United States Imperialism?

I've read and heard much about America's imperialistic designs. From the war in Iraq to our military bases around the world (Gitmo, Okinawa, etc.). I'm not a scholar on this topic, but my question is this: What does it mean to be imperialistic? Clearly we have periods in history that help define this. Countries and rulers built empires. These had a common "look and feel". The army came, conquered and stayed. There may have been a local government - but it had a formal, subservient relationship to the empire in question. The goal was clear - the country had resources or some other intrinsic value to the empire (which could be as simple as wanting to rule everywhere) so the empire kept it. In time, all empires fell. Too much ground to cover with too few resources combined with a determined local population leads to a shrinking empire. It is interesting to note that even after the empires shrink, some countries still retain a loose association with the "empire". Canada and Australia are independent but yet retain ties (recognize the crown?) to England.

So back to America. What is America doing in the places we remain? Are we in charge of host country? No. Do we want to be? No. Do we gain anything from being there? Yes and No. Yes, there is some reason we are there - usually this involves a strategic military location. Having troops available to jump into some remote hotspot. Do we enjoy special favor with the country? Do they recognize the US or President as leadership for their country? No. Not even close. We pay to be in these locations. We normally have to bend over to appease the local country to remain (rightly so as we are requesting the right to stay). I won't get into the reason or perceived reason we need to be there in the first place, but the fact remains we desire to have a US presence there.

Definition according to dictionary.com

imperialism

–noun 1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. 

Now, according to the definition above, my understanding seems right. People are misusing the term imperialism. However, a closer examination of what this could mean has created another view.

Wikipedia discusses broadening the definition:

Currently, there is an effort to broaden the definition of "imperialism" so it applies to any instance of a greater power acting or being perceived to act at the expense of a lesser power. Including 'perception' in the definition makes it circular, solipsistic, and subjective. Under this broader definition, 'imperialism' not only describes colonial, territorial policies;but also describes economic dominance and influence.

European dominance of the east through economic exploitation and political rule, (as distinct from the word colonialism, which usually implied establishment of settler colonies often with slavery as the labor system), the word was coined in the mid-nineteenth century.

This is interesting and does seem like the next logical evolution of the more "colonial" definition. However, the question still remains, is the US acting with imperial intentions? I believe the answer is complex. America has long held the belief that democracy is the right way for people to live. We have no tolerance for dictators or oppressive rule. Early in the history of the country (no wise cracks here Europe - early relative to our existence<g>), we believed all people should live free but we didn't do much to help effect change. US foreign policy was directed by the Monroe Doctrine (which itself was formalized based on the reality of US behavior to that point). Essentially, we would not involve ourselves with international issues and wars unless the United States was pulled into an event or otherwise threatened. Isolationist is one of the terms used to describe America and this policy. It's interesting to note that there has always been two sides to this:

1. That's fine - stay out of others affairs.

2. That's no good - you have the means to help others - so do it!

There was a period where Roosevelt extended the "borders" of the doctrine to extended to Latin America. A few years later the Roosevelt Corollary was repealed. This lead to resentment from in Latin America where the term "America for Americans" was coined implying we are only interested in what's good for the United States. Anywhere you go, there are folks on either side.

For the most part, the Monroe Doctrine has guided American Foreign Policy since it's inception. Communism was seen as a major threat to America and as such, the Presidents extended and modified that doctrine accordingly with the main goal of either containing or defeating Communism. Things changed radically in the wake of 9/11. Here the Bush Doctrine was born. In my mind, this replaces completely the Monroe Doctrine and it's subsequent changes. It started with the assertion that countries that harbor terrorists would be considered terrorists themselves and subject to attack. Since we are at "war" with the terrorists, this could be viewed as a positive policy change. The notion of fighting a war in the traditional sense was gone. The Administration believed that this was the way to end the threat. The bigger, more controversial addition to his doctrine was the policy of preemption. This is basically a blank check to depose leaders in countries through force if they are a direct threat to the United States now or may be a threat in the future.

So let's bring this all the way back, is the US imperialistic? If you subscribe to the definition that Wikipedia has put forth, the answer is maybe. The US is definitely out there influencing world affairs. From peace keeping efforts in various locations to the liberation (yes, and all that that implies) of Iraq. But to say that the US has economic dominance seems like a stretch - certainly not in recent history.

At the end of the day, after all the discussion and debate, I have to ask myself, is this all worth it? Are the actions were taking good? Do they help the world at large? Even with the claims of imperialism and the poor world opinion of the US? The simple answer is yes. Using the lightening rod issue of today, you can't argue that Saddam was evil and needed to be removed. There was no change on the horizon from within. The fact that he was harboring terrorists allowed President Bush to invade for a different (and incorrect) reason still resulted in the removal of an oppressive, exploitative dictator making the world a better place. Now, are there issues with this? Absolutely. Strategy for withdrawal? Non-existent or at the very least not working as quickly as everyone would like. What does the future of the Bush Doctrine hold? This is unclear. That the upcoming election will result in change is clear, but how much is the question. The US has been put into the role of "World Cop" since WW I and has since helped make the world better. Period. Argue all you want, but the bottom line is that there is a net positive (I might argue big positive) result due to American involvement in broader affairs. Taking action creates change. Putting yourself out there incurs risk. Not all decisions are correct. Not all actions work as planned. But if you don't try, what's the point? You are simply taking up space and marking time.

 

___________

As an aside, this was an interesting exercise. I didn't do weeks worth of exhaustive research, but rather leveraged what I already knew and infused some new content and ideas. Some of these thoughts have been bouncing around my head for awhile and just needed a spark to make me write them down. I was really looking to educate people on what imperialism means and to choose a different word/idea for their arguments. In the process I learned some interesting stuff. I still don't think America is imperialistic. Altruistic is not entirely correct either (we certainly have ambitions for making things better here as well) but in my heart that seems closer to our intent. Consider this Version 1.

The spark, for those interested, was the alleged rape an Okinawan child by a US Soldier. For the record, my stance is crystal clear. There are bad people everywhere and they must be held accountable for their actions. With that, innocent until proven guilty. If found guilty, penalize to the maximum (and yes, that includes local penalties). I really do expect our military be held to a higher standard where ever they are located. This may not be fair, but that's just the way it is.