Posted on 01/20/2005 5:24:00 PM PST by Destro
The Empire Has No Clothes U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed
By Ivan Eland
Independent Institute
Oakland, California
HC, 294 pages US$24.95
ISBN: 0-9459-9998-4
The rise of the American empire
By Steven Martinovich
web posted January 17, 2005
Students of history are often amazed how empires sometimes came into being almost accidentally. Rome, during its early Republican years, often grew by being attacked by its neighbours and vanquishing them. The Victorian British originally sought to protect trade and overseas interests before waking up one day and realizing that they controlled a quarter of the world's land, people and all of its oceans. Others, of course, are a more deliberate project: an attempt to create a world of their making. Whether their motives are benevolent or otherwise, the end result is always the same, the fall.
Though it might come as some surprise to Americans, they long ago embarked on the building of an empire and also face the prospect of the eventual lose of their power -- sooner, in fact, than they think. Decades ago the United States abandoned its traditional hatred of foreign entanglements, alliances and a large standing military and now fings itself with a global empire. That's the charge that Ivan Eland makes in The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, the clearest, most cogent and strongest case against America's interventionist foreign policy to come from either the political left or right in recent years.
Eland argues that the United States started down the road to empire with the 1898 Spanish-American War and some subsequent adventures in Latin and Central America during the early 1990s. It wasn't until the 1950s, however, that the American empire became a reality. Thanks to the Cold War, the United States entered into a vast number of alliances, built and maintained a large, permanent standing military and employed force to protect what it considered its interests. Rather than pursue the centuries old policy of acting as an "off-shore balancer" -- essentially remaining politically and military neutral unless there was an absolute need to do otherwise -- America has pursued a policy of direct and indirect intervention.
As a result of this abandonment of the founding fathers' views on foreign policy, writes Eland, the United States has built an informal empire. With its military it protects nations, such as those in Europe, that could easily do so itself. It stations forces across the planet in a bid to influence both enemies and allies. It meddles in the affairs of other nations in attempts to stabilize regions. It engages in wars that change the balance of power among nations, regions and even globally.
Empires are built to benefit a nation but Eland argues that the United States receives nothing from its empire. Resources that could be used by Americans in the economy are instead diverted through taxation to pay for a massive military force. Though nations like Japan and those in Europe have been protected for decades by American military power, they have never fully opened their economies to investment and trade. Intervention in the affairs of other nations results in "blowback." The events of September 11, 2001, for example, were the direct result of American meddling in the Middle East, not for what America represents.
The greatest danger, however, is for Americans themselves. Eland argues that the founding fathers crafted their view on foreign policy to protect Americans from the natural desire of leaders to make a name for themselves via war. Large standing armies give leaders the resources necessary to make war -- paid for by the blood and taxes of citizens. Leaders often use wartime to infringe upon the liberties of the citizenry, gain increased powers for themselves and generally do harm to the Constitution.
Eland uses The Empire Has No Clothes to address Americans of all political stripes to reject the interventionist foreign policy that has dominated American political life for over five decades. Although a conservative, he has few kind words for the Bush administration and its foray into Iraq, global stationing of forces in what he considers a poorly fought war on terrorism and attacks on American liberties. He also cautions the political left, however, that using military force for ostensibly humanitarian grounds is little different. These missions are virtually always failures and typically make the situation worse.
The Empire Has No Clothes argues that America must withdraw its soldiers from across the planet, reduce the size of its military -- by half, he believes -- and distance itself from foreign quarrels and alliances. The United States should focus its attention on a few narrow parts of the world and prepare itself economically for the eventual rise of competitors like China, India and perhaps Russia. With a far smaller footprint globally, says Eland, America would be at less risk of terrorist attack and return to the days when its example -- not its firepower -- was the reason why nations became democratic.
Eland has crafted a convincing rebuttal to those who support the use of American power overseas, regardless of whether they believed in the velvet glove of the Clinton administration or the fist enclosed in it that is being employed by the Bush administration. Eland's belief that the American empire is a danger not only to the world, but Americans themselves, will be a difficult one for many believe -- but even harder to dismiss. Ultimately, history will decide the fate of the world's newest empire, as it has done for each of its predecessors. Thanks to Eland, America can avoid the fate of so many before it.
Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.
Buy The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed at Amazon.com for only $16.47 (34% off)
Freedom for all mankind, oh so painful.
Either America stops being a superpower and goes into a decline (like Europe) or it continues its current policy - many countries, especially some of the EU ones, will not tolerate a strong America.
That's just a crazy statement. We have sought influence over other countries since our Founding. The areas where we have done so have just grown from the Caribbean and North America to everywhere.
The Spanish War was just a continuation of an expansion no one can claim didn't happen. We ran out of room on this continent for our "empire".
An impressive criticism would be one that argued that we should stop the expansionist foreign poicy of our Founders. At least on this planet.
There's a troubling presumption in that statement...
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis
Isolationism as a policy became obsolete a long time ago. In the modern world our country was threatened by aggressive empires in WWII. Is the author arguing that America should have stayed home and ignored Hitler? Does he argue that Communism was not a direct threat to us during the Cold War? If so, he's a buffoon. Oh, and I almost forgot the gem about us "provoking" the terrorists who launched 9/11. He's not a conservative as he claims; he's an ignorant throwback to the 19th century.
Interventionisim is not a sign of strength.
War is just one more big government program. – Joseph Sobran
Expansion to Space? Sounds good to me.
hey Destro, I agree with you for once.
Drugs are for people who can not handle reality. OLA
The author is not arguing for isolationisim - "Rather than pursue the centuries old policy of acting as an "off-shore balancer" -- essentially remaining politically and military neutral unless there was an absolute need to do otherwise" - not isolationisim - so try again.
And you disagreed with me on?
Agree with you too. You caught some bad stuff the other day from those folks who are only too eager to cut other Americans off at the knees. Kudos for standing your ground, and being right at the same time.
Reality is for people who can not handle drugs. - OLA
Hey OLA,
I don't think Putin liked today's speech. Just a guess.
The desire to rule is the mother of heresies. – St. John Chrysostom
Way pro-Russian. I understand it has to do with Orthodoxy. You are always civil about it though.
Up: the American Way!
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.