Few would disagree that because of its economic, cultural, and military power, the United States plays a major role in world affairs, though I would argue that the first two are at least as important, if not more important, than the third. Influence is not imperialism. And despite the fact that we maintain a huge military presence all over the world, we still have to engage in nuts-and-bolts diplomacy to bring other nations in line with what we believe in in our national interest. We maintain one of the largest military presences in Germany, and yet this did very little in securing the blessing of Chancellor Schroder for our adventure in Iraq. Turkey refused to allow use of its territory for an attack on Iraq. The United States vacated the Karshi-Khanabad in Uzbekistan in November of 2005 following a demand by the Uzbek government.

The U.S. and Iraq have been engaged in very heated debate regarding the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement, with the U.S. conceding many of Iraq’s demands, including removing immunity for private contractors, not using Iraqi soil as a base of operation to launch attacks against other nations, requiring the authority of Iraqi leadership for military operations, and handing over detainees to the Iraqi judicial system. Iraq is doing exactly what we want democratic nations to do–attempting to find a balance between a military partnership that it believes is in its interests while also retaining its sovereignty.

It seems to me that one of the big lessons we are supposed to have learned in this post-Iraq world is that thanks to globalization and economic interdependence, the world is a multipolar place that requires cooperation in some sort of international order. Of course, arguing that American in Iraq is not an empire is not to argue that America should be looking to station large forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, in attempting to understand the role of America in the world in the 21st century, amid a new world war, comparisons to 19th century Britain somehow seem inadequate.

Everything depends on this being correct and yet you spend no time establishing it…

I say it’s because you can’t and thus empire is the wrong word.

I do however, agree that hegemony is what the US is really after in the Mid East and the world….

The question I would ask is, whose faith is shaken and why? If it’s the American electorate, then I am unsure what evidence there is that the average voter even knows what Empire and Imperialism are, let alone that the US is engaged in both enterprises.

The activists are littler better. The conservative and liberal movements have become pro-Empire. The former bases their imperialism on nationalism, the later on universal human rights.

In neither case, do the movements see anything morally problematic with invading countries and killing people (which I find particularly rich coming from people such as Samantha Powers). And in neither case has the Iraq war inspired the basic introspection needed to conclude that Empire is evil and counter-productive to the stated goals of each movement. Otherwise, the conservatives would realize that Empire building makes us less safe, and liberals would realize that enforcing democracy and individual rights at the point of a gun causes more misery and death than if nothing was to done to begin with.

And what of the elites? For all the mindless chatter about the loss of a bipartisan consensus, the bipartisanship surrounding the expansion and projection of military force around the world has been completely untouched. Barack Obama, supposedly the leader of the anti-war, anti-imperialist party wants to expand our military.

If anyone with any sort of power, had their faith shaken in Empire, then they would ask:

Question: Why does Barack Obama propose an expansion of the military?

Answer: Because he wants to use it.

This state of affairs makes a cosmopolitan liberal, such as myself, wonder if he should have supported Ron Paul’s candidacy.