The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic

by Chalmers Johnson

From the author of the prophetic national bestseller Blowback , a startling look at militarism, American style, and its consequences abroad and at home

In the years after the Soviet Union imploded, the United States was described first as the globe's "lone superpower," then as a "reluctant sheriff," next as the "indispensable nation," and now, in the wake of 9/11, as a "New Rome." Here, Chalmers Johnson thoroughly explores the new militarism that is transforming America and compelling its people to pick up the burden of empire.

Reminding us of the classic warnings against militarism―from George Washington's farewell address to Dwight Eisenhower's denunciation of the military-industrial complex―Johnson uncovers its roots deep in our past. Turning to the present, he maps America's expanding empire of military bases and the vast web of services that supports them. He offers a vivid look at the new caste of professional warriors who have infiltrated multiple branches of government, who classify as "secret" everything they do, and for whom the manipulation of the military budget is of vital interest.

Among Johnson's provocative conclusions is that American militarism is putting an end to the age of globalization and bankrupting the United States, even as it creates the conditions for a new century of virulent blowback. The Sorrows of Empire suggests that the former American republic has already crossed its Rubicon―with the Pentagon leading the way.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American History, War, American, Military Fiction

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Chalmers 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.

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

The sorrows, indeed. I’ve finally gotten to listen to the second part of this fascinating trilogy and am now sorry that I listened to them out of order. They are the kind of books that really do stay with you.

I’ve given up hoping people will actually be able to do something about Neo-colonialism, there is now, of course, no hope that things will change anytime soon. The thing that amazes me is how self-satisfied we tend to be about the suffering that happens in the world. It is as if poverty was somehow something that could be just blamed on the poor – bad decisions made in haste. When, in fact, the continuation of poverty is as much a consequence of our actions as it is anything else. This is something repeatedly shown in this book.

This book is also a catalogue of the military bases the US controls around the world, the role they play in sustaining the American Empire and how and why they were acquired. It is not a pretty story. There is even a brief mention of Australia’s living God – Gough Whitlam – and his removal from power in 1975. Ironically enough, it is claimed in this book that Whitlam was removed from power by the US because he was planning to have the US bases placed under Australian control. This would, of course, have been a problem for the US, but the main case against this version of the story is that Whitlam himself has denied it. Oh, and by the way, just in case you are ever asked. Gough rhymes with cough, not cow.

The stuff about the bases is interesting, but this book really comes into its own when he starts to discuss Neoliberalism and its the impact on the world economy.

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve had the pleasure of watching a couple of films about the media in Italy. Naturally enough both have been deeply disturbing. However, I’ve also been watching more commercial television news service recently than I have for years. That too has been very disturbing, particularly disturbing given how little news there is on these ‘news programmes’. Okay, it is nothing like television in Italy – most people here still have their clothes on to start with. But given there are women on our televisions who are prepared to refer to the victims of sexual assault as ‘strays’, we can’t be too far behind Italy.

Neoliberalism would have us believe that the only way forward for our world is down the free markets and free trade roads. What tends to be neglected in this praise for free trade is the fact that those with economic power generally want to see the rest of the world open their markets for a very good reason – because it is in the interests of powerful nations. This is anything but reciprocal. He makes this clear by asking a remarkably simple question, ‘can you name one country that has lifted itself from poverty by following Neoliberal advice?’ The fact is that the more this advice is followed by any particular country (The Shock Doctrine also shows this too) the less likely it is that the country will remain viable. I need to make that very clear – it is not that following Neoliberal advice stops countries from becoming rich or even from escaping from poverty, but following this advice smashes countries so convincingly that their very viability ends up being called into question. And yet any questioning of this advice is dismissed as utopian nonsense. Amazing.

He uses a lovely metaphor of someone climbing a ladder and then kicking it away to make sure no one can follow to describe our first world attitude to helping the third world. Suddenly it is not reasonable to protect local industries or for local governments to invest in their local economy. The fact that the US is one of the most protected economies in the world is best not mentioned. He refers to the USA as a Consumerist Sparta.

The more I find out about how little oversight there is in the USA over the CIA, the Pentagon or the other Palace Guards of the US Emperor the more I am flabbergasted. In a democracy it would seem self-evident that the military needs to be accountable to the people in some why – say through their elected officials. I know, a crazy idea, but stick with me, if only to amuse me. With so much of the US spy and military budgets completely hidden from fiscal (or any other) scrutiny the whole ‘democracy’ thing seems somewhat of an overstatement. All jokes aside, though, if this book is about anything it is a call to arms by those who are sick of seeing the fundamental principles of a democratic society being whittled away.

Many people blame the US for all of this stuff – blame US citizens for the actions of their government and so on – but really this is quite unfair. Between 1960 and 1995 only 54% of those eligible to vote in the US actually did vote. Clearly, this is symptomatic of a people who feel the pointlessness of their vote. It also certainly is not the case that all of the people of the US benefit equally from the Neo-colonial exploitation of the third world – in fact, the US is so disturbingly unequal as a society that virtually the only people not being bleed white are the top few percent of the population. It is fascinatingly interesting that the only time when income distribution within the US was this unequal previously was 1928.

I raised some of these concerns recently on a website and someone from the US told me that because I live in a socialist country I wouldn’t understand freedom. How do you even begin to argue with someone clearly so stupid? Yes, the Socialist Republic of Australia – the birthplace of such wonderful Communist heroes as Rupert Murdoch.

So, really, I should avoid reading books like this. They do nothing but make me feel very disheartened.

[Pam Walter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I originally marked this book as "to read" because of a review of A People's History of the United States. Howard Zinn's book described the American military presence in untold sovereign nations. To understand what I mean when I say untold, one must simply read Lies My Teacher Told Me. Once we conquered America from sea to shining sea, U.S. imperialism took off.

The 20th century began with the U.S. nurturing a sense of entitlement. This century of hegemony began with Theodore Roosevelt who professed not to be an imperialist but an expansionist. Manifest Destiny began the euphemisms lending a much softer, gentler, and ultimately more acceptable rationale for the people as politicians led us to believe that our presence was required in foreign nations for humanitarian reasons, or to limit the spread of communism, or in more recent years to protect foreign nationals whose lives were endangered. These and other similar reasons defined the purpose of approximately 1,700 U.S. military installations in about one hundred countries that existed during and following the cold war.

In mid-century DDE warned of the developing "Military Industrial Complex" (M.I.C.). Since 1991 the United States has been the largest seller of munitions on earth (44 billion dollars worth between 1997 and 2001). The next biggest seller was Russia, selling 17 billion. Now more military actions used up weapons and renewed munitions demands. Just one example was Reagan selling arms to Iran to fight the Contras in Nicaragua.

Chalmers Johnson's book is filled with little-known facts about U.S. Imperialism. The new 2017 power-hungry leadership will be unlikely to reign in U.S. militarism.

No matter which genre is your preference, "The Sorrows of Empire" is a must read for everyone. Author Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus at the University of California is highly and terrifyingly credible.

[Denise · Rating 5 out of 5]

Johnson's first post-9/11 follow-up to Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire offers an astute, detailed and highly critical look at US imperialism and militarism in past and present (until date of publication, that is, but it's not like things have changed for the better in the past decade and a half). Insightful, essential reading.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

The recently deceased Chalmers Johnson was a former CIA man turned apostate from the American Imperial project. This book is an account of the American Empire, its flaws and weaknesses. It's rather well-documented, to the point where one wants to skip some of the details. Johnson also adopts, with the zeal of a convert, some of the nostrums of the Left.

That said, this is a well-documented and largely accurate account of where we are, which is in a very bad place. We failed to take account of what the demise of the Soviet Union meant, and went on with the National Security State, our out-of-control military expenditures, and our Presidentially-driven foreign adventures as if we still had a main enemy, when the Pogo-cliché enemy is, of course, us.

By hollowing out our manufacturing industries, depleting our culture and genes with too much immigration, engaging in needless and unwinnable wars, empowering speculators and Ponzifiers, and devouring our seed corn, we have set the stage for the Empire's demise. Our political class is utterly unable to manage these dark times.

Be afraid.

[Patrick McCoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chalmers Johnston’s latest current affairs book, The Sorrows of Empire, is about American militarism and the secrecy surrounding it, as well as imperialism. In the prologue he says:

If I overstate the threat, I am sure to be forgiven because future generations will be so glad I was wrong. The danger I foresee is that the United States is embarked upon a path no unlike that of the former Soviet Union during the 1980s. The USSR collapsed for three basic reasons-internal economic contradictions driven by ideological rigidity, imperial overstretch and an inability to reform. Because the United States is far wealthier, it may take longer for similar afflictions to do their work. But the similarities are obvious and it is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever.

And I do think he overstates his case, when he suggests, that, among other things, America might have gone to war with Afghanistan even if 9/11 hadn’t happened, in order to prop up a government that would secure oil and natural gas transportation from Central Asia through Afghanistan to the gulf. He also suggests that North Korea and Iran are still viable targets for invasion. But he is more convincing when describes American militarism with exhaustive examples and statistics about the spending and number of bases throughout the world. And he challenges the existence of these bases, as to what end they are for. He is especially persuasive when talking about bases in Japan and Korea. I agree with him that we might eventually see America pull out of Korea, and that relations between Okinawa and the US would drastically improve if they reduced the number of bases and gave back some of the claimed land.

I also thought he was good at describing the history of imperialism in America as it goes back to Woodrow Wilson and the Spanish War-from which we acquired Guam, Saipan, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc…under the guise of being on a “mission to democratizing the world. Wilson he states has more than any figure provided the intellectual foundations for an interventionist foreign policy expressed in humanitarian and democratic rhetoric to justify American imperial power in terms of exporting democracy-sound familiar? He makes this astute observation:

To this day, the Philippines resemble Okinawa far more than they do Taiwan, which has become one of the richest and most industrialized nations in East Asia. Taiwan is an example of what Okinawa and the Philippines might have become had the US not played a neocolonial role.

Furthermore, he illustrates many examples where American meddling has resulted in blowback or at least a failure of considering the long-range reactions of meddling in other countries affairs with Greece, Iran, Central America and the Middle East. I also found his chapter on “Whatever Happen To Globalism” interesting and thought provoking. Here he suggests:

Our government seems not to grasp the relationship between its military unilateralism and collateral damage it is doing to international commerce, an activity that depends on mutually beneficial relationships among individuals, business, and countries to function well.

Will they ever? It was an interesting and challenging read about the state we’re in.

[Jeff · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bascially, this is a tedious argument for isolationism and unilateral withdrawal from the world, since we are at the heart of all the planet's problems (at least according to Chalmers) and that most of our problems stem from our military and the economic and political forces tied up in the "military-industrial complex."

The problem with the argument is not that one can't make a reasonable case for such a position; it is that Chaulmers does not. For example, he translates the global web of American bases into an oppressive global army of occupation, one forcing the global system down people's throats and creating a military that has few ties to the American Republic.

Could it not be that we have global interests? That these bases and the military forces they host serve as stabiliing agents? That, if there is a disconnect between the military and the public it is because of low rates of participation in the services and the reflexive hatred of the military by a segment of the Ameriocan population (and, the "we support the troops" boilerplate doesn't pass muster when it is tied to accusations of war crimes, atrocities, etc.)? That we are actually in the midst of a global restructuring of basing as we move from Cold War positions that were built up over decades and helped prevent a general war to a post-Cold War model, in which the areas of anarchy are our main focus?

Chaulmers just approaches the issue from the point of view that "American militarism is the problem" and that "America is building a brutal, plutocratic empire", rather than calmly examining some of the real issues with our foreign relations and the relationship between the civil and military cultures in America.

For better books on some of the problems we face and how current policies are not addressing them, check out books like Imperial Hubris by Scheuer or Cobra II by Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor (ret. USMC). But give this book a pass.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A harsh and critical look at U.S. foreign policy and current cultural atmosphere. While much of Johnson's book seems like the unashamed, far-left kooky America bashing, I believe that he has hit onto something that few Americans would like to admit: that the presidency and the military exercise far more power in our country than is healthy for a democratic-republic like ours. For example, his two chapters titled " "The Institutions of American Militarism" and "Surrogate Soldiers and Private Mercenaries" is so damning that you can only hope that it is not completely true. However, Johnson does go too far at times. Many times he impugns Pres. Clinton for being a sort of stealth imperialist when I just don't see that being so. Nor do I like how Johnson seems to imply that every military base we have in foreign lands has some hidden imperialist agenda. Could we do a better job of making sure our soldiers don't harm local populations while deployed, of course. But that doesn't mean that every soldier we have deployed in the world is some how evil, as Johnson seems to imply throughout. Despite taking his argument too far at times, I feel that this book should be read by anyone who is truly interested in finding out what is wrong with our country.

[Kym Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sorrows of Empire, Militarism, Secrecy and the end of the Republic by Chalmers Johnson book review


The second installment in Chalmer Johnson’s trilogy of book. A book where Johnson pulls no punches as he delves into the history of US imperialism. The theme of Johnson’s writings is to indulge the reader into the uncomfortable realities and histories of a supposed liberty minded republic and its hegemonic intentions upon the wider world. Though no Manifest Destiny has been declared outright, it is assumed that most regions and events in the world belong in the domain of the United States. Johnson like many other writers, most with a left tilting pen, exhibit histories distant and recent that depict this gruesome reality. Though despite many such good books on the subject and an excessive of evidence the mainstream continues to seem oblivious, whether the ignorance is an omission of choice or one of religious adherence to nationalism. Regardless outside the voting borders of the USA a wider world exists that watches and is not seduced by the prose of founding fathers or freedom dense speeches performed by the many elected executives whose regimes each oversaw mass murder, invasions and economic meddling’s far and wide. War and empire as Chalmers show in this book is a constant in US history. The intended readers are Americans but this is what the America that they do not wish to see is known for by the rest of us.


Written in 2003 it was a book fresh in the genesis of the modern American military age, the period known as the ‘War on Terror’. After the 2001 attacks on the US, where a known terror group through intrigue, menace and planning managed to murder thousands of US citizens resulting in a new period of self-righteous endless war, not for just the USA but its allies and proxies. Johnson warns of the widening implications of such a crusaders vengeance. He even suggests that it was likely that the US would have invaded Afghanistan regardless Bin Laden’s presence there after the 2001 attacks. In his 1998 book ‘Blowback’ his prediction was that an attack would come from East Asia out of a response to US foreign policy in that region, regardless an attack did come. Just this one was from the greater Middle East. Just like East Asia those in Central and the Middle East have suffered directly and over time indirectly thanks to the many policies and aggressions by the United States. For many who do not remember the past five years it would be hard to expect them to have taken note of the 1990s, let alone decades before. Johnson wants you and them to know, not siding or sympathising with any agents of vengeance he simply illustrates the factual actions conducted by a government unchecked as a restless superpower full of hubris and supported by many of its tax paying voters in the belief that the world is its buffer zone. A buffer zone it turns out from its own consequences.


Having survived a stand off between the Soviet Union with a cold war full of hot moments and interventions and hand shakes with dictators known only as being righteous for their anti-communist posturing the United States looked to new threats and investments in military justification. Iraq in 1990 was an adequate villain commencing as in its pariah status, a former ally, did so as it threatened the security of the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Johnson spends time on this era and period as it is relevant to when the book was written and unlike now, should have still been fresh on many minds. Even the lazy observer. In 2003 such a book would have been a coherent dissenting read unlike many of the contrarian partisan garble produced simply because they were anti-Bush, then again so close to the attacks most were red white and blue all the way to Baghdad. Johnson does not write with any partisan limitations. His interest is in revealing foreign policy facts, not omitting those performed under his preferred regimes tenure.


Johnson at points reads like Chomsky for better an worse in that Johnson knows much but lacks a consistent focus. The energy and passion of his mind and his ability to contain knowledge fall into the pages yet never once does a place or period get enough information, it is all very introductory and most importantly a place for one to scratch. This is likely a reflection of the expansive nature of the history of the US empire. So for those seeking one, it is a concise and compact read, an overlay. Those yearning more it is a repeat of knowns while also being an inspiration for investigation. Unlike many other books of a similar nature it does not read like a compilation of articles or essays, even if by the same author. It is very much a book that fits well together.


Using the easy to handle comparisons between the Roman Republic to when it became an Empire, it is a contrast of similarities that is not uncommon but is simplistic. Johnson uses it at times as a theme though it is not needed. The United States is not as exceptional as its many devoted champions believe it to be but at the same time it is it’s very own historical and present anomaly of power and moments. As others in the past and more recent times have done with the US and other modern empires the Roman analogy is clunky. But perhaps this helps it to become a more ready to digest congestion of facts if others can use their basic knowledge of ancient Rome to overlay on modern United States, then ‘Rubicon’ and Latin expressions can edge their way as credible expressions and descriptions. Just as modern politics fixes ‘gate to the end of each trending event, so to do many historians use Roman history as a pronouncement for the now. For Johnson it feels unnecessary.


Like with his prior books Johnson dedicates the closing chapters to economics and his interpretations of the morality of certain economic principles. Though he spends so much time on centrally planned mayhem in the guise of militarism and interventions he then condemns ‘free markets’ or at least the rhetorical promise of them. As he does illustrate the mercantilist protectionism of the US and British Empires had very little free markets in practice, yet he still attaches them to globalisation and lassie faire capitalism. He condemns the free market without having given it any examples of practical implementation. It is here that the book reads with an anti-capitalist tome, which is relevant for the subject of exploitation yet so too would the command economy that helps to fund the military and constrains the populaces of the domestic and foreign people subjugated to rule. Johnson is right to point out however that while some are expected to suffer sanctions and their own economic devices, others are endowed with subsidies, loans, incentives, protectionism and a mixed economy of much debt marred with some form of free markets in specific sectors all the while the US proclaims its vision of economic philosophy is the best. Though despite proclamations and contrast to communism never in actual reality has the confidence of faith in such freedom to practice itself or for its allies. This is not so much a critic of a free market never allowed to exist but in those who pretend to obey an Adam Smith, let alone a Hayek while instead looking towards Keynes, Mussolini and Friedman all converged in a mutant expression of American economic exceptionalism. Regardless it is a strong book and as always Johnson delivers his blows well.

85%

[Blrp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like the previous book, not all that focused on what the title describes. It's basically a history of US military, imperialism, and militarism. It often has a lot of unnecessary detail, and lacks a clear structure.

66%

[Elliott Bignell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finally got around to reading this polemic long after the Bush Presidency was over, when you might think its message less urgent. Be not fooled, as Johnson's model of US Empire and the sorrows which ride in its wake is rooted in history going back to the 19th Century and not merely a reaction to a single Administration.

Johnson's horsemen ride in the traditional team of four: Perpetual war and the terrorism it provokes as a response, erosion of democracy and constitutional rights with a Pentagonised Presidency in which the leadership of state is subordinated to the interests of the military and separation of powers broken down, pervasive propaganda and the glorification of the military and, finally, bankruptcy.

Johnson paints a picture of an America sleepwalking into Empire, never wanting to call itself by that name until a cabal of neocons gathered around the Presidency to openly acknowledge the fact. There are uncomfortable historical echoes, from the Maine incident via the Reichstag fire to the Gulf of Tonkin and 9-11. Not to give credence to 9-11 conspiracy theories, but there is a record of grabbing pretexts and calling "terrorism" when a state is feeling the need to put on imperial airs. The use of a "sepoy strategy", getting Asian boys to fight Asian wars as the British did, is unpleasantly familiar, as is the claim that we will get out soon. The British promised to leave Egypt 66 times from 1882 to 1922!

The Rubicon Moment seems to me to have been the 2002 review of the Posse Comitatus Act, or possibly the clause sneaked into a 2003 intelligence bill, by which the military acquired powers to intervene in domestic law enforcement and to collect intelligence on US citizens, respectively. Alea iacta est, "the die is cast", Caesar is reputed to have said as he crossed with his army back into the Republic and made his bid for Emperor irrevocable. For the USA perhaps no die is ever irrevocably cast, but Johnson clearly feels that a climacteric is upon it and I am strongly in agreement.

This is a fine polemic and largely very well resourced and referenced, but I had the occasional feeling that value judgements were being offered whole and not justified. Nevertheless it is a comfortable and convincing read which evokes some uncomfortable and inconvenient contemplation.

[Kaelan Ratcliffe ▪ كايِلان راتكِليف · Rating 5 out of 5]

Empire of Bases

This book really does prove the devil is in the detail. There's nothing I didn't already have some category of grasp on across the chapters Johnson lays out in Sorrows, and yet I still learned an immense amount about the American Empire. This is staggeringly impressive given this was written in 2003, just after the second Iraq had begun. Fifteen years hasn't blunted this attack on Washington's Militarism and secrecy in the slightest.

The scale of coverage Johnson goes into regarding the USA's Military bases; historical and contemporary relationships with oil rich states; as well as an absolutely outstanding chapter that clearly lays out the Neoliberal paradigm and it's build up to the turn of the century; is what pushes this into the 'must-read' category for me. Readers can pick this up independently, or as part of the trilogy Johnson wrote starting with Blowback(2000), and ending with Nemesis(2006). I absolutely intend to read the other two.

Other readers should heavily consider reading this as a means of understanding the military foreign policy of the worlds sole remaining super power in all its intricacies. There were more than a few moments I found myself stopping my reading to just take in a new revealing bit of information. I highly doubt I'll be alone in these moments if you read this to.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read The Sorrows of Empire in 2019, and it landed like a punch to the gut. The world was still spinning normally—at least on the surface—but something darker was already creeping through the cracks. And Johnson didn’t whisper; he shouted.

This book is not an easy read—not because the prose is dense (it isn’t), but because the truths are. Chalmers Johnson, once a CIA consultant and fierce Cold Warrior, lays out how the American republic, driven by unchecked militarism and the cult of secrecy, has quietly slipped toward empire. Not the kind with flags and glory—more the kind with 700+ overseas military bases, black ops budgets, and a public lulled into distraction.

He traces how war becomes perpetual, how surveillance becomes normalization, and how imperial logic twists democracy into theater. Johnson doesn’t offer comfort or much optimism. Instead, he leaves you staring at the machine, wondering if it’s already too late to stop it.

Reading this in 2019, before COVID, before more cracks in the global order appeared, it felt like sitting in a theatre watching the opening act of a tragedy you know ends badly. The title doesn’t lie—it’s sorrowful. But also sharp, necessary, and maddeningly clear.

If Orwell warned us and Arendt mapped the terrain, Chalmers Johnson kicked in the door and dragged us inside the empire itself. And what do you see there? It’s hard to unsee.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing book about militarism in the United States. You'd think that after the U.s.s.r. fell we'd have spent less money on the military. uh, no. We have something like 1,000 military bases around the world where the laws of their locations do not apply. The last two chapters are about economic Globalization in the 90's and military globalization in this decade. I never really understood the concept of globalization and why people rallied against it and the IMF and the world bank. The last two chapters really spell that out. A very good book. I discovered it because of it's a part of a series of books called the american empire project. "A question of torture" was a book I heard of on NPR 3 or 4 years ago and remembered it, and then read it, and on the inside back cover it mentioned the american empire project and that's how I found this book.
If your a little scared of these days but don't exactly know why i'd check this book out.

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lots of essential facts about the military expansion of the US empire, written by a former conservative turned anti-imperialist.

[Cara · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most depressing books I've ever read. Sorrows of Empire, indeed.

[Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’d highly, highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a broad overview of just how militarist and imperialist the US has become. The only downside is that it came out early on during the Bush Administration so there’s plenty that’s happened since to make the situation even worse. Regardless, Johnson manages to get into the weeds without ever missing the woods for the trees. This is both a microscope analysis and a bird’s eye view of America’s military industrial complex. It’s well worth a read.

[Andy]

I'm not rating this because it seemed pretty boring to me, but it's 15 years old now.

[Q Silver · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good insights and anecdotes, but dull, repetitive, and biased by an isolationist mindset.

[Clif · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 2004, early in the endless war in which the United States is now engaged, Chalmers Johnson set out to write an overview of the American Empire, one characterized not by colonies around the world, but by a network of military bases and an economic system (globalization) that forces all countries except the United States to adhere to the rules of neoliberalism.

Simply put, this book is about the results of neoconservatism in pushing American military power, and neoliberalism pushing American economic power. Since these two terms are thrown around daily in the news, Johnson's concise definition of each one is very helpful. Both are based on American "exceptionalism" that sees U.S. military power as a benign protector of the "free market". The U.S. is said to be taking on the burden of policing the world in order to guarantee universal access to the blessings of unrestricted capitalism.

Sorrows of Empire describes the in detail a sampling of over 700 military bases that are for the most part unwanted by the people who live around them (though national leaders may be more than happy to profit by a cozy relationship with Washington), and the dictatorial financial rules imposed by the WTO that demand austerity while the U.S. itself operates with an astronomical load of debt free of any control. Do as we say, not as we do is the credo of the American empire.

The first part of the book tells of the crony capitalism that finances unnecessary military bases and weapons systems in the name of the national defense of a country that has not been threatened by any other armed force, or combination of armed forces for decades. Bases sit all over the world, many not in any condition of readiness or capable of conducting warfare, where all on duty know full well that no threat exists. Services to the services are farmed out to private enterprise that makes a hefty profit year after year, with no end in sight. Descriptions of how life on base is lived in such places as Germany and Okinawa are quite interesting.

With weapons manufacturing being the only significant U.S. export remaining, all members of Congress are keen on keeping assembly lines running regardless of need. We have new aircraft and naval vessels on the drawing boards when the present craft are far more than adequate and have no opposition on the sea or in the sky. Nuclear weapons proliferation is denounced by the United States even as it modernizes and upgrades its own nuclear weaponry at will, contravening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that required the nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles. The classic example of hypocrisy is the demand that Iran not even think of a single nuclear weapon and is denounced for test firing ballistic missiles.

In the second part of the book, Johnson takes on the economic ways of empire, where, again, the methods by which the U.S. and Europe rose to financial power through protectionism are specifically denied to developing countries. The newcomers must allow their currencies to float, they must open up their domestic market to multi-national corporations, while "intellectual property rights" are set up to protect the patents of the haves from the have-nots.

Johnson gives specific examples of the new American practice of flouting international agreements at will, citing the G.W. Bush renunciation of treaties at the beginning of his administration and the many un-Constitutional operations of the U.S. government following 9/11, codified in the infamous and still operative Patriot Act.

Johnson sees the American empire as just the latest in a long history of empires that rose and inevitably fell under their own corruption and over-extension. He concludes that while we the people theoretically have the ability to reverse the decline, the chances of it happening are slim since so many unconstitutional practices are now accepted as normal, most importantly the idea that the president can make war when and where he decides to do so with that Congress obediently rolling over. Because of this, we are electing emperors now.

Though the book is 12 years old. I read nothing in it that is contradicted by what has happened since. In fact, the book mentions the probability that Africa will become another "command" of the American Empire and, sure enough, there is now just that, called AFRICOM. Too many are making comfortable lives off of the empire, all of whom will put up a defense if any attempt is made to roll it back. With most of our former manufacturing base gone overseas, the Empire is our primary product. No matter that we push it on others, at least to the point where our economy collapses under the load.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is concerned with the rise of the American empire and its consequences on the nation. I found this to be much more interesting than his book "Blowback," but it does get long in sections as he lists the location and histories of American military bases around the world and recounts the buildup to both Iraq wars.

In the end, he predicts four things that will result from the empire--the last is the most frightening--economic collapse.

I was most intrigued by the section on oil in the Caspian Sea region and the efforts of oil companies and the American military working in tandem to gain access to the oil and then building a pipeline to get it out. This revealed America's desire to build a pipeline through Afghanistan that pre-dated 9/11. He argues that America would have probably attacked the Taliban regardless of 9/11--perhaps even on the same timeline.

Those that are skeptical that America is an empire ought to read this.

[Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chalmers Johnson lectured in a class of mine in grad school at USD. He's an unassuming man with an intellect that pulls from experience and exhaustive research. I find him in a similar vein as Noam Chomsky. While critics could call him out, his meticulous indictment of US foreign policy and militarism flows with logical expansion of an empire for purposes of obtaining the spoils of war. If your not into this kind of thing it will be difficult to read, but if you like connecting the dots, Johnson does it very well.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a person who has spent almost their entire adult life working within the military industrial complex this was a very difficult book to read. Written in 2003 what is most astonishing is the reality that is described within the book is apparent today. A good lesson in diplomatic history. Mr. Johnson's writing is cogent and appropriate for our time. We should only ignore what is written here at our own peril.

[Pabgo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anybody who questions the concept of American Imperialism can put those to rest by reading this book. Although dated by more than a decade, events transpiring since only add to the case made by Mr. Johnson. The last few pages allow Mr. Johnson to ponder how this situation may be rectified, but, sadly, we had yet to see the Citizens United ruling, and a military budget that grew to twice the size he was talking about then! Sadly, the solution now seems even further away...

[Noelle Campbell · Rating 1 out of 5]

Horrible waste of an hour. Not even good enough propaganda to read the entire first chapter.

[Mazen Alloujami · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting study on the sliding of the USA politics from democracy to imperialism, with some interesting prognosis and warnings.

[Craig Morland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cheery stuff... but very informative. Looking forward to reading the 3rd book in the series which I've no doubt will be equally as interesting and depressing.

[Jeff Carpenter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chalmers Johnson is the best ammunition to have in a political discussion about the U.S.A.

[J.G.P. MacAdam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chalmers Johnson, revered academic on China and Japan, made his name by predicting the 9/11 attacks (his book “Blowback” was published months before September 2001), tying the animosity so many around the world (but especially in the Middle East) feel towards American presence abroad to an inevitable terrorist attack at home. Yet, twenty-plus years after 9/11, there are still ~45,000 US servicemembers deployed in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other majority-Muslim countries, to include Iraq, where we maintain several small(er) bases...

In reading Johnson’s “Sorrows of Empire” which is an update to “Blowback” I think I took away 2 major things:

1. This guy’s got a huge brain. I mean, the sheer amount of information he relays about US bases around the world, their history, why they ended up where they ended up, who’s there, what they’re doing, what we’re selling in terms of weapons systems to other countries, how much, and how Koreans, Okinawans, Arabs, Columbians, etc. feel about US presence in their backyard, and, predominately, the negative effects of the building and maintenance so many bases abroad, which we, the United States, arguably, don’t even need to project power or to protect our forces, but how these bases in a very bureaucratic way become reasons for their existence in and of themselves.

2. He strays into a lot of value judgments, tends to focus on the negatives, and clearly, clearly, clearly does not like Bush Jr. But, by the end of Bush’s term, who did like Bush? I learned a lot from this book, rehashed a few things I already knew, and took his value judgments, political viewpoints, with a heavy grain of salt.

I recommend this book for anyone wanting to learn more about America’s many, many, many military presences abroad, as well as possible avenues of further research. Johnson gives excellent summations of, for instance, actual life on an aircraft carrier versus what you see in Top Gun, or the history of US presence in Korea, hitting all the major bullet points, or how the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would have been, likely, impossible, or not executed in nearly the timeframe they were, without already existent bases in the region which are carryovers from the 1st Gulf War and the Cold War. He cites the end of the Cold War and America’s unwillingness to demobilize its military, followed by our collective reaction to 9/11, as the moment when America went full-blown imperialist. Citing founding father James Madison, he argues that a standing military is, essentially, un-American and leaves us very susceptible to, at a minimum, executive overreach, if not outright military dictatorship in the long run.

What I felt was missing from Johnson’s lengthy analysis was a bit more of how British and French empires fed into what the American empire is today. This might simply be because this book is 20 years old and it has its moments when it feels dated. But, seeing how France just completely pulled out of Senegal, a country it maintained bases in for six decades, in the latest example of its troop pullouts from Africa due to local grievances with foreign military presence and a sense, among the French themselves, that they shouldn’t be policing other countries anymore, it’s clear that the leavings of colonial administration and empire are still very much with us in the 21st century.

Furthermore, an explanation about how Russia’s bases abroad, as well as China’s, continue to drive the US to create not less but more bases abroad would also have helped substantiate so much empire-building on our part. And, yes, it is an empire. We might not have “colonies” like the French or British did but you could very easily call US bases abroad and their surrounding locales “micro-colonies” since those bases very much create an aberration in the local economy and the locals, if not their governments, often do get treated as subjects. (I’ve heard this called “empire-by-pinpoints” in another book.) Lastly, what do these bases and naval and air deployments so often protect but the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf (oil)? The containment of near-peer competing nation-empires (China)? The delivery and training of weapons systems which the US produces and sells more than any other nation (Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Korea)? The virtually corrupt alignment between international corporate interests and military deployments (Panama, Nicaragua, Kosovo, Iraq, Philippines)? It’s all about the money, yo… and what is colonialism if not the making of money via military conquest and subjugation?

[Mohamed Abdel Maksoud]

أحزان الامبراطورية (النزعة العسكرية والسرية ونهاية الجمهورية)
تأليف:تشالمرز جونسون
ترجمة:صلاح عويس
عدد الصفحات :429

في البداية كنت قلقان جدا من الكتاب خصوصا ان مكنش عندي خلفية عنه لكن الكتاب فاق توقعاتي بمراحل .

الكتاب ثري جدا حيث قام بشرح الحروب العسكرية للقوات الامريكية واهمها حربها علي افغانستان والعراق او الحرب الباردة وحرب المعلومات او القواعد الامريكية المنتشرة حول العالم مع ذكر شركات السلاح الامريكية وعلاقاتها بمسئولين كبار في الحكومة وادوار امريكا في كل صراعات العالم ومحاولتها السيطرة علي اسواق النفط .

المؤلف استاذ للعلاقات الدولية في جامعة كاليفورنيا وخدم كضابط بحري في اليابان وكوريا الجنوبية وكان مستشارا لوكالة الاستخبارات المركزية الامريكية غير مراكز اخري يترأسها.

يري تشالمرز جونسون ان الجيوش والتسلط العسكري والمؤسسة العسكرية والمجمع العسكري والصناعي ينتزعون كل السلطات ويعهدون بها الي رئاسة الجمهورية ليقيموا بذلك ما يسميه جونسون الرئاسة الامبراطورية .
وان الحكومة الحقيقية في امريكا هي تحالف المجمع العسكري الصناعي التكنولوجي، وان السياسة الخارجية الامريكية هي مجرد استجابة لامرين هما القوة الامريكية المتنامية باطراد ، والمصالح التوسعية الامريكية وفق ما ترتضيه مصالحها.

ويتضح ذلك ليس من خلال غزو العراق وحده ولكن من جوانب كثيرة في السياسة الدولية مثل رفض الولايات المتحدة للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية ورفض بوش لاتفاقية كيوتو والتدخل في شئون الدول الاخري الذي يعود لعقود عديدة من الزمن وعسكرة الفضاء.

ويوضح الكاتب ان النزعة الامبراطورية هي شكل من اشكال النظام الاستبدادي ، وانا امريكا تسعي لنشر الديمقراطية ولكن علي فوهة مدفع مهاجم وانا امريكا تسيطر علي العرلم من خلال قوتها العسكرية وان الشعب لا يدرك ان حكومتهم تنشر حامياتها العسكرية في الكون وان هناك شبكة واسعة من القواعد الامريكية علي اراضي كل قارة لتؤسس شكلا جديدا لامبراطورية بدل من استعمار الدول وغصب اراضيها .

استعرض الكاتب القواعد العسكرية الامريكية من حيث اماكن تواجدها وكيفية تسليحها ومهامها وذكر ادوارها في حروب امريكا الماضية ومن بينها بالطبع القواعد الموجودة في الدول العربية ودورها في حرب افغانستان والعراق بشكل تفصيلي لدرجة انه ذكر عدد الطلعات الجوية وانواع التسليح .

وعرج الكاتب علي شرح حروب امريكا سواء في فيتنام او كوريا الجنوبية وكذلك علاقاتها باليابان والحرب الاسبانية الامريكية والحرب الباردة مع روسيا ونتيجتها في تشكيل الامبراطورية ومن بعدها الصين ، وكذلك ادوار الولايات المتحدة في دول امريكا اللاتينية مثل الارجنتين وكولومبيا واثارة القلاقل هناك.

وضح الكاتب كذلك ان الولايات المتحدة تضع كل من ايران والعراق وكوريا الشمالية ضمن محور الشر ، مبينا الاسباب الحقيقية لغزو العراق سواء في حرب الخليج الاولي او الحرب الثانية في 2003 موضحا ادق التفاصيل وكيفية تم الغزو وعلي اي اساس وان الولايات المتحدو كانت تخطط لغزو العراق منذ رئاسة بيل كلينتون ولكنها كانت تنتظر الفرصة ، كذلك وضح الحرب علي افغانستان واتخاذ احداث سبتمر 2001 ذريعة للهجوم علي افغانستان وطالبان مبينا ان امريكا من صنعتهم وسلحتهم ، وعرج الكاتب من ذلك علي علاقة الولايات المتحدة بدول اسيا الوسطي مثل اوزباكستان وتركمنستان وغيرها وسر تواجدها هناك وهو النفط والذي تريد تمريره من هناك عبر باكستان لبحر العرب ولكن ايران تقف لها لذلك بين الكاتب لماذا التوتر بين امريكا وايران محتدم موضحا ادوار امريكا في الانقلاب علي حكومة مصدق .

ثم وضح الكاتب علاقة الولايات المتحدة بالعولمة وكيفة اتخذتها لافقار الدول موضحا كمثل لذلك الارجنتين رغم التزامها بتطبيق معايير العولمة ولكن هي خدعة للدول الكبيرة تستخدمها كيفما تشاء.

واوضح الكاتب كذلك ان وزارة الدفاع شكلت هيئة للبروباجندا العلامية لتضليل الشعب والدول وبث اخبار تتفق مع سياسة امريكا كي تخلق نوع من الاوهام ولتغطية انشطتها المخربة موضحا كذلك الدور الذي تلعبه الولايات المتحدة في التجسس علي شعوب العالم . واتجاها لبناء قواعد في غرب افريقيا وتركيزهم علي نفط هذه الدول .

ووضح الكاتب ان احزان الامبراطورية هي النتيجة التي لا مفر منها للمسار الذي اختارته الحكومة وان النزعة العسكرية تجلب الاحزان دائما
واول هذه الاحزان هو انه سوف تكون هناك دولة حروب متواصلة تؤدي الي مزيد من الارهاب ضد الاميريكيبن اينما كانوا
ثاني هذه الاحزان ان سوف تكون هناك خسارة للديمقراطية والحقوق الدستورية.

ثالث الاحزان سوف تتزايد الاستعاضة عن مبدأ الاخلاص والصدق الممزق بالفعل بمنظومة من البروباجندا والتضليل الاعلامي وتمجيد الحرب والجحافل العسكرية .
ورابع هذه الاحزان هي الافلاس لاننا نغدق مواردنا الاقتصادية علي مزيد من المشروعات العسكرية التي تتسم بالفخامة والعظمة .

لا يفوتكم هذا الكتاب ✋👌

#أحزان_الامبراطورية
#تشالمرز_جونسون
#قراءة_2020
#محمد_عبدالمقصود

[Kirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

What more critical reviews often miss (which is not unexpected, as some of them indicate they did not even read the book past the first chapter because they thought it was 'propaganda') in questions like 'Why couldn't the bases have a stabilizing effect?' is crucial lines like the assertion that many of the bases aren't even of military significance and have a great deal of bloat. Do our soldiers REALLY need golf courses, or our generals several luxury jets? What's even more horrifying is the fact there are air conditioned tents. TENTS. Just get a damn building if you must have something air conditioned, to have tents be such is ridiculously wasteful in the extreme.

Regardless of whether you agree with the premise that all these bases constitute an empire by another name, the fact that we have a huge number of frivolous expenditures that are completely hidden to us (by us I mean American voters) and aren't accountable to taxpayers in the slightest should be deeply concerning. It's no wonder the military keeps racking up such huge expenditures when they can hide everything. (Even if we were building some sort of superweapon that we wanted such secrecy that we didn't even want the budget of it known, the thing about doomsday superweapons is that they're really only useful as a deterrent if other people know you have them, and we already /have/ superweapons, they're called nukes...)

That said, this book is as dry as you might expect a book detailing military excesses to be, and I never actually finished the entire thing (although I might at a later date). I still recommend reading at least a little bit of it, though; it's interesting enough for a brief skim through at least, especially if you didn't know anything about it beforehand or if it's one of your favorite subjects.