Fascinating that Buchanan can spend the whole body of the article with a reasonable, rational analysis of the Iraqi campaign and then drop this sentence in to kick off the very last paragraph. No lead in, nothing. I see this as indisputable proof that for Buchanan the belief that we are "empire building" is not a theory to be debated, but an a priori assumption on which to base all subsequent thought. It's a shame, because I'd love to hear him make the case for why he believes this is what is happening. For example, how does he define empire? Oh well. He could've been a contender.
He first not only presents --- he tries to overwhelm you with factual detail in order to establish his credibility. This always includes irrelevant and unnecessary information: witness the long list of our airplanes. Like a child, he tries to impress adults: "Look, I read the sentence to the very end; I know ALL of our airplanes."
Having lulled the reader, he then plugs in, in one short sentence, an idea that requires a great deal of justification and refinement. When justifying crusades, for instance, he lists some detailed information, and then says, "It was a just war. So was WWII" --- and moves on! I'd think any parallels between crusades and WWII are far from obvious.
His knowledge of history is like an uncooked stew: plenty of ingredients that have not come together. And his writing style reveals him for what he is -- a cheap, hateful provocateur.