What do you guys think of the idea of ‘American Imperialism’? (Iraq, middle east)

[WarThunder21]

Considering the situation in the middle east, and other occupations around the world in spots such as Vietnam, and meddling with South American countries toppling their governments. Do you believe our country is imperialist?

[nva06]

Our government isn’t imperialist it’s interventionist. Big difference. Imperialism is conquering land and expanding territory which America was in the late 19th early 20th century. But our government is more interventionist. In believing we have a higher moral authority or are better than other people we must go into other countries and fight their problems. For example in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 the US was warranted to go fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban because they attacked us we fight back. However after 2-5 years our objective was pretty much completed. We should’ve exited and it would’ve been appropriate. Bin Laden could’ve been captured through counterintelligence without a war on the ground. We should’ve set up an Afghan government then and after what happened should’ve been history. However we overstayed our welcome and we basically became the government solving and being apart of almost every problem in the Middle East. So after the 2-5 years us being there turned into interventionism after the Taliban resurgence in the mid 2000s. And then it could be argued imperialism was not an objective but rather effect of our stay in the late 2000s

[Avondalist]

I think our government is imperialist, but not because we set out to be but because we got sucked into a power vacuum after WWII.

A small, powerful group of people in this country want to be imperialistic and their influence is way outsized. But I consider most Americans to be basically benevolent people who want to be left alone.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df4R-xdKvpM

[NJ Brazen_3133]

It is still not as impressive as the British Empire, Spanish Colonial or even the Mongol, and Ummayad Caliphate in terms of sere size.

[danielj72]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

It is still not as impressive as the British Empire, Spanish Colonial or even the Mongol, and Ummayad Caliphate in terms of sere size.

Actually the United States could be seen as one of the most successful imperial states on this planet. Many empires have been built, some encompassing a large portion of the globe. None of these empires lasted, India never became part of Britain. Spain is not Moorish or Muslim, China never became Mongol and France did not become Roman. The United States however is different. The country began as a colony and at independence became a small independent nation clinging to the coast. Within 100 years it had grown dramatically through war, treaty and purchased land. America did not just rule these lands but assimilated and settled them. The foreign cultures (Indian, Spanish and French) that existed in those places were throughly displaced by Anglo American culture.

Russia did something similar, expanding further East with each year. They however have not as throughly Russianized those territories with the same thoroughness that we did Americanizing our acquired territories. The British also anglicized North America and Australia but in the end could not keep them. Still they get honorable mention as a nation who’s culture is at the very base of a large portion of the globe. They also are the parent nation of the United States.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by WarThunder21

Considering the situation in the middle east, and other occupations around the world in spots such as Vietnam, and meddling with South American countries toppling their governments. Do you believe our country is imperialist?

I believe America has been imperialist several times in the past, but is not imperialist now.

The reason why imperialism came and went is the same answer as above; we were never united in our imperialist desires. That lack of unity made us perpetually bad at it.

The best imperialists always chose the territory they wanted for themselves, planned only one war, just enough war to take it, and then had effective plans on how to hold what they took with no need for further warfare.

The Romans were probably the best imperialists of all, and whenever their Emperor or their Senate decided to take over some new territory, like France for example, everything was fully planned in advance. All the plans were intentionally permanent.
The very first thing the Romans did was to ensure their supply lines would never fail and supply would never be interrupted. That meant the construction of good roads that were built as closet the target as possible, even if it took years to build them.

Any Roman citizen who led his legion into France never expected to come home again. His mission was to stay in the conquered territory for the rest of his life, marry a local girl and grow wealthy on the spoils of war and whatever he could take and hold.
His legion was the same. They were to stay in France for the rest of their lives, marry the locals, and protect their leader and all Roman interests that would follow.

The roads that were built for invasion then were turned in purpose to supply Rome with part of the conquered wealth of France. Wine was one of the important items, and the Romans sentRo their new French territory grain and metals and glass in return.

The Romans always made it a 2-way street that served both the conquered and the conqueror. France never put up much of a fight because Rome offered the French better lives and no higher cost than what serving the local chieftain claimed, but with much more in return.

A good deal was what Rome offered. If their offer was rejected, as it was in Palestine, the Romans did everything they could to negotiate a good outcome. If none was accepted, it was only then that the legions were sent in to crush and destroy the opposition, and destruction was as total as the Romans could make it.

And then they left, never to return, leaving the locals in crushing poverty for centuries. The steel fist was always cushioned in a thick velvet glove.

We were never able to figure all that out, mostly because America is an impatient nation that has never been able to make a plan to last longer than the next election. All we ever try to make is another America, so we always rely on happenstance and passing fancy, just like we built our nation.

[Salty Water]

Originally Posted by WarThunder21

Considering the situation in the middle east, and other occupations around the world in spots such as Vietnam, and meddling with South American countries toppling their governments. Do you believe our country is imperialist?

Obviously not, and if you do, you are clueless.

[Bitey]

The problem is we can't make up our mind about whether we want to be an empire or not, hence our schizophrenic foreign policy. We don't have the patience for being the world's preeminent imperial power but we're afraid of what will fill the vacuum if we're not. So we wade back and forth between expanding and contracting our hegemonic reach as soon as we get uncomfortable with the results of whichever phase we're in at the moment.

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

It is still not as impressive as the British Empire, Spanish Colonial or even the Mongol, and Ummayad Caliphate in terms of sere size.

That's because the nature and purpose of Pax Americana is fundamentally different than conquest/colonial empires of the past.

[ReineDeCoeur]

Yes.