Gorbachev: Will the US Become an Empire or a Democracy?

Mikhail Gorbachev says the candidates need to talk about the "increasing tendency to militarize policymaking and thinking," and to state clearly whether they plan to continue in this direction. I'm pretty sure I know the answer in one case. For McCain, it's a solid yes. I also think I know the answer in the other case, it's no for Obama, but can I be sure?:

Questions for the candidates, by Mikhail Gorbachev, Commentary, IHT: There has been unusual interest throughout the world in the U.S. presidential race. ... Major policy problems today cannot be solved without America - and America cannot solve them alone.

Even the domestic problems of the United States are no longer purely internal. I am referring first of all to the economy. ... [A]s I talk to ordinary Americans, ... I sense their anxiety about the state of the economy. The irony, they have said to me, is that the middle class felt little benefit from economic growth when the official indicators were pointing upward, but once the downturn started, it hit them immediately, and it hit them hard.

No one can offer a simple fix for America's economic problems, but it is hard not to see their connection to U.S. foreign policies. Over the past eight years the rapid rise in military spending has been the main factor in increasing the federal budget deficit. The United States spends more money on the military today than at the height of the Cold War.

Yet no candidate has made that clear. "Defense spending" is a subject that seems to be surrounded by a wall of silence. But that wall will have to fall one day.

We can expect a serious debate about foreign policy issues, including the role of the United States in the world; America's claim to global leadership; fighting terrorism; nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction; ... the problems caused by the invasion of Iraq..., the size of America's defense budget and the militarization of its foreign policy. I am afraid these two questions will not be asked by the moderators. But sooner or later they will have to be answered.

The present administration, particularly during ... Bush's first presidential term, was bent on trying to solve many foreign policy issues primarily by military means, through threats and pressure. The big question today is whether the presidential nominees will propose a different approach to the world's most urgent problems.

I am extremely alarmed by the increasing tendency to militarize policymaking and thinking. The fact is that the military option has again and again led to a dead end.

One doesn't have to go very far to find an alternative. Take ... North Korea and Iran. After several years of saber-rattling, the United States finally got around to serious talks with the North Koreans, involving South Korea and other neighboring countries. And though it took time..., the dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program has now begun.

It's true that nuclear issues in Iran ... may be more difficult to solve. But clearly threats and delusions of "regime change" are not the way to do it.

We have to look even deeper for a solution. "Horizontal" proliferation will only get worse unless we solve the "vertical" problem, i.e. the continued existence of huge arsenals of sophisticated nuclear weapons held by major powers, particularly the United States and Russia.

In recent months there seems to have been a conceptual breakthrough..., with influential Americans calling for ... eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have now endorsed that goal. ...

I see a ... problem...[for nuclear disarmament]... Let us imagine that 10 or 15 years down the road the world has abolished nuclear weapons. What would remain? Huge stockpiles of conventional arms, including the newest types, some so devastating as to be comparable to weapons of mass destruction.

And the lion's share of those stockpiles would be in the hands of one country, the United States, giving it an overwhelming advantage. Such a state of affairs would block the road to nuclear disarmament.

Today the United States produces about half of the world's military hardware and has over 700 military bases, from Europe to the most remote corners of the world. Those are just the officially recognized bases, with more being planned. It is as if the Cold War is still raging, as if the United States is surrounded by enemies who can only be fought with tanks, missiles and bombers. Historically, only empires had such an expansive approach to assuring their security.

So the candidates, and the next president, will have to decide and state clearly whether America wants to be an empire or a democracy, whether it seeks global dominance or international cooperation. They will have to choose, because this is an either-or proposition: The two things don't mix, like oil and water.

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

Gorbie inherited a totalitarian dictatorship and attempted to preserve it until it became clear the USSR was falling apart.

He is though, the darling of many US liberals, who would rather worship him than give credit to Reagan for anything.

So who cares what he thinks. He is a failed dictator.

[John]

Save the Rustbelt: Oh really? You just might recheck your facts.

I think that if we survive the next few years, the question whether the US will become an Empire will be answered with a definite NO. Peak Oil will probably cause the US to collapse.

The big issue is whether we survive the next few years. There is a serious risk that the Republicans will launch an unprovoked nuclear attack, perhaps after a failed conventional attack on Iran. In this case, I believe that Ritter's prediction of a US city taken out is a best-case scenario.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

Worst case: World War III, nuclear war destroying life on the earth.

says...

Gorbachev is much more than a failed dictator Rusty. He is one of those rare humans that saw the need for dramatic change and was fearless enough to begin the process.

Our country could use of few of these "failures" today.

[ken melvin]

Gorbachev is certainly a more important figure than Reagan. A much much smarter man. All the attributions to ronnie exhibit imagination seldom seen on the part of republicans.

[odograph]

Even if you don't like Gorbachev you can ask yourself "are getting proper ROI for our military investment?"

[Don Quijote]

Too late for that question, we already are an empire and have been for quite a while, the only real questions left are:

a) how can long we keep our empire status?
b) how painful will the loss of empire be?
c) Can the US survive the loss of empire without breaking up into smaller states?

[hari]

Can you imagine, Gobby is sueing for Peace and Peaceful Coexistence (of mine!)?

#Let us take an example, of India, and proposed *123 Nuclear Energy Agreement* (bilateral). The current UAP coalition government has lost political support of (3) Communist Parties...and soon government will either fall or regroup with support from other's (likely). [This will become apparent during/after G-8 meeting in Japan, I think.]

However, US Congress passed a resolution called *Hyde Act* which - according to CPI(3) parties - impinges on national sovereignty of India and its own security pre-requisities; ie. no outside power can decide how India manages its nuclear capacity. Hyde Act would impose unilateral sanctions in case India tested a new nuclear bomb or whatnot.

#Case of Iranian nuclear power (not WMD) - EU & Russia have finally succeeded in putting a proposal for consideration by Tehran - which the latter might have difficulty refusing - and US finally went along with it (Congress/Senate not pleased with such *soft-soft* approach, me thinks).

If McCain (Liberman/Gharam) succeed, they'd like to bomp Iran (first) before talking to them (based on APAIC agenda of Israeli first code!). There is no way to tell the extent of political/military damage such an overt military action may give rise to...and its regional/global consequences).

#Third, Palestinian State question...GWB told MK (Israel) that it might take *decades* before a Palestine State is formed. Thus reassuring KM that there was no hurry to make a deal with Fatah/Hamas factions.

We also have evidence that Cheney's WH Staff revealed evidence of Israeli/IDF attack on Syrian nuclear site - refused by Syria. Now Israel is talking about *peace* with Syria on Golan Heights (taken by Israel in 1967 War).

There is also evidence of infighting between Rice/Cheney on her decision to accept N Korean offer of dismantling its nuclear installation - step-by-step. People's Daily (China) confirmed that it was a first step (on a long political journey, I suspect).

#Finally, Pentagon military head of the services went on record - US military can't deal with incremental requirement of battalions to stabalize Afghanistan - all forces are committed to Iraq for the moment (GWB won't change Iraqi deployment, I suppose.)

If you just consider above cases, from an outsiders perspective, what does it tell you about the state-of-governance in USA? Can Barack or McCain bring about any dramatic change - in case one of them should win the WH?
The most considered answer is a definite NO! Principally because a lot of American power and prestige has been locked into the *militarization* of Middle East and South Asian battle fields by GWB. That is his legacy!

My former Institute, SIPRI, issues annual reports on Arms Trade and Disarmament, since 1968. It also tracks who is responsible for bulk of global Arms Trade today including in armed conflict regions. It has some of the best researchers from the world working on ways and means of promoting the essence of Gobby's idea of de-militarization and disarmament of the world under the UN Charter.

There is an UN Dept which was created by Great Powers to promote Disarmamanent during 1970s - (Mrs) Alva Myrdal was its First Under-Secretary General for Disarmament (1970s).
It has been collecting dust now for more than a few decades under succeeding WH occupants, including Clinton.

Gobby is upto something very serious and may have the support of the young new Russian President - to sue for Peace and Disarmamanet - simply because of its cost on the national budget. Even China would welcome such a development to release its domestic resources for economic development.
And for rest of the world, militarization of foreign policy is sure recipie for ultimate disaster and loss of American power.;

[anne]

"Gorbie inherited a totalitarian dictatorship and attempted to preserve it until it became clear the USSR was falling apart.

"He is though, the darling of many US liberals, who would rather worship him than give credit to Reagan for anything."

Keep on making stuff up, and do be hateful.

[hari]

My fear is compared to McCain, Barack is making stupid statements on Iraq - cumulative impact of it reflects not only on his advisory staff but lack of knowing what tics the conflict and how to force the issue of non-militarization of Iraq, if that's the way forward.

The Right (in Media) will crucify Barack should he cow-down and oblige the peace-makers in the region and pull out US forces. I don't believe he's capable of changing the present balance of power in the battle field - also not in Afghanistan.

So what to expect from the coming election - there will be no serious attempt to demilitaraize the conflict, and loses in Afghanistan will keep front page focused and Bararck on back feet/

[GoatGuy]

Of COURSE Russia's Ex is on the political path to rhetorically question America's continued investment in a strong, capable, alert and proud armed forces whose integrity is THE gold-standard world wide for what an Armed Forces can and should be.

Nuclear disarmament? What for... to show a softer kind of deterrant to the megalomaniacs of the world? That doesn't make sense. Truth is, Gorbachev is mouthing the uniform undercurrent concern of all the world's major governments: that they are deeply self-conscious of the fact that they are NOT prepared either idiologically or militarily for defending attacks against their sovereignty, be they from within or without. A significantly less nuclearly capable America might look to 'even the playing field' rhetorically, but doesn't change the basics - that $421 Billion invested per year (2006), on 1,426,000 personnel, thousands of planes and aircraft, tanks, heavy weapons, technology systems, ... and virtually the same continuously for decades ... gives us an advantage that no quantity of nuclear 'paring-down' will counter.

[hari]

@ GoatGuy - To me you really sound like a Goat!

Why does US need 700 military bases across the world in 21st century - for what?

[bob mcmanus]

There are times when I do wonder if America is at the end or beginning of the Empire. Constitutionally/domestic politics, it certainly feels more like say 2nd or 1st Century BCE Rome than Constantine's retrenchment. The military budget, what the citizens consider acceptable, does not point toward abandonment of Empire.

Folks, we may have had a continental empire, but it is not impossible we could become brutally extractive and exploitative overseas. We have yet to see whether "The American way of Life is not negotiable." The rest of the developed world may not be willing to pay the tens of millions of lives it would cost to restrain us.

I oppose Empire, but I doubt my preference will matter.

[hari]

BTW Bush #41 opened new US Embassy at Brandenberg Gate (Berlin) last night. The father of #43 said that Europe was in peace with union of divided Berlin (1989). I don't know if US media reported on his speech - but German Chancellor and FM were also present and spoke about the final unity of Germany under #41. And thanked him profusely.

Unless US military budget is finally sent in reverse direction - there will be no peace on the planet - and no social security and healthcare for the unemployed in America!

[robertdfeinman]

The US is locked in a militaristic economy and has been since the end of WWII. There have been slight variations in military spending. From 1990 to now the high has been 5.4% of discretionary federal spending and the low 3% according to the CBO. It is currently 4%. As mentioned before this is a gross understatement, but the relative changes are probably correct.

There is no way to alter the spending, there is just too much inertia built into the system. Chalmers Johnson has written three books on this dynamic: the military/industrial/congressional complex.

What can be changed is the militarization of our domestic policy. Bush has taken unprecedented steps to curtail civil liberties during a non-war period. This is not WWI or WWII, yet the infringements are as great as during those periods, if not greater.

McCain is perfectly happy to see these overreaches continue, and, apparently, Obama seems only slightly less bothered.

The current FISA debate shows that there is no strong movement in congress to restore the rule of law, eliminate abuses of the fourth amendment or expand domestic secret police powers.

One can debate whether military overspending brought down the USSR and whether similar overspending by the USA may have a similar effect, but in any case the sacrifice of domestic programs for militarism seems likely to continue regardless of who wins.

[hari]

Another sign of US decadence, if I may call it, and its political decline, is yesterday's thread of Paul on Third term of Rove and whatnoot....

I called Paul for *intellectual obesity* to indulgence in such balatant nonsense when lack of economic growth and inflation pressure are destroying personal welfare of citizens - +40 million without social security and healthcare - in the greatest hegemonic power on earth today!

And you guys find solace at throwing mud at each other....
What fools!

[hari]

And what the HELL are you guys going to say when McCain finally - and really - walks into the WH next year?

[Vader]

hari

And what the HELL are you guys going to say when McCain finally - and really - walks into the WH next year?

Those able will go to some safe country. Those remaining will be either in concentration camps or ash.

[Bruce Wilder]

odograph: "you can ask yourself "are getting proper ROI for our military investment?"

I am afraid the proper answer is that someone is getting the proper ROI on our military expenditures.

[Cynthia]

Wow, so Gorbachev is not only still alive and kicking, but he's still as sharp as a tack, too!

[2slugbaits]

We need to distinguish between the military per se and defense contractors. Their interests are not always the same. The professional officers and career civilians inside the Pentagon can read the handwriting on the wall. They know perfectly well that current military spending is not sustainable over the long run. They know that hard choices are going to have to be made. There is plenty of handwringing inside the G8 offices over how to unwind the war without breaking the Army. A few days ago Secy Gates presented the Army with one of those hard choices. The Army's proposed indirect line of sight system (i.e., a howitzer) component of the Future Combat System was put on the backburner in order to pay for the mine resistant vehicles in Iraq. I don't think there is any appetite within the professional cadres for an imperial presence in Iraq. The Army likes to buy shiny new toys, but they don't particularly like to use them up in the sand. The interests of defense contractors is very different.

As Mark Thoma says, it's no secret which side of the issue McCain comes down on. As he gets older he falls back on his now fading glory as a war hero. His war hero persona has become downright cartoonish. The man is trapped in the late 1960s. He doesn't exactly hide the fact that he's only interested in defense and security issues; and in his mind bigger weapons and more weapons equals more security. But Obama's interest in national security is less defense oriented. Obama wants to spend money on healthcare, infrastructure, education, tax cuts for the middle class, and (sadly) ethanol subsidies. And Obama's priorities roughly match those of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, so it's a pretty good bet that the needs of empire will take a back seat. So I don't think our host has to worry much about whether or not he can be sure of Obama's position. Obama has consistently talked about a 16 month timeline for pulling troops out of Iraq. Personally I think 16 months is a bit optimistic given the logistical difficulties we're going to face, but as a mark on the wall it will do just fine.

[NC Jim]

In the last century, both Britain (globably) and France (North Africa) came to the conclusion that they could be either a democracy at home or an empire - but not both. In France's case, the cruelity required to control Algeria was opposite the national image of the French people.

I think the US is very close to that decision point. We can continue to elect leaders who trample on the Constitution and project violence around the world or we can redefine the role of the military to national defense - "from sea to shining sea" and reinstate lost liberties. The US no longer has the economic power to be both a democracy and an empire.

Which direction do we take?

Jim

[anne]

These years we have watched John Kerry continually shamefully mercilessly slandered for serving in the Vietnam War, as there is no conscience to such slandering neither is there conscience to treating John McCain in any remotely close manner. But, we seem incapable of understanding what a politics of personal destruction is about and how it makes for masking policy discussion.

Belittling McCain is beyond conscience, then so was belittling Hillary Clinton so evidently what was going on all those months was practice.

[NC Jim]

"And what the HELL are you guys going to say when McCain finally - and really - walks into the WH next year?

In my case I would watch and see which McCain we had elected.

The old McCain who (correctly IMO) called the religious right "agents of intolerance" and opposed the Bush tax cuts.

or....

The current McCain who sucks up to the religious right and supports the Bush tax cuts and wants to extend them.

McCain has massively flip-flopped on major issues to be nominated and keep the support (and money) of the GOP base.

Once elected, which McCain would govern?

I honestly have no idea.

Jim

[anne]

Mark Thoma:

"Mikhail Gorbachev says the candidates need to talk about the 'increasing tendency to militarize policymaking and thinking,' and to state clearly whether they plan to continue in this direction. I'm pretty sure I know the answer in one case. For McCain, it's a solid yes. I also think I know the answer in the other case, it's no for Obama, but can I be sure?"

We have militarized policymaking and thinking through this Administration, and John McCain seems determined to continue such militarization while Barack Obama's intent is just not clear. The lack of clarity comes from advisers who have approved policy militarization for years and who may well prevail in convincing Obama that such an approach is all that politically active Americans will tolerate. I think the advisers wrong, but they are highly influential and can easily trap a President in thinking.

[anne]

Jim:

"In the last century, both Britain (globally) and France (North Africa) came to the conclusion that they could be either a democracy at home or an empire - but not both. In France's case, the cruelty required to control Algeria was opposite the national image of the French people."

I am not sure whether Britain and France gave over imperialism or simply were defeated in attempts to maintain colonies; when I am less optimistic I think the later.

[Jim Harrison]

Declining hegemonic powers are dangerous because military predominance often erodes more slowly than economic power. The temptation is to prevent loss of primacy by force. Spain tried that, so did France under Napoleon.

Demographic and environmental factors pretty much guarantee that we'll continue to lose ground over the next several decades. Properly managed, there's no reason that this process has to result in disaster; but it's not going to be easy.

[2slugbaits]

Anne,

One thing to listen to is how often a candidate uses the term "commander-in-chief" as a substitute for President. While I agreed with Sen. Clinton on many specific issues, one of the things that bothered me most was the way she constantly told us how she wanted to be our commander-in-chief. The commander-in-chief role is a constitutional title with respect to military forces. All presidential candidates fall victim to the commander-in-chief (CINC) way of thinking, but some candidates are more prone to it than others. McCain is by far and way the most prone to "CINC think." He even talks about economic issues in terms of national security, as though the reason we have an economy is to support a defense establishment. Of course, back in the old cold war days of the 70s that's exactly how many of the strategic think tanks regarded the economy; they saw it primarily as a vehicle for supporting more defense spending. It's a peculiar mix of a militaristic political theory blended with mercantilist economics.

[donna]

If McCain walks into the White House, I will be saying, "Oh, fuck, we're screwed for ANOTHER four years! Americans are such stupid idiots!"

[anne]

Being perfectly clear, I have no wish at all to continue with a President who thinks of foreign policy needs and possibilities in terms terms of gaining military objectives. Much of the American foreign policy establishment, Republican and Democratic, however think in just such terms. Republicans seemingly more so, but Democrats often seem to feel a need to compete on such militaristic terms.

I am hopeful Obama will think differently, but speeches have been written with surprising harshness. I would like to know the writers.

[NC Jim]

Anne,

"I am not sure whether Britain and France gave over imperialism or simply were defeated in attempts to maintain colonies"

I suspect a mix of the carrot and the stick.

My understanding is that the increasingly repressive actions required to prevent being defeated led to disgust at home and the decision to give over imperialism (to use your words).

Currently the US has two opposing points of view;

1- Those disgusted by militarized foreign policy and occupation (not "war").

2- Those proud of the global military and who support the "kill them all and let god sort it out" strategy.

This election is .in a large part, about which point of view will prevail. This is the most important election the last 30 years.

Have a nice weekend!

Jim

[Alex Tolley]

anne: "I am not sure whether Britain and France gave over imperialism or simply were defeated in attempts to maintain colonies; when I am less optimistic I think the later."

Britain most definitely gave up the colonial rule, both from a realization that the economy could no longer support it, partly from a changing view of the world. It is arguable that the current US occupation of Iraq is a repeat of the 1956 Suez crisis, only this time there is no countervailing force as there was the last time with the US.

Gorbachev makes a good point about militarization of policy, but the reason seems clear. As the only 'hyperpower', the US main competitive advantage is now military power. So the logic of using that military probably seems reasonable. Why use other means when you have this advantage?

However, as with other empires, the US is experiencing overreach and it is pretty clear that post WWII, the US military is not suited to fighting relatively unconventional wars, which ultimately will sap our economy.

[Bruce Wilder]

Don Quijote is right: the American Empire is upon us. When Clinton did not seize the opportunity to completely re-define American foreign policy and military policy for Bush 41's New World Order, the stage was set.

Clinton and Bush 41 were willing to maintain American military power, and, to their credit, to exercise it prudently, in service of, and constrained by, broad international alliances.

But, maintaining American military power created an opportunity for that faction, which has always chafed at the constraints of alliances, indeed, at the constraints of reason and conscience, as well. The impulse for Empire has always been part of American national character. That impulse drove the dream of Manifest Destiny that created a continental nation-state, dreamed of taking Cuba and large chunks of Central America, much to the detriment of those neighbors.

The very existence of the military-industrial complex creates an enormous danger, as Eisenhower warned us. But, the real danger was always that faction of crazy right-wingers, which had been kept impotent from Truman through 1994 (at enormous political cost to the Democrats -- the Truman and Carter Administrations were ruined trying prudent restraint abroad; Johnson destroyed himself out of fear of "Who Lost Indochina?") Those were the people, who thought the country had sold out at Yalta, and couldn't understand why we didn't rollback the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, or nuke China, who wanted to bomb Vietnam into the stone age.

The Roman Empire lasted more than a thousand years; I doubt the American Empire will last a generation. One reason, little noted, is that while the Roman Imperialists were the competent Romans, the American militarist faction cannot win a war. The militarist faction was always made up of morons and fools and the hopelessly corrupt, and they have never known the first thing about how to organize a war properly or successfully. This fact has been on abundant display in Iraq, where no one in positions of power in the Administration ever seemed to want to acknowledge the necessity to plan anything.

[The U.S. has a formidable reputation as military power, and an historical record of military success, because, mostly, through the accidents of history, the morons-and-fools-militarists have been kept away from power at critical moments. They self-selected to be, mostly, Confederates in the Civil War, leaving the Union in the hands practical, sensible men; they got lucky in the Spanish-American War; World Wars I and, especially, II were conducted by a different political type altogether.]

The failure to plan in Iraq or Afganistan is not accidental or incidental -- it is a fundamental reflection of who these people -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their various enablers, advocates and apologists in the Media and wider political sphere -- are. Their worldview is faulty, so faulty and unrealistic, that, when they are unrestrained by the admixture of more realistic actors in their Party, in the Media, in the bureaucracy, in the Army and in the Congress (as has been the case under Bush), they are revealed as completely irresponsible incompetents.

Their worldview rests on a narcissistic refusal to look for, or acknowledge consequences. If your worldview does not encompass a fairly realistic notion of how actions have consequences, moral as well as mechanical, you don't feel any need to plan, or to adjust means to ends. You cannot see abject failure, even when it is happening, let along respond rationally and promptly.

I watch our two presumed Presidential candidates, and I marvel at how stark the contrast, the choice, is. And, yet the judgments of the American public remain remarkably varied.

I can, sort of, understand the appeal of John McCain 2000. But, that John McCain is not on offer, here; the voting booth is not a time machine. The John McCain, who is on offer, has done everything he can, to signal his unfitness for office. "100 years in Iraq" -- hello!?! Did no one watch him parading around Iraqi marketplaces, claiming "success"?

The politics of a political campaign are really not the place to change people's minds. A political campaign is a moment, when the number of people paying close attention to politics swells momentarily from a few tens of thousands to more than a hundred million. Most of those hundred plus million do not -- how shall I say it? -- have well-prepared minds. What they have is immediate experience and lots of prejudices and not a whole lot of interest in political economy. They want the choice before them digested to little more than a bumpersticker that accords in some way with their prejudices.

We compare the filtered and unfiltered impressions we get of the candidates with our prejudices and choose. Everyone does that. I do that. I would count myself as one of the relatively well-informed voters. But, I usually vote for the Democrat. Most well-informed voters are partisans, so that's typical, across the political spectrum; it says nothing about the quality of judgment, since the best-informed conservatives tend to vote Republican. But, it still leaves the election in the hands of the least-informed, the least-interested, those who understand politics in the least sophisticated manner.

The vivid telling of the story of a supposedly revealing incident can have a big impact on those least-informed voters, voters whose understanding of political economy vanishes into insignificance. Democrats, like Krugman, are in partial denial about the power of those stories; Krugman goes so far as to say that the underlying incidents "did not happen", though, of course, the incidents did happen, but the stories -- the narrative frameworks -- may be misleading when told to the least-informed voters. It is really only the narrative, the fable and its moral -- not the facts -- that matter.

Obama is trying to make himself the intelligent choice, offering a contrast to the stupidity of the Bush Administration and the prospect of continuing that stupidity under McCain. McCain's riposte is being "a different kind of Republican", one who might actually respond, on occasion, rationally and responsibly to the circumstances at hand. In appealling to the least-informed voters, the campaigns will throw up a lot of obscuring dust. McCain will show us his POW footage and tell us that he "hates" war -- a likely story, given his biography, if you know almost nothing about the man's record over 30 years in politics.

Obama will try something harder to navigate. Obama will try to maintain advocacy of a policy of withdrawal from Iraq, without awakening the open hostility of the military-industrial complex and conservative revulsion against the dirty friggin (peacenik) hippies. He'll try to maintain some minimum of nuance; he'll try to maintain the position that he will adapt responsibly to circumstance. And, he'll be attacked for it from the Right, but also from the Left.

One of the more clever needle-threading exercises in the Obama policy arsenal has been the promise to increase the numbers of the uninformed military. The increase in civilian contract support for the military under Bush has been one of the ways in which the economic cost of maintaining the military has been magnified, even while the political potency of the military-industrial lobbying complex has also multiplied. Increasing the uniformed numbers gains votes, but it can also be a means for reducing the scope of private support contracting, which has been such a source of Republican patronage and corruption. But, it is too clever by half for the Left. (You can be sure that our favorite puma, anne, will slam Obama for it; she already has.) But, combined with Obama's record of support for Veterans, it may still prove to be electorally effective against McCain, whose record in support of veterans is lousy, and whose promise of 100 years in Iraq is not popular among the military enlisted or their families. With small shifts in such small groups, elections are won.

But, are Empires lost or abandoned, as well?

There will be loads of political pressure to maintain the military-industrial complex, and their network of worldwide bases in support of American business interests. I, personally, would like to see a revolution in the Media punditocrisy; lots of liberal bloggers seem to agree that the election is really a war against the Media. But, I don't actually see the means for bringing about that revolution, and the Democrats will govern in a Media atmosphere dominated by the same people, who declared support for one Bush idiocy after another, the only "serious" policy alternative.

But, the economics weigh heavily in favor of dismantling the military-industrial complex. The U.S. cannot afford even this modest fraction of GDP, when the U.S. has no savings rate, and has to borrow every dollar it spends in Iraq; when every dollar spent on oil drains completely out of the U.S. economy, to people fundamentally hostile to U.S. interests.

The military-industrial complex is well-organized to resist politically, but there are very real, and readily apparent economic interests shared broadly, that need that money. A determined Administration can lead and motivate those broadly shared interests.

[Bruce Wilder]

uniformed, not uninformed

I am always doing that. And, spell-check doesn't help me.

[hari]

Let me first confess, if I was not educated in Bay Area from 1956-1962, I'd not be so concerned and worried about the direction of American statecraft...it really reminds me of IKE's farwell speech when he reminded the country of the influence of military-industrial complex in national foreign/military policy making. He was an Army General who led the WWII against Germany and won.

Bruce Wilder/Paine and I (more or less separated by a decade) and we can remember the time well....

I fear that time is not in favour of the average citizen (define it the way you wish) because they simply can't understand the complexity of statecraft today and role of advisors, etc.

And, if you've been a policy advisor and written position papers, you know bloody well how the system is staked.

What General Clark did was not foolish, in my view, because that's the only way you can fish out the camaflouge of McCain. He's the ability to demonstrate his patriotism... thereby challenging Barack to climb his pedestal and be counted, if he dares.

Moreover, British and French Empires lost their explicit raison detre as *wars of liberation* imposed enormous economic burden on the Exchequer. They had to turn back and fortify their home fortress ....

Gobby knows what *Perestroika* did to Soviet Union. If American Empire was to be dissolved, one way or another, it must be done with consent of the governed to make it real.

[anne]

Thank you, Jim and Alex.

Do add thoughts on the matter when possible.

A friend is bringing over "The Battle of Algiers," and we will watch it later. I suspect you are both right about domestic public influence in France and England turning decidedly against colonialism to the point where colonial stances became political intolerable. Here? I need to think.

[anne]

Hari, I am missing something about just what is bothering you in the response to Paul Krugman then here. What are you arguing on policy formulation?

[hari]

Paul is a servant of Op-Ed Editor...and the requirements of the lingua to catch the audience. For an academic, he should stick to his professional ethics and class, if he wants to be counted as a pundit.

[hari]

Paul is still a youngman at +50!

He has a lot more to learn and appreciate in life....

[hari]

I knew the father of Op=Ed Page Editor...but I didn't know the son was born when we met in New Delhi - when I was a Visiting International Parliamentary Fellow (1969-70) along with five others from US, Europe and Asia.

His father was the finest journalist I met... who knew what news was all about...later he was to cover Poland also.

And then there was Skotty Reston, of course! Imagine what he would say about NYT Editorial Page today!

[anne]

We should notice, by the way, that Nicolas Sarkozy has called Presidents Correa and Kirchner of Ecuador and Argentina and will call Chavez to offer thanks on working for the hostage release in Colombia. I am much impressed by Sarkozy's diplomatic initiative, which is obviously deserved by the Colombians and Venezuelans, though I had not know Argentina's government was involved with Colombia's efforts.

[anne]

Hari, I still do not know what the specific complaint is, especially the complaint about Krugman. What am I missing? I find several writers on the Times editorial page generally empty to offensive, especially and increasingly Maureen Dowd, but Krugman in particular seems terrific.

[hari]

I understand Merkel has circulated a personal memo to G-8 leaders on curtailing speculation on crude futures market.
She has Browns support on the issue, I understand.

A lot is going on right now as they get airborne for Tokyo.
It's going to be Merkel/Brown against GWB view of oil markets, I think.

Sarkosy has officially asked G-8 to include China and India henceforth. Japan is barking and doesn't want to share Asian seat with her competitors....

[hari]

$20M ransom was paid for Betancourt's release, I don't know if Bush paid it.

[hari]

You know I've always supported Paul as one of our best brains on international trade policy today. I wish he'd stick to his credentials.

Look at our modest host, we all give him credit for making this perosonal blog availabe to us.

Do you see or recognize the professional difference, if any.

[anne]

American diplomacy would be Secretary Rice advising President Bush to call Kirchner, Correa and, definitely, Chavez to offer thanks. President Uribe had notified Bush of the rescue mission in advance. My hopeful understanding of the entire affair is that the successful rescue, no matter the precise details, reflect months of regional efforts at quelling the unrest in Colombia.

[anne]

Ah, thank you, I did not know of a Colombian payment but I am sure there is much to be learned.

No; I am not defending Krugman here, because I do not know what Krugman wrote that was bothering. I never understood what the complaint about Krugman's column was. What did I miss in the column, which I read carefully?

[hari]

The reception in Paris was very emotional when Sarkosy and Co welcomed her *home*.

I'd like our Marquis to comment on your question. He's a good patriot who also happens to understand US type *cultural imperialism*.

[anne]

Krugman was arguing that there can be a dangerous attempt to turn the election from policy discussion and analysis to characterizing. I think the argument correct, and a personality driven campaign would be dangerous but may be what we are in for.

[anne]

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F05E7DF1238E53BBC4951DFBF66838C679EDE&pagewanted=print

September 21, 1967

Local Premiere of Pontecorvo's Prize-Winning 'Battle of Algiers': Gripping Re-enactment
By BOSLEY CROWTHER

A MOST extraordinary picture for an opener at the New York Film Festival was placed before the first-night audience in Philharmonic Hall last night. It is Gillo Pontecorvo's ferocious "The Battle of Algiers," a starkly realistic re-enactment of events as they substantially occurred between 1954 and 1957 in the rebellion against the French in the capital of Algeria.

It is extraordinary, first, that such a picture—such a literal and traditional account of intra-urban guerrilla warfare in a wasteful conflict that occurred so long ago—should have been picked to open a festival that has been kicked off in the last four years by noticeably avant-gardish and thematically exploratory films.

The supposition is that this departure was made because "The Battle of Algiers" is an uncommonly dynamic picture that has proved its pulling power at festivals. It pulled down the grand prize at Venice and the top award at London last year, and took a blue at Acapulco last winter. On the strength of this, it was acquired for commercial distribution in this country, and was booked to open here at Cinema II tonight.

What could have been more appropriate, then, than to have this much talked-about film rack up two premieres with one show at the New York festival?

But more extraordinary and therefore more commanding of lasting interest and critical applause is the amazing photographic virtuosity and pictorial conviction of this film. So authentically and naturalistically were its historical reflections staged, with literally thousands of citizens participating, in the streets and buildings of Algiers that it looks beyond any question to be an original documentary film, put together from newsreel footage, complemented by staged dramatic scenes.

Startling long shots of people and police fighting in the sun-drenched, tree-lined streets, so familiar and recognizable from the photographs of the Algerian strife; shattering close-ups of thunderous explosions in native quarters and crowded French cafes have all the concrete and vibrant "actuality" of newsreels made during the war.

Yet Mr. Pontecorvo assures us there's not a scrap of newsreel footage in his film—that he and his crews shot the whole thing very much after the facts, with native amateurs and a few professional actors playing the key and leading roles.

This becomes apparent as one follows the narrative account of the violent upsurge of rebellion in Algiers in 1954 and the establishment of a rebel stronghold in the Casbah, from which hit-and-run forays of snipers and women bomb-planters into the French section of the city are made. And it is clear, to anyone who remembers, when file French 'paratroopers move in and begin the systematic clean-out of the Casbah under the command of a Colonel Mathieu.

This lean and relentless officer, played by Jean Martin, is obviously not the colorful and memorable Gen. Jacques Massu, whose 10th Paratrooper Division wiped out the rebel opposition in Algiers in 1957. But his manner is so intense and forceful, and his fairness and even respect for the resistance leaders are so well drawn, that one feels as though one is truly watching the spectacular and compassionate Massu.

Likewise, the roles of rebel leaders, played by Brahim Haggiag and Yacef Saadi, are done with such ferocity and fervor that they certainly convince me.

In its melodramatic structure, as well as its staging techniques, this film does have antecedents. The excellent "Four Days of Naples," done with such documentary stylization by Mr. Pontecorvo's fellow Italian, Nanni Loy, back in 1962, is its immediate model. And the prototype for both of them, of course, is Roberto Rossellini's "Open City," a classic neorealistic film.

Essentially, the theme is one of valor—the valor of people who fight for liberation from economic and political oppression. And this being so, one may sense a relation in what goes on in this picture to what has happened in the Negro ghettos of some of our American cities more recently. The fact that the climax of the drama is actually negative, with the rebellion wiped out and its leaders destroyed, has immediate pertinence, too. But eventual victory for the Algerians — and therefore symbolic hope for all who struggle for freedom— is acknowledged in a sketchy epilogue....

[dale]

Hari-
I second anne in my interest in reading your particular objections to the PK column in question.

It must be more than his perceived lack of modesty and his stepping out beyond the bounds of his academic expertise.

[Aaron]

anne,

Krugman was arguing that there can be a dangerous attempt to turn the election from policy discussion and analysis to characterizing. I think the argument correct, and a personality driven campaign would be dangerous but may be what we are in for.

This is OK but both sides have to play by the same rules. Calling McCain Bush III is not the same as running down the policy differences issue by issue and saying what you like and don't like. Same with saying it's Rove III.

[anne]

"The Battle of Algiers," which I have never seen, was made in 1966 but banned in France until 1971. So there must have been considerable concern by French leaders over public attitudes on Algeria through the 1960s, which would be reasonable for the times.

[hari]

Look! The Berlin Govt is preparing Baracks visit to Brandenberg Gate to speak (from same site as JFK). I wish he makes a successful entry into European politics, as there is great hope from all segements of society for a change in America next year.

My conviction is very strong on Paul. I want him to stick to his professional background. And leave Barack some free room to (roam around) make his own mistakes, if he so chooses. He could not have come this far without conviction and vision of power and good governance. Intuitively, I feel he makes clumsy errors that can be easily avoided - depending on type of professional staff at his service.

I am absolutely eager to see him succeed, and we are all doing what we can to make it come true...finally!

Gobby is asking whether America will really become an Empire or a Democracy. For Russia, it is better dealing with a Democracy, I suggest.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Let's see how much history I remember.

Gorby became a member of the Party toward the end of the Stalin years.

You guys remember Joe Stalin? At that time he was busy murdering his own war heroes and filling the Gulags.

The New York Times was fond of Stalin, and even overlooked that little matter of starving 10 million Ukrainians to make a political point.

Anyway.....

Gorby started to rise to prominence as an avid supporter of Krushchev, another sweetheart of a guy.

For much of his career Gorby was a protege' of Andropov. Good old Andy is remembered fondly in Hungary and Czech. He seemed to be particularly good at crushing rebellions by enslaved people.

Andropov, while head of the KGB, thought he could end all dissent for the rest of time, if he just could kill and imprison enough citizens.

So Gorby, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has a lot of blood on his hands, and at least he held the towel for the guys with the bloody hands.

And he is a darling of US liberals.......... hmmmmmm.

[anne]

Care to reference the slanders and smears? I am all tingly waiting, but I understand the point is always thuggish destruction.

Person wins a Nobel Peace Prize, person must be destroyed. Person must be darling of US liberals for winning Nobel Peace Prize. I get it.

Please do set down the history precisely.

[spencer]

save the rustbelt -- no it is not gorby that is the hero of liberals.

It is Reagan that is a hero for rejecting the advice of his conservative political advisers and dealing openly and realistically with the reformers in the USSR.

I though you were smarter and better informed than the comments you are making in this thread. I'm really surprised.

[mik]

In 1996, Gorbachev ran for President in Russia, but only received 0.5% of the vote.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_1996)

I wonder what Russky people know that American liberal bolvany do not.

[anne]

Russky = Russian
Gorby = Gorbachev

Get it?

[mik]

anne says...

Russky = Russian
Gorby = Gorbachev

Get it?

Bolvan ty yest', bolvanom ty ostanish'sya.

[mik]

So Gorby, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has a lot of blood on his hands, and at least he held the towel for the guys with the bloody hands.

And he is a darling of US liberals.......... hmmmmmm.

Well, not quite. Gorby was a loyal Party apparatchik from the age of 18 in 1950 till about 1989.
If there were murders under his command till he reached the pinnacle of power, I'm not aware about it.

Gorby started perestroyka not with some liberal democracy vision for USSR but with pragmatic desire to modernize USSR economy. Interestingly, the Soviet Military was actualy the major power pushing for improvements in high tech industries, they needed new and better armaments.

With his erratic and not thought thru reforms Gorby stumbled into the whole "democracy/freedom" territory, Pandora box was open and Gorby lost any resembles of control.

But I give Gorby an enormous credit in avoiding a large scale bloodshed, uniquely a political transition in Russia without bloodshed.

I'm aware of 2 small scale bloodsheds that could be attributed to Gorby, one in Vilnus (?), another in Georgia (?). Several dozen people were killed.
On Russian scale, where one could have easily predicted hundreds of thousands dead, transition from Breznev thru perestroyka under Gorby to USSR dissolving and to Eltzin Russia must be counted as "velvet revolution".

Gorby is not blood thirsty, but why bumbling old commie has became a hero to the Western Left is a mystery to me.

[Don Quijote]

So Gorby, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has a lot of blood on his hands, and at least he held the towel for the guys with the bloody hands.

CIA overthrows Mossadeq,tens of thousands die.
CIA overthrows Arbenz, Civil war ensues, hundreds of thousands die.
CIA overthrows Sukarno, supplies list of known communist, half a million die.
CIA overthrows Allende, thousands die.
US attempts to overthrow Sandinista, trains & equips Contras, hundreds of thousands die.
US protects it's little right-wing regime in El Salvador, tens of thousands die.
US invades Vietnam, 3 Million die.
US invades Iraq, hundreds of thousands die.

And these are just the highlights of the last half century.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[cm]

STR: You may want to give "Gorbie" more credit -- he tried the only realistic option, incremental introduction of checks and balances into a huge system of entrenched big-picture as well as petty corruption. It did not work, but it wasn't quite "preserving the dictatorship".

What large organization have you ever singlehandedly revolutionized?

[cm]

Don Quijote: Yeah, but "we are the good guys". That's different!

[Don Quijote]

Don Quijote: Yeah, but "we are the good guys". That's different!

I sure the widows and orphans understand that it was for the greater good.

[cm]

It was meant in a sarcastic way.

[Lafayette]

Gorby: We can expect a serious debate about foreign policy issues, including the role of the United States in the world; America's claim to global leadership; fighting terrorism; nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction; ... the problems caused by the invasion of Iraq..., the size of America's defense budget and the militarization of its foreign policy.

Seems like Gorby wants to get a few licks in whilst the getting is good.

The present condition of American foreign policy is the consequence of a rogue group of neo-cons, including our Compassionate Conservative of a Lead-head Leader. When they are out in January of next year, either of two things will happen.

Obama will do to the Pentagon budget what Billy-boy did. Or, John-John will take over thinking its his plaything and the budget will remain a heavy burden on the American public, effectively thwarting any possibility of fundamentally changing internal policies to better the well-being of America and Americans.

The latter happens when military-bent demagogues take over a country. American should never forget that these people should be brought out of the closet only in times of war, and at all other times peacemaking is ultimately the better alternative to avoid that such be a necessity.

America could have done EVERYTHING necessary to fight al Qaida, which is a popular notion in most countries as regards terrorism. In fact, that is the case today as linkage between the various national Intelligence Agencies has been renewed and strengthened to be made to function more adequately.

But, lead-head made a terrible mistake of confusing al Qaida with Iraq. And, he did so not over terrorism but out of revenge for Hussein trying to assassinate his father in Kuwait, with also the probable notion that it would be great to get his hands on the words second larges oil reserves.

Iraq is all about OIL, with a veneer of media-hyped "Bringing Iraqis Liberty". Which is something they wont know what to do with for decades to come.

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1DE103AF933A25752C1A96F958260&pagewanted=print

November 10, 1999

Mr. Gorbachev's Role

The Berlin Wall was bound to fall eventually. But that it came down as bloodlessly as it did 10 years ago this week is largely a tribute to one leader. Today Mikhail Gorbachev is a political pariah in Russia and increasingly forgotten in the West. But history will remember him generously for his crucial role in ending the cold war and pulling back the Iron Curtain that Stalin drew across Europe in 1945.

Liquidating the Soviet empire was not what Mr. Gorbachev had in mind when he came to power in 1985. He was shrewd enough to recognize that radical changes were urgently needed to stave off economic and political bankruptcy in Russia and its European satellites. But he vainly imagined that the demoralized, terrorized and lawless society created by Stalin and stifled by Leonid Brezhnev could be reformed in an orderly, controlled way in which the government set the pace of change.

Once Mr. Gorbachev lifted the lid with the openness of glasnost and the attempted economic restructuring of perestroika, change took on a dynamic of its own. Similar energies were unleashed in the once-captive nations of Eastern Europe as it became clear that he would not send Soviet tanks to bail out the unpopular client regimes that had held sway there since World War II.

As political pressures began to build in the late 1980's, Mr. Gorbachev was left with two options. He could hurtle ahead toward full political and economic freedom. Or he could reverse course and crack down, as so many previous Soviet leaders had done. He chose to do neither. He was too much a creature of his Soviet Communist upbringing to subject his own power to the test of electoral democracy. But he was too enlightened to unleash the kind of thorough repression that might have preserved the Soviet empire for a few more years.

Others stepped in to accelerate the transformations Mr. Gorbachev had begun, and in 1989 the fixtures of the Soviet empire began to crumble. Free elections in Poland brought the once-banned Solidarity union to a share of government power. Hungary opened its borders to the West, and Eastern Europeans streamed through. In November, with East Germans demonstrating in several cities, the Berlin Wall was breached. Before the year ended, Czechoslovakia had had its peaceful Velvet Revolution, and violent clashes had toppled Romania's Communist tyrant.

Through it all, Mr. Gorbachev and his like-minded foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, stayed their hand, reflecting not only their idealism about reshaping East-West relations but also a pragmatic calculation that the Soviet Union could no longer afford an empire. For permitting its dissolution, Mr. Gorbachev paid a high price. Within two years he had been pushed from power in Moscow. The first blow came from a failed military coup that aimed to undo his changes. The second and decisive shove came from Boris Yeltsin, a more radical though less scrupulous reformer, bold enough to do what Mr. Gorbachev would not.

History has passed Mr. Gorbachev by. But this week, especially, he deserves to be remembered for what he did and, perhaps more important, what he refused to do. With a wisdom and decency that is sadly rare in international power politics, he chose not to defend a dying system with a final, futile spasm of murderous force.

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E6DB1F3CF932A1575AC0A96F958260

September 21, 1999

Raisa Gorbachev, the Chic Soviet First Lady of the Glasnost Era
By CELESTINE BOHLEN

Raisa Maksimovna Gorbachev, who broke Kremlin tradition by sharing the spotlight with her husband, the former Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, and did so with bold self-assurance and flair, died today in Munster, Germany....

Mr. Gorbachev's rise to the leadership of the Communist Party in 1985 was the first sign of a seismic shift in the Soviet Union's calcified politics and economy. But it was Raisa Gorbachev who, both at home and abroad, soon came to embody the changes to come. She emerged as a First Lady who had her own mind, her own style....

None of this endeared her to the Soviet public, who began to grumble early in her husband's tenure that she was too pushy, too flashy and too influential. Her appearances on foreign trips and her cultural projects at home stirred debate in many Russian kitchens over whether the proper place for Kremlin wives was -- as it had always been -- at home, or at least in the background.

But since the beginning of this month, when Russians first learned that their former First Lady had been hospitalized in Germany with an advanced and rare case of leukemia, sentiments toward her in Russia began to shift. Favorable articles began to appear in the press, and thousands of letters and telegrams of sympathy arrived at the hospital in Munster, where her husband kept a faithful vigil that touched many Russian hearts....

President Boris N. Yeltsin, Mr. Gorbachev's bitter rival in the early 1990's, sent a message of condolence today, and in a statement he said that a ''wonderful person, a beautiful woman, a loving wife and mother is no longer with us.''

In his autobiography, published in 1996, Mr. Gorbachev acknowledged that the resentment over his wife's high profile surfaced in letters written to the Communist Party's Central Committee. ''Who does she think she is, a member of the Politburo?'' he quoted one as saying. ''The simplest answer would have been: 'No, she is my wife.' ''

She first became known in the West in 1984 when she accompanied her husband, then a ranking member of the Soviet Politburo, to Britain, where they were received by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Diplomats and reporters, scanning the couple for clues about the next generation of Soviet leaders, quickly focused up on her wardrobe -- in particular her gold lame sandals with chain straps, a far cry from the dowdy shoes worn by other Kremlin wives. On a later trip to France, the French press labeled her clothes ''elegant, but not chic.''

On her foreign travels, she also became known for a haughty conversational style that bordered on the pedantic. During the 1986 summit meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, she needled her tour guides with persistent questioning, adding didactic commentary of her own. Visiting the United States for the first time in 1987, she irked Nancy Reagan with lectures on subjects ranging from architecture to socialism, reportedly prompting the American President's wife to quip, ''Who does that dame think she is?''

As she became more comfortable in her role as the Soviet First Lady, she loosened up and her wardrobe became more subdued. On a visit to Washington in 1990, she established more friendly relations with Barbara Bush, from whom she got a recipe for blueberry pie.

Born in the Siberian city of Rubtsovsk, Raisa Titarenko grew up as the daughter of a railway engineer. She graduated from school with a gold medal -- top honors in the Soviet system -- and went on to the prestigious University of Moscow. She was studying philosophy there when she met Mr. Gorbachev, then a law student. According to his book, he was smitten, but she was aloof.

''Our first meeting had not impressed Raisa at all,'' he wrote. ''She seemed calm and indifferent -- judging by the look in her eyes.'' Not much later, at an impromptu party staged by Mr. Gorbachev's roommates for Raisa and her friends, ''I wanted to impress her,'' he wrote, but ''I think I made a terrible fool of myself. She was reserved and was the first to suggest breaking up the gathering.''

After an intense courtship, the two penniless students were married in 1953, the year of Stalin's death. They had one daughter, Irina, born in 1956, who survives her along with Mr. Gorbachev and two granddaughters.

After the couple completed their college work in 1955, the family returned to Mr. Gorbachev's home region of Stavropol in southern Russia. There Mrs. Gorbachev completed a doctoral dissertation, entitled ''The Emergence of New Characteristics in the Daily Life of Collective Farm Peasantry,'' based on an unusual amount of field research, which was accepted by the Lenin Pedagogical Institute in Moscow.

When her husband, then first party secretary in Stavropol, was promoted to Moscow as a Central Committee secretary in charge of agriculture, she returned to academics, taking a job as lecturer in philosophy at Moscow University, a position which she gave up when he became General Secretary of the Communist Party.

As the wife of the Soviet leader, she was enlisted as a board member of the Soviet Cultural Foundation, headed by Dmitri S. Likhachev, one of Russia's most distinguished academicians, which was created to promote the arts and to restore the country's cultural heritage.

In this role, she became one of her husband's conduits to the Russian intelligentsia, which was then rallying to his call for more ''glasnost,'' or openness. As Soviet censorship eased, the Soviet people rushed to rediscover books and parts of their own history that had been buried under a rigid Communist ideology.

Mrs. Gorbachev's most traumatic moments came during the August 1991 coup, when the Gorbachevs were held hostage at a seaside villa in the Crimea while a group of Communist hard-liners tried to seize control in Moscow. The coup failed, and Mr. Gorbachev and his family returned to Moscow, visibly shaken. ''Raisa Maksimovna took it very hard,'' said Mr. Gorbachev at a news conference after their return to Moscow.

In 1991, Raisa Gorbachev published a book of reminiscences, entitled in English, ''I Hope,'' which she decided to write after a visit with Mrs. Bush in 1990 to Wellesley College where, she said, ''the girls showered me with questions.'' ...

In her last years, Mrs. Gorbachev started a club that drew together a dozen well-known and high-powered Russian women for conferences, charitable projects and informal debates. She described the group as an attempt to promote a civil society in Russia. Against her wishes, the club became known as the Raisa Maksimovna Club.

Lyudmila Telen, a deputy editor at the newspaper Moscow News and a member of the club, said her impressions of Mrs. Gorbachev changed as she got to know her better. ''She set herself very high goals -- she felt she had to improve herself,'' said Ms. Telen. ''Going from wife of a provincial first secretary to First Lady was a big jump.

''She wanted to represent the country in a new way. She understood that what Mikhail Sergeyevich was doing was a revolution, but she had many complexes, too -- a natural reserve and a Soviet way of behavior that she tried to overcome.'' ...

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E6DB1F3CF932A1575AC0A96F958260

After an intense courtship, the two penniless students were married in 1953, the year of Stalin's death....

[Lyudmila] Telen said Mrs. Gorbachev was well aware of the resentment against her felt by many Russians. But she herself was never bitter. ''She realized that people had been used to different women, different traditions, different leaders,'' said Ms. Telen. ''She understood it. It hurt her of course, but I never heard her be mean or bitter about it.''

As a couple, the Gorbachevs shared interests in philosophy and literature, theater and politics. Mr. Gorbachev on several occasions acknowledged that he often turned to his wife for advice. In his book, he recalled how the two would have their most serious discussions in the garden of their Government-provided apartment, beyond the earshot of K.G.B. eavesdropping devices.

Their close relationship was the envy of their friends. At a dinner in Paris in the fall of 1985, her host said she confided: ''I am very lucky with Mikhail. We are really friends, or if you prefer, we have great complicity.''

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, when Mr. Yeltsin took over Mr. Gorbachev's office in the Kremlin, he became a political pariah in Russia, widely blamed for ushering in reforms that led to a decade of political and economic instability.

After a disastrous run for the presidency in 1996, he maintained a low profile at home, while Mrs. Gorbachev, who accompanied him on the international lecture circuit, became practically invisible....

[save_the_rustbelt]

Given that I am busy enjoying my gardens and battling weeds I only have time for quick comments. Anyone who wants more details should try the old fashioned approach like I did, read a dozen books or so on REagan and Gorby (my fingers have trouble typing the full name, Gorby is easier).

"It is Reagan that is a hero for rejecting the advice of his conservative political advisers and dealing openly and realistically with the reformers in the USSR."

No liberals that I know.

After Gorby was in power five years or so, if I remember all of those books, the USSR returned to food rationing similar to the WWII program. Gorby had little choice but to liberalize.

[ScentOfViolets]

But, the economics weigh heavily in favor of dismantling the military-industrial complex. The U.S. cannot afford even this modest fraction of GDP, when the U.S. has no savings rate, and has to borrow every dollar it spends in Iraq; when every dollar spent on oil drains completely out of the U.S. economy, to people fundamentally hostile to U.S. interests.

The military-industrial complex is well-organized to resist politically, but there are very real, and readily apparent economic interests shared broadly, that need that money. A determined Administration can lead and motivate those broadly shared interests.

I wouldn't say these people are fundamentally hostile; just that they are under no obligation to pursue the interests of the U.S. as the expense of their own. But those pots of money the military gets every year are an interesting prize; it strikes me that even half of that money would solve a lot of domestic problems. And let's face it: except for all-out naked aggression to pursue short-term interests that benefit only a few people, the military as a twenty-first century institution is rather antiquated. This isn't the nineteenth century, where boots on the ground can conquer a foreign country and sequester its resources by main force for a century or so.

Expect to see that as a question to be addressed sometime in the next fifty years or so by the American people. (I confess, I'm one of those people who think most of the taxes collected go to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the middle class.) Do you want trillions of dollars to go abroad to fight endless, nasty, and ultimately pointless wars of imperial aggression, or do you want to see those dollars spent at home on capital improvements?

[Cynthia]

I think I can safely say that there's no ScentOfViolets in Rusty's garden.

[JV]

Gorbachev! Gorbachev! Are you kidding me? I thought he was dead years ago. Is that the plan for the change people? They are going to drag guys from the Cold War back from the old folks home to comment on events from 2003 when everybody was talking about American Empire.

Quick, somebody go tell the man what year it is!

[Julio]

anne says...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1DE103AF933A25752C1A96F958260&pagewanted=print

November 10, 1999

Mr. Gorbachev's Role

The Berlin Wall was bound to fall eventually. But that it came down as bloodlessly as it did 10 years ago this week is largely a tribute to one leader. Today Mikhail Gorbachev is a political pariah in Russia and increasingly forgotten in the West. But history will remember him generously for his crucial role in ending the cold war and pulling back the Iron Curtain that Stalin drew across Europe in 1945.

...

History has passed Mr. Gorbachev by. But this week, especially, he deserves to be remembered for what he did and, perhaps more important, what he refused to do. With a wisdom and decency that is sadly rare in international power politics, he chose not to defend a dying system with a final, futile spasm of murderous force.

And there you have it -- why Gorbachev will remain this liberal's darling.

When the time came to shoot his people or not, he stood on the side of the angels.

Every argument ever used for bloodshed was true, in spades, in his case. Preserving social order. Preventing the reactonary elements from staging a coup. Maintaining the rule of law.

But he stood on the side of the angels.

[Julio Santayana]

JV says...

Gorbachev! Gorbachev! Are you kidding me? I thought he was dead years ago. Is that the plan for the change people? They are going to drag guys from the Cold War back from the old folks home to comment on events from 2003 when everybody was talking about American Empire.

Quick, somebody go tell the man what year it is!

Gorbachev? Wasn't he tied to that other guy, Saddam something-or-other? No wait! He was Grover Cleveland's running mate, right?

I need to watch more Jeopardy...

[Bruce Wilder]

2003 is ancient history, and Gorbachev is equivalent to Stalin. Novel assessments, and so subtle!

[mik]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1DE103AF933A25752C1A96F958260&pagewanted=print

November 10, 1999

Mr. Gorbachev's Role

The Berlin Wall was bound to fall eventually.

NYT or, like I lovingly call it, Duranty Times after their ace reporter who worshiped Stalin while Stalin starved millions in Ukraine, has tons of chutzpah.

If it would be up to the Duranty Times, they would have merged West Germany into GDR and renamed the wall into Wall of Vicrorious Proletariat.

[evagrius]

"Of COURSE Russia's Ex is on the political path to rhetorically question America's continued investment in a strong, capable, alert and proud armed forces whose integrity is THE gold-standard world wide for what an Armed Forces can and should be."

Abu Ghraib="THE gold-standard world wide for what an Armed Forces can and should be."

[anne]

"I wonder what Russky people know that American liberal bolvany do not."

"Bolvan ty yest', bolvanom ty ostanish'sya."

"NYT or, like I lovingly call it, Duranty Times after their ace reporter who worshiped Stalin while Stalin starved millions in Ukraine, has tons of chutzpah."

Over and over and over and over and over.

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1DE103AF933A25752C1A96F958260&pagewanted=print

November 10, 1999

Mr. Gorbachev's Role

The Berlin Wall was bound to fall eventually. But that it came down as bloodlessly as it did 10 years ago this week is largely a tribute to one leader. Today Mikhail Gorbachev is a political pariah in Russia and increasingly forgotten in the West. But history will remember him generously for his crucial role in ending the cold war and pulling back the Iron Curtain that Stalin drew across Europe in 1945....

"If it would be up to the Duranty Times, they would have merged West Germany into GDR and renamed the wall into Wall of Victorious Proletariat."

Over and over and over and over and over.

[anne]

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1990/presentation-speech.html

October 15, 1990
Presentation Speech

By Gidske Anderson

Your Royal Highnesses, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

This year's Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has made this award in recognition of the leading role he has played in the radical changes that have taken place in East-West relations. President Gorbachev has undoubtedly cooperated with other persons and other nations. But we recognise quite clearly that his manifold personal contributions and his efforts on behalf of the Soviet Union have proved decisive. For this reason the Nobel Committee has in 1990 decided to honour him.

We are experiencing dramatic changes in a world that is still rent with conflict. Nevertheless, we also have clear evidence that a peace process has started. East and West, the two mighty power blocs, have managed to abandon their life-threatening confrontation and have, instead, embarked on the long and patient road to cooperation on the basis of negotiation. The task now is to create a peaceful framework for the far-reaching transformation which will inevitably continue to take place in our part of the world.

We have already seen the fruits of this new climate between East and West.

Ancient European nations, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and now East Germany too, have regained their freedom and have, for better or for worse, assumed responsibility for their own national destiny. Even though this process of detente still has its problems and is yet not terminated in all parts of our continent of Europe, it is nevertheless possible today, maybe for the first time in many hundreds of years, to envisage a Europe of the people and, we hope, also a Europe at peace.

This is due not least to the fact that the armaments race is ebbing out in our part of the globe.

In mistrust and fear this race has been going on for close on half a century. The result has been a terrifying waste of intellectual and material resources on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Here too, we now at last see a change.

Comprehensive negotiations, bilateral as well as multilateral, accompanied by concrete and realistic compromise, have led to a process involving substantial reductions in standing armies and death-dealing armaments. Within the last few months disarmament agreements have been reached which are without parallel in our part of the world, in this or indeed in previous centuries.

In making this year's award of the Peace Prize, the Nobel Committee wishes to emphasise the tremendous potential which is now available for a more secure world, and for a more responsible and rational use of our resources.

The way in which confrontation has been replaced by cooperation has also had its consequences in other parts of the world. Several regional conflicts have been resolved, or at least come closer to a solution. The uncompromising attitude of the Cold War has given way to a pattern of negotiation, in which the interests and responsibility of the regional communities themselves have replaced old ideological considerations, or the all-too-often ruthless laws of the balance of power.

These changes have given the United Nations a new lease of life: for the first time since its creation after the Second World War this organisation has been able to play the role for which it was originally intended. It can now start to exercise its supremely important responsibility for the creation of an international community based on the rule of law and the establishment of peace between nations.

The award this year of the Peace Prize to the President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, is an historic event not least because some of the previous awards made by our Committee - for example to the great champion of human rights Andrei Sakharov in 1975, and to the trade union leader Lech Walesa in 1983 - were received with cool hostility in the Soviet Union and in Poland at the time, involving the rejection, in these countries, of all that the Norwegian Nobel Committee stood for. On these grounds too the award constitutes a landmark. The Norwegian Nobel Committee considers that there is thus a historical link between today's event and December 10th, 1975, and 1983, which augurs well for the future....

[anne]

Julio:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1DE103AF933A25752C1A96F958260&pagewanted=print

"History has passed Mr. Gorbachev by. But this week, especially, he deserves to be remembered for what he did and, perhaps more important, what he refused to do. With a wisdom and decency that is sadly rare in international power politics, he chose not to defend a dying system with a final, futile spasm of murderous force."

"And there you have it -- why Gorbachev will remain this liberal's darling.

"When the time came to shoot his people or not, he stood on the side of the angels.

"Every argument ever used for bloodshed was true, in spades, in his case. Preserving social order. Preventing the reactonary elements from staging a coup. Maintaining the rule of law.

"But he stood on the side of the angels."

[Barkley Rosser]

Gorbachev is unpopular in Russia because his actions brought about the end of the Soviet Union, not those of Ronald Reagan. No, the Berlin Wall did not need to fall. It could still be standing if Victor Grishin had won the 5-4 vote in the Politburo at the death of Chernenko. It was Gromyko who put Gorbachev over, stating that "he has iron teeth." It was Chernobyl that pushed Gorbachev into active glasnost and perestroika policies that led to the end of the USSR, much mourned by many Russians, if not Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Georgians, and so on.

To those who think the Berlin Wall was going to fall no matter what, think about China.

[baileyman]

Not to worry. Roughly 70% of US families are effectively bankrupt, adding in housing losses to equilibrium and future delta fuel cost liabilities. This population will not be able to be taxed. This government will have to do differently.

[mik]

baileyman says...

Not to worry. Roughly 70% of US families are effectively bankrupt,

I like your optimism. But do you have reference to your number?

[baileyman]

That's the 04 fed chartbook, wealth by income cohort, and income distribution, assuming $100k housing overvaluation at peak and PV housing energy expense delta = $50k.

[Lafayette]

JS: I need to watch more Jeopardy...

Yep, where Middle America gets "edge-a-kayshun"

[mik]

That's the 04 fed chartbook, wealth by income cohort, and income distribution, assuming $100k housing overvaluation at peak and PV housing energy expense delta = $50k.

$100K housing overvaluation is your assertion.
It is reckless to say the least to assert housing overvaluation to 2004. If anything housing prices in 2004 are lower than fair valuation today.

What you have here is an ideology based drive-by comment based on half-baked thought and wrong data.

[Lafayette]

mik: What you have here is an ideology based drive-by comment based on half-baked thought and wrong data.

Oh? And the three million families who will lose their homes, after all is said and done about the sub-prime mess, and a great deal of their personal net worth; that is "half-baked" and "wrong data"?

What planet do you live on?

[Latasha Hudson]

i am a young girl wondering what tomorrow will lead to. to day n my u.s. hstory class we were assigned to take a stand weather we were for or against imperialism. i am against. i think us ruling would be nice but it is not fair. what if wwe allowed china to rule over us even though they are one of the major trade centers, what would it be like? well i can give you an idea. we would learn their language and be under a dictator or become an monarchy. we will no longer be a democracy.i mean what about everything that we have worked for.will it all be no use? we might even go back to slavery. who really know.the constitution, bill of rights, even the core democratc values will be destroyed meanng everything we have worked and stood for will be demolshed.this is what will happen if we become an empire. we are complaining about the expences going towards the war if we were to become an empire we will really be in for it. and social classes mght night even matter anymore. everyone might just be poor. we can spend thee money that was post to be used to go forward the wars on our chldren and their education. they are the future.OBAMA I BELEIVE IN YoU YOU WILL CHANGE FOR tHE GOOD>,,,THANK YOU