The truth is that most of these deployments are not really military in character and at any given time the number of significant deployments is much smaller. 20 men guarding an embassy are not building an empire. When you look at deployments of 1000 men or more, you find that there are currently fewer than 20 countries hosting deployments of that size. When you look at deployments of 100-1000 men you find that there are fewer than 30. So rather than 130 countries with significant numbers of US troops in them there are actually only about 40, mostly in Europe and parts of Asia. What's more, rather than building an empire, these numbers have been steadily declining, and are about half what they were in the 1950s.
In addition, all of these large deployments are the result of mutual defense arrangements which date back for decades where our troops are there at the invitation of and with the cooperation of the local government. The overwhelming majority of our troops are deployed in coordination with the United Nations or NATO or by arrangement with a few major allies like Germany, England and Japan. In many cases, rather than representing some sort of mythical US empire, they are often deployed on behalf of extra-national groups or programs or working in coordination with local forces.
In fact, a great many of these American troops deployed overseas are not even involved in normal military activities, but are engaged in various humanitarian aid programs. In 2006, the US military took part in 556 relief efforts in 99 countries. These efforts on behalf of various international organizations are a major deployment, but they are hardly empire building. They're things like aiding victims of natural disasters and distributing food aid and medicine in troubled places like Haiti, Georgia and Somalia. Rather than oppressing these nations with our imperial rule, these missions are enormously popular and poll results in disaster-ravaged countries like Indonesia show a substantial increase in pro-American sentiment as a result of our humanitarian activities there.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ma rk
So, you don't like the use of the term 'empire' to describe the US economic, cultural and military sphere of influence around the world. Give it a name.
2 - Mark Schannon
Rats. I wrote a really insightful, thoughtful response to this & then lost it. I hate computers.
Oh well, in a nutshell, I agree, Dave. Americans are too confused to be empirialists--even old Busher wanted to spread peace, love & democratic values. Compared to the 15th-19th century Europeans, we're children in the sandbox when it comes to Empire building.
I think Americans have this bizarre noblesse oblige complex. It's arrogant & annoying to others, but we tend to believe we've got something special and we want to share...it's just that we're so ham handed about the way we go about it.
But I agree with your basic premise, as well as bringing a lot of our troops home.
But, then again, what do I know...I'm no expert.
In Jameson Veritas
3 - roger nowosielski
We used to call it "superpower," Mark, until recently.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, you're right that having troops stationed overseas doesn't constitute such, but the United States is an empire. It occupies a sizeable chunk of its continent - territory acquired through a variety of empire-building strategies - and is considerably larger than most historical empires.
It also does have an overseas empire - a small one, granted, consisting of such once-mighty territories as Guam, Samoa and Hawaii (should I not mention the Philippines...?) - but an empire nonetheless.
More significantly, the American cultural empire stretches across the globe, with very few pockets of resistance left.
5 - roger nowosielski
The question is - why would Dave care to deny it. What's at stake (for him)?
6 - Dr Dreadful
I think he just enjoys debunking stuff. Have you checked out his Idiot Wars site?
7 - mArk
(Oh yeah...just to be consistent I have to note that yet another basically trivial Nalle piece has been placed above the fold. The pattern continues.)
8 - roger nowosielski
Well, Mark. You just have to come up with something provocative - hair-raising? - to earn that distinction.
9 - mArk
(Rog, I thought for a moment a while back that I could produce worthwhile articles for BC. But I found that my attempts weren't and that I became too ego involved and shrill in defending them in the comments. The most that I can do here is participate as a commenter...pretty lame, but oh well.)
10 - Clavos
You could even have a series, mArk:
"The View From Under The Bridge" :>)
11 - Jeannie Danna
(most of these deployments are not really military in character and at any given time the number of significant deployments is much smaller. 20 men guarding an embassy are not building an empire. When you look at deployments of 1000 men or more, you find that there are currently fewer than 20 countries hosting deployments of that size. When you look at deployments of 100-1000 men you find that there are fewer than 30. So rather than 130 countries with significant numbers of US troops in them there are actually only about 40, mostly in Europe and parts of Asia. What's more, rather than building an empire, these numbers have been steadily declining, and are about half what they were in the 1950s.)
Dave, Pardon me for saying "You could pepper your language with a few women and maybe cut down on the whirlwind of facts and figures that distract and confuse the reader" ME!
one more question here "Did you serve in the armed forces?" because when I was stationed at Ramstein AB, Germany in 1980 there were some weekends when we were not even allowed in the night clubs in Kaiserslautern because the of an "anti-American" sentiment that prevails in the world today.
America acts like an Empire...
12 - roger nowosielski
Mark,
"too ego involved," Mark, may be just another term for striving for perfection. Nothing wrong with that in any area of life - especially in arts and letters.
And I wouldn't worry too much about facing criticism on BC. Most of it, anyway, is ideological in basis rather than substantive.
To deal with the first, I admit, is rather difficult. But it does train you to develop the patience of a saint and call for all love you can possibly muster. I've never shirked from the second, though, and I'm certain neither would you. Intellectual honesty demands that.
13 - Dave Nalle
Mark, I echo the sentiment of others. Write something decent and I'll put it "above the fold." In the meantime, I'm putting just about everything we get in a featured position as soon as we get it. Yes, there are a very few exceptions. As an editor I am obliged not to say why they aren't given a featured position, but it's not based on politics.
And notice that I have consistently restricted myself to no more than one article in the featured section and when I write a new one I bump the old one off. Given that I'm probably the most prolific writer here that means I actually get LESS top billing per article than ahyone else.
Does that help?
Dave
14 - Dave Nalle
So, you don't like the use of the term 'empire' to describe the US economic, cultural and military sphere of influence around the world. Give it a name.
Based on Dr. D's comment I wouldnt' have a problem with using the term 'empire' but he is using it in a reasonable way and not in the same way that it is being used by the people I mention in my first paragraph.
It is really the kind of empire which these peopel suggest that we are which I object to. They use the term because they believe that the US is engaged in a process of conquest, domination and oppression of people around the world. I wrote this article to clearly call bullshit on that idea and the specific basis on which they make that argument.
Dave
15 - Jeannie Danna
mArK,
where are your writings? I would love to read them.
16 - Jeannie Danna
Dave, I just submitted a little political satire of my own...are you in charge of all the political writing here? Because if this is going to be a problem for you I'll publish it in Culture as always.
17 - mAr k
Jeannie, they're under BC writer name Mark Eden.
18 - Jeannie Danna
Thanks, you know I just discovered the fresh comment feature this morning!
I'll go read :)
19 - Mark Schannon
Roger, #3: Some superpower we were. Two clumsy giants, us & Russia. But I think there's a difference between superpower...or let's call it the dominant military & economic world power...and empiralism.
The former happened by default; the latter is something that requires considerable effort & manipulation.
20 - Mark Schannon
mArK--just read your article on BC needing an ombudsman or some way to moderate the vitriol here.
While I may not agree completely, it's an excellent article. Write more!
In Jameson Veritas
21 - roger nowosielski
Mark Schannon/Mark Eden
Or working at it. Russia did try and failed, although don't count Moscow out; it's still a major player. And neither has the US given up. It's foreign policy is the proof, and I don't see what Dave's point is in denying the obvious - unless, as he said, is to put a gloss on things.
Personally, I don't have any problem with the concept of "benevolent empire." It's a matter of Realpolitik that there is such a thing as a power vacuum; and that if not one political entity than the other will try to fill it. And that's true of international as well as personal relations. We may disagree whether the values that are being transmitted worldwide are desirable or not, but not about the fact that if not those, then some other set of values would be sponsored and propagated.
Mark Eden: Remember, we haven't resolved the differences with respect to our ideologies: I still happen to believe that "benevolent capitalism," properly controled so as to prevent widespread injustices and abuses, is within the realm of possibility - when it's made to be responsive to, and to benefit, the (local) communities. You deny the feasibility of any such scenario.
22 - Dave Nalle
Dave, I just submitted a little political satire of my own...are you in charge of all the political writing here?
I'm the head politics editor, but no the only one. Someone else may end up editing it.
Because if this is going to be a problem for you I'll publish it in Culture as always.
Not a problem for me. Plus Culture steals too many articles from us already.
Dave
23 - Jeannie Danna
Mark Schannon,
I had you mixed up with mArK this morning but I enjoyed your article immensely. I can be "vitriol" in my writing style also but it was all good fun towards Dave...at least on my part.
mArK, I agree with you on the need for an ombudsman in the comment line! I haven't been here that long but have ended the day feeling really bad for something either I said to someone or for something they have said to me...:(
Maybe my next article should be titled
"I'm Sorry That I'm Such An Ass: But So are You...." :)
24 - mar k
Remember, we haven't resolved the differences with respect to our ideologies
Not to worry, Rog. I haven't forgotten. If I come up with an argument that I think would have a chance of convincing you or others that the problems with capitalism are systemic and only secondarily related to abuses then I'll certainly present it. imo we could each behave ethically and the economy would still crash.
25 - roger nowosielski
I well foresee the objections; perhaps I even agree with them - which isn't to say I don't want to hear your argument.
My problem, however, concerns the adequate replacement. It's in this respect that I draw a blank. My position has always been (well, not always, only since I became a thinking person) that it's a necessary evil.