The American “Empire” Reconsidered

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by AnimalMuppet on Monday February 12, 2018 @12:01PM (#16359967)

An empire would have held on to Iraq after the Gulf War. An empire would have held on to the Philippines after [edit: World War II]. An empire would have held on to Japan after World War II.

The US is not an empire because it doesn't act like one, not really. Yes, it has some overseas possessions. No, it's not the expansionist conquer-the-world Borg that many people mean when they call it an empire.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The American “Empire” Reconsidered by breatheoften on Monday February 12, 2018 @01:19PM (#16360605)

Your argument presupposes that the empire’s maximal influence would be attained by domination through overt use of force.

In reality — the us military empire doesn’t maintain those conquered possessions as conquered possessions because it can’t — it doesn’t have sufficient military power and attempting to do so would increase the front on which conflicts requiring use of that military power would be required (further diminishing direct conquering capacity).

The us military empire building strategy differs from your suggestions for tactical reasons not as evidence of a policy that does not involve pursuit of empire building.

[ Parent | on HN ]