Now in open, 'empire' talk unsettling

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger () ibd com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:44:53 -0700
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>, Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Now in open, 'empire' talk unsettling

Now in open, 'empire' talk unsettling
Jay Bookman - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html

The concept of America as world empire, so controversial as to be almost
unsayable just a few months ago, is now close to conventional wisdom. The
topic is featured regularly on the covers of national newsmagazines, is
discussed in popular books and is celebrated on newspaper op-ed pages.

In fact, some of those who once shied from the word "empire," even as they
advocated policies to that effect, now embrace the label with varying
degrees of fervor.

''We need to err on the side of being strong,'' says Bill Kristol, the
neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard and chairman of the Project
for a New American Century. ''And if people want to say we're an imperial
power, fine.''

That newfound candor reflects two realities. First, the fiction that we are
not an empire had simply become impossible to sustain, and not merely
because we now occupy Iraq. Just last week, news broke that the United
States would be building new military bases in Romania, Hungary, Poland and
Bulgaria, all former Warsaw Pact nations.

In addition, we already have troops in more than 130 nations by the
Pentagon's unofficial count, permanent bases in roughly 40 of those
countries and basing rights in many more, with ambitions to expand still
further into places such as the Philippines and even Vietnam.

Second, in the warm and fuzzy aftermath of military victory in Iraq, the
need to be coy about our intentions has evaporated. Triumph has a way of
making people feel, well, triumphant. Many who previously shrank from the
concept of empire now find it attractive; many who found it attractive but
feared public reaction now feel free to be more honest.

It is fair to say, however, that this reality has caught most Americans
unprepared, and for good reason. In the case of Iraq, we were sold war
against Saddam Hussein on many different grounds, including an alleged close
link with al-Qaida that has yet to be documented and the alleged presence of
hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, none of them yet found.

In reality, it is now clear that we fought this war to place ourselves in
the midst of the Middle East in a very big way. In part, we hoped to try to
"drain the swamp" of Islamic terrorism. In part, we were motivated by
concern for our oil supply.

As a report by the Project for a New American Century stated in September
2000, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The true scope of U.S. ambitions to remake the Middle East in our image was
never articulated beforehand to the American people. As a result, the Bush
administration has committed this country to a major international
obligation without having the "buy-in" of the American people needed to
support it.

Even the administration itself seems torn by the resulting schizophrenia,
rhetorically embracing the difficult work ahead while shrinking from the
actual task itself.

While the president notes that "the transition from dictatorship to
democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort," administration
officials admit that they don't have enough troops in Iraq to maintain order
today, and talk in terms of reducing troop levels by 75 percent -- to
roughly 30,000 -- by the fall.

While Pentagon officials acknowledge that our military manpower is stretched
thin by Iraq and the demands of empire elsewhere, we obstinately refuse to
ease that burden by inviting the United Nations to help in policing Iraq.

And while we boast with good reason about the high-tech weaponry fielded by
our military, at last report the civilian Office of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance in Baghdad doesn't even have working telephones
almost a month after we occupied the city.

We are, in other words, a half-hearted empire, pleased with the power and
prestige it brings but unwilling to spend the money, time and manpower to
manage it. And half-hearted empires have a very short life expectancy.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution. His column appears Thursdays and Mondays.
--
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/