitik or execution it can be.
andsoitis 4mo ago
> the Economist used to regularly be staunch defenders of these interventions until they went wrong, and only ever seemed to disavow them for their practical outcomes rather than in principle they might want to do some reflecting on that Can you link a couple of examples? Presumably those articles should be easy to find on economist.com

jdw64 4mo ago

In democracy, there is a distinction between peacetime power and wartime power, and in a wartime power state, there is an inherent affinity with authoritarianism. After 9/11, the political language in the United States saw a revival of terms like 'state of emergency' and 'enemy within.' The moment the government is granted the authority to define who the 'enemy' is, the gun inevitably turns toward the citizens. The reason is simple: those in power come to see the state as an extension of themselves, and anyone who speaks against them becomes labeled as the 'enemy.' On top of this, the limitations of the petrodollar system are becoming increasingly apparent. When it worked well in the past, economic distribution could be used to suppress dissatisfaction — the American middle class generation is a case in point. But as dollar hegemony weakens and resource allocation becomes more difficult, the ruling class typically begins to replace economic rewards with emotional rewards like fear and hostility. They point fingers and say, 'Your enemy is these people.' When the system cannot grow the pie, the most efficient resource allocation for authoritarianism is to forcefully suppress internal divisions through coercion. Perhaps the dollar system itself might be a fundamentally flawed system.

Apocryphon 4mo ago

It arguably polarized the public, paving the way to today's sharp ideological divisions, because political differences suddenly were treated as matters of life and death compared to the laid-back '90s.

digitaltrees 4mo ago

Before conservatives hurled TDS at democrats they called them unpatriotic when they said the war on terror would undermine civil liberties. Its rather annoying to see a title like this.

chaseadam17 4mo ago

we're at the stage of the cycle where we know things are wrong but we don't care enough to do anything about them. unfortunately, it might not be until we live through the consequences that we can muster the energy to care enough again.

Havoc 4mo ago
Cycle suggest this will revert. Think with current technology it’s possibly to build a silt sustaining autocracy

1970-01-01 4mo ago

I just don't buy this narrative. What primed the USA for decline was it's new allergy to manufacturing, addiction to social media, and Trump taking his spot as POTUS twice. If anything, these wars were something for everyone to worry about, which involved actual critical thinking. They were nowhere near the root cause.

UncleOxidant 4mo ago
Social media addiction didn't come around until about 2008 - and even then it took a few years to become widespread. Trump being elected twice isn't the cause of the decline, it's a symptom of it. The GWOT is one cause among many, but probably the one that pushed things over the edge. It led to both Iraq and Afghanistan wars which cost $Trillions that we borrowed and still haven't paid off. Not to mention the lost lives on all sides and further destabilization of the ME. Our over-reaction to 9/11 was the terrorists' dream. It's hard to imagine an outcome that would've been better from their perspective if their aim was to weaken and destabilize the US.
- pstuart 4mo ago
  I think the War on Drugs was the gateway drug to this insanity. It helped to create a more militarized police, and to condition us to surrender our rights because "think of the children!".

applicative 4mo ago

That my every movement is known to Google, Meta, Apple, et al, is much more disturbing than any autocratic effect of the dismal Patriot Act. The idea that ‘the state’ is the thing to fear, or even worth a moments’ thought, is basically childish and premodern. Witness eg the apotheosis of Snowden for revealing nugatory CIA corner cutting … in the same historical period when the above mentioned are completely hoovering up and relentlessly analyzing every datum about every American.

roarcher 4mo ago
Those corporations are certainly to be feared, but they don't have the power to impose violence or prison on you. The state does. It was the state that forced Snowden into exile. It is the state that is detaining people for the crime of walking out of Home Depot while speaking with an accent. Both must be kept in check.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  Google has the power to fire me from my job by deleting my Google account.
  - roarcher 4mo ago
    I don't know why that would be the case, but let's say it is. An overzealous cop and prosecutor can, with a little luck, use the power of the state to get you executed or imprisoned for life for a crime you didn't commit. If you had to choose one of those, which one would you prefer?
    - inigyou 4mo ago
      The cop and prosecutor. At least three people would have to be stupid to take my life, versus zero people at Google
      - roarcher 4mo ago
        > At least three people would have to be stupid to take my life And that has happened many times. It is not as improbable as you seem to think. I really can't understand the thought process of someone who thinks it would better to have their life taken than their job. You know you can just...get a new job, right?

solidsnack9000 4mo ago

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#1750s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#1750s It's time to reconsider some of what we bought.

Animats 4mo ago

Yes. History will record that bin Laden won. There's a pre-9/11 book about bin Laden, "The Man Who Declared War on America". Bin Laden was interviewed. Consider the situation at the end of the Clinton administration. The US was at peace. The Soviet Union was gone. The US got along with China and Russia. No major enemies remained. The federal budget was balanced. Bin Laden looked at that, and realized that America had to be weakened before it could be defeated. That was his plan. Mission accomplished. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden:_The_Man_Who_Declared_War_on_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden:_The_Man_Who_Declare...

andsoitis 4mo ago
> bin Laden won are his people better off or are they worse off?
- wmf 4mo ago
  Was his goal to provide for his people? I thought his goal was to bring down the Great Satan.
  - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
    As mentioned above his main beef was American troops in the holy Land in Saudi Arabia.
    - expedition32 4mo ago
      No Bin Laden's beef was the flow of history. The Islamic world has lost its power and influence to control events. What really hurt Bin Laden was the knowledge that the Saudi elite WANTED American troops in the holy land. His real enemy was never America, the West or crusaders it was his fellow Muslims- who have for the large part rejected his insane ramblings.
- SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
  Al-Qaeda is larger and their allies in Afghanistan have further consolidated their rule. I might not call that "better off" but it's certainly in the direction bin Laden wanted things to go.

yanhangyhy 4mo ago

What do people really think about Mearsheimer's book? (John Mearsheimer, co-author of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy") His analysis and interpretation of the Jewish lobby provide excellent answers to a lot of questions. Perhaps this is a topic that isn't easy to discuss openly? I don't want to make a sweeping statement that the U.S. is Israel's lapdog, but it is true that regarding many policies—especially those concerning the Middle East—the U.S. is essentially swayed by Israel. Of course, right now J.D. Vance might represent a kind of domestic counter-force in the U.S. that leans more toward 'America First' rather than prioritizing Israel. Rubio is also a more pragmatic individual, and Trump is not your traditional politician who just blindly follows Israel's orders. Unfortunately, Trump might lose the next election, and the Democratic Party will absolutely revert the country back to its past status as a vassal state to Israel."

jazzpush2 4mo ago
It's actually incredible that you can share that bottom paragraph with a straight face after we just went to war with Iran. Let's discuss it openly, as you prime: how do you contrast what you just shared with the war, and Israel's actions after the agreed to ceasefire and declaration of war's end?
- inigyou 4mo ago
  In the last few DAYS the republican party has started putting on an anti-israel face to set up for the midterms, with JD Vance in particular giving a speech about how we need to separate from Israel. The democrat party, in its typical useless fashion, has not. So it looks at this point like the midterms will be another republican landslide.
  - jazzpush2 4mo ago
    I'm not sure if you meant to respond to me, but nothing you've said has addressed what I asked, which was very direct.
    - 4mo ago

40four 4mo ago

[flagged]

SpicyLemonZest 4mo ago
As I've told people before and I'm sure will tell them again, you're complaining to the wrong people. I'd love to get back to a world where politicians and political decisions are less relevant to hackers and their news; if you want to help get there, you'll have to convince said politicians to stop randomly wrecking relevant things.

bobjordan 4mo ago

I subscribed to the economist from ~2008 for 10+ years before I cancelled. I'm mostly a centrist but admit to leaning libertarian these days, I think both sides do not represent "democracy" anymore, I do not trust the Democrats any more than Republicans in this regard. One only has to look at how the Democrats have turned California into a single party state to stop taking serious their tropes about anyone endangering "Democracy" more than they have when they've got a chance. Reading this article reinforces that I've only saved money and had time for other things than reading these thought pieces from biased echo chamber academics.

inigyou 4mo ago
Are there any sides other than democrats and republicans?
amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
How did the Democrats turn California into a single party state? By giving the voters what they want? How do you think democracy works?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]

arjie 4mo ago

There's always some kind of monocausal influence claimed, but really that was like the Boer War in the early 1900s. America was certainly at top power in the last twenty years, but its alliance was already fracturing. The Western NATO members were pushing more of their productive capacity into social services and forming strong dependencies on Russian fossil fuels. China's ascendance also meant that the encirclement that US's presence in Europe + Taiwan + Japan (and those governments themselves) kept was going to need to be extra tight. But Europe couldn't keep herself together, Taiwan was constrained by circumstances to not defence-spend-up and Japan is just moribund despite attempts to rebuild. Realistically, the US kept everyone together for some 40 years after the Berlin Wall fell and that's a pretty good run. Two generations in "Whitey's on the Moon" is a resurgent and wide culture, and China outproduces any other nation while domestically and internationally repudiating that culture. Perhaps we were doomed to this path by the inexorable nature of success. Two generations have been born and enough time has passed that people have forgotten what it is like to fear the "awesome Soviet threat". The modern empire was a loose confederation of US-Europe and the East-Asian satrapies with a capital in DC perhaps but other capitals in London and Paris as well. And just like that Boer War showed the old British Empire could bleed so will Iran have done the same this time. Doubtless when the need arises we will sweep away environmental law and historical protection law in order to build our factories but already the appetite for war is gone from America. Why Europe couldn't keep herself together and why America couldn't retain the alliance and why the modern Not-Empire fell will probably be written about, but I think it's worth remembering Kipling at the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria who was then queen over an indomitable empire: Far-called, our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire: Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget—lest we forget! Or in the more elementary school warning manner: "This too shall pass". For my part, I certainly hope that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" and that means our mighty opponents should not prevail because that is not their way of life. And certainly I do not think that lashing out at our allies or attempting to take for ourselves land which is nonetheless in this larger Not Empire is the way to ensure that. At best, I hope that the Iran War teaches us where we are weak and we are wise enough to learn this, and I hope that the Not-Empire heals and order is restored in this world.

jmyeet 4mo ago

That's just not looking back far enough. The war on terror was a continuation. I'd say we're seeing the results of not stringing up all the slave owners after the Civil War. American industrialists going back to the robber baron era and beyond have always loved autocracy, specifically fascism. This was heightened by the fear of communism. When FDR was elected, there was an attempted coup (ie the business plot [1]). Hitler was a fan of Henry Ford and named him in Mein Kampf. The Nazi regime enjoyed a certain amount of popularity in the US. There was a rally by the German American Bund in Madison Square Gardens in 1939. But FDR gave concessions to the working class that we still enjoy today (eg Social Security). After WW2, we decided to make an enemy of Stalin (again, because communism). Thousands of former Nazis emigrated to the US (and, no, not just Operation Paper Clip; they were also in the CIA and FBI). Former Nazis gained high positions in the West German military and ultimatly NATO (eg Adolf Heuzinger [2]). The mere existence of the Soviet Union forced the US government to give more concessions to the working class. The 1950s were incredibly prosperous as a result, in an era when the top marginal tax rate was 91% and the ratio of CEO to median wage was a fraction of what it is now. The Fall of the Soviet Union was about the worst thing that could happen for normal Americans because suddenly there was no counterbalance to US global hegemony. The 1990s saw the Democrats abandon the New Deal in favor of Reagan economics and policies despite ~60 years of almost unbroken control of Congress up until that point. They then sowed the seeds for the destruction of American manufacturing and having an economy completely focused on hoarding land and housing. The 1990s is really where that began to go out of control. My point is that history didn't begin with the war on terror. 9/11 itself was blowback from American imperialism that had been around since the 19th century. I'd say if anything primed America for autocracy it was the domino effect from desegregation. This led to the political activation of the evangelical movement (no, it wasn't abortion) and evagelicals are primed to be followers. Add to this that there's no effective opposition because the Democrats decided to be Republican Lite and here we are. All of this came about because a handful of very wealthy people wanted to be even wealthier at the expense of everyone else. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger

vessenes 4mo ago
I’d like to pick on a couple points here that I think are not just nits: > more concessions to the working class. The 1950s were incredibly prosperous as a result This is absolutely not a common read of the boom in the 1950s. The common read of the boom in the 1950s is that America leveraged its success in WW2 into a global imperial economy, exporting its goods everywhere in the world. The combination of massive manufacturing expansion at home during WW2, the brain drain into the US and the trade deals, power brokering and treaties that carved out the post war world order made America very wealthy. There is no world in which a “labor value” oriented economic order on its own would have resulted in an ‘incredibly prosperous’ 1950s without WW2. The fall of the Soviet Union ushered in what I would consider more of a golden age, overseen by Clinton in the US, when we had a balanced budget, low global conflict and massively reduced inflation compared to Carter / Reagan early years. If you went back to 1994 and could have gotten 10% of working Americans to vote to return to 1980’s labor market, I’d be shocked. These were qualitatively different economic times. Post Iraq war, gas was at $0.99/gallon. In the earlier era you’re lionizing, there was rationing throughout the US. I agree with your perspective on 9/11 being blowback, although I’d characterize it as blowback from our Middle East policy - I haven’t read a lot about Bin Laden, although I did read his manifesto — and I didn’t take away that he cared much about 18th century American imperialism (such as it was; we got much more effective at this in the 20th century in my opinion).

Pxtl 4mo ago

There are people walking around today who voted Bush twice and regretted it and now voted Trump three times and regretted it. I wonder what war they'll regret next?

voakbasda 4mo ago
I have regretted everyone that I ever voted for. Every candidate will ultimately be regrettable, because it’s not the candidate that’s bad - it is the system itself that has become irredeemably corrupt.
- UncleOxidant 4mo ago
  A friend went to an Obama rally in '08 when he came to town. Later he said, I'm sure I'll regret voting for him, but I'm also pretty sure I'll regret it less than most votes I've taken.
  - _carbyau_ 4mo ago
    Sadly a lot of vote-conversations have boiled down to: "Well, I picked the one I hated most and put that at the bottom of the list. Then worked up from there."
userbinator 4mo ago
The big problem is that if the USA doesn't start wars, other countries are certainly more than willing to start them against us.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  Which? Why?
- wildrhythms 4mo ago
  Peddling the same old "might makes right" ideology I see.

NordStreamYacht 4mo ago

FTA: "In 1776 the American colonists rebelled against what they saw as the arbitrary and tyrannical British monarchy." I like the sly use of "what they saw" - typical British snark.

JuniperMesos 4mo ago
There's plenty of American historiography that questions the motivations of the American revolution and how tyrannical the British monarchy was actually.
- amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
  I would guess that average folks living under the "tyrannical British monarchy" had as much or more freedom than Americans do now.
  - NordStreamYacht 4mo ago
    Probably more. The digital world has made us unwitting prisoners.
The-Old-Hacker 4mo ago
Rosa Brooks, the author of the piece, is American. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Brooks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Brooks

SubiculumCode 4mo ago

The elevation of the Executive branch the last and this century has led to this primordial autocracy. Say no to the royal perogative, and accept the more limited powers of Execution of Law. https://jach.law.wisc.edu/exec-power-royal-prerogative-founders-presidency/ https://jach.law.wisc.edu/exec-power-royal-prerogative-found...

pstuart 4mo ago
It would help if Congress wasn't sabotaged to enable this; and to have a major political party that effectively wants a king. We were rightfully warned on the dangers of political parties and it's well demonstrated that that warning was correct in its assessment. The fact that millions of Americans declare themselves to be loyal to their party first and foremost is terrifying. Evil people have weaponized the tribal stupidity of humans to trick them to vote against their own best interests. I take no satisfaction in saying this, and would love to be proven wrong.
- frogperson 4mo ago
  You are right. So many parts of are system were designed for minority rule and haven't been changed in 250 years. The senate, fptp voting, no voting holidays, the electoral college and more. the wealthyvhave always and will always try to by pass democracy.
- beej71 4mo ago
  I left "my" party a long, long time ago. I wish everyone would, but people really, really want to tribe up even if doing so fractures their own nation. (And sometimes especially if it does.) Before I got banned from redstate.com 20 years ago for sharing an unflattering fact about a particular Congress, I remember one person there being genuinely uncomfortable with the fact that I wouldn't declare myself to be in one camp or the other. They really wanted me to be in a certain bucket so they'd know how to treat me. It was unnerving to them.
- akramachamarei 4mo ago
  Well, more Americans are declaring themselves politically independent, so we may be moving in a better direction, at least nominally: https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-politi...

Mistletoe 4mo ago

After 9/11 is when the country I loved began its descent into this mutated form, a country I don’t recognize today.

0xbadcafebee 4mo ago

The war on terror was a great example of doublethink. First there's the name, which is redundant (war is already terrible/terrorizing). Then there's the fact that we inspired 9/11 to begin with. We trained and funded Al Qaeda in their fight with the Russians. Then we inserted ourselves into Middle East politics for financial reasons (we invaded Iraq the first time after Saddam threatened to take over the global supply of oil, which we were heavily dependent on with a secret deal with Saudi Arabia propping up the petrodollar). Finally we committed terrorism by razing Iraq and Afghanistan, destabilizing the entire region, illegally renditioning/torturing people and keeping them indefinitely in prison without a trial, growing the world-wide heroin trade, and giving birth to more radical militant groups (we directly caused the creation of ISIS and helped strengthen the Taliban). Our War on Terror birthed more terror in the Middle East at one time than has ever happened in history. The War on Terror was also an early sign of kleptocracy in the US Executive by conservatives. There was massive waste, fraud and abuse, in the billions of dollars. People working in the executive directly profited by making sure their corporations won bids, and dollars sent overseas just vanished. The people who decided to wage war got rich off it. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/opinion/afghanistan-war-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/opinion/afghanistan-war-e...)

rob74 4mo ago

> Less than a month after 9/11 President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan, starting a war that would last for 20 years and kill more than 6,000 American military personnel and contractors before its ignominious end. ...and again (despite the Economist being British), the US-centric view that led to Trump declaring that NATO has never done anything for the US. In fact, after the US was the first (and so far only) country to invoke NATO article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, NATO troops were also sent to Afghanistan, and Wikipedia lists the following military casualty numbers: USA: 2420 UK: 457 Canada: 159 France: 90 Germany: 62 Italy: 53 Others: 338 more details, including deaths per million population, where Georgia and Denmark are before the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...

maciejw 4mo ago

I recommend a book 'Silk Roads' by Peter Frankopan. It’s an attempt to show world’s history as a continuous movement of center of civilizational gravity. It’s not without flaws, but interesting nonetheless. Frankopan describes most of modern US history as a series of blunders. This approach is maybe a bit harsh, but it shows how difficult it is for a dominant power to stay on top. I would summarise the book with a sentence „When you reach the top, the seeds of your decline are already planted”. In fact you can look at China or India - future dominant powers, and guess which of their flaws will make them fall.

civet_java 4mo ago
> I recommend a book 'Silk Roads' by Peter Frankopan. Thank you for the recommendation! > In fact you can look at China or India - future dominant powers, and guess which of their flaws will make them fall. Are these flaws talked about in the book or are they something you've worked out since after you read the book?
- maciejw 4mo ago
  I was referring to some factual errors and omissions that make other historians angry. But the narrative is captivating.

throwitaway222 4mo ago

Bush did far more evil things and non-legal killings than Trump. He CREATED Ice, homeland security, etc.. So yeah, Bush was THE authoritarian, no need to jump forward 15 years, that's just TDS. Trump for the most part is just reinforcing existing laws, something that simply stopped happening during Biden's term. If you really think Trump is more authoritarian, then you forgot. Never Forget.

amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
He hasn't exactly been out there speaking up against Trump either. I can't tell if he is just simple minded or what. He always appears to be well meaning, and it's tempting to blame his advisors for all the awful stuff that happened on his watch. Maybe the real test of a leader is to see who he chooses as his advisors. Bush was terrible, and Trump is even worse.

rjejrkrk 4mo ago

[dead]

TripleFFF 4mo ago

Actually, it was the acceptance of blatantly and provably wrong information used to justify attacking an unrelated country and then deciding it didn't warrant any further investigation, justification or consequences that proved American fascism

agnosticmantis 4mo ago

Any policy/weapon/tech used against an outgroup (e.g. brown people across the ocean) can and will eventually be used against the ingroup (citizens voting for it) by an inner ingroup. Sooner or later any ingroup will itself be divided into an inner ingroup in power and a powerless outer ingroup who'll be treated just like the old outgroup.

aa-jv 4mo ago
A nation willfully ruled by war criminals will always become their final victim. Americans need to start prosecuting their war criminals. This is the only way out of the quagmire.

noduerme 4mo ago

I agree that 9/11 primed America for totalitarianism, but as someone who was tear gassed protesting our invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act, I don't think we're living in an autocracy. I've lived in too many autocratic countries now to think that that's anywhere close to the truth..America cannot possibly be compared to China or Russia in terms of the freedom living in the country to say (and do!) what you want, protected by a fairly rigorous rule of law that is still not subject to the whim of the ruling party. America more closely resembles an anarchic zone between a failed or wannabe autocratic regime and two anti-government movements, one right-wing and one left-wing. It's a nutty situation, but it definitely prevents either party from implementing anything even remotely resembling autocratic rule, to the extent that term has meaning in any other part of the world. Any sort of objective look at American political debate makes this patently obvious. The closest parallel to America right now is Argentina prior to the dictatorship. If or when the real dictatorship comes, you'll know it, because just as in Russia you won't be publishing articles about it.

aa-jv 4mo ago
The Military Industrial Complex is the autocracy - the revolving door between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CFR - which are the entities really running the country (for the purposes of massively profitable military mis-adventures). https://www.transparency.org/en/corruptionary/revolving-door https://www.transparency.org/en/corruptionary/revolving-door From a certain angle, it actually looks less like an autocracy and more like a military junta which has captured both 'sides' and puppet-masters either one depending on the mood of the masses, according to the needs of the MIC - which gets everything it wants without interference by "The People".
- noduerme 4mo ago
  That's nonsense, clearly, because we've just elected two - no, make that four Presidents in a row who used the Military Industrial Complex in radically divergent ways to different ends. If we test the theory that American Presidents are beholden to the military industrial complex and not vice versa, compared to actually authoritarian countries in which the military basically is the government, we can see all sorts of civilian controls which restrain our government versus the others. When I said it was like Argentina in the 60s, I meant that it definitely could become a quasi-mitary autocratic regime, but at the present moment it is not. It's just in the throes of populist movements which might ultimately lead to such a thing. Any objective glance at actual military regimes, any knowledge whatsoever of the rest of the world's history, proves immediately to a casual observer that the United States is not currently comparable to a military dictatorship. The attempt to frame it as one, however, is blatantly ignorant of the current state of the world, to the degree that the motivation behind doing so is suspect. Really, only a shill for a dictatorship is interested in trying to prove that America is analogous to an autocratic state. An objective observer who wasn't being paid or hadn't bought into authoritarian propaganda would at least compare and contrast our legal system with the true, terrible, and numerous actual dictatorships all around the world.

TrackerFF 4mo ago

A bunch of anti-ICE protesters in Texas were recently sentenced to 50-100 year prison sentences. It is one of the more egregious things I've read. The long and short of it is: A bunch of people organized (over group chat) a protest in Texas, where their plan was to conduct noise protest with fireworks. Some of the people knew each others, some did not. When they met up, some of the protesters broke off from the group and started vandalizing gov. property, like slashing up car tires. This all culminated with a gov. guard approaching the people, guns drawn. One protestor fired at the guard from distance with a AR-15, and the guard was struck in the shoulder. The shooter argued that he believed the guard would fire at the group - he was handed a 100 year sentence due to attempted murder. The rest of the group were found guilty in planning and aiding a violent terrorist attack, and handed 50 year and up sentences. If you look into the actual details of what they were charged with, and the things actually done, it gets even more wild. This was possible due to "antifa" being designated a terrorist organization. What this means in practice, at least in Texas, is that if you're part of a organized protest, and something goes wrong, you can and probably will be charged as a terrorist, or aiding a terrorist, and face life behind bars. I have no doubt that if / when dems dethrone Trump and MAGA GOP, all but the shooter will be pardoned, and the terrorist designation of antifa will be removed - but we now see that designated antifa works as they intended: To charge anyone protesting Trump or his controlled organizations as "antifa", and thus label them as domestic terrorists.

r721 4mo ago
Here's a flagged discussion of that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48653311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48653311

expedition32 4mo ago

Autocracy is part of American culture. The US parliament has always been weak and filled with people who's only purpose is to clap.

frogperson 4mo ago

make no mistake, the people behind this play the long game. the council for national policy has been working hard towards these goals since the 60s. the people who want to rule, do not want to deal with democracy. they do not want to ask permission.

rurban 4mo ago

It's not a war on terror. It's just a war on civil rights.