Imperialism

Imperialism is expensive. Since it requires a nation to project its forces far beyond its own borders, it is a strategy that leads easily to overstretch, and to bankruptcy. That happened with the British Empire; it happened with the Spanish; it happened with the Roman Empire, as well. With Rome, it took almost eight hundred years, with the Spanish only 150, with the British, perhaps 175 years, but there have been shorter periods of imperial rule, as well, like the Athenian Empire, and the Soviet Union. The US's empire might be one of the shortest; we can't afford the expense, and we can't enforce control over areas we seem to think should be our possessions.

Imperialism is a vision that was classically summed up by Rudyard Kipling when he wrote:

Take up the White Man's burden,
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need.

Imperialism assumes that the colonial power is more civilized (Kipling also wrote about "the lesser breeds without the law") and it's remarkable how consistent this is, going back to the Roman Empire, which always claimed superiority because of its "law," not its disciplined phalanxes. And in the US, today, the apologists of imperialism do not claim the US right to set things straight in Iraq, or elsewhere, because of our huge military establishment, but because we are "democratic" and our mission is to spread democracy--and the rule of law--to those people in other countries who just don't have a clue--until we invade and force them to set up "democratic" governments.

That's one of the absurdities of imperialism, especially in American hands: how do you impose "democracy" from without? In the Roman Empire, they didn't speak of democracy, of course, but they did talk incessantly about "the law," not that their governors followed it at all closely, unless the Emperor was breathing down their necks. The same was true of the British. In India, where they also spoke incessantly about "the law," and "service," the first phase of empire was so corrupt that it funded Britain's industrial revolution and so completely impoverished eastern India that it is only beginning to recover some of its former prosperity today over 250 years later.

Which brings me to the point of imperialism: it is not to bring democracy, or law and order, or enlightened rule; it never has in the past, and that is not its real reason today. The real reason for imperialism is very simple: plunder. When Rome prevailed, it was mostly the cash and carry kind of plunder, including the captives who helped carry the plunder and carried themselves. When it was the Spanish, of course it was gold and silver--and slaves. When it was the Brits, it was first the cash and carry variety, and then control of its possessions as captive markets, and finally resources, like oil and minerals. With the US, it is oil, and markets.

But in each case, imperialism is its own downfall, because the proceeds of empire do not sustain the increasing costs. The US is now faced with the classic dilemma of imperialism: in order to control what we must to uphold an empire, we have to maintain a military establishment so large that we can afford nothing else, and in fact we are bleeding our nation white, not with high taxes, but with borrowing from the rest of the world. And even so, our vaunted military cannot establish law and order in one moderate-sized country--Iraq.

Like the fall of Rome, the US Empire might end because of bankruptcy, unless our leaders realize what the British understood at the end of World War II: their nation could no longer afford its empire, regardless of what happened to its former "possessions." Today, Britain is one of the most prosperous of the EU countries; it would have ended up like Spain in the 18th century, bankrupt and the "sick man of Europe," if its Labour government hadn't had the foresight, courage, and will to declare an end to its Empire.

Imperialism isn't really good for anyone, not the conquered country and no one except the Imperial ruling class which profits from its conquests; it does not permanently enrich the country as a whole; it increases inequality dramatically, and it usually hollows out the domestic economy, as happened in Rome, in Spain, and is happening now, in the United States. Here our manufacturing has been exported to other countries with cheaper and more compliant workers, which "our" corporations can exploit.

The sooner the US can become just a normal country, not a "super-duper power," or an empire, the better for us and for the world as a whole. Just think of all the money we squandered on the Iraq war, and even more on our military establishment. It is our huge military (we spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense) that has gotten us into places like Iraq. If the US scaled back its military to where it would be simply "defense," we would probably have about $400 billion more each year, to meet domestic needs and foreign humanitarian needs.

We'd be a lot better off.