Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The war on terror primed America for autocracy

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 301 posts

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#281

Post by nerdyadventurer »

derektank wrote: post #64
Animats wrote: post #19

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…

Bin Laden’s ultimate objective was to evict US military forces from the Middle East. In response to 9/11, we massively expanded our footprint in the region and formed even deeper relationships with the Saudi government (whom Bin Laden hated for in his view, “[suspending] Islamic laws, and replacing it with statuary laws”). You can read it all in his original, late 90s declaration of jihad against the United States[1]…

All this due to US want to be hegemon, based all around the world. Why cannot live in harmony with others in a multi-polar world?

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#282

Post by marcus_holmes »

graemep wrote: post #136
marcus_holmes wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "trajectory of the empire" is that it became the Roman Catholic Church. Rome still rules a sizable portion of the world's population. I wonder if the USA is going the same way. Democratic Church of America?

Rules? Membership of an organisation is nothing like being a subject of an empire. Its purely voluntary. It has less power over its members than employers do. It cannot tax, only ask for donations. Its not even Rome - its run by people from all over the world. It controls only a tiny bit of territory.

Every single human living in Europe for around a thousand years went to a priest once a week and told them their innermost darkest secrets.

There has been no more totalitarian rule ever implemented, anywhere. The North Koreans aspire to what the Catholic Church had.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#283

Post by lopsotronic »

rayiner wrote: post #25
xbar wrote: post #6

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.

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.

For all the editorial hay to be made from the "The Victory of Capital" or the purported "Inevitable Self-Destruction of Communism (with Russians In It)", the process of nations transforming into "security state zombies" is probably less a model of economics/ideology and more a normal lifecycle stage for nuclear powers. It's mistaking metabolic stage for victory.

Once a major power has credible nuclear deterrent, the functions of the Westphalian state focuses on that singular threat of destruction - it's a cannon that ends the state. Having it be a single cannon is antithetical to an open society or democratic patterns in government. Hence, Security State Zombie, unable to perform anything other than its duties of destruction.

Russia started the game in a depleted state and hit the lifecycle stage first - less open society to burn down. We teetered for a long time, but the 9/11 attacks, combined with a reactionary wing that no longer had to run a moral race with the Communists, sent the balance over the edge.

I suspect, right now, we are seeing the "Yeltsin Era", where people finally lose their last patience with the established system, and during which the nomenklatura/technocrats/security state solidify their holdings in communications and media. Terminating this period in an orderly fashion will require some organizational energy and talent. Increased direct cooperation between national security "black" assets and local law enforcement like Texas Marshalls (hey like in Sicario, except not in Mexico), or between black assets and federal groups not operating under legislative or judicial oversight (which I leave to you to name). It will not be a modest effort - the local assets will need to be linked up with aggressively, as they are less numerous than the law enforcement under direct local jurisdiction. I do wonder who our Putin will be, or if we will even see his face without a thermonuclear bonfire.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#284

Post by bulbar »

rayiner wrote: post #59
shakna wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Failure to integrate” is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome. But I agree the barbarians did them in at the end. My point was that the Iran fiasco is more like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, where Rome backed off after taking a beating. That didn’t mark a transition away from Empire, simply a retreat after a military loss.

Today's world is different. US just lost a lot of credibility in a very important region of the world. They were not able to keep the strait of hormuz open unilateral, nullifying most of their leverage in that region.

Gulf States will now strategically look out for other partners. Just like Europe / EU and Canada.

Trump tried to leverage a lot of influence in the most stupid way and failed over and over. Does the US even have relevant allies left at that point? Pretty sure they took notes.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#285

Post by userbinator »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #220
userbinator wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big problem is that if the USA doesn't start wars, other countries are certainly more than willing to start them against us.

Wasn't Japan the last country to attack the US, almost 85 years ago? Nobody does it because there is no profit in it.

Do you not remember 9/11?

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#286

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

rayiner wrote: post #250
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Immigration isn’t “left wing” or “right wing.” I do not agree. This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. In racist terms. In academic language from the linked study: > Thus, accommodating the radical right on immigration could benefit the radical right by increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage

> This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. That’s labeling. Neoliberals coined the term “far right” to refer to a group that to the left of the conventional right on economic issues. > increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage The Danish left predicted (imo, correctly) that the issue would remain and get more salient due to e…

> The Danish left predicted (imo, correctly) that the issue would remain and get more salient due to external factors. Then they got on the right side of it.

I see that you added this. There's a lot going on. "External factors" sounds like fixed facts of the world. But as I pointed out above, Immigration into the UK is steeply down (1), but this is not your perception or many other perception of the topic. It's not driven by facts.

Would you describe a mega-rich person in the USA using their social platform to stoke racial hatred in the UK and promote conspiracy theories as "external factors", fixed facts of the world? (1)

The far right engages in endless grievances and stoking of culture wars. It's what they do, they are not going to be satisfied with a minor concession, they will just be emboldened instead. And win or lose, if they have to abandon the current grievance, they will find something else to turn into the next grievance. Facts are secondary to this.

The idea that a rational centre-left party can meaningfully "get on the right side" of this escalation - and do so by agreeing with the hate-mongers - is not just wrong, it's nonsensical. Again, Mr Starmer tried it and got nothing.

If you think that's the "right side" then what you want is a right-wing party, no centre-left party is ever going to be the one for you - and this is in common with most voters as I said above.

> The alternative approach is to hope the issue will reduce in salience.

Nope. As they say, "Hope is not a strategy". The right is not going to stop stoking culture wars, as as it works for them, it's their main weapon. This is not a thing that will "naturally" reduce in salience by itself, as it was a political choice in the first place.

1) https://www.trtworld.com/article/18192985

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/elon...

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#287

Post by inemesitaffia »

ted_bunny wrote: post #261
mullingitover wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bin Laden’s ultimate objective was to evict US military forces from the Middle East Bush’s famous “Mission Accomplished” photo op was, ironically, on the same day US troops complied with bin Laden’s demand for them to leave Saudi Arabian soil.

Ironic? Or timed specifically to overshadow it in the news?

But the US troops are still there.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#288

Post by aa-jv »

noduerme wrote: post #277
aa-jv wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The world needs American war crimes", said nobody ever. Your Presidents changed flavor according to the whims of the superficial pretend-democracy culture, such that it is - the very real victims of their crimes however, didn't. >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…

Is the murder of 30,000 Iranians in a few days six months ago by their government America's fault? Were Assad's mass murder of civilians an American war crime? Is the mass killing in Sudan by a paramilitary America's fault? What about the 500,000+ Yemenis starved by Saudi Arabia fighting Iran's religious proxies there? Which is the genocide you're referring to? You can't blame the state of the Middle East on America,…

>Is the murder of 30,000 Iranians in a few days six months ago by their government America's fault?

Is it true that 30,000 Iranians were murdered by their own government. Got evidence that will hold up in a court of law? No?

>You can't blame the state of the Middle East on America

Two million dead Iraqis' would like a word. See also: American bombs used in genocide.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#289

Post by tancop »

rayiner wrote: post #257
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, describing political groups is literally "labelling". The idea that the UK's anti-immigrant far right aren't actually far right is just laughable.

Definitions must be consistent with each other. Conventionally, “right” means more capitalist and “left” means more socialist. To be consistent with that existing definition, the “far right” would be the folks trying to privatize social security, eliminate banking regulations, eliminate barriers to free trade, etc. It would refer to libertarians, not anti-immigration populists.

left vs right was never a good framework. there are traditional fascists who believe in a state controlled economy and nazi style race laws. libertarians who want gay rights and no social security. socialists can be progressive or conservative on issues like abortion. if you want to collapse it all into one axis you lose all the differences.

Re: The war on terror primed America for autocracy

#290

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

tancop wrote: post #289
rayiner wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitions must be consistent with each other. Conventionally, “right” means more capitalist and “left” means more socialist. To be consistent with that existing definition, the “far right” would be the folks trying to privatize social security, eliminate banking regulations, eliminate barriers to free trade, etc. It would refer to libertarians, not anti-immigration populists.

left vs right was never a good framework. there are traditional fascists who believe in a state controlled economy and nazi style race laws. libertarians who want gay rights and no social security. socialists can be progressive or conservative on issues like abortion. if you want to collapse it all into one axis you lose all the differences.

Of course, collapsing to one axis can only be reductive. Reducing means losing information, simplifications simplify; and the question is if you are losing a meaningful signal, or losing mostly noise.

It is true that "there are ... libertarians who want gay rights and no social security" - they do exist. But are they a significant percentage of the voters, compared to the more regular right wing (e.g. UK Reform / Restore) who get double-digit percentages of the vote? No, they are not.

Post reply on HN