>I noticed in the January 19, 1998 issue of *The New Republic* an article
>by Eliot Cohen. He basically says that the Pentagon, and the “American
>people,” should get used to the fact that “the United States needs an
>imperial strategy. … that is, in fact, what the United States at the
>end of the twentieth century is—a global empire.” And we need a
>revamping of the entire defense structure to deal with the problems of
>this situation, not the problems of “two hypothetical major theater
>wars.”
>
>An interesting idea. Do we have any Brits out there who’d care to
>comment?
>
>Timothy L. Francis
>Historian
>Naval Historical Center
>email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
>voice: (202) 433-6802
>
>The above remarks are my opinion, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
>Department of Defense
>
I don’t doubt that the US need a coherent foreign policy. Yet I have never
liked the term “empire” to describe the US position in the world since WWII.
The essence of “empire” is force and control. During the days of the
European empires the Brits RAN India, the French RAN Indochina etc. The
Russians COMPELLED their vassels in Eastern Europe to do what was right and
proper. We have had influence because of money and military power. But for
every time we have gotten our way it’s been as the result of cajoling,
argument, negotiation and overall confusion. Think how often our closest
allies have told us to “stuff it.” (Hell, they’re doing it right now
concerning Iraq.) The US has been the leader of a coalition for fifty years,
but the members of the club have certainly had minds of their own. We
couldn’t even tell obvious clients like Vietnam what to do. If you want to
call the industrial democracies of today part of the American Empire then I
suggest we come up with a new word to describe the relationship between, for
instance, London and a quarter of the world one hundred years ago.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930