After all, what kind of empire does this sort of thing?
Critics of U.S. foreign policy have long caterwauled about American “empire.” The term is used as an epithet by both the isolationist left and right, as a more coldly descriptive term by such mainstream thinkers as Niall Ferguson and Lawrence Kaplan, and with celebratory enthusiasm by some foreign policy neoconservatives such as Max Boot.
The charge in recent times has centered on the Middle East, specifically Iraq.
The problem is, contemporary America isn’t an empire, at least not in any conventional or traditional sense.
Your typical empire invades countries to seize their resources, impose political control and levy taxes. That was true of every empire from the ancient Romans to the Britons and the Soviets.
That was never the case with Iraq. For all the blood-for-oil nonsense, if America wanted Iraq’s oil, it could have saved a lot of blood and simply bought it. Saddam Hussein would have been happy to cut a deal if we only lifted our sanctions. Indeed, the U.S. oil industry never lobbied for an invasion, but it did lobby for an end to sanctions. We never levied taxes in Iraq, either. Indeed, we’re left holding the tab for the liberation.
And we most certainly are not in political control of Iraq. If we were, we wouldn’t have acquiesced to the Iraqi government’s desire for us to leave. Did Caesar ever cave to the popular will of Gaul?
Some partisans undoubtedly will say that the key difference is that Barack H. Obama, and not George W. Bush, is president.
But this lame objection leaves out the fact that Mr. Obama acceded to a timeline drafted by the Bush administration. Moreover, Mr. Obama has moved closer to Mr. Bush than anybody could have predicted.
Consider Libya. Mr. Obama pursued exactly the same policy goal - forcible regime change - that critics of the Iraq War routinely denounced as the heart of American imperialism. There are significant differences between the two adventures, to be sure, but at the conceptual level, there’s little difference at all, and neither has much to do with imperialism.
More important, for the imperialism charge to mean anything, it needs to describe something larger than partisan policy difference. If our imperialism can be turned off and on like a light switch with the mere change of parties, then how imperialistic could we have been in the first place?
The word “regime” has been defined down in recent years to mean nothing more than presidential administrations. “What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,” Sen. John Kerry said in 2003.
Regime actually describes an entire system of government. If the American regime is imperial only when Republicans are in power, then it’s not a serious claim. It’s just a convenient and partisan slander.View Entire Story
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
'Your papers, please' must never be heard in America
By Susan Crabtree - The Washington Times
President Obama forgot to return the salute of a U.S. Marine while boarding Marine One Friday morning, then came back out to shake the Marine’s hand, according to a tweet by CBS News’ Mark Knoller.