I was forwarded this very interesting discussion with former California political science professor Chalmers Johnson my Mr. V.T., who has once again provided a very interesting article for contemplation:
Johnson's lessons of history are well worth pondering, but I want for purposes of this discussion to concentrate on the idea of "full spectrum dominance" as I have written about it previously on this site, and indeed it is an area of my current long-term research. In effect, what full spectrum dominance means is simply this: America must be the dominant power in a unipolar world revolving around...well...America. There are no equal partners in this world view, only (1) the USA, (2) fiefdoms of client states of the same, and (3) enemies or potential enemies.
The doctrine maintains that America must be the dominant power in...well...in everything. It must be the dominant power in computer viruses and hacking, the dominant power in space (which has a monopoly right on deploying weapons in space), the dominant power in finance (read. World Bank, World Trade Organization, Bank of International Settlements, IMF and all the other mechanisms of Anglo-American finance central bank capitalism), the dominant military power with a technological lead in all aspects of military science, it must be the dominant cultural power exporting the jungle-driven mind-numbing drivel of its musical and cultural forms, the dominant energy and resources power... in short, everything.
There is an inevitable tendency, of course, to any such imperialism, and it is revealed in the threefold structure enumerated in the second paragraph, for what it always does is to foster a splitting of the mental-social space: there is only "us", and "them", whether the "them" be the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, or any number of other contenders. Inevitably, Johnson points out the conclusion: the choice is either to be secure in our empire, or secure in our liberties, and I believe the lessons of history are there for any would-be empire-builders to contemplate: all empires eventually create coalitions whose strength inevitably is stronger then the Empire itself. All Empires eventually over-extend through their own hubris, and suffer invasion, or through a lack of sound public domestic policy, crumble into anarchy and dust, or some combination of both. Or, finally, people just get fed up, and revolt. I certainly love the great and good people of this country, but we face a choice, and we must have the courage to take it, the choice is between liberty, or empire. I vote for the former.