I have spent the past two days troubled by an op-ed that ran
Tuesday in the New York Times. The author, Kwasi
Kwarteng – a British MP of Ghanan decent — penned a provocative
obituary of American “Empire” titled “Echoes
of the Raj.”
Framing his thoughts of America’s supremacy-slide against the
shadows of British imperialism, Kwarteng no doubt enjoys a
unique perspective regarding the last gasps of “Great” Britain.
After his graduation from Eton, and Cambridge (twice — parting the
second time with a DPhil. of History), Mr. Kwarteng has gone on to
enjoy success in both political affairs and scholarly letters. In
2010, he was elected Conservative MP for Spelthorne in Surrey,
while penning the eminently readable Ghosts of
Empire, which reconsiders the travails of global dominion, and
the nature of its glory.
With that said, his obvious enthusiasm to chime the death knells
of American hegemony rings dully
of Schadenfruede — his observations seem rushed
with a triumphant gratification at our supposed misfortune.
He opens with the following:
THE Arab Spring, the threat of Iran as an emerging nuclear
power, the continuing violence in Syria and the American reluctance
to get involved there have all signaled the weakness, if not the
end, of America’s role as a world policeman. President Obama
himself said in a speech last year: “America cannot use our
military wherever repression occurs.”
I would hope that I’m not alone when I say: good. We cannot,
should not, and will not use our military whenever and wherever
repression occurs. The world is a cruel place — “repression”
occurs on a daily basis and it is not in the interest of American
national security to pursue a policy of “Infinite War.” Neither did
the British at the high-water mark of the so-called Pax
Britannica.
But Mr. Kwarteng glibly ignores reasons for our supposed
reluctance to engage. Perhaps he missed the two
aircraft carrier battle groups operating in waters near the Persian
Gulf — delivering a direct message to Iran about an open Strait of
Hormuz? Or ignored reluctance to support a shadowy Syrian militancy
staffed with rank and file fighters who earned their stripes
killing American soldiers in Mosul, Fallujah, and Tikrit? That the
Arab Spring happened on our watch, after we decided it was no
longer realistic to prop up dubious partners in the Middle East and
North Africa, and undoubtedly pulled strings to enjoin Mubarak’s
resignation? Perhaps he missed the part where we led the push for
the UNSC R2P resolution that amounted to regime change in Libya,
before leading a surface and air warfare campaign to that end?
Mr. Kwarteng continues, further along:
During the cold war, America saw itself as the leader of the
“free world,” a claim to moral leadership as bold as that of any
empire in history. Its dominion relied on the force of alliance,
direct assistance and social and economic example, rather than
occupation. Only in the last 10 years has America intervened
militarily to decide who rules in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. This
assumption of responsibility as a global policeman was nothing if
not the act of an empire. Yet Americans were always reluctant to
admit this.
Certainly, to an extent. Our moral suasion proved critical in
the battle for hearts and minds against an evil, illiberal and
atheistic Soviet Empire. However, armed with a doctorate of
history, I would have expected to Mr. Kwarteng might recall some,
if not all, of the 70 or more interventions the United States
fought during, and after, the Cold War. Our history of military
intervention — christened “humanitarian” during the Clinton
administration — was not catalyzed by Bush v. Gore.
Mr. Kwarteng might consider the circumstances surrounding Manuel
Noriega, etc. to the contrary.
Regardless:
The financial crisis and mounting indebtedness have finally led
to an end to American imperial behavior. It is unlikely, even if
the economy recovers, that the country will enter campaigns with
the buoyancy and naïveté of its invasion of Iraq in 2003.
This is laughable. Our annual military expenditures exceed the
combined defense budgets of China, South Korea, Russia, India,
Germany, France and Great Britain. We maintain a constellation of
military installation around the globe — in strategically
sensitive theaters and political backwaters — that project the
range and power of our interests. Last I checked, our military
still compartmentalizes the length and width of the planet by
expansive territorial commands, partitioned by hemisphere,
patrolled by surface and subsurface forces at sea, and responsible
for the maintenance of Asia, Africa the Middle East and South
America. This is not to mention our long-range air power from
places like Diego Garcia and the good ole CONUS…
Most interestingly, Mr. Kwarteng remarks:
America’s position today reminds me of Britain’s situation in
1945. Deep in debt and committed to building its National Health
Service and other accouterments of the welfare state, Britain no
longer could afford to run an empire
[…]
Moreover, Britain, which so proudly ruled the waves a generation
ago, was tired; it lacked the willpower to pursue its imperial
destiny. America’s role as an imperialist is even more fragile, as
it never had Britain’s self-confident faith in its own imperial
destiny. Americans have always been ambivalent about the role of
global hegemon.
How right he is. Prevailing assumptions remain that there is a
general, global understanding and acceptance that the world wants
the United States to lead. Our abdication from power would not only
disrupt the contemporary world order but refute a natural
birthright of American statecraft.
However, we are ever uncomfortable with suggestions of empire.
It makes me cringe to write the word in relation to America’s power
project — let alone in response to a British descendant of Her
Majesty’s Gold Coast. As the eminent historian and neoconservative
Donald Kagan famously remarked: “All comparisons between America’s
current place in the world and anything legitimately called an
empire in the past reveal ignorance and confusion about any
reasonable meaning of the concept of empire, especially the
comparison with the Roman Empire.” If not Rome, then what of
Kwarteng’s “Echoes of the Raj”?
We are taught from birth that ours is the destiny of a
constitutional republic — not the duty of American empire. Now, as
the aims, costs and limitations of American military power are
tested we must confront our obligations to the future.
The history of the British Empire suggests that any form of
empire is misguided. First, empire is too expensive. The rise of
China and the emerging world has meant that, even if America
rebounds, its economy’s relative size will be smaller. Surely it
will not be as preponderant as it was in 1945 and 1989. This alone
makes multilateral action more likely than solitary leadership.
Second, as the British discovered, maintaining an empire
requires too many calculations and too much knowledge —
experience, even — for any one power in today’s world even to
attempt it.
Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught America those
lessons.
However vigorously one could argue the case for or against
American Empire — however uncomfortable the terms of that debate
— the fact that most Americans want to reduce our military
presence abroad, and provide space for our allies to slip from our
collective coattails suggests that this will remain a question to
struggle with in the future… but do not doubt for a minute that we
will decide the terms.
