American Empire

[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?

[AliasJonus]

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?

The US at times is an empire, for example right now the US is an empire because we control Iraq(not a native land). I would say that since the end of the second world war the US has almost constantly been an empire. The real question is WHY did we make decisions that have made us an empire? Simple, power. We have destablized governments, overthrown governments and much more simply so that we they will not gain power. US foreign policy is simply about keeping us the most powerful country on earth and keeping everyone else below us, in short, Global domination.

PNAC paper Specifically pages 13-15 written by

The best example of this policy is to look at Central America and South America from the 60's to the late 80's.

Jonus

[Lou Minotti]

The picture that forms for me is Europe as Vito Corleone and Luca Brassi (America) as his enforcer that leaves an aura of plausible deniability in his wake. We're the bad cop, the UN is the good cop.

[Morpheus]

The US has been an empire since at least the Mexican-American war, although back then it was just a regional empire as opposed to the global empire it is today. An empire is a state that engages in imperialism on a large scale. Imperialism is a social relation in which the rulers of one state/society/country dominate the population of another society/country. This can range anywhere from direct conquest and extermination of subjugated peoples to informal domination of client states. The US is an empire because it practices imperialism on a large scale. See my essay Anatomy of the American Empire for a more detailed analysis of the empire, its characteristics and the aims of US foreign policy.

The US is also a republic, as a republic is just an elected government without a monarchy. Being a repulic does not preclude being an empire or vice versa. Many past empires have been republics, too, such as the Roman republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Republic of France, and others.

Quote by: AliasJonus The real question is WHY did we make decisions that have made us an empire?

The United States has expansionist tendencies for many historical reasons, but an important one lies in the origins of the United States. Originally, the British came and started attacking the native, expanding their own empire and creating colonies as part of that empire. The expansionist dynamic continued after those colonies became independant of the empire that spawned them. The US continued expanding after independance, eventually becoming the largest & most powerful empire in human history.

Simple, power. We have destablized governments, overthrown governments and much more simply so that we they will not gain power. US foreign policy is simply about keeping us the most powerful country on earth and keeping everyone else below us, in short, Global domination.

It is also about forcing other countries to adopt economic policies favorable to US investors. This is made pretty clear in the pamphlet "Vision for 2020" issued by US Space Command (which has since merged with STRATCOM) in the later part of the Clinton administration. It's essential reading (along with the PNAC paper you linked to) on the US empire, you can find a copy at http://www.gsinstitute.org/resources...ision_2020.pdf Plus, imperialism has domestic uses, such as the military-industrial complex.

[tinybear]

"We don't do empire"

------Donald Rumsfeld, United States Secretary For Defense-----

[blibbka]

Quote by: Morpheus The US continued expanding after independance, eventually becoming the largest & most powerful empire in human history.

I don't know if I'd go that far, though.

I'd like to know what exactly is meant by "the American project" however?

[Korgmeister]

The idea of America being an empire is laughable. Americans argue over everything. Even if, somehow the country could get consensus over whether they should take over the world, they'd grind themselves to a standstill arguing about which part to take over first.

And if they got that sorted out, they'd probably bicker to death about the composition of the troops that should go over etc etc.

[Plegmund]

You could say that the USA itself was an empire, in the sense that Henry VIII declared England was an Empire - ie, not subject to anyone else. But in the ordinary sense of the word, as in "British Empire", "Roman Empire"; no, America patently does not have an empire, nor behave in an imperial manner. That would require formal political arrangements for the permanent direct government of a number of other countries. One-off military interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan are another thing altogether.

In some respects and on some occasions, it would be nice if the USA's engagement with the rest of the world were more imperial - ie deeper and more consistent. But on the whole, not having an empire is surely something to be proud of?

[Starboy]

I don't know that we as a nation have existed long enough to be anything else but an empire. The natives of this land did not speak english. We have a long history of nationalist goals forced upon other nations.

Starboy

[Plegmund]

I don't know that we as a nation have existed long enough to be anything else but an empire. The natives of this land did not speak english.

That makes you a colony, rather than an empire, doesn't it?

[Gorgo]

I hear the term neo-colonial being used. They don't usually rule directly, although they have. They install puppet regimes, strongly influence regimes and otherwise just meddle and corrupt.

They probably have more influence than an emperor, because an emperor had to have some concern of the interests over those that they ruled.

[Starboy]

If we had stopped at 13 you might have a point. Manifest destiny was national imperialism.

Starboy

[Plegmund]

Yes, I suppose 'Manifest Destiny' (I assume you mean the process of annexing the rest of the continent at the expense of the native inhabitants? Forgive an ignorant foreigner if I'm misinterpreting.) could indeed be called imperialistic behaviour. There again, if having an indigenous ethnic minority makes you an empire, I struggle to think of many countries which aren't empires.

Neo-colonialism is another can of worms, but an interesting one. I think there have been more pressures in that direction over the last couple of decades: partly because the limitations of non-political measures such as charitable aid have become increasingly apparent, and partly because the risk of intervention touching off a nuclear war has, well, appreciably receded. But I think the awesome costs and risks of overt neo-colonialism are still a formidable deterrent.

[Nono]

Canadians know all about "manifest destiny", having fought it off in 1812. Americans were truly astonished that the people they were invading didn't welcome them with open arms.

Sound familiar?

The defeat of the US in 1812 has been repressed in the American folk memory. They do 'remember' the Battle of New Orleans, however, since it's just about the only one in which their forces prevailed.

[Nono]

Quote by: PH Is the American project becoming or has it become an empire?

De jure republic, de facto empire.

It's true that the two aren't mutually exclusive, strictly speaking, but by "republic" I mean all those cool things about everybody being able to choose those who rule them.

[rcne]

Long Live Pax Ameicanus. The Empire that is - while not thinking it is. We have imperialist tendencies disguised as 'for the common good of man'.

We bring our ideals to the world. And if you want to share in our power you must accept them.

Why can't the rest of the world see our benevolence. Join us or be economically outcast.

I don't actually think that there exists a 'Project America'. We can't plan that far ahead, or even follow a plan if one is in place.

[RickSp]

Most argue that the US is not an empire because it doesn't, in general seek to occupy territory. I wonder whether that is the standard by which a modern empire should be judged. It was in fact never completely accurate for ancient empires either. Most empires used vasal states and proxies to hold their empires together and used mobile troops only to respond to problems and insurrections.

Modern technology makes physical occupation even less necessary. The US maintains large forces in Europe, Asia and has bases in over 200 countries. Its ability to project force at a great distance quickly would be the envy of any emperor.

The irony is that I suspect most Americans do not necessarily think of America as an empire, yet take for the grant the "right" to use military force to make others in other countries do what we want.

[Nono]

Quote by: rcne Why can't the rest of the world see our benevolence.

Let's momentarily aside those who really are simply viscerally anti-American (i.e. who are incapable of seeing anything in objective terms) and concentrate on the others.

Seems to me the better question then is why you seem incapable of perceiving the great harm you do as well. You're blind to it, and can only lament "But our intentions are so pure."
That blindness really pisses people off. Trust me.

My advice: Look at the people you elect. Really look at them. Ain't no benevolence there at all.

[PatrickHenry]

I just finished Chalmers Johnson's, The Sorrows of Empire this morning and I intend to use it as a source for some of my arguments. There are numerous sources available by googling "american empire" as well, and the different arguments there go ten pages deep or more.

Johnson argues that the far flung BASES of the US military are the outposts of the Empire, maintaining the control without which no empire would be possible. He states that imperialism and militarism go hand in hand in the creation of empire. Is there any doubt that the American project is militarist? (I use the term "project" to allow for debate over whether the effort is a republic or empire or both or neither) Could there be a non-militarist empire? And is the US truly militarist or just "agressively defensive?" :(

One item Johnson does not call into question is the current State of Emergency. He argues from many standpoints that the decline from republic is already far advanced, but doesn't bring this one up. I choose to see this as a root of the decline. The SoE delegates all decision-making authority into the hands of the President. Even though his authority is limited by the US constitution, that limit has been so far exceeded that he is arguably now the Emperor of the US. For obvious reasons the subject is not broached publically.

Johnson was himself an apologist for Cold War policies, not a flaming commie. His viewpoint began to morph AFTER the Cold War, when the military effort and the "empire of bases" did not diminish.

[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.