Concur yr analysis.

Never liked the 'empire' epithet, argued vehemently AGAINST its application to America.

Yet, the spread of American culture, trade, language, technology, ideals and music seem to indicate the existence of something imperial.

I have long hoped that Bush, and the pro-Iraq war neocons, would more honestly/ completely support a "Universal Human Rights" empire.

I recall the 1999 spam/ chain e-letter DEMANDING women's rights in Afghanistan under the Taliban -- I have the strong feeling most of the signers are not supportive of Bush. But they should be.

I didn't sign that letter -- because it didn't call for military intervention, and I knew that was necessary.

I support a NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group, possibly associated with the new Democracy Caucus of the UN, to identify regimes that warrant military based regime change. And accepting coalitions of the willing. Including acceptance of dictators like China, because of a lack of such coalition. Weak dictators, like Sudan, based on Darfur genocide, should be targets.

And leaving a genuine human rights respecting democracy should be the exit goal.

Private property, like socialist property, or terrorism funding protection racket property, requires force/ violence to enforce property rights. The creation of wealth, the only way to combat the poverty each human is born into, requires some force, empire.

MJT, reasonable critique of Reagan, but it fails to honestly compare the "lesser evil" choice of right wing thug vs left wing commie. All the thousands of murders the South American thugs supported are still much less than Cambodian commie killing fields.

The hypocritical standard should not cut it : if we support a despot who kills, he's our monster and we're responsible. If we allow a commie despot to take over, the commie murders don't count.

I read somewhere (Hugh Hewett?) that Rumsfeld was told NOT to follow the Cambodian lesson of leaving, with respect to Iraq. [Sorry to be a pain on this; but the lack of honest comparisons of evil choices really bugs me.]

I still do not understand why America was considered an imperialists empire when it addressed Iraq but a humanitarian empire when it addressed Liberia?

I dont understand your aversion to the term "empire" Michael. You seem to acknowledge the role we have played in supporting dictators in Central America. And, of course, it doesnt stop there. South America, the arab world ,,,etc.

It should be emphasized that these interventions are not simply cases of failed attempts to establish freedom and democracy. Nor were they done just for the hell of it. Our involvement in the political lives of those countries was done for one reason, and one reason alone. Namely to protect the interests of American business that was being conducted in those countries - usually the exploitation of natural resources or the growing of cheap agricultural products to feed our economy.

The only difference between this and standard colonialism was the indirect nature of the rule. Hire a local gang to keep the people in line rather than sending our own folks to do it. A smarter form of colonialism perhaps, but certainly not different in kind. And not unlike what the French do today in Africa.

The bottom line of colonialism itself was always to create the environment for doing business in the interest of the ruling nation. It was rarely just conquest for conquest's sake.

Ferguson writes: "It's an empire that is remarkably adept at spreading its culture globally. In that sense, it's an empire with almost unrivaled military and cultural power. But when it comes to what might be called imperial governance, it is an empire which, precisely because it doesn't recognize its own existence, consistently underperforms."

I'm not sure what he is describing, but attaching a word with very specific meaning (empire) to it and then justifying that meaning by twisting the original meaning doesn't cut it.

We are a military might, no doubt. Our culture is indeed spread over much of the world via business (Coke~It's the Real Thing)and the free adaptation by others (The popularity of much in music, goods and other things), again no doubt. But that does not describe an Empire or Imperial aspirations.

There is much truth to what Ferguson says, especially if you remove the word Empire. But then it wouldn't have the same political twang would it?

Ferguson is likely using the word in its original Latin sense, i.e., 'power or authority'. This does not imply bureacracy and the rest.

That said, MJT, your narrow focus on Guatemala ingnores the outcome, (which Ferguson does too), which is that now Guatemala and Nicaruagua and El Salvador all have functioning Democracies.

And I for one, doubt if that would have been possible if America hadn't supported those respective governments/insugencies. (And fought the Cold Ware with the Soviet Union, leading to its eventual collapse, and the most important thing of all, the cessation of injection of cheap arms into every possible nook and cranny in the world.

Is that 'the end justifies the means'? I'm not sure, exactly. But Ferguson's "the British would have done it better" is just wrong as most of Africa demonstrates, not to mention places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

Ferguson's book on WWI, "The Pity of War" is a must-read though.

I think a lot of the reason that America doesn't like the term "empire" is that it goes against its own national self-image. Pretty much from its founding the US has defined itself as the best alternative to the old European colonial powers. With good reason, looking at the records of those powers in their colonies.

good point sam.

Its called "denial".

All we need do is define a self-image, and we are thus shielded from understanding the real impact of what we do. Those on the other end have no such illusions.

So our political discourse becomes an exercise in competing self-images, rather than dealing with the facts on the ground. Death squads as "freedom fighters" - convincing because we want to believe the self-image more than we want to really know what is going on in the world.

This seems to be a good week to be reminded of that.

Damn. Thanks for nothing, MT. Now I have to add Colossus to my already-too-long reading list. :)

GMRoper: Normally I would agree with you. But reading the interview, it seems to me that Ferguson has his head on straight. Furthermore, the Left-wingers who would be most receptive to criticism of the "American Empire" are going to be among the least receptive to what Ferguson has to say.

I think you can talk about the "American Empire" without twisting the meaning of "empire" too much. Webster's defines "empire" as:

"A major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority."

Major political unit? Check.
Territory of great extent? Check.
Encompassing a number of peoples? Check.
A single sovereign authority? Check.

Now, the US Empire is certainly being propagated in a different way than most other empires in the past. We are certainly not the Darth Vader kind of Empire. :) But beyond a certain point, that's not really relevant. It sounds like Ferguson is using the term "empire" because he wants the US to come to grips with the reality of its role in the world. Unless and until that happens, we will be ineffective in spreading our values.

"We are certainly not the Darth Vader kind of Empire."

Thats basically my point about why the US does not want to be seen as an empire. When people think of the term "Empire" they think of oppression, atrocity and terror on a massive scale. Either in the form of the old European empires, the USSR, or even the one from Star Wars. Given the spread of human history this is a pretty justifiable view. The British Empire, which was relatively benevolent, at least compared with most of its contemporaries, did some exeedingly brutal things.

The connection between those images and the term Empire is pretty strong in the US. So naturally, any definitions of the US as an Empire are going to make people at least uncomfortable.

"Unless and until that happens, we will be ineffective in spreading our values."

I wouldn't say ineffective, the spread of American values seems to have gone pretty well so far. Maybe less effective would be a better term?

Didn't finish the article, haven't read the comments; I just wanna say: America isn't an "Empire" it's a Zeitgiest!

Tom Gray is mostly right in this:

MJT, reasonable critique of Reagan, but it fails to honestly compare the "lesser evil" choice of right wing thug vs left wing commie. All the thousands of murders the South American thugs supported are still much less than Cambodian commie killing fields.

I say mostly, because predicting outcomes is always dicey. In terms of track records, I think it's clear communism is the all-time champ at atrocity production. If you lump the National Socialist model with Communism (which I do) the lead widens considerably. So I feel that all these "adventures" that pushed back against the rise of Marxist movements were a net plus.

Having said that, some of our bastards really were bastards. "Right-wing thug" or "commie" may not have been the only choices. Problem is, I can't recall anybody coming up with a viable "third way". And during the Cold War, there were a couple of other players on the field pumping resources into seeing the Global Worker's Paradise ultimately triumph.

Maybe we should have taken down overtly fascist states as well, power vacuums and Angolan military advisors sent in via friendly neighbos be damned.

But if that becomes the after-the-fact standard being promoted, what do we do with Venezuela today if Chavez declares martial law and won't give up the throne, even after the upcoming referendum?

You only need to look at Cuba, Viet Name, and China to see that communism doesn't necessarily fall on its own. Or to Iraq to see that fascism, even under extraordinary economic pressure, is fated to spontaneously collapse. The elephant in the PoliSci seminar is that the bootheel-on-the-neck method works.

Tano, I'm asking you here. What's the standard? What should our response be to human misery? If we have a global empire (and I believe you would say we do) don't we have a responsibility to those people living within that empire? Do we intervene in Venezuela when the murder squads take the streets? Considering their oil reserves, we would have to accept that a vibrant Venezuela with close ties to the US would be in our economic interest. (A bitter pill, that.) Or do we let another country slip into chaos while we go catch "Avenue Q"?

Ahh...the 'ol "Our Son of a Bitch" foreign policy. There's nothing I hate more than the uber-realist "son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" mode of thinking.

When we're at our best, America is an empire of ideas. When we're at our worst, America is just a flat-out old school empire toppling democratically elected leaders we don't happen to like.

I wish to God we stuck more to the "empire of ideas" line. When we went into Iraq, around here all I heard from the average guy on the street was how it'd sure be great to control Iraq's oil if it brought down gas prices. It's that kind of thing that makes me want to punch people square in the face, sometimes.

I utterly detest the word "empire" because, in every case come before us, it always morphs into just bullying everyone around. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and ought to be feared. Period.

Mark,
The bootheel-on-the-neck method only works so long as the ruling authority can keep the pressure on. If they relax it they can get swept away by the people they've been stamping on. This can happen either through deliberate reforms or just lack of willpower and incompetence. It can happen peacefully as in Russia in 1991 or extremely violently as in Russia in 1917. The process can also be reversed like in China, if the authorities act with sufficiently overwhelming force in a rapid fashion.

Also, regarding Cuba, is there anybody who could replace Castro after he dies? I'm betting that after he kicks the bucket we'll see a pretty rapid change in government in Cuba. If anybody has any different information could they please provide cites.

Oh, and one more thing...

Yeah, Michael, I kind of agree with you on Reagan. The big problem with alot of that rabid anti-communism stuff was not the fact that it was anti-communist. Anti-communism in and of itself was and is a great thing.

It's that alot of times it was so intense that it sort of became more like "anything but communism". Right-wing dictatorships, just as bad as left-wing ones, were rewarded. I think alot of times it came from pretty innocent motives. I don't think most anti-communists were truly supportive of the right-wing dictatorship model, they just got a little carried away. Alot of modern-day neo-cons have kind of seen the light on this one, though, thankfully.

Grant, in theory I absolutely agree with you. The biggest threat to the world may be what being an empire does to America.

The problem is, we're riding the tiger right now, and in a sense have been since the end of the Great War. Getting off is going to be problematic, at best.

From Marc Poling:
What's the standard? What should our response be to human misery?

Aye, there's the rub. So far, the US answer to that seems to be:

"We'll intervene when it's in our national interest. Unless it's really bad; then we'll intervene out of humanitarian concerns. Unless it gets too costly for us, at which point we'll pull out."

This is an ad-hoc response, not a coherent doctrine. It seems to be a combination of a couple of principles:
1. Gosh, That's Bad
2. We Should Do What We Can To Help
3. But It's Not Really Our Problem

The first two principles cause us to intervene; the last one causes us to pull out.

The problem is that the US has neither the resources nor the will to address every instance of human suffering. Mighty as we are, there is plenty we can't do.

Some people seem to have a problem with the idea of the US acting in its own interests, regardless of whether the intervention is successful from a humanitarian/pro-Democarcy perspective. Why? It would seem to me that these ideas are not only not incompatible, but would actually prove to be the strongest two pillars of a foreign policy doctrine. 1) Good for (insert country); 2) Good for America. If either one of these conditions is not met, then action not taken.

There seems to be a reflexive negativity to any action, no matter how positive, if the entity in question personally benefits as well. Seems to me that the greatest benefits come when we act in own own self interests, with the idea that others will benefit as well. I always refer to the comparison between Mother Theresea and Bill Gates. One is more "noble," has her place in history for her sacrifice. However, the advances in computer technology over the last 25 years have clearly benefitted more people in more ways by the power of thousands over any work that Mother Theresea did. Bill Gates (Microsoft) gets no credit, however, because they make a buck. (This, of course, ignores the complexities of antitrust and what not, which is beside the point -- Bill gates could be the most ethical businessman in history and that wouldn't change this argument).

Do we go into every single situation where there's a problem? Absolutely not. But do we go in when there is a need, and it impacts us in some way? Absolutely.

I disagree with Tom Grey's comparisons. The alternative to Pinochet was not Mao. The contras were not trying to overthrow Pol Pot.
Making such cross comparisons is simply a way of excusing things done in our name.

As to Venezuela - we seem to be following the usual cycle. Corrupt oligarchs with our support - leads to popular revolt usually led by forces that fail to appreciate what our system COULD be - justifying restoration of the oligarchs - provoking further unrest. We need to break the cycle of these things and the way to do it is to make sure that we support only those regimes that seriously are "of the people".

We could do it from either, or preferably both, sides. Relentlessly pressure the pro-business side to build their society rather than just profit from it. And work with the popular leaders to show them that our system can help the people more than any alternative - instead of expressing complete hostility to their movements from the beginning. Most of these movements are "marxist" for no other reason than that the marxists offer the promise of popular empowerment. Although our system can actually deliver those goods, we routinely simply take the side of the oligarchs and thus unwittingly strengthen the hold of the marxist ideology on those who want to do right by the people.

Take Chavez for example. He won a fair election, big time. We should have accepted that, and then tried to convince him and his followers that our system could actually deliver all that they dreamed of, far more so than the Cuban model. Co-opt, and in that way, the movement and the country evolves. But instead we just show hostility, and support those trying to overturn the democratic decision, and that just leads to endless discord and stagnation.

Tano: Our involvement in the political lives of those countries was done for one reason, and one reason alone. Namely to protect the interests of American business that was being conducted in those countries

Then why did we stop propping up thugs after the dissolution of the Soviet Union?

I know all about United Fruit Company. So, obviously, does Ferguson. Surely you must know by now about the Soviet Union's Latin American interventions that were done for one reason and one reason only...

For whatever this is worth, I have predicted several things lately. I made a promise to myself to let someone know next time I have a strange incling. #19 has some power today???

Sorry.

"why did we stop propping up thugs after the dissolution of the Soviet Union?"

Because we had a democratic president?

Actually we have had some succes in escaping the cycle, both before and after the Soviet collapse. Brazil is a good paradigm for this - the "marxist" workers movement bringing forth a charismatic leader who has bought into the general framework of liberal democracy. We need to always champion such processes - allowing popular leaders to come to the fore, and to work with them as they address the needs of the people, within a democratic paradigm - rather than financing a repressive opposition.

Tano: We could do it from either, or preferably both, sides. Relentlessly pressure the pro-business side to build their society rather than just profit from it. And work with the popular leaders to show them that our system can help the people more than any alternative - instead of expressing complete hostility to their movements from the beginning.

Or something like that.

It's a tough question. I don't have all the answers. Latin American politics are hell, and I don't trust people who are overly self-righteous about it.

I don't think it's okay to shrug and let Communists take over Latin America. It's also not okay to overthrow democratic socialists or give blanket support for brutal military regimes.

There were other options, and I would like to know what they were. I don't know everything, and I'm not done learning about this. But I do know that moral posturing by itself would have accomplished zero.

The reason I want to read Ferguson's book is because he's British, he knows more about what worked for the British than I do. He understands the positives and negatives of this sort of thing without being either knee-jerk or blind.

Tano: Because we had a democratic president?

No, I really don't think so. We no longer needed to counter the Soviet Union. The Bush Adminstration came out strongly against Rios Montt's election in Guatemala last year, for whatever that was worth.

It was my hero Franklin Roosevelt who coined the phrase "out son of a bitch" to describe Nicaragua's Somoza. I don't love him because of that, but despite that. This is/was not a Democratic/Republican thing.

Oh for a perfect world.

The same people that know the geneology of right wing dictatorships in banana republics going back to the thirties cannot seem to tear themselves away from hosting people like Manuel Ortega or Fidel Castro to soirees at all the finer nightclubs.

What level of 'empire' is appropriate? I propose that our mere existence incites one of two responses: emulation or envy. The parade of interventions, covert support, overt uses of force all occurred against the backdrop of the struggle between east and west and simple economic realities.

We have interests as a nation. All nations do. We also trade for products and commodities. Our governemnt is not in business...but in many other nations, the only business is government.

Do we declare state control of the means of production unacceptable in our trading partners? If that's the case, we'd bette colonize Saudi Arabia, for one. We can embargo China, too...our what, third largest trading partner? Second?

The world is not a perfect place. Americans are loathe to project American power in the form of colonialism but they do expect their opportunities to trade to be reasonably predictable and secure. What avenue could we have followed, in the 40's, 50's, 60's, in just Central and South America so as to not 'exploit' those nations?

The value of a bunch of bananas or wheat or wool on the dock in Buenos Aries is what the value of that commodity is THERE. That that value represents an opportunity to make a killing here is business.

Do we open the holster because their political/economic system doesn't stack up adequately to our definition of fair?

My, aren't we conceited.

I believe that freedom is the cure for exploitation. I believe that rule of law, protection of private property, and representative controls of government ensure the maximum benefit of commerce to any community or country. I don't think it's our business to cross a border to change governments unless the act is directly related to our national security - which yes, can sometimes be merely economic in nature.

I believe that from the right, at least, the days of 'safe strongman' installations are over for the time being.

The right is now the progressive force in American politics.

Michael - I caught Niall Ferguson on C-Span's In-Depth recently ---

http://www.booktv.org/indepth/index.asp?segid=4485&schedID=267

Thatcher & Reagan are among his fave politicians, and it shows. What he doesn't 'get' is our Vietnam hangover, but it's a fascinating interview.

He also wrote a piece recently for AIE - The End of Europe?, which bolsters the 'Eurabia' trend coming from the Right.

http://www.aei.org/news/filter.,newsID.20045/news_detail.asp

If not for the "American Empire" most of central and south america would be under the cruel hand of a Cuba style communism. Thank God that is not the case.

Those guano-brained armchair political philosophers who have never lived under communism will never really understand this.

Michael,
I think it has tended to be somewhat of a R/D thing, or at least a left/right thing.
Fortunatly, the republicans are not static. They trail along behind the forces of progress, as we as a nation evolve. It is undoubtedly the case that republicans were still supporting some of the ugliest characters in "the colonies" while the dems were advocating a different approach. Helms, Reagan, there record is very bad.

Things improve, I will grant you that. But the credit shouldnt go to the laggards, nor should they get excessive praise for arriving at the place that the rest of us were a long time ago.

Now lets see what they do with their good buddies in Riyadh...

Tano, how does the record of Bill Clinton fit into your good guys/bad guys analysis?

I don't see what the problem is with the word "empire". Examples abound in history: Rome for starters. Skip ahead to modern times: Britain - the classic textbook case of empire. The sun never sets, etc, etc. Even little Belgium, founder of one of the most truly evil empires in all history. Their record in the Belgian Congo will never be erased.

Then there's France, which still has territories in the Pacific: French Polynesia, Wallis and Futunia,.....

Compare any of those with America: where are our territories? American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rice, Virgin Islands. Not much of an Empire.

We have a long long way to go before we get even close to empire.

As to our culture going around the world (as Sharps Shooter said), it's hardly a case of tying people down and making them listen to rap music. For trade, culture and technology, well, as they say, the cream rises to the top.

What TMJUtah said.

TMJ, ever think about running for office?

Mark,
Well, Haiti was a nice try. Popular leader with questionable ideology, overthrown by military dictator. What other president would have put the popular leader back in?
Too bad it didnt work out so well, but the tendency was right.

One of the problems with US foreign policy over the last 7 decades is that it revolves around fighting state communism and fascism with . . . more state communism and fascism. Why are we surprised when the results are less than optimal?

Logically, we should attack state communism with market capitalism. Similarly, we should attack fascism with decentralized communalism.

I propose that the United States' most powerful and most underutilized weapon against evil states is the smuggler. Rather than blockade states like Iraq, Cuba, the USSR, Iran, Saudi, etc., the USG should allow (and perhaps encourage) everyone to trade with these nations as much as possible. The theory here is that since blockades hurt the population more than the dictators, trade should narrow the gap between the oppressed and the ruled, decreasing the oppressors' comparative advantage. The smuggling of products and information the dictators don't want their people to have is especially important.

If the population of an oppressed country can get access to enough resources, information (crucially knowledge about how poorly their political leadership compares to that elsewhere), and free time, the likelihood of the dictators' defeat would seem high.

If we could develop and distribute new technologies which make states weaker and individuals stronger, this should work to our advantage. Use of the West's advantage in communications technology to overwhelm The Great Firewall of China and Iranian efforts at censorship would seem far more cost-effective than using the USG's crude instruments of coercion.

"Compare any of those with America: where are our territories? American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rice, Virgin Islands. Not much of an Empire"

America is an empire, 19th century westward expansion was a classic example of imperial growth. The native Americans being the colonized in this case, I can't see any obvious differnce between that and the expansion of the European empires.

I don't see how Hawaii is not considered a colonial possession of the US wheras new Zealand was considered a colony of Britain.

China's conquest of Tibet and Xinjiang also qualifies it as an empire. But a much more oppressive empire than the US.

China still has its eyes on much of Siberia, constantly weighing the risks vs. benefits.

So Clinton returns a murderous thug to power in Haiti and it's a nice try. Bush pressures a murderous thug to hold a referendum in Venezuela and Bush is subverting the will of the people.

The question is seldom about the first election for radical redistributionists. The question becomes how do we as a country deal with lawlessness and oppression that follows, i.e. how to get the boot off the neck. Or do we bother?

If Venezuela goes the way of Cuba it will hurt our economy in the short term, but long term it won't make that much of a difference. Venezuela will still need to sell oil on the international market. Depending on how distressed the country becomes, they may have to undercut other nation's prices, bringing the worldwide price of oil down. Oddly enough, a desparately poor Venezuela might be good for oil importers (i.e. us) in the long term.

So your really evil Republican might root for Chavez to gut Venezuela's economy.

Viva la revolucion!

Caesar--

Hawaii is a state. States have elected representatives in the U.S. Congress. Territories do not. Clear?

Mark,
Aristide was not a murderous thug when Clinton reinstalled him. He was an enormously popular figure. His decline is certainly a tradgedy. And even with his failure, it was a good thing to have overthrown the military dictatorship, for they were even worse.

And if you recall, Bush was supportive of the military coup that ousted Chavez for a few days.
Things have certainly progressed to the point where even Bush cant openly advocate a coup in a place like Vz, but he sure seemed happy to legitimize it the second he thought it might hold.

The goal should be to recognize reality. Chavez in the political force that he is because he speaks for very large numbers of people who feel permanently cut out of the prosperity of their country. To blindly oppose him would be seen as blindly opposing the interests of all those people. The point should be to integrate those people into the economy. To the extent that you offer nothing but a wall of opposition, you tend to push political movements to find expression in other ways - like Fidelism. Chavez is a symptom, he is not the underlying problem. The problem is a vast disenfranchised underclass. It is in our interest that they feel that they have something to gain by joining us.

Think about the dynamic of our own country. No group is really permanently excluded. When angry or extreme ideologies arise, they are engaged by the mainstream parties, their legitimate needs are addressed to some extent, and they become integrated into the mainstream. That is the dynamic of a healthy democracy - not going to war against the opposition.

Chavez is a symptom, he is not the underlying problem. The problem is a vast disenfranchised underclass. It is in our interest that they feel that they have something to gain by joining us.

How, pray tell, do we do this? This is an honest question. In a way we're back to square one with the "Liberal Empire" issue.

I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth when I say that I agree that liberalism requires a broad-based faith in the fairness of society. The question becomes how do you get there from a society where every tradition says the system is not fair, never was, and never will be?

This is a chicken and egg problem. If the choice is between crypto-Communists, crypto-Fascists, and plain old nutjobs who like the feel of an ivory toilet seat and have the private army to put them on it, you really have no choice at all.

Multitudes understand this. That's why so many people opt for immigrating to the United States if they can. Think about how much courage many of these people have to have, to willingly leave everything they've ever known to come here to make a new life.

PS: A small reminder that maybe restoring Aristide to power wasn't such an honest mistake.

One grey area in this question of what should the US do with non-liberal governments is in the definition of "support". Time and again we hear charges and complaints that the US "supported" this or that dictatorship, but I don't think any two of us means the same thing when we use that word. What qualifies as "support"?

This is important because if we agree that we shouldn't support such governments, which is relatively easy to say, implementing that policy will be difficult if no one agrees on what it means.

Of the top of my head, I've come up with a list of things which could be considered support, in roughly declining degree.

1. Installation
2. Militarily defending
3. Arms sales (and grants)
4. Militarily advising
5. Membership in regional security pacts
6. Economic aid to the govt (subsidies)
7. Humanitarian aid to 3rd parties (NGOs)
8. Trade (maybe MFN status)
9. Membership in trade organizations (WTO)
10. Diplomatic exchange
11. Cultural exchange

There are specific cases where the US is damned for one or another of these, but there is disagreement over whether it's support. (E.g., aid through NGOs to Afghanis was characterized by some as support for the Taliban.)

I bring this up to point out that the devil's in the details. What would it mean to not support, say, Saudi Arabia?

Communist empires killed over a hundred million in the last century alone. If not for the obstacle of the american empire, communism would likely have killed at least another hundred million in latin america and africa.

Cuba is hell. Venezuela is going the way of Cuba under the dictator Chavez. Only the deaths of the tyrants will deliver the people. We hope that Brazil will come to its senses before it sinks beyond rescue.

Fresh Air-

Quite clear thank you. So is France also non-imperial since it's external possessions like French Guiana have seats in their parliament and votes in their Presidential elections?

Is tibet not part of a Chinese empire, after all it is treated as an integral part of the chinese nation, with the Tibetans having as much right to choose the government of China as Beijingers have (ie, none)?

Pablo: Communist empires killed over a hundred million in the last century alone. If not for the obstacle of the american empire, communism would likely have killed at least another hundred million in latin america and africa.

Of course. The question I've been wrestling with is how we could have opposed expansionist Communism without carrying water for another form of tyranny. It's a hard question with no easy answers. That's why I want to read Ferguson's book. We need to continue what we've been doing while at the same time avoiding the mistakes of the past. Isolationism isn't an option, and the "our son of a bitch" model stinks.

GMRoper -

The number one mistake made by our active political class is that they tend to believe that they are actually in control of what is going on around them. City councilmen, mayors, congressmen, eveb Presidents...almost to a person, after enough time horse trading and electioneering, they succumb to equating the status quo as something normal and static. Some sort of steady state that they can presume to adjust at will, simply because their job description has authorized them to sit at the controls.

There are around a dozen people egaged in this conversation. Our political/social alignments range from the fatuously disconnected from reality club right over to me, here on Edmund Burke's living room sofa. We all have the right to air opinions, argue points, present evidence in support of our views, and agree or disagree at will. The ability for us to do this has been made possible by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives on battlefields in every corner of the globe. Before the techonology, before the power grid, before creation of written language, the very act of two or more people kicking around ideas at will on government, economics, sociology, or today's weather is an aberration when viewed against the preponderance of history.

Any mere citizen (speaking for Americans, and other citizens of representative republics with direct elections for national offices) has an equal say in the mechanism that produces our leadership. A vote is a vote is a vote, regardless of the education, economic condition, ethinicity, or religion of the citizen. Some few of us watch the process with the reverence of a prophet watching deity fulfill the promise but most of us who participate at all show up just because the system works.

It works so well that most franchised citizens fail to show up at all most elections. Even with minority representation of the electorate, the basic ideas are so sound that our society has muddled on absent revolution or outright civil war for more than a century. Oh, and has achieved the status of unchallenged superpower and world leader, just for a bonus. For all our faults we like to dwell on there is something deeply, basically correct about what we do.

Perfect? No. Nothing undertaken by the hand of man ever will be (yes, there's Mr. Burke, among others) without flaw or fault.

Any government is a tyranny in waiting. All that need happen is that citizens allow their freedoms to slip away in the name of good intent, or that they ignore attempts on the part of elected leaders to usurp or violate the protections and limits so elegantly crafted to restrain them.

Take a long step back and look at the current strategy we have employed to combat Islamofascist terror. Look at how that (*gack*) paradigm of armed intervention targetted specifically at despots and murders, coupled with the stated intent and demonstrated effort toward leaving sovereign, self-governing peoples in our wake, stacks up against the book definitions of 'empire'.

Pretty weak. Damned weak comparison, if you ask me. Americans are so different from person to person and region to region on so many different levels yet still manage to live in relative peace that it seldom occurs to us that somebody on the other side of the planet would be expected to change just to do business with us, or travel here on holiday...because we have this silly assumption that everyone must be like us, down deep. Live and let live, hope, dream, and strive...

We aren't imperial. We are interrelated, interdependant, something like that. The core of the Bush Doctrine rejects tribal warfare as the unavoidable outcome of the conflict we find ourselves in. It embraces the idea that any nation beholden and accountable to its citizens' freedoms and security FIRST is probably not a likely candidate to be an aggressor. They will be too busy expanding their middle class, improving their education systems, or travelling to Disneyland with the kids.

It declares individual freedom to be the antidote to barabarism and tyranny.

Just where does Bush = Hitler for trying to make that work? We've been under attack for thirty years. We finally woke up. This administration has selected a scalpel, not a shotgun, to remove the cancer threatening our survival. We have spent more money rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan (not counting the twelve years of babysitting the U.N.'s rackets) than we did invading them, and I for one will support spending more in the years to come to finish the job.

This administration at least recognises that it does not control much of anything; it has a goal and is willing to work to see it accomplished. That is the difference between pretenders and leaders: the willingness to step into the unknown when the easy way beckons. No more safe thugs or friendly dictators. Here's a little snippet of something I read once; it's not statute, but it is important:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

There's nothing in the parent document that says "this stuff only works for eurocentric white males". Or defines the state god. Or proposes caveats for lesser races or people with funny shaped heads.

All I am saying is give freedom a chance. It has worked so well for us we don't consciously acknowledge it.

Geeze. I better toss Michael some gelt or he'll be out washing windows to pay for bandwidth. Thank you for your observations, and this forum in which we discuss them.

Caesar, the people of Hawaii literally chose to join the US and become a state.

TmjUtah: Geeze. I better toss Michael some gelt or he'll be out washing windows to pay for bandwidth

No need. Thanks for the great comments!

Caesar asked:

So is France also non-imperial since it's external possessions like French Guiana have seats in their parliament and votes in their Presidential elections?

Historically, as you know, France was an empire. What's left of its posessions does not describe an empire to me, whether they have voting priveleges or not.

Is tibet not part of a Chinese empire, after all it is treated as an integral part of the chinese nation, with the Tibetans having as much right to choose the government of China as Beijingers have (ie, none)?

Tibet is an occupied colony of China. The Chinese have repeatedly violated human rights in Tibet in a host of ways. Its people have been singled out for repression because of their nationality. As you also know, China has annexed Hong Kong and sought to annex Taiwan as well. The PRC is, to me, a limited-scope empire for the time-being. That is to say its empirical demands mostly conform to historical territories. This does not make it any less of a threat for future expansion, but it is quite different from the 19th-century European form of empire.

If you are somehow trying to make the point that because the U.S. has added states or possesses territories that it has desires to empire, you are very wrong. This country, as Michael Totten pointed out, does not "do" empire in the standard sense. We do not capture countries and subjugate their citizens. We do not need or want more land, military bases, people or natural resources--the traditional reasons for colonies.

In Rome, the distinction between Republic and Empire was entirely about the form of government. Rome conquered it neighbors as a Kingdom, as a Republic, and as an Empire.
In my opinion the term "empire" is not the right one for America's relationship to its allies (or even vassal states such as 2003 Iraq). The relationship is simply different from the one implied by the term "empire".
We have to solve many of the same problems that empires do, and sometimes we solve them in the same ways (e.g. deposing Saddam)--but that's not all there is to empires, not by a long shot.
What do people count as subject of the alleged American Empire, anyway? Britain? Mexico? Taiwan? Israel? All of them are somehow in our "sphere of influence", but none of their governments are under the control of the US.

The term that everyone overlooks is "hegemony" in describing the influence of the US.

Rud--

Beg to disagree. If anything, "hegemony" is dreadfully overused, especially by people who don't particularly know what they are talking about. Read a bit of Edward Said, Susan Sontag, Margo Kingston, Robert Fisk or any of the other crackpots of the Left. Or spend time in any modern English or "theory" department on any college campus today if you want to see the term in full color.

Accusing the United States of hegemony is now a rather hoary old cipher for all sorts of inside-the-faculty-lounge lickspittle. It's a handy criticism for lazy intellectuals since it imputes a colonial-style evil to America's global influence without compelling the accuser to muster any evidence to support the charge. It's self-evident, don't you know...

"Tibet is an occupied colony of China. The Chinese have repeatedly violated human rights in Tibet in a host of ways."

I've never said or implied that China and America were morally equivalent empires, they are clearly not. However when you say-

"We do not need or want more land, military bases, people or natural resources--the traditional reasons for colonies."

Given that America has grown from 13 eastern states to a continent straddling giant it is clear that the western areas of the nation were annexed and colonized by the US.

Given that America has grown from 13 eastern states to a continent straddling giant it is clear that the western areas of the nation were annexed and colonized by the US.

Caesar--

Empires are like sharks: They either constantly expand or they die. We haven't added any significant territory in 100 years. If we really were an empire we would have taken mineral-rich Canada by now.

Michael, I think Tano is on the right track about supporting poor people; in particular, property rights & contractual obligations by the rich with the poor under a legal rule of law system. (Tano's wrong to deny American idealism as a significant, though inconsistent, part of Foreign Policy).

The US has certainly supported Any Gov't But Commie in Latin America, and that includes too many death squads. But that's also because, in war zones, the most violent win -- by enforcing submission. The current Bush critique about democracy building in Iraq: nothing works without security first.

Meaning a more violent than commie anti-commie MUST be supported, first. Like Pinochet ? I'm not totally sure, but I'm afraid so -- I'm certainly NOT willing to concede that not supporting Pinochet would have made a better Chile. Different folks would have been killed; quite possibly more.

Economic development, not military, is a big part of the answer. The problem with the World Bank/ IMF non-military stuff is: they always support the local government, including dictators. The biggest development mistake since WW II has been the objectively stupid support of government programs. Instead of just building houses, with indoor plumbing (THE single greatest feminist support in history), and auctioning them off.

And, what TmjUtah says.

And yes, the US is a leader in the War of Ideas, and we want to impose, or at support, the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

We ARE an empire of ideas, at least. And we should be.

Okay, Michael et alia, NOW I remember why I don't like discussions triggered by 'empire'.

Almost all the arguments presented above are 'thin-entering wedge', and false comparisons. Most of them seem designed to show America as wrong or bad, and Americans as crass, materialistic, short-sighted, profit-oriented vultures, intent on colonising by some other name, and keeping others under some re-named bootheel...

None of which I see America as choosing to do.

As regards the Western expansion in the 1800s, I see a distinct difference between expansion with intent to incorporate and expansion with intent to dominate. Had the Indian tribes decided to do so, they could have been incorporated into the growing system; Indian disenfranchisement was an effect, not a cause or intent. (This is not to say that there were no Americans who felt differently; they were numerous. But that's the way the system was set up.)

But the United States is not an Empire. Leftists disagree, because for the Left, Machiavelli is still in force: Gold will not always get you good soldiers, but good soldiers can always get you gold. Imperialism, in the view of the Left, benefits the imperialist, and must be avoided out of moral and ethical distaste for benefitting at the cost of others.

The United States knows better, being one of the few (perhaps the only) ones that actually "get" the Industrial Revolution and the societies that grew out of it. To conquer an industrial society, one must destroy its will and means to resist; and that means destroying its industry. But industry is where the wealth the Imperialist wanted to steal comes from -- the means of production are themselves produced, are made things. So to conquer an industrial society, first one must destroy that which one wants to steal, a bootless enterprise. On the other hand, leave them in place and let them produce, and perhaps they will be customers.

Countries whose wealth is in natural resources -- oil, land for growing food, and the like -- might be conquered at profit. Experience shows that this is equally bootless. Conquer the place, take over its production, and you have to build a bureaucracy to administer the new possession and a military to protect that administration. Leave it alone, and one makes the discovery: natural resources are fungible; the bread is equally nourishing if made from wheat grown in Canada or Argentina; the SUV gets the same mileage on gasoline from Indonesia or Alaska. Producers of natural resources can be played off against one another for the cheapest price. In the long run one pays much less for fungible resources if there are many producers not under direct control competing for your business, and doesn't have the expenses of control and administration.

So the United States is non-imperialist for good, selfish, money-grubbing capitalist reasons, and only makes claims of feelgood kindness when challenged because it feels diffident about proffering the real reasons. Or such explanations come from people who haven't thought it through.

I personally don't think we do enough proselytizing for the forces that enable societies to make the transition from agrarian to industrial; we lose, because any savings we get from whipsawing wheat producers are much less than the profits we would get if they were rich and could buy our industrial products. But the main reason I continue to be a rightist is that, in my view, during the Twentieth Century and right up to today, the Left's enforced vision of kindness has starved more babies, raped more women, burned more houses and farms, and killed more people than anything the Cruel Right could possibly have envisioned, and looked upon that work and called it good. It turns my stomach.

Regards,
Ric