[nicollo]

The author's premise is wrong. Bad assumptions lead to stupid conclusions.

As pointed to here, Americans don't want an empire. When William McKinley had to choose between keeping an American force at Manilla - an accepted necessity - or taking the entire archipelago, he prayed to God for guidance.

Whatever God's feelings, McKinley made the logical military choice to occupy all the islands. Then he made the inspired -- and perfectly American decision not to colonize the territory. He would give it all the benefits of America, and when the populace was ready for self-government he'd let it go.

We kept Porto Rico for the exact same reason. The island simply fell into our lap. Down went the Spanish flag, and up the American, and the locals wanted it that way.

There's plenty to say of American imperialism, be it Dollar Diplomacy, territorial expansion, or whatever. None trump the essential and operative reason for American expansion: the democratic ideal. Any argument that ignores this fundamental purpose is flawed in that it studies effect not cause, and it sees only negative effects.

Another mistake, and it is sadly assumed by most Americans, is that we lost the Korean and Vietnam wars. Those were not wars, they were battles. We won the war. Leftists won't admit it, for they look upon Vietnam as the crux of the 20th Century, and admission that we won the Cold War destroys their argument and life views.

Lastly, what won the Spanish-American war was naval power. What wins similar wars today is air power.

America has every appearance of an empire. America seems to act like an empire. America has the capability of an empire. America is not an empire.

We'll keep fooling the rest of the world so long as individual Americans remain free to pursue happiness.

[300winmag]

America has every appearance of an empire. America seems to act like an empire. America has the capability of an empire. America is not an empire.

We'll keep fooling the rest of the world so long as individual Americans remain free to pursue happiness.

America is developing something the world has never seen before, and the closest approximation people use is the word "empire". That word doesn't really fit.

America roams the world, looking to buy goods, services, or raw materials that 250 million individuals want. In turn, other countries buy things from us that they badly want. Along the way, they're importing pieces of American culture, whether they know it or not.

As a commercial nation, we want trade to flow freely. A large navy is good for that, as is a large air force to quickly reach out and hit targets too far inland for the navy. Currently, "large" is a relative term because are Navy and Air Force are smaller than before, just far more powerful than any coalition of possible rivals.

If America was an "imperial" country, it wouldn't have the puny Army it does now. Thanks to our technology, our military is vastly more powerful than anybody else's, but is still not configured for "imperial" duty. And it never will be. If we didn't take over the world in 1945 when we had 12 million men under arms, sole possession of nukes, bases all over the world, and a gigantic economy fully converted to wartime production, we never will. And that's good.

America, however, is subverting much of the world with its example of freedom, peace, and prosperity. Certain academics find that horrifying, and label it "imperialism". They wouldn't know real imperialism if it bit them in the ass.

And the things that are in America's best interests are also in the best interests of lots of more-or-less free and capitalistic countries. England is one of the few with the guts to stand with us. There's nothing wrong with Blair playing Tonto to Bush's Lone Ranger. As the Fonz would say, Tonto saved the Lone Ranger's bacon plenty of times, and except for trying to take off the Lone Ranger's mask, the worst thing you could do would be to mess with Tonto.