Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (64469)	1/5/2003 3:25:49 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

The use of the word imperial provides no useful insight into American motivations or intentions. The problem with that formulation, Paul, is that few of the "colonial powers", when pressed, would so admit. But when the intent of US actions is to act militarily to manage oil prices from the Gulf, to the benefit of the US, it's hard to call it otherwise. And when that intent is backed up by troops on the ground, what else would you call it? And when that intent is backed up by an intent to topple a regime (yes, Iraq), what else would you call it? Friedman makes a nice point when he says that the US could claim to be acting in the interests of the global economy if we coupled our Iraqi actions with other actions that reduced the demand for oil; but when we do not do so, how can it be read than other than doing it for our own self indulgence? It would still be the actions of an imperial power but they might be a bit more defensible if they carried the full, visible intent of benefitting other countries. As for claiming I have failed to make an accurate assessment of Iraq, then you will need to say what you think would be so. Your arguments are so reflexively anti-American (note: anti- and un- are not the same prefix) that they don't even imagine that there is a valid American perspective or that American interest is worthwhile at all. Actually, Paul, you are doing what you do all too frequently, you are jumping to conclusions. I have yet, in any of those sentences, characterized the fact of American imperialism as something that runs counter to American interests. That is a serious and complicated discussion and I would love to have it with you. If you would engage in it without jumping to conclusions. There are arguments why some of the things the US does are, frankly, not in its long term interest, and may not be in its short term interests; others for why they are in short but not long term; and some for both. And, there are counter arguments. And, one must not forget there are other constituencies involved here, not only the US. As for the French and the British having interests in the oil fields, of course they do. The US has presented itself, however, as being above all this, as preparing the grounds for a new kind of state in the ME, one that is secular, democratic, and one that would use the oil resources for the Iraqi people. That's a very, very high bar to get across. It appeals to the US public, definitely. But is that what we will do? This particular administration has been very adept at doing one thing and saying another. We'll just have to see how they handle the Iraqi future.

To: paul_philp who wrote (64469)	1/5/2003 3:32:23 PM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 281500

The American Empire (6/27/02) Complete article: Message 17694914 ...Empires are not created by salivating monsters seeking power. Such empires usually fail. The Romans did not intend to build an empire, but each step they took logically led to the next and in due course they had an empire. In turn, being an empire profoundly changed their institutions and their self-definition. Aside from a deep belief in their own virtue, becoming an empire was not an intention but an outcome. The United States does not intend to become an empire. Its birth was the first great anti-imperial exercise. It certainly has little economic need for empire because, like the British, it can trade for what it needs. But the logic of empire does not consist of avarice nearly as much as fear. The Romans’ first impulse to empire was defensive. So, too, the American impulse is entirely defensive. The United States is not trying to build an empire: It simply wants to stop al Qaeda. However, to do so is to follow the classic imperial process. ------------------------------- The United States has been a democratic republic, an anti-imperial power. Now it is an imperial power, not in the simplistic Leninist sense of seeking markets, but in the classical sense of being unable to secure its safety without controlling others. The paradox is that al Qaeda -- ultimately a very minor power -- is driving the world's greatest nation toward this end. The problem, of course, is that all of this is visible tactically to Americans. They see the deployments into each country. They see the acceptance of advisers into ministries. They have come to expect cooperation by police in Yemen, bases in Kyrgyzstan, information from Egypt and accommodation from Germans or Russians. They expect it, but have not yet constructed a coherent picture or named what they are getting into: empire. Empires begin not with rabid manifestoes, but with short-term solutions leading only one way. The dispersal we see today will last at least as long as the Cold War dispersals, and will be even harder to abandon. There will be resistance to an American empire, from great powers as well as small. There will be burdens to be borne in holding this empire that cannot be abandoned. The American dilemma is that it is better at winning an empire than explaining it or even admitting what has happened. The United States is taking control of countries throughout the world, bringing benefits and making threats. But the United States has no theory of empire. How can a democratic republic and an empire coincide? Once, this was an interesting theoretical question. Now it is the burning -- but undiscussed -- question in American politics. The issue is not whether this should happen. It is happening. The real issue, apart from how all this plays out, is what effect it will have on the United States as a whole. A global empire whose center is unsure of its identity, its purposes and its moral justification is an empire with a center that might not hold. As the obvious becomes apparent, this will become the focus of a pressing debate in the United States. stratfor.com