Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Chalmers Johnson was quoted as saying:
>
> > 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
>
> I'm all for dismantling the US empire, and I'm also very supportive of
> Chalmers Johnson's ongoing efforts to emphasize the (very malignant)
> independent weight of the security establishment (which I think is often
> unconsciously under-appreciated by smart people on the left, because our
> framework often takes as a starting point that its goals and interests must
> be reducible to economics).
(I agree completely with the rest of your post.) What do you mean by the "security establishment"? Johnson speaks of the "military establishment" -- do you mean something different? My sense is that both under Clinton and under Bush the "military establishment" (or at least The Military) has only reluctantly gone along with the military adventurism of both administrations. Remember Albrecht's plaint about what's the use of having such a superb military if we can use it.
Carrol