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.

America

The default attitude of many Canadians to the United States is a craven, sanctimonious, poorly thought out hostility. The higher one climbs in our cultural strata the more pronounced becomes this peculiar type of ignorance, but in just about any bar conversation if something about our southern neighbor comes up the usual snide and knowing remarks will be made. Their military is too big. They want to rule the world. They have an empire. This from people who have a pretty dim idea of geography and history. Canadians do have reasons to be annoyed at Americans regarding certain issues: the ongoing softwood lumber farce, for instance, where powerful lumber interests in the U.S. try to protect their business from Canadian competition. This has had the opposite affect from what they had hoped as the duties and levies imposed on Canadian producers have motivated them to increase efficiency and productivity to keep costs down. Thus Canadian mills are just that much more competitive than they were before. Other similar issues go back to the influence local American politics has on Congressional power brokering. But this is not what Canadians usually think of when they think of the perfidious Americans. Most Canadians don't even know about these disputes where the issues are complex and hard to understand. Does Canada subsidize lumber companies as the American lobby insists? It depends on what you call a subsidy, among other things, and as the arguments unfold their complexity quickly leaves the average interested citizen in a state of perplexity. The perception that we are being bullied is a strong one, but what does that mean? To me it's not so much an indication of American power as Canadian weakness. We have allowed ourselves to become a wimpy nation. Americans play hardball, they expect us to play that way, too. If we don't fight back they lose respect for us. It's also true that they have legitimate trade grievances with us. I'm thinking of all the marketing boards that hurt the Canadian consumer far more than they hurt the Americans. But we can hardly criticize American protectionism if we practise it ourselves.
But I would like to say more about the idiotic notion that Americans want to rule the world. Far from it. The United States may dominate the world in many ways but it is not an empire as many writers claim. If what they have is an empire then we'll have to think up another name for what the Romans, the Persians, the Assyrians, the Greeks, the English and many others have had in recorded history. That's where the dominant power completely takes over another territory, loots it, settles it, occupies it, takes slaves and rules it. Like what the Romans did to Gaul, Palestine, Egypt, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, Britain, etc. If the Americans wanted to rule the world would Castro still be doddering along after a half century of being a damned nuisance to the Americans even forgetting what a curse he's been to his own people.
The vast majority of Americans not only don't want an empire, they would rather stay at home and ignore the rest of the world. They did not want to involve themselves in either world wars. But after Pearl Harbor they had to face the fact that the oceans were no longer a sufficient barrier to protect them from foreign agression. Since then they have managed to defeat a major totalitarian threat without going to all out war, and now they are fraced with another enemy that may even more dangerous. Just as in the past there are powerful currents of opinion that want to deny the obvious and so we will probably have to face another 9/11, and it could be far worse now that this hostile force senses weakness in the object of its hatred.
The stupidest of conventional wisdoms is that Americans invaded Iraq for the oil. These people can't believe George Bush when he says he wants to bring freedom to Iraqis. But there are all sorts of ways Americans could isolate themselves from the consequences of a disruption in the Middle East oil supply. The United States has the scientific resources to make the adjustment and Americans would be willing to undergo any temporary inconvenience. It's Europe that would be in trouble. That's where Americans have a responsibility as the foremost world power of our time to use its power to ensure the free movement of goods and services across the globe. In the old days it was called freedom of the seas. It has always been one of the first things a rising power has always wanted to establish. That was what the Punic wars were about in Roman times. And the first projection of military power to foreign shores made by the newly minted United States under Thomas Jefferson was to subdue the Barbary Pirates of North Africa. At that time these pirates roamed all over the eastern Atlantic taking slaves and disrupting trade. For some reason the Europeans wouldn't help themselves, even though whole villages were carried off.
It was after the Romans defeated the Carthaginians that the Mediterranean became known as a Roman Lake. It was the only time in history that the whole Mediterranean basin was brought under one law and it ushered in a golden age of prosperity and cultural cross fertilization. It may be that a Roman Governor authorized the execution of a certain Judean holy man, but without the ability to freely travel as a Roman citizen St. Paul wouldn't have been able to spread Jesus' message.
Now we are potentially on the cusp of a new golden age and if so it will be due to the Americans. Americans don't want empire but they do want to spread their message: freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of the marketplace, freedom to choose who will make the laws, freedom of speech, freedom of debate. Additionally, in the American way of thinking happiness is a good thing, a rich and rewarding life is something that everyone is entitled to provided he can take up the challenge. Empire is not an aspiration of the American people. They do not want Iraqis, Russians, Japanese, to be
American subjects. When they defeat an enemy they help him get back on his feet, as they did with Germany and Japan, as they are trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is reality folks. It's easy to figure out.
Americans have so far in my lifetime defeated Nazis and Bolsheviks, neither of whom believed in any of the above. They are now engaged in another fight. They didn't want the previous fights and they don't want this one. It seems there are aot of people in our democratic societies who don't believe there is a deadly enemy that wants nothing more than to kill them, their families, their friends, but there is. And whether or not we go into a new golden age or a new dark age depends on the outcome of this war. I know whose side I'm on.
Incidentally I have noticed one curious thing about all my American hating countrymen. Judging by the lineups at the Victoria passport office they all want to go to the States.