What Really Ends Empires
Today, McCain received the endorsement every American candidate cringes from: Al-Qaeda’s.
On a password-protected Web site, behind encrypted protection, a message in Arabic urged those that knew of this secret extremist enclave on the ‘net to do what they could in supporting McCain’s presidential bid. This included terrorist attacks which, they noted, would vastly increase McCain’s chance of winning, as he would be seen by the American people as a better instrument of vengeance than Obama.
“It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against Al Qaeda,” said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. “Al Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America.”
This is not nearly so significant to the race as a statement as the underlying strategy of it is. It underscores the principle that every guerrilla fighter understands and that many Americans tragically ignore or fail to grasp: That an Empire is not defeated by decisive battle, but by being drained to death.
And this is key when facing an opponent like al-Qaeda, if one seeks to actually achieve victory, and not just look like it: Your enemy wants you to fight them with all that you have; to get hysterical, compromise values, make shaky alliances, tie up vast numbers of troops on inconclusive missions and, above all, spend. Spending without the cash to support it is what cuts the throat of empires - not military defeat in the field.
It has been the same through history. Let’s blow dust off the books and look at the all time greats - the empires that not only hold a candle to America in scope and resources, but surpass it in longevity.
We can start with the Assyrians. They were unmatched in warfare, but mighty Ashurbanipal took it a few steps too far - he got involved in two wars at the same time, Babylonia and Elam, while spending like a mad fool at home on luxury goods and art. As soon as he “left office” by keeling over, his empire slid into economic decline until it was picked apart a few decades later. Ashurbanipal never lost a fight, but by pouring money into the shadow boxing in Egypt, Elam and Babylonia while not looking to his budget, he lost an empire 300 years old.
Then Rome, the classic example. Rome collapsed under its own weight - a bloated giant engaged in bigger and bigger spending projects, teetering on a foundation of abysmally unequal wealth and catastrophically uneducated, hopeless immigrant populations. It had been masterful at spreading economy, organization and opportunity; in its decline, it shunned education, shunned integration, and was constantly at war. Like the Assyrians, it seldom lost on the field, but ultimately crumbled by spending too much and getting too little in return.
Even a modern example is present: Britain. Britain won World War II, but lost its empire in the process of playing the bulwark against fascism in the West. It didn’t crumble because, ever the clever investor, it sold off its Empire in the nick of time. But winning World War I and World War II meant going all-in and losing its chips, leaving America and the USSR to run the table. A dominance of nearly two centuries came to a close gracefully, but to a close it came - thanks again to “victory.”
So when McCain talks of “victory” in the nebulous, bottomless terms he does, I cringe. I cringe not as an anti-war activist - I’m all for projecting our military might abroad to fulfill ends both selfless and selfish. But it’s because I love to be able to annihilate our enemies and throw our weight around politically that I deplore McCain’s comic book talk.
For that way, dear reader, lies collapse. With $1 trillion dollars paid into Iraq for no appreciable strategic gain, and Afghanistan going from a mere catastrophe into a full-blown apocalypse, we don’t need to just snarl, “All in” whenever our bet is called. We need to realize that in order to last as an Empire, we need to have a strategy that’s focused on lasting. And we need to realize just how fragile our dominance is - and what is a threat to it.
“Victory no matter what” while breaking the pipes of government revenue is a threat - a far, far greater threat than a planner who looks to cut losses in a losing venture.
It wasn’t the courtiers who counseled peace in Assyria that destroyed its unstoppable three-century reign - it was the “rah rah” crowd that cheered on a two-front war without end.
It wasn’t the Persians who destroyed Rome in some arrow-swarmed Armageddon in the desert; it was the Senators who kept chasing the Persians through the Iraqi desert with massive armies for decades, while raking in the ducats and leaving the “barbarian” immigrants to educate themselves.
It wasn’t the Axis that destroyed Britain; Britain sacrificed itself.
And in the end, it won’t be man with a prudent eye and a frugal time table that gives al-Qaeda a chance to exhaust us to death.
It’ll be the man who always says victory’s over the horizon, and leaves the record travel expenses to the credit card.





Well said, Matt. Well said.
Comment by Treat — October 22, 2008 @ 9:36 pm