Skeptic Project

I don't know much about this topic except the basics. I decided to start this thread to see what I can learn about the subject. Is it a necessary evil is my main inquiry.

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

No really, you need to define what you mean by "empire" because it could just as easily be argued that the US is not an empire but rather a hegemonic power. This is a thesis that has been forwarded by many offensive structural realists like John Mearsheimer or Robert Pape. The notion is that hegemons are able to project power abroad without ever having to invaded or occupy and directly rule an external polity. So, where Rome essentially became an empire by conquering and controlling territories directly by hard power, the US is capable of flexing various means (threat of force, threat of sanctions, promise of reciprocation) in order to pull various countries under its influence. The US doesn't govern other nations, but it does influence them- and I would argue that this is a subtle, but important difference. Now, is it necessary? Well, that all depends on how we understand the trajectory of international history. It should also be clear that there is cultural hegemony, but the ways in which culture is transmitted via language or other avenues is very complicated.

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

John J. Mearsheimer.

Thats kind of the view I have of the world today, as opposed to a 'Imperial Age' its more or less a 'Superpower Age' (since WW2; Soviet Russia and the USA and in the future probably China, USA, India, Russia) who have influence over other nations but do not actually govern over them themselves and due to this, don't have absolute control over them, just a fair amount of influence.

It probably isn't a good thing for the US or any nation to have too much influence, but if it has to be someone I'd rather it the US than Iran or North Korea (or the Soviet Union if it still existed)

I think the attack and occupation of Iraq, and especially the (attempted) reconstitution of it as a US-friendly client state, counts as imperialism. The main objective in the attack on Iraq appears to have been to secure a permanent US-friendly base from which to launch future attacks in the Middle East, if necessary, to defend access to petroleum. This isn't by any means the only reason for the Iraq war, but it seems to have been an important one.

Is this an "empire" in the classic Rome/British colony/Risk-board-game type sense? No. But how much does that really matter?

Also don't forget that the US still holds colonies that DO measure up to the old 19th century type of colonies. Puerto Rico, Guam, Saipan, and USVI will probably never be assimilated as states, but clearly we'll continue to hold them as colonies. Most of those we got by conquest (Puerto Rico in 1898, the Pacific islands during WWII) with the exception of USVI which I think we purchased. These definitely are territories directly administered as subordinate colonies, which is exactly how we held the Philippines for almost 50 years and the Canal Zone for longer than that.

I also don't see US involvement in Latin America changing any time soon. We typically invade one or another banana republic or tropical island every 20 years or so to effect a change of government. The last time we did this was Haiti in 1994, so we're probably due for another intervention soon. When Castro's regime finally collapses in Cuba, which can't be far off, I'm quite sure our long involvement in Cuban affairs will start over again, and we'll probably have to invade Cuba at least once in the next 50 years to prop up whatever pro-US regime we wind up supporting once Fidel and Raul are worm food.

That said, our imperialist adventures are probably beginning to taper off gradually. We're being displaced by other powers, but it won't happen overnight. In about 100 years we'll probably be where Britain is now, a grouchy ex-empire with a couple of tiny far-flung possessions that we cling to tenaciously to remind ourselves of our former greatness.