I believe the reason many analysts and historians have started using the
term “American Empire” goes back to an article by the Norwegian
historian Geir Lundestadt, called (to paraphrase) “American Global
Power: An Empire by Invitation.” His point was that the Americans in
the Cold War were essentially invited by western Europe and others to
lead security alliances rather than creating an old-fashioned imperial
empire by force. That is what the Soviet Union did in the east, for
example.

John Lewis Gaddis in “Now we Know” (a survey of the Cold War) also uses
this language, writing about a Soviet garrison-state empire vs an
American cooperative “empire.” The fact that we won the Cold War, but
are still deeply involved in the security structures of a global
American committment, says a lot about a) inertia and b) how beneficial
to everyone, not just us, this transnational system of cooperation has
become.

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

> ———-
> From: TMOliver[SMTP:swrctmo@iamerica.net]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 11:55 AM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Re: American “Global” Empire
>
>Unlike the glory and grandeur days of the Empire ‘Pon Which The Sun
>Never Set, ‘Merkinland has seemed insecure and a bit uncomfortable with
>the idea of “going it alone.” Sound reasons exist for such an
>attitude.
>
>To those who would ascribe the whole deal to “selling more Fords”, we
>must have done a better job (bad as we seemed to do) at the military
>end, because we sure didn’t make our quota when it came to
>economic/commercial dominance.