The 'E' Word, Admit it: America is an empire.

WSJ ^ | 6/6/03 | NIALL FERGUSON

[Valin]

We may now be witnessing the most radical reshaping of the Middle East since it acquired its modern form (and many of its modern problems) in the wake of World War I. What the British Empire began, the American Empire may be about to finish.

[anniegetyourgun]

LOL!

[BenLurkin]

"America has never been an empire," Mr. Bush declared during his election campaign. "We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused." Speaking on board the Abraham Lincoln, he echoed that: "Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home."

Days earlier, Donald Rumsfeld had been asked by al Jazeera if the U.S. was engaged in "empire-building in Iraq." "We don't seek empires," shot back Rumsfeld. "We're not imperialistic. We never have been."

[Navy Patriot]

American Empire? Not true, but if it were it would be better than any other noun in front of the word "empire" with the exception of the Good Lord.

[Migraine]

It isn't an empire when anyone in it can leave any time they want to. It's more like heaven.

[lepton]

In 2000, Mr. Bush talked as if he wanted to diminish America's military presence overseas. But Sept. 11 led to a 180-degree turn in his thinking.

Huh?

Military prescence wandering around aimlessly and striking capriciously (what President Bush was talking about then), is not the same as military prescence with a purpose (which he showed every sign of being willing to engage in), and the sharp-end pointed at an adversary.

[LasVegasMac]

Just curious, why the LOL?

Obviously, I don't agree with the empire theme. The last paragragh, though, has a very valid point - and brings to light one of our major failings in dealing with the rest of this planet. IMHO.

If Saddam's overthrow marks the beginning of a sustained attempt to build peace in the Middle East, we will have cause to celebrate the advent of this American empire. But if Iraq is just another ephemeral military adventure, then I am filled with foreboding. For the moment America loses interest in what it has initiated, the cycle of terror will resume.

This article does lead to some interesting lines of thought.

LVM

[Valin]

I keep telling people it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when we get hit again.

[nathanbedford]

If Bush mant to garrison the entire world of terrorist lands, we might indeed be biting off more than we can chew. But I believe the purpose is to serve up a few object lessons to would be Saddams and Talibans. If another pops up he can be batted down. Most dictators, (Saddam evidently excepted) fear loss of power above all and will behave themselves better.

[cake_crumb]

" 'America has never been an empire,' Mr. Bush declared during his election campaign. 'We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused.' "

That is true. In any historically viable sense of the word 'empire' America is NOT one.

[Mark was here]

Technically, shouldn't the contiguous 48 be considered the "true" nation, and when we start crossing oceans and countries to get at Hawaii and Alaska, hasn't the line towards "Empire" been crossed?

[Congressman Billybob]

The human race has a long history of "empires" in all parts of the world. They have three essential qualities: 1) Military conquest, 2) Holding the conquered territory, and 3) extracting tribute -- originally in the form of slaves, more recently in the form of money or resources.

The US does not meet the latter two criteria. It does not hold the territory it conquers -- witness Japan, Germany, Italy, the Philippines, Cuba, etc. And, instead of extracting tribute, it provides aid to conquered nations -- witness the same nations and many more.

Only people who misuse the English language, out of folly or malice, use the word "empire" to describe the United States. We are, by circumstance, the leading power in the world. We are the principal "leader" of the world, far more often by example than by force. But we are not an "empire," not because we could not do that, but because we choose not to do that.

Therefore, on historical grounds I condemn the premise of this article.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, and due to be in the Asheville Citizen-Times on Sunday, "Surviving in the Smokies."

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The United States of America is redefining what it means to be an empire.

Iraq will be the latest lesson for those that are slow to learn.

[cake_crumb]

BUMP!!

[Allan]

bump

[IronJack]

I don't know why Americans are so afraid of the word "empire." Whether we want to admit it or not, destiny has cast us in that role, and our own excellence has appointed us. All we need do now is show the world that our supremacy is not to be feared, but rather a dream devoutly to be wished.

We can feed the world, protect it, develop it, allow it to prosper, and ultimately, encourage it to advance to serve its own needs, all the while bringing a sense of fair play and Christian equity to the nations' commerce. Not simply in our own interest, but those of Humanity.

"Empire" may not define America, but America may yet redefine "empire."

[AlbionGirl]

The better State's burden. If in fact we are an American 'Empire', the whole meaning of empire has changed.

As long as subhuman nations, groups keep trying to get our attention be prepared to experience the new meaning of 'empire', and I say not good, but GREAT!!!

[habs4ever]

Why is when the word "empire" is used it is normally followed by the word" decline", or at least that thought seems to be the message conveyed? It's old, dumb and the lazy way out for lazy thinkers.

In 20+ yrs, America will generate over 45% of global GNP, hold 60% + of total global wealth and NO ONE(nation) will will generate even half that amount.Now, is that a bad thing, unless you are an implacable enemy of the US?

[alloysteel]

Empires do not have to decline. What has struck at the heart of empires in the past is the tendency to overcontrol. The distant outpost can cause great concern to the principal center, and excessive resources could be spent wastefully in trying to regain control, once it has been allowed to slip. Most usually, this is an ego thing on the part of the chief ruling group at the head of the empire.

But successful corporate enterprises have many characteristics in common with empires, and a number of successful strategies have evolved. There must never be fear of cutting loose a difficult or recalcitrant colony, that is simply cutting your losses. Withdrawal, and allowing the locals to fumble around and sink into self-induced anarchy for a few years, does wonders for stiffening spines in the colony. The trick is to manage to prevent any opportunistic revolutionaries from springing into the vacuum.

So long as the rule is relatively benign from the empire, most colonies find the arrangement to be beneficial. Of course, those at the center get even wealthier than they were before, but a well-managed subsidiary can grow to a maturity of its own, as it is given more and more autonomy. The empire need not decline, but it grows and evolves into a loose federation of first-line and subsidiary states, an organic international association. The problem with imposed federations like the League of Nations or the United Nations is that there was no effort to prepare the smaller nations for the responsibilities that went along with membership as they were simply admitted, without any attempt to groom them for the requirements of civil discourse and political compromise. The United Nations cannot ever become a Parliament of mankind, without a common understanding of the basic rules of order.

The British came probably closer to this model than anyone in history, but then they gave up the necessary discipline to maintain and nurture the empire, probably to some of the Fabian notions that targeted and undermined the principles of duty, honor and allegiance to central standards of excellence.

[habs4ever]

Very well said, and the Brits also lost the belief in their own goodness and the justness of their accomplishments.It's such a corrosive thing when nations are griped by self doubt and a lack of nerve.Present day "Old Europe" comes to mind :)