The Escalating Costs of Imperial Overstretch

No small number of individuals, including U.S. comptroller general David Walker, author Chalmers Johnson, and yours truly, have noted alarming parallels between the United States and the Roman empire before the fall. One that stands out is the vast amounts that were -- and are being -- spent on maintaining a military presence in nations far and wide. In "Iraq, Afghan Wars Could Cost US 2.4 Trillion: Report," AFP reports on the escalating costs of imperial overstretch.

The total cost, including debt servicing, of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could reach 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017, a report by the Congressional Budget Office found Wednesday.

The report, by the body which provides non-partisan budget analysis for Congress, said higher estimates for spending for the wars could top out at 1.7 trillion dollars by the end of the next ten year period.

Under the most intense scenarios of US military activity, a further 705 billion dollars could be added to the cost by interest payments, assuming the wars continue to be largely financed by government borrowing, the report said.

The estimate contains estimated costs up to 2007 for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other war on terror spending.

It also includes related spending on medical care and disability compensation for veterans, and survivors benefits.

To reach its final estimates, the budget office projected the total cost over the next 10 years under two scenarios, one evisaging a sharp drawdown of US troops abroad, the other under a more gradual drawdown.

"Total spending for US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between 1.2 trillion and 1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 to 2017," the report said.

For the first time, however, the CBO included debt servicing costs if past and future spending on the war were financed entirely by borrowing.

Under that assumption, interest costs for spending on the war on terror between 2001 and now and up to 2017 would be 415 billion dollars the report said.

A further 290 billion dollars would be added to the price of the wars, if higher end estimates of spending between now and 2017 are added, the report said.

Comments

[RC]

What actually caused the fall of the Roman Empire is hard to determine,many authors have their pet theories. One interesting one, "The day of the Barbarians, the first battle in the fall of the Roman Empire" says it began from a humanitarian mission. The Goths wanted to come into the Roman Empire, across the Danube because they were being wiped out by the Huns. The Romans decided to let them cross and to settle them in less populated areas, make some slaves, etc because the Empire needed more manpower. So the better analogy here is workers from Mexico rather than wars of conquest.
They allowed so many Goths to enter that they could not manage them, the Goths rioted and formed a plundering army that the Romans then could not stop. The Romans and their allies were safe in walled cities but the Goths controlled the countryside and robbed and pillaged. Then the Romans attacked and lost some battles, and the Goths got their weapons.
Eventually the Emperor Valens assembled an army of 20,000, after withdrawing them from a war with the Parthians (more like the Iraq analogy) and then lost a decisive battle with the Goths and was killed.
But the real problem was the next emperor Theodosius who made peace with the Goths, settled them in many areas, and used them in the army. Eventually this influx of other races into the army made them too influential and the Romans lost control over it.
So the main analogy is too many immigrants and businesses too greedy for cheap labor. Then the areas they settled in became unmanageable, which also often happens. Then as they rise to positions of influence in the army and politics they look more after the interests of the immigrants than the empire, and the empire loses control from within.
Eventually Iraq like Vietnam will stop when the blood and treasure lost becomes too much to bear, and this will keep America out of expensive wars for a while. The immigration problem, the one that did destroy the Roman Empire is not being solved though.

[RC]

A few more points on this. The Goth immigrants developed political connections and became the backbone of the army. It then became impossible to stem the tide of more Goth immigration because of their influence. The floodgates of new immigrants was opened wide and the sheer numbers lost the Romans control of the western empire.
Also when it was realised there were too many immigrants they tried to move and settle them in a less desirable area. This was the western part of the empire near Italy because the east was more prosperous. This may be analogous to seeing Hispanic immigration as staying mainly in the south, so the north of the US worries less about it.
So the Goth political influence was concentrated around Italy and then Goth mercenaries made deals with the politicians to feed their more and more separate military industrial complex. If they did not receive enough money they took to sacking Rome. Eventually the western side of the Roman Empire collapsed from this but the eastern side survived.
The analogy is similar to immigrants being brought in for cheap labor, and settling in the southern US, and using their political influence to open the floodgates to more immigration, amnesties, stopping building a secure border, etc. Politically it became impossible for the Romans to keep the border guards on the Danube as the natural eastern border of the empire.
So it was not just the numbers of immigrants but where they settled which made the Empire collapse in one area and continue elsewhere. I've always wondered why the Republicans did not seize on the issue of amending the constitution so immigrants born in the US do not become citizens automatically like it was supposed to say when changed to end black slavery.
It may be that the political influence of Hispanics has grown too strong already, and this would lose too many votes for the Republicans. Ron Paul seems to advocate this but it hasn't caught on elsewhere. Like a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and abortion, I would have thought this would rally enough voters to the Republicans, even if the amendment itself is unlikely to pass. In other words I would have thought it was something Rove would use as a wedge issue to bring more whites over to the Republicans. It is racist, but not more so than other Republican strategies. It might even get black support if they see their jobs taken away by Hispanics.
Rove doesn't miss much so perhaps the voter numbers don't add up, which means the Hispanic influence is already too strong. Pat Buchanan may be right in this concern about immigration but I haven't heard him talk about the parallels between the fall of the western Roman empire on immigration. It would be interesting to hear his opinion on this.
NAFTA may also have been from this growing Hispanic influence. There are proposals to give free health care, schooling, etc to Hispanics in California and given them citizenship if they accomplish certain things like educational standards. For California at least it may no longer be possible for Republicans to support a constitutional amendment against immigrants becoming citizens. It might also be impossible now in Texas with the large Hispanic voting population.
I also think the resistence to free health care, pensions and welfare is in response to this problem. America is starting to split into two countries, with the wealthier mostly white population avoiding giving money to the poorer immigrant and black sections. Since there are more whites, polarizing politics into race will mean whites vote more for themselves every time. I also think the US is seeing the current financial problems from the point of view of two Americas. They think the more prosperous white Republicans section can stay immune from recession by exporting to the global marketplace. So a recession in the poorer areas is seen as irrelevant to them. While they might lose some money from loaning subprime to poorer Democrats they gain more from the Bush tax cuts and pro business policies. So for the Republican right they may see poorer America in recession and not care. In effect this is like writing off the western part of the Roman Empire by the wealthier east.
However this is not necessarily good for a country. Welfare and free healthcare works well in places like Europe and is cheaper than the US system by far. If the wealthier white population thinks it is cheaper to put up with the inefficiencies in healthcare than pay for minorities (especially since they then gravitate to the Democrats) then race polarizes politics more and more. The Democrats, as they represent a minority percentage of the population don't win elections unless they go along with not spending money on minorities as well.
The same also happens with the minimum wage, which is kept low because it is perceived as a Democrat issue, and the Democrats fear to lose white votes by giving too much to poorer minorities. Of course poorer white voters get caught in this same poverty trap.
So I believe the US is sinking into the same situation that destroyed the western Roman Empire. They have all but lost the political power to stem Hispanic immigration, will lose control of the Republican south to Democrats who will support more and more immigration. Like the Goths the Hispanics will be attracted by higher living conditions and eventually swamp whites with their voting, to let more and more Hispanics in. If Hispanics vote like this then whites may end up like South Africa, trying to run a fascist dictatorship or simply giving up political control.
The Roman empire grew through immigration, by absorbing France, Spain, England, Syria, and Egypt into the empire, so immigration itself is not doomed to destroy an empire. The French had their own empire and let too many Muslim immigrants into France and now have a similar problem with riots, and the Muslims having enough political influence to allow more Muslim immigration and to control part of the country. Arguably the same thing happened to the British empire with immigration into Britain.
I think many Americans and other countries see the US as a declining if not falling empire. It is more likely to be from immigration than wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan though.