An American Empire

The neo-cons have correctly pointed out that the forces of repression of the Islamofascist/Baathist/Khoumeni variety or of the eivl-dictator-Castro-Mugabe-Quaddafi variety serve to support terrorists and violence that threatens us directly.

This is just like the Cold War, where we were faced with a large and multi-faceted threat. But unlike the Cold War there is no "center" to it - no Stalin, no Moscow. This is a mnay-headed hydra.

The original author is wrong about American empire. We have create many international organization during the post WWII era and *properly* saw the challenge as global and faced it as such, *before* it came to our shores.

But 9/11 OTOH did come to our shores and reminded us that distant threats can strike home if left unchallenged.

We have enough power and there is enough evidence to show that 'containment' policy used during the Cold War will not work. Containment of Saddam will not stop him from training terrorists, or letting terrorist kill Americans in Jordan and slip back to Baghdad.

To defeat terrorism and its allies, we will need to cut off all its sources of strength: financial, ideological, state sponsorship, etc. This leaves inevitably to a "DRAIN THE SWAMP" strategy: If we want to defeat terrorists, end the regimes of violence, force and anti-western ideology that are the nests of terrorism.

World-wide democratization seems a bold effort, but that does not make it a bad goal. The benefits of such a change would be enormous. Even the selective democratization of those regimes that are terror-sponsors would reap huge dividends.

Pursuing Democratization and doing it proactively is not "Empire"; that is a strategy for global peace and security ... and freedom.

this hyperpower talk that you mention - the collateral benefits, we might call them - it's precisely why the Russians and France are eager to stymie our war. they have laid so many booby traps that we will either not do this at all or we will be hamstrung even in victory. Both dont want to be eclipsed by USA.

I cant wait for the USA to 'get it on' and done with, and liberate Iraq.
The delay is damaging us now.

is not "Empire"; that is a strategy for global peace and security

Where in our founding charter are we as a nation charged with enforcing global peace?

P.S. I have no intention of making this a biblical discussion but your comments remind me of some verses about latter days where they talk of peace and safety but sudden calmity comes down on them.

this hyperpower talk that you mention - the collateral benefits, we might call them - it's precisely why the Russians and France are eager to stymie our war

I agree. What would you do in their place? it's not hard to understand their concerns. I'm sure China is a bit alarmed as well. I believe we will unleash some very impressive new weapons on Iraq for all the world to marvel at - and be intimidated by too.

Actually, if I were the Russians, I'd ally with USA. I think Putin is blowing a big chance for a positive re-alignment by opposing Iraq war. I thought they were on board, but in the last month, they have stepped off ... not good!

If I was French? hmmm, I'd take more showers. :-)

The Chinese, thankfully, are non-interventionist. The main problem we will have with them is economic competition. But there too, we need to see China democratize, or we could face big trouble in a decade or two. China wont veto our action, but wont help us. They also btw are not helping in N.K.

"Where in our founding charter are we as a nation charged with enforcing global peace?"

As others have made clear, there are global threats that hit home. It is interlinked. If we want to retain American freedom, we need to advance global freedom. If we want to retain our own security, we need to create and support global security and peace.

Our nation's (2nd?) tallest building was destroyed by attackers trained in mountainous camps 1/2-way round the world, led by a man who as far as I know hasnt even been to the US.

There is nothing biblical here, but there is an "end of history" note to this. We will have unparalleled global peace if we are able to stamp out these threats of Communism and Islamofascism, and remaining 3rd world tinpot dictators and would be tyrants (like Chavez).

Hw much of a military would be need if most of the world was as tyrannical, agressive and militaristic as say Canada, Ireland or Denmark??? Think about it.

Actually, if I were the Russians, I'd ally with USA

I suppose it is human nature to want to be top dog and not a satrap.

If I was French? hmmm, I'd take more showers

Well they may not shower as much as Americans but bidets are common there and not here.

The Chinese are not in a hurry like westerners are. They see the long view of history and know that frequently time will take care of problems for you. They see us as corrupt and getting over extended and probably figure while we decline they will be gathering strength and might figure they may never need to confront us as time may do the job for them. For now war and confrontation is not an advantage to them, our trade is.

Our nation's (2nd?) tallest building was destroyed by attackers trained in mountainous camps 1/2-way round the world, led by a man who as far as I know hasnt even been to the US.

Right, and why would some dirt bag in a cave on the other side of the world want to reach out and strike us? In answer - your own words "there are global threats that hit home. It is interlinked".

The point is exactly that the more we intervene the more others will want to strike out. It is called backlash or blowback.

I knew a guy who was minding his own business in a bar. A fight broke out between a couple of bozos down the other end of the joint. This first fellow was a black belt in karate and thought that he would be peace maker and break up the fight and felt confident in his own ablities. Well he walked down there and stepped into the fray and took a shot to the head that snapped his neck and killed him. True story. Was it worth it?

It would be the wrong thinking of countries used to tyranny that choices in foregin relations are *only* top dog or 'satrap'. That is wrong.

We dont need vassals, we need allies.

Allies have shared values and interests.

We may be first of equals with allies like UK and Australia but they are fully sovereign. Same with Russia, if they so choose to see how our interests and theirs are in convergence. Iraq is our problem, Chechnya theirs. Terrorism is both our problems.
And cleaning up the mideast helps Russia enormously. etc.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.