New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 31, 2005

Michael Young surveys the pros and cons of the American empire, as argued in three new books.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Debating Dead Capital | Main | More Rain on Iraq: Life in… →

See all 7 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

gaius marius|1.31.05 @ 5:05PM|#

Perle and Frum?s romantic belief in America

and that's exactly what it is -- perfect wording, mr young. irrational, unreasoned, mythological, primitive.

i've not read khalidi's book, but i tend to the historiological view -- which is, imo, ferguson's view. there are evident positive outcomes of empire for the ruled, even as they may be outweighed by the negative.

this is particularly true in america's case, as it suffers from a reluctant rulership-in-denial of its empire. this has given misrule the opportunity to dominate imperial policy, and it is this misrule that has led to much of the third world hatred of the united states, imo. (and continues to spark it in iraq.)

but, even as a clearer recognition of our imperial status might clear the way for better administration, that is also to ignore what empire does to the rulers. empire is no friend of republic; the uneasy coexistence of parliamentary government with imperial administration in britain is one of history's rare exceptions. given particularly the massively increased distance, in time and especially philosophical disposition -- modern america being far more idealistic and romantic than imperial britain ever was -- between today and 1688, i think it far more likely that overt empire abroad is far more likely to spell dictatorship at home.

and i think that's been borne out by the brazen advance of the executive over the other branches since 1933.

|1.31.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Attendee: Brought peace?

Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!

=================================================

If being an imperial power can actually affect people's lives for the better, then Bush should stop pussyfooting around and call a spade a spade.

We're an empire. So what? Do something about it.

Mike|1.31.05 @ 5:23PM|#

Khalidi thus offers a very different view from that of Perle and Frum, for whom the messenger can alter the nature of the message.

This emphasizes the main flaw in the anti-imperial case -- as well the aspect of the current policy that is least convincing to the rest of the world, I would guess.

It's not just the messenger that's changed -- the message is different as well. The message of 18th century imperialisim seems to have been all about money and God. Convert everyone to Christianity and send back riches. That's a very different message from Bush's professed dream of freedom.

The problem is, actually, the messenger. Bush is overtly, scarily religious. It's hard, as an Athiest, to hear his religious litany as inclusive, liberal (you know what I mean) or enlightened. And the posse of war profiteers which seem to surround him seem all too willing to bring back the riches.

So, although the message is different, the flaws in the messenger make it less convincing, even without the historical precedent.

|1.31.05 @ 9:05PM|#

A lot of this discussion obtains its urgency from the somewhat fantastic assumption that another Iraqi occupation is possible. But that doesn't seem likely. As after the Spanish-American War, it would be impossible to get America into another mission overseas for at least a generation, barring some real provocation...an NOK invasion of South Korea or something.

|2.1.05 @ 12:19AM|#

Damn, three really interesting reviews in one article.

On Khalidi's volume:

The only problem with Khalidi's theory is that the paper (A Clean Break, written for Benjamin Netanyahu by a number of prominent neocons which outlined a vision for the region very much to Israel's advantage, including going after Iran and toppling Saddam) sought to influence Israeli rather than American behavior

True, and it was paid for by the Israelis. But that doesn't really take away from that part of Khalidi's case since after the Clean Break report the neocons started a campaign to put forth those goals laid out for the Israeli government as something America must do in its own interest. Fabrication and exaggeration of Saddam's WMD capacity were part of this campaign.

"Only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq . . ." Project for the New American Century (PNAC) founder Kristol wrote in a seperate 1997 report. Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine is owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox News Channel

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/011604Leopold/011604leopold.html

One of PNAC's first goals when it was founded in 1997 was to urge Congress and the Clinton administration to support regime change in Iraq. This was before Rumsfeld was approached by the group. The Project for the New American Century sent this letter to President Clinton in January of 1998:

http://themoderntribune.com/letter_to_clinton_1998_war_on_iraq_project_new_american_century.htm

It's signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams and others. The letter argues for aggression against Iraq. They lobbied both Clinton and Gingrich to remove former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power using military force and indict him as a "war criminal."

Unsatisfied with Clinton's response, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998, to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott:

"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power..."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/022003Leopold/022003leopold.html

|2.1.05 @ 12:28AM|#

Andrew:

A lot of this discussion obtains its urgency from the somewhat fantastic assumption that another Iraqi occupation is possible. But that doesn't seem likely.

I wouldn't doubt that the neocons would fabricate a provocation to justify going after Iran now. Note all the duplicity that they engaged in for the hysterical build up to the attack on Iraq.

|2.1.05 @ 9:27AM|#

-- modern america being far more idealistic and romantic than imperial britain ever was --

gaius, I find this statement very hard to swallow. I'd like to hear why you think so.

At its peak and even earlier, it seems Britain saw itself as the do-good empire: civilizing the natives and then moving on, leaving a grateful little nation, like a child finally away from its loving parents, to prosper on its own, empowered with the gifts of liberty, virtue and Christian betterment. *No one*, in Victorian England thought it would all be over within a century.

And quite right that there were positive outcomes, not just negative. But the foundational premise of America's empire seems to be nearly identical in romantic idealism.