Over at the Duck of Minerva, PTJ argues that 9/11 didn't really change the world, but 9/20 (2001) did. What happened on 9/20? The President gave a (no famous) speech. In it, he proclaimed that the US would pursue terrorists anywhere and everywhere, and that any state that harbored them was just as liable as the terrorists themselves. The consequences of that now-famous speech include the fact that we can date the beginnings of the American Empire precisely: 9/20/2001:
The reason that 20 September 2001 is so important is that on that day Bush did something that I'd been joking with my IR classes about for years. "What would it take for the US to stop being a sovereign state?" I'd ask them, and eventually we'd arrive at the answer: if the US declared that it wasn't going to play by the rules of sovereignty any more, if it was going to stop recognizing other states and declare that it would violate territorial integrity whenever it felt like it, it wouldn't be a sovereign state any longer, it would be an empire. Why an empire? Because empires have frontiers, not borders, and they don't recognize any regime other than their own as really legitimate.
A declaration of empire.
I don't think I disagree with this, though I'm not sure the follow-through is working out well. We have really only invaded a single state (Afghanistan) for terrorism directly, and a second (Iraq) for reasons that are honestly unclear to me at this point (perhaps a legitimate fear of WMD, perhaps something else). There are likely other successes where the US has not had to directly invade, but states have fallen into line more or less willingly (Libya comes to mind). Overall, the US is something close to an empire, if not one.
However, remaining an empire is tricky. There is a certain degree of ruthlessness that is necessary, and I'm not sure we have that as a society or whomever gets the Oval Office next will have it. (Technically, I'd argue you need competant ruthlessness, and that may disqualify the present Oval Office occupant, which may explain why, five years after 9/20, the American Empire looks to be creaking a bit.) There is a further question as to whether we want to be an empire, but that's a different post.
In any event, go read the Duck.
Posted by baltar at September 20, 2006 10:56 PM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs | PoliticsAlways one of my favorite sites. They may have articulated a more specific onset, but they're not the first ones on our blogroll to consider the idea of empire.
Posted by: binky at September 21, 2006 05:38 AM | PERMALINKThe real deep dark explanation around Iraq may be as simple as this: Bush (and the Bush family loyalists) wanted to 'get' Saddam (for trying to assassinate Bush 41, for being an asshole, whatever), and seized on the first opportunity to do something they had intended to do anyway.
Posted by: jacflash at September 21, 2006 07:27 AM | PERMALINKI don't reject the "get saddam 'cause he tried to kill daddy" theory, though there are holes in it: it would take a particularly machiavellian personality to turn a superpower into a weapon for personal revenge, and it still doesn't explain the almost pathological need to avoid managing the aftermath/reconstruction. The post-war rebuilding phase has been done so poorly that simple neglect/incompetance doesn't seem a sufficient explanation (I am, however, trying to avoid falling into conspiracy theories as explanation).
Posted by: baltar at September 21, 2006 09:12 AM | PERMALINKand, following on jacflash's proposition (which i think has as much explanatory utility as any), the fact that the empire was instantiated in the name of a war on terror doesn't mean that our conduct in iraq doesn't fit with the larger definition of empire, on jacflash's theory or others.
is it just me or has POTUS been awfully quiet about thailand? i mean, here we have a democratically elected leader deposed by the military while he's on holiday, at the UN no less, and our dear leader has nothing to say about it?
Posted by: moon at September 21, 2006 09:14 AM | PERMALINKNo, Bush is clearly avoiding Thailand. The NYT had a story today that the leaders of the coup had announced that no political parties could meet, that no new political parties could be formed, and that (in addition to the responsibilities and powers of the Prime Minister) they were taking on the responsibilities and powers of the legislature.
The coup looks much less benign today, than yesterday.
Posted by: baltar at September 21, 2006 09:25 AM | PERMALINKI think Bush himself is too disinterested in the world to really pursue an empire - and Rumsfeld certainly doesn't want one (or want the kind of military you would need to make and maintain one).
He wants the freedom to bomb at will, regardless of ... well, anything ... but that does not an empire make. The language he promoted could have taken us in that direction, but Bush the president won't.
Which is a good thing b/c successfully doing that requires the kinds of politics and policies that Bush would find revolting (expanding while not bellicosely appearing to, taking on global costs so that others see the benefits in US internationalism, etc.).
Posted by: Armand at September 21, 2006 09:29 AM | PERMALINKOh, and yes - in the 2nd paragraph I wrote above I'm agreeing with PTJ - but the point is that I don't think that's a sufficient definition on which to base the word "empire". But others can disagree obviously ...
To the degree that Bush's language changed "everything" I think the better case is the domestic political case - that his insistence on scaring the country endlessly in order to save/promote his sorry political ass has perhaps had the deeper effect on changing US behavior in the world.
Posted by: Armand at September 21, 2006 09:37 AM | PERMALINK"He wants the freedom to bomb at will, regardless of ... well, anything ... but that does not an empire make."
Perhaps, in terms, that is correct, but I'm not sure the bombed would agree. Indeed, their rhetoric makes it pretty clear that they disagree.
Posted by: moon at September 21, 2006 02:00 PM | PERMALINKI'm just saying that while the Duck (and maybe you) see the definition of empire as having to do with removing impediments to action, and taking a certain universalistic view of rights and cause that always favors yourself (and I can understand defining it that way), to me, in its common usage "empire" conveys constructing something more substantial in terms of a state apparatus, and institutions of empire (beyond norms that say sovereignty is a thing of the past).
But clearly even in PTJ's usage the new "empire" does have vastly more freedom of action than the US used to believe it could undertake.
Posted by: Armand at September 21, 2006 02:36 PM | PERMALINK