The Phantom Empire
I think the author makes some important points. Overall, I half-agree. He contends that we do not live up to the traditional definition of an empire. I agree. However, perhaps a new definition is in order.
Quote (emphasis mine):
Still, despite the endorsement the notion of an American empire has received from writers across the political spectrum, something is missing from the analysis. There is more to having an empire than simply the possession of great power. [b]Empire presupposes the existence of a military establishment that is charged with the task of insuring, through the threat and use of force, that local and regional conflicts are settled by the application of imperial power. Understood that way, the imperial model does not match American foreign policy as it has actually developed since the end of the Cold War[/b]: Indeed, we fear empire rather than welcome it.
End quote. Here I'm not so sure I agree. Did we not jump into Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Guam, and Panama? What were we doing in Mogadishu? Adid was blocking relief efforts and stealing the food. Was there a vital interest to the United States? No. It was Clinton throwing his military might in where the UN was haplessly standing by doing nothing which is what they do. Does that mean the US is an empire? No. It does mean that we do engage in realpolitik which is a form of imperialism. It is important to note that we are the good guys on an overwhelming number of occasions.
Quote:
No serious empire-builder would ever cut taxes as recklessly as President Bush has. Because of the enormous tax cut, the Bush administration has had little choice but to disappoint its allies in the Pentagon by reneging on its promise to throw open the government's checkbook.
End quote. Have I missed something? Wasn't there a massive increase in the military budget? Sure they killed the Crusader system but so what, it was flawed to begin with.
As for enlisting Pakistan's help, Bush made the smart move. He dangled a carrot in front of them and revoked it only when he and his party looked like they were going to suffer for it domestically. Sure it's important to reward your friends but if you're not in power, you can't reward them at all. Ultimately, Bush knows he can strong arm Musharev into reforming and clearing out both Al Qaeda and the ISI. The latter of whom makes Musharev's life very difficult.
Finally, he trumpets the notion that not only [b]is[/b] American and empire but that it [b]should be one[/b]. Rather than expanding the empire either quietly or by accident, it should be our stated goal and have a coherent strategy. He correctly assumes that if we are going to be an empire, that is the manner in which we must go about it. He is, however, woefully wrong that we should. Empires are far more trouble than they are worth. Gone are the days of suppressing natives with a cavalry and a few cannons. Now non-state actors (read: terrorists) can make things difficult very quickly. We would rather have a world filled with Canadas, Great Britains, Irelands, and Japans. People who are western, modern democracies who are far more interested in trade than war. Western democracies never go to war. Italy, Germany and Japan were expunged of their imperialistic designs in very short order and they've been good ever since. There is no reason to think we cannot duplicate the same success in Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. Nobody wants US troops on the 38th parallel but we made a commitment and it's the only thing keeping the DPRK from storming into Seoul and expanding the hermit kingdom.
Americans are an isolationist lot at heart. We believe in live and let live both on a personal level and a foreign policy level. Do you actually think the average American cares if the Tutsis are slaughtering the Hutus by the thousands? I assure you, they don't. I believe that a great many people are federalists at heart if not in mind. Most of them care about local issues far far more than they do national or international ones. Most people care about national issues today because the federal government has expanded their role to all but obviate the power and role of the state. I curse you, Liz Dole, for your well intentioned but woefully misguided attempts to protect us from drunk drivers by tying federal highway funds to the drinking age and DUI limits. That was the last shred of federalism left in my lifetime. That same tactic has been co-opted by the left to railroad their agenda through on a national level. If Bush and the GOP are able to appoint a strict constructionist court we may see the reduction of the expansive federal government. Maybe they will roll back the catch all "General welfare" myth that has been used by statists to fund everything from feces as art to entitlement programs and the like. Unlike some, I have hope.
I think the author makes some important points. Overall, I half-agree. He contends that we do not live up to the traditional definition of an empire. I agree. However, perhaps a new definition is in order.
Quote (emphasis mine):
Still, despite the endorsement the notion of an American empire has received from writers across the political spectrum, something is missing from the analysis. There is more to having an empire than simply the possession of great power. [b]Empire presupposes the existence of a military establishment that is charged with the task of insuring, through the threat and use of force, that local and regional conflicts are settled by the application of imperial power. Understood that way, the imperial model does not match American foreign policy as it has actually developed since the end of the Cold War[/b]: Indeed, we fear empire rather than welcome it.
End quote. Here I'm not so sure I agree. Did we not jump into Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Guam, and Panama? What were we doing in Mogadishu? Adid was blocking relief efforts and stealing the food. Was there a vital interest to the United States? No. It was Clinton throwing his military might in where the UN was haplessly standing by doing nothing which is what they do. Does that mean the US is an empire? No. It does mean that we do engage in realpolitik which is a form of imperialism. It is important to note that we are the good guys on an overwhelming number of occasions.
Quote:
No serious empire-builder would ever cut taxes as recklessly as President Bush has. Because of the enormous tax cut, the Bush administration has had little choice but to disappoint its allies in the Pentagon by reneging on its promise to throw open the government's checkbook.
End quote. Have I missed something? Wasn't there a massive increase in the military budget? Sure they killed the Crusader system but so what, it was flawed to begin with.
As for enlisting Pakistan's help, Bush made the smart move. He dangled a carrot in front of them and revoked it only when he and his party looked like they were going to suffer for it domestically. Sure it's important to reward your friends but if you're not in power, you can't reward them at all. Ultimately, Bush knows he can strong arm Musharev into reforming and clearing out both Al Qaeda and the ISI. The latter of whom makes Musharev's life very difficult.
Finally, he trumpets the notion that not only [b]is[/b] American and empire but that it [b]should be one[/b]. Rather than expanding the empire either quietly or by accident, it should be our stated goal and have a coherent strategy. He correctly assumes that if we are going to be an empire, that is the manner in which we must go about it. He is, however, woefully wrong that we should. Empires are far more trouble than they are worth. Gone are the days of suppressing natives with a cavalry and a few cannons. Now non-state actors (read: terrorists) can make things difficult very quickly. We would rather have a world filled with Canadas, Great Britains, Irelands, and Japans. People who are western, modern democracies who are far more interested in trade than war. Western democracies never go to war. Italy, Germany and Japan were expunged of their imperialistic designs in very short order and they've been good ever since. There is no reason to think we cannot duplicate the same success in Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. Nobody wants US troops on the 38th parallel but we made a commitment and it's the only thing keeping the DPRK from storming into Seoul and expanding the hermit kingdom.
Americans are an isolationist lot at heart. We believe in live and let live both on a personal level and a foreign policy level. Do you actually think the average American cares if the Tutsis are slaughtering the Hutus by the thousands? I assure you, they don't. I believe that a great many people are federalists at heart if not in mind. Most of them care about local issues far far more than they do national or international ones. Most people care about national issues today because the federal government has expanded their role to all but obviate the power and role of the state. I curse you, Liz Dole, for your well intentioned but woefully misguided attempts to protect us from drunk drivers by tying federal highway funds to the drinking age and DUI limits. That was the last shred of federalism left in my lifetime. That same tactic has been co-opted by the left to railroad their agenda through on a national level. If Bush and the GOP are able to appoint a strict constructionist court we may see the reduction of the expansive federal government. Maybe they will roll back the catch all "General welfare" myth that has been used by statists to fund everything from feces as art to entitlement programs and the like. Unlike some, I have hope.
Comments