The Second Roman Empire

When America is accused of establishing a world empire, what is meant is that it has a hegemony of military, economic and political power in today's world. They are not the same thing, empires and hegemonies. An empire is a system whereby one country -as in Rome, or more recently the Soviet Union- controls all the power structures of another, alien country. Americans have never been interested in such a thing. If they were, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, at a minimum would now be ruled from Washington, with Senators sent out as governors. Castro wouldn't have lasted two days.
America has a strong undercurrent of isolationism on both the right and the left sides of the political spectrum. Outposts of American power obtained in previous conflicts have often been returned to the local political entity, as in the Philipines. Where overseas military bases exist, as in Japan or Germany, they have been for the purpose of protecting, not ruling the local populace.
The fact that American policy has always favoured elected institutions, rule of law, freedom of conscience and free enterprise in countries like the former USSR, Japan and Germany is not evidence of a desire for conquest but of a belief that the virtues of the American system will lead to increased peace, prosperity and well-being wherever they are tried. Perhaps this belief is naive, but it is not without nobility. The fact that American businesses may profit from the arrangement hardly adds up to hypocrisy when it is remembered that in America it has always been perfectly honorable to set up a business and earn a profit. It's a cultural characteristic that has helped to make America the most dynamic and prosperous society the world has ever seen. The key insight Americans have had is that as one business prospers, so do others. As President Kennedy put it once, "A rising tide floats all ships."
The rising tide of American prosperity has floated all ships willing to cut loose from their old moorings. Where socialism leads to impoverishment and totalitarianism, the American model leads to super abundance. Maybe, like David Suzuki, you object to that, thinking that it's a death sentence for the planet. But the evidence suggests otherwise. As countries become wealthier, they become cleaner and more concerned for the environment. In America, as farming has become more efficient, many areas are more heavily forested than they have been for centuries. London's air was lethal in my lifetime, but those poisonous fogs are now a thing of the past thanks to the replacement of big coal by big oil.
None of this should even be a matter of controversy. The information is readily available to anyone who wants to learn the truth and it shouldn't even be necessary to say it. But the relentless rewriting of history in recent decades by the media and in the schools has produced a generation with very little knowledge of the facts of history, but deeply imbued with a jaundiced interpretation of history.
The latest hysteria over American "imperialism" has to do with Iraq. If ever there was an example to refute that hysteria, Iraq is it. American dust ups with Islamic regimes are nothing new. In its infancy the Republic sent a force of marines to put a stop to the Barbary Pirates that had terrorized the Mediterranean from their bases in North Africa. For some reason, Europeans wouldn't do it themselves. In my time the trouble with Islam really began for Americans when their embassy in Iran was seized. Mr. Peanut was president then. For all that he was willing to do, American embassy staff would probably still be languishing in a Persian dungeon if they hadn't been rescued by Canadians. Since then there have been numerous other incidents, in which Americans have been reluctant to respond. Islamic militants have interpreted this lack of response as timidity and like dogs excited at the smell of blood have stepped up their attacks. They are making a big mistake. Americans did not want to go into the First World War, but when they did it was over in months. They did not want to go into the Second World War, and if Japan (a true imperial power) hadn't made the same mistake of thinking that Americans were just a bunch of fat softies, then the outcome of that war might have been vastly different.
The post war period seemed to signal the end of isolationist thinking in America, but during Viet Nam it cropped up again. Previously, isolationism was primarily favored by conservatives, but this time it was taken up by the left, and it is still mainly part of the left's ideology of peace through being nice. Pretty dumb, but that's the left for you. That's why the Islamic miltants were jubilant when the Democrats regained control of congress. They think the Pelosi crowd will turn America into a replica of socialist Spain, which is employing the puppy dog defense against terrorism. That's where you roll on your back and piss in the air. The Islamists hate Bush because he has led America in it's first assault on Muslim territory since the Barbary pirates days, and they think they will have free rein when he's gone.
Same mistake the the Japanese generals made. Bush comes from the conservative side of the spectrum which has a fairly well thought out military strategy. Much of that strategy was to minimize civilian casualties through the use of an arsenal that places a premium on precision placement. It tends to be minimalist, but effective. So when the decision was made to respond to 9/11 by deposing Saddam and trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, contingency plans were already in place. By contrast, the Pelosi crowd doesn't have a clue. They seem to think that the best thing to do is not to stir up the hornet's nest. The trouble with this non-plan is that hornets, when left alone, go on to establish more nests. If it turns out that a Democrat becomes president next time and the inevitable follow-up to 9/11 comes along he/she won't know what to do. Panic. Strike out blindly. One thing's sure: the American public is going to be really pissed. The worse they are hurt the more pissed they are going to be. I sure wouldn't want to get in their crosshairs if I was you, Mohammed. Goodbye, Mecca. And I wouldn't want to be the president who let it happen, Hilary. Remember what happened to Marie Antoinette? Probably not.
Getting back on topic, what does America do with its hegemony? Does it just hunker down and ignore the rest of the world? Does it become the policeman? That's what the real debate should really be about. Maybe it will become an empire some day, but it isn't one now.