Some thoughts

Its been awhile, and will continue to be so for another two weeks, but in my own self interest of wasting time from infinitely more important projects, here are some thoughts.

First, re: redstate.org. Are you surprised? Good use of the word cromulent though.

Secondly, while a really good case can be made that the United States is currently an empire, why discuss what kind of empire we should be when it is always possible to retreat from our empire status? Of course, some would argue that the retreat from the global stage of the most powerful nation in the world would have more disasterous consequences than our continued global engagement*, the question then becomes how that retreat is structured. Much like Jack Murtha's proposal for "redeployment" of U.S. forces, it could be possible that the United States return to its core values, some of which you identify and others like the rule of law you don't, to maintain global peace and stability. A return to a commitment to the values like the rule of law, and respect for the diversity of the world may better suit us to maintain freedom here at home and spread democracy abroad. In this instance, I am conceptualizing a return to core american values as a way to avoid "empire" on Pat Buchanan's "empire v. republic" scale. Returning to our values to avoid being an empire would also require that we have great trust in our "soft power" like culture and some aspects of American exceptionalism that you identify to influence world events, such that we could avoid using our expensive military in ways that make us an empire.

*This is for Niall Ferguson, who argues in The Pity of War, somewhat unconvincingly, that the British refusal to declare their intentions in the First World War directly contributed to that war. Keep in mind that Britain was the single most powerful nation engaged in the world at the time, a good argument could be made that the U.S. had already surpassed Britain in terms of industrial-war making capacity. Explicitly, Ferguson argues that had Britain explicitly come out in favor of the French in any Franco-German conflict, the Germans wouldn't have gone to war. Instead, of course, Britain waited until after Belgian neutrality had been violated by the Germans to declare war on Germany. What this overlooks is that the Schlieffen Plan specified the violation of Belgian neutrality regardless of whatever the British did, and Ferguson offers no evidence that previous violations of Belgian neutrality went unpunished, such that the Germans could think that the British would allow such things to occur. Either way, Ferguson is a helluva scholar, and the Pity of War is a great read. It is also important to note that Ferguson has another book out, Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire that appears to be directly on point. However, my reading list is full full full at the moment, but when it clears up in say 4 weeks, maybe I can get to Colossus. Wow, this is longer than the original post.