The Redhunter

Declaration of interests: I'm probably a leftist (by your definition). I'm comfortable with the word 'liberal', it means a good thing where I come from.

I want to criticise some of the things you've said in this blog, by asking some questions. I ask them not to be sarcastic or make some angry polemical point, but because I find your blog an eye opener and I want to get to the heart of some of the assumptions behind your argument. Right-wing America is a very hard thing to understand for a lot of people outside the USA.

When you talk about US imperialism (as espoused in Teddy Roosevelt's version of the Monroe Doctrine) being in some way better for Latin America than European imperialism, what does that mean in concrete terms? European countries weren't trying to colonise Latin America, so how does their exploitation differ from US exploitation?

Secondly, about sovereignty. It seems a fair point to say that the League of Nations would have impaired US sovereignty. That's absolutely true. So does the UN, or it would if it worked properly. The whole point of such internationalist organisations is to remove the right to wage war from the hands of nation states. Your blog seems to exhibit a lot of concern for protecting the sovereignty of the USA. What is your position on the US respecting the rights of other sovereign states? The 'Bush doctrine' states that rogue states are open to pre-emptive attack. Would you also say that non-democratic states are open to attack, presuming such an attack was practically possible? A feeling I often get among US neo-cons is - other countries will have to look after their own as best they can, that's their lookout. Easy to say for the world's only military superpower.

But what interested me most was your defence of the US annexation of California, Texas and so on: as in, invading and assimilating Spanish-speaking states and their people was justified because in the long-term it granted them wealth, stability and the good fortune to be part of a free and democratic country. Would you like to see more countries/regions annexed in the model of California and Hawaii?

In short, you're pushing for a hawkish US foreign policy that will spread democracy, but you do not seem to have much faith in the UN or in international institutions that mediate between the US and foreign states. Seeing as you defend US expansion historically, would an ideal situation be for the US to expand further to bring the whole world into the federal system?

Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic here. I like the American way of life, I think I would like to emigrate there one day, and personally I would not mind if my country was to join as the 51st state one day. As long as I and my countrymen/women could vote and have a say in deciding how events play out...

I think in this sense there is a common thread between the dreams of 'leftist' internationalists and the hard-right foreign policy espoused by some neo-conservatives. Maybe you could explore this a bit.

Thank you, Mylne, for your comment. I will try and answer your questions to the best of my ability.

”Right-wing America is a very hard thing to understand for a lot of people outside the USA.”

Where are you from? Your name sounds eastern European

Left-wing or secular Europe can be hard for us to understand. Since you sound like a reasonable person, perhaps we can open a dialogue.

”When you talk about US imperialism (as espoused in Teddy Roosevelt's version of the Monroe Doctrine) being in some way better for Latin America than European imperialism, what does that mean in concrete terms? European countries weren't trying to colonise Latin America, so how does their exploitation differ from US exploitation? ”

Actually the Europeans were trying to colonize (or recolonize, depending on the timeframe) the Americas. Spain was trying to hold onto the rest of their empire and Britain, France, and for a time Russia were trying to establish outposts here as well. Spain lost most of her colonial empire at the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and spent the next few decades trying to get them back. Britain, France, and some other European countries decided to seize this opportunity to gain influence or even colonies in the Americas as well. The Monroe Doctrine put the Europeans on notice to back off.

As another example, in the 1860s France made one Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian of Austria the Emperor of Mexico, in an attempt to take over that country. But I digress

Initially, the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to express our opposition to colonialism. Theodore Roosevelt, however, among others, somewhat reinterpreted it so as to give us the right to intervene in Latin America. No doubt that when you look at his actions in formenting revolution in Panama, and in preventing Columbia in getting it back (Panama was part of Columbia), I can only wince. And no doubt many of our interventions have been for economic gain, the United Fruit Company coming to mind.

But here is the bottom line; would these countries be better off today as part of the United States or better off as they are today? I think the question answers itself.

”The whole point of such internationalist organizations is to remove the right to wage war from the hands of nation states. Your blog seems to exhibit a lot of concern for protecting the sovereignty of the USA. What is your position on the US respecting the rights of other sovereign states? The 'Bush doctrine' states that rogue states are open to pre-emptive attack. Would you also say that non-democratic states are open to attack, presuming such an attack was practically possible? A feeling I often get among US neo-cons is - other countries will have to look after their own as best they can, that's their lookout. “

I'm afraind there’s some moral equivalency in your thinking. The truth is that not all nations are equal. Some have better systems of government than others. Democracies are morally better than dictatorships. People have the right to rule themselves as they see fit (within limits, for example you can’t vote to have slavery). It would therefore be immoral to cede authority to institutions such as the United Nations, in which all nations are considered equals, regardless of their form of government.

You ask about my position on “the US respecting the rights of sovereign states” The presumption here is that all states are equal. But dictatorships are illigitimate governments in and of themselves. Whether they are “sovereign” or not is irrelevant. Nazi Germany was “sovereign”. So what?

Now, this does not in any way mean that any democracy can do anything they want to any dictatorship. Not at all, and it would be incorrect of you to assume so. It’s all a bit complicated, but if you want a moral model check out my “Just War” series, which you’ll find at right under “Categories”.

”But what interested me most was your defence of the US annexation of California, Texas and so on: as in, invading and assimilating Spanish-speaking states and their people was justified because in the long-term it granted them wealth, stability and the good fortune to be part of a free and democratic country. Would you like to see more countries/regions annexed in the model of California and Hawaii? “

Come on, I don’t bait that easily. Do you expect me to say “oh yeah, I want to annex countries X, Y, and Z!” ??

Regarding the southeastern US, Mexico ruled that area in name only. You basically had administrators in Mexico City drawing lines on a map and saying “we claim this”. The Mexican government never sent government officials or anyone else to any but a small part of that land. Few Spanish people lived in most of that area, except for a few outposts in California. And besides, it’s not as if someone else wasn’t already living there: American Indians. So who were they to claim it anyway? But since the area was somewhat of a mixed bag, I suppose it would be fair to say that we walked into most of it because the Mexicans had never been there, and the places they did occupy they had stole from the Indians themselves earlier.

”In short, you're pushing for a hawkish US foreign policy that will spread democracy, but you do not seem to have much faith in the UN or in international institutions that mediate between the US and foreign states. Seeing as you defend US expansion historically, would an ideal situation be for the US to expand further to bring the whole world into the federal system?”

You are right, I have no faith in the United Nations. Check out all of my posts on the United Nations at right under “Categories” for a complete discussion. In short, the UN works to support murderous regimes at the expense of their people. For example, look at the Sudan. Here you have a government in Khartoom engaged in it’s second mass murder in the past 10 years. Yet every proposal the US and UK have made in the UN Security Council to impose even the mildest sanctions on the regime have been opposed by China, Russia, and France.

As for US expansion, I you misunderstand me. I do NOT want to see the US expand our boundaries any further. The events discussed in the post occurred in the 19th century, and no one I’ve ever heard of wants us to expand our borders any farther.

Your last question in effect proposes some sort of world government, whether under the US Constitution or some other document. As a practical matter this is an impossibility, as surely you must know. In my opinion, people should be allowed as much local autonomy and rule as possible. Right now that means nation-states that are relatively small. But this is a complicated matter, and a discussion for another post.

What we want is for other people around the world to enjoy democratic systems of government. Is that so bad?

”Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic here.”

Don't worry, I never took them that way. If I thought your comments were inappropriate I wouldn’t have responded at all, or would have done so sarcastically myself. Rather, I found your questions fair and as such I've tried to answer them fairly myself. I’ve received my fair share of hate mail and insulting comments on this blog. It comes with the territory.

”I like the American way of life, I think I would like to emigrate there one day, and personally I would not mind if my country was to join as the 51st state one day. As long as I and my countrymen/women could vote and have a say in deciding how events play out...

Come on, the days where we expanded that way have been over for a hundred years. What country are you from?

”I think in this sense there is a common thread between the dreams of 'leftist' internationalists and the hard-right foreign policy espoused by some neo-conservatives. Maybe you could explore this a bit.”

I’m intrigued, but am not quite sure what you mean. Can you expand on this?

I'll answer some of these questions as well, if Tom doesn't mind me jumping in and hope that our friend returns to read.

Starting a bit backwards or out of order, the annexation of Texas, California, and Manifest Destiny, etc..

First, one would have to understand the history of that time, as Tom points out. The argument of the left that the US and its citizens pushed westward simply because they were like crusading imperialist, seeking more and more land to exploit, acts as if this decision was made in a vaccuum without historical context and supposing that there was some ideology (like Nazism) that inspired these people to believe they were the chosen and righteous in their subjugation of existing nations and exploitation of resources. It completely ignores all historical context or re-writes it in such a manner as to reduce the importance of this history against other concepts, such as manifest destiny, as if that were some manifesto that was written in 1776 (instead of almost a seventy years later during a great influx of immigrants to an already existing nation that owned these territories through votes of the citizens residing their or purchase from the governing nations).

Understand this history:

Just because the 13 colonies had won their independence from England, it did not mean colonization of North America had ended. What Tom says its true, the Louisiana Purchase territory had gone back and forth between the French and the Spanish several times over a century prior to our Independence, depending on what war and outcome, and prior to the eventual purcahse from France who was then desperate to pay for their wars with England.

England and France both had colonies in the Canadian territories. In fact, I would suggest a reading of Canadian history to understand what was driving that situation, but the French and Indian Wars were not simply by products of Europeans expanding into Indian territory, but in fact were proxy wars of these nations, as you should well understand proxy wars of the 20th century to be similar.

These events convinced the United States that their safety and continued existence required that these nations leave the continent or be pushed out as far as possible. The newly independent states felt that the continuing European wars and their proxy wars on this continent would put them at the whim of events they had no control over.

Even in post Revolutionary period leading up to the war of 1812, British forces routinely pushed down through Wisconsin and Michigan, into the Ohio valley, making pacts with Indian nations there which routinely raided and massacred citizens and settlers on the frontiers of then young America.

The politicians of that time understood that the British, French and Spanish threat to be able to mobilize and attack from the rear, instigate proxy wars with Indian nations as their allies (even those the settlers had made peaceful agreements with in the past for trading and such and which was their historical acts), and that during the Revolutionary war, the British had nearly succeeded in blockading the Eastern seaboard and starving the revolutionaries out (except that the French came and broke the blockade with their navy), was very real and could reduce the small nation in their limited territory to being once again subservient to one European power or another.

That then was the driving force behind decisions to push westward and Purchase the Louisiana Territory. that and the Mississippi river was seen as a valuable resource for delivering goods and the more than valuable port in New Orleans which provided a second seaboard and would then prevent the United States as it existed from being blockaded into submission.

this leads to the "annexation" of Texas, which is a very poor choice of words and again ignores all other aspects of history of that time and simply focuses on the fact that white settlers from the US and Europe moved into Mexican territories and then the US simply waved a wand, sent troops and said, "voila, this is now part of the US". It didn't happen that way.

In fact, the Mexican government had invited settlers to move into the territory. It was sparsely populated and previous Mexican regime (prior to their independence) had failed to take advantage of its resources and the vast wealth that it could provide in taxable revenue to the state. Santa ana made agreements with these settlers and provided large tracts of land. He hoped this settlement would also provide the auspices and people through which Mexico could gain better control and governance of the territory.

Unfortunately, because America is a super power now, people tend to think of the US as having been a super power then or at least more powerful than Mexico economically and militarily and simply pushed it aside to make their own gains. Completely false. In fact, Mexico had a standing army several times larger than the US and its economy was only harmed by its continued internal strife. it had gold and silver and other resources which made it fairly wealthy (then, as today, mismanagement of resources hindered it completely from becoming a force of its own in the hemisphere).

Santa Ana also had proclaimed himself the Napolean of America and had voiced grandiose plans of conquering territory and expanding Mexicos area and wealth which, understandably considering the European Wars with the last Napolean, made the US nervous about his intentions.

Yet, all politics are local and the first thing that began to happen was that Santa Ana began to consolidate his power over Mexico. He was equally nervous that, having just gained independence, certain areas of Mexico, only nominally under the control of the central government, would revolt or attempt to create their own Independent states so he sent military governors to the areas who, in their turn, began the same oppressions that the just ousted Austrians had tried. He was divesting land owners of their property and either holding it for the state or giving it to favorites in his inner circle, like a fuedal lord.

He reneged on deals with the then "Texicans" which he had given them such as nominal autonomous rule, the ability to increase immigration to the area in order to develop more of the territory and economic gains and he was divesting both European settlers and Mexican land owners of their property for one trumped up offense or the other(some of these Mexican landowners could trace their heritage back to the conquistadors and were highly offended). Of course, I cannot forget that he wanted to abolish slavery and the then settlers were largely slave owners and felt that they needed that labor (however terrible we find that practice) to devleop Texas as was the plan.

Another part of the Texas story that is forgotten is that there were very few white european settlers compared to the Mexican residents and that these Mexicans were also unhappy with Santa Ana and joined the european settlers in their revolt. Eventually, as history tells it, Santa Ana was defeated, but not because the US government did much to help the settlers with money, guns or recruits, but because Santa Ana was not nearly the brilliant military leader that Napolean was.

What happened next is also the problem with leftist history in which they think that Santa ana simply went home like a whipped dog, never to venture forth again and the US simply annexed Texas. Not so. Santa Ana did go back into Mexico, but he was not really forgiving or forgetting his humiliation at the hands of the "rebels". He made no secret that he would like to rebuild his army and try to put down the rebels again.

Thus, the newly independent Republic of Texas was faced with a dilemna. They had few resources, little money and few people to foot a real army, the kind that would be needed to thwart a revitalized and much larger Mexican army. They knew that Houston (Sam Houston) had defeated Santa Ana because he made a tactical mistake, not necessarily because of the supremacy of their own forces and that Santa Ana would be highly unlikely to make that mistake again.

Further, the Mexican citizens of the New Republic rightly feared Santa Ana's actions should he return. On his first march north he had executed many peasants and landowners as "collaboraters" and they knew what their treatment would be should he reappear in Texas. "Put to the sword" is a nice way of saying it (on top of that, the massacre at the Alamo had re-enforced many people's opinion that the bloody General had no compassion nor compunction about doing so).

Thus the newly formed Republic of Texas was faced with a bad choice and a worse choice. So they made overtures to the US government to become a territory and seek its protection. The US government saw several advantages to this, not the least was the resources of Texas including its ports and cotton farming. But even that was not enough to induce favor for adding Texas to the states. What sealed it was the "little Napolean of the Americas" who they felt was very dangerous and making a lot of noise about expanding mexicos rule. They felt that Texas would be an adequate buffer between his desires and the US proper.

That is how Texas came to be. We did not steal it nor invade it nor was there some sort of conspiracy with settlers there to "colonize" it in order to do a back door deal to annex it to the US.

Frankly, that extends on to the California situation which Tom explains. It comes after the Texas situation. With the loss of Texas, mexico and California lost its direct connection. Mexico could no longer govern the territories. californians declared themselves a free Republic well before they joined the US and that, again, was put to the vote to the people there. It was not made a gun point, through direct invasion or by simply drawing lines on the map and naming it a state.

For the US, this was still a good decision because it provided a second seaboard and insured that there were no foreign nations (read "European") on any border that could threaten our sovereignty.

I would like to repeat that "Manifest Destiny" was not written until 1846 by John O Sullivan, a Journalist by the way, who was supporting the Annexation of Texas which was still in question 8 years after it had won its independence.

As you understand history, you understand the language of that time as well. Florid statements including divine mission were basic rhetoric of the time to convince people to support one effort or the other, but it was certainly not Mein Kampf of the 19th century. the reality is that it was not "divine mission" which decided on the expansion or inclusion of territories and states (however, pretty or passionate the expression), but cold, clear eyed realism in the face of many problems, not all of which were created by the US, but all of which the US was required to respond to in order to insure its security and survival.

Failure to recognize that and make assumptions about US policy of the 19th century based on modern day reality, silly at the least and is why "right wing" folks have a serious problem with left leaning folks who like to forget history in favor of their modern socialist aversion to imperialism.

I would love to talk about the rest of these things later.

I agree with Tom, we don't want anyone else's country. We do not need anyone else's country. Certainly their were reasons for annexing other territories and holding them around the globe, but my preference would simply be for more free and democratic nations with free markets, improved education and similar concepts politically, economically and Judicial. I do not advocate nor want any world government. Its too cumbersome and I believe that people can come to agreements and function together as separate entities without the guiding force of one large, bureaocratic government enforcing its rules (because that's the only way it could do so) which totally negates why we fought WWII and why we fight the current batch of imperialists (ie, Islamists) who think they should be the next world rulers.

I live in Britain which is also where I was born. My name, since you mention it, is of Central Asian origin, but I think you'll agree that that should have no particular bearing on the discussion.

Firstly, I'll clarify my stance a little. I wasn't denying that democracies are more legitimate than dictatorships - that seems a valid position to take. I think I agree with you on that one. But you must see that this throws up some methodological problems. How do you judge how democratic a political system is? Most governments in the world 'claim' to be democratic - the aspiration is almost universally agreed upon. And more importantly, who judges? Who is held accountable in deciding which countries are democratic? I think this is relevant to your idea of 'competent authority,' which I find highly questionable - the most basic flaw being, governments who declare war almost never derive their authority from the people they are attacking!

But that's a preamble. I wanted to start by contesting your assertion that the U.S. stopped expanding in the 19th century. Hawaii was made a state in the 1950s, wasn't it? And Puerto Rico recently voted against statehood. So the US has still been expanding well into the 20th century, or at least giving its colonies the option to be integrated. Both Puerto Rico and Hawaii were acquired for strategic reasons, much as Iraq and Afghanistan have recently been occupied. Later, they were integrated. So why is the integrationist option so far-fetched nowadays?

I suppose what I was driving at with the whole California analogy was that in the 19th century U.S. statesmen thought it valid to annex a foreign territory into the Union, though its inhabitants spoke a different language and had no particular historical ties with the rump U.S. of the time. I'm not using "annex" in a cruel or pejorative sense - annexations can be peaceful and popularly willed. Nor am I saying that Spain or Mexico or Native Americans had a "right" to California and America didn't: I'm just saying that events as they played out in California took what was originally a foreign land and integrated it into the American Dream. As you point out, Lucky Californians. And now US foreign policy - which basically claims the right to spread democracy around the world because only America is qualified to spread democracy - is resorting to Manifest Destiny again.

And it would only seem fair, to the Iraqis who have suffered and died in a war of the U.S.'s choosing, that they be allowed to vote (as Puerto Rico was allowed to) whether they want to join in the democracy that has liberated them. I think they'd probably say no - but that's also because I think that most Iraqis resent the invasion and as a result harbour no great love for America at the moment. But that's by the by, and I don't want to get sucked into the same old pro/anti war debate with you. We obviously disagree on that one. What confuses me is why on the American side is no one advocating this? It would seem the logical, indeed the honourable thing to do if neo-conservatives are so proud of the democracy they are exporting. Why not widen the club a little bit?

You will scoff, probably quite rightly, at the idea that people in Britain (let alone Iraq) would want their country to become the 51st state. Most British people would recoil at the idea. But that's because most British are nationalists, and I am no nationalist. I also think that the more idealistic neo-conservatives are not really nationalists. They are exceptionalists: they think that American-style democracy is the best system and that the whole world should embrace it. It's in this sense that they're actually quite similar to liberal internationalists of the Wilsonian school.

Advocates of a League of Nations-type system, like Wilson was, essentially want to have the capacity to wage war monopolised by one body, which will be democratically accountable to its members. Neo-cons essentially want the monopoly of violence to rest in the hands of the U.S.A., in that they cannot tolerate 'rogue states'. Obviously no one is advocating an invasion of China or anything that stupid, but I get the feeling that this is for practical and not intellectual reasons. To neo-cons, installing democracy in totalitarian China would be a Good Thing if it were feasible. And in the sense that neo-cons would not think it legitimate for China (or another non-democratic superpower) to invade another sovereign state to impose a political system of its own choosing, they really do think that regime change is a right that should be monopolised by the US. If other countries started acting out a Bush doctrine of preemptive invasions, there would clearly be chaos around the world.

So both internationalists and neo-conservatives believe in democracy and in monopolising the right to wage war. The only difference is that neo-cons (as I see it) think that the government that wages all these wars should only be accountable to American voters, not to any other people or states on which it carries out its interventionist policies. An assimilationist strategy, as was adopted in the case of California, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, would eliminate the hypocrisy of this. Why not push on Manifest Destiny as it was originally intended?

Sorry, I wanted to repeat this issue:

Left leaning folks have a tendency to inflict their modern political ideology on history which leads to this confusion and dissension with the right who see history as impacting our current situation but believe that the historical reasons for those past actions are separate from our modern politics and had their own reasons which we do not need to change to fit our world view in order to accept or explain our current situation.

Further, without trying to offend, I have noted a tendency with European leftists to inflict their guilt about past European Imperialism on the history of the United States and modern geo-political situations while at the same time ignoring their own nations' soft imperialism. Such as French socialists who have little or no qualms about French involvement in the Ivory Coast and Rawanda for instance. yet they constantly scream about American imperialism which we cannot help but feel is a little (or a lot) hypocritical.

answering another question:

The whole point of such internationalist organisations is to remove the right to wage war from the hands of nation states.

I think that you have again applied your own ideology to the purpose of such organizations. That is what you WANT it to do, not what it was designed to do. In fact, by its own by laws, the UN cannot remove any nations "right" to wage war. It never could if it wanted to because it assumes the UN has some global governing power over nation states. It has none because it has no body, no military, no police and no judicial system that could enforce its "laws". It totaly relies on the auspices of its members. It was purposefully made this weak because many people feared that such a body could be turned by one nation or the other (or several in cooperation) into its own hegemonic power attempting to the rule the world. Something that, at the time of its creation, we had just fought a war to stop.

In fact, the purpose of the UN was to hopefully insure that world war would not again be inflicted, but not because the UN held some power to give it approval or not, but to provide a place where all nations could discuss and hopefully settle their problems in a diplomatic political fashion. The fact that many nations have attempted (including us) to use the UN beyond its original or true capacity. The UNs mission has been expanded far beyond its original intent in the last 5 decades and it has resulted in the mess that it is now, over extended and unable to meet its original purpose effectively.

Your blog seems to exhibit a lot of concern for protecting the sovereignty of the USA. What is your position on the US respecting the rights of other sovereign states? The 'Bush doctrine' states that rogue states are open to pre-emptive attack.

Let's be clear on what "rogue states" the Bush Doctrine refers to. Even under the Bush doctrine, the Monroe Doctrine and others are apparent. First, "pre-emptive" means "the first to strike". It doesn't mean that we start wars for arbitrary reasons (like say, Qadafi in Libya is nuttier than a fruitcake and wears bad clothes AND his country is a political and economic mess but he is not necessarily high on the list of priorities). The US "pre-emptive strike" measure does not suppose that we would go to such place as Zimbabwe and strike because Mugagbe is a murdering idiot. It simply means that the US has decided that if it feels it is in danger from any state or its proxy, we reserve the right to strike first instead of sitting back and taking it on the chin. Its actually sound military tactics because the one that holds the strategic high ground (ie, the first to hit), controls the battle. But, again, do not conflate pre-emptive strike doctrine that takes into account our allies being threatened by another or that the threat to the US proper is so egregious that it is advisable to gain the military upperhand whether than wait to be inevitably hit and then responde.

Would you also say that non-democratic states are open to attack, presuming such an attack was practically possible?

No. the problem is that it is not practically possible, first of all. That is presuming an omnipotent US that does not exist, neither in reality or in our minds. A super power simply means that we do have the strongest military and economy. It doesn't mean that we have the power over every nation. If we did, Iran would not even think about getting a nuke. Second, our concern is simply security of our nation. There are two parts to security for every nation: 1) Security of borders and actual land mass from attack or invasion; 2) Security of economy and resources since no nation can survive without the ability to keep its manufacturing going, keep producing ammunition and arms for protection and continue to feed its people. While we would prefer that all nations were free and democratic and it is our political and diplomatic goal to press this forward through all peaceful means, we are not so unrealistic as to think we could attack every undemocratic nation and make them a democracy. We do not have the resources or desire to expend them (neither human or other material).

A feeling I often get among US neo-cons is - other countries will have to look after their own as best they can, that's their lookout. Easy to say for the world's only military superpower.

You're confusing policies and concepts. The United States has many allies that we are agreed to protect and come to the rescue of if they are attacked or threatened. The fact that other nations are either opposed to us or our allies either vehemenently ideologically or simply economically means that we are not and cannot be everyone's ally. It is in this case that we believe those other nations we are not allied with officially or economically are not our responsibility to protect.

Our own allies we believe should take more responsibility in providing military forces to guard their own nation. That is true. We are talking about nations that may not be a super power, but whose economics and population can support it. Many nations with this capability simply choose not to have such a force available and have not since the end of WWII. Largely because they feel that, if they did not build such a military, their neighbors would not feel necessary to begin an arms race which had triggered the European crisis at the beginning of the 20th century. It supposes that no other nation would have any means and reasons to attack these nations. In a world where nuclear weapons proliferation continues to spread to less than savory nations with their own governments that have continued to go to war on a regular basis, invade other nations or have radical ideological governments that continually pronounce such rhetoric as to threaten their neighbors and other nations; in a world where globalization and easier travel exists it seems foolish for capable nations to not provide this protection.

even more so when they are an ally of the US and live under the auspices of our military umbrella where we must spend more money to provide this protection, we do feel that these nations should provide additional protection for themselves.

In regards to non-allied nations without formal declarations or commiserate economic status with the US, yes, they must see to their own. Again, we are a super power, but we are not the worlds police force. We also feel that the UN's endeavors to date have been almost always complete failures where "peacekeeping" forces have no mandate to protect any of the civilians or to actually prevent war, but end up standing by while one side massacres the other (bosnia/Serbia; Rawanda; etc) or the "peacekeepers" get shot and killed or worse when the mandate of the UN is extremely limited because one security council nation or the other feels that they have some alliance (formal or otherwise) with one side or the other and seeks to give it an advantage by purposeful limitation of UN forces mandate and it ends up causing the failure of that mission, resulting in death and war from the two sides in question anyway (French and Rawanda; Russians and Bosnia/Serbia), we find that unacceptable and will not lend our forces to such foolishness anymore.

If France wanted to support the Hutu or Tutsi, let them do it openly. That goes double for the Russians. We are not going to support THEIR foreign policy through the UN which is what it amounts to. We have our own concerns.

Lots of people had different ideas about what the League of Nations would be. Some of the more idealistic really did hope it would replace warfare waged between nation states. I think Wilson was among them.

But you're right to say that the U.N. in its present form does no such thing. I agree with you. The UN is hopelessly weak. Reform it! Make it stronger! Or if it's really so irredeemable, then replace it with an international system that will be stable and democratic. Because I think current American foreign policy is neither. You worry that by ceding too much power to a U.N.-like organisation, U.S. sovereignty will be ceded: "such a body could be turned by one nation or the other (or several in cooperation) into its own hegemonic power attempting to the rule the world."

Doesn't that sound like a good thing? A hegemonic power attempting to rule the world? As long as the power is democratically accountable... Why shouldn't the rest of the world have some say on the wars that are fought to decide its future? Why only American voters?

You seem to be articulating the more pragmatic brand of neo-conservatism, that sees things in terms of threats to American security and hard-headed realpolitik decisions. Sure, I can see how the Bush doctrine might be sound military tactics; I also think it's unethical. I'm not so interested in that side of things; I'm more interested in the idealistic streak that genuinely hopes to export American-style democracy to other parts of the world. That seems to be the redeeming feature of U.S. foreign policy.

You keep conflating my ideas with those of some "leftist Europeans" you've heard about. I'm not sure what things leftists Europeans are supposed to say, and I'm not sure I'd agree with them if I knew. I certainly don't feel obliged to start defending French or British foreign policy of the past or even the present. I didn't vote for Tony Blair, and I wasn't born when the British Empire was built.

Guilt doesn't come into it really, but seeing parallels between European gunboat imperialism of the 19th century and present day American foreign policy...yes, I think that's valid. If it helps, yes, Belgian behaviour in Rwanda was disgraceful. So was that of the UN and the whole of the international community. And European states also exercise soft imperialism, for better or worse. This isn't about Yank-bashing.

How do you judge how democratic a political system is? Most governments in the world 'claim' to be democratic - the aspiration is almost universally agreed upon. And more importantly, who judges? Who is held accountable in deciding which countries are democratic?

Democratic enough? Do you really have to wonder what nations are "democratic enough"? Would you refer to Iran as a democratic nation although it calls itself the first Islamic republic democracy? Where in the laws of a nation do not protect its minorities, but actually are designed to oppress them, where in the internal security forces are specifically designed to oppress or repress large parts of its population and do so by politically motivated arrests and executions and where in the prosecution of the law is certainly no where near fair or meant to be fair. I can't believe that we have to discuss whether other nations are "democratic" enough. There is either real democracy or the sham that some of these countries practice.

However, that is besides the point. We are not talking about committing war because one nation is not a democracy. Our ideas of increasing democracies are that this is undertaken through largely diplomatic actions. It is only when security issues converge with the lack of democracy in a nation, that the possibility for physical change through war occurs, but, as in Iraq, the democracy situation did not create the war and was not the main reason. It was security concerns only. But, having attacked it and destroyed the regime, we had two choices: set up another strongman or set up a democracy. Since our doctrine is to push democracy whenever we can, why would we betray that doctrine, withdraw and allow Iraq to become another dictatorship that would threaten our allies and oppress its own people.

Do not imagine that Iraq is the rule, but the exception.

Both Puerto Rico and Hawaii were acquired for strategic reasons, much as Iraq and Afghanistan have recently been occupied. Later, they were integrated. So why is the integrationist option so far-fetched nowadays?

Let's be clear about that as well. Both of these were actually occupied in the 19th century, yet, you are correct, they were strategically important to the mainland of the US. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are strategically important for protecting the mainland. Afghanistan was simply a nation over run with terrorists and other political opponents that hosted them. It is getting a democracy because we have determined that we will no longer put dictators in or support dictators. Iraq is similar as I already explained. These two nations are only invaded AND receiving democracy because they posed security threats either directly or to our allies. By their location, they make protecting these countries as part of the US continental land mass impossible.

We have learned certain lessons from our imperial European ancestors. Far flung empires require far too many troops and far too much money of the country to protect and make the country vulnerable to attack by other nations through attacks on or cutting off access to those areas of the empire. That is what we learned. It is much better to have a strategic alliances where these nations provide their own security forces and government and we simply act as the big umbrella which prevents them from being invaded and allows them to make free trade agreements with many nations, not just the US.

The fact that Hawaii became part of the US in the 20th century as a state is simply a matter of politics, not physical realities.

And now US foreign policy - which basically claims the right to spread democracy around the world because only America is qualified to spread democracy - is resorting to Manifest Destiny again.

Let's not conflate the two different historical concepts. Manifest Destiny actually included, not simple annexation, but settling the nations with our own citizens, government and exploiting their resources and wealth as part of the nation. But, these areas had one important concept that Afghanistan nor Iraq, nor England or Taiwan or any other nation in the 21st century has: directly linked to or direct protection of the mainland continental US.

Again, see the principles of Empire above. We have learned that lesson very clearly from the past. While it may seem that our ability to project military power into any region is imperial, we prefer not to be that extended and that, yes, these nations develop their own government and security where we simply have financial or political agreements of mutual interest. Empires demand more resources and distance makes it difficult to govern and protect.

I also think that the more idealistic neo-conservatives are not really nationalists. They are exceptionalists: they think that American-style democracy is the best system and that the whole world should embrace it. It's in this sense that they're actually quite similar to liberal internationalists of the Wilsonian school.

I would agree somewhat to this proposal except that I don't think we necessarily believe that our form of representative democracy is the only system that allows for freedom. What we believe more fully is that certain concepts which govern our democracy is better. We mean such things as guarantees to privacy, to free speech and the right to self protection against the government or any other entity through the right to bear arms. These are just a few. So, it is not necessary that some country have a president and two houses to balance power, but that separation of powers that insure equality (however they are formed) and guarantees of liberties are essential to self government, insuring minorities are not oppressed and that no person or group can become a tyrant by arbitrarily creating emergency powers(such as in Egypt).

Things like free speech we believe provides an outlet for ideas as well as insures that any egregious idea (like our notorious kkk) is not simply outlawed, but that their ideas are fully discredited through more free speech. Otherwise, you simply drive these ideas underground where they foment and grow out of the public view until one day they explode.

That is the "American Exceptionalist" idea, one we believe most people could live under and allow even such things as conservative Islam to exist, where people choose to follow it rather than be forced to it by the government and where conservative Islam, where it meets radical fundamentalists, can be countered openly without fear of reprisal or death and without the followers of conservative Islam feeling that they are not being allowed to practice their religion and thus feel compelled to join radicals to overthrow and inflict their religion on the rest. (Just as an example).

Obviously no one is advocating an invasion of China or anything that stupid, but I get the feeling that this is for practical and not intellectual reasons. To neo-cons, installing democracy in totalitarian China would be a Good Thing if it were feasible. And in the sense that neo-cons would not think it legitimate for China (or another non-democratic superpower) to invade another sovereign state to impose a political system of its own choosing, they really do think that regime change is a right that should be monopolised by the US.

Let's not conflate the ideological with the realistic strategic issues here. Yes, we do believe that totalitarian regimes or, in the case of China, authoritarian regimes, which suppress their people and repress free thought for some sort of forced indoctrination or where anyone who expresses a different thought is an abberation that needs "re-educated" into proper "thoughts" is a terrible political system. That part I have explained as the modern American Exceptionalist.

But we are imminently practical, so we can persue this ideology through many means, economically, diplomatically, etc without resorting to war. AGain, do not confuse what we did after invading Iraq and Afghanistan for security reasons as the new doctrine to invade and physically change every nations government to something we prefer.

The problem with china is imminently a strategic problem first and an ideological one second (though, with exceptionalism, we often believe if a nation were more democratic and open to free market practices, conflict of the strategic nature would be less). The strategic problem is that China itself is nationalist and expansionist. It has made its own moves in the region over the last 100 years (even the last decade) to expand control and a security perimeter. They know that their future depends on having access to many resources that are currently being used by the US. where in they feel it is necessary to obtain these resources by extending hegemony or direct ownership of these resources without allowing them to be available to the open market and thus maintain the flow to all nations, we have a problem.

You see, our ideas were also shaped by WWI and II. These wars were essentially world wars regarding resources and control thereof. WE feel that the availability of these resources, some quite limited, on a free market allows more access by every nation and keeps the possibility for world wars over them to a minimum. Where China is a growing economy and needs these resources, the lack of free market practices certainly would put them in conflict with many (not just the US), so yes, it would be better if there were a regime change, but we do not imagine that we can do that on a whim.

to invade another sovereign state to impose a political system of its own choosing, they really do think that regime change is a right that should be monopolised by the US

Um, no. Again, do not conflate our actions post wars for security reasons with the idea that we are going to start knocking off regimes for purely ideological reasons to install democracy. Again, Afghanistan and Iraq were security problems. We simply felt compelled to do what was right and establish democracy there after the fact.

Invasion and even "pre-emptive" strikes will be based on security reasons, not ideoligical differences. For instance, for the last 20 years or so, Iran has routinely threatened to attack the US, death to America and Israel, etc, etc, etc. As long as they did not have the means, they could talk all they wanted. We would have preferred that they would be a democracy or at least not use that rhetoric, but it didn't mean we believed we should attack or confront them. They posed little threat to us physically and had limited ability to project hegemony over the strategic region of the middle east. Particularly after the Iraq/Iran war.

However, now they are moving forward with nuclear technology and expanding the reach of their missiles. All of which puts them in a new category of security threat.

In regards to the US wanting to have the sole power to change regimes, that is simply wrong. WE would not be advocating so strongly for beefed up military forces in the NATO countries for their own security and to take control of their own regions, keeping war to a minimum and protecting allies, if we thought it was our sole domain. Its not practical and, whatever one may think about our tendency towards American exceptionalism, our type of government maintains and re-enforces practicallity on our actions or we would be running willy nilly all over the world invading countries and creating this alleged Empire as people accuse us of. It simply isn't feasible, as I noted, once again, on our rejection of empire as noted from European and Eastern history.

So both internationalists and neo-conservatives believe in democracy and in monopolising the right to wage war.

Again, no, but we are not the only state or people to wage war. The fact that we are the sole super power today and have undertaken several small wars in the last decade does not negate the fact that world history up to the 1990's was full of nations waging wars for resources and borders. The USSR being one, China in Asia being another and you cannot forget England and the Falklands, just as an example. Our position today is one of a leery country that is on the economic pinnacle and understands that other nations at war directly impacts our survivability and that of our allies, not to mention has resulted in World Wars, so we prefer to push for political and economic change in nations to prevent it, but we are not going to pretend, like Germany and France, that it can never happen again. History is a very tough task master.

The only difference is that neo-cons (as I see it) think that the government that wages all these wars should only be accountable to American voters, not to any other people or states on which it carries out its interventionist policies.

This is where you have it right, but possibly for the wrong reasons, considering your next statements. Part of this ideology is the concept of self determination of peoples, to self govern and to determine their own destinies. Along with the basics of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" this self determination was outlined in the declaration of independence. We are certainly not going to turn over our right for self determination to an international body where in all states do not practice self determination and where like Robert Mugabe or a Qadafi have a say in deciding whether we should protect our people or not.

And yes, the only considerations we believe that we need to make are to our allies and whether it will effect them, but even then, as in Iraq, the protection of our people and system are paramount.

Secondly, no one can assume that the needs materially and strategically, of every nation are always the same. It is not just a political or economic difference, but geographic as well. With imminent practicallity, it stands to reason that to allow other nations who do not live here, do not vote for our government, do not contribute directly to our economic well being and certainly do not all adhere to our principles of government, is frankly insane.

Worse yet, while many nations may send representatives of their country to such places as the UN, since these countries are largely undemocratic and the representatives then are not representing the people of that country, but the powerful at the top and have decidedly non-democratic tendencies, why would we allow them to vote on whether the US should take action to protect itself?

An assimilationist strategy, as was adopted in the case of California, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, would eliminate the hypocrisy of this. Why not push on Manifest Destiny as it was originally intended?

Let me repeat, the problem is that this smacks of Empire, something that we are ideologically opposed to as well as seen by history of other nations empires has too many practical problems.

Also, manifest destiny, however interpreted by modern internationalists, was largely about expansion on the North American continent not the entire world, thus that was not the original intent of Manifest Destiny to impose an American empire over the globe.

You seem to be articulating the more pragmatic brand of neo-conservatism, that sees things in terms of threats to American security and hard-headed realpolitik decisions. Sure, I can see how the Bush doctrine might be sound military tactics; I also think it's unethical.

How so? If I can ask. What is unethical about providing security of both the people, the land and the resources to maintain it unethical? Is that not in fact the sole purpose of instituting national governments? If not, then we wouldn't need them. In fact, based on our constitution, that was the original and sole role of the national government. I am unclear how that becomes unethical unless this same act does not result in allowing defeated nations self determination and does in fact enslave them to empire (like the roman or old European models).

I'm not so interested in that side of things; I'm more interested in the idealistic streak that genuinely hopes to export American-style democracy to other parts of the world. That seems to be the redeeming feature of U.S. foreign policy.

You ever read John F. Kennedy speeches? Or Lincoln? If you have, are you also aware that however idealistic they both sounded, each acted and reacted pragmatically to the issues of the day. In otherwords, they did not let their idealism get the better of them. Frankly, I think its a good thing, not a bad as you seem to imply with the "only redeeming quality" remark.

You know what pure idealism leads to. It leads to Mein Kampf and third Reichs, it leads to Pol Pots and Maos. It leads to men flying planes into buildings or strapping themselves to car bombs and blowing up worshippers at a mosque or tying a man up and slowly sawing his head off in front of a camera while invoking the name of Allah/God.

For all of our talk about ideas, idealism and better poltical ideology, yes, I would hope that we would actually be spared from pure idealism and prefer the pragmatic. In fact, pragmatism is forced on us by a myriad of things from the internal to the external. Its a good thing, otherwise we probably would turn into that empire seeking near fascist state that we are oft accused of, waving our banner, singing the star spangled banner and tramping all over the world knocking people off. I hold no illusions about mankind and its tendencies towards the expanded tribalism of nationalist policies.

Having said all that, I do not want to lose idealism. Idealism is the high water mark that we reach for, not the thing which we can live. Without idealism, man would degenerate into a squabbling mass of murder and mayhem for purely pragmatic means of survival of the fittest. Without idealism, we become Darwinian animals. I believe that idealism allows us to evolve beyond that, though it takes only a small peek at our history to know that we have not gone so far from there.

From an outsiders perspective, it would appear that the US is split into two camps: the idealists of American Exceptionalism and the imminently pragmatic. From this perspective it would appear that people on the outside can only attribute one or the other to our efforts and that, for some reason, it cannot be both or that only one or the other drives us depending on who is in power or what view seems to have the loudest voice.

Because of our mixed society and the ability to express ideas freely, because of competing ideas within, this is what I refer to as the internal pressures that, whatever our idealism, force pragmatism and compromise to the fore front.

yet, we cannot throw away the idea that idealism drives us. You cannot live in a country such as this, to have such wealth, to live, even the poorest among us, in a standard that 3/4 of the world cannot even imagine, much less reach, to be free to speak our minds, even against our own government, to change it routinely in the face of competing ideas and still maintain this way of life without internal war and continuous revolution and not imagine, as you look onto the world, that this then is the best that the world has to offer. You cannot live this life and being raised on enlightened principles of humanity, stemming from Christian concepts of ministering to the poor and the retched, the egalitarianism of Christs message having shaped our fore fathers opinions on the matter and not imagine that you should not share such a message, idea and way of life with others.

don't get me wrong, I don't want this to become a religious discussion, only that it would be foolish to imagine we came by such ideas without that foundation.

WE have an extensive media and we can see into other worlds through that tool. You cannot live here and see a young boy in Ethiopia or Sudan with rags on and obviously malnourished, whose parents have been killed by another civil war and not want to do something right now. you cannot hear about an Iranian dissident being jailed for years, beaten and tortured without comparing his circumstances to yours and not imagine that you should do your utmost to change his circumstances. You know just seeing him that there are thousands, if not millions that live in those same conditions.

You cannot live this life, see thier lives and not believe even for a moment that this way of life, whatever dangers free will may evoke from individuals, is far, far better than any other system and not want to spread the message or bring it to them, succor the masses at the bosom of liberty.

I do believe, without reservation, that a man (woman or child) would prefer to live my life than their own or at least have the same options. I believe that mankinds best hope is liberty. You could read any number of posts at my own site and know that I am one of those American idealists.

But, we do live in a nation where others believe that American Exceptionalism means that only here in America and in a few other Anglosphere nations can this exist and we should not think that others would want to or could live in such a country. WE live in a nation where modern tribalism, called nationalists, believe that we only have obligations to our own people and our survival hinges on maintaining that idea above all others.

That is the internal pressure that maintains the balance between pure idealism and the survivalist which in turn creates this idealistic/pragmatic internationalism.

My late grandmother said that you chew your food one bite at a time. you don't swallow your steak whole without cutting it otherwise you choke to death.

therein is our policy. We must pull along the other half of our country or sometimes push them back so we are limited to acting on this idealism only when we can convince the others that their survival depends on the effort. Not so long ago, US foreign policy was limited to a totally pragmatic survivalist view which means that we were willing to interfere in other nations politics, but we didn't care so much if they became real democracies or not.

It is only recently that the idealists among us were able to convince people to change that concept and live up to that idealism expressed in our documents about all people having the right to self determination, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So, the idealists are forced to slow down and eat it one bite at a time.

Having done so, we are getting a mixed response internally and externally. If I read you right, you would agree to pushing this idealism and your complaint is, as Michael Ledeen (a journalist here) says: faster please, more idealism and spread democracy, please ask others to help. while others see this and tremble imagining that it is the new global fascist imperialist.

the pragmatist in me shrugs my shoulders and says "damned if you do and damned if you don't", so we keep going on as we always have because you simply cannot please everyone.

I think you have two false assumptions.

The first is that the U.S. is not an imperial power. (Imperial being distinct from colonial.) The USA maintains military bases in many foreign countries in the world, and maintains the right to wage wars to protect its far flung strategic interests (like Taiwan, say). It uses diplomatic, economic and military means to impose its values and its economic policies on the world. It is pro-democracy and pro-free trade, and it acts to influence other countries to adopt similar values through a variety of avenues. If this is not imperial, then what is?

Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were conducted for strategic purposes inasmuch as they were to ensure that American domestic security was upheld, through eliminating terrorist or rogue state threats. The Afghanistan invasion was meant to go and stamp out the Taliban, and capture bin Laden, in retaliation for 9/11. Isn't that "directly linked to or direct protection of the mainland continental US"? What's wrong with admitting that? So I think the analogy with Hawaii stands. And when you say that Hawaii's statehood is "simply a matter of politics, not physical realities," I'm confused. Surely it is a physical reality that Hawaii is part of the USA? A one-time strategic asset has been converted into a democratic member of the Federal system, for the good of all concerned.

Secondly, you seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against imperialism as being necessarily a Bad Thing. I find this odd. Surely imperialism can have some good effects? Not only in the case of Hawaii but also in Germany and Japan, where democratic regimes prosper, thanks to constitutions drafted by occupying American personnel, under the security umbrella of American air-bases, tied into American-led military alliances. And in the Commonwealth too, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India... all have developed democracy through the experience of British imperialism. India is the largest democracy in the world, and it was founded by leaders who were taught democracy in British universities. So for all the vicissitudes of the Indian colonial experience, at least there was a happy ending.

So...

I think the US should get round to admitting that it is an Imperial power, and that seeing as this is the route that it is taking, it might as well do the job properly - by offering democracy along with air-strikes and integration instead of flimsy proxy regimes. If Iraq were thoroughly integrated into the American body politic, its citizens given the right to vote in elections and obliged to pay taxes along with other Americans (those voters who sanctioned the Iraq War in the first place), then maybe the US government would exert more of a commitment towards it, and its future might be salvaged from the mess it looks now.

Otherwise...if America will not follow through with Manifest Destiny (and I honestly don't see what in that doctrine is not fit to be applied beyond the North American continent) then I think it needs to commit to international bodies of conflict mediation, because for all the talk of democratic ideals, at the moment wars are not being waged democratically. Leaving aside the dictatorships, if you look at aggregated opinion polls voters in democratic countries around the world opposed the Iraq War by a large majority. This is the kind of injustice which representative systems would help to correct.

Yes. I do not like the word empire or imperialism because yes, I don't see that any different than colonialism. Empire implies that people do not have the right to self determination but are forced to adhere.

Second, While I believe that democracy is the best idea and that any person wishing to live largely unmolested by others and their government would naturally tend towards liberty and democracy, I don't expect that they will become Republicans and democrats or totally lay down their cultural identity to assimilate into this massive melting pot.

Third, I believe I noted the problem with "Empire" at least in the way that continues to be expressed. Every nation on the earth who has attempted this "empire" has over extended itself and put itself in imminent danger of collapse, if not collapsing all together. Whether you want to reference Romans, Mongols, Persians, Ottoman, etc or the more modern European models, it seems terribly impractical from economic, military, political and even resources.

I suppose, at most, one would admit to "soft Empire" or, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, speak softly and carry a big stick. But, the word "empire" does stick in my craw. Not because I don't believe that mankind does not have a "manifest destiny" which includes the likelihood that freedom and democracy will become the bellweather of all nations, but because I keep coming back to the practical problems and the idea of self determination which should not have to occur at the point of a gun as Ukraine and Lebanon prove.

In so far as simply admitting to it and getting down to it and everyone would supposedly be happier because we did, I think that smacks of some real idealism. I mean, you only have to look at the US, France, England and Germany opposing Iran getting nukes, but only the US saying it will back it up with force if necessary and the rest thinking they would just deal with it, while at the same time it is likely that Russia and China will not only help them to it, but will provide them diplomatic and possibly even military cover to understand that what you are asking is not feasible.

This is what I meant by assuming all these nations have the same strategic, political and economic needs. They simply don't for various reasons and we have various relations with them so it makes it imminently impractical to declare a US Empire and start making good on it as you propose. That's beyond our own objections to declaring it. That's why this international body does not get to vote about which wars we choose or don't choose to enter because I'm pretty sure we would either cease to exist or be at constant global war.

As for the German and Japanese bases, among others, those two alone are enough to reject the empire argument. Do you presume that our military presence their actually causes either of these nations to form their main internal and external policies? don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the loss of such an economic boon in Germany would be terrible and so they temper their policies, but we don't direct them. That is why we reject the "Empire" argument whenever anyone brings up these bases because Empire does imply something stronger in our relations to these governments than actually exists.

In fact, since you mention Iraq's current government situation, do you imagine that German or Japanese government is a "puppet" to US imperial policies? I don't deny we had bases their after WWII or occupied Germany, for instance, but there is a difference between empires and where strategic convergence makes it practical to put bases and forces in a country. Did you forget the Communist Expansion into eastern Europe or that Stalin believed they could and should "march to the sea" (ie, the atlantic) to spread their ideology?

this was good strategy for us and them considering that threat. Of course, post USSR collapse for the last decade it has certainly allowed us to station forces closer to hot areas to respond to other threats, but we are still talking about the convergence of necessity. We want bases, the german's need money and employment.

As for the Japanese, the continued bases after they set up government and became independent, is also strategic convergence, not Empire (again why I reject it). After the communist take over of China and its militarization as well as the attrocities that the Japanese had committed on the Chinese, it is not hard to realize that Japans decision to invite our continued presence there was their own security. Our desire to stay their was to stave off the red hoard and to insure that China with its much more militaristic society of the time did not cut off access tot he straits of Malacca or the japanese sea which would have killed us economically as well as the Brits, the French and any number of nations (that's why we were fighting wwii in the first place).

Again, I would say do not conflate "empire" with strategic security. It is simply not the same thing.

As I understand it the difference between imperialism and colonialism is fairly clear-cut. Colonialism means direct rule, imperialism is a broader concept that includes economic and strategic hegemony through indirect suasion. So Hawaii until 1959 was a colony (although I believe Americans prefer the term 'territory'), but US presence in Latin America was (is?) merely imperial.

I'm not denying that Germany and Japan don't find US bases useful - it suits their strategic interests, to be sure. Or at least it did during the Cold War... The imperial relationship can be a mutually beneficial one. They're not puppets - but at the same time their governments have no say in whether the bases stay or go, so the relationship is not entirely a voluntary one, is it? A bit like the princely states within British India, whose Maharaja rulers enjoyed internal autonomy but whose external security was underwritten by the British Empire.

A side point, but not irrelevant: I think accusing Chinese society of being 'militaristic' after WWII is putting the cart before the horse. There is considerable evidence to suggest that it was the Korean War which militarised Chinese society: a war which China only entered in response to an American presence on mainland East Asia. And when you cite America's East Asia presence as being to prevent it and its allies being "killed off economically" - well, what could be more imperial than that? When a state feels the need to station troops and fight wars on the other side of the world to protect strategic/economic interests in far off regions, then, like it or not, it is acting as an Empire.

And empires have obligations to be accountable to those whose lives they influence. American foreign policy has a powerful effect on the lives of citizens of other countries. You may say that invading Iraq or Korea, or stationing troops in Okinawa, is only to defend US strategic interests, but nevertheless those invasions come with responsibilities. It’s not enough to insist that the U.S. means well, that it has the spirit of democracy at heart so that’s okay. What gives a country the right to intrude on the lives of other countries’ citizens, often to extinguish those lives, without any kind of accountability?

It seems that we actually agree on a lot of points. Yes, announcing a New American Empire would be extraordinarily bad PR, but I'm more interested in the theory behind neo-conservatism than its practical application to date. And you seem to be saying that you don't object to a theoretically expanded United States - you just don't think it would be pragmatic at this time. But in the meantime, I think Americans should face up to the fact that their government needs to act accountably, not just to its own citizens but to the people of the world - and international institutions, flawed as they may be, are the only hope for that. Reform them, don't reject them!

They're not puppets - but at the same time their governments have no say in whether the bases stay or go, so the relationship is not entirely a voluntary one, is it?

this is definitely false. It is voluntary. All the bases are leased. Every government has the right to ask us to leave although they would have to fulfill the penalty of their lease should they do so. In fact, we have left several bases in south east asia at the behest of several governments.

A bit like the princely states within British India, whose Maharaja rulers enjoyed internal autonomy but whose external security was underwritten by the British Empire.

Um, no.

You may say that invading Iraq or Korea, or stationing troops in Okinawa, is only to defend US strategic interests, but nevertheless those invasions come with responsibilities

Okinawa was invaded, but you are certainly off base as to our position there. This is NOT like the maharajas under BRitish colonial rule because the Maharajas lived on princely estates while the entirity of India was ruled and administered by England. I am not entirely sure why you do not get the difference.

One is voluntary or at the request of the state (as in Japan and S. Korea) and the other is involuntary with no say so. Certainly, the maharajas could not go to England and say "leave India" without the Brits laughing they're butts off and whipping out their enfields, but there is no such situation in Japan or S. Korea, however foolish we might think the S Koreans would be in the face of N. Korea to do so. That is purely mutual alliance.

You know, we have troops stationed in Australia and ports of call for our Navy at the invitation of their government. Small and largely for training, but we didn't invade them and there is certainly no Imperial situation going on. That is the same situation in Saudi Arabia where we had troops at their request to stave off Saddam's invasion and then they asked us to leave because it caused political difficulties there. We did. No harm, no foul. they are still our allies. Yes we went to the gulf states and set up bases, but that is still a mutual agreement between two states whose common needs converge, not imperial demands and acquiescence.

How do you think these things happen? I see you mention "gunboat diplomacy". So you think that we force nations to comply with our requests to station troops or open their trade by pulling up a carrier group off their borders and insinuating it might be better for them to comply? I am totally at a loss as to how you think these things occur.

Turkey..maybe you missed the part where we have bases there, at their request, and they refused to allow us to fly or move out of them on Iraq. We certainly did not just ignore their wishes like some imperial government and do so. It would have been much easier in Iraq had we done so. That is the difference in my opinion between Empire and mutual beneficial alliances and why I am seriously confused about this whole "Empire" claim by others as you well explain that Empires do not allow their subject countries a decision in their strategic plans and operations.

When you claim otherwise, you are mistaking Empire for the latter day English Commonwealth in which there is a huge difference in how both operated around the world and with their subject countries.

And empires have obligations to be accountable to those whose lives they influence

No they don't. You are confused about how empires work. See my points above. empires have subject countries. While the imperial government may be concerned about their problems and work to solve them in order to maintain good order in the empire, they don't get to vote on whether they imperial government goes to war, adds a tax or forces them to wear green every friday. And, by the way, Empires collect taxes and other money from their subject state in order to defray the cost of providing security. No such thing occurs here. You cannot even begin to imagine that free market agreements come close to making up for that from individual nations. That is another problem with your empire notions.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that it was the Korean War which militarised Chinese society: a war which China only entered in response to an American presence on mainland East Asia

Considerable evidence? Did you forget that China had a nationalist government and military that made agreements with the communist in 1938 to fight off the Japanese and then, post Japan's defeat, the Russians proceeded to arm the communists and support them against the nationalists until they were driven from the mainland to Taiwan. China was a militarized nation way back then. In fact, they did not help N. Korea in response to our presence there, they were already helping the Korean Communists. I mean, you are aware that is why the UN provided a mandate to push them back? Maybe you forget the US wasn't the only country there, though the largest force.

China was militarized long before the Korean conflict.

I believe that the problem with some narrative is assuming no nation had a choice but to respond to US aggression when in fact, every nation does and will act in its own self interest, the Chinese among them. The japanese have every right to fear the Chinese expansionists. They currently have disputes running over the status of some islands that the Japanese had won from the Chinese in the 1860's long before we were there in any force. They want the natural gas deposits there. And, one would have to be blind or deaf to the rhetoric that comes from China today when, sixty years later, they still have no real diplomatic relations with Japan and there are rallies and such that demand reprisals and reparations for Japanese attrocities during WWII when Japan has already apologized and such.

There is much more going on then simply history playing out. The Chinese need resources badly for their 1 billion people and their growing economy. They see the China Sea and environs as their area of interests and the Japanese as a hinderance, with or without the American bases. This is what I refered to as a "convergence of mutual benefit" not empire.

And when you cite America's East Asia presence as being to prevent it and its allies being "killed off economically" - well, what could be more imperial than that? When a state feels the need to station troops and fight wars on the other side of the world to protect strategic/economic interests in far off regions, then, like it or not, it is acting as an Empire.

Well, first because it is not only our economic interest that is being served. Wars are not committed willy nilly on a whim for such ideas or we'd be at war every year. And, if your insisting that no one has a say in these wars, then you would be confused. the Germans and french both opted out this time and england opted in. We had to do intense diplomacy to convince nations in the area to allow us fly over rights and station troops. We did not demand it or simply do it as Empire implies. Certainly, had the gulf region states not felt that Saddam was an odious hump in the region and presented a threat to their existence, they would not have agreed to allow us to enter there and station troops.

There is a difference even if you fail to realize it.

Do you believe that England simply does our bidding because we have strategic air bases there and that they are so reliant on our security? Or do you believe that your government acts in its own best interests and joins our endeavors when it meets their own strategic benefit to do so?

Is that why you think you should be our 51st state? I mean, I think that is what you are saying that your own government is not actually your government but beholden to the US first.

you just don't think it would be pragmatic at this time. But in the meantime, I think Americans should face up to the fact that their government needs to act accountably, not just to its own citizens but to the people of the world - and international institutions, flawed as they may be, are the only hope for that. Reform them, don't reject them!

No. No. No. I don't think it is either pragmatic or practical, either now or in the future to produce an American Empire. It is quite one thing to project military power and protect strategic resources and another to own and operate states, responsible for their security and governance. Physical empire as it were instead of the financial which is a lot more fluid and allows agreements to be made, changed or rejected depending on the circumstances of each nation.

Just because I believe that all mankind should have liberty, doesn't mean I want to be the the country that goes around handing it out at the barrel of a gun and then having to enforce it or protect it from every nutball on the planet having to build ever greater military forces to do so. You keep skipping the part of the discussion where I say it is not physically feasible to do so, not now or in the future because all nations that do so always over extend themselves and die.

As for reforming these internation institutions, I think that is a subject for another discussion. You want to reform them in the face of extremely flawed nations and expect that they would suddenly be different in a new organization than the old. That was the mistake of the League of Nations as well as the UN. Biting off more than it can chew and then becoming the monster it beheld.

No thank you, again and again. We are doing are best to work within the outlines of this organization now and as soon as we put someone forward who would be stronger on insisting that the UN act as it should, the whole world almost went fruit loops. Sorry, but that is the extent of the effort and reformation. One bite at a time. I do not mean that as one bite at a time to create an American Empire or subject states, but to work with each area to help promote democracy and push forward freedom, not to create the next possible state for the US.

I have to disagree with your reading of Indian and Chinese history completely, but I'm not so interested in hammering out differing interpretations of endless historical scenarios. I still think you're missing the point. Imperialism is a process of negotiation, but one that occurs from unequal power relationships. You labour so hard to seperate American actions from European imperialism, because you can't accept that maybe there are some redemptive aspects of imperialist projects, just as neo-conservatism has redemptive aspects. That redemption comes with democracy, and with that accountability through representative institutions.

When I said that empires are accountable, the implication was that they SHOULD be accountable. Obviously, all too often they are not. If you think that the US is accountable, that its web of dependencies, military bases and alliances with various savoury and unsavoury regimes are representative of some kind of global popular will, then fair enough. I'm doubtful. Or perhaps you are not so concerned with that, and issues of homeland security override concepts of international justice. Also, fair enough.

I think we've said pretty much all we can say about this, we're starting to go round in circles. But I'd be interested to hear what Tom has to say as (I think) his take on it is slightly different than yours, judging from his blog entries.

Well, then, never let it be said I can't take a hint when I'm being told off. It's been a pleasure talking to you and very interesting to hear how the "Imperial America" crowd actually sees the situation. Here I thought they were all insisting we were the next fascist state, instead we argue over semantics of empire and who gets a say in it.

I'm sure Tom will exchange some ideas with you on the idealism of the American Dream and such.

I will leave you with a word:

Self-determination

There are three principles set forth in our declaration of independence.

The first is the idea of equality
The second is unalienable rights
The third is self determination

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Also, and this is a just a final query, honest, but am I right in assuming that you would advocate a troop withdrawal from Iraq in the near future?

"Just because I believe that all mankind should have liberty, doesn't mean I want to be the the country that goes around handing it out at the barrel of a gun and then having to enforce it or protect it from every nutball on the planet having to build ever greater military forces to do so."

What's your stance on the Iraq War, in a nutshell?

Good heavens. How interesting this has become.

Kat, thank you for taking time to write so much here. You're wonderful as always, and dead right, too.

Mylne, thank you for being agreeable in your disagreement. I don't always get that.

I've just spent the past hour reading all these comments. It's late, I'm tired (went to the gym tonight to feed that addiction), and just don't have it in me now to write anything lengthy. But tomorrow AM I'll come back before I run off to work. The rest of this week is going to be so busy it will be tough to do much here.

Mylne, you simply must visit Kat's blog regularly. Click on her name to get there, but you've probably figured that out already.

I can't think of anything in her comments that I disagree with. She actually said it a lot better than I usually do, and her history of 19th century America is a lot stronger than mine.

"Here I thought they were all insisting we were the next fascist state, instead we argue over semantics of empire and who gets a say in it."

LOL! The reason I engaged Mylne in the first place is because he (or she?) was so reasonable and didn't start in with the "Bush is Hitler" routine.

Night all. I'll be back.

Back again.

A few quick thoughts.

“Imperialism” is traditionally taken to mean a situation when a country directly rules territories outside of its home boundaries. Way back when, the US did go through a period of minor imperialism, the Philippines and Hawaii come to mind. But to say that we’re an imperialist power today just because we have military bases around the world is to twist the word beyond all recognition. Kat is dead right when she says that our bases exist and stay at the whim of the host government. If Germany asked us to leave, we would. We’re leaving Okinawa because of pressure from the Japanese government. In 1992 we were forced out of Subic Bay Naval Station and Clarke Air Force Base after the Philippine government voted not to renew the leases.

Mylne, you put a lot of stock in international institutions such as the UN. Yet it has been the UN that has performed most abysmally on human rights issues. In 1994 the Tutsis began to mass-murder Hutus in Rwanda. The UN refused to order peacekeepers that were there to intervene. Had the US unilaterally intervened militarily, no doubt we would have been condemned for unilateralism. At this very moment, the government of the Sudan is engaged in it’s second mass murder campaign. In the early ‘90s, it was Christians and Animists in the south. Today, it’s Muslims in Darfur. The United States and the UK have tried several times to get the UN Security Council to do something about it, yet China, France, and Russia vetoes our every attempt. In 1999 President Clinton intervened in Kosovo, Bosnia etc under the aegis of NATO precisely because the UN refused to act. The UN condemns Israel at every turn but cannot even come up with a definition of “terrorism” because the Arabs insist on one that they can use against Israel and the US.

Suppose the US took it upon itself to intervene militarily in the Sudan, just like we did in Somalia in 1991. Would the “world community” approve? No. Would good-hearted liberals and leftists approve? Yes, for about 2 hours, which is about the time it would take the first Sudanese to appear before an al-Reuters camera to tearfully claim that the big bad Americans shot his friends who were just out for a stroll. In any military intervention there will be controversy, as “incidents” will occur. And as we have seen time and time again in Iraq, our enemies lie over and over again, claiming that we desecrate Mosques and all sorts of things.

Kat is also right in that we don’t go around the world in search of dragons to slay. If we did, we’d be in Sudan and Zimbabwe, to name just a few places. She makes a great point with regard to Iran, that we’ve pretty much ignored them for 20 years, and it’s only now that they look like they’re going to get a nuke that we pay attention. Every week their insane president says that he’s going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Hitler used to say similar things, and everyone ignored him (“oh it’s just for domestic consumption”). We’re not going to make that mistake again.

Lastly, and I’ve really got to run, Mylne, you seem to be accusing us of “imposing” democracy on places like Iraq. You seem to be saying that we should let the people vote as to whether they want a democracy or not. I find it hard to take this argument seriously. No time now for a full discussion of this topic, but 1) democracy can take many forms. We don’t care if theirs follows or model or some other, just as long as it’s pluralistic. 2) some things are not up for a vote. You can’t vote slavery into effect, for example. And Islamic Sharia law isn’t acceptable either.

No, I do not support withdrawal right now. From my perspective, there is a lot of freedom loving folks that just want to live not participating in these tit for tat killings that are going on right now. They deserve every chance to formulate a government and practice this self-determination. I am not ready to abandon these folks yet.

And, I think that after all this time that it is taking to form the government, its pretty foolish to talk about a US puppet regime there. If so, I'm quite certain we would have installed someone by now.

But, I realize also that these folks are not the British or anyone else. this is only the second vote for a parliament and the parties have not sorted out yet all of the power struggles within the individual parties, much less parliament.

I will support withdrawal of the troops should the new government demands it or open and large scale civil war occurs. Beyond that, we have come too far to allow Iraq's democracy to collapse over a moment of weak knees. But, if that self determination includes open civil war instead of this gangwar they've gotten going, I would support leaving. Far be it for me to tell them they cannot continue to kill themselves in the name of self determination.

The only thing is, I've got friends there, so it makes such a decision difficult. I know that leaving would feel like watching them standing at the rail of the titanic as it went down and I rowed away on a life boat. No withdrawal yet.

Dittos on no troop withdrawal until the situation stabilizes. A precipicous withdrawal would be foolish in the extreme. It would risk losing all that we gained, and may gain in the future.

The situation now is best characterized by 1) revenge killings, mostly Shia on Sunni (the "tit for tat" kat spoke of), and 2) al Qaeda terrorist attacks designed to spark more of #1 and, they hope, a civil war. Worst case #1 devolves into ethnic cleansing.

Al Qaeda is finished as a fighting force in Iraq. The Sunnis have turned on them, so it's only a matter of time. Yes they can spread much carnage, but that will eventually slow down.

So if we withdraw, the strongest possiblity is that the country will go the way of Yugoslavia, with ethnic wars, Shia against Sunni. The Shiites make up 60%, the Sunni Arabs 20%, and the Kurds 20%(Sunni but Kurd). The Kurds have their own enclave and could largely fend for themselves. The problem would be that the Shiites would massacre the Sunnis.

The government could be taken over by one of the Shiite militias; either Muqtada al Sadr's Badr brigade or the SCIRI's Sadr brigade. Either one spells trouble, and we'd certainly see the end of democracy in Iraq. Such a shame.

But here's the thing; all during the Cold War the left criticized the US for supporting right-wing dictators who opposed communism. We did this of course in the belief that they were better than the communists, or at least the lease worst choice.

Ok, so now we're supporting democracy. Happy now? Not at all! Now the left criticizes us for "imposing" democracy. Go figure.

Hang on a few days guys, I've hit a busy patch with work. But I'm sure I still have more interesting things to say...

Cool site. Thanks.
News Business Credits.