American imperialism
History of U.S. expansion and influence |
---|
|
American imperialism is the expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media, and military influence beyond the boundaries of the United States of America. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; gunboat diplomacy; unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions; regime change; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed by diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened.[1][2]
The policies perpetuating American imperialism and expansionism are usually considered to have begun with "New Imperialism" in the late 19th century,[3] though some consider American territorial expansion and settler colonialism at the expense of Indigenous Americans to be similar enough in nature to be identified with the same term.[4] While the United States has never officially identified itself and its territorial possessions as an empire, some commentators have referred to the country as such, including Max Boot, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Niall Ferguson.[5] Other commentators have accused the United States of practicing neocolonialism—sometimes defined as a modern form of hegemony—which leverages economic power rather than military force in an informal empire; the term "neocolonialism" has occasionally been used as a contemporary synonym for modern-day imperialism.
The question of whether the United States should intervene in the affairs of foreign countries has been a much-debated topic in domestic politics for the country's entire history. Opponents of interventionism have pointed to the country's origin as a former colony that rebelled against an overseas king, as well as the American values of democracy, freedom, and independence. Conversely, supporters of interventionism and of American presidents who have been labelled as “imperialists” — most notably are Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft — have justified their interventions in (or whole seizures of) various countries by citing the necessity of advancing American economic interests, such as trade and debt management; preventing European intervention (colonial or otherwise) in the Western Hemisphere, manifested in the anti-European Monroe Doctrine of 1823; and the benefits of keeping "good order" around the world.
History
Overview
Despite periods of peaceful co-existence, wars with Native Americans resulted in substantial territorial gains for American colonists who were expanding into native land. Wars with the Native Americans continued intermittently after independence, and an ethnic cleansing campaign known as Indian removal gained for European American settlers more valuable territory on the eastern side of the continent.
George Washington began a policy of United States non-interventionism which lasted into the 1800s. The United States promulgated the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, in order to stop further European colonialism and to allow the American colonies to grow further, but desire for territorial expansion to the Pacific Ocean was explicit in the doctrine of manifest destiny. The giant Louisiana Purchase was peaceful, but the Mexican–American War of 1846 resulted in the annexation of 525,000 square miles (1,360,000 km2) of Mexican territory.[6][7] Elements attempted to expand pro-U.S. republics or U.S. states in Mexico and Central America, the most notable being filibuster William Walker's Republic of Baja California in 1853 and his intervention in Nicaragua in 1855. Senator Sam Houston of Texas even proposed a resolution in the Senate for the "United States to declare and maintain an efficient protectorate over the States of Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and San Salvador." The idea of U.S. expansion into Mexico and the Caribbean was popular among politicians of the slave states, and also among some business tycoons in the Nicarauguan Transit (the semi-overland and main trade route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans before the Panama Canal). President Ulysses S. Grant attempted to annex the Dominican Republic in 1870, but failed to get the support of the Senate.
Non-interventionism was wholly abandoned with the
The
Many saw the post-Cold War 1990–1991
In terms of territorial acquisition, the United States has integrated (with voting rights) all of its acquisitions on the North American continent, including the non-contiguous
1700s–1800s: Indigenous American Wars and manifest destiny
Yale historian
A national drive for territorial acquisition across the continent was popularized in the 19th century as the ideology of manifest destiny.
Following the American victory over Mexico, colonization and settlement of California would begin which would soon lead to the California genocide. Estimates of total deaths in the genocide vary greatly from 2,000[22] to 100,000 dead.[23] The discovery of Gold in California resulted in an influx of settlers, who formed militias to kill and displace Indigenous peoples.[24] The government of California supported expansion and settlement through the passage of the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians which legalized the enslavement of Native Americans and allowed settlers to capture and force them into labor.[25][26] California further offered and paid bounties for the killing of Native Americans.[27]
American expansion in the Great Plains resulted in conflict between many tribes West of the Mississippi and the United States. In 1851, the
Following the victory of
In the South-West, various settlements and communities had been established thanks to profits from the
President James Monroe presented his famous doctrine for the western hemisphere in 1823. Historians have observed that while the Monroe Doctrine contained a commitment to resist colonialism from Europe, it had some aggressive implications for American policy, since there were no limitations on the US's actions mentioned within it. Historian Jay Sexton notes that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were modeled after those employed by European imperial powers during the 17th and 18th centuries.[35] From the left historian William Appleman Williams described it as "imperial anti-colonialism."[36]
The Indian Wars against the indigenous peoples of the Americas began in the colonial era. Their escalation under the federal republic allowed the US to dominate North America and carve out the 48 contiguous states. This can be considered to be an explicitly colonial process in light of arguments that Native American nations were sovereign entities prior to annexation.[37] Their sovereignty was systematically undermined by US state policy (usually involving unequal or broken treaties) and white settler-colonialism.[38] Furthermore, following the Dawes Act of 1887 native american systems of land tenure and communal ownership were ended, in favour of private property and capitalism.[39] This resulted in the loss of around 100 Million acres of land from 1887 to 1934.
Early 1800s: African colonization
Starting in 1820, the American Colonization Society began subsidizing free black people to colonize the west coast of Africa. In 1822, it declared the colony of Liberia, which became independent in 1847. By 1857, Liberia had merged with other colonies formed by state societies, including the Republic of Maryland, Mississippi-in-Africa, and Kentucky in Africa.
1800s: Filibustering in Central America
In the older historiography William Walker's filibustering represented the high tide of antebellum American imperialism. His brief seizure of Nicaragua in 1855 is typically called a representative expression of Manifest destiny with the added factor of trying to expand slavery into Central America. Walker failed in all his escapades and never had official U.S. backing. Historian Michel Gobat, however, presents a strongly revisionist interpretation. He argues that Walker was invited in by Nicaraguan liberals who were trying to force economic modernization and political liberalism. Walker's government comprised those liberals, as well as Yankee colonizers, and European radicals. Walker even included some local Catholics as well as indigenous peoples, Cuban revolutionaries, and local peasants. His coalition was much too complex and diverse to survive long, but it was not the attempted projection of American power, concludes Gobat.[40]
1800s–1900s: New Imperialism and "The White Man's Burden"
A variety of factors converged during the "
- The prevalence of overt racism, notably John Fiske's conception of "Anglo-Saxon" racial superiority and Josiah Strong's call to "civilize and Christianize," – were manifestations of a growing Social Darwinism and racism in some schools of American political thought.[42][43][44]
- Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish–American War[45] and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one."[46][47][48]
Roosevelt claimed that he rejected imperialism, but he embraced the near-identical doctrine of expansionism.[49] When Rudyard Kipling wrote the imperialist poem "The White Man's Burden" for Roosevelt, the politician told colleagues that it was "rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view."[50] Roosevelt proclaimed his own corollary to the Monroe Doctrine as justification,[51] although his ambitions extended even further, into the Far East. Scholars have noted the resemblance between U.S. policies in the Philippines and European actions in their colonies in Asia and Africa during this period.[52]
Industry and trade were two of the most prevalent justifications of imperialism.
American rule of ceded Spanish territory was not uncontested. The Philippine Revolution had begun in August 1896 against Spain, and after the defeat of Spain in the Battle of Manila Bay, began again in earnest, culminating in the Philippine Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the First Philippine Republic. The Philippine–American War ensued, with extensive damage and death, ultimately resulting in the defeat of the Philippine Republic.[55][56][57]
The United States' interests in Hawaii began in the 1800s with the United States becoming concerned that Great Britain or France might have colonial ambitions on the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1849 the United States and The Kingdom of Hawaii signed a treaty of friendship removing any colonial ambitions Great Britain or France might have had. In 1885, King David Kalākaua, last king of Hawaii, signed a trade reciprocity treaty with the United States allowing for tariff free trade of sugar to the United States. The treaty was renewed in 1887 and with it came the overrunning of Hawaiian politics by rich, white, plantation owners. On July 6, 1887, the Hawaiian League, a non-native political group, threatened the king and forced him to sign a new constitution stripping him of much of his power. King Kalākaua would die in 1891 and be succeeded by his sister Lili'uokalani. In 1893 with support from marines from the USS Boston Queen Lili'uokalani would be deposed in a bloodless coup. Hawaii has been under US control ever since and became the 50th US state on August 21, 1959 in a joint resolution with Alaska.
The maximum geographical extension of American direct political and military control happened in the aftermath of World War II, in the period after the surrender and occupations of Germany and Austria in May and later Japan and Korea in September 1945 and before the independence of the Philippines in July 1946.[58]
The Philippines is sometimes cited as an example. After Philippine independence, the US continued to direct the country through Central Intelligence Agency operatives like Edward Lansdale. As Raymond Bonner and other historians note, Lansdale controlled the career of President Ramon Magsaysay, going so far as to physically beat him when the Philippine leader attempted to reject a speech the CIA had written for him. American agents also drugged sitting President Elpidio Quirino and prepared to assassinate Senator Claro Recto.[61][62] Prominent Filipino historian Roland G. Simbulan has called the CIA "US imperialism's clandestine apparatus in the Philippines".[63]
The U.S. retained dozens of military bases, including a few major ones. In addition, Philippine independence was qualified by legislation passed by the
1918: Wilsonian intervention
When World War I broke out in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson promised American neutrality throughout the war. This promise was broken when the United States entered the war after the Zimmermann Telegram. This was "a war for empire" to control vast raw materials in Africa and other colonized areas, according to the contemporary historian and civil rights leader W. E. B. Du Bois.[66] More recently historian Howard Zinn argues that Wilson entered the war in order to open international markets to surplus US production. He quotes Wilson's own declaration that
Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process... the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down.
In a memo to Secretary of State Bryan, the president described his aim as "an open door to the world".[67] Lloyd Gardner notes that Wilson's original avoidance of world war was not motivated by anti-imperialism; his fear was that "white civilization and its domination in the world" were threatened by "the great white nations" destroying each other in endless battle.[68]
Despite President Wilson's official doctrine of moral diplomacy seeking to "make the world safe for democracy," some of his activities at the time can be viewed as imperialism to stop the advance of democracy in countries such as Haiti.[69] The United States invaded Haiti on July 28, 1915, and American rule continued until August 1, 1934. The historian Mary Renda in her book, Taking Haiti, talks about the American invasion of Haiti to bring about political stability through U.S. control. The American government did not believe Haiti was ready for self-government or democracy, according to Renda. In order to bring about political stability in Haiti, the United States secured control and integrated the country into the international capitalist economy, while preventing Haiti from practicing self-governance or democracy. While Haiti had been running their own government for many years before American intervention, the U.S. government regarded Haiti as unfit for self-rule. In order to convince the American public of the justice in intervening, the United States government used paternalist propaganda, depicting the Haitian political process as uncivilized. The Haitian government would come to agree to U.S. terms, including American overseeing of the Haitian economy. This direct supervision of the Haitian economy would reinforce U.S. propaganda and further entrench the perception of Haitians' being incompetent of self-governance.[70]
In World War I, the US, Britain, and Russia had been allies for seven months, from April 1917 until the
Tensions between Russia (including its allies) and the West turned intensely ideological. Horrified by mass executions of White forces, land expropriations, and widespread repression, the Allied military expedition now
Wilson launched seven armed interventions, more than any other president.[78] Looking back on the Wilson era, General Smedley Butler, a leader of the Haiti expedition and the highest-decorated Marine of that time, considered virtually all of the operations to have been economically motivated.[79] In a 1933 speech he said:
I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it...I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street ... Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.[80]
1920s–1930s: American Imperialism Between Wars
America Entering the Middle East
Following World War I, the British maintained occupation of the Middle East, most notably Turkey and portions of formerly Ottoman territory following the empire's collapse.[81] The occupation led to rapid industrialization, which resulted in the discovery of crude oil in Persia in 1908, sparking a boom in the Middle Eastern economy.[82] The oil industry of the United States began to grow following World War I, causing an increased desire to enter the Middle East. In 1919, US oil companies from New York and New Jersey tried to enter the Mesopotamia-Palestine region but were barred by the San Remo Resolution, a League of Nations agreement that divided up majority claims of Middle Eastern oil between France and Britain. The following year, the US State Department challenged the resolution using the Open Door Policy, allowing more American oil companies to enter the Middle East. The British resisted the United States' entry into the Middle East but opened the Turkish oil trade to the US to mitigate competition in 1928.
By the 1930s, the United States had cemented itself in the Middle East via a series of acquisitions through the
It was clear to the US that further expansion in Middle Eastern oil would not be possible without diplomatic representation. In 1939, CASOC appealed to the US State Department about increasing political relations with Saudi Arabia. This appeal was ignored until Germany and Japan made similar attempts following the start of World War II.[81] GRO's influence in the Middle East continued to grow throughout the 1940s, following the United States' entry into WWII and their protection of Saudi Arabian oil.
1941–1945: World War II
At the start of World War II, the US had multiple territories in the Pacific. The majority of these territories were military bases like Midway, Guam, Wake Island and Hawaii. Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was what ended up bringing the United States into the war. Japan also launched multiple attacks on other American Territories like Guam and Wake Island. By early 1942 Japan also was able to take over the Philippine islands. At the end of the Philippine island campaign the general MacArthur stated "I came through and I shall return" in response to the Americans losing the island to the Japanese.[83] The loss of American territories ended the decisive Battle of Midway. The Battle of Midway was the American offensive to stop Midway Island from falling into Japanese control. This led to the pushback of American forces and the recapturing of American territories. There were many battles that were fought against the Japanese which retook both allied territory as well as took over Japanese territories. In October 1944 American started their plan to retake the Philippine islands. Japanese troops on the island ended up surrendering in August 1945. After the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945, the United States occupied and reformed Japan up until 1952. The United States granted the Philippines independence on July 4, 1946.
The Grand Area
In an October 1940 report to Franklin Roosevelt, Bowman wrote that "the US government is interested in any solution anywhere in the world that affects American trade. In a wide sense, commerce is the mother of all wars." In 1942 this economic globalism was articulated as the "Grand Area" concept in secret documents. The US would have to have control over the "Western Hemisphere, Continental Europe and Mediterranean Basin (excluding Russia), the Pacific Area and the Far East, and the British Empire (excluding Canada)." The Grand Area encompassed all known major oil-bearing areas outside the Soviet Union, largely at the behest of corporate partners like the Foreign Oil Committee and the Petroleum Industry War Council.[84] The US thus avoided overt territorial acquisition, like that of the European colonial empires, as being too costly, choosing the cheaper option of forcing countries to open their door to American business interests.[85]
Although the United States was the last major belligerent to join the
This vision of empire assumed the necessity of the US to "police the world" in the aftermath of the war. This was not done primarily out of altruism, but out of economic interest.
Better than the American Century or the Pax Americana, the notion of an American Lebensraum captures the specific and global historical geography of U.S. ascension to power. After World War II, global power would no longer be measured in terms of colonized land or power over territory. Rather, global power was measured in directly economic terms. Trade and markets now figured as the economic nexuses of global power, a shift confirmed in the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, which not only inaugurated an international currency system but also established two central banking institutions—the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—to oversee the global economy. These represented the first planks of the economic infrastructure of the postwar American Lebensraum.[87]
1947–1952: Cold War in Western Europe: "Empire by invitation"
Prior to his death in 1945, President Roosevelt was planning to withdraw all U.S. forces from Europe as soon as possible. Soviet actions in Poland and Czechoslovakia led his successor Harry Truman to reconsider. Heavily influenced by
A second equally important consideration was the need to restore the world economy, which required the rebuilding and reorganizing of Europe for growth. This matter, more than the Soviet threat, was the main impetus behind the Marshall Plan of 1948.
A third factor was the realization, especially by Britain and the three Benelux nations, that American military involvement was needed.[clarification needed] Geir Lundestad has commented on the importance of "the eagerness with which America's friendship was sought and its leadership welcomed.... In Western Europe, America built an empire 'by invitation'"[88]
At the same time, the U.S. interfered in Italian and French politics in order to purge elected communist officials who might oppose such invitations.[89] Eventually the United States would develop Operation Gladio across multiple nations in Europe. This would see US support provided to far-right organisations in Italy and Turkey during the Years of Lead (Italy) and the period of Political violence in Turkey (1976–1980) as part of Counter-Guerrilla.
1950–1959: Cold War outside Europe
The end of the Second World War and start of the Cold War saw increased US interest in Latin America. Since the Guatemalan Revolution, Guatemala saw the expansion of labour rights and land reforms which granted property to landless peasants.[90] Lobbying by the United Fruit Company, whose profits were affected by these policies, as well as fear of Communist influence in Guatemala culminated in the USA supporting Operation PBFortune to overthrow Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz in 1952. The plan involved providing weapons to the exiled Guatemalan military officer Carlos Castillo Armas, who was to lead an invasion from Nicaragua.[91] This culminated in the
On the March 15, 1951 the Iranian parliament, passed legislation that was proposed by
In late 1952, with Mosaddegh remaining in power, the CIA launched
In 1958, the
Post-1954: Korea, Vietnam, and "imperial internationalism"
Outside of Europe, American imperialism was more distinctly hierarchical "with much fainter liberal characteristics." Cold War policy often found itself opposed to full decolonization, especially in Asia. The United States' decision to colonize some of the Pacific islands (which had formerly been held by the Japanese) in the 1940s ran directly counter to America's rhetoric against imperialism. General Douglas MacArthur described the Pacific as an "Anglo-Saxon lake." At the same time, the U.S. did not claim state control over much mainland territory but cultivated friendly members of the elites of decolonized countries—elites which were often dictatorial, as in South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, and South Vietnam.
In Korea, the U.S. occupied the Southern half of the peninsula in 1945 and dissolved the Socialist People's Republic of Korea. After which, the USA quickly allied with Syngman Rhee, leader of the fight against the People's Republic of Korea that proclaimed a provisional government. There was a lot of opposition to the division of Korea, including rebellions by communists such as the Jeju uprising in 1948 and further Communist partisans in the Korean War. The Jeju Uprising was violently suppressed and led to the deaths of 30,000 people, the majority of them civilians. North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950, starting the Korean War.[103][104] With National Security Council document 68 and the subsequent Korean War, the U.S. adopted a policy of "rollback" against communism in Asia. John Tirman, an American political theorist has claimed that this policy was heavily influenced by America's imperialistic policy in Asia in the 19th century, with its goals to Christianize and Americanize the peasant masses.[105] In the following conflict, the USA oversaw a large bombing campaign over North Korea. A total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, were dropped on Korea.[106]
The Vietnam War also saw expansion of conflict into neighbouring Laos and Cambodia. Both of which saw extensive bombing campaigns under Operation Barrel Roll, which made Laos "the most heavily bombed nation in history",[110] and Operation Menu and Operation Freedom Deal.
After the deaths of six generals in the Indonesian Army, which Suharto blamed on the Communist Party of Indonesia and a failed coup attempt by the 30 September Movement, an Anti-Communist purge began across the country led by Suharto and the army. The subsequent killings resulted in the deaths of up to 1,000,000 people. Though some estimates claim a death toll of 2 or 3 Million. Ethnic Chinese, trade unionists, teachers, activists, artists, ethnic Javanese Abangan, ethnic Chinese, atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and alleged leftists were also among targeted groups in the killings. Geoffrey B. Robinson, professor of history at
According to a US Congressional Report, 80 percent of U.S. military interventions after 1946 took place after the fall of the USSR.[115]
1970–1989: Operation Condor and Latin America
From 1968 until 1989, the United States of America supported a campaign of
In 1970, Salvador Allende of the Socialist Party of Chile won election against the independent Jorge Alessandri and Christian Democrat Radomiro Tomic. After the inauguration, there was a period of social and political unrest between the Congress of Chile, which was dominated by right-wing parties, and the Chilean left. Economic warfare was waged by Washington. U.S. President Richard Nixon had promised to "prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him" via damaging the Chilean economy.[119]
On 11 September 1973, President Allende was
Before the coup, more than 300 Chilean and foreign companies had been nationalized without payment by the Allende government. Among these companies, about 40 had American investment.[123] By October 1973 Crown Cork and Seal Company was returned to its former management, and within the first two weeks of the coup most companies that had been nationalized were placed back into the hands of their former private managers.
In a
1990 Onward: War on Terror and Action in the Middle East
In 1990, Iraq under the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Despite reported statements by then US Ambassador, April Glaspie that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America", the USA following condemnation of Iraq by the United Nations, prepared for military action in the Gulf. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that Saddam approached the U.S. to find out how it would react to an invasion into Kuwait. They argued that Glaspie's comment that "'[W]e have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait' and that the U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had 'no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' Resulted in the USA effectively giving Iraq a green light.[128]
The subsequent Gulf War saw no further fighting for over five months after Iraq annexed Kuwait. During this interim period there was a build-up of American, French and British troops in Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile a series of United Nations resolutions first demanded an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, then imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, and finally set a deadline for Iraqi withdrawal pending military action. 3,664 Iraqi civilians were killed during the war[129] with up to 1,500 of whom died in the Amiriyah shelter bombing. Overall civilian fatalities in Iraq caused by damage to infrastructure and access to food and water due to United States bombing campaigns reached 100,000. Another source of controversy within the Gulf War was the Highway of Death. During the American-led coalition offensive in the war, American, Canadian, British and French aircraft and ground forces attacked retreating Iraqi military personnel attempting to leave Kuwait on the night of February 26–27, 1991 in compliance with the original UN Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990, and that the column included Kuwaiti hostages and refugees[130] Former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark argued that these attacks violated the Third Geneva Convention, Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat".[131]
Professor George Klay Kieh Jr. argued that part of the motivation for the Gulf War was derived from a desire to distract from the various crisis' in America at the time, such as the Keating Five, national debt rising to $3 Trillion, an increasing trade deficit, unemployment, rising crime and growing wealth inequality.[132] He also argued that other very significant motivating factors for the war were strategic factors, such as a fear of subsequent invasion of Saudi Arabia and other Pro-American monarchies in Arabia.[133] Iraqi control over the Gulf region was also feared to harm access to the United States to a major corridor of international trade. Professor Kieh also argued for various economic factors behind the invasion. The Bush Administration calculated that Iraq's annexation of Kuwait would result in it controlling up to 45% of global oil production[133] and since major banks such as Bank of America had significant stakes in the oil industry (various Gulf states saved more than $75 Billion in American banks), there were fears of a potential economic crisis due to the annexation.[134]
In 2003, the United States under the leadership of
American companies benefited from the war in Iraq. Indicted defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes was reported to be ecstatic when hearing that the United States was going to go to war with Iraq. "He and some of his top executives were really gung-ho about the war," said a former employee. "Brent said this would create new opportunities for the company. He was really excited about doing business in the Middle East."[138] One of the top profiteers from the Iraq War was oil field services corporation, Halliburton. Halliburton gained $39.5 billion in "federal contracts related to the Iraq war".[139] Furthermore, of the $14 Trillion spent by the Pentagon after the start of the War on Terror, between a third and a half went to defence contractors.[140] By 2013, contractors in Iraq had reaped $130 Billion in profits.[141]
The invasion of Iraq and subsequent Coalition Provisional Authority began to dismantle Iraq's Centrally Planned Economy. Paul Bremer, chief executive the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq, planned to restructure Iraq's state owned economy with free market thinking. Bremer dropped the
Also controversial was
Access to Iraqi oil has been credited as a significant motivating factor behind the war, with Iraq claiming that $150 Billion of oil was stolen from Iraq after the war.
In 2001, following
Private military contractors gained significant profits from the war in Afghanistan. By 2020, the United States had 22,562 contract personnel in Afghanistan which was almost twice the number of American troops.[152]
In 2011, as part of the wider Arab Spring, protests erupted in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi, which soon spiralled into a civil war. In the ensuing conflict, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. While the effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, command was shared with the United States, as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. According to the Libyan Health Ministry, the attacks saw 114 civilians killed and 445 civilians wounded.[153]
Scholars like Matteo Capasso have argued that the intervention was the final conclusion in a wider war on Libya since the 1970s via 'gunboat diplomacy, military bombings, international sanctions and arbitrary use of international law'.[154] Capasso argued that the war in Libya acted to strip Libya of its autonomy and resources and the 'overall weakening and fragmentation of the African and Arab political position, and the cheapening and/or direct annihilation of human lives in Third World countries'.[155]
American exceptionalism
American exceptionalism is the notion that the United States occupies a special position among the nations of the world[156] in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, and political and religious institutions and origins.
Philosopher Douglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionalism as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th-century French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who concluded by agreeing that the U.S., uniquely, was "proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived".[157]
As a Monthly Review editorial opines on the phenomenon, "In Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent 'white man's burden.' And in the United States, empire does not even exist; 'we' are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy and justice worldwide."[158]
Views of American imperialism
A conservative, anti-interventionist view as expressed by American journalist John T. Flynn:
The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.[159]
A "
A theory of "super-imperialism" argues that imperialistic U.S. policies are not driven solely by the interests of American businesses, but also by the interests of a larger apparatus of a global alliance among the economic elite in developed countries. The argument asserts that
American Expansion through Artistic Expression
America's imperial mission was the subject of much critique and praise to the contemporary American, and this is evident through the art and media which emerged in the 1800s as a result of this expansion. The disparities in the art produced in this period show the differences in public opinion, thus allowing us to identify how different social spheres responded to America's imperial endeavors.
The Hudson River School, a romantic-inspired art movement which emerged in 1826 at the height of nineteenth-century American expansion depicted sublime landscapes and grand natural scenes. These paintings which admired the marvels of unexplored American territory emphasized this idea of America as a promised land.[165] Common themes explored among paintings within the Hudson River School include: discovery; exploration; settlement and promise.
These themes were recurrent in other displays of artistic expression at this time. John Gast, famously known for his 1872 painting titled American Progress similarly displays themes of discovery and the hopeful prospects of American expansion.[166] Notions of manifest destiny is also emulated in art created in this time, with art often used to justify this belief that the White Man was inevitably destined to spread across the American continent.[167]
Political debate after September 11, 2001
Following the
On October 15, 2001, the cover of
Academic debates after September 11, 2001
In 2001–2010, numerous scholars debated the "America as Empire" issue.[172] Harvard historian Charles S. Maier states:
Since September 11, 2001 ... if not earlier, the idea of American empire is back ... Now ... for the first time since the early Twentieth century, it has become acceptable to ask whether the United States has become or is becoming an empire in some classic sense."[173]
Harvard professor Niall Ferguson states:
It used to be that only the critics of American foreign policy referred to the American empire ... In the past three or four years [2001–2004], however, a growing number of commentators have begun to use the term American empire less pejoratively, if still ambivalently, and in some cases with genuine enthusiasm.[174]
French political scientist Philip Golub argues:
U.S. historians have generally considered the late 19th century imperialist urge as an aberration in an otherwise smooth democratic trajectory ... Yet a century later, as the U.S. empire engages in a new period of global expansion, Rome is once more a distant but essential mirror for American elites ... Now, with military mobilisation on an exceptional scale after September 2001, the United States is openly affirming and parading its imperial power. For the first time since the 1890s, the naked display of force is backed by explicitly imperialist discourse.[175]
A leading spokesman for America-as-Empire is British historian A. G. Hopkins.[176] He argues that by the 21st century traditional economic imperialism was no longer in play, noting that the oil companies opposed the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Instead, anxieties about the negative impact of globalization on rural and rust-belt America were at work, says Hopkins:
These anxieties prepared the way for a conservative revival based on family, faith and flag that enabled the neo-conservatives to transform conservative patriotism into assertive nationalism after 9/11. In the short term, the invasion of Iraq was a manifestation of national unity. Placed in a longer perspective, it reveals a growing divergence between new globalised interests, which rely on cross-border negotiation, and insular nationalist interests, which seek to rebuild fortress America.[177]
Harvard professor Niall Ferguson concludes that worldwide military and economic power have combined to make the U.S. the most powerful empire in history. It is a good idea he thinks, because like the successful British Empire in the 19th century it works to globalize free markets, enhance the rule of law and promote representative government. He fears, however, that Americans lack the long-term commitment in manpower and money to keep the Empire operating.[179]
The U.S. dollar is the de facto
Many – perhaps most – scholars[who?] have decided that the United States lacks the key essentials of an empire. For example, while there are American military bases around the world, the American soldiers do not rule over the local people, and the United States government does not send out governors or permanent settlers like all the historic empires did.[182] Harvard historian Charles S. Maier has examined the America-as-Empire issue at length. He says the traditional understanding of the word "empire" does not apply, because the United States does not exert formal control over other nations or engage in systematic conquest. The best term is that the United States is a "hegemon." Its enormous influence through high technology, economic power, and impact on popular culture gives it an international outreach that stands in sharp contrast to the inward direction of historic empires.[183][184]
World historian Anthony Pagden asks, Is the United States really an empire?
I think if we look at the history of the European empires, the answer must be no. It is often assumed that because America possesses the military capability to become an empire, any overseas interest it does have must necessarily be imperial. ...In a number of crucial respects, the United States is, indeed, very un-imperial.... America bears not the slightest resemblance to ancient Rome. Unlike all previous European empires, it has no significant overseas settler populations in any of its formal dependencies and no obvious desire to acquire any. ...It exercises no direct rule anywhere outside these areas, and it has always attempted to extricate itself as swiftly as possible from anything that looks as if it were about to develop into even indirect rule.[185]
In the book
Geographer
Classics professor and war historian Victor Davis Hanson dismisses the notion of an American Empire altogether, with a mocking comparison to historical empires: "We do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states, which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects to pay for the legions. Instead, American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly to us and profitable to their hosts. We do not see any profits in Korea, but instead accept the risk of losing almost 40,000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul."[197]
The existence of "proconsuls", however, has been recognized by many since the early Cold War. In 1957, French Historian
Harvard professor Niall Ferguson calls
Another distinction of Victor Davis Hanson—that US bases, contrary to the legions, are costly to America and profitable for their hosts—expresses the American view. The hosts express a diametrically opposite view. Japan pays for 25,000 Japanese working on US bases. 20% of those workers provide entertainment: a list drawn up by the Japanese Ministry of Defense included 76 bartenders, 48 vending machine personnel, 47 golf course maintenance personnel, 25 club managers, 20 commercial artists, 9 leisure-boat operators, 6 theater directors, 5 cake decorators, 4 bowling alley clerks, 3 tour guides and 1 animal caretaker. Shu Watanabe of the Democratic Party of Japan asks: "Why does Japan need to pay the costs for US service members' entertainment on their holidays?"[206] One research on host nations support concludes:
At an alliance-level analysis, case studies of South Korea and Japan show that the necessity of the alliance relationship with the U.S. and their relative capabilities to achieve security purposes lead them to increase the size of direct economic investment to support the U.S. forces stationed in their territories, as well as to facilitate the US global defense posture. In addition, these two countries have increased their political and economic contribution to the U.S.-led military operations beyond the geographic scope of the alliance in the post-Cold War period ... Behavioral changes among the U.S. allies in response to demands for sharing alliance burdens directly indicate the changed nature of unipolar alliances. In order to maintain its power preponderance and primacy, the unipole has imposed greater pressure on its allies to devote much of their resources and energy to contributing to its global defense posture ... [It] is expected that the systemic properties of unipolarity–non-structural threat and a power preponderance of the unipole–gradually increase the political and economic burdens of the allies in need of maintaining alliance relationships with the unipole.[207]
Increasing the "economic burdens of the allies" was one of the major priorities of former President Donald Trump.[208][209][210][211] Classicist Eric Adler notes that Hanson earlier had written about the decline of the classical studies in the United States and insufficient attention devoted to the classical experience. "When writing about American foreign policy for a lay audience, however, Hanson himself chose to castigate Roman imperialism in order to portray the modern United States as different from—and superior to—the Roman state."[212] As a supporter of a hawkish unilateral American foreign policy, Hanson's "distinctly negative view of Roman imperialism is particularly noteworthy, since it demonstrates the importance a contemporary supporter of a hawkish American foreign policy places on criticizing Rome."[212]
Role of Gender in American Imperialism
Within the United States, women played a crucial role in advocating for American imperialism. Women's organisations and prominent figures actively supported and promoted the expansion of American influence overseas and saw imperialism as an opportunity to extend American values, culture, and civilization to other nations. These women believed in the superiority of American ideals and saw it as their duty to uplift and educate what they often perceived as 'lesser' peoples. By endorsing imperialist policies, women aimed to spread democracy, Christianity, and Western progress to territories beyond American borders: their domestic advocacy created a narrative that framed imperialism as a mission of benevolence, wherein the United States had a responsibility to guide and shape the destiny of other nations.[213]
During the era of American imperialism, women played a significant role in missionary work. Missionary societies sent women to various parts of the world, particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, with the aim of spreading Christianity and Western values. These women saw themselves as agents of cultural and religious transformation, seeking to "civilize" and "Christianize" indigenous populations. Their missionary efforts involved establishing schools, churches, hospitals, and orphanages in imperial territories; through these institutions, women aimed to improve the lives of local people, provide education, healthcare, and social services. Their work intertwined religious and imperialistic motives, as they believed that the spread of Christianity and Western values would uplift and transform the "heathen" populations they encountered.[214]
Women played a crucial role in educational and social reform initiatives within imperial territories during the era of American imperialism. They established schools, hospitals, and orphanages, aiming to improve the lives of indigenous populations – initiatives reflecting a belief in the superiority of Western values and a desire to assimilate native cultures into American norms. Women also sought to provide education, healthcare, and social services that aligned with American ideals of progress and civilisation, and by promoting Western education and introducing social reforms, they hoped to shape the lives and future of the people they encountered in imperial territories. These efforts often entailed the imposition of Western cultural norms, as women saw themselves as agents of transformation and viewed indigenous practices as in need of improvement and "upliftment".[215]
Women also played important roles as nurses and medical practitioners during the era of American imperialism. Particularly during the Spanish–American War and subsequent American occupations, women provided healthcare services to soldiers, both American and local, and worked to improve public health conditions in occupied territories. These women played a vital role in caring for the wounded, preventing the spread of diseases, and providing medical assistance to communities affected by the conflicts. Their work as nurses and medical practitioners contributed to the establishment of healthcare infrastructure and the improvement of public health in imperial territories. These women worked tirelessly in often challenging conditions, dedicating themselves to the well-being and recovery of those affected by the conflicts.[216]
While some women supported American imperialism, others actively participated in anti-imperialist movements and expressed opposition to expansionist policies. Women, including suffragettes and progressive activists, were critical of the imperialist practices of the United States. They challenged the notion that spreading democracy and civilization abroad could be achieved through the oppression and colonization of other peoples. These women believed in the principles of self-determination, sovereignty, and equality for all nations. They argued that true progress and justice could not be achieved through the subjugation of others, emphasising the need for cooperation and respect among nations. By raising their voices against imperialism, these women sought to promote a vision of global justice and equality.[217]
Ultimately women's activism played a significant role in challenging and shaping American imperialism. Throughout history, women activists have been at the forefront of anti-imperialist movements, questioning the motives and consequences of U.S. expansionism. Women's organisations and prominent figures raised their voices against the injustices of imperialism, advocating for peace, human rights, and the self-determination of colonised peoples. They criticized the exploitation and oppression inherent in imperialistic practices, highlighting the disproportionate impact on marginalised communities. Women activists collaborated across borders, forging transnational alliances to challenge American dominance and promote global solidarity. By engaging in social and political activism, women contributed to a more nuanced understanding of imperialism, exposing its complexities and fostering dialogue on the ethical implications of empire.
Moreover, sexuality and attitudes towards gender roles and behaviour played an important role in American expansionism. Regarding the war in Vietnam, the idea of American 'manliness' entered the conscience of those in support of ground involvement, pushing ideas of gender roles and that manly, American men shouldn't avoid conflict. These ideas of sexuality extended as far as President Johnson, who wanted to be presented as a 'hero statesman' to his people, highlighting further the affect of gender roles on both American domestic attitudes as well as foreign policy.[218]
U.S. foreign policy debate
This section may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (January 2014) |
Annexation is a crucial instrument in the expansion of a nation, due to the fact that once a territory is annexed it must act within the confines of its superior counterpart. The United States Congress' ability to annex a foreign territory is explained in a report from the Congressional Committee on Foreign Relations, "If, in the judgment of Congress, such a measure is supported by a safe and wise policy, or is based upon a natural duty that we owe to the people of Hawaii, or is necessary for our national development and security, that is enough to justify annexation, with the consent of the recognized government of the country to be annexed."[219]
Prior to annexing a territory, the American government still held immense power through the various legislations passed in the late 1800s. The Platt Amendment was utilized to prevent Cuba from entering into any agreement with foreign nations and also granted the Americans the right to build naval stations on their soil.[220] Executive officials in the American government began to determine themselves the supreme authority in matters regarding the recognition or restriction of independence.[220]
When asked on April 28, 2003, on Al Jazeera whether the United States was "empire building," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied, "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."[221]
However, historian Donald W. Meinig says imperial behavior by the United States dates at least to the Louisiana Purchase, which he describes as an "imperial acquisition—imperial in the sense of the aggressive encroachment of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien rule." The U.S. policies towards the Native Americans, he said, were "designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires."[222]
Writers and academics of the early 20th century, like
Andrew Bacevich argues that the U.S. did not fundamentally change its foreign policy after the Cold War, and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.[224] As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions, the future being "up for grabs," according to former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz in 1991.[225] Head of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University, Stephen Peter Rosen, maintains:
A political unit that has overwhelming superiority in military power, and uses that power to influence the internal behavior of other states, is called an empire. Because the United States does not seek to control territory or govern the overseas citizens of the empire, we are an indirect empire, to be sure, but an empire nonetheless. If this is correct, our goal is not combating a rival, but maintaining our imperial position and maintaining imperial order.[226]
In
Thorton wrote that "[...] imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."[228] Political theorist Michael Walzer argues that the term hegemony is better than empire to describe the U.S.'s role in the world.[229] Political scientist Robert Keohane agrees saying, a "balanced and nuanced analysis is not aided ... by the use of the word 'empire' to describe United States hegemony, since 'empire' obscures rather than illuminates the differences in form of governance between the United States and other Great Powers, such as Great Britain in the 19th century or the Soviet Union in the twentieth".[230]
Since 2001,
Other political scientists, such as Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, argue that neither term exclusively describes foreign relations of the United States. The U.S. can be, and has been, simultaneously an empire and a hegemonic power. They claim that the general trend in U.S. foreign relations has been away from imperial modes of control.[233]
American media and cultural imperialism
American imperialism has long had a media dimension (media imperialism) and cultural dimension (cultural imperialism).
In Mass Communication and American Empire, Herbert I. Schiller emphasized the significance of the mass media and cultural industry to American imperialism,[234] arguing that "each new electronic development widens the perimeter of American influence," and declaring that "American power, expressed industrially, militarily and culturally has become the most potent force on earth and communications have become a decisive element in the extension of United States world power."[235]
In Communication and Cultural Domination, Schiller presented the premier definition of cultural imperialism as
the sum processes by which a society is brought into the modern [U.S.-centered] world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even promote, the values and structures of the dominating centres of the system.[236]
In Schiller's formulation of the concept, cultural imperialism refers to the American Empire's "coercive and persuasive agencies, and their capacity to promote and universalize an American 'way of life' in other countries without any reciprocation of influence."[237] According to Schiller, cultural imperialism "pressured, forced and bribed" societies to integrate with the U.S.'s expansive capitalist model but also incorporated them with attraction and persuasion by winning "the mutual consent, even solicitation of the indigenous rulers."
Newer research on cultural imperialism sheds light on how the US national security state partners with media corporations to spread US foreign policy and military-promoting media goods around the world. In Hearts and Mines: The US Empire's Culture Industry, Tanner Mirrlees builds upon the work of Herbert I. Schiller to argue that the US government and media corporations pursue different interests on the world stage (the former, national security, and the latter, profit), but structural alliances and the synergistic relationships between them support the co-production and global flow of Empire-extolling cultural and entertainment goods.[238]
Some researchers argue that military and
... so influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct.[239]
International relations scholar David Rothkopf disagrees with the notion that cultural imperialism is an intentional political or military process, and instead argues that it is the innocent result of economic globalization, which allows access to numerous U.S. and Western ideas and products that many non-U.S. and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume.[240] In a similar analysis, Matthew Fraser argues that the American "soft power" and American global cultural influence is a good thing for other countries, and good for the world as a whole.[241] Tanner Mirrlees argues that the discourse of "soft power" used by Matthew Fraser and others to promote American global cultural influence represents an "apologia" for cultural imperialism, a way of rationalizing it (while denying it).[242]
Louis A. Perez Jr. provides an example of propaganda used during the war of 1898, "We are coming, Cuba, coming; we are bound to set you free! We are coming from the mountains, from the plains and inland sea! We are coming with the wrath of God to make the Spaniards flee! We are coming, Cuba, coming; coming now!"[220]
In contrast, many other countries with American brands have incorporated these into their own local culture. [non sequitur]An example of this would be the self-styled "Maccas," an Australian derivation of "McDonald's" with a tinge of Australian culture.[243]
U.S. military bases
Chalmers Johnson argued in 2004 that America's version of the colony is the military base.[247] Chip Pitts argued similarly in 2006 that enduring U.S. bases in Iraq suggested a vision of "Iraq as a colony."[248]
While territories such as
By 1970,[needs update] the United States had more than one million soldiers in 30 countries,[citation needed] was a member of four regional defense alliances and an active participant in a fifth, had mutual defense treaties with 42 nations, was a member of 53 international organizations, and was furnishing military or economic aid to nearly 100 nations across the face of the globe.[253] In 2015 the Department of Defense reported the number of bases that had any military or civilians stationed or employed was 587. This includes land only (where no facilities are present), facility or facilities only (where there the underlying land is neither owned nor controlled by the government), and land with facilities (where both are present).[254]
Also in 2015, David Vine's book Base Nation, found 800 U.S. military bases located outside of the U.S., including 174 bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea. The total cost was estimated at $100 billion a year.[255]
According to
Support
One of the earliest historians of American Empire, William Appleman Williams, wrote, "The routine lust for land, markets or security became justifications for noble rhetoric about prosperity, liberty and security."[257]
Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism, writing, "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing."[258] Boot used "imperialism" to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but "since at least 1803."[258][259] This embrace of empire is made by other neoconservatives, including British historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Steyn. It is also made by some liberal hawks, such as political scientists Zbigniew Brzezinski and Michael Ignatieff.[260]
Scottish-American historian Niall Ferguson argues that the United States is an empire and believes that this is a good thing: "What is not allowed is to say that the United States is an empire and that this might not be wholly bad."[261] Ferguson has drawn parallels between the British Empire and the global role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes the United States' political and social structures as more like those of the Roman Empire than of the British. Ferguson argues that all of these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but that the positive aspects of the U.S. empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects.[262]
Another point of view implies that United States expansion overseas has indeed been imperialistic, but that this imperialism is only a temporary phenomenon, a corruption of American ideals, or the relic of a past era. Historian Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that Spanish–American War expansionism was a short-lived imperialistic impulse and "a great aberration in American history," a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history.[263] Historian Walter LaFeber sees the Spanish–American War expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of United States expansion westward.[264]
Historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the U.S. does not pursue world domination, but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges.[197] On the other hand, Filipino revolutionary General Emilio Aguinaldo felt as though American involvement in the Philippines was destructive: "The Filipinos fighting for Liberty, the American people fighting them to give them liberty. The two peoples are fighting on parallel lines for the same object."[265] American influence worldwide and the effects it has on other nations have multiple interpretations.
International relations scholar Joseph Nye argues that U.S. power is more and more based on "soft power," which comes from cultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force. This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the United States, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at U.S. universities, and the spread of U.S. styles of popular music and cinema. Mass immigration into America may justify this theory, but it is hard to know whether the United States would still maintain its prestige without its military and economic superiority.,[266] In terms of soft power, Giles Scott-Smith, argues that American universities:[267]
- acted as magnets for attracting up-and-coming elites, who were keen to acquire the skills, qualifications and prestige that came with the 'Made in the USA' trademark. This is a subtle, long-term form of 'soft power' that has required only limited intervention by the US government to function successfully. It conforms to Samuel Huntington's view that American power rarely sought to acquire foreign territories, preferring instead to penetrate them — culturally, economically and politically — in such a way as to secure acquiescence for US interests.[268][269]
See also
- Americanization
- Anti-Americanism
- A People's History of American Empire – 2008 book by Howard Zinn, et al.
- Foreign interventions by the United States
- Manifest destiny
- Neocolonialism
- New Imperialism
- Territorial evolution of the United States
- Territories of the United States
- United States involvement in regime change
- United States involvement in regime change in Latin America
References
- ISBN 978-0-7876-3888-7.
- S2CID 248384134.
- ^ Bryne, Alex (30 March 2017). "Yes, the US has an empire – and in the Virgin Islands, it still does". The Conversation. Retrieved 2019-02-02.
- ISBN 978-1-84792-399-8.
- ^ Lindsay, Ivo H. Daalder and James M. (2001-11-30). "American Empire, Not 'If' but 'What Kind'".
- ^ ISBN 0-7453-2100-3.
- ^ JSTOR 1861842.
- ^ University, © Stanford; Stanford; California 94305 (2017-04-25). "Beyond Vietnam". The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. Retrieved 2019-05-09.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil". CNN. 19 March 2013. Retrieved 2019-05-08.
- ^ "US 'war on terror' has killed over half a million people: study". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2019-05-08.
- ^ "Decolonization and the Global Reach of the 'American Century' | US History II (American Yawp)". courses.lumenlearning.com. Retrieved 2019-04-29.
- ^ a b Emily Eakin "Ideas and Trends: All Roads Lead To DC" New York Times, March 31, 2002.
- ^ Contending with the American Empire : Introduction.
- ^ "Franklin's "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind... "". www.columbia.edu.
- ^ "Envisaging the West: Thomas Jefferson and the Roots of Lewis and Clark". jeffersonswest.unl.edu.
- ^ "Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond". chomsky.info.
- ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: Boston University (7 April 2010). "Noam Chomsky Lectures on Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond". Retrieved 20 February 2019 – via YouTube.
- ^ "Despite disagreements about Manifest Destiny's validity at the time, O'Sullivan had stumbled on a broadly held national sentiment. Although it became a rallying cry as well as a rationale for the foreign policy that reached its culmination in 1845–46, the attitude behind Manifest Destiny had long been a part of the American experience.""Manifest Destiny | History, Examples, & Significance". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-09-17.
- ^ Holton (1999), pp. 3–38, [1].
- S2CID 129757742.
- ISBN 9781851098538.
- ^ Nazaryan, Alexander (17 August 2016). "California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans". Newsweek Magazine. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
The foremost of these critics is Gary Clayton Anderson, a professor at the University of Oklahoma. Anderson insists that what happened to Native Americans during colonization was ethnic cleansing, not genocide. "If we get to the point where the mass murder of 50 Indians in California is considered genocide, then genocide has no more meaning," he says. Anderson tells me that, by his estimate, no more than 2,000 Native Americans were killed in California.
- ^ Castillo, Edward (1 June 2019). "SHORT OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA INDIAN HISTORY". Archived from the original on 1 June 2019. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ "The Gold Rush Impact on Native Tribes". PBS: The American Experience. Archived from the original on May 30, 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
- ISBN 978-0-19-921140-1. Archivedfrom the original on April 26, 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
- ^ "The Gold Rush: Act for the Government and Protection of Indians". PBS: The American Experience. Archived from the original on June 5, 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
- from the original on February 11, 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
- ^ Greene, 2004, p. 27
- ^ Brown, Dee (1971). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (PDF). p. 68.
- ^ Brown, Dee (1971). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (PDF). p. 177.
- ^ "The Fur Trade | Milwaukee Public Museum".
- ^ Brown, Dee (1971). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (PDF). p. 130.
- ^ Brown, Dee (1971). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (PDF). p. 131.
- ^ "Navajos [] were captured en route and sold off throughout New Mexico, Colorado, and northern Mexico." Reséndez, Andrés. The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America (p. 293). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.
- ISBN 9780190459871.
- ISBN 9781429929288.
- ISBN 978-0-292-77400-1.
- JSTOR 1887638.
- ISBN 9780765619846.
- ^ "A Thing Well Begun Is Half Done". Persuasive Maps: PJ Mode Collection. Cornell University.
- ^ Thomas Friedman, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", p. 381
- ^ Manfred Steger, "Globalism: The New Market Ideology"
- ^ Faux, Jeff (Fall 2005). "Flat Note from the Pied Piper of Globalization: Thomas L. Friedman's The World Is Flat". Dissent. pp. 64–67. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
- ^ Brands, Henry William. (1997). T.R.: The Last Romantic. New York: Basic Books. Reprinted 2001, full biography OCLC 36954615, ch 12
- PBS Online. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
- ^ "Transcript For "Crucible Of Empire"". Crucible of Empire—Timeline. PBS Online. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
- ^ Tilchin, William N. Theodore Roosevelt and the British Empire: A Study in Presidential Statecraft (1997)
- ISBN 978-1-5267-1205-9.
- ^ ""The White Man's Burden": Kipling's Hymn to U.S. Imperialism". historymatters.gmu.edu. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
- ^ "The roosevelt corollary – Imperialism". www.americanforeignrelations.com. Retrieved 2018-01-27.
- ISBN 9780807877173.
- ^ Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492–2001. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. Print.
- ISBN 9780451239181.
- ISBN 978-0-89608-275-5.
- ^ Secretary Root's Record: "Marked Severities" in Philippine Warfare, Wikisource (multiple mentions)
- ISBN 978-615-5505-13-3.
- ^ "Philippine Republic Day". www.gov.ph. Archived from the original on 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
- ISBN 030016193X.
- ^ Johnson, Chalmers, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000), pp. 72–79
- ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-01-24.
- ISBN 1558494642.
- ^ Simbulan, Roland G. (August 18, 2000). "Equipo Nizkor – Covert Operations and the CIA's Hidden History in the Philippines". www.derechos.org. Retrieved 2018-01-23. Lecture at the University of the Philippines-Manila, Rizal Hall, Padre Faura, Manila
- ^ "Commonwealth Act No. 733". Chan Robles Law Library. April 30, 1946.
- ISBN 0-8047-1139-9.
- ^ Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. p. 363
- ^ Zinn, pp. 359–376
- ISBN 9780190604035.
- ISBN 0801429366.
- ^ Renda, "Introduction," in Taking Haiti: Military Occupation & the Culture of U.S. Imperialism, 1915–1940, pp. 10–22, 29–34
- ISBN 9781317703457– via Google Books.
- ISBN 9780199880584– via Google Books.
- ^ Martin Sixsmith, "Fanny Kaplan's Attempt to Kill Lenin" in Was Revolution Inevitable?: Turning Points of the Russian Revolution, edited by Tony Brenton (Oxford University Press, 2017 ), pp. 185–192
- ^ Trickey, Erick. "The Forgotten Story of the American Troops Who Got Caught Up in the Russian Civil War". Smithsonian. Retrieved 2019-04-05.
- ISBN 9781849664387.
- ^ "The National Archives | Exhibitions & Learning online | First World War | Spotlights on history". www.nationalarchives.gov.uk.
- ^ Powaski, "The United States and the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1933", in The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991, pp. 5–34
- ISSN 1535-4768.
- ISBN 9780805095623.
- ^ "Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC". Federation of American Scientists. Archived from the original on 1998-05-24.
- ^ a b c Quinn, J. W. (2009). American imperialism in the Middle East: 1920-1950 (dissertation). Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.
- JSTOR 24711057.
- ^ fdrlibrary (2015-10-20). ""I Have Returned!" – General MacArthur and FDR". Forward with Roosevelt. Retrieved 2022-03-28.
- ^ George A. Gonzalez, Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the Empire of Capital (SUNY Press, 2009), p. 69-110
- ISBN 9781137272775 – via Google Books.[permanent dead link]
- ISBN 9780520243385– via Internet Archive.
grand opportunity.
- ISBN 9780520243385– via Internet Archive.
lebensraum.
- ISBN 9781596917606.
- S2CID 73345898.
- ^ Handy 1994, p. 4.
- ^ Moulton 2013, pp. 47–49.
- ^ Malkin, Elisabeth (16 May 2013). "Trial on Guatemalan Civil War Carnage Leaves Out U.S. Role". The New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2023.
The U.S. played a very powerful and direct role in the life of this institution, the army, that went on to commit genocide
- JSTOR 40401478. Retrieved 31 July 2023.
- ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (24 July 2017). "Newly Declassified Documents Confirm U.S. Backed 1953 Coup in Iran Over Oil Contracts" (Interview). Interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan González. Democracy Now!. Retrieved 24 July 2017.
- ^ Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, Mar. 1954: p. iii.
- ISBN 978-1-84511-347-6.
- ^ Risen, James (2000). "Secrets of History: The United States in Iran". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 25, 2013.
- ^ "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup". nsarchive2.gwu.edu. The National Security Archive. 19 August 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2023.
- ^ "FE479/FE479: Cuban Agriculture Before 1959: The Political and Economic Situations". edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
- ^ a b Hitchman, James (January 1970). "U. S. Control Over Cuban Sugar Production 1898-1902". Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs. 1: 97.
- ^ Office of the Historian, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–63, Volume X, Cuba, January 1961 – September 1962, "291. Program Review by the Chief of Operations, Operation Mongoose (Lansdale)," January 18, 1962, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10/d291 Archived October 12, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Office of the Historian, United States Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–63, Volume X, Cuba, January 1961 – September 1962, "291. Program Review by the Chief of Operations, Operation Mongoose (Lansdale)," January 18, 1962, pp. 711–17, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10/d291 Archived October 12, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
- ISBN 0-8050-6239-4.
- .
- ISBN 9780199831494.
- ^ Armstrong, Charles K. (20 December 2010). "The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950-1960" (PDF). The Asia-Pacific Journal. 8 (51): 1. Retrieved 13 September 2019.
- ISBN 978-0-89141-866-5.
- from the original on 2019-06-14. Retrieved 2020-06-15.
- ISBN 9781610694308.
- ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-07-12.
- ^ Robinson, Geoffrey (2018). The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massacres, 1965-1966.
- ^ Robinson, Geoffrey (2018). The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massacres, 1965-1966.
- ISBN 978-1-5107-6913-7.
- ^ Simpson, Brad (17 October 2017). "U.S. Embassy Tracked Indonesia Mass Murder 1965". National Security Archive. Retrieved 18 October 2017.
- ^ "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2022".
- ISBN 978-1-5417-4240-6.
- ISBN 978-1510769137.
- ^ Conde, Arturo (10 September 2021). "New movie explores global complicity in Argentina's 'dirty war'". NBC News. Retrieved 2021-10-06.
- ^ Kornbluh, Peter (September 11, 1998). "Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973". National Security Archive. Retrieved August 7, 2023.
- ^ Winn, Peter (2010). A Century of Revolution. Duke University Press. pp. 270–271.
- ^ "U.S. Dept. of State FOIA Electronic Reading Room – Hinchey Report (CIA Activities in Chile)". Foia.state.gov. Archived from the original on 20 October 2009. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
- ^ Peter Kornbluh (19 September 2000). "CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression: Report to Congress Reveals U.S. Accountability in Chile". Chile Documentation Project. National Security Archive. Retrieved 26 November 2006.
- ^ "Chile to Return Seized Companies to Their Owners". The New York Times. 20 October 1973.
- ISBN 978-1541742406.
- ISBN 978-0-415-68617-4.
- ^ Rohter, Larry (27 November 2002). "Ford Motor is Linked to Argentina's 'Dirty War'". The New York Times.
- ^ "Profits and Terror in Argentina in the 1970s". 21 February 2015.
- ^ John Mearsheimer; Stephen Walt (Jan–Feb 2003). "An unnecessary war". Foreign Policy (134): 54.
- ^ "The Wages of War: Iraqi Combatant and Noncombatant Fatalities in the 2003 Conflict". Project on Defense Alternatives. Retrieved 9 May 2009.
- ^ "Death Highway, Revisited". Time. March 18, 1991. Archived from the original on 2008-12-01.
- ^ Sciolino, Elaine (February 22, 1998). "The World: Theater of War; The New Face of Battle Wears Greasepaint". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-21.
- JSTOR 41858004. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ JSTOR 41858004. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- JSTOR 41858004. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ "Cheney on torture report: Saddam Hussein 'had a 10-year relationship with al-Qaida'". @politifact. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ "The Iraq War and WMDs: An intelligence failure or White House spin?". The Washington Post. 2019.
- ^ Porter, Tom (2014). "Iraq War Created Isis, Concedes David Miliband". International Business Times. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ "Politics Case shines light on how war contracts are awarded". Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ "Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war". Financial Times. 18 March 2013. Archived from the original on 2022-12-10. Retrieved 2017-02-24.
- ^ Hartung, William (2021). "PROFITS OF WAR: CORPORATE BENEFICIARIES OF THE POST-9/11 PENTAGON SPENDING SURGE". Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ Fifield, Anna (2013). "Contractors reap $138B from Iraq war". CNN Business. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ Weisman, Steven R. (2004-01-05). "THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: NORTHERN REGION; Kurdish Region in Northern Iraq Will Get to Keep Special Status". The New York Times.
- ^ The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein
- ^ "iraqcoalition.org/~Status_of_Coalition_Rev_with_Annex_A.pdf" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2004-07-01. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ "iraqcoalition.org/~Tax_Strategy_of_2004_with_Annex_and_Ex_Note.pdf" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ Tawfeeq, Mohammed (23 May 2021). "Iraq estimates that $150 billion of its oil money has been stolen from the country since the US-led invasion of 2003". CNN. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ Progress, Think (October 15, 2007). "Abizaid: "Of Course It's About Oil, We Can't Really Deny That"". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on January 4, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2023.
- ^ Juhasz, Antonia (2015). "Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil". CNN. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- ^ Becker, Gary S. (2003-03-17). "Why War with Iraq Is Not about the Oil". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
- ISBN 978-0-7486-9304-7.
- ^ "Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over". The Guardian. 14 October 2001.
- ^ "Where did the $5tn spent on Afghanistan and Iraq go? Here's where". The Guardian. 11 September 2021.
- ^ "Mid-East crisis as it happened: 25 March". BBC News. 25 March 2011. Archived from the original on 27 March 2011. Retrieved 26 March 2011.
- ^ Capasso, Matteo (2020). "The war and the economy: the gradual destruction of Libya". Review of African Political Economy: 15.
- ^ Capasso, Matteo (2020). "The war and the economy: the gradual destruction of Libya". Review of African Political Economy: 16.
- ^ Frederick Jackson Turner, Significance of the Frontier at the Wayback Machine (archived May 21, 2008), sagehistory.net (archived from the original on May 21, 2008).
- ^ Kellner, Douglas (April 25, 2003). "American Exceptionalism". Archived from the original on February 17, 2006. Retrieved February 20, 2006.
- ^ Magdoff, Harry; John Bellamy Foster (November 2001). "After the Attack ... The War on Terrorism". Monthly Review. 53 (6): 7. Retrieved October 8, 2009.
- ^ "Books" (PDF). Mises Institute. 2014-08-18.
- ^ C. Wright Mills, The Causes of World War Three, Simon and Schuster, 1958, pp. 52, 111
- ^ Flynn, John T. (1944) As We Go Marching.
- ISBN 9780805070040.
- OCLC 2553178..
- (PDF) from the original on March 5, 2014.
- ISSN 1991-2773.
- S2CID 188656106.
- JSTOR 363114.
- ^ Neil Smith, American Empire: Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization, (Berkeley & Los Angeles & London: University of California Press, 2003), p XI-XII.
- ^ Max Boot, "The Case for American Empire," Weekly Standard 7/5, (October 15, 2001)
- ^ Nina J. Easton, "Thunder on the Right," American Journalism Review 23 (December 2001), 320.
- S2CID 57572519.
- S2CID 162871393.
- ^ Charles S. Maier, Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors, (Massachusetts & London: Harvard University Press, 2006), p 2-24.
- ^ Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, (New York: Penguin Books, 2005), pp. 3–4.
- ^ Philip S. Golub, "Westward the Course of Empire", Le Monde Diplomatique, (September 2002)
- ^ A. G. Hopkins, American Empire: a Global History (2019).
- S2CID 143521756. Quoting page 95.
- ^ "CIA Secret Detention and Torture". opensocietyfoundations.org. Archived from the original on February 20, 2013.
- ^ Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (2004), excerpt
- S2CID 59022899.
- ISBN 0-86571-514-9
- ^ Nugent, Habits of Empire p 287.
- ^ Charles S. Maier, Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors (2006).
- .
- S2CID 57564158. Quoting pp 52–53.
- ^ "Empire hits back". The Observer. July 15, 2001. Retrieved April 6, 2021.
- ^ Tahmazyan, Daniel (30 November 2020). "The 2020 Artsakh War: What the World Lacks Now Is Leadership -- evnreport.com". evnreport.com. Retrieved 5 January 2021.
- ^ Hardt, Michael (July 13, 2006). "From Imperialism to Empire". The Nation.
- ISBN 0-674-00671-2. Retrieved October 8, 2009. p. xiii–xiv.
- ISBN 0-8166-2161-6
- ^ Autonomism#Italian autonomism
- ISBN 978-0-19-927808-4.
- ^ Harvey 2005, p. 31.
- ^ Harvey 2005, pp. 77–78.
- ^ Harvey 2005, p. 187.
- ^ Harvey 2005, pp. 76–78
- ^ a b Hanson, Victor Davis (November 2002). "A Funny Sort of Empire". National Review. Archived from the original on 2008-05-11. Retrieved October 8, 2009.
- ^ Cited in Geir Lundestad, The United States and Western Europe since 1945: From 'Empire' by Invitation to Transatlantic Drift, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p 112.
- OCLC 13455179
- Lawrence Kaplan, "Western Europe in 'The American Century'", Diplomatic History, 6/2, (1982): p 115.
- JSTOR 20034046. pp. 60-61
- ^ Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, (New York: Penguin Books, 2005), p 17.
- ^ Günter Bischof, "Empire Discourses: The 'American Empire' in Decline?" Kurswechsel, 2, (2009): p 18
- ^ Cited in Andrew Feickert, "The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands: Background and Issues for Congress", (Congressional Research Service, Washington: White House, 2013), p 59
- from the original on 2015-12-10.
- JSTOR 20699853. pp. 98–99
- ^ Sung Woo Kim, "System Polarities and Alliance Politics", (PhD thesis, University of Iowa, 2012), pp. 149–151
- ^ "AIPAC and foreign policy". The Economist. March 22, 2016.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
- ^ Gore, D'Angelo (2016-05-11). "What's Trump's Position on NATO?". factcheck.org. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
- ^ "Full Rush Transcript: Donald Trump, CNN Milwaukee Republican Presidential Town Hall". CNN. Retrieved June 26, 2016.
- ^ S2CID 143223136. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2020-01-21. Quoting p. 593.
- ^ Hoganson, Kristin L. (2001). Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. Yale University Press.
- ^ Choi, Hyaeweol (2009). Gender and Mission Encounters in Korea: New Women, Old Ways. University of California Press.
- ^ Bashford, Alison (2004). Imperial Hygiene: A Critical History of Colonialism, Nationalism, and Public Health. Palgrave Macmillan London.
- S2CID 154141760.
- S2CID 146480559.
- ^ Dean, Robert (2002). A Companion to the Vietnam War. Malden, MA. pp. 367–383.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ United States. Cong. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Annexation of Hawaii. Comp. Davis. 55th Cong., 2nd sess. S. Rept. 681. Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1898. Print.
- ^ a b c Pérez, Louis A. The War of 1898: The United States and Cuba in History and Historiography. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998. Print.
- ^ Boot, Max (May 5, 2003). "American imperialism? No need to run away from label". USA Today. Archived from the original on Nov 18, 2023.
- ISBN 0-300-05658-3.
- ISBN 0-89526-272-X.
- ISBN 0-674-01375-1.
- ^ Schmitt, Eric (1991-12-23). "Washington at Work; Ex-Cold Warrior Sees the Future as 'Up for Grabs'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-01-22.
- ^ Rosen, Stephen Peter (May–June 2002). "The Future of War and the American Military: Demography, technology, and the politics of modern empire". Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 2020-01-22.
- ^ Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 1939.
- ISBN 0-333-24848-1.
- ^ Walzer, Michael. "Is There an American Empire?". www.freeindiamedia.com. Archived from the original on October 21, 2006. Retrieved June 10, 2006.
- S2CID 108760853. Page 435.
- ^ Emmanuel Todd, After the Empire. The Breakdown of the American Order, 2001, (tr. Delogu, C. Jon, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).
- ^ JSTOR 20033908. Retrieved 2020-01-22.
- S2CID 17910808. Pages 266–267.
- ^ Mirrlees, Tanner (2015). "U.S. Empire and Communications Today: Revisiting Herbert I. Schiller". The Political Economy of Communication. 2 (3): 3–27.
- ^ Schiller, Herbert (1969). Mass Communication and American Empire (1st ed.). Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 206–207.
- ISBN 9780807061756.
- ^ Mirrlees, Tanner (2015). "U.S. Empire and Communications Today: Revisiting Herbert I. Schiller". The Political Economy of Communication. 3 (2): 6.
- ISBN 9780774830157.
- ^ Said, Edward. "Culture and Imperialism, speech at York University, Toronto, February 10, 1993". Archived from the original on 2001-09-17. Retrieved 2006-02-23.
- ^ Rothkopf, David In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Archived 2012-01-19 at the Wayback Machine Foreign Policy, Number 107, Summer 1997, pp. 38–53
- ^ Fraser, Matthew (2005). Weapons of Mass Distraction: Soft Power and American Empire. St. Martin's Press.
- ^ Mirrlees, Tanner. 2006. American Soft Power or American Cultural Imperialism. In Colin Mooers (ed.), The New Imperialists: Ideologies of Empire. Oxford: One World Press. 198-228,
- ^ "Our Story | About Macca's | McDonald's AU". mcdonalds.com.au. Retrieved 2016-11-10.
- ^ "Base Structure Report : FY 2013 Baseline" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-02-21. Retrieved 2017-04-09.
- ^ "Protesters Accuse US of 'Imperialism' as Obama Rekindles Military Deal With Philippines". VICE News. 2014-04-28.
- ^ "Anti-US Base Candidate Wins Okinawa Governor Race". PopularResistance.Org. 17 November 2014.
- ^ Johnson, Chalmers (January 15, 2004). "America's Empire of Bases". TomDispatch. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
- ^ Pitts, Chip (November 8, 2006). "The Election on Empire". The National Interest. Retrieved October 8, 2009.
- ^ Patrick Smith, Pay Attention to Okinawans and Close the U.S. Bases, International Herald Tribune (Opinion section), March 6, 1998.
- ^ "Base Structure Report" (PDF). USA Department of Defense. 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 10, 2007. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
- ^ "Clandestine Camps in Europe: "Everyone Knew What Was Going On in Bondsteel"". Der Spiegel. Hamburg. 5 December 2005.
- ^ "US rejects Cuba demand to hand back Guantanamo Bay base". BBC News. 30 January 2015. Archived from the original on 7 December 2016.
- ISBN 978-0670544769.
- ^ "Department of Defense, Base Structure Report FY 2015 Baseline" (PDF). Office of the Secretary of Defense. Retrieved 2017-09-04.
- ^ Vine, David. 2015. Base Nation. Published by Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York.
- The Huffington Post. 16 May 2017.
- ^ William Appleman Williams, "Empire as a Way of Life: An Essay on the Causes and Character of America's Present Predicament Along with a Few Thoughts About an Alternative" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), S1.
- ^ a b Max Boot (May 6, 2003). "American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away from Label". Op-Ed. USA Today. Archived from the original on 2011-04-04 – via Council on Foreign Relations.
- ^ "Max Boot, "Neither New nor Nefarious: The Liberal Empire Strikes Back," November 2003". mtholyoke.edu. Archived from the original on 2008-05-15.
- ^ Heer, Jeet (March 23, 2003). "Operation Anglosphere: Today's most ardent American imperialists weren't born in the USA". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2006-05-07.
- S2CID 57571709. Quoting p 21.
- ^ Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (2005) pp 286–301
- ISBN 0-300-02697-8. p. 3.
- ISBN 0-8014-9048-0.
- ^ Aguinaldo, Emilio (September 1899). "Aguinaldo's Case Against the United States" (PDF). North American Review.
- ^ Joseph S. Nye Jr, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004), pp. 33–72.
- .
- S2CID 154553877. p. 344.
- ^ See also Liping Bu, Making The World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century (2003).
Sources
- Handy, Jim (1994). Revolution in the Countryside: Rural Conflict and Agrarian Reform in Guatemala, 1944–1954. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: ISBN 978-0-8078-4438-0.
- ISBN 978-0-8078-9986-1.
- Moulton, Aaron Coy (July 2013). ""Amplies Ayuda Externa" Contra "La Gangrena Comunista": Las Fuerzas Regionales Anticomunistas y la Finalizacion de la Operacion PBFortune, Octobre de 1952" ["Extend External Assistance" Against "The Communist Gangrene": The Regional Anti-Communist Forces and the Finalization of Operation PBFortune, October 1952]. Revista de Historia de América (in Spanish) (149): 45–58. S2CID 257442076.
Further reading
- ISBN 978-0-8050-8815-1.
- Paul Selva, Joint Chiefs vice chair, stated bluntly that 'the dynamics that are happening in our climatewill drive uncertainty and will drive conflict." (p. 31.)
- Bacevich, Andrew J., "The Reckoning That Wasn't: Why America Remains Trapped by False Dreams of Hegemony", Foreign Affairs, vol. 102, no. 2 (March/April 2023), pp. 6–10, 12, 14, 16–21. "Washington... needs to... avoid needless war... and provide ordinary citizens with the prospect of a decent life.... The chimera of another righteous military triumph cannot fix what ails the United States." (p. 21.)
- ISBN 0-465-00721-X.
- Brown, Seyom (1994). Faces of Power: Constancy and Change in United States Foreign Policy from Truman to Clinton. New York: ISBN 0-231-09669-0.
- ASIN B0007GMSSY.
- Callahan, Patrick (2003). Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America's World Role. New York: Longman. ISBN 0-321-08848-4.
- ISBN 0-8157-1688-5.
- ISBN 0-394-57224-6.
- ISBN 0-19-517447-X.
- Hampf, Michaela (2019). Empire of Liberty (in German). De Gruyter Oldenbourg. ISBN 978-3-11-065774-6.
- ISISthat's trying to kill you, it's America.'" (p. 28.)
- ISBN 0-674-00671-2. online
- ISBN 978-3981826098.
- Immerwahr, Daniel, "Fort Everywhere: How did the United States become entangled in a cycle of endless war?" (review of David Vine, The United States of War: A Global History of America's Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State, University of California Press, 2020, 464 pp.), The Nation, 14/21 December 2020, pp. 34–37.
- Immerwahr, Daniel (2019). How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-17214-5.
- ISBN 0-8050-6239-4.
- ISBN 0-8050-7004-4.
- ISBN 0-8476-7649-8.
- financial services company HSBCthat her company was not doing business with Iran. Canadian authorities, acting on a U.S. request, arrested her... in December 2018. After... almost three years under house arrest... Meng... was allowed to return to China... But by [then] the prospects for Chinese dominance of 5G had vanished..." (pp. 154–155.) Farrell and Newman, writes Krugman, "are worried about the possibility of [U.S. Underground Empire] overreach. [I]f the [U.S.] weaponizes the dollar against too many countries, they might... band together and adopt alternative methods of international payment. If countries become deeply worried about U.S. spying, they could lay fiber-optic cables that bypass the [U.S.]. And if Washington puts too many restrictions on American exports, foreign firms might turn away from U.S. technology." (p. 155.)
- terrorist attack should be a US war or an international police action. [...] Debating tortureor other abuses, while indisputably valuable, has diverted Americans from 'deliberating on the deeper choice they were making to ignore constraints on starting war in the first place.' [W]ar itself causes far more suffering than violations of its rules." (p. 40.)
- ISBN 0-19-878212-8.
- ISBN 0-300-10069-8.
- Tobar, Héctor, "The Truths of Our American Empire" (review of Jonathan Blitzer, Everyone Who Is Gone Is Here: The United States, Central America, and the Making of a Crisis, Penguin Press, 523 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXXI, no. 7 (18 April 2024), pp. 43–44, 46. "Blitzer... illustrates the timidity and opportunism of the US political class, which has repeatedly blocked reforms that would allow an orderly and safe flow of workers and their families across the border. After all, our postpandemic economy remains desperately short of workers.... [E]ven if every unemployed person in [the US] found work, roughly three million jobs would go unfilled." (p. 44, 46.) "The use and abuse of immigrant labor as tools of nation building and race engineering is a long-established element of the American normal. Only if you step outside of history does it look like a 'crisis.'" (p. 46.)
- ISBN 978-0-231-13103-2.
- Tooze, Adam, "Is This the End of the American Century?", London Review of Books, vol. 41, no. 7 (4 April 2019), pp. 3, 5–7.
- ISBN 0-7414-1887-8.
- Iraq warremains unfinished business for the United States." (p. 152.)
- Zepezauer, Mark (2002). Boomerang!: How Our Covert Wars Have Created Enemies Across the Middle East and Brought Terror to America. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-222-4.