There is no imperitive for the US to close any of its global bases, nor withdraw substantial numbers of troops from around the globe - not yet anyway. US policies since WW2 have been highly succesful (for the US, and to an extent 2 other European nations). US Foreign policy has allowed them to well and truely 'sow up' the Middle East as one big American protectorate - almost without serious challenge. For all the intents and purposes that count, they effectively 'own' the Middle East (and by default what comes out of the ground). They even have these countries trading their indiginous products / resources in US dollars - now if that is not 'sucessful' then I don't know what is. The US can also continue to pay for their 'military behemoth' as long as other nations - China and Saudi Arabia in particular come to mind - continue to buy 'worthless' US Dollar assets with real gold and real resources (artificially inflating the dollar as a result), thereby allowing the US to print as many dollars as it needs to continue to 'buy' real commodities with which to feed its military machine (and pay to certain foreign governments as 'aid' or 'economic assistance' in order to encourage continued compliance). The US can, and I assure you will, continue to maintain its 'empire', and even wage war if it is certain the long terms gains will out way the short term political flak. It will continue for as long as the rest of the world place a value on the US dollar. The people with real power in the US will do this whatever 'puppet' is placed in the role of 'Commander and Chief' - as is currently coming very much into the light under the 'great hope' that was Obama. The US have by no stretch of the immagination been a force for good recently - at least not since the end of the cold war. They have taken every opportunity to expand their own interests and sphere of influence in the abscence of a 'checking force'.

I have just watched Bill Ayers interview with RT reporter in Chicago. I respect Bill Ayers. I think he is courageous man who faced his moral responsibility and his past mistake by doing good work for the betterment of humanity. However, he ended his interview with a false assertion when he claimed that only Somalia and the United States are against signing the U.N charter for the Protection of children. What despite being a professor he does not seem to appreciate is that whilst the United States is against signing the U.N charter for the protection of children, Somalia had no functioning government since 1991. He also does not seem to appreciate that, perhaps with the exception of the Palestinians, no people are more victimized by the U.S foreign policy than the people of Somalia. Bill Ayers does not know that since 1979 Soviet departure and the arrival of the United States, the children and the people of Somalia have been living in hell on earth and this will not end until the United States empire collapses. Perhaps, Bill Ayers may wish to know that Somalia signed the 1989 complex Law of the Sea, which the United States refused to signed. Imperialistic ambitions, including the need to exploit natural resources and human labour, are the reasons why the United States refused to sign both the International Law of Sea and the U.N Charter for the protection of Children.

Sarah, I agree with your statement regarding Somalia. Once it was clear to the US that Somalia was reorganising itself under an Islamic leadership about 10 years ago I have seen attempt after attempt by the US to destabalise and fracture the counrty from both the inside and the outside. The worst case of which was to use the proxy of Ethiopia to do the dirty work that the US shyed away from. This was a truely disscusting episode - paying one of the poorest countries in the world (who just happen to be Christian) to attack another very poor country which was still on its knees (who just happen to be Islamic). And the US wonders why it is so, shall we say, 'unpopular'.

Jim, There are many reasons whyr the United States to have been successful since WWII. I will mention only two. First, the United States benefits economically, military and politically from the destruction of Europe in WII. The Soviet Union, the only other real power, was devastated and despite that it has face head on bellicose and new armed with nuclear weapons America. With its use of nuclear weapons to assert itself, the United States denied the chance of peaceful reemergence of Europe. Europe has been occupied by the United States ever since. The second and less reported in the literature is that the United States military has never once fully engaged a comparable army. That is to say there is no example in the United States military history battle which can be compared to those which took place between the Soviet Union and Germany in WII. Since WII, the United States has been beating weaker armies. I find it interesting that you've placed the indefinitely prolonging of American imperial reign on the shoulders of the Saudis and the Chinese and not on the Europeans. This is telling. What makes you so sure that the Saudis and particularly the Chinese will continue to purchase according to your own words ‘worthless” American dollar? And what will happens if the Chinese refused to purchase or at least reduced purchasing American dollar? How long will the Saudi Arabia be able to sustain American global empire if let us say, Iran, Russia and Venezuela decide to use the Euro, Rubles and Yean in trading with each other?What will be implications of that for the U.S dollar and the U.S imperial hegemony?

I agree with everything that Bill said completely

To Sarah - You have asked some very big questions that require more space than we have here, however I will answer quickly two points - 1)Europe and, 2) China (& Saudi). With regards to the Europeans they are currently in the process (and well advanced it is too) of creating the fabled 'United States of Europe'. They are finally working together after centuries of trying to destroy or dominate each other to create a real economic and political powerhouse that will (if it ever works) challenge not just the US but the emerging Asian markets. It may even 'take over' the USA's role as world leader (but don't hold your breath as it could be a very long time). The EU's current interest and priority appears to be to see the Euro become an alternative to, if not replace, the US Dollar as a global reserve currency and to get each member state to fully commit to the Union (the UK is a noticeable and significant hold out). As for the Chinese, they are holding massive sums of US debt and the US is also China's largest market - so China's economic rise or fall, is closely linked to the US economy and dollar value. China cannot do much with its debt - 'dumping' their dollar investments would loose them many billions and probably access to the US market as 'punishment' - so they continue to devalue their own currency to access the US market (and 'inflate' the dollar as a result), and support their biggest customer and creditor by buying more paper assets. I do not know if they are still doing this but they were until quite recently. The Saudis also prop up the dollar by buying billions of dollars worth of foreign goods in dollars (including various 'bonds' etc), and selling billions of dollars worth of oil in US dollars. If these too big hitters ever did anything to weaken the dollar (which I not foresee in the future) it would make the US war machine way too expensive for the 'domestic' US economy alone to maintain - and by default their 'empire'.

To Jim thank you for yoru comment. Now, I feel that your analysis makes set of apriori assumptions which in turn support your arguments but there is no necessary and sufficient evidence of your apriori assumptions . For example, because the Chinese currently hold large sums of money in U. S currency that- even as the U.S currency losses its global position- does not mean that the Chinese are condemned for backing the U. S dollar forever. It is more logical to assume that the Chinese may in fact decide to cut their losses and make other strategic economic plans such as purchasing more gold and trading with other nations. However, your appriori assumptions denies this possibility even when the American consumer purchasing power steadily decline and Iran, Russia and Venezuela and the key energy producing countries make trade their commodities in Euros and other currencies. Your analysis seems to assume that the Chinese think like a gambler who losses his bidding but keeps pouring more money gambling away using the same lossing strategy in the hope of recovering his lost money. I am not sure that the Chinese follow this model. I am not also sure that the European Unions is yet in a position to stand up the United States. The US economic elite is well aware of its own precarious position in the world. the U.S will not let go its hold of Europe easily. On the other hand, Russia can play a wait and see standby game whilst making smart economic trades with Asia and Europe. Killing the dollars dominant position in the world is key to the end of American empire and it will happen in the next 5-10 years. My fear is that American neocons will bring a global disaster rather than accepting defeat. This is why I am fearful of new a nuclear war between Iran and the United States.

Sarah, You think Bill Ayers is a "COURAGEOUS" man? Are you kidding? You must have slept through the class notes that day!(It must be nice to be an academic) Bill Ayers is a TERRORIST! He KILLED innocent civilians, yes, they were only Americans and I understand that Americans do not qualify in your opinion as human beings, so I can understand your logic.

December 16, 2009, 10:53, Dave R. wrote > I agree with everything that Bill said completely See my reply to Sarah!

Go to www.themicroeffect.com radio network on wednesday evening to hear some astounding information about this so called professor, Bill Ayers. There is a website called www.captainsherlock.com and www.hawkescafe.com.

this news piece seems to imply that it is up to the American people to change the status quo; didn't they just vote for Peace (obama)? Maybe if all americans voted this radical "democracy" theory of people ending the war might work. Or if the president actually had the power to wind down the war machine, which we all know he does not.