American Empire

[RickSp]

Quote by: Plegmund Describing US bases as imperial outposts is just an insult to the friendly countries who invited you in - rather like being invited to stay at someone's house for the weekend and then going round describing the place as "part of my property portfolio". The word "Empire" has often been used inaccurately - as in "Holy Roman -" or "Central African -", but if you ask me it properly refers to entities like the Roman Empire or the later Spanish, British, or French Empires. In all of these, the provinces were obliged to adopt the legal system, currency, and (at least for administrative purposes) language of the ruling power, and moreover (something you Americans ought to be able to remember) pay taxes to the imperial power. The USA just does not have an empire in this sense, and really you ought to disavow the idea as unhelpful and uncomplimentary.

Major US bases were established immediately following WWII under curcumstances where the phrase "invited us in," might be a bit far fetched. Other US bases were negotiated on a more mercenary basis usually with a weak or corrupt ruler in exhange for cash, arms or protection. In very few cases could one accurately represent the relationship as flowing from the host nation's hospitality.

The nature of empire has changed since the days of the empires you describe, just as the nature of war, technology and communications have all changed. The American empire may not look or act quite like the Roman empire, just as a short sword may not resemble an M16. That doesn't mean that both are not deadly. Or that the American is any less of an empire.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I would like to have a substantive debate on the topic: Is the American project becoming or has it become an empire? What are the characteristics of empire and how does the US conform? How does the US agenda NOT conform to the concept of empire in the 21st Century? Is the US still a republic, an empire, or something else?

In terms of corruption, we have already bypassed Roman Empire :-)))

No, U.S. is not "Roman Empire"s copy, at least at this stage.

[Plegmund]

Yes, the occupation of Germany and Japan after the war was a different matter (though even that did not amount to annexation). But now? Any country which hosts a US base is to regard itself as either (a) defeated and occupied, or (b) sold down the river by a weak or corrupt ruler? That does seem insulting to both parties, as well as false.

Yes, you can fairly use the word Empire in an extended sense if you like (and I don't want to block a discussion of America's role in world over a lexicographical quibble), but so long as you use the same word for the Roman and putative American versions, you inevitably imply a similarity which I don't think is there. These words have implications. Imagine some well-disposed Iraqi telling his friends the American commitment to freedom and democracy is genuine. "Hey," they reply, "Look at this website - ordinary Americans take it for granted that they're constructing an Empire. They want to annex our land and erase our culture." If you declare yourself an Empire, you grant anti-American terrorists the status of genuine freedom fighters.

[Sandy]

According to the U.S. Constitution we are not supposed to enter or take over any country on the planet. We are not even supposed to enter into any agreement with a foreign nation if it puts American sovereignty in jeopardy. We have laws on how to declare a war on another country and it involves being attacked first.

Iraq never attacked America but since Bush has probably never read the Constitution, and the Congress will back anything he wants to do, we are an Empire under a Dictatorship.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Plegmund Yes, the occupation of Germany and Japan after the war was a different matter (though even that did not amount to annexation). But now? Any country which hosts a US base is to regard itself as either (a) defeated and occupied, or (b) sold down the river by a weak or corrupt ruler? That does seem insulting to both parties, as well as false.

Alright. And how many foriegn bases does the US allow on its soil? How many foriegn troops does the US host in it's terrority? Zero. Not one. If the presence of US troops in 200 countries isn't at least implicitly insulting to the countries so occupied, I don't know what is.

Quote by: Plegmund Yes, you can fairly use the word Empire in an extended sense if you like (and I don't want to block a discussion of America's role in world over a lexicographical quibble), but so long as you use the same word for the Roman and putative American versions, you inevitably imply a similarity which I don't think is there. These words have implications. Imagine some well-disposed Iraqi telling his friends the American commitment to freedom and democracy is genuine. "Hey," they reply, "Look at this website - ordinary Americans take it for granted that they're constructing an Empire. They want to annex our land and erase our culture." If you declare yourself an Empire, you grant anti-American terrorists the status of genuine freedom fighters.

Acknowldeging an ugly truth about ourselves does not change the status of those who hate us. We have no business being an empire. Paradoxically, we may have an easier time fighting terrorism if we were not. Free ideas, free trade and free association is ultimately far more powerful than any army.

[blibbka]

I think that's a good rebuttal regarding military bases, Plegmund. I guess there are a lot of other countries with military bases in foreign countries that are not considered empires?

What someone needs to do is define what exactly an "Empire" is.... otherwise the debate doesn't have a fixed frame of reference. Even though one might be reluctant to get involved in a question of language - the point is central to this debate imo.

Plegmund, according to the definition you suggest.... am I right in thinking that there would be no "empire" in the world today? If so, perhaps your definition of "Empire" is an outdated one?

[Plegmund]

And how many foriegn bases does the US allow on its soil? How many foriegn troops does the US host in it's terrority? Zero. Not one.

Well, the size of US forces and the geographical situation of America mean NATO has little need to put foreign troops into, say, Des Moines. However, here, for example is an account of the cheerful Oktoberfest celebrations at the German Air Force training establishment in Alamogordo. I don't think you should feel insulted, or consider yourselves part of the German Empire. Hosting foreign troops and suffering foreign occupation just are not the same thing.

I should say, blibbka, that the age of empires is over (and good riddance, surely?). But that doesn't mean the word needs redefinition. There aren't many matriarchies around nowadays, but that doesn't mean we should change the meaning of the word so that we can call the contemporary US a matriarchy. As I said, I do accept that the word can be used in a looser sense - I just think it would be better and more accurate to talk about, say, America's primacy, or predominance in the world (hegemony? maybe not).

[Nono]

OK, Plegmund, fair enough. Let's call it "hegemony", since "empire" has all that connotative baggage re territorial sovereignty and such.

But in practice, the US twists arms worldwide with no regard for the wishes of the twistees. Call it what you will, but it's the same old jag as it always was. And when the US has military bases in places like modern-day Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia, or the Franquista Spain or Marcos' Philippines of yesteryear, then I can well understand how easily "empire" crosses people's lips.

As for the Luftwaffe, have you any idea how dinky German airspace is? Ain't nowhere to break the sound barrier there, believe me. So they avail themselves of the wide-open spaces of the US and Canada. Matter of simple expediency.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Plegmund Well, the size of US forces and the geographical situation of America mean NATO has little need to put foreign troops into, say, Des Moines. However, here, for example is an account of the cheerful Oktoberfest celebrations at the German Air Force training establishment in Alamogordo. I don't think you should feel insulted, or consider yourselves part of the German Empire. Hosting foreign troops and suffering foreign occupation just are not the same thing. I should say, blibbka, that the age of empires is over (and good riddance, surely?). But that doesn't mean the word needs redefinition. There aren't many matriarchies around nowadays, but that doesn't mean we should change the meaning of the word so that we can call the contemporary US a matriarchy. As I said, I do accept that the word can be used in a looser sense - I just think it would be better and more accurate to talk about, say, America's primacy, or predominance in the world (hegemony? maybe not).

Training is quite different from a regular deployment. The US trains miltiary personnel from all over. Some of the best South American death squads were trained in the US, for example.

I have been sloppy with my figures and you have let me get away with it. The US does not have troops in 200 countries around the world as I suggested before because there are only 192 countries in existance. We have diplomatic relations with 188. We have troops deployed in 135, which is to say 70% of the worlds countries have US troop deployments. What other empire in the history of the world could make such a claim?

So call it what you will (I agree lets avoid matriarchy.) It sure looks like an empire to me.

[Plegmund]

No argument over the size of American military power or its global reach - or for that matter, over its arm-twisting tendencies!

I don't want to be a bore, so I'm content to read "Empire" as "Hegemony" or something else suitable for the rest of the thread if it'll help.

[blibbka]

Rick, I think you are over-valuing the influence of America having troops in a foreign country. Many other countries have bases in numerous oversea locations - but they are certainly not what I think most people would call "Empires".

I have to say that I'm also a little dubious that America has troops deployed in 130 different countries. I am trying to find a good source on the net for figures regarding this, but without success at the moment.

Superpower - yes. Empire? I don't agree.

[RickSp]

Superpower, at least military terms, may be the twenty first century word for empire. (Being an economic superpower is something else entirely.)

Discussion of the at least 702 foreign bases. America's Empire of Bases

Listing of the 135 countries with US troop deployments.
The U.S. Global Empire

[Morpheus]

Subsistuting the phrase "hegemony" or "superpower" for "empire" obscures what empires really are and ignores history. By such a narrow definition the Roman empire and many other historic empires weren't empires at all - they were "hegemonies" or "superpowers" rather than empires.

Let's take Rome. Rome's standard form of imperialism did not make "formal political arrangements for the permanent direct government of a number of other countries". Instead, they used an extensive system of client states. Other governments were officially independant, but in practice had to do what Rome told them to do. Rome used military force, or other means, to either force the rulers of other states to do what they wanted or replace those rulers with people who would do what Rome wanted. Generally, client states were forced to pay tribute to Rome and would sometimes provide auxilary forces to assist Rome in its wars. Of course, client states didn't always tow Rome's line on every microscopic detail but if they got too far out of line then Rome would force them back in line. See The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire by Edward Luttwak. An arguement can be made that this reliance on client states, rather than direct colonial rule over subjugated peoples, is one of the reasons the Roman empire became so large and sucessfull - if you give subjugated peoples a measure of autonomy and formal political indpendance they're less likely to revolt against you. By the excessively narrow definition requiring direct rule/conquest of subjugated peoples (and not indirect rule through client states) used in this thread to argue that the US is not an empire Rome itself was not an empire - a pretty absurd definition.

This is quite similar to the American empire. Today, the United States usually doesn't annex other countries or instal direct colonial governments (the formal occupation of Iraq pre-June being a recent exception) but instead rules through client states, much as Rome did. Tribute comes in the form of economic policies that favor US corporations - open markets, cheap labor, few restrictions on foreign investment/ownership of businesses, access to raw materials, etc. Countries that get too far out of line face various actions by the US - military interventions, CIA coups, sanctions, etc. - designed to force them back in line. Such actions aim to force compliance, either by overthrowing disobediant governments and replace them with pro-US governments or forcing disobediant governments to change their policies to what the US wants. The US puts in power an elite that will largely do what the US wants, much as Rome did. Military force has been repeatedly used to overthrow disobediant governments (or governments previously outside the empire) and install US client states (or prevent the overthrow of client states) including, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and numerous other cases. Proxy forces, what amount to mercenary armies, have also been used by the US to do the same thing (this has the advantage of keeping the battle out of the US public's eye, and is sometimes cheaper, but proxy armies usually aren't as good fighters as the US military) such as the Contras in Nicaragua. Covert action is also used to keep overthrow disobediant governments and put in power governments that do what the US wants, such as Chile 1973, Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, Venezuela 2002 (a failed attempt), and numerous other instances. If the United States isn't an empire then neither was Rome.

The US and Rome weren't the only empires to use client states. The Soviet empire did and the British, although they relied more on direct colonial rule, did occassionally rely on client states when it suited them (as was the case in the middle east). The Nazis did a little bit of territorial annexation but also had many puppet governments, too (many of which "invited" German troops on their soil to fight the "anti-German terrorist" partisans). Most of the territory within the Third Reich at its height was not officially annexed to Germany. If empires require extensive territorial annexation then the Third Reich wasn't much of an empire - again, absurd.

Napolean's French empire relied on client states as well, either forcing other countries to do what he wanted or installing rulers over those countries who would do what he wanted. For example, when he invaded and took over Spain he didn't annex Spain and make it part of France. He allowed Spain to remain formally independant and "liberated" Spain by installing his brother as King of Spain. If relying heavily on client states disqualifies one as an empire then Napolean's European empire must not have been an empire - an obviously false claim.

This example of Napolean in Spain is a good example of the absurdity of requiring a country/government to make "formal political arrangements for the permanent direct government of a number of other countries" in order to qualify as an empire. France in Spain may not have had formal arraingments for direct government over Spain but it still dominated Spain, ruling via a client state headed by Joseph Bonaparte. In other words, it was basically the same thing, France was in charge, yet over-emphasis on formal direct government over the subjugated country obscures this fact. It makes it seem as if there is a big difference when there isn't - whether it's empire by direct colonial rule or by indirect rule through client states the imperialist nation is still dominating the subordinated nation. That's what imperialism and empire is all about - it's the power relations that matter. Imperialism is when the rulers of one society/country dominate other countries/socities. An empire is a state that does this on a wide basis, in many societies/countries.

The large US system of bases is a symptom of the fact that it is an empire. The US would still be an empire even if it had no bases outside the homeland because of the enormous power it wields, because of the large areas of the world it dominates. Of course, realistically, that domination would probably end without the system of bases but it is the power the US wields over other countries/societies that makes it an empire not the bases. Talk about other countries "inviting" US troops in is irrelevant because those states are US client states - of course they "invited" US troops in that's what client states do! They're following the orders of their master. Roman/French/Soviet client states "invited" in Roman/French/Soviet troops too that doesn't mean they aren't empires or that they didn't dominate their client states. Most countries that have US bases today have been subjected to significant military or covert intervention (by the US or one of its client states/allies) or the threat of it in the past and today are under some degree of US domination.

Quote by: Plegmund If you declare yourself an Empire, you grant anti-American terrorists the status of genuine freedom fighters.

Reality doesn't change just because you find it politically inconvient. America is an empire whether it admits it or not (failure to do so just puts it in the status of "liar or delusional"). And many of those so-called "anti-American terrorists" are freedom fighters, or at least fighters for national independance (real independance, not as a client state) and against American imperialism.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Plegmund Yes, the occupation of Germany and Japan after the war was a different matter (though even that did not amount to annexation). But now? Any country which hosts a US base is to regard itself as either (a) defeated and occupied, or (b) sold down the river by a weak or corrupt ruler? That does seem insulting to both parties, as well as false. Yes, you can fairly use the word Empire in an extended sense if you like (and I don't want to block a discussion of America's role in world over a lexicographical quibble), but so long as you use the same word for the Roman and putative American versions, you inevitably imply a similarity which I don't think is there. These words have implications. Imagine some well-disposed Iraqi telling his friends the American commitment to freedom and democracy is genuine. "Hey," they reply, "Look at this website - ordinary Americans take it for granted that they're constructing an Empire. They want to annex our land and erase our culture." If you declare yourself an Empire, you grant anti-American terrorists the status of genuine freedom fighters.

(I am not sure whether you are addressing your post to me.)

I assumed that this thread may be taken as a parallel on allegedly extremely aggressive U.S. political stance, seen by some people around the world as an analogy to "Roman Empire".
That is why - not getting into any arguments - I went a little ahead and stated that such comparison has no bases, not to mention alleged arguments.
U.S. is not even close to "modern" Russian Empire. Then, debating on that subject does not make much sense.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Morpheus Rome's standard form of imperialism did not make "formal political arrangements for the permanent direct government of a number of other countries". Instead, they used an extensive system of client states. Other governments were officially independant, but in practice had to do what Rome told them to do. Rome used military force, or other means, to either force the rulers of other states to do what they wanted or replace those rulers with people who would do what Rome wanted. Generally, client states were forced to pay tribute to Rome and would sometimes provide auxilary forces to assist Rome in its wars. Of course, client states didn't always tow Rome's line on every microscopic detail but if they got too far out of line then Rome would force them back in line. An arguement can be made that this reliance on client states, rather than direct colonial rule over subjugated peoples, is one of the reasons the Roman empire became so large and sucessfull - if you give subjugated peoples a measure of autonomy and formal political indpendance they're less likely to revolt against you. By the excessively narrow definition requiring direct rule/conquest of subjugated peoples (and not indirect rule through client states) used in this thread to argue that the US is not an empire Rome itself was not an empire - a pretty absurd definition. This is quite similar to the American empire. Today, the United States usually doesn't annex other countries or instal direct colonial governments (the formal occupation of Iraq pre-June being a recent exception) but instead rules through client states, much as Rome did. Tribute comes in the form of economic policies that favor US corporations - open markets, cheap labor, few restrictions on foreign investment/ownership of businesses, access to raw materials, etc. Countries that get too far out of line face various actions by the US - military interventions, CIA coups, sanctions, etc. - designed to force them back in line. Such actions aim to force compliance, either by overthrowing disobediant governments and replace them with pro-US governments or forcing disobediant governments to change their policies to what the US wants. The US puts in power an elite that will largely do what the US wants, much as Rome did. Military force has been repeatedly used to overthrow disobediant governments (or governments previously outside the empire) and install US client states (or prevent the overthrow of client states) including, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and numerous other cases. Proxy forces, what amount to mercenary armies, have also been used by the US to do the same thing (this has the advantage of keeping the battle out of the US public's eye, and is sometimes cheaper, but proxy armies usually aren't as good fighters as the US military) such as the Contras in Nicaragua. Covert action is also used to keep overthrow disobediant governments and put in power governments that do what the US wants, such as Chile 1973, Guatemala 1954, Iran 1953, Venezuela 2002 (a failed attempt), and numerous other instances. If the United States isn't an empire then neither was Rome. Reality doesn't change just because you find it politically inconvient. America is an empire whether it admits it or not (failure to do so just puts it in the status of "liar or delusional"). And many of those so-called "anti-American terrorists" are freedom fighters, or at least fighters for national independance (real independance, not as a client state) and against American imperialism.

#1, #2, #3
Syllogism.
#4
We call it today : federation
#5
Can you extend the meaning of your definition, please ?
#6
What is your concept for Mankind's progress ?
#7
Thank you for an attempt to lucture this forum on political issues, but it seems you have no clue on.
#8
Overwhelming majority - if not all - of so-called "insurgents" wants bring Saddam back, and pro-Islamic fundaments for its state. You may call them "freedom fighters", or whatever that suits your concepts.

The Reality is as follows :
- U.S. is not going to tolerate any Saddam's and pro-Islamic fundamentalists' supporters of any kind, in Iraq (at least, today).

[Plegmund]

I think you're misrepresenting the Romans, Morpheus. Yes, they certainly had client states on the fringes of their territory, but the Empire itself consisted of provinces, each under the direct and explicit control of a governor appointed either by the Senate or the Emperor himself. It's true that when the Empire was falling apart they had to put with Gothic kings throwing their weight around, and there were odd cases where, for example, Claudius allowed his old friend King Herod some leeway, but those were the exceptions, not the rule.