|$4.45 (Save 25%)
|$4.45 (Save 25%)
Most Americans dont think of their government as an empire, but in fact the United States has been steadily expanding its control of overseas territories since the turn of the twentieth century. Now, through political intimidation and more than 700 military bases worldwide, the U.S. holds sway over an area that dwarfs the great empires of world history.
Eland shows that the concept of empire is wholly contrary to the principles of both liberals and conservatives and that it makes a mockery of the Founding Fathers vision for a free republic. Eland also warns that in recent years, blowback and the enormous expansion of domestic federal power resulting from this overextended empire have begun to threaten the American homeland itself and curtail the very liberties these interventions were meant to protect.
The author delivers a penetrating argument which exposes the imperial motives behind interventionist U.S. policy and questions the historical assumptions on which it is based.
1. Introduction: History of the U.S. Empire
2. Does the United States Really Have an Empire?
3. Why Conservatives Should Be Against Empire
4. Why Liberals Should Be Against Empire
5. Why All Americans Should Be Against Empire
6. An Appropriate Foreign Policy for the Modern Age
About the Author
- The U.S. maintains more than 700 military bases worldwide, spanning an area that dwarfs the great empires of world history. Although many leaders today support a policy of foreign interventionism, extensive military engagement around the world is a policy at odds with principles of the republics foundersand at odds with the economic, political, and security interests of the American people.
- The U.S. has military dominance but no longer the economic dominance to match; it accounts for nearly 40 percent of the worlds military spending but only about 30 percent of global GDP. The U.S. is so dominant today only because other empires declined as a result of losing wars (Germany and Japan) or becoming overextended abroad relative to their frail economies (Britain, France, and the Soviet Union). If the U.S. stays the course, Americas economic dominance and political influence will likely decline.
- Why is the U.S. disproportionately attacked by terrorists? Although the president, other highlevel policymakers, the foreign policy elite, the media, and even large segments of the public are in a state of denial, the key factor is obvious to the rest of the world: the interventionist U.S. foreign policy in support of the informal American global empire. The U.S. has received unfavorable ratings from people in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries around the world, not because of its political and economic freedoms or its culture, but because of its policiesparticularly toward the Middle East.
- Small government conservatives who favor military adventurism should check their history and rethink their assumptions. Increases in nondefense spending have been lower during administrations in which warfare was sporadic or nonexistent (Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) than during the three administrations in which major long-term wars were being fought. Like prior wars, Bush IIs War on Terror has led to increases in both defense spending and nondefense spending (which has increased more during the wartime presidency of George W. Bush than during any comparable period since the wartime administration of Lyndon Johnson).
- Knowing that popular support for military actions unrelated to American security is fragile, U.S. policymakers resort to war on the cheap. This strategy has resulted in the use of military tactics that increase casualties among civilians in the nation being helped. The use of heavy U.S. air and ground firepower results in the moral equivalent of killing people to save them. Thus, military interventions for humanitarian purposes usually achieve the opposite result and are morally questionable.
- Heavy-handed U.S. military intervention to facilitate social work almost always fails because of the onset of mission creep (e.g., in Lebanon and Somalia), the creation of enemies as a result of taking sides in local disputes or using excessive force (e.g., in Lebanon, Somalia, and Iraq), the exacerbation of original problems (e.g., ethnic cleansing in Kosovo), or the loss of public support at home (e.g., in Lebanon, Somalia, and Iraq).
- In a postCold War world, taking into account only the security of American citizens, their property, and U.S. territory, the benefits of an interventionist foreign policy have declined and the costs have escalated dramatically. Americans continue to pay excessive taxes to defend countries that are rich enough to defend themselves or to occupy conquered countries in the worlds backwaters (e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan). Their sons and daughters are killed on remote foreign battlefields for reasons even more remote from U.S. vital interests.
Most Americans dont think of their government as an empire, but in fact the United States has been steadily expanding its control of overseas territories since the turn of the twentieth century. Nor do most Americans think that the global U.S. military presence threatens their security or economic interests or that it hinders the democratic aspirations of citizens of other countries; many Americans consider U.S. interventionism progressive or, at worst, benign.
Unfortunately, a great chasm lies between common perception and reality, according to defense policy expert Ivan Eland (Senior Fellow and Director of the Independent Institutes Center on Peace & Liberty). In The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, Dr. Eland argues against both conservative and liberal proponents of American empire, making the case that U.S. military interventionism harms the interests of Americans politically, economically, and militarily. His thesisthat the U.S. and probably the world would be more free, secure, and prosperous if the U.S. government reduced its military involvement overseas, much as the nations founders had urgedis certain to garner intense interest from those who recognize the need for a thoroughgoing examination of U.S. foreign and national security policy.
The fuzzy criteria that the U.S. government uses to determine whether and where American forces should intervene indicate that American foreign policy is askew, writes Eland in the books introduction. Unlike the empires of old, which limited their military interventions to certain parts of the world, the United States is trying to police the entire globe. This book offers an alternative vision of a more restrained U.S. foreign policy that is more focused, more achievable, less costly, and a lot less dangerous.
The Origins and Nature of the U.S. Empire
Although U.S. imperial stirrings began with a colonial foray in the Spanish-American War of 1898 and in the Caribbean and Central America in the early 1900s, the global American empire did not explode onto the world scene until 1950, Eland explains. Only during the Cold War did America finally abandon its traditional foreign policy of acting as an offshore balancer of power in favor of Pax Americanaa worldwide network of alliances, forward-deployed military forces at bases scattered around the globe, and a policy of direct and indirect intervention in the affairs of many other nations. If the purpose of Pax Americana were simply to fight the spread of communism, it would have been dismantled after the demise of the Soviet Union. Instead, the American empire grew larger after the Cold War ended.
Unlike the Roman and British empires, the American empire for the most part is not one of territorial conquest (although the U.S. occupation of foreign territories is happening with increasing frequency). The United States exerts more control over its allies foreign policy than over their domestic affairs. Furthermore, the empires of old gained resources, markets, and tax revenue from their territories. The United States gets none of those things from its allies and client states (U.S. allies even refuse to fully open their markets to U.S. exports and investment). Instead, it gets a billin blood and treasurefor the defense of nations that are now rich enough to defend themselves.
Why Conservatives Should Be Against Empire
Conservatives should oppose an American empire, because war is the primary cause of Big Governmentincluding the growth of nondefense spendingwhich in turn requires increased taxes. Hostile relations with other nations also breed protectionism and controls on financial flows, thus undermining the principles of free trade. Bloated government, high taxes, and restricted international commerce slow economic growth, undermining the prosperity and well-being of American society. Over time, lower U.S. economic growth rates could cause the United States to fall into relative decline, as happened to the overextended, overtaxed British Empire in the last century.
Conservatives worry about the nations security, but the U.S. does not need an empire to ensure it; America has two great oceans as moats, weak and friendly neighbors, and the most potent nuclear arsenal on Earth.
Why Liberals Should Be Against Empire
Liberals should oppose an empire, Eland argues, because many of the so-called humanitarian military interventions of the United States often have unhumanitarian consequences. The abysmal track record of attempts to bring democracy and free markets to countries coercively shows that such interventions usually fail to restructure fractured and violent societies. In the long term, violations of nations sovereigntieseven for humanitarian endsundermine international norms against cross-border aggression and encourage separatist groups to revolt. Over time, therefore, more people are likely to be killed than saved by U.S. interventions into failed states. Instead of placing the lives of U.S. soldiers between two opposing sides not yet ready to make peace, the international community should focus on helping nations in which all parties to a conflict are exhausted by war and are ready to stop fighting.
Humanitarian military interventionism, Eland argues, also faces strong moral objections: If a military intervention is unnecessary, then killing innocent civilians even accidentally is immoral. Furthermore, foreign wars erode civil liberties at home. Finally, many vested interestsincluding the arms industryturn war fervor into corporate welfare. Humanitarian rationales for military intervention are often employed to cloak motives of realpolitik.
Why All Americans Should Be Against Empire
Perhaps the most compelling reason for all Americans to oppose a U.S. empire, according to Eland, is that the empire is destroying the republic. An imperial foreign policy has led to an imperial presidency that is much more powerful than the founders intended. In recent years, the overextended U.S. empire has threatened the American homeland and the civil liberties of Americansboth through blowback (the dangerous backlash against prior policies) and the enormous expansion of domestic federal power, including broader police surveillance and detention powers.
As much as some would like to use U.S. military power to restructure failed states, this is likely to be an unsuccessful and dangerous undertaking. Bitter civil warsethnic and otherwisebreed terrorism. The United States is hated worldwide for its interference in the affairs of other nations and peoples, and the attacks on September 11 were only the most obvious instances of blowback from U.S. foreign policy. Because intelligence is imperfect and Americathe largest truly open society in the worldis very vulnerable to terrorism, improved homeland security can go only so far in protecting Americans from future catastrophic terrorist attacks. A better solution is to white out the bulls-eye painted on America by dismantling its empire and scrapping its interventionist foreign policy.
With the demise of Americas chief rival, the Soviet Union, the benefits of Pax Americana and profligate military interventions worldwide have declined dramatically. With the advent of catastrophic terrorism, the costs of such an activist foreign policy have increased precipitously. Thus, the quest for empire is a foreign policy but not a security policy.
An Appropriate Foreign Policy for the Modern Age
The republics founders realized that Americas geographical remoteness vis-à-vis other nation-states allowed it the luxury of distancing itself from entangling alliances and foreign quarrels, defining its vital interests narrowly, and adopting a policy of military restraint. In an age of catastrophic terrorism, the founders original foreign policy is more relevant than ever. Profligate intervention overseas is not needed for security against other nation-states and only leads to blowback from the one threat that is difficult to deterterrorism. In short, the U.S. empire lessens American prosperity, power, security and moral standing. It also erodes the founding principles of the American Constitution.
Americans have ignored the economic, political and security costs of the burgeoning empire at great peril. Public debate about the U.S. role in the world has finally begun in earnest, and The Empire Has No Clothes delivers penetrating arguments, exposing the imperial motives behind an interventionist foreign policy, questioning the historical assumptions on which it is based, and advocating a return to the founders vision of military restraint overseas.
In short, the U.S. empire lessens American prosperity, power, security and moral standing, Eland writes. It also erodes the founding principles of the American Constitution.
This book is the sobering antidote for the imperial wine that has impaired the judgment of American politicians, Republican and Democrats alike, since the end of the Cold War.
Harvey M. Sapolsky, Professor of Political Science and Director of Security Studies, MIT
Eland states that the U.S. has pursued an ever-expanding empire from the beginning of the 20th century, and he emphasizes the present dangers of this policy to U.S. national security, civil liberties, and democracy. This is definitely a book worth reading.
Dr. Eland makes a persuasive case that current U.S. national security policy is contrary to the principles of both liberals and conservatives and is actually undermining our security and civil liberties.
Lawrence J. Korb, former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense
Ivan Eland said that Iraq would be a debacle before the war began. In his terrific new book, he explains in detail why Iraq and the pursuit of empire will make the United States less safe in the years ahead. Hopefully, more Americans will listen to him nowbefore we get ourselves into even more trouble at home and abroad.
John J. Mearsheimer, Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
The Empire Has No Clothes offers a powerful and persuasive critique of recent U.S. foreign policy. It deserves the thoughtful attention of conservatives and liberals alikeindeed, of all Americans disturbed by the imperial pretensions evident in Washington since the end of the Cold War.
Andrew J. Bacevich, Professor of International Relations, Boston University
Victory in the Cold War eliminated the danger that another superpower or ideology could take over the rest of the world. Yet the United States still tries to run the world as much as it ever did. Elands book is a sober, hard-hitting critique of this anomaly and a cogent brief for why liberals and conservatives together should reject an imperial role for America.
Richard Betts, Director, Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University
His message: the United States is an empire. It is time for her people to realize that and put an end to imperialism. If Americans do not do so, this empire will implode and destroy itself as history has shown with all other empires throughout the centuries.. Elands thesis provides a unique lens through which U.S. foreign policy is viewed. His argument is convincing, backed by numerous historical examples, and grounded in relevant scholarship. . . . Eland's work would be an appropriate and excellent text for undergraduate and graduate courses in several disciplinesAmerican History, International Politics, Militarism, and Peace Studies.
The History Teacher
The Empire Has No Clothes is a comprehensive history of American imperialism, including a balanced treatment of various schools and definitions of imperialism as used by scholars, politicians, and pundits. . . . [It] should greatly influence the debate in this country about how to restore a constitutional foreign policy. Read this book.
Chalmers Johnson, Author, The Sorrows of Empire and Blowback; President, Japan Policy Research Institute
"The Empire Has No Clothes is an extremely sensible book. I agree with Elands argument, though I doubt if it will be much appreciated by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle."
Paul M. Kennedy, Dilworth Professor of History and Director of International Security Studies, Yale University
Ivan Elands new book would make an excellent initial reading for any college class focusing on current foreign affairs and diplomacy. The Empire Has No Clothes is clearly written. It looks at foreign policy from both conservative and liberal approaches, raises major historical and philosophical issues, and delivers a powerful warning about the dangers of empire.
Ivan Elands new book is a scholarly, compelling and provocative study of where we are, how we got here, and the dangers inherent in the aggressive, imperialist policies we are implementing. It is impressively lucid, filled with careful research, rational analysis and highly insightful commentary, certain to satisfy concerned readers across the political spectrum.
Edward L. Peck, former Chief of U.S. Mission in Iraq, former U.S. Ambassador to Mauritania
Focusing on the postCold War period, Eland brings together the American actions in Kosovo and Gulf Wars I & II in a discussion of the ways in which our 'nation-building' has become a new form of empire. And what was disastrous for other ambitious world powers going back to Rome, he suggests, will fall upon ussooner than we think. The heart of the book, moreover, are the chapters showing how both liberals and conservatives need to rethink their positions, and join in an effort to challenge the empire on grounds of self-interest. It is a great book!
Lloyd C. Gardner, Charles and Mary Beard Professor of History, Rutgers University
One of the best recent discussions comes from Ivan Eland. The Empire Has No Clothes begins with a careful definition of empire and informed discussion of empires of the past, concluding that America really does have an empire, whether its people really want one or not. Highly recommended.
Orange County Register
An eloquent and well-researched argument that very much needs to be heard, contending that Americans have become ensnared in an imperialism of which they are largely unaware, and of which they should disapprove. The book will play an important role in structuring a major debate about American foreign policy.
George H. Quester, Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland
Ivan Elands provocative and well-researched critique of Americas interventionist foreign policy makes a powerful case for returning to the practical principles of the Founding Fathers. With convincing examples that range across history, he clearly demonstrates that our current democratic empire is a dangerous oxymoron.
Melvin Small, Distinguished Professor of History, Wayne State University
This book by Ivan Eland, published by the Independent Institute, clearly has the most provocative title, The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed. It begins by answering 'yes' to the question, 'Does the United States have an Empire?' This is a much debated subject and a most appropriate subject for discussion. . . . While the United States, like will every nation, will expand into any territory that does not offer significant resistance, Eland distinguishes, I think rightly, between United States' nation building and empire-building. He notes that the United States sought greater markets for its industrial production; he refers to this as a 'neomercantilist policy of opening markets at gunpoint.' U.S. military interventions have been carried out around the world since that time either as unilateral actions or through ad hoc coalitions of allies. . . . Eland makes the point well that the costs of empire to the United States far outweigh the benefits. The artificial propping up of the economy on the military-industrial platform rather than a long-term stable economy based on human needs is putting farther distance between the United States and other nations every day. Eland provides well-reasoned arguments to support the theory that, unless this attitude changes, the United States' economy will become insignificant compared to European and Asian countries in the coming decades. . . . It requires a disaster like 9/11 to wake people up. In that respect, we are also like the Romans who were shocked that Alaric could sack Rome in 410 A.D. Augustine's City of God was a part of the debate about the collapse of the Roman Empire. It was their wake up call. Eland's book is a result of our wake-up call, and I would advise every American to acquaint themselves with these issues.
International Journal on World Peace
Think a U.S. empire is desirable and viable? Read Ivan Elands highly insightful, essential book, and you will change your mind.
Edward A. Olsen, Professor of National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School
In The Empire Has No Clothes, Dr. Eland shows that the concept of empire is wholly contrary to the principles of liberals and conservatives alike and makes a mockery of the Founding Fathers vision for a free republic.
Ron Paul, former U.S. Congressman
The Empire Has No Clothes is a very important book. There are a lot of books out now about empire, but this is probably the most searching and the most provocative. I do hope everyone will read it and spread the word. The debate extends far beyond just the current situation. This book could have been written even if we had not gone to war in Iraq and will pinpoint these issues for everyone.
C. Boyden Gray, former Chief Counsel to the President of the United States
The Empire Has No Clothes is a worthy tome written by Ivan Eland. . . . well documented and well deserved.
As Mr. Eland argues in The Empire Has No Clothes, a book bound to irritate and even enrage, todays expansive foreign policy is not just unnecessarily expensivethink of hundreds of thousands of troops stationed overseas to protect wealthy alliesbut dangerous. . . . Mr. Eland is persuasive. His argument is not a prescription for putting ones head in the sand. Rather, he recommends that America look before it leaps. There may be no more important lesson for policymakers in todays often bloody and uncertain world.
Eland offers one of the sharpest critiques of neoconservative foreign policy yet to emerge. . . . His most important argument here is that an interventionist stance makes Americans less secure. . . . Unfortunately, as Eland demonstrates in The Empire Has No Clothes, the president's misbegotten adventure along the Euphrates has infinitely worsened the problem of terrorism.
Ivan Eland is recognized as one of the leading experts in U.S. defense studies and foreign policy. He is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. He resides in Washington, D.C.