What do you think?
Rate this book
Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope
The author of the bestselling Blowback Trilogy reflects on America's waning power in a masterful collection of essays
In his prophetic book "Blowback," published before 9/11, Chalmers Johnson warned that our secret operations in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe would exact a price at home. Now, in a brilliant series of essays written over the last three years, Johnson measures that price and the resulting dangers America faces. Our reliance on Pentagon economics, a global empire of bases, and war without end is, he declares, nothing short of "a suicide option."
"Dismantling the Empire" explores the subjects for which Johnson is now famous, from the origins of blowback to Barack Obama's Afghanistan conundrum, including our inept spies, our bad behavior in other countries, our ill-fought wars, and our capitulation to a military that has taken ever more control of the federal budget. There is, he proposes, only one way out: President Obama must begin to dismantle the empire before the Pentagon dismantles the American Dream. If we do not learn from the fates of past empires, he suggests, our decline and fall are foreordained. This is Johnson at his best: delivering both a warning and an urgent prescription for a remedy.
In his prophetic book "Blowback," published before 9/11, Chalmers Johnson warned that our secret operations in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe would exact a price at home. Now, in a brilliant series of essays written over the last three years, Johnson measures that price and the resulting dangers America faces. Our reliance on Pentagon economics, a global empire of bases, and war without end is, he declares, nothing short of "a suicide option."
"Dismantling the Empire" explores the subjects for which Johnson is now famous, from the origins of blowback to Barack Obama's Afghanistan conundrum, including our inept spies, our bad behavior in other countries, our ill-fought wars, and our capitulation to a military that has taken ever more control of the federal budget. There is, he proposes, only one way out: President Obama must begin to dismantle the empire before the Pentagon dismantles the American Dream. If we do not learn from the fates of past empires, he suggests, our decline and fall are foreordained. This is Johnson at his best: delivering both a warning and an urgent prescription for a remedy.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2010
30 people are currently reading
925 people want to read
About the author
Chalmers Johnson
41 books159 followersChalmers Ashby Johnson was an American author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. He fought in the Korean war, from 1967-1973 was a consultant for the CIA, and ran the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California, Berkeley for years. He was also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, an organization promoting public education about Japan and Asia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
October 22, 2010
This was very good – I was expecting it to be pretty much a repeat of everything said in his Blowback series (and, to be honest, there was some of that) but there was also enough new and interesting material to keep me reading. The part I enjoyed the most was the reference to Legacy of Ashes (a book I’ve now started reading, even though I don’t really have time and already think is a must read, absolutely amazing).
His argument is that the US has basically two options on its road forward: one is give up its military bases and forget about continuing its empire and the other is to continue as is, which he refers to as the suicide option brought about by the inevitable bankruptcy of the US.
He makes the interesting point that empires generally start off in their expansionist phase as creditor nations and fail when they become debtor nations. The US, as the world’s largest debtor nation, is by this measure due for a reversal of its Imperial pretentions. He believes the ‘world’s sole superpower’ status is simply not sustainable – particularly not now with the EU being the world’s largest economic block and China fast catching up. That Obama has said repeatedly that retaining American dominance is the unquestioned assumption of US foreign policy is disturbing in that it ignores economic and geopolitical realities. With both sides of American politics determined to increase US imperial reach, it looks like suicide is increasingly the only likely outcome.
Given there are, at the lower estimates, 750-1000 US bases on foreign soil (no one knows for sure how many as the US military doesn’t do democracy) and these have half-a-million US citizens housed in them the costs of sustaining this presence in dollar terms must be staggering. In other terms, these bases do much to destroy internationally the image the US likes to project of itself.
His discussion of the US military’s history of sexual assault of both women in its services and of the local populations around US military bases ought to be a national shame, but like virtually everything else about the US military remains grossly under-reported.
He repeats again the problem of a country with 5% of the world’s population hording 25% of the world’s wealth. Such inequities require a wilful blindness on behalf of those benefiting. However, in no sense does the US population gain an equal share of this booty. The overwhelming majority of US citizens receive remarkably little benefit from this gorging of the world’s resources. His assertion is that the US will not be able to sustain a repressive empire in the rest of the world while having a domestic democracy could prove to be a prophesy as striking as his prophesy of 9/11 proved to be in his first book.
He makes the curiously point that both of the other large empires of the 20th century (the British and Soviet) crashed while fighting in Afghanistan. Britain was defeated three times there and the USSR crashed in remarkably similar fashion. He points out the US has learnt nothing from the mistakes of the British and Soviet invasions and is pursuing its own invasion in the same way, making all the same mistakes and with likely identical outcomes.
Any war that requires the increasing suspension and removal of democratic rights(as the endless war on terror does) needs the closest of scrutiny – in a week when Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan was ‘debated’ in parliament (with politicians from both sides falling over themselves to gleefully continue committing our troops to fighting a war we have no business fighting) and in a week where we have been told Australian troops will remain in Afghanistan for another decade at the very least, it is time for the Australian public to question our nation's role as cheerleader for American imperial overstretch.
His argument is that the US has basically two options on its road forward: one is give up its military bases and forget about continuing its empire and the other is to continue as is, which he refers to as the suicide option brought about by the inevitable bankruptcy of the US.
He makes the interesting point that empires generally start off in their expansionist phase as creditor nations and fail when they become debtor nations. The US, as the world’s largest debtor nation, is by this measure due for a reversal of its Imperial pretentions. He believes the ‘world’s sole superpower’ status is simply not sustainable – particularly not now with the EU being the world’s largest economic block and China fast catching up. That Obama has said repeatedly that retaining American dominance is the unquestioned assumption of US foreign policy is disturbing in that it ignores economic and geopolitical realities. With both sides of American politics determined to increase US imperial reach, it looks like suicide is increasingly the only likely outcome.
Given there are, at the lower estimates, 750-1000 US bases on foreign soil (no one knows for sure how many as the US military doesn’t do democracy) and these have half-a-million US citizens housed in them the costs of sustaining this presence in dollar terms must be staggering. In other terms, these bases do much to destroy internationally the image the US likes to project of itself.
His discussion of the US military’s history of sexual assault of both women in its services and of the local populations around US military bases ought to be a national shame, but like virtually everything else about the US military remains grossly under-reported.
He repeats again the problem of a country with 5% of the world’s population hording 25% of the world’s wealth. Such inequities require a wilful blindness on behalf of those benefiting. However, in no sense does the US population gain an equal share of this booty. The overwhelming majority of US citizens receive remarkably little benefit from this gorging of the world’s resources. His assertion is that the US will not be able to sustain a repressive empire in the rest of the world while having a domestic democracy could prove to be a prophesy as striking as his prophesy of 9/11 proved to be in his first book.
He makes the curiously point that both of the other large empires of the 20th century (the British and Soviet) crashed while fighting in Afghanistan. Britain was defeated three times there and the USSR crashed in remarkably similar fashion. He points out the US has learnt nothing from the mistakes of the British and Soviet invasions and is pursuing its own invasion in the same way, making all the same mistakes and with likely identical outcomes.
Any war that requires the increasing suspension and removal of democratic rights(as the endless war on terror does) needs the closest of scrutiny – in a week when Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan was ‘debated’ in parliament (with politicians from both sides falling over themselves to gleefully continue committing our troops to fighting a war we have no business fighting) and in a week where we have been told Australian troops will remain in Afghanistan for another decade at the very least, it is time for the Australian public to question our nation's role as cheerleader for American imperial overstretch.
September 19, 2010
The low rating is not because I disagree with what Johnson is saying. On the contrary, I admit that I picked up this book so that it can reconfirm my own standing on the issue, that is, we need to roll back the empire before it brings about our demise. No orchestrating military coups, no manipulating foreign governments, no wars, no regime changes, no military bases anywhere in the world, no military interventions even for humanitarian reasons, no taking side in other countries’ conflicts, no pushing democracy and human rights down other nations’ throats, no writing other nations’ constitutions, no taking a country and trying to remake it into a shining example for its region, no allowing large corporations to dictate our foreign policy for their profit, no being held hostage to our giant and blood-sucking leech of a military-industrial complex. You get the picture. Just mind our own business and fix our own problems. If after this, anybody messes with us, we go in, topple their government, kill their leaders, decimate their military, destroy their economy, and then get out. No liberal and neoconservative nation-building and winning-minds-and-hearts pipe dreams.
This book is not a book. Johnson has thrown together a bunch of essays written over a span of years, and as a result, it lacks cohesion and direction, and is annoyingly repetitive. I don’t know Johnson, but he comes off as an anti-imperialist, anti-military leftist. That may be fine to some, but it makes the book a political polemic, not a presentation of hard facts showing that it’s in our own interest to liquidate the empire voluntarily, like the British did, if we want to survive as a prosperous, democratic, and virtuous nation.
This book is not a book. Johnson has thrown together a bunch of essays written over a span of years, and as a result, it lacks cohesion and direction, and is annoyingly repetitive. I don’t know Johnson, but he comes off as an anti-imperialist, anti-military leftist. That may be fine to some, but it makes the book a political polemic, not a presentation of hard facts showing that it’s in our own interest to liquidate the empire voluntarily, like the British did, if we want to survive as a prosperous, democratic, and virtuous nation.
February 16, 2016
Looking for the philosophical underpinnings of the necessity for U.S. leadership in the world, I came to Chalmers Johnson through Perry Anderson’s book, America’s Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers. This series of essays Johnson wrote from 2004 through 2009 for TomDispatch.com, a website that features very loud criticisms of the government (and everything else), mainly describe Johnson’s distaste for U.S. militarism around the world, including massive numbers of bases on foreign soil. About three-quarters of the way through these repetitive essays I was exhausted with Johnson’s shrill argument. He has an academic’s surety of the correctness of his own ingrown opinions. That’s not to say I disagreed with him completely.
First, I learned a few things that I didn’t know before: I wasn’t aware, for instance, that the CIA has largely outsourced the operations part of its intelligence collection. Why then, I wonder, does Republican candidate for President Marco Rubio spout on about “increasing the size of the CIA to improve intelligence”? If intelligence collection is run largely outside the Agency, that would just put more power and money into the hands of the corporations that do the work, e.g., Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) headquartered in San Diego, Booz Allen Hamilton, and CACI International.
I knew protection and fighting (to some extent) had been outsourced. I wasn’t aware that intelligence was outsourced, though I would have thought that was a “neat idea.” I agree with Johnson that the CIA should be dismantled, but some intelligence can and should still be collected, compiled, and analyzed. If large corporations are merely recreating an extensive bureaucracy that mirror what the government did in the past but at greater cost and less accountability, it doesn’t seem such a wise idea. We would have even less oversight and guarantee of institutional depth and knowledge. Certainly there have been documented abuses by these groups during Iraq’s Abu Ghraib chapter which indicate problems with execution of U.S. intentions, and adherence to U.S. values. Johnson’s proposition is worth considering: that we leave intelligence analysis within the purview of the State Department, and collection within the myriad other organizations set up now to do that very thing.
Another thing Johnson has pointed out which I did not know is that most countries in Latin and South America (and South Korea!) apparently loathe America and want nothing to do with their military bases or anything else. Johnson says it is a result of people in those countries learning of “dirty tricks” played there by U.S. agents in the past to influence elections and business decisions. Abuses committed by the CIA have largely been tasked to them by the White House in various administrations, which just goes to show that power, especially secret power without oversight, can have a pernicious effect on values.
Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter (1977-81), whose books I have reviewed lately, was so focused on Russian containment during the lead up to Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, that Brzezinski ordered the sale of arms, missile launchers, defensive weapons, etc. to the Afghan mujahideen, which gradually evolved into Al Qaeda’s strongest allies and foot soldiers there. A number of other secret coups and involvements by the CIA have changed the course of many countries’ histories, usually for the worse. We have to ask ourselves if the outcomes had been equally bad without our involvement, would that justify those illicit actions on behalf of our government? I think it is just wiser to stay on the side of our values.
It is easy to forget that the United States only created the CIA in 1947 after WWII as a result of the successes of the OSS behind enemy lines. A recent film by the son of CIA Director William Colby, “The Man Nobody Knew: In Search of My Father, CIA Spymaster William Colby” (2011), dramatically illustrates the origins and almost immediate problems issuing from secrets created and held at the highest levels, to say nothing of the enormous damage done by double agents. We owe the organization nothing. We tried it and it did not work well. There is no reason we must perpetuate a bureaucracy that fails so spectacularly (witness the exquisite failures of the organization under the leadership of George Tenet during Bush II). Johnson reminds us that Tim Weiner spent twenty years researching the CIA for his book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, which I suppose I need to read before I condemn their bones to the dust heap of history. That’s next up, along with Johnson’s earlier trilogy starting with Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, his bestseller originally published in the year 2000. It has gone into a second edition, with updates dating to 2003.
In closing, I wish Johnson was less of an academic in his writing and more of a reasoned scholar, if all he is going to do is talk about what needs to be done. If he were making the decisions, I wonder how he would manage. I dislike his tone intensely, even when I agree he has made a point. And I heartily disagree with his notion that Andrew Bacevich, another slaphappy and shrill academic, should be Secretary of Defense. If that’s the best he can come up with, may he retread old arguments ad nauseam to his band of the converted.
First, I learned a few things that I didn’t know before: I wasn’t aware, for instance, that the CIA has largely outsourced the operations part of its intelligence collection. Why then, I wonder, does Republican candidate for President Marco Rubio spout on about “increasing the size of the CIA to improve intelligence”? If intelligence collection is run largely outside the Agency, that would just put more power and money into the hands of the corporations that do the work, e.g., Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) headquartered in San Diego, Booz Allen Hamilton, and CACI International.
I knew protection and fighting (to some extent) had been outsourced. I wasn’t aware that intelligence was outsourced, though I would have thought that was a “neat idea.” I agree with Johnson that the CIA should be dismantled, but some intelligence can and should still be collected, compiled, and analyzed. If large corporations are merely recreating an extensive bureaucracy that mirror what the government did in the past but at greater cost and less accountability, it doesn’t seem such a wise idea. We would have even less oversight and guarantee of institutional depth and knowledge. Certainly there have been documented abuses by these groups during Iraq’s Abu Ghraib chapter which indicate problems with execution of U.S. intentions, and adherence to U.S. values. Johnson’s proposition is worth considering: that we leave intelligence analysis within the purview of the State Department, and collection within the myriad other organizations set up now to do that very thing.
Another thing Johnson has pointed out which I did not know is that most countries in Latin and South America (and South Korea!) apparently loathe America and want nothing to do with their military bases or anything else. Johnson says it is a result of people in those countries learning of “dirty tricks” played there by U.S. agents in the past to influence elections and business decisions. Abuses committed by the CIA have largely been tasked to them by the White House in various administrations, which just goes to show that power, especially secret power without oversight, can have a pernicious effect on values.
Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter (1977-81), whose books I have reviewed lately, was so focused on Russian containment during the lead up to Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, that Brzezinski ordered the sale of arms, missile launchers, defensive weapons, etc. to the Afghan mujahideen, which gradually evolved into Al Qaeda’s strongest allies and foot soldiers there. A number of other secret coups and involvements by the CIA have changed the course of many countries’ histories, usually for the worse. We have to ask ourselves if the outcomes had been equally bad without our involvement, would that justify those illicit actions on behalf of our government? I think it is just wiser to stay on the side of our values.
It is easy to forget that the United States only created the CIA in 1947 after WWII as a result of the successes of the OSS behind enemy lines. A recent film by the son of CIA Director William Colby, “The Man Nobody Knew: In Search of My Father, CIA Spymaster William Colby” (2011), dramatically illustrates the origins and almost immediate problems issuing from secrets created and held at the highest levels, to say nothing of the enormous damage done by double agents. We owe the organization nothing. We tried it and it did not work well. There is no reason we must perpetuate a bureaucracy that fails so spectacularly (witness the exquisite failures of the organization under the leadership of George Tenet during Bush II). Johnson reminds us that Tim Weiner spent twenty years researching the CIA for his book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, which I suppose I need to read before I condemn their bones to the dust heap of history. That’s next up, along with Johnson’s earlier trilogy starting with Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, his bestseller originally published in the year 2000. It has gone into a second edition, with updates dating to 2003.
In closing, I wish Johnson was less of an academic in his writing and more of a reasoned scholar, if all he is going to do is talk about what needs to be done. If he were making the decisions, I wonder how he would manage. I dislike his tone intensely, even when I agree he has made a point. And I heartily disagree with his notion that Andrew Bacevich, another slaphappy and shrill academic, should be Secretary of Defense. If that’s the best he can come up with, may he retread old arguments ad nauseam to his band of the converted.
November 8, 2020
Published in 2010 a few months before Johnson's death, this collection of essays written over the course of several years covers much of the same ground thematically as his Blowback trilogy. Sharp and insightful as always, though not much new here in terms of topics and arguments. Would probably make a good introduction to his thinking on the issues he writes about in greater detail in the Blowback books for those who haven't read them.
September 26, 2016
Another classic book that confirms my belief set and is therefore something of a challenge as regards an objective review. I very much enjoyed "Blowback" and need to return to that trilogy, although the line that CJ takes with all his books obviously follows a very similar line of argument. This book addresses the pervasive and, in the authors view, insidious and destructive rise and domination of the military industrial complex and how that fuels the US empire.
The book is dated somewhat and despite the updates, still relies on figures of the time. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the vast sums spent on US military continues unabated as the country continues to labor its way through wars and foreign "Adventures" and, more importantly, props up its hegemony by a vast network of overseas bases. The essential line of argument here is that, whatever we might think morally and politically about such a worldwide presence, such a presence is inherently unsustainable and unaffordable. Failing to address it will result in bankruptcy and the collapse of empire and that it would be better to liquidate this empire voluntarily, a la the UK pose WW2.
Clearly CJ has a view of the morality of the US approach and that is likely to alienate many. He addresses in more than a perfunctory way, the problems with blowback that the US reaps and the damage it does to local relationships with its military presence (Okinawa being the prime and oft cited example). However this isn't the main thrust of the argument that I took from the book which is the bankruptcy and collapse that is sure to follow from the current and past policies, as well as how that corrupts and damages the institution of democracy in the US.
This latter point is well interested and CJ persuasively argues that an empire and a domestic democracy are incompatible. This is thought provoking indeed, however obvious it is when you read it as outlined here. There are plenty of illustrations herein provided of military contractors "buying" congress, the appropriation of vast sums for weapons we don't need to face down modern threats and so on. It is an interesting line of thought that makes perfect sense to me. The idea that failing to spend ever larger amounts on sophisticated weaponry (e.g. aircraft) is somehow unpatriotic is also covered here although I think that argument will continue given the current polarized state of politics in this country.
Well written, obviously arguing a case therefore one sided, but all his works are thought provoking and should be read by more, but undoubtedly won't be.
The book is dated somewhat and despite the updates, still relies on figures of the time. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the vast sums spent on US military continues unabated as the country continues to labor its way through wars and foreign "Adventures" and, more importantly, props up its hegemony by a vast network of overseas bases. The essential line of argument here is that, whatever we might think morally and politically about such a worldwide presence, such a presence is inherently unsustainable and unaffordable. Failing to address it will result in bankruptcy and the collapse of empire and that it would be better to liquidate this empire voluntarily, a la the UK pose WW2.
Clearly CJ has a view of the morality of the US approach and that is likely to alienate many. He addresses in more than a perfunctory way, the problems with blowback that the US reaps and the damage it does to local relationships with its military presence (Okinawa being the prime and oft cited example). However this isn't the main thrust of the argument that I took from the book which is the bankruptcy and collapse that is sure to follow from the current and past policies, as well as how that corrupts and damages the institution of democracy in the US.
This latter point is well interested and CJ persuasively argues that an empire and a domestic democracy are incompatible. This is thought provoking indeed, however obvious it is when you read it as outlined here. There are plenty of illustrations herein provided of military contractors "buying" congress, the appropriation of vast sums for weapons we don't need to face down modern threats and so on. It is an interesting line of thought that makes perfect sense to me. The idea that failing to spend ever larger amounts on sophisticated weaponry (e.g. aircraft) is somehow unpatriotic is also covered here although I think that argument will continue given the current polarized state of politics in this country.
Well written, obviously arguing a case therefore one sided, but all his works are thought provoking and should be read by more, but undoubtedly won't be.
August 3, 2010
In order to understand where we are now in the scheme of the international community, we must read the books of Chalmers Johnson. Dr. Johnson is remarkable as a raconteur of the miserable state of affairs the USA has bungled into by way of deceit, media manipulation so citizens build no context out of which to judge the current events, and in the fog of confusion and lack of truthful information permit our taxes to fund cruel interventions and takeovers of foreign nations by force in order to usurp their natural resources. We will always reap the revenge of the nations we harm until we pull back our talons and behave like a decent world citizen. I hope everyone takes the time to read Dr. Johnson's books. He explains why the USA is in danger of imploding politically and financially due to the corruption of her governments and entanglements worldwide.
July 24, 2021
In this brief work Chalmers Johnson (like writer Andrew Bacevich), attacks the government corruption within the American industrial complex and our nation's imperial misadventures overseas. He likewise targets the CIA for special criticism for its interference with democratic self determination in countries abroad. He also gives a good overview of the failures of the government's exceedingly wasteful and ineffective arms procurement process.
Johnson, who died two years after writing this book, didn't appear to be a "lefty" Noam Chomsky acolyte (neither is Bacevich). Johnson was a former Navy officer, Korean War veteran, political scientist specializing in East Asia, and a former consultant to the CIA.
The book is a fairly sound critique of the bloat and military overspending that is currently bankrupting the country and ruining our image overseas. He makes a mistake or two, but from what I've seen they're small ones. I disagree with his assessment of Naval strength needing to focus on the employment of submarines, and he seems to take much of his material from the works of a half dozen authors (I have no access to his sources as I listened to the audiobook). But for all that it's a compact piece of work well worth the short time it would take to read or listen to.
But it'll make some readers very uncomfortable. If it does, you're the person who needs to read it the most.
Johnson, who died two years after writing this book, didn't appear to be a "lefty" Noam Chomsky acolyte (neither is Bacevich). Johnson was a former Navy officer, Korean War veteran, political scientist specializing in East Asia, and a former consultant to the CIA.
The book is a fairly sound critique of the bloat and military overspending that is currently bankrupting the country and ruining our image overseas. He makes a mistake or two, but from what I've seen they're small ones. I disagree with his assessment of Naval strength needing to focus on the employment of submarines, and he seems to take much of his material from the works of a half dozen authors (I have no access to his sources as I listened to the audiobook). But for all that it's a compact piece of work well worth the short time it would take to read or listen to.
But it'll make some readers very uncomfortable. If it does, you're the person who needs to read it the most.
January 18, 2011
A frightening look at America's "base imperialism." I hadn't realized how omnipresent our military bases are. Johnson claims that the D.O.D. defense budget for 2008 was larger than that for ALL other countries combined. A lot of that, of course, would be spent in support of those bases. I do try to be skeptical of such large claims no matter the politics of the person making them so I would have to do some research before I would state that as a fact.
The book, like many such collections of essays, is repetitive since Johnson, like many authors, writes for different periodicals frequently repeating the same arguments in slightly different ways.
Interesting and scary.
The book, like many such collections of essays, is repetitive since Johnson, like many authors, writes for different periodicals frequently repeating the same arguments in slightly different ways.
Interesting and scary.
January 18, 2011
This is a terrific series of essays by Professor Chalmers Johnson on the hidden costs of maintaining America's military influence across the globe. While Johnson does stray into some (weaker) morality arguments, his focus is mostly on the economic realities that aren't widely debated in the mainstream media, that America can simply no longer afford its Military Industrial Complex (aka domestic jobs programs).
Johnson does stray into a rather searing and hilarious critique of former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham as an example of an elected official completely in the pockets of the defense industry while demonstrating how firmly entrenched in our country's legislative houses these lawmakers beholden to special interest money become. And like that particular chapter, what makes this book credible is the insider knowledge that Professor Johnson brings portraying example after example of occurrences within our military that prove his points, our empire is over-expansive and over-expensive. While most of the incidents he points out are not well know outside of the defense and military communities, they appear to be fairly common knowledge within the confines of the Washington Beltway. In fact, none of the incidents seen individually appear to point to much, but when seen together they show symptoms of a broken system in major need of reform.
Johnson includes more exposition on the theories he put forth in his Blowback trilogy with a shallow but telling criticism of the defense community in general and the CIA in particular. He also goes on to give some specific numbers as to the number of bases our military maintains around the world with the human and monetary costs it takes to keep our web of influence intact. The costs are truly astronomical and eye-opening for the layman taking up the topic for the very first time.
I think that this book could have been elaborately researched with specific budgetary examples and spending breakdowns of the charges that get put forth in every chapter. However, as we now know, Professor Chalmers Johnson simply didn't have the time to go into much greater detail. What we are lucky here to have in our possession is an insider's look at the overview of the American military empire and what it is costing us to run it. In the end however, you arrive at the premise that he wants you understand, that we just don't have the cash or credit to keep spending on our military as we have in the past, and that it is going to catch up with us sooner or later.
As I read this book, I was reminded of this quote from Niall Ferguson, "I wonder, are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power?... Dramas lie ahead and soon. As the nasty fiscal arithmetic of imperial decline drives yet another great power over the edge of chaos."
Fasten your seat-belts. It could get bumpy.
Johnson does stray into a rather searing and hilarious critique of former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham as an example of an elected official completely in the pockets of the defense industry while demonstrating how firmly entrenched in our country's legislative houses these lawmakers beholden to special interest money become. And like that particular chapter, what makes this book credible is the insider knowledge that Professor Johnson brings portraying example after example of occurrences within our military that prove his points, our empire is over-expansive and over-expensive. While most of the incidents he points out are not well know outside of the defense and military communities, they appear to be fairly common knowledge within the confines of the Washington Beltway. In fact, none of the incidents seen individually appear to point to much, but when seen together they show symptoms of a broken system in major need of reform.
Johnson includes more exposition on the theories he put forth in his Blowback trilogy with a shallow but telling criticism of the defense community in general and the CIA in particular. He also goes on to give some specific numbers as to the number of bases our military maintains around the world with the human and monetary costs it takes to keep our web of influence intact. The costs are truly astronomical and eye-opening for the layman taking up the topic for the very first time.
I think that this book could have been elaborately researched with specific budgetary examples and spending breakdowns of the charges that get put forth in every chapter. However, as we now know, Professor Chalmers Johnson simply didn't have the time to go into much greater detail. What we are lucky here to have in our possession is an insider's look at the overview of the American military empire and what it is costing us to run it. In the end however, you arrive at the premise that he wants you understand, that we just don't have the cash or credit to keep spending on our military as we have in the past, and that it is going to catch up with us sooner or later.
As I read this book, I was reminded of this quote from Niall Ferguson, "I wonder, are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power?... Dramas lie ahead and soon. As the nasty fiscal arithmetic of imperial decline drives yet another great power over the edge of chaos."
Fasten your seat-belts. It could get bumpy.
January 24, 2017
The revelations are not entirely unknown. The issue that really surfaced from reading this book concerns the relationship of private enterprise to government-Public Private Partnerships. Chalmers Johnson adeptly portrays how some, seemly unethical, large corporations are able to override and dominate the existing democratic systems, in this case, in the USA. His conclusion, if I recall correctly, is that only national bankruptcy or some significant catastrophe, can arrest this phenomenon, and that the democratic system cannot recover it's original purity. It is an important question as more oversight of corporate activities is passed to international agencies. I wonder to what extent this situation occurs, is because the average citizen is not able to comprehend the nitty-gritty of the budget, and, maybe data analytics and data storytelling can shed a light.
September 19, 2010
A good ol fashioned liberal leaning rant that's content could have been adequately covered in 2 pages instead of 200.
Still, the more I think about it, the more it bothers me that foreign military spending isn't debated nearly as much as domestic spending issues, and for that reason I appreciate this book. It's hard for me to not compare the US to a fading Roman empire. It's an uncomfortable thought.
I think I'm becoming a libertarian...
Still, the more I think about it, the more it bothers me that foreign military spending isn't debated nearly as much as domestic spending issues, and for that reason I appreciate this book. It's hard for me to not compare the US to a fading Roman empire. It's an uncomfortable thought.
I think I'm becoming a libertarian...
March 17, 2022
So good I read it in one day in around 4 hours. The content had me glued to the pages. It would have made Vincent Bugliosi jealous that he didn't write it. However, do I agree with the author's foreign policy takes? No, I do not. We can always reform Interventionism and National Building Policies, as well as how we handle crimes committed on female service members by male service members and improve our policies. An excellent read, but I do not agree at all with the conclusions.
September 23, 2023
Another crucial repudiation of American empire by Johnson, whose vocal critiques of American power have flown under the dissent radar in the face of bigger names like Hedges, Chomsky, and Parenti. Totally worthwhile and unafraid to confront American excess and the coming downfall.
May 10, 2024
Another Rant against the USA. Yes many valid points to be considered and I do appreciate the birds view. Seems the author really doesn’t understand the relationship between the Govt, Contractors and Public and what level of separation and relationship provides protection. Of course military people continue to work for the government they are patriots and believe in the country they were willing to be miserable, willing to give their life, perhaps the principles are long gone from the original founding fathers but really its that the game… thou shalt not INFRINGE and yet its a money game of writing the laws that wont pass to generate revenue for the industry and NGOs that hire the governments family. NO little private Lindsey should not be the scape goat when the contractors who were hired to do their job failed miserable at security which comes down to letters of agreement.
Who exactly gets to make the RULES. How long does anyone last when they say.. NO Sir I cannot do that unlawful order…. Just too funny.
Seriously how naive are people that have no clue on how the government really works. Isn’t President Trump going through court now asking questions of a “Legal Nature”. What ifs…. It’s really just funny to watch the talking heads on the idiot box. I guess all the Past Presidents are all going to jail…
Has this author never played a board game… even in monopoly you have to be strategic. You may not want to buy Park Place or Boardwalk but you know the locations is Prime and for that you pay what is needed.
Who exactly gets to make the RULES. How long does anyone last when they say.. NO Sir I cannot do that unlawful order…. Just too funny.
Seriously how naive are people that have no clue on how the government really works. Isn’t President Trump going through court now asking questions of a “Legal Nature”. What ifs…. It’s really just funny to watch the talking heads on the idiot box. I guess all the Past Presidents are all going to jail…
Has this author never played a board game… even in monopoly you have to be strategic. You may not want to buy Park Place or Boardwalk but you know the locations is Prime and for that you pay what is needed.
January 9, 2018
The overall message is important and I think Johnson is right. However, some of his analysis when he gets into the nitty-gritty of defense platforms and Pakistan/Afghanistan is lazy at best or misleading to prove his point at worst. He is absolutely right though about the overall message and ultimately, these are just short essays.
February 15, 2022
I think the premise of this book is really a good one, and important for Americans, and others, to realize that fallacy of going down the road of previous failed empires. However, the author is so blatantly leftist that he does not even try to hide his bias. When so much bias is worn on the sleeve, it makes the author less credible. Eventually it bothered me so much I pulled the plug.
May 30, 2017
Good advice for a nation that needs it. Too bad Chalmers is not around anymore, to tell us what we're in for next.
November 21, 2020
Very informative book on US imperialism.
January 4, 2024
Excellent book written during the Obama era and very critical of the Military Industrial Complex. Chronicles our excessive military spending and overseas bases and how it will bankrupt the US
December 9, 2025
Interesting book! Lots of history from the George Bush administration that I didn’t know about. A little complex but overall a good read for those interested in the military industrial complex
November 13, 2010
This is my first Chalmers Johnson book. While I thoroughly enjoyed and would award 5 stars for his cogent, well supported arguments and observations, I did not enjoy the format.
Johnson deconstructs our military bureaucracy to reveal self defeating imperialism, profiteering, and profligate spending, among other trends he identifies as threatening to the well being of the US. He argues eloquently that no country in history has been able to remain democratic and economically provide for its civil society, while simultaneously maintaining a military empire abroad. He analyzes in depth the fiscal consequences of the US attempt to do so, and the resulting financial catastrophe that we are just beginning to see unravel. He demonstrated irrefutably how self defeating and unsustainable our present course is, and argues that we take the gentler path of voluntarily scaling back our empire rather than waiting for it to collapse under financial implosion and/or military defeat.
These are the common threads that run through the book, however, they are presented in a series of essays that originally appeared on a news/commentary website to which he contributes. While the essays are, in and of themselves, generally fantastic, they don't work cohesively very well as a book beyond the fact that the same basic themes are repeated. The repetition in numerous essays of the same statistics can get old. Also, despite the common themes, the topics do sometimes jump around abruptly, though the editors did try to arrange them in a logical way. I must not have read the description well enough to realize this was the case, so my expectations were colored by the fact that I thought I was buying an actual book, rather than a collection of short pieces.
In summary: 5 stars for content, 1 star for selling a bunch of essays I could have read online as a book =)
Johnson deconstructs our military bureaucracy to reveal self defeating imperialism, profiteering, and profligate spending, among other trends he identifies as threatening to the well being of the US. He argues eloquently that no country in history has been able to remain democratic and economically provide for its civil society, while simultaneously maintaining a military empire abroad. He analyzes in depth the fiscal consequences of the US attempt to do so, and the resulting financial catastrophe that we are just beginning to see unravel. He demonstrated irrefutably how self defeating and unsustainable our present course is, and argues that we take the gentler path of voluntarily scaling back our empire rather than waiting for it to collapse under financial implosion and/or military defeat.
These are the common threads that run through the book, however, they are presented in a series of essays that originally appeared on a news/commentary website to which he contributes. While the essays are, in and of themselves, generally fantastic, they don't work cohesively very well as a book beyond the fact that the same basic themes are repeated. The repetition in numerous essays of the same statistics can get old. Also, despite the common themes, the topics do sometimes jump around abruptly, though the editors did try to arrange them in a logical way. I must not have read the description well enough to realize this was the case, so my expectations were colored by the fact that I thought I was buying an actual book, rather than a collection of short pieces.
In summary: 5 stars for content, 1 star for selling a bunch of essays I could have read online as a book =)
June 8, 2012
This (along with the other 2 books in the triogy, Blowback and Nemesis, is an important read for anyone concerned about the future of the US, both economically and politically. Will we gracefully dismantle our empire of some 747 military bases (not including Iraq and Afghanistan) over 500,000 troops, spies, contractors, dependents, and other on military bases located in 130 countries (there are only 192 countries in the UN) and the bloated military budget that goes with it, or will we take the suicide option of bankruptcy. We appear to have opted for suicide.
"Like all empires of the past, the American version of empire is destined to come to an end, either voluntarily or of necessity. When that will occur is impossible to foretell, but the pressures of America's massive indebtedness, the growing contradiction between the needs of its civilian economy and its military-industrial complex, and its dependence on a volunteer army and innumerable private contractors strongly indicate an empire built on fragile foundations. Over the next few years resistance to military overtures is likely to grow, meaning the agenda of national politics will be increasingly dominated by issues of empire liquidation -- peacefully or otherwise." p 127
"Like all empires of the past, the American version of empire is destined to come to an end, either voluntarily or of necessity. When that will occur is impossible to foretell, but the pressures of America's massive indebtedness, the growing contradiction between the needs of its civilian economy and its military-industrial complex, and its dependence on a volunteer army and innumerable private contractors strongly indicate an empire built on fragile foundations. Over the next few years resistance to military overtures is likely to grow, meaning the agenda of national politics will be increasingly dominated by issues of empire liquidation -- peacefully or otherwise." p 127
October 11, 2015
I'm in love. I was born decades too late. This guy takes complex and dark subjects like terrorism and corporate corruption and secret illegal torture by spies and makes it as understandable, compelling, and funny as Molly Ivins essays. (Admittedly the humor is even drier than Ivins' and perhaps a tad cynical.) Johnson was probably one of the best writers anglophone academia has ever had. He also seems to have been insightful, idealistic, and appreciative of the absurd.
I have faith in our institutions' capacity to provide material for future books. I am incredibly saddened I can never have a correspondence with Professor Johnson.
The Blowback trilogy (apparently nonfiction triplets called trilogies now?) is famous because it's an account of our government's secret and/or underreported actions in other countries, and because it predicted unspecified retaliation when the first book came out the year before 9/11. That's what this is. There are lots of facts and lots of ideas to think about. Read it. It's your world. This is what's helping create all our future. What do you think?
Thank you, Professor Johnson, for your writing. If your self still exists somewhere, I hope you get to know how it all turned out.
I have faith in our institutions' capacity to provide material for future books. I am incredibly saddened I can never have a correspondence with Professor Johnson.
The Blowback trilogy (apparently nonfiction triplets called trilogies now?) is famous because it's an account of our government's secret and/or underreported actions in other countries, and because it predicted unspecified retaliation when the first book came out the year before 9/11. That's what this is. There are lots of facts and lots of ideas to think about. Read it. It's your world. This is what's helping create all our future. What do you think?
Thank you, Professor Johnson, for your writing. If your self still exists somewhere, I hope you get to know how it all turned out.
December 3, 2010
This is a collection of essays concerning the state of the American empire. Johnson demonstrates that the military-industrial complex not only exists, not as a conspiratorial sort of existence, but as a real, and entrenched system of military Keynesianism--where the government uses the Department of Defense, defense contractors, the CIA, and so on as a means for job creation and economic growth. But what Johnson argues is that this is economic suicide. Building bombs and weapons systems destroys wealth and takes away productive capacity from the real economy. This is an excellent book and should be read by all with a neo-conservative bent.
March 31, 2011
This is Chalmers Johnson's final book and it is a concise analysis at the out of control military spending and the ridiculous number of US military bases, and how this is hurting the American economy. It debunks the myth of military Keynesian which states that military spending stimulates the economy. All of this spending is inflationary and results in no exports or imports of goods. In other words, there is nobody to sell all of this useless military equipment to. It's really amazing to think that there are still 38 military bases on the island of Okinawa alone! This was done mostly to monitor Japan after WWII and there is no reason for it anymore. What a waste of money.
August 12, 2012
provocative, prescient, a good read. a little too leftist on some issues: for instance, abolish the CIA? draw down our embassy initiatives in the middle east? Johnson seems to think that US foreign policy is all governed by what he calls the "military-industrial complex," a conspiratorial nexus linking the republican party and defense industries. most of his research is sound and very insightful, but some of his conclusions are astonishingly naive and radical. still, his general line of thought is highly worth paying attention to.
November 27, 2013
Good analysis of our overreaching American empire but because of the essay style format it gets a tad repetitive. As short as this book is, it felt like it could have been even shorter. Also, I felt the way sources were addressed was a little weak. It basically says if you want sources, look them up on TomDispatch.com. Seems kinda lazy if you ask me.
Nevertheless this book sends a powerful message, despite its flaws. There's really no excuse not to read this.
Nevertheless this book sends a powerful message, despite its flaws. There's really no excuse not to read this.
October 19, 2012
First of all, I was sadned by the death of the brilliant Chalmers Johnson. As of the book, it had good points, which I've always agreed with, I mean just from the title, the acknowledgment of the existence of an American empire, denied by most Americans was enough for me ! It's just that sometimes it's a bit boring when the author gives irrelevant examples to illustrate, and that have nothing to do with the matter in question.... But anyhow, it was a good read !
June 20, 2013
Author Chalmers Johnson is the president of the Japan Policy Research Institute. I had read his "Sorrows of Empire" and was very impressed with his thinking. This book is a compilation of his essays written from 2004 -2009. Johnson is an incisive thinker who is unafraid of talking truth to power and his ideas should at least be on the table for consideration. It is interesting to see how many of his ideas from past years are still valid and more important than ever.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews