Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
Imperialism is really not accurate. The US has no desire to occupy any of the countries it is in. Because there are troops in Germany, Japan, and Britian does that mean they are part of some american empire? No. Would the US like to pull out of Iraq? Yes.
Say you don't like the policy but find a more accurate word to describe it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism
I am sure the US would love the the Euros to take a turn at being the world's policeman but they don't have the stomach for it. The EU is struggling to find 15k troops to put into Lebanon. They want to sit at the adult table but not pay the admission to get there. Lebanon will be the next Kosovo with the UN in charge. The pendulum is starting to turn now. In 5 years when the US refuses to become involved in the world's problems people will complain just as loudly as they do now. |
I believe imperialism is a very accurate term. I argue that the US has very little interest in any kind of swift withdrawal from Iraq. It doesn't make sense to expend the monetary and personel assets to build and staff the 14 permanent military bases currently under construction in Iraq, only to abandon them shortly after construction. I believe a plan might be to establish a new forward command in Iraq, sensing the political instability in having a forward command in Saudi Arabia.
Imperialism also does not have to be solely defined as having troops on the ground, and some evidence of this is provided in your link. New Imperialism often revolves around pure economic imperialism, often involving the local elites playing the role of the occupational bureaucracy. Two prime examples of this are the British and their handling of India as well as the United States and their involvement in 1970's Chile. Elites being contacted, educated/trained within the 'Imperialist State' to be sent back as the local enforcement of that imperialist policy.