America is NOT an EMPIRE!

[Dementia_Madness]

http://kavanna.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-america-is-not-empire.html

America as empire is nonsense, of course, but there you are. You hear it incessantly from the Left, with its monumental narcissism and historical ignorance. Even people who should know better use the terminology of empire, but only at the price of serious distortion.

What is an empire? An imperial relationship is when people A rules people B without any consent or input from people B. It's a political, not an economic, concept. Empires have been important in the development of civilization because, until the last few centuries, they were the only successful large-scale civilizational units. Only in recent times and certain places, has a new and more advanced type of civilization appeared, one based on common consent and self-interest, undergirded by the "social contract." (See here, here, and here for this all-important feature that makes modern societies modern.) Its characteristic political unit is not the empire, but the nation-state, because its characteristic political principles are individual citizenship and self-rule by representation, not rule by outsiders.

It's useful to be reminded of where actual empires come from and what they look like to clear the air of this pseudo-question. Historically, empires have arisen when a people develops a large advantage over neighboring peoples in organization, technology, surplus wealth, and military prowess. They are typically exporters of surplus people and (with modern empires) of surplus capital. In their mature forms, they are also exporters of political order, as they encounter neighboring peoples who lack the same skill at organization and are often either primitive or decadent. The exported political order might also include culture and religion. This feature requires an aristocracy or at least a class that can function as one.

The most important example in Western history was the Roman empire, an entity that still influences our lives to this day. (Pick out all the Latinate words in this posting.) The Roman empire had two halves, the Greek-speaking East and the (over time) Latin-speaking West. In ancient times, the former was old, wealthy, highly populated and urbanized, but by the time the Romans took over, militarily weak and politically decadent. The latter was new, poor, poorly populated, and agrarian. To the East, the Romans exported political order to a place that could no longer could generate its own. From the East, the Romans imported capital, people, and culture. To the West, the Romans exported order, capital, and high culture to places that never had it. From the West, they imported little except slaves (in the early empire). The Roman empire was, in part, a result of the breakdown of the Roman republic. Imperial institutions replaced republican ones, although the latter lingered on as vestiges. The modern West was hatched in the ruins of the western Roman empire.

The most important modern empire was the British. Unlike the Roman empire, the British was a sea empire, largely based on commerce, with a "light" military presence. Unlike the Romans, the British also (except for the American Revolution) voluntarily phased out their empire, by modifying their imperial rule over non-Britons into partial, then complete, independence. It was the world's first self-liquidating empire, a tribute to the Britons' own system of representative government at home. During the era of the British empire, this representative system grew stronger, deeper, and broader, and many British imperial possessions inherited some form of it. The self-demolition of the British empire was not totally voluntary: some Britons wanted to hold on to it. But Britain's bankruptcy after World War II forced the issue.

America's sole experience with empire came in the wake of the Spanish-American war (1898-1900),when it came to control three former Spanish colonies, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba. Each one was treated differently and had different fates. Because the United States is a republic, it could not claim indefinite rule over these possessions, and it didn't. Each one was put on the road to political independence after World War I. American involvement was longest, deepest, and most successful in the Philippines, where the Filipinos were promised independence during World War II for their loyalty in fighting the Japanese (and they did fight, fiercely). They became independent in 1946. The Puerto Ricans eventually rejected independence in favor of a semi-imperial relationship, where Puerto Rico has internal self-government, and external foreign policy and military matters are taken care of by the American federal government, with significant amounts of federal money flowing in on net. The least successful was Cuba, which was prematurely cut loose from the US in 1934 and immediately turned into a dictatorship (Batista), overthrown in 1959 by the Soviet-oriented revolutionary Castro. Cuba today is a half-finished imperial project abandoned by two superpowers and ruled by a dictator who's turned the island into a tropical prison.

America is the world's dominant power and its remaining superpower. It's fair to call it a "hegemon" (a legitimate word sometimes used pejoratively). It is the linchpin of the civilized world's security and economic system. That does not make it all-powerful in some absolute sense. American foreign policy has largely focused on exporting international order, while leaving internal order within countries up to those countries, with a few exceptions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia). Exporting international order is much easier and well within American capabilities. Imposing internal order within countries is much harder and probably beyond anyone's power.

It follows that, while America is powerful yet not omnipotent, America needs friends and allies to help. The help is in our interests and theirs, often much more in theirs. This is the type of "hegemony" to be expected of a superpower nation-state in a world of other nation-states. It is based on the reality and legitimacy of the nation-state system, yet recognizing that some nations are much more powerful and critical to the system than others.

But American dominance has evolved in a curious and unhealthy way in Europe, the Middle East, and east Asia, where many countries have abandoned the ability to defend themselves and developed significant problems with political legitimacy. They have come to rely on the US and yet resent that dependence. The current agony we're in now is the result of other countries' backing away from military defense and foreign policy, figuring, let the US do it - and, let the US take the heat. Here is the crux of why people feel America is an "empire," even though it isn't: it's become a republic with a quasi-imperial role, an uncomfortable and unsustainable situation. Americans, both ordinary voters and foreign policy experts, were unprepared for this post-Cold War development. The US military is too small to serve as an imperial force and depends on allies able and willing to pull their own weight. But apart from a handful of exceptions, many American "allies" are actually "military welfare" cases. The US can fill this void only imperfectly and suffers, in some sense, from imperial understretch. (Yes, you read that right.)

But the solution is not to try to turn America into an empire, an impossible goal in any case. America is a middle-class, commercial republic, as well as a net importer of capital and people, three facts enough to kill the "empire" conceit. And it has no aristocratic imperial class or ethos - such things are foreign to American culture and society, fueled as they are by immigrants who all must get along within a framework of political and legal equality.

So let's hear no more of it: we're not an empire, never were, and aren't becoming one. We certainly shouldn't try. The real question is: can our relationship with our so-called allies be changed? And can they police their own corners of the globe and take control of their fates?

[NCVol]

Ok, then, we're just a hegemony with troops and bases in 135 countries!  I feel so much better! 

[Dementia_Madness]

You should..there is a BIG difference between an empire that imposes it's rule over alien states...and a nation whom at the invite and behest of other nations aids them in security and defense for a common good.

[NCVol]

My problem with either one is we cannot afford our foreign adventures.  The rest of the world says, GREAT, YOU guys spend more than all the rest of the world combined on military and related items and we will free load off of you.  We'll invest in infrastructure and take care of our own citizens - thanks for deterring the Soviets!  We owe you!  

That was fine and dandy when we were the worlds largest lender and served as the world manufacturing platform, with a thriving, production based economy, able to satisfy our internal capital needs as well as invest huge sums elsewhere in the world.  But that's reversed and we're the worlds largest borrower and pretending we can afford to supply military protection to our lenders.  I just cannot see how our current system is sustainable.  

If you can, more power to you.  But we're overstretched and cutting welfare from lazy deadbeats isn't going to solve our problems.  

[Dementia_Madness]

That's fine and dandy FOR you, NC because it's simply YOUR opinion that we cannot afford it, the truth is and even the people YOU elect into office understand is the bigger problem that we cannot afford NOT to be involved as we are in foreign "adventures". The funny thing to me is how much liberals talk about being part of a "global" community, yet feel we should not be part of "global" security. My thing with that is, IF you have friends....and they need your help...then you are there to help them. I think that is the biggest problem with libs...they do not understand the difference, they do not understand the need, and they do not accept that IF there was no presence of force, that vacuum would be filled by someone, most likely someone who is not as advantageous for them, or us.

The thing that many do not understand is that we have done such a good job at it, that many nations have given up the job for themselves..we have made so many nations secure that they have given up the job of doing it for themselves, and left us in the clutch...The important thing for the future is NOT leaving them though, it is getting them to step up (like we did in Iraq) and taking control of their own security with "support" from us, rather than them supporting us doing the job. This should in fact be the model around the world, many more of our allies should be given the reigns...even if they do not want them, and taught to head it up, rather than follow us.

It follows that, while America is powerful yet not omnipotent, America needs friends and allies to help. The help is in our interests and theirs, often much more in theirs. This is the type of "hegemony" to be expected of a superpower nation-state in a world of other nation-states. It is based on the reality and legitimacy of the nation-state system, yet recognizing that some nations are much more powerful and critical to the system than others.

But American dominance has evolved in a curious and unhealthy way in Europe, the Middle East, and east Asia, where many countries have abandoned the ability to defend themselves and developed significant problems with political legitimacy. They have come to rely on the US and yet resent that dependence. The current agony we're in now is the result of other countries' backing away from military defense and foreign policy, figuring, let the US do it - and, let the US take the heat. Here is the crux of why people feel America is an "empire," even though it isn't: it's become a republic with a quasi-imperial role, an uncomfortable and unsustainable situation. Americans, both ordinary voters and foreign policy experts, were unprepared for this post-Cold War development. The US military is too small to serve as an imperial force and depends on allies able and willing to pull their own weight. But apart from a handful of exceptions, many American "allies" are actually "military welfare" cases. The US can fill this void only imperfectly and suffers, in some sense, from imperial understretch. (Yes, you read that right.)

But the solution is not to try to turn America into an empire, an impossible goal in any case. America is a middle-class, commercial republic, as well as a net importer of capital and people, three facts enough to kill the "empire" conceit. And it has no aristocratic imperial class or ethos - such things are foreign to American culture and society, fueled as they are by immigrants who all must get along within a framework of political and legal equality.

So let's hear no more of it: we're not an empire, never were, and aren't becoming one. We certainly shouldn't try. The real question is: can our relationship with our so-called allies be changed? And can they police their own corners of the globe and take control of their fates?

[NCVol]

First of all, what part of a trillion deficit and 12 trillion in debt, with the coming entitlement explosion, is hard to understand for you?  I love it when conservatives talk about balancing the budget etc. but take military spending - the trillion or so - off the table.  It's like a family with $37,900 in credit card debt going, well, except for the mortgage on the 6,000 sq ft five bedroom four bath house with a pool, we're living well within our means!  And we need the room, what with the two kids and the office, and the workout room! 

There's always some mythical "other" spending to cut to balance the budget while ignoring the HUUUUGGEEEE pot of discretionary spending that includes military and national security. 

we have made so many nations secure that they have given up the job of doing it for themselves, and left us in the clutch...The important thing for the future is NOT leaving them though, it is getting them to step up (like we did in Iraq) and taking control of their own security with "support" from us

So, what you're saying is, we should make other countries take care of [much more of] their own security, bear [much more of] their own national security burdens, pay their own way in this global community, instead of freeloading off a bankrupt U.S. of A. with us only serving an advisory role. 

I AGREE!!!  In fact that was my point.  Providing security for, say, S. Korea, while Japan is a prosperous trading partner who we now owe about $800 billion or so, is a luxury.  Of course, one reason Japan agrees to float our bonds for us might be that we do provide the heavy lifting on security, but surely there's a better way than us going further and further into debt to arrange for the same result. 

[Dementia_Madness]

First of all, what part of a trillion deficit and 12 trillion in debt, with the coming entitlement explosion, is hard to understand for you?  I love it when conservatives talk about balancing the budget etc. but take military spending - the trillion or so - off the table.  It's like a family with $37,900 in credit card debt going, well, except for the mortgage on the 6,000 sq ft five bedroom four bath house with a pool, we're living well within our means!  And we need the room, what with the two kids and the office, and the workout room!

FIRST OF ALL...once again you ar making arguments no one is making..My GOD NC what is your problem? You assume that if we cut the military that will magically FIX our economy, in fact that your premise seems to be that if we did not have a military we would not be in debt, would not have a deficit, and would not have an economic problem. Well, the problem is, what part of the budget would you cut out oh wise one? Where would you start? LIKE I SAID..you seem to think we can afford  to abandon our allies...or perhaps you are arguing that we should, cut pay, benefits, and such for our soldiers themselves? perhaps it's the research you want to cut? Fine, but you cannot wave a magic wand and say we will shrink the military and solve our fiscal woes, no more than simply shrinking welfare would.

LIKE I said, we need to make our allies take up more of THEIR OWN defense....much like we did in IRAQ....and then we could shrink our resource spending in that area. BUT that is not happening...In fact the argument completely contradicts your contention that we take this off the table, it is part of the responsibility and cutting of spending I have already talked about elsewhere. SO YOU ARE WRONG in your initial assertion that we do not want to cut defense...we will when and where we can, but unless YOU can point pout where that is, I suggest you leave that kind of thinking to people who actually understand strategic and defensive elements.

There's always some mythical "other" spending to cut to balance the budget while ignoring the HUUUUGGEEEE pot of discretionary spending that includes military and national security.

No there is NOT, the fact is that the WHOLE spending thing needs to be approached responsibly we are NOT ignoring anything, but YOU want to believe we are because you would rather not even talk about cutting spending...or cutting taxes, it seems YOUR ideal of fixing things is RAISING TAXES on the "RICH" and cutting our military...I guess based on your above statements that means leaving all our allies high and dry and becoming a xenophobic state. The  real key, shrink the government...I mean drastically...turn over many of the services provided by them to the more efficient and effective private sector where it belongs...cut taxes on those people that actually pay taxes and enable them to contribute more by expansion and growth...thus enabling them to give more in the long run.

So, what you're saying is, we should make other countries take care of [much more of] their own security, bear [much more of] their own national security burdens, pay their own way in this global community, instead of freeloading off a bankrupt U.S. of A. with us only serving an advisory role.

I AGREE!!!  In fact that was my point.  Providing security for, say, S. Korea, while Japan is a prosperous trading partner who we now owe about $800 billion or so, is a luxury.  Of course, one reason Japan agrees to float our bonds for us might be that we do provide the heavy lifting on security, but surely there's a better way than us going further and further into debt to arrange for the same result.

YES just like I said before, and THIS is indeed the main stream conservative thinking....you keep saying things you pull out yer anus....for arguments sake...when in fact you have created an illusion within your own mind to make you feel better about your stand on many issues. I really think that for the most part you libs don't have a clue half of the time what we are really all about...YES we think defense is one of the most important things our government can do, why is that? because that is what the government was intended to do, that was the whole reason the states united to begin with...the purpose of the federal government in the beginning was for defense and infrastructure...mainly, and for some reason it has grown into a beast. By taking on the extra burdens that were originally not intended for it to bear, instead of placing it on the private sector where it belongs, we have in effect weakened the ability of it to do what it was originally intended for and should be doing now. We cannot fix it by continuing in the directions YOU liberals want to go, that is the road to ruin, that is the road that brought us to where we are today, the key is to return to what we were before, in governance, in the original intended make up of this nation, what we were that made us the good part of what we are now. TO CONSERVE THAT PROTECT IT AND LET IT ENDURE.

You know one thing that really amazes me, and actually points out the extent of NCvols warped hatred of "rich" people, he will twist any topic into an excuse to rail against them, and pontificate for raising taxes on them....in his strange mind all the worlds problem can and will be solved if we make people pay more of what is theirs.... We can be sure that somewhere in that clouded mind there is a train of thought that believes that somehow the troops we have across the globe are there protecting the interests of the dark shadowy banks...the real "empire" he is against.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

You should..there is a BIG difference between an empire that imposes it's rule over alien states...and a nation whom at the invite and behest of other nations aids them in security and defense for a common good.

Try selling that crap to the Iraqis. I don't recall them inviting us to invade their country; install a US puppet regime; and occupy their country for six years running.

[Dementia_Madness]

Try selling that crap to the Iraqis. I don't recall them inviting us to invade their country; install a US puppet regime; and occupy their country for six years running.

Spoken like the true liberal shill you are. You really are this stupid aren't you? It's not just an act.

The fact is that the IRAQIS have their own government even if you hate it and would rather Saddam was still in power and raping and murdering and terrorizing the region...



I give more credence to these Iraqis than to some loony moon-bat hate-filled liberal whose opinion of his fellow man can be viewed best in the waste basket at a local abortion clinic.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Spoken like the true liberal shill you are. You really are this stupid aren't you? It's not just an act.

The fact is that the IRAQIS have their own government even if you hate it and would rather Saddam was still in power and raping and murdering and terrorizing the region...

Spoken like the true retard you are. And you really are that obtuse.

Hey Bush myrmidon,

You just made the absurd and factually inaccurate statement that "there is a BIG difference between an empire that imposes it's rule over alien states...and a nation whom at the invite and behest of other nations aids them in security and defense for a common good, the implication being that Iraq invited us into their country. I pointed out that Iraq did NOT invite us into their country. It was an unprovoked military invasion, based upon trumped up intelligence reports. So, much for your "we're a nation, not an empire" that exists for the common good .

You are a f#cking imbecile. 

[Dementia_Madness]

Once again I give much more credence to these people of IRAQ than I ever will someone like you. Your opinion is worth about as much as what is flushed down the toilet.

Flummoxed Lummox alive and well -

No matter how much you want it, Saddam will never again be in power in Iraq, and the Iraqi people are now in control of their own destiny...I know it hurts, but that's to bad.

Just as we mourn for the victims of Saddam's regime, we also grieve for the Americans and Iraqis who were killed or injured during the liberation or by terrorists determined to hold us back, We will honor those who have sacrificed for our freedom by building a new Iraq that lives in peace with the nations of the world, without fear of war, torture chambers or terrorism.

As Iraqis assume full sovereignty over our nation, we extend our hands in friendship and gratitude to the American people.The sacrifices your sons and daughters made for our liberation will never be forgotten. Without those brave young men and women, this day might never have come.

Thank You America – And Damn You, You Bastards

By Jabr Al Jabouri

Al-Bayyna Al-Jadida [Baghdad]
July 1, 2009
Translation byCenter for Islamic Pluralism
 
America chose to save us from the most evil party, and the most despicable President in the universe [Saddam].  Meanwhile, the Arab powers stood firmly against the American project.  They used all means to thwart them, but Allah’s will had another say in this matter.  America turned the Ba’athists into the world’s laughing stock by showing them fleeing in their underwear on live television.  Meanwhile, the Arab powers turned those cowards into national heroes on their satellite channels.

America gave the lives of 4,000 of its people to Iraq’s land to instill security and democracy, while the Arabs sent us their filthy mercenaries who mercilessly murdered, bombed, and slaughtered the Iraqi people.

America came bearing democracy for Iraq, while the Arabs brought us the new religion of the Wahhabis and Salafists.  This religion aims to destroy Iraq and return it to the days of minority rule.

America canceled all of our debts and urged the rest of the world to do so, while the Arabs refused to do so and they even demanded payment for every Iraqi citizen living in their countries.

America allowed Shias to practice their religion while the Arabs bombed the Askari shrine.  America proposed that the Iraqi President be Kurdish – so that we can prove to the world that Iraq has entered an age of freedom and respect for ethnic minorities.  Yet, the Arabs have “removed Iraq from the Arab map,” pointing to the fact that the President is a non-Arab.  America urged all honorable Sunnis to take part in the political process, while the Arabs issued a fatwa to kill every Sunni Iraqi who works with the government.

America opened the world to us, while the Arabs slammed their doors in our faces.  America urged the world’s countries to open embassies in Iraq.  Thus far, the Arabs have not opened embassies… or even acknowledged Iraq’s new democratic regime.  America is carrying the burden of removing Iraq from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, while the Arabs – led by Saudi Arabia – are doing their best to obstruct these efforts.

America urged the Gulf States to allow Iraq to return to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), while the Arabs refused to allow Iraq to join the GCC.  The Americans sponsored Iraq membership in international, political, and cultural organizations, while the Arabs expelled the Iraqi Authors and Writers Union from the Arab Writers Union.

America decided to withdraw from Iraq cities and hand these cities over to the Iraq forces on June 30 in preparation for the final withdrawal from Iraq.  The Arabs decided to hinder the withdrawal so that their excuse for fighting the occupier and killing the Iraq people can remain.

America signed the Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, which includes all political, cultural, military, and technological fields.  The Arabs issued a decision stating that Iraq is “officially occupied” because we signed the security agreement.  Never mind that all these Arab countries have agreements with America.  The Arabs decided that every American soldier in Iraq is an occupier that must be killed, while if an American soldier was to be in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, or Egypt he would be considered as a friendly ally that must be treated with respect.  The Arabs decided to consider every Iraqi living in America to be a traitor and spy, even though Iraqi people living in America are fewer in numbers than all other Arab nationalities.  The Arabs consider every Iraqi who works as a translator for the American forces to be a traitor…

This is how Arabs are, and this is just a drop in a vast ocean.  All this is what the Arabs do in public.  What they do behind the walls is another matter entirely.

According to American news sources, Saudi Arabia has been trying hard to convince America to return the Ba’athists to power in Iraq.  However, the American Administration does not care about what Saudi Arabia thinks or wants in this country. Today, our American friends are true to their word.  They have handed over security responsibilities to the Iraq forces, and they decided to withdraw from the Iraqi cities.

I wonder when the American forces in Saudi Arabia – estimated at 80,000 troops – are going to withdraw.  When are the 30,000 U.S. soldiers in Kuwait going to withdraw?  When are the American bases in Qatar, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, and all other Arab countries that live off American aid going to be shut down?

The geographically close, but, in humanitarian terms, distant Arab Nation does not deserve any political, cultural and commercial ties with us.  Nations that are completely different from and unrelated to us are racing to assist us.

After six years of liberation, we now know who our friend is and who our foe is.  We should not give a chance to those idiots who claim that Iraq is part of the Arab Nation.  These idiots should understand that Iraq is part the federal, free and democratic world. 

Kinda puts idiots like FL into perspective doesn't it.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Darth  Mondo,

There isn't one thing in your Al Jabouri article, nor in your inane ramblings, that shows we were invited by the Iraqis to invade and occupy their country.

Again, you claimed this:

You should..there is a BIG difference between an empire that imposes it's rule over alien states...and a nation whom at the invite and behest of other nations aids them in security and defense for a common good.

We were not invited by the Iraqis to assist them in security and defense for the common good. We invaded them, even though they posed no threat to our security and defense.

Citing a single article by an Iraqi who favors the US invasion does NOT prove your statement.