Debating U.S. power

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY EXPOSED

By Ivan Eland

Independent Institute, $24.95, 304 pages

Is the United States an empire? Yes, writes Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute. Although not in a traditional sense, like ancient Rome. Instead, "America's empire is a subtler, more informal version, along the lines of Ancient Sparta," he writes.

Washington dominates the affairs of many allied and client states without occupying them. This wasn't the vision of America's Founders. But World Wars I and II and the Cold War transformed Washington's international role. Observes Mr. Eland: "[T]he U.S. urge to fill the power vacuum in key regions, before the Soviets did, became even more intense." Yet if containing the Soviet menace was the only justification for Pax Americana,Washington would have demobilized after the USSR dissolved. Instead, U.S. policymakers developed new justifications for old commitments. The latest is fighting terrorism.

As Mr. Eland argues in a book bound to irritate and even enrage, today's expansive foreign policy is not just unnecessarily expensive -- think of hundreds of thousands of troops stationed overseas to protect wealthy allies -- but dangerous. Unfortunately, argues Mr. Eland, Americans have become the targets of terrorists less because others are jealous of their freedoms, as contended by President George W. Bush, among others, and more because of the U.S. government's actions.

Mr. Eland first challenges conservatives to oppose empire. He writes: "A free society, both economically and politically, is a superior form of social organization; but using force to export economic and political freedoms means adopting harsh methods similar to those of the now exhausted international communist movement."

More important, Mr. Eland points out that war routinely leads to the growth of government spending and power and inhibits economic growth. Moreover, war saps the strength of even the strongest power. "Great conflicts tend to destroy empires, sometimes even if the empire wins the war," he explains. Potential new rivals will benefit from a policy of overextension which has left Washington ill-equipped to maintain an adequate garrison in Iraq.

Mr. Eland offers equally compelling reasons for liberals to resist an imperial foreign policy. So-called humanitarian intervention rarely is either idealistic or effective. He goes on to challenge the morality of such expeditions. "While Western publics are unwilling to give up much for humanitarian interventions in faraway countries about which they know little, advocates of humanitarian military interventions are willing to sacrifice lives and money -- others' rather than their own."