'Empire' -- A Losing Political Issue

Christopher Preble is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy (www.realisticforeignpolicy.org) and the director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Not quite a year ago, when the euphoria over the U.S. military's sweeping victory over Saddam Hussein's armies was at its high point, Washington was consumed with talk of empire.

"No need to run away from the label," wrote Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, "America's destiny is to police the world." Harvard's Michael Ignatieff agreed. "Imperialism doesn't stop being necessary," he said, "just because it is politically incorrect." Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, who both served on Bill Clinton's National Security Council, admitted that, for them, "the real debate is not whether to have an empire, but what kind."

And yet, the American people seemed unconvinced of the supposed benefits of empire. In July 2003 the American Enterprise Institute hosted a debate to discuss the straightforward proposition: "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire." Arguing in the affirmative was Niall Ferguson, the author of the best-selling book Empire, who had elsewhere asserted, "empire is a form of international government that can work -- and not just for the benefit of the ruling power." At the AEI debate, Ferguson surveyed the scope of American power -- military, economic, and cultural -- and concluded, "the only thing that is really quite remarkable about the American empire . . . is the fact that Americans refuse to believe in its existence."

Jeffrey Garten, dean of the Yale School of Management, and Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade from 1993 until 1995, foresaw a similar disconnect between Washington insiders enamored of empire, and those beyond the Beltway who had little appetite for imperial burdens.

Arguing that the United States was "an empire in all but name," Garten urged the president to convince the American people not that an empire is unwise, but rather that Americans must send "their sons and daughters" abroad to rebuild countries damaged by American military intervention.

Specifically, Garten called for the creation of a "colonial service" akin to the former British Colonial Service.

This seems unlikely, at least in the near term. In his prime time press conference last week, President Bush went out of his way to disavow any imperial intentions. Discussing the ongoing military operations in Iraq, and talk of a long-term occupation there, Bush affirmed that the Iraqi people "do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We are not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest."

But while the president may shy away from the term empire, the conduct of our foreign policy is clearly guided by a presumption that the United States is, and should be, the world's only superpower. The National Security Strategy declares that the United States shall maintain its predominant position in the world at all costs, even acting preemptively if and when would-be rivals emerge, or appear likely to emerge.

But while the possession of a military force that is second-to-none might appear on the surface to be a manifestation of imperial domination, the proponents of empire claim that the United States is not really an empire because it has noble intentions. The Bush National Security Strategy pledges to reshape the world according to our image, and establishes as a core object of U.S. policy the creation of a world that is "not just safer but better." Left unsaid, but implicitly understood, is that the United States will determine what is better. So much for the rhetoric from the 2000 campaign when candidate George Bush questioned America's right to "go around the world and say, `This is the way it's got to be.'"

While citizens of Rome reveled in their glorious empire, and the British "hailed Britannia," Americans have yet to embrace the term, or the concept behind it. And they are unlikely to do so. Most Americans, even those who did not pay attention during their high school history classes, will remember that America seceded from the British Empire.

This is the part of our history that many modern-day imperialists would prefer to forget. For most of our country's history, Americans resisted the imperial impulse. They were guided by the Founders oft-stated warnings that a republican form of government was incompatible with an imperial foreign policy. The Founders feared empire because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of citizens at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of sovereign people abroad.

The general public is right to be skeptical of empire. On balance, the objections to an imperial foreign policy can be summed up in a single sentence: empire is problematic because it threatens our liberty and economic security at home, and it is counterproductive abroad. Knowing of Americans' long-standing opposition to the concept of empire, the imperialists are unlikely to put this question before the public for a vote. Instead of admitting that the costs of empire are great -- and growing -- the Bush administration and its ideological allies dismiss the costs of empire with a wave. The most common refrain -- that the cost of whatever we are doing is far less than the costs of another terrorist attack -- is deceptively simple because it is impossible to disprove a negative. In the highly unlikely event that there is never another terrorist attack, we will never know how much such an attack might have cost. Whatever was spent to prevent such an attack, therefore, will be deemed to have been worth it. In the more likely event that another terrorist attack does occur, the defenders of the strategy of empire will declare that the attack would certainly have had far graver effects, or that there would have been far more attacks, if the money hadn't been spent -- and then call for still more money to solve the problem.

There is an alternative to empire, however -- one that is in keeping with America's traditions and values. Beginning last summer, a group of scholars, policy makers, and concerned citizens formed the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. Spanning the ideological spectrum from left to right, and attracting supporters from across the country, the Coalition is united by our opposition to an American empire. We are dedicated to promoting an alternative vision for an American national security strategy that is consistent with American traditions and values. This continues to be the organizing principle on which we operate. (See our Statement of Principles.)

To counter the arguments of those who favor empire, the coalition holds conferences, and media events, promotes research, and communicates a vision of the alternatives to empire, including a restrained foreign policy that protects American interests.

For the advocates and opponents of empire, the key question revolves around the opinions of our fellow Americans. Will open advocacy for empire in this political season be an asset, or a liability? If history is any guide, and it often is, the American people will favor prudent, responsible foreign policies that defend U.S. national security interests while rejecting imperialist fantasies.

From the above article: >Garten called for the creation of a "colonial service" akin to the former British Colonial Service

And in the news the other day: U.S. Initiative To Train 75,000 Foreign Peacekeepers

"Tuesday, April 20, 2004

"The Post reports that defense officials say if the plan is successful, it could relieve pressure on U.S. troops"

"U.N. peacekeeping missions must be adequately staffed and funded."

"stick with it until peace takes root....urging long-term commitments"

"U.S. President George W. Bush is planning a five-year, $660 million campaign to train and equip 75,000 foreign troops to staff peacekeeping missions around the world, the Washington Post reported yesterday."
It'll be interesting to see who gets the contracts. Especially since profit margins will require each M16 round to cost $2 if manufactured here, with proportional costs for everything else.

Maybe we should outsource war materiel; I bet China would be glad to supply us.

>Thirty years out of college I started to read up on American history

Were the 19th century expansionist grabs you list not mentioned in elementary and high school or college when you went? I know they used to paint all US endeavors as noble and all our wars defensive but even as a kid I could see through the red, white and blue veils and understand what these actives were. I thought most people could even if they didn't want to admit it.

The expansion of our country on the north American continent is usually glossed over and the War with Spain is generally considered the birth of our imperial age because it was then that we first went beyond our shores to pick a fight with another country solely for the purpose of territorial acquisition. You are correct about Hawaii but for some reason the annexation of an independent kingdom is so minor a footnote that most people don't even know it happened. Perhaps it is not entirely accurate but 1898 is the commonly held standard because it is with the War on Spain that we made our first significant move to become a great nation in the European sense and grabbed overseas territory to further project power into the world. And now over a hundered years later most Americans don't even question our "right" to run the world, it's a given.

We have an unblievably stupid imperial policy. We have a group in the administration that has the conquest of different nations via our military similar to the Roman Legions and the British Empire. The difference lies in the results of our conquest versus their results. All commerce flowed to Rome or the British Isles.

Our original plans of conquest in Iraq at least insisted on Iraqi oil to pay the cost of the invasion and reconstruction. After a commitment of 200++ billion of taxpayer funds no mention is made of a payback for our invasion and occupation. From a moral standpoint, this is probably right, if you break the furniture, you pay for it. However, for a nation embarking on a conquest of foreign nations that do not approve of us, it takes very little math to realize that we can afford very little conquest after Iraq.

The British, Romans, France, Spain etc. also did not agree to dismantle their wealth and job base and send it overseas to their competitors of empire as we are doing with China. In short, it is my opinion that we have an elite that has conquest in mind similar to colonial empires but are lacking the wherewithal to figure out how to pay the bills. They resemble the promiscuous girl that has as much sex as the prostitute but is too dumb to charge for it.

All this is meaningless psychobabble.

Until very recently NO country existed but for what territory it could take and hold by force. The alternative to absorbing weak neighbors is that somebody else would absorb them. And you might be next.

Louisiana - France sold it for what they could get because they saw they could not hold it anyway. It would have been Spanish/Mexican since the Native Americans had no chance. Ditto for Russia and Alaska, which was eyed by Canada.

Empire is neither good nor bad. Every country is an empire to some degree at some time in its history. If you want a pure non-empire, you have to let go every person and their property that doesn't want to be part of your country.

This is a stupid ridiculous thread.

I agree with Papatom on this issue; America has acted with an imperialistic bent in the past, and probably will in the future. But, there is a difference between going into areas where our interests are concerned (read: Middle East terrorists) and imperializing. Imperializing is blatant, land-grabbing, and never pretends it has high ideals. Imperialists want land and power. They are as blunt about it as a sledgehammer.
However, what we do is different. We are just trying to keep ourselves afloat here. The article insinuates that America only "thinks" it's the world's only superpower; well, guess what. We ARE the only superpower left. The USSR sunk several years ago, and China hasn't gotten that far along yet. So, we are it. With that power comes the fact that many people are jealous of us and hate us. So what can we do? It's obvious that they don't think we should fight. If we do, we get called "imperialist". It's self defense! Preemptive self defense, but self defense nonetheless.
The Middle East is our enemy. That's not racial profiling or any other stupid term the far left has come up with to make Bush look stupid. It's common sense.
Islamic fundamentalists are the target. We must kill them before they kill us. Harsh, but true.
Gandhi was wrong. An eye for an eye doesn't make everyone blind; it makes everyone careful whose eye they take.

Isolation and appeasement are misnomers and are used by liberal/socialist globalist/interventionists as a way to delegitimize opposition thought. Unfortunately this leftist agit-prop has been so successful that it's been adopted by the right.

There is a very good article explaining a non -aggressive foreign policy that defends American interests while securing our liberties at home posted on FR last week: The Republican Road Not Taken: The Foreign-Policy Vision of Robert A. Taft If the article is too long for you scroll down to post #39 where I lifted salient quotes for those posters who missed them on first reading.

"I started to read up on American history. So the statement, "For most of our country's history, Americans resisted the imperial impulse" doesn't doesn't ring true. "

It is sad to see history perverted to these people's ideology. But the poor education of most Americans makes it their most successful propaganda scheme.

The greatest example of our empire building was our design to protect our Mississippi trading route, which also included acquiring East Florida and West Florida along with passage through and storage at New Orleans. Started during the Washington administration and continued to Monroe's annexation of East Florida, it was a resounding success of the military and diplomatic efforts of our Founding Fathers.

The most flagrant example of empire was helping overthrow the French in Haiti to protect our carrying trade during the Adams administration, followed by allowing France (coincidentally with the Louisiana Purchase agreement) to reclaim it in the Jefferson administration .
Our military successes in the caribbean made every European power realize how very difficult we could and would make it for them to hold territory in the America's. It played a great role in Napolean's decision to abandon Louisiana.

But the most far-reaching imperial attempt has to be President Washington's attempt to exert influence in the Nootka Sound (Washington St.) dispute between England and Spain. Although it came to nought at the time- we were so weak, today's US -Canadian border is at: Nootka Sound.

I started to read - but almost instantly I was stopped by the utterly inane abstract which convinced me that reading further would have been an abject waste of time:

The Republican Road Not Taken: The Foreign-Policy
Vision of Robert A. Taft
By Michael T. Hayes

Abstract: Republican congressional leader Robert A. Taft articulated a non-interventionist foreign-policy vision sharply at odds with the internationalism of Truman and Eisenhower. Although derided as ostrich-like, Taft was prescient on several points, such as the structural weakness of the United Nations and the propping up of repressive regimes that would result from U.S. interventionism.

The two points mentioned in the abstract are either wrong or irrelevant.

The UN has proved to be ineffective, even counterproductive, for reasons that are well-known now. But that is a weakness in a TOOL of intervention, not the policy of intervention. Recognition of that has led the current administration to use other tools, such as its own power as the world's monopole since the collapse of communism and ad hoc coalitions to which the UN is utterly impotent to even voice a challenge, in pursuit of peace and democracy.

And propping up repressive regimes was an expedient policy choice of methodology, not a consequence of intervention. It was proxy intervention on-the-cheap. The current Bush administration has explicitly repudiated that policy and proceeded to implement a new one by toppling regimes formerly supported directly or indirectly in Afghanistan and Iraq and build democracies from the ground up regardless of the cost.

With such nonsense in the abstract you were right about one thing. It was too long to read.

>After a commitment of 200++ billion of taxpayer funds no mention is made of a payback for our invasion and occupation.

I don't think that's true.
I believe French and German
business interests

were kickd from Iraq
and now that work's going to
US companies

or US clients.
That's modern empire -- business
spheres of influence.

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.