Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: Is the US running an empire?

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default Is the US running an empire?

    Professor Manan Ahmed (Pakistani-American, now at Heidelberg) has an article about lack of expertise in the American empire: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd....html#comments

    The point about expertise or lack of it is interesting and worth discussing, but professor Manan (like most left-liberal academics) likes to use the term "empire" a lot...of course, some right-liberal academics use it too (Niall Ferguson?)..I wrote a comment about the usage of this term (you can see it at the above link) because I thought "empire" is not the best description of what the US does in the world today. Descriptions are maps of reality and are necessarily simplified and so on, but even as an oversimplified map, I thought this was not accurate. I dont think Obama wakes up every morning thinking about his far flung empire AS AN EMPIRE. But being a naive amateur, I am doing what I usually do in such circumstances, I am going to go ahead and ask: is "empire" a useful/good way to describe what the US does in the world?

  2. #2
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Omar:

    I read a very interesting book called Empires of Trust that compared Republican Rome to the US. It argues that both are primarily interested in defense and both insure that by pushing the perimeter outward by acquiring and supporting allies. It also says a critical factor is the allies trust that power will be used responsibly so they don't mind being a part of the "empire". In the case of Republican Rome they minded so little some of them fought the Romans so they could be Roman.

    Supposedly, this differs from empires of conquest, obviously, but also from empires of commerce which are established for trade rather than defense.

    The perimeter of the "empire of trust" keeps getting pushed out because you can't have hostiles directly abutting the perimeter and that results in it always expanding. Imperial Rome had to consciously stop the process but in our case, the oceans may affect it.

    Anyway, it was a very interesting book and I wonder if the concept might be of interest to you.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  3. #3
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    This kind of question has to start with a definition...

    empire

    Pronunciation: /ˈɛmpʌɪə/
    noun

    1 an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state: [in names]: the Roman Empire

    [mass noun] supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority: he encouraged the Greeks in their dream of empire in Asia Minor

    2 an extensive sphere of activity controlled by one person or group: the kitchen had once been the school dinner ladies' empire

    a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group: her business empire grew
    OED. QED.

    The operative terms: "ruled over", "supreme political power", "control".

    Unless someone can tell us who America rules or controls, there is no empire. The term may be used as a rhetorical flourish, but there's little substance to it. The only way you can speak of an American Empire is to dilute the definition of the term "empire" to a point where it no longer means anything at all.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  4. #4
    Registered User 5th_Req's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Camp Lejeune
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Dayuhan, I'd say the United States is an Economic Empire, and has always hd imperial desires in its mercantile pursuits.

    The US dollar dominates world markets, and is the reserve currency of choice around the world. Even now.

    That's just one obvious example of how the US has considerable control over world markets and international trade. Control enough that I'd call the US an Economic Empire, and without flourish, and without diminishing the term "empire."
    Joseph Mazzara @ the Marine Corps Gazette Blog

  5. #5
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    If the US is an economic empire, it's a bloody inefficient one. What kind of economic empire runs a gargantuan trade deficit every year? What's the point in an economic empire that loses money?

    The omnipresence of the dollar doesn't increase American control, it diminishes it. Because foreign banks can and do lend dollars, often with minimal restrictions on the ratio of loans to deposits, they are effectively able to create dollars, which means the US no longer has even vestigial control over the number of dollars in circulation.

    If the US "has considerable control over world markets and international trade", why hasn't the US been able to use that control to skew those markets in its favor? Again, look at that trade deficit. From a trade perspective the whole point of an empire is the ability to enforce favorable terms of trade. Obviously the US is a long way from doing that.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  6. #6
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    If the US is an economic empire, it's a bloody inefficient one.
    I don’t think there’s such a thing as an efficient empire in any case. They’ve managed to bring interesting things to our world, but often in terribly convoluted ways.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  7. #7
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    An empire will defend its territory. We will defend sort of a far outer perimeter. So in that sense, don't we act as an empire even if we don't absolutely control the nations within that perimeter?

    Dayuhan: Those trade deficits may be very bad in the long run but in the short run everybody else is paying our bills for us.
    Last edited by carl; 12-16-2011 at 02:59 AM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  8. #8
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    I'm still looking for a standard by which the US can be considered an empire. Not by the traditional "rule and/or control" definition, and the idea of an economic empire seems hard to justify given US trade figures.

    If defense of territory makes you an empire, then every country is an empire. I don't see the US defending a perimeter near or far. We're known to attack those who attack us or our allies, those who shelter hostile forces, and sometimes those we merely find obnoxious, but that's not about defending a discrete perimeter, and it's hardly something that characterizes empire.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 12-16-2011 at 03:12 AM.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  9. #9
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    I'm still looking for a standard by which the US can be considered an empire. Not by the traditional "rule and/or control" definition, and the idea of an economic empire seems hard to justify given US trade figures.
    There’s more than one way to look at the U.S. trade deficit. I wouldn’t say that any of them amount to the U.S. being a contemporary empire, but it is singular on the contemporary world stage.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  10. #10
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Every country may defend its' own territory but empires defend the territory of others. That territory may be seized against the will of the people who live there, the Japanese empire for example. If we are an empire, we defend the territory of others that we haven't seized but consider valuable to us, even if that territory or country can't really do us a lot of good in conflicts elsewhere. Modern Japan would fit that. We will defend Japan, even though in all the wars we've been involved in since 1945, they haven't provided any important direct assistance.

    I think we do have a perimeter that we will defend. We don't state it as such but it is there. We will defend Japan. We will defend Germany. Poland is maybe outside the perimeter. Kuwait and South Korea turned out to be inside the perimeter and there was trouble because that wasn't clear. South Vietnam maybe was in but we just failed in that case, though we could afford that failure since the Philippines and Indonesia were between Vietnam and unfettered access to the oceans.

    It may not be stated anywhere but judging by our actions, we have staked out a perimeter of sorts starting just after the Spanish-American War and have more or less tried to maintain it since.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  11. #11
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    There are places important enough to us to fight for, and there are places that are not, but if you laid them out on a map I don't think you'd find anything that could be called a discrete "perimeter"... just places that we think are important and places that we don't.

    I can't see how the will and ability to defend allies qualifies one as an empire.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  12. #12
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default An interjection

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Why is the idea of containment no longer relevant?
    Communication and transportation changes over the last 30 years. We're global and thus perneable.
    Why is not a global perimeter relevant?
    Economic changes over the last 30 years. We can't afford it...

  13. #13
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Ken:

    There has been no fundamental change to the nature of transportation in the last 30 years, or for that matter for the last 70 or more. It is still ships, planes, railroads, cars and trucks. We were global 30 years ago and truly global, probably the most global ever, between 1942 and 1945. What has changed about the nature of transportation that makes containment not viable?

    Communications has been affected by the internet and sat com but it is just a matter of degree. You could talk around the world by radio decades and decades ago. If you are worried about cyber sabotage, set up defenses. Men have come up with defenses for every threat, this is just another. I don't see how that makes containment not viable. You can't push a submarine or a container ship through a fiber optic cable.

    Lack of resources makes a perimeter impracticable, not undesirable. But we don't man most of the perimeter. Countries that aren't enemies do. And to effectively man it, all the have to do is stay not enemies. That seems a less expensive way to do it.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  14. #14
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not the mechanical, the usage...

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    What has changed about the nature of transportation that makes containment not viable?
    Ease of transnational movement, porosity of borders, lack of an 'Iron Curtain,' etc.
    Communications has been affected by the internet and sat com but it is just a matter of degree... You can't push a submarine or a container ship through a fiber optic cable.
    No but you can get your message of revolt or whatever to a worldwide audience in seconds -- if you're flexible enough to do that; most large nation are too bureaucratic to be effective at that, 'movements' of all sorts tend to be quite good at it -- and thus at attracting adherents or supporters everywhere.
    Lack of resources makes a perimeter impracticable, not undesirable. But we don't man most of the perimeter. Countries that aren't enemies do. And to effectively man it, all the have to do is stay not enemies. That seems a less expensive way to do it.
    A perimeter is undesirable because once established, it has to be maintained in some fashion. Maintenance entails costs of some sort and everything has a cost. Better to let it just fall into disuse.

    Countries who are not enemies (and those who are enemies) shift and change. All countries cater to their perceived interest; they will support our 'perimeter" as long as it suits. As the the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines and the British discovered, 'friends' change...

    A far better solution than a perimeter is the ability to respond to provocations with the proper instruments, political or military, rapidly and overwhelmingly locally to deter future provocations and that's, thankfully, where we at last seem to be headed. Long past time...

  15. #15
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Why is the idea of containment no longer relevant? Why is not a global perimeter relevant?
    Who would you contain?

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Maybe it has nothing to do with what an empire is or isn't. It is interesting though. It looks a little like a grand strategy.
    It seems less about containment to me than to an effort to respond to perceived threats wherever they emerge... not so much about establishing a clear perimeter as a global game of whack-a-mole.

    Either way, as you say, none of this has any relation to empire, and thus it belongs on another thread.

    So will anyone try to make a case for an American empire?
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 12-17-2011 at 07:04 AM.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  16. #16
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    All "empires" were economic endeavors, forced by the strong onto those who were unable to resist their advances. The nature of empires continues to evolve, becoming less one of expanding one's borders to one of expanding one's economic influence and control. The US runs an odd rendition of this that reflects our internal conflict of wanting to be a good guy, but while also wanting to act like a bad boy. We tend to take on the less desirable aspects of both. This is growing more apparent and less effective over time.

    For all of the flaws of the British model, they would have never sent so much of their national wealth out to line the pockets of the leaders they established to manage their enterprises for them. The US wants to have that same bad boy influence over others, but being a good guy, we pay retail for it. History will scratch its head over the American experience long after all of us are dead and buried. But we rose to power at at time of unprecedented techno/socio/cultural revolution, and with all of the old guide books on how to be an effective power growing increasingly obsolete, we have to muddle along and break fresh trail. Its about time to toss the old book out altogether and simply devise a fresh approach from scratch.


    As to the controlling aspects of our approaches, most countries perceive being contained as a act of war. Certainly the US would think so. In fact, it appears that the US perceives any country daring to nudge against obsolete US Cold War-based containment policies and posturing as bordering on war-like.

    I published a paper last year recommending that we retire containment as the foundation for how US grand strategy engages the world and offered an alternative, more positive approach that I attached the President's favorite label of "Empowerment" to. Not the answer, but neither is containment and its variations. We need to begin the dialog.

    Dr. Feaver of Duke has been a leading player in the post Cold War era of promoting the idea that it is in making others more like us that the US finds security. So upon a foundation of rusty Cold War containment we have built policies of promoting democracy over self determination, packaging current liberal positions on US values as "enduring universal values," and a penchant for making bold public proclamations judging those who dare to disagree as "evil" or "failed" or simply demanding that they surrender their sovereignty and culture to adopt ours; or to simply resign if we find their continued leadership inconvenient.

    Where is that Obama / Clinton's reset button when we need it? Seriously, we have gotten off of the true American path as we have followed various Cold War and post-Cold War side trails. Sustaining old alliances that have become sadly despotic and out of touch with their evolving populaces puts the US at risk of Transnational terrorism rising out of the insurgent populaces of such nations. Equally, demanding or actually creating new governments that are "more like us" but nothing like the people they have been imposed upon places us at risk as well.

    Showing people the respect of allowing them to be themselves is what will restore US influence and security. Addressing old relationships that have soured with age is a critical part of that. As an example, swallowing our pride and restoring relations with Iran makes the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia safer. We should not allow the Saudis and Israelis to steer us away from that reality. Privately telling old friends they are screwing up in their relationships at home is never appreciated, but often needed. We need to have a few of those conversations as well, and the first one should be with ourselves.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 12-17-2011 at 11:08 AM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  17. #17
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    All "empires" were economic endeavors, forced by the strong onto those who were unable to resist their advances. The nature of empires continues to evolve, becoming less one of expanding one's borders to one of expanding one's economic influence and control....

    For all of the flaws of the British model, they would have never sent so much of their national wealth out to line the pockets of the leaders they established to manage their enterprises for them.
    Again I have to wonder... where exactly does the US have economic influence and control, and if we have such influence and control, how come we aren't making money?

    Sending money out to line the pockets of those who manage the enterprises is a small fraction of our problem. The bigger part is that the cash flow on the enterprises overall is outbound, not inbound. The Chinese, for example, are lining unsavory packets cheerfully and at a vertiginous rate, but at least their bottom line is positive. Ours is not, which is hard to reconcile with the idea of economic empire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Showing people the respect of allowing them to be themselves is what will restore US influence and security.
    Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which we're trying to leave, where are we not "showing people the respect of allowing them to be themselves"?
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  18. #18
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default I think you are making too little of the U.S. trade deficit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Again I have to wonder... where exactly does the US have economic influence and control, and if we have such influence and control, how come we aren't making money?
    It’s too easy to make every Indian’s favorite joke here.

    It’s harder to who figure out who the <we> is. The shareholders of Dell, Inc.? Me when I shop at Wal-Mart?

    I take your point regarding the fact that the U.S. only seems to have so much direct control over things economic. It’s not like Commodore Perry is going to show up in Tianjin. But there is influence for sure. What would China’s economy look like if the U.S. Government decided the trade deficit needed to be “fixed” at the expense of imports from China? And why does the CPC get testy about devaluation of the dollar?
    Last edited by ganulv; 12-17-2011 at 01:07 PM. Reason: formatting
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  19. #19
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Ease of transnational movement, porosity of borders, lack of an 'Iron Curtain,' etc.
    That applies to individuals and has mostly to do with political controls or lack thereof at borders. It didn't have anything to do with a hostile nation state having free access to the oceans so its' navy could roam around easily. That is what I mean. That is what the perimeter looks like it is about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    No but you can get your message of revolt or whatever to a worldwide audience in seconds -- if you're flexible enough to do that; most large nation are too bureaucratic to be effective at that, 'movements' of all sorts tend to be quite good at it -- and thus at attracting adherents or supporters everywhere.
    That has nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    A perimeter is undesirable because once established, it has to be maintained in some fashion. Maintenance entails costs of some sort and everything has a cost. Better to let it just fall into disuse.
    Well naturally a perimeter has to be maintained. But it is established because there is some benefit to be derived from it. If it falls into disuse you lose the benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Countries who are not enemies (and those who are enemies) shift and change. All countries cater to their perceived interest; they will support our 'perimeter" as long as it suits. As the the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines and the British discovered, 'friends' change...
    That is a given and you adjust as things change. The ultimate goal remains the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    A far better solution than a perimeter is the ability to respond to provocations with the proper instruments, political or military, rapidly and overwhelmingly locally to deter future provocations and that's, thankfully, where we at last seem to be headed. Long past time...
    I disagree. It looks to me as if we are still pursuing the same strategy. We are doing our best to make sure that potentially hostile countries that may be able to deploy powerful navies can't easily get to the oceans.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  20. #20
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Who would you contain?
    Any hostile or potentially hostile country that could deploy a powerful navy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    It seems less about containment to me than to an effort to respond to perceived threats wherever they emerge... not so much about establishing a clear perimeter as a global game of whack-a-mole.
    Why are they threats? If you are trying to maintain a perimeter, people will try to penetrate it at various places and you are going to end up playing whack-a-mole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Either way, as you say, none of this has any relation to empire, and thus it belongs on another thread.
    David can handle that when he will.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 124
    Last Post: 07-11-2012, 11:34 PM
  2. The Nuts and Bolts of Empire - Professor Paul Kennedy
    By Granite_State in forum Historians
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 12:02 AM
  3. Rotting Empire vs. Inept Enemy
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 05:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •