From the introduction: "I am not alone in arguing that the new imperialists [whom Mann identifies basically as the neocon crowd] exaggerate American powers. Like 'world system theorists', the French demographer and essayist Emmanuel Todd suggests American decline has already set in and will not be revered by the new imperialists. He says all its powers are weakening. Its military has a soft underbelly - reluctance to take casualties; its economic 'tribute taking' is increasingly fragile; its own democracy is weakening while global democracy is is strengthening resistence against the U.S.; and the U.S. is recoiling from American values which have had a universal appeal. While the U.S. is weakening in all four ways, its potential rivals in Europe and Russia - and later China - are beginning a resurgence. I agree with some but not all of Todd's arguments. I do not see the demise of the new imperialists as coming from the rise of another power or from general imperial overstretch, but from extremely uneven power sources [the 'Sources of Social Power', presumably]. These lead not to general collapse but to imperial incoherence and foreign policy failure. Hopefully, this will be followed by voluntary abandonment of the imperial project by Americans, and this would preserve most of the U.S. hegemony [that is, hopefully, it won't be followed by fascism!] [pg. 13]
It's clear from the last sentence, and from the emphasis on Todd, rather than on the world systems theorists, that Mann does not intend to take an anti-imperialist approach, but rather wants to restore the old hegemonic imperialism "that everyone agrees to". Better to emphasize Wallerstein, who these days ties imperialist fortunes with the historical life-cycle of capitalism. So I'm not expecting much of an analysis of U.S. imperialism from the point of view of critique of capitalism, though one would think this to be the primary source of social power in our time.
Mann is probably right, though, in his prognosis: not replacement in collapse by another imperialist hegemon, but widening incoherence and disorder leading to failure. "Interestingly", perhaps, I see this as the result of the connection of the imperialist process with the general decay and dissolution of capitalism, whose late stage makes the appearance of a succssor hegemon impossible (this negative dynamic, this vacuum, actually keeps the U.S. in the drivers' seat by default, as the neocons realize). Imperial hegemonies can only rest securely upon a coherent mode of production.
Mann does go out of his way to highlight the unique character of the U.S.-Israel relation (how can anyone avoid it anymore!):
"Examining who gets the [foreign] aid brings another surprise. It does not go to the poorer countries. A third goes to one of the 20 richest countries in the world - Israel. A fifth goes to Egypt, which is effectively being paid not to attack Israel [bingo! Add that to the total for Israel]. Tiny Jordan, also paid not to attack Israel, rivals massive India and Russia as the next largest recipient. So almost half the total aid program goes to prop up [note the terminology] the small state of Israel, which contains one-thousandth of the worlds' population! The average Israeli gets over $500 annually from U.S. taxpayers [probably more, really]..."
"Israel is also uniquely favored in getting its aid in cash, with no accounting required. Israel can do what it likes with the money. Uniquely, it does not have to purchase U.S. goods, and can use the money to build nuclear missles, synagogues, or whatever [how about settlements]. We trust Israel. All other countries have to buy U.S. and account in detail for their budgets. Since the Clinton presidency others are also vetted for their human rights violations [presumably except for, again, Israel]...."
"For many years Israel has also been the largest recepient of military aid. It leads the 2003 appropriations with $2.2 billion. Egypt comes second with $1.3 billion, though some of it is now on hold for human rights violations[!]. [Guess who] Jordan comes next, with almost $200 million [most useful for repressing their own population under the U.S.- Hashimite dictatorship - that's what it is!], and then Colombia [no doubt Israel will start messing there, as it did in Guatamala], with $100 million. All but Israel have to purchase U.S. arms exclusively - Israel only having to spend 75% of the aid on U.S. arms. Also uniquely, Israel can go straight to U.S. arms suppliers. None of its purchases are first vetted by the U.S. Department of Defense. It is as if Israel was part of the United States!" [pgs 53-54]
Omygosh, call out the fallacy police! But we can see why Zionism insists on planting its nest of vipers within the American left.
But back to reading "Incoherent Empire", latest addition to the epic 'Empire' debates...but Incoherent Capital might make a good title.
-- /**********************************************************************/ Brad Mayer
Email: bradley.mayer at sun.com /***********************************************************************/