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."
Well said BillyBob. This "empire" canard is a pet-peeve of mine. Conservatives should stamp it out every where we hear it.
Funny thing is that the folks who decry America as "imperial" are usually from countries who had *real* empires. Ask an African, Algerian, or Vietnamese what they think of the French.
You could view alot of America's current problems in the Middle East as tracing back to Europe's elitist, racist, imperial thinking. Read the artificial "mandates" of Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Jordan that stitched artificial states according to arbitrary map lines drawn in the smokey backrooms.
As with so many other things: Europe breaks it, America has to fix it, and then gets pissed on by the people who broke it. Sheesh.