What do you think of when the word empire is mentioned?

If you are a New England baseball fan, it could the “evil empire” of the New York Yankees. If you like Star Wars, it might be “The Empire Strikes Back.” If politics is the context, you might bring up Russia or Rome, but never the United States.

But have we changed since Sept. 11, 2001?

The essential ingredient about empire is control. Empires try to extend it beyond their borders through political, economic and cultural means. Two recent developments, the Iraqi elections and the fear of cuts in local military bases, have stimulated me to think about the challenges involved in giving up control.

Iraq elections

The big winner is the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. They received 48 percent and will take the commanding role in drawing up a new constitution. They believe the constitution should be based on Islam. The Kurds did well with 26 percent and the secular Shiites received 14 percent. Leaders of the United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurds have close relationships with Iran.

Since it takes a two-thirds majority to make up a government, there are plenty of opportunities for the smaller parties to bargain. The political horse-trading has begun. The Iraqis have until Aug. 15 to draft a constitution.

Some believe the United States is trying to control the ultimate political outcome. It has been reported that the U.S. offered cabinet posts in the new government before the vote count was complete. Last December, Iraqi Finance Minister Adil Abdel-Mahdi stated he favors creating a new law that that would allow private foreign investors to be involved with Iraq’s national oil company. Abdel-Mahdi is a top member of the United Iraqi Alliance.

The United States is in a difficult position. We don’t want an Islamist government that has close ties with Iran. However, if we are seen as manipulating the political structure, foreign relations and economic arrangements of Iraq, we will lose the moral power we gained from the Iraqis by ousting Saddam Hussein. They will charge that we want democracy, but only within American constraints.

Local military cuts

Economic self-interest is the primary reason why Maine’s congressional delegation doesn’t like President Bush’s new defense budget. It calls for reducing spending on DD(X) stealthy destroyers over the next several years. These ships are built at Bath Iron Works. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe has called the plan shortsighted and inadequate. BIW has 6,200 employees and pays Bath $4.4 million a year in taxes.

There could be bigger trouble in the spring. In May, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission is scheduled to announce its recommendations. Brunswick Naval Air Station and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard are vulnerable. The regional economic impact of the Brunswick station is $333.6 million and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has 2,771 Maine employees. Many believe that these bases are unnecessary. After all, al-Qaida doesn’t have any submarines.

Even though our Navy played a critical role in helping the victims of the recent Asian tsunami, humanitarian relief is not its primary purpose. Projecting military and political strength is what navies are for.

Our local political leaders are in a complicated spot. If we don’t want to be viewed as an empire, then we should cut our military. Shrinking the Navy is a start. However, this will be extremely difficult because of pressure from constituents and local economic leaders.

Giving up control

American Empire produces big navies and good-paying jobs. It also increases foreign resentment of us. If we don’t want to become an empire, we should give up control of where Iraq is ultimately headed. That means letting the Iraqis rebuild their country free from American military presence and unwarranted economic and political pressure.

This will be difficult because the loss of American lives has produced a mounting desire to rationalize our action. Anything short of democracy might be seen as allowing our soldiers to die in vain. The amount of money spent also will make letting go problematic. We have spent more than $300 billion so far fighting terrorism, and Iraq is our showcase.

Over a hundred years ago, a Mainer named Thomas B. Reed had a lot to say about empire. Reed was a powerful Republican speaker of the House in Washington in the 1890s. He realized the dangers of empire-building. He was against the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War. He thought that crass economic concerns were beginning to triumph over old-fashioned conservatism. He feared that our nation would ultimately disintegrate under internal conflicts and be attacked by a bigger country.

Is the U.S. beginning to fall apart because of the way we are responding to the Sept. 11 attacks? Is our policy of preemptive military action actually encouraging hostile forces to unite against us?

Why is it so difficult for a nation based on freedom to give up control?

Karl Trautman has taught political science for more than 20 years. He has been a policy analyst for the Michigan legislature and a research assistant for “Meet The Press.” He chairs the Social Sciences Department at Central Maine Community College and can be reached at karltrautman@yahoo.com.

Copy the Story Link