 | This articlepossibly containsoriginal research. Many of the sources do not refer to "imperialism". Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
.jpg)
| History of the United States expansion and influence |
|---|
| Colonialism |
| Militarism |
| Foreign policy |
|
| Concepts |
American imperialism orUS imperialism is the exercise of power or control by theUS outside its borders. It operates through military conquest; military protection;gunboat diplomacy;unequal treaties; support for preferred factions;regime change; economic or diplomatic support; economic interference via private companies, or influence on local culture and media, potentially followed byintervention when American interests are threatened.[1][2]
American imperialism and expansionism took the form of "New Imperialism" beginning in the late 19th century,[3] although authors such as Daniel Immerwahr consider earlierAmerican territorial expansion across North America at the expense ofNative Americans to fit the definition.[4] While the US has never officially identified itself and its territorial possessions as an empire, some commentators have done so, includingMax Boot,Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., andNiall Ferguson.[5] Other commentators have accused the US of practicingneocolonialism—dominating territory via indirect means—which leverages economic power rather than military force.
US interventions in foreign countries have been much-debated throughout its history. Opponents claim that such actions are inconsistent with its history asa colony thatrebelled against an overseas king, as well as the American values of democracy, freedom, and independence. Conversely, American presidents who attacked foreign countries—most notablyWilliam McKinley,Woodrow Wilson,Theodore Roosevelt, andWilliam Howard Taft—cited the necessity of advancing American economic interests, such as trade and debt management; preventing European intervention (colonial or otherwise) in theWestern Hemisphere, (under the 1823Monroe Doctrine); and the benefits of keeping "good order".[citation needed]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(October 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Following Columbus, the European and then American presence steadily expanded across what became the US, drivingNative Americans out by treaty or by force, including multiplewars. Many Native American settlements were depopulated by unknowingly imported diseases, such as smallpox.Native Americans became citizens in 1924 and experience a form oftribal sovereignty.
PresidentJames Monroe promulgated hisMonroe Doctrine in 1823, in order to end European interventions in Latin America. Territorial expansion was explicit in the 19th century idea ofmanifest destiny. The 1803Louisiana Purchase transferred 828,000 sq mi (2,140,000 km2) of territory claimed by France to the US. In 1867, TheAndrew Johnson administration purchasedAlaska's 665,384 sq mi (1,723,340 km2) from Russia. Via the 1846-1848Mexican–American War, the USannexed 525,000 sq mi (1,360,000 km2) of Mexican territory.
American foreign policy pivoted towards containingcommunism in theCold War. Through theTruman Doctrine andReagan Doctrine the US framed a mission to protect free peoples from theSoviet Union and its allies. In theVietnam War the US attempt to protect a democratic South Vietnam from its communist neighbor and a domestic insurgency ended in failure at tremendous cost in US and Vietnamese lives and aKhmer Rouge-ledgenocide in neighboringCambodia.Tactics repeatedly included attempts at regime change including inIran, Cuba, andGrenada, along with interference in other countries' elections.
US acquisitions on the North American continent became states, and their residents became citizens.Hawaii residents voted to become a state in 1959. Other island jurisdictions remainterritories, namelyGuam,Puerto Rico, theUS Virgin Islands,American Samoa, and theNorthern Mariana Islands, although their residents are also citizens. The remainder of US territories eventually became independent, ranging from threefreely associated states that participate in US government programs in exchange for military basing rights, to Cuba, which severed diplomatic relations during the Cold War.
The US was a public advocate for Europeandecolonization after World War II (after completing a ten-year independence transition for thePhilippines in 1944). The US often came in conflict withnational liberation movements.[6]
.jpg)
Yale historianPaul Kennedy asserted, "From the time the first settlers arrived inVirginia fromEngland and started moving westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering nation."[7] Expanding on George Washington's description of the early US as an "infant empire",[8] Thomas Jefferson asserted in 1786 that the US "must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North & South is to be peopled. [...] The navigation of the Mississippi we must have."[9]Noam Chomsky stated, "the US is the one country...that was founded as an empire explicitly".[10][11]
The notion of manifest destiny was a popular rationale for US expansion in the 19th century.[12] The policy of extending westward was a foundational goal of the US. Discontent with British rule came in part from theRoyal Proclamation of 1763, which barred settlement west of theAppalachian Mountains.[13]
In the 1786-1795Northwest Indian War the US fought theNorthwestern Confederacy over land around theGreat Lakes. Treaties such as theTreaty of Greenville and theTreaty of Fort Wayne drove anti-US sentiment among the Native Americans in the Great Lakes region, leading toTecumseh's Confederacy, defeated during theWar of 1812.
TheIndian Removal Act of 1830 culminated in the relocation of 60,000 Native Americans West of theMississippi river in an event known as theTrail of Tears, killing 16,700.[14]
In the 1846-1849Mexican–American War, the US conqueredMexican territory reaching fromTexas to thePacific coast.[15][16] TheWhig Party strongly opposed this war and expansionism generally.[17]
Settlement of California accelerated, which led to theCalifornia genocide. Estimates of deaths in the genocide vary from 2,000[18] to 100,000.[19] The discovery of gold drew many miners and settlers who formed militias to kill and displace Native Americans.[20] The California government supported expansion and settlement through the passage of theAct for the Government and Protection of Indians which legalized the forced indenture (effectively enslavement) of Native Americans.[21][22] Some California towns offered and paid bounties for the killing of Native Americans.[23]
%2c_the_Indian_territories.jpg)
American expansion in theGreat Plains resulted in conflict between many western tribes and the US. The 1851Treaty of Fort Laramie gave theCheyenne and Arapaho tribes territory from theNorth Platte River in present-day Wyoming and Nebraska southward to theArkansas River in present-day Colorado and Kansas. The land was initially not wanted by settlers, but following the discovery of gold in the region, settlers came in volume. In 1861, six chiefs of the Southern Cheyenne and four of the Arapaho signed theTreaty of Fort Wise, costing them 90% of their land.[24] The refusal of various warriors to recognize the treaty resulted in settlers deciding that war was coming. The subsequentColorado War included theSand Creek Massacre in which up to 600 Cheyenne were killed, mostly children and women. On October 14, 1865, the chiefs of what remained of the Southern Cheyenne and Arapahos agreed to move south of the Arkansas, sharing land that belonged to theKiowas,[25] and thereby relinquish all claims in Colorado territory.
FollowingRed Cloud's victory inRed Cloud's War, theTreaty of Fort Laramie was signed. This treaty led to the creation of theGreat Sioux Reservation. However, the discovery of gold in theBlack Hills resulted in a settlement surge. The gold rush was profitable for settlers and the government: one Black Hill Mine produced $500 million in gold.[26] Attempts to purchase the land failed, triggering theGreat Sioux War. Despite initial success by Native Americans in early battles, most notably theBattle of the Little Bighorn, the government won and carved the reservation into smaller tracts. The reservation system enriched local merchants. Traders often accepted payment via money from land sales, contributing to further poverty.[27]
In the southwest, settlements and communities were established using profits from theAmerican Civil War. Settlers often waged war against native tribes.[28] By 1871,Tucson for example had a population of three thousand, including "saloon-keepers, traders and contractors who had profited during the Civil War". In theCamp Grant Massacre of 1871 up to 144Apache were killed, mostly women and children. Up to 27 Apache children were captured and sold into slavery inMexico.[29] In the 1860s, theNavajo faced deportation, which became theLong Walk of the Navajo. The journey started at the beginning of spring 1864. Bands of Navajo led by the Army were relocated from their lands in easternArizona Territory and westernNew Mexico Territory toFort Sumner. Around 200 died during the march. New Mexican slavers, assisted byUtes attacked isolated bands, killing the men, taking the women and children, and capturing horses and livestock. As part of these raids, Navajo were sold throughout the region.[30]
Starting in 1820, theAmerican Colonization Society began subsidizing free black people to colonize the west coast of Africa. In 1822, it declared the colony ofLiberia, which became independent in 1847. By 1857, Liberia had merged with other colonies formed by state societies, including theRepublic of Maryland,Mississippi-in-Africa, andKentucky in Africa.
Historians claimed that while the Monroe Doctrine contained a commitment to resist European colonialism, it included no limiting principles on US action. Jay Sexton stated that the tactics implementing the doctrine were modeled after those employed by European imperial powers during the 17th and 18th centuries.[31]
In older historiographyWilliam Walker's filibustering represented the high tide of antebellum American imperialism. His brief seizure of Nicaragua in 1855 was a distorted reflection ofmanifest destiny, worsened by his attempt to expand slavery intoCentral America. Walker failed in his escapades and never had official US backing. Historian Michel Gobat instead claimed that Walker was invited by Nicaraguan liberals seeking modernization and liberalism. Walker's government included those liberals, as well as Yankee colonizers, and European radicals.[32]
TheIndian Wars featured British (initially) and later US militaries battling Native American sovereign groups.[33] Their sovereignty was repeatedly undermined by US state policy (usually involving unequal orbroken treaties) and the ever-expanding settlements.[34] Following theDawes Act of 1887, Native American systems of land tenure ended in favor of private property.[35] This resulted in the loss of some 100 million acres of land from 1887 to 1934.[citation needed]
In the late 19th century, the US, Great Britain, France, Germany and Belgium rapidly expanded their territorial possessions, particularly in Africa.
Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy,Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for theSpanish–American War[37] and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the US military in battle, at one point stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one."[38][39][40] Roosevelt rejected imperialism, but he embraced the doctrine ofexpansionism.[41]Rudyard Kipling wrote the poem "The White Man's Burden" for Roosevelt, who told colleagues that it was "rather poor poetry, but good sense from the expansion point of view".[42] Roosevelt proclaimed what became theRoosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (in turn replaced byHerbert Hoover's endorsement of theClark Memorandum).[43]
One causal factor was racism, as shown byJohn Fiske's concept of "Anglo-Saxon" racial superiority andJosiah Strong's call to "civilize and Christianize." The concepts were manifestations of a growingSocial Darwinism and racism in some schools of American political thought.[44][45][46] Scholars have noted the resemblance between US policies in the Philippines and European actions in theircolonies in Asia andAfrica during this period.[47]
Industry and trade were two other justifications.American intervention in Latin America and Hawaii supported investments, includingDole sugar, pineapple, and bananas. When the US annex a territory, they were granted trade access there. In 1898, SenatorAlbert Beveridge claimed that market expansion was necessary, "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours."[48][49]
Stuart Creighton Miller says that the public's sense of innocence aboutRealpolitik impairs popular recognition of US imperial conduct.[50] The resistance to actively occupying foreign territory has led to policies of exerting influence via other means, including governing other countries via surrogates orpuppet regimes, where domestically unpopular governments survive only through US support.[51]
The US claimed to intervene in the name of freedom: "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! "(lyrics to "Cuba Libre", 1898). Cuba became independent in 1898 following the Spanish American War.[52] However, from 1898 until theCuban revolution, the US influenced the Cuban economy. By 1906, up to 15% of Cuba was owned by Americans.[53]
Filipino revolutionary GeneralEmilio Aguinaldo remarked: "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."[54]
American rule of ceded Spanish territory was contested via thePhilippine–American War, ultimately resulting in the end of the short-livedPhilippine Republic.[55][56][57]
After Philippine independence, the US continued to direct the country through Central Intelligence Agency operatives likeEdward Lansdale. Lansdale controlled the career of PresidentRamon Magsaysay, physically beating him when the Philippine leader attempted to reject a speech the CIA had written for him.[citation needed] American agents drugged PresidentElpidio Quirino and prepared to assassinate SenatorClaro Recto.[58][59] Filipino historian Roland G. Simbulan called the CIA "US imperialism'sclandestine apparatus in the Philippines".[60]
The US established dozens of military bases, including major ones. Philippine independence was qualified by legislation. For example, theBell Trade Act provided a mechanism whereby US import quotas could be established on Philippine goods that competed with US products. It further required US citizens and corporations be granted equal access to Philippine natural resources.[61] In 1946, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic AffairsWilliam L. Clayton described the law as "clearly inconsistent with the basic foreign economic policy of this country" and "clearly inconsistent with our promise to grant the Philippines genuine independence."[62]
In the 1800s the US became concerned that Great Britain or France might have colonial ambitions on theHawaiian Kingdom. In 1849 the US and the Kingdom signed a friendship friendship treaty, ended that concern. In 1885, KingDavid Kalākaua, last king of Hawaii, signed a trade treaty with the US allowing tariff-free sugar trade to the On July 6, 1887, theHawaiian League, an illegalsecret society, threatened the king and forced him to enact a new constitution that stripped him of much of his power. King Kalākaua died in 1891 and was succeeded by his sisterLili'uokalani. In 1893 with support from marines from the USSBoston Queen Lili'uokalani was deposed in a bloodless coup. Hawaii became a US territory and became the 50th US state in 1959.
Initially, PresidentWoodrow Wilson promised American neutrality throughoutWorld War I. This promise was broken when the US entered the war in 1917. The two reasons cited in the Congressionally approvedDeclaration of war were Germany's practice ofunrestricted submarine warfare and theZimmermann telegram in which Germany proposed to transfer Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico. Wilson proclaimed his determination to "make the world safe for democracy".J. P. Morgan & Company records cite the 100-fold disparity in US loans to the Allies vs Germany (2.3 B v 27 M, respectively).
Revisionist historianHoward Zinn argued that Wilson entered the war instead in order to open international markets to surplus US production.[63]: 359
Some of Wilson'sactivities can be viewed as imperialism, e.g., interfering in countries such asHaiti.[64] The US invaded and took control ofHaiti on July 28, 1915; this continued until 1934. Historian Mary Renda claimed that the goal was to create political stability. While Haiti had been independent before American intervention, the US regarded Haiti as failing at self-rule. The Haitian government agreed to US terms, including American oversight.[65]
Wilson launched seven armed overseas interventions, more than any other president.[66] Looking back on the Wilson era, GeneralSmedley Butler, a leader of the Haiti expedition and the most-decorated Marine of that era, considered virtually all of the operations to have been economically motivated.[67] In a1933 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.[68]
— Smedley Butler
By the 1930s, the US had cemented itself in the Middle East via a series of acquisitions through theStandard Oil of California (SOCAL), which achieved US control over Saudi oil.[69]
At the start ofWorld 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 onPearl Harbor was what ended up bringing the US 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 generalMacArthur stated "I came through and I shall return" in response to the Americans losing the island to the Japanese.[70] The loss of American territories ended the decisiveBattle 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 US occupied and reformed Japan up until 1952. The maximum geographical extension of American direct political and military control happened in theaftermath of World War II, in the period after the surrender and occupations ofGermany andAustria in May and laterJapan andKorea inSeptember 1945 and before the US granted the Philippines independence onJuly 4, 1946.[71]
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 theBritish 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.[72] 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.[73]
Although the US was the last major belligerent to join theSecond World War, it began planning for the post-war world from the conflict's outset. This postwar vision originated in theCouncil on Foreign Relations (CFR), an economic elite-led organization that became integrated into the government leadership. CFR'sWar and Peace Studies group offered its services to the State Department in 1939 and a secret partnership for post-war planning developed. CFR leadersHamilton Fish Armstrong and Walter H. Mallory saw World War II as a "grand opportunity" for the US to emerge as "the premier power in the world."[74]
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.Isaiah Bowman, a key liaison between the CFR and the State Department, proposed an "American economicLebensraum." This built upon the ideas ofTime-Life publisherHenry Luce, who (in his "American Century" essay) wrote, "Tyrannies may require a large amount of living space [but] freedom requires and will require far greater living space than Tyranny." According to Bowman's biographer,Neil Smith:
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.[75]
FDR promised: Hitler will get lebensraum, a global American one.[76]
_overzichten%2c_Bestanddeelnr_253-8821.jpg)
Prior to his death in 1945, President Roosevelt was planning to withdraw all US forces from Europe as soon as possible. Soviet actions in Poland and Czechoslovakia led his successor Harry Truman to reconsider. Heavily influenced byGeorge Kennan, Washington policymakers believed that the Soviet Union was an expansionary dictatorship that threatened American interests. In their theory, Moscow's weakness was that it had to keep expanding to survive; and that, by containing or stopping its growth, stability could be achieved in Europe. The result was theTruman Doctrine (1947). Initially regarding only Greece and Turkey, theNSC-68 (1951) extended the Truman Doctrine to the whole non-Communist world. The US could no longer distinguish between national and global security.[77] Hence, the Truman Doctrine was described as "globalizing" the Monroe Doctrine.[78][79]
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 theMarshall Plan of 1948.
A third factor was the realization, especially by Britain and the threeBenelux 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'"[80] According to Lundestad, theUS interfered in Italian and French politics in order topurge elected communist officials who might oppose such invitations.[81]
The end of the Second World War and start of the Cold War saw increased US interest inLatin America. Since theGuatemalan Revolution, Guatemala saw the expansion of labor rights andland reforms which granted property to landless peasants.[82] Lobbying by theUnited Fruit Company, whose profits were affected by these policies, as well as fear of Communist influence in Guatemala culminated in the USA supportingOperation PBFortune to overthrow Guatemalan PresidentJacobo Árbenz in 1952. The plan involved providing weapons to the exiled Guatemalan military officerCarlos Castillo Armas, who was to lead an invasion from Nicaragua.[83]This culminated in the1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. The subsequent military junta assumed dictatorial powers, banned opposition parties and reversed the social reforms of the revolution. The USA would continue to support Guatemala through the Cold War, including during theGuatemalan genocide[84] in which up to 200,000 people were killed. After the coup, American enterprises saw a return of influence in the country, in both the public level of government but also in the economy.[85]
On March 15, 1951, the Iranian parliament, passed legislation that was proposed byMohammad Mosaddegh to nationalize theAnglo-Persian Oil Company, which gained significant revenues from Iranian oil, more so than the Iranian government itself. Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister by the Majlis later in 1952. Mosadeggh's support by theTudeh as well as a boycott by various businesses against the nationalized industry resulted in fears by theUnited Kingdom and the US that Iran would turn to Communism. America would officially remain neutral, but the CIA supported various candidates in the1952 Iranian legislative election.[86]
In late 1952, with Mosaddegh remaining in power, the CIA launchedOperation Ajax with support by the United Kingdom to overthrow Mosaddegh.[87][88][89] The coup saw an increase in power of the monarchy, which went from a constitutional monarchy to an authoritarian nation. In the aftermath of the coup, the Shah agreed to replace the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with a consortium—British Petroleum and eight European and American oil companies. In August 2013, the US government formally acknowledged the US role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[90]
In Korea, the US occupied the Southern half of the peninsula in 1945 and dissolved the SocialistPeople's Republic of Korea. After which, the USA quickly allied withSyngman Rhee, leader of the fight against thePeople's Republic of Korea that proclaimed a provisional government. There was a lot of opposition to thedivision of Korea, including rebellions by communists such as theJeju uprising in 1948 and furtherCommunist 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 theKorean War.[91][92] WithNational Security Council document 68 and the subsequent Korean War, the US 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 toChristianize andAmericanize the peasant masses.[93] In the following conflict, the USA oversaw a large bombing campaign overNorth Korea. A total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, were dropped on Korea.[94]
In Vietnam, the US eschewed its anti-imperialist rhetoric by materially supporting theFrench Empire in a colonialcounterinsurgency. However, the US helped the French colonialists to fight communism, not to support France's continued rule of Vietnam after winning the war. The US' support was in response to communist China's support for Vietnam's communist independence movement. The US put pressure on France to negotiate with the indigenous anti-communist nationalists and gradually return independence to thepro-French government in the context of globaldecolonization.[95] Influenced by the Grand Area policy, the US eventually assumed military and financial support for theSouth Vietnamese state against theVietnamese communists following French defeat in theFirst Indochina War. The US and South Vietnam fearedHo Chi Minh, a communist, would win nationwide elections. They both refused to sign agreements at the1954 Geneva Conference arguing that fair elections weren't possible in North Vietnam.[96][97] Beginning in 1965, the US sent many combat units to fightViet Cong and North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam, with fighting extending toNorth Vietnam,Laos, andCambodia. During the warMartin Luther King Jr. called the American government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."[98] Initially based on stopping the spread of Communism into South Vietnam, the war and its motivations slowly began to lose its momentum in justifying the damage the war was causing to both sides. Particularly on the home front, where by 1970, two thirds of the American public advocated against the war. The communist government of North Vietnam propagated that their war was anti-colonial and equated the US with France, although in essence theVietnam War was completely a proxy war and civil war.[99]
The Vietnam War also saw expansion of conflict into neighboringLaos andCambodia, both of which saw extensive bombing campaigns underOperation Barrel Roll, which made Laos "the most heavily bombed nation in history",[100]Operation Menu andOperation Freedom Deal.
After the deaths of six generals in the Indonesian Army, whichSuharto blamed on theCommunist Party of Indonesia and a failed coup attempt by the30 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 JavaneseAbangan,ethnic Chinese,atheists, so-called "unbelievers", and allegedleftists were also among targeted groups in the killings.Geoffrey B. Robinson, professor of history atUCLA, argued that powerful foreign states, in particular the US, Great Britain and their allies, were instrumental in facilitating and encouraging the Indonesian Army's campaign of mass killing, and without such support, the killings would not have happened.[101] The political changes that came with the mass-killings not only resulted in the purge of the Communist Party, but also a shift in Indonesia's foreign policy towards the West and capitalism.[101] Furthermore, the mass-killings resulted in the expansion of American markets into Indonesia. By 1967, companies such asFreeport Sulphur,Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,General Electric,American Express,Caterpillar Inc.,StarKist,Raytheon Technologies andLockheed Martin, began to explore business opportunities in Indonesia.[102]Declassified documents released by the US Embassy in Jakarta in October 2017 stated that the US government had detailed knowledge of the massacres from the start. The documents revealed that the US government actively encouraged and facilitated the Indonesian Army's massacres to further its geopolitical interests in the region.[103]
From 1968 until 1989, the US supported a campaign ofpolitical repression andstate terrorism involvingintelligence operations,CIA-backedcoup d'états, and assassinations ofleft-wing andsocialist leaders inSouth America as part ofOperation Condor.[104][105] It was officially implemented in November 1975 by theright-wing dictatorships of theSouthern Cone of South America in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.[106]
ProfessorGeorge Klay Kieh Jr. argued that part of the motivation for theGulf War was derived from a desire to distract from the various crises in America at the time, such as theKeating Five, national debt rising to $3 trillion, an increasing trade deficit, unemployment, rising crime and growing wealth inequality.[107] He also argued that other very significant motivating factors for the war were strategic factors, such as a fear of subsequent invasion ofSaudi Arabia and other Pro-American monarchies in Arabia.[108] Iraqi control over the Gulf region was also feared to harm access to the US 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[108] and since major banks such asBank 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.[109]
The Americaninvasion of Iraq has been cited by William Robinson as an instance of imperialism in which the beneficiaries of imperial conquest were transnationalcapitalist groups where the goal of the Iraq war was not political annexation, but rather the economic subjugation of Iraq and its incorporation into the global economy. Robinson draws specific attention toOrder 39 where after taking control of Iraq in 2003, the America occupation force dismantled the previous Iraqi economy in favor of full privatization in Iraq and the permitting of 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets thereby strengthening the positions of foreign businesses and investors.[110]
In 2011, as part of the widerArab Spring, protests erupted inLibya againstMuammar Gaddafi, which soon spiralled into a civil war. In the ensuing conflict, a NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implementUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. While the effort was initially largely led byFrance and theUnited Kingdom, command was shared with the US, as part ofOperation Odyssey Dawn. According to the Libyan Health Ministry, the attacks saw 114 civilians killed and 445 civilians wounded.[111]
Matteo Capasso argued that the2011 military intervention in Libya was "US-led imperialism" and 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'.[112] 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'.[113]
| ||
|---|---|---|
Business and personal
45th and 47th President of the United States Tenure
Shutdowns Speeches
Opinion polls Legal affairs
Impeachments   | ||
| History of the United States expansion and influence |
|---|
| Colonialism |
| Militarism |
| Foreign policy |
|
| Concepts |
President of the United StatesDonald Trump has proposed various plans and ideas that would expand theUnited States' political influence and territory.[114] In his secondinaugural address, Trump directly referenced potential territorial expansion, and became the first U.S. president to use the phrasemanifest destiny during an inaugural address.[115][116] Thelast territory acquired by the United States came in 1947 with the acquisition of theNorthern Mariana Islands,Caroline, andMarshall Islands. Of these islands, only the Northern Mariana Islands would become aU.S. territory, with the others becoming independent in the 1980s and 1990s underCompacts of Free Association.
Trump first said he wanted to annexGreenland in 2019, during his first term. Since being elected to a second term in 2024, Trump has also shown a desire to annexCanada and thePanama Canal. He has also suggestedinvading Venezuela, annexingMexico,taking over the Gaza Strip, and influencing the direction of theCatholic Church. Trump's determination to treat theWestern Hemisphere as a U.S.sphere of influence has been characterized as a revival of theMonroe Doctrine.[117][118]
According to a February 2025 poll byYouGov, only 4% of Americans support American expansion if it requires military force, 33% of Americans support expansion without the use of military or economic force, and 48% of Americans oppose expansion altogether.[119]
The architect ofContainment,George Kennan, designed in 1948 a globe-circling system of anti-Russian alliances embracing all non-Communist countries of the Old World.[120] The design was met by the US administration with enthusiasm. Disregarding George Washington's dictum of avoiding entangling alliances, in the early Cold War the US contracted 44 formal alliances and many other forms of commitment with nearly 100 countries, most of the world countries.[121] Some observers described the process as "pactomania."[122] The enthusiasm was reciprocal. Most of the world were interested to ally with the US. Already in the early 1940s, observing the attitude of other nations,Isaiah Bowman,[123]Henry Luce[124] andWendell Willkie[125] stressed the allying potential of the US. The "imperium" of an unprecedented scale was partly made possible by the eagerness with which America's alliance was sought and welcomed.[126]
According toKenneth N. Waltz, these are not alliances in the Westphalian sense characterized bybalance of power, equal interdependence of member states,[127] and impermanence.[128][129] Many scholars regard them as instruments through which the US perpetuates its "hegemonic" role.[130][131][132][133] Before he predictedClash of Civilizations,Samuel P. Huntington had generalized that since 1945 most democratic countries have become members of the "alliance system" within which the "position of the US was 'hegemonic.'"[134] Since the beginning, US alliances were associated with imperial organization. On the eve of theRio Treaty and NATO,James Burnham envisaged:
A federation however in which the federal units are not equal, in which one of them leads all others ... and holds the decisive instrument of material power, is in reality an empire. The word ... would in practice doubtless never be employed. Whatever the words, it is well also to know the reality. In reality, the only alternative to the Communist World Empire is an American Empire which will be, if not literally worldwide in formal boundaries, capable of exercising decisive world control.[135]
There is already an American Empire, Burnham continued, and it is not just about Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.[136] Some later experts describe US alliances as regionalimperia "run and operated" by the US.[137][138]Zbigniew Brzezinski put the US Eurasian geostrategy "in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires" and outlined "three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy" which "are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected and to keep the barbarians from coming together."[139]Richard Ned Lebow,Robert Kelly,Eric W. Robinson andHerfried Münkler drew parallel between NATO and theDelian League which turned into theAthenian Empire.[140][141][142] HistoriansArnold J. Toynbee and Max Ostrovsky associated US alliances with theRoman client system during the late Republic.[143][144] By defending the allies, saysCicero (Republic, II.34), Rome has gained the world dominion.
Scholars label the US network of alliances as "hub-and-spokes" system where the US is the "hub." Spokes do not directly interrelate between and among themselves, but all are bound to the same hub.[145][146] The "hub-and-spokes" analogy is used in the comparative studies of empires.[147][148] By contrast to earlier empires, however, the American "imperial" presence was largely welcome.[149][150][151] Ostrovsky says that although all earlier empires, especially persistent empires, were in a measure by bargain, cooperation and invitation, in the post-1945 world this took an extreme form.[152] In 1989, Samuel Huntington counted that most democratic states of the world entered "hegemonic" alliances[134] andCharles Krauthammer summarized that "Europe achieved the single greatest transfer of sovereignty in world history."[153] Krauthammer meant West Europe. Just as he published this summary, East Europe followed suit. In 2009, Francereintegrated into the NATO Command.
Disregarding national pride, concludes Ostrovsky, large number of states, some of them recent great powers, "surrender their strategic sovereigntyen mass[sic]."[152] They host hegemonic bases, partly cover the expenses for running them,[154][155] integrate their strategic forces under the hegemonic command,[156][157][158]contribute 1-2% of their GDP to those forces, and tip military, economic and humanitarian contributions in case of the hegemonic operations worldwide.[159][160][161][162]Bertrand Russell theorized about "military unification of the world" led by the Anglo-American powers.[163] Later, Ostrovsky developed the subject as "military globalization." Contrary to economic globalization, military globalization, besides inter-relation and inter-connection, involves centralization—integration under the central command. The larger part of the world has strategically converged.[164]
Since the term of President Dwight Eisenhower, US administrations believed that the US shared a disproportionate amount of the burden for maintaining NATO. In 2025, President Donald Trump announced that he wanted NATO countries should raise their contributions from 2 to 5% of their respective GDPs[165] In addition, the Trump administration adopted a more assertive and transactional attitude towards allies, most notably via a newtariff policy andexpansionist proposals, a shift from decades of free trade and multilateral alliances. The shift in attitude alarmed allies such as Canada, who, according to formerLeader of the Liberal Party of Canada,Michael Ignatieff, were once "happy to shelter under American imperial protection" but were now being threatened with a new tariff regime and threats of annexation by the Trump administration.[166] In response to what was perceived as a "betrayal", Ignatieff engaged in designing an anti-hegemonic "common front" with the Europeans, particularly the Danes, and the Latin Americans, particularly the Mexicans and the Panamanians, to oppose US hegemonic activity during Trump's term.[167][168][169]
During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt promised that the American eagle will "fly high and strike hard." But he can only do so if he has safe perches around the world.[173] Initially, the Army and Navy disagreed. But the leading expert on "flying high and striking hard,"Curtis LeMay, endorsed: "We needed to establish bases within reasonable range; then we could bomb and burn them until they quit."[174] After the War, a global network of bases emerged. NCS-162/2 of 1953 stated: "The military striking power necessary to retaliate depends for the foreseeable future on having bases in allied countries." The bases were defined as nation's strategic frontier defining a sphere of American inviolate military predominance.[175] The overseas network of bases in a one-sided affair, with no freestanding foreign bases on US soil.[176]Chalmers Johnson argued in 2004 that America's version of the colony is the military base.[177]Chip Pitts argued similarly in 2006 that enduring US bases inIraq suggested a vision of "Iraq as a colony."[178]
In hisNew Frontier speech in 1960, John F. Kennedy noted that America's frontiers are on every continent. Circling the Sino-Soviet bloc with bases resulted in a network of global dimensions. Contemplating its genesis, an observer wondered: What two places in the world have less in common than the frozenThule and tropicalGuam half a way around the world? Both happened to be principal operating areas of theStrategic Air Command.[179] On Guam, a common joke had it that few people other than nuclear targeters in the Kremlin know where their island is.[180]
While territories such asGuam, theUS Virgin Islands, theNorthern Mariana Islands,American Samoa, andPuerto Rico remain under US control, the US allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence afterWorld War II. Examples include thePhilippines (1946), thePanama Canal Zone (1979),Palau (1981), theFederated States of Micronesia (1986), and theMarshall Islands (1986). Most of them still have US bases within their territories. In the case ofOkinawa, which came under US administration after theBattle of Okinawa during the Second World War, this happened despite local popular opinion on the island.[181] In 2003, aDepartment of Defense distribution found the US had bases in over 36 countries worldwide,[182] including theCamp Bondsteel base in the disputed territory ofKosovo.[183] Since 1959,Cuba has regarded the US presence inGuantánamo Bay as illegal.[184]
As of 2024, theUS deploys approximately 160,000 of its active-duty personnel outside the US and its territories.[185] 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).[186] Also in 2015, David Vine's bookBase Nation, found 800 US military bases located outside of the US, including 174 bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 inSouth Korea. Some 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees inhabited the bases in Germany and Japan, with some bases, such asRammstein Air Base, having become city-sized, with schools, hospitals and power plants. The total cost was estimated at $100 billion a year.[187][176]
Similarly, associates American authorRobert D. Kaplan, the Roman garrisons were established to defend the frontiers of the empire and for surveillance of the areas beyond.[188] For Historian Max Ostrovsky and International Law scholarRichard A. Falk, this is contrast rather than similarity: "this time there are no frontiers and no areas beyond. The global strategic reach is unprecedented in world history phenomenon."[189] "The US is by circumstance and design an emerging global empire, the first in the history of the world."[190]Robert Kagan inscribed over the map of US global deployments: "The Sun never sets."[191]
The global network of military alliances and bases is coordinated by the Unified combatant command (UCC).[192][193][194] As of 2025, the world is divided between six geographic "commands." The origins of the UCC is rooted in World War II with its global scale and two main theaters half-a-world apart. As in the case of military alliances and bases, the UCC was founded to wage the Cold War but long outlived this confrontation and expanded.[195]
Dick Cheney, who served as Secretary of Defense during the end of the Cold War, announced: "The strategic command, control and communication system should continue to evolve toward a joint global structure…"[196] The continuation of the strategic pattern implied for some that "the US would hold to its accidental hegemony."[197] In 1998, the UCC determined the Soviet "succession": the former Soviet Republics in Europe and the whole of Russia were assigned to theUSEUCOM and those of the Central Asia to theUSCENTCOM. USEUCOM stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.[198]
In 2002, for the first time, the entire surface of the Earth was divided among the US commands. The last unassigned region—Antarctica—entered theUSPACOM which stretched from Pole to Pole and covered half of the globe; the rest of geographic commands covered the other half. Historian Christopher Kelly asked in 2002: What America needs to consider is "what is the optimum size for a non-territorial empire."[199] His colleague, Max Ostrovsky, replied: "Precisely that year, the UCC supplied a precise answer:510 million km2…"[200]
Canadian Historian,Michael Ignatieff, claims that the UCC map conveys the idea of the architecture underlying the entire global order and explaining how this order is sustained.[201] The US national defense evolves into global defense. TheQuadrennial Defense Review of 2014 refers to "our global Combatant Commanders," that is "our" and "global" at the same time.[202] The idea of the map can be traced to the first year of World War II when it was proposed as a reaction on the "magic geography"[203] ofGeopolitik:
American political geographers—Hartshorne...Bowman... and some of the rest of us—began studyingGeopolitik seriously as long ago as the Germans did. Obviously if a GermanGeopolitiker can draw a map for an Axis-dominated Europe we should at once set our geographers to work designing a new world map to meet democratic specifications.[204]
One of the mentioned Geographers, Isaiah Bowman, was known as "Roosevelt's Geographer."[205] Prominent is the leap from regional (European) map to "world map." Such mapping is a symptom of universal empire. Its rulers need to know the extent of their rule. Coming from a city-state, Herodotes was puzzled why the Persian Kings are always "surveying potential conquests, as if nervous of their power, and as if mapping were the same as mastering."[206][207] The etymological link between empire and command also appears in Persia.Xerxes the Great called himself "commander of many commanders."[208]
Combatant Commanders exercise heavy international influence and sometimes areassociated with theRoman proconsuls. Commander ofUS European Command holds a dual-hatted position with that ofSupreme Allied Commander Europe, the Commander of NATO. "Command," translated into Latin, renders "imperium." The Romans used the word "command" for their sphere of rule containing nominally independent states. From the First century AD, the word "command" became "synonymous with the realm commanded,"[209] that is,imperium obtained the meaning of "empire,"[210] and later lost its original meaning of "command."[211]
FormerNSC employee, Cranes Lord, summarized the imperial features of the US strategy: No other nation has anything approaching the network of overseas bases, forward deployed forces and client relationship of the US; nor divides the whole world intoAreas of Responsibility presided over by its commanders.[212]
On the ideological level, one motif for theglobal leadership is the notion ofAmerican exceptionalism. The US occupies a special position among the nations of the world[213] in terms of its nationalcredo, historical evolution, and political and religious institutions and origins. PhilosopherDouglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionalism as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th-century French observerAlexis de Tocqueville, who concluded by agreeing that the US, uniquely, was "proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived".[214] As aMonthly Review editorial opines on the phenomenon, "In Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent'white man's burden.' And in the US, empire does not even exist; 'we' are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy and justice worldwide."[215]Fareed Zakaria stressed one element not exceptional for the American Empire—the concept of exceptionalism. All dominant empires thought they were special.[216]
A "social-democratic" theory says that imperialistic US policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of US business and government—thearms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the "military–industrial complex." The complex is said to benefit fromwar profiteering and lootingnatural resources, often at the expense of the public interest.[217] The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure.[218]Chalmers Johnson holds a version of this view.[219]
Alfred Thayer Mahan, who served as an officer in theUS Navy during the late 19th century, supported the notion of American imperialism in his 1890 book titledThe Influence of Sea Power upon History. Mahan argued that modern industrial nations must secure foreign markets for the purpose of exchanging goods and, consequently, they must maintain a maritime force that is capable of protecting thesetrade routes.[220][221]
A theory of "super-imperialism" argues that imperialistic US 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.[citation needed] The argument asserts thatcapitalism in theGlobal North (Europe, Japan, Canada, and the US) has become too entangled to permit military or geopolitical conflict between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the Global North (also referred to as theglobal core) and the Global South (also referred to as theglobal periphery), rather than between the imperialist powers.[citation needed] A conservative, anti-interventionist view as expressed by American journalistJohn 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 theDeity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.[222]
The last period of the US Isolationist policy ended with World War II. Due to the progress of military technology, it was argued, the Oceans stopped protecting. Ever since, this War is invoked as a lesson for permanent involvement in world politics. Harry Truman,[223] John Kennedy[224] and Bill Clinton[225] repeated close versions of this lesson. If hostile powers are not checked from the beginning, the paradigm tells, they would gain control over vaster resources and eventually the US would have to fight them when they are stronger.
By the end of World War II, it had become a US strategic axiom that cumulatively the Old World vastly exceeds the Western Hemisphere in terms of manpower and resources, and hence the Old World must not be allowed to unify.[226] The focus of this policy is on Eurasia. SinceAlfred Thayer Mahan and untilHenry Kissinger andZbigniew Brzezinski, theAmerican geopolitical school claims it vital to prevent the Eurasian land mass from coming under control of any single power or combination of powers.[227][228][229][230] Some scholars explain the Cold War by geopolitics rather than ideology.[231][232] They stress that the US grand strategy designed for the Cold War long outlived the Soviet Communism.[233]
According toAndrew Preston, American officials who oversaw victory in World War II and waged Cold War against the Soviet Union sought to create a world system which would ensure America's security in an interdependent world.[234] In 2005, theUS Army War College, which provides graduate-level instruction to senior military officers and government officials, initiated a study of empires focusing on causes of their rise and fall. It classed the American Empire as accidental defensive, a result of the defense against Soviet Communism.[235] The Cold War forMichael Mandelbaum was self-defense against the Soviet Union. In the process the US acquired the role of world government but did not do so deliberately.[236]
September 11 is another example of security crisis which triggered greater intervention as well as released mass publications[237] on the "American Empire" accompanied by heated debates (see "Post-September-11 debates" below). Widely associated with the Pearl Harbor attack, it could similarly "unleash the American Empire."[238] Analyzing the reaction on September 11, David C. Hendrickson warned that the quest for absolute security is the way towardsuniversal empire.[239] Military analyst J. R. Dunn prefaced his 2007 article citing an ancient British anti-imperialist, Calgacus: The Romans "have made a desolation, and they call it peace" (Tacitus.Agricola. 30:5). Dunn warned modern anti-imperialists of the same outcome if they succeed to undermine the US security:
There have been rumblings, comments on the Net, voices on talk radio, arguing another alternative... That an effective response to terror is simply to start vaporizing cities, beginning with Tehran and working our way down until attacks cease. That, quite simply, the United States should transform itself into Rome... But how many Carthages would have to burn before we gained it? ... Would it take a dozen Hiroshimas? A hundred? ... But the critics should be wary of screaming too loud, of conspiring too well, of undermining us too thoroughly. Because if they succeed, if they do get what they insist they want, then the result may well be something they never conceived, and it will be their desolation, and our peace.[240]
For the first three centuries, explainedAmmianus Marcellinus (14:6:3—6), Rome carried its wars about its city walls. Trying to remove the wars ever further away from the city walls, Rome reached "every region which the vast globe includes." The pattern of increasing involvement responding to security crises or threats is known as "defensive imperialism" in the Roman studies[241][242][243] and Historian Max Ostrovsky applied the concept also toQin and the US. All three, he finds, began with isolationism using geographic barriers and gradually built their empires responding to growing external threats. The three strategic transformations are analogous—from isolationism to hegemony to empire—with the modern process being currently uncompleted.[244]
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 US 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."[245]
Prior to annexing a territory, the American government still held immense power through the various legislations passed in the late 1800s. ThePlatt 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.[52] Executive officials in the American government began to determine themselves the supreme authority in matters regarding the recognition or restriction of independence.[52]
HistorianDonald W. Meinig says imperial behavior by the US dates at least to theLouisiana 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 US policies towards the Native Americans, he said, were "designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires."[246]
Writers and academics of the early 20th century, likeCharles A. Beard, in support ofnon-interventionism (sometimes referred to as "isolationism"), discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism going back as far as the writing of the Constitution. Many politicians today do not agree.Pat Buchanan claims that the modern US' drive to empire is "far removed from what the Founding Fathers had intended the young Republic to become."[247]
InManufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the political activistNoam Chomsky argues that exceptionalism and the denials of imperialism are the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, to "manufacture opinion" as the process has long been described in other countries.[248] 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."[249]
Andrew Bacevich argues that the US did not fundamentally change itsforeign policy after theCold War, and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.[250] As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the US could focus its assets in new directions, the future being "up for grabs," according to former Under Secretary of Defense for PolicyPaul Wolfowitz in 1991.[251]
Since 2001,[252]Emmanuel Todd assumes the US cannot hold for long the status of mondial hegemonic power, due to limited resources. Instead, the US is going to become just one of the major regional powers along with European Union, China, Russia, etc. Reviewing Todd'sAfter the Empire,G. John Ikenberry found that it had been written in "a fit of French wishful thinking."[253]
.jpg)
Following September 11, publications on the "American Empire" grew exponentially, accompanied by heated debates.[254]Harvard historianCharles 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."[255]
Harvard professorNiall 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.[256]
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.[257]
Following theinvasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the idea of American imperialism was re-examined. In November 2001, jubilant marines hoisted an American flag over Kandahar and in a stage display referred to the moment as the third after those onSan Juan Hill andIwo Jima. All moments, writesNeil Smith, express US global ambition. "Labelled aWar on Terrorism, the new war represents an unprecedented quickening of the American Empire, a third chance at global power."[258]
On October 15, 2001, the cover ofBill Kristol'sWeekly Standard carried the headline, "The Case for American Empire".[259]Rich Lowry, editor in chief of theNational Review, called for "a kind of low-gradecolonialism" to topple dangerous regimes beyond Afghanistan.[260] The columnistCharles Krauthammer declared that, given complete US domination "culturally, economically, technologically and militarily", people were "now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire'".[7] TheNew York Times Sunday magazine cover for January 5, 2003, read "American Empire: Get Used To It". The phrase "American empire" appeared more than 1000 times in news stories during November 2002 – April 2003.[261] Academic publications on general imperiology surged too.[262] In 2005, two notable Journals,History and Theory andDaedalus, devoted a special issue to empires.
A leading spokesman for America-as-Empire, British historianA. G. Hopkins,[263] argues that by the 21st century traditionaleconomic 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.[264]
Harvard professor Niall Ferguson concludes that worldwide military and economic power have combined to make the US the most powerful empire in history. It is a good idea he thinks, because like the successfulBritish 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.[266] 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.[267]
The US dollar is thede factoworld currency.[268] The termpetrodollar warfare refers to the alleged motivation of US foreign policy as preserving by force the status of the US dollar as the world's dominantreserve currency and as the currency in whichoil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phraseoilcurrency war is sometimes used with the same meaning.[269]
When asked on April 28, 2003, onAl Jazeera whether the US was "empire building," Secretary of DefenseDonald Rumsfeld replied, "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been."[270] Many – perhaps most – scholars[who?] have decided that the US 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 US government does not send out governors or permanent settlers like all the historic empires did.[271] Harvard historianCharles 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 US does not exert formal control over other nations or engage in systematic conquest. The best term is that the US 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.[272][273]
World historianAnthony Pagden asks, Is the US 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.[274]
In the bookEmpire (2000),Michael Hardt andAntonio Negri argue that "the decline of Empire has begun".[275][276] Hardt says theIraq War is a classically imperialist war and is the last gasp of a doomed strategy.[277] They expand on this, claiming that in the new era of imperialism, the classical imperialists retain a colonizing power of sorts, but the strategy shifts from military occupation of economies based on physical goods to a networkedbiopower based on an informational andaffective economies. They go on to say that the US is central to the development of this new regime ofinternational power andsovereignty, termed "Empire", but that it is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state: "The US does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences."[278] Hardt and Negri draw on the theories ofBaruch Spinoza,Michel Foucault,Gilles Deleuze, and ItalianAutonomist Marxists.[279][280]
GeographerDavid Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism due to geographical distinctions as well as unequal rates of development.[281] He says there have emerged three new global economic and political blocs: the US, theEuropean Union, and Asia centered on China and Russia.[282][verification needed] He says there are tensions between the three major blocs over resources and economic power, citing the2003 invasion of Iraq, the motive of which, he argues, was to prevent rival blocs from controlling oil.[283] Furthermore, Harvey argues that there can arise conflict within the major blocs between business interests and the politicians due to their sometimes incongruent economic interests.[284] Politicians live in geographically fixed locations and are, in the US and Europe,[verification needed] accountable to an electorate. The 'new' imperialism, then, has led to an alignment of the interests of capitalists and politicians in order to prevent the rise and expansion of possible economic and political rivals from challenging America's dominance.[285]
_and_USS_Frank_Cable_(AS-40)_at_Apra_Harbor%2c_Guam%2c_on_23_May_2002_(6640652).jpg)
In one point of view, US expansion overseas in the late 1890s 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. HistorianSamuel Flagg Bemis argues thatSpanish–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.[286] HistorianWalter LaFeber sees the Spanish–American War expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of US expansion westward.[287]
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."[288]Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the US, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial. International relations scholarJohn Ikenberry argues that international institutions have taken the place of empire.[253]
Political theoristMichael Walzer argues that the termhegemony is better than empire to describe the US's role in the world.[289] Hegemony is distinguished from empire as ruling only external but not internal affairs of other states.[290] Political scientistRobert Keohane argues a "balanced and nuanced analysis is not aided ... by the use of the word 'empire' to describe US hegemony, since 'empire' obscures rather than illuminates the differences in form of governance between the US and other Great Powers, such asGreat Britain in the 19th century or theSoviet Union in the twentieth".[291] Proponents of this definition regard the post-Cold War world order ashegemonic stability. Some identify recurrent cycle of such orders while others argue that what is identified as earlier cases were neither hegemony nor stability and the situation isunprecedented in history.
Other political scientists, such as Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, argue that neither 'empire' nor 'hegemony' exclusively describesforeign relations of the US. The US can be, and has been, simultaneously an empire and a hegemonic power. They claim that the general trend in US foreign relations has been away from imperial modes of control.[292]
Max Boot defends US imperialism, writing, "US 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."[293] Boot used "imperialism" to describe US policy, not only in the early 20th century but "since at least 1803."[293][294] This embrace of empire is made by otherneoconservatives, including British historianPaul Johnson, and writersDinesh D'Souza andMark Steyn. It is also made by someliberal hawks, such as political scientistsZbigniew Brzezinski andMichael Ignatieff.[295]
Scottish-American historianNiall Ferguson argues that the US is an empire and believes that this is a good thing: "What is not allowed is to say that the US is an empire and that this might not be wholly bad."[296] Ferguson has drawn parallels between theBritish Empire and the global role of the US in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes the US' political and social structures as more like those of theRoman 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 US empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects.[297]
Within the US, women played important roles in both advocating for and protesting against American imperialism. Women's organizations 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 US had a responsibility to guide and shape the destiny of other nations.[298]
During the era of American imperialism, women played a significant role inmissionary 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.[299]
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 ofWestern 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 civilization, 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 viewedindigenous practices as in need of improvement and "upliftment".[300]
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.[301]
While some women supported American imperialism, others actively participated in anti-imperialist movements and expressed opposition to expansionist policies. Women, including suffragists and progressive activists, criticized the imperialist practices of the US. They challenged the notion that spreadingdemocracy and civilization abroad could be achieved through theoppression andcolonization 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 ofglobal justice and equality.[302]
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 US expansionism. Women's organizations and prominent figures raised their voices against the injustices of imperialism, advocating for peace, human rights, and the self-determination of colonized peoples. They criticized the exploitation and oppression inherent in imperialistic practices, highlighting the disproportionate impact on marginalized 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 behavior 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 effect of gender roles on both American domestic attitudes as well as foreign policy.[303]
Writers likeWilliam I. Robinson have characterized American empire since the 1980s and 1990s as one which is a front for the imperial designs of the American capitalist class, arguing that Washington D.C. has become the seat of the 'empire of capital' from which nations are colonized and re-colonized.[110]
American imperialism has long had a media dimension (media imperialism) and cultural dimension (cultural imperialism).
InMass Communication and American Empire,Herbert I. Schiller emphasized the significance of the mass media andcultural industry to American imperialism,[304] 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 US world power."[305]
InCommunication 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.[306]
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."[307] According to Schiller, cultural imperialism "pressured, forced and bribed" societies to integrate with the US'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. InHearts and Mines: The US Empire's Culture Industry, Tanner Mirrlees builds upon the work ofHerbert 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.[308]
Some researchers argue that military andcultural imperialism are interdependent. Every war of Empire has relied upon a culture or "way of life" that supports it, and most often, with the idea that a country has a unique or special mission to spread its way of life around the world.Edward Said, one of the founders ofpost-colonial theory, said,
... 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.[309]
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 economicglobalization, which allows access to numerous US and Western ideas and products that many non-US and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume.[310] Many countries with American brands have incorporated these into their own local culture. An example of this would be the self-styled "Maccas," an Australian derivation of "McDonald's" with a tinge of Australian culture.[311]
International relations scholarJoseph Nye argues that US power is more and more based on "soft power," which comes fromcultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force. This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the US, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at US universities, and the spread of US styles of popular music and cinema. Mass immigration into America may justify this theory, but it is hard to know whether the US would still maintain its prestige without its military and economic superiority.,[312] In terms of soft power,Giles Scott-Smith, argues that American universities:[313]
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.[316] 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).[317]
The US' 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 US' imperial endeavors.
TheHudson River School, a romantic-inspired art movement which emerged in 1826 at the height of nineteenth-century American expansion depictedsublime landscapes and grand natural scenes. These paintings which admired the marvels of unexplored American territory emphasized this idea of the US as a promised land.[318] 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 titledAmerican Progress similarly displays themes of discovery and the hopeful prospects of American expansion.[319] Notions ofmanifest 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.[320]
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.
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)grand opportunity.
lebensraum.
lebensraum., p 27-28.
The U.S. played a very powerful and direct role in the life of this institution, the army, that went on to commit genocide
Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1890).The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 . Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.Chapter I: Discussion of the Elements of Sea Power .OCLC 2553178..{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Quotations related toAmerican imperialism at Wikiquote Quotations related toAmerican benevolence at Wikiquote
