American imperialism?

An interesting essay from The Economist this week on whether America's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq constitute a new form of imperialism, and whether, if true, this would be a good thing. The article casts our actions as a kind of limited imperialism, not likely to last overly long in either place, and assuming this comes true, argues it would be a good thing. It is careful to point out, however, that "not lasting overly long" does not mean immediate or easy:

In other words, running colonies collectively as an empire requires the intention of either continuous control or, more likely, some sort of transformation, which is where state-building comes in, ideally laced with a bit of missionary zeal. The thrills of empire are not those of the one-night stand.

This is, it seems to me, a powerful point, and it captures the central tension of American policy in Iraq, where troubles outweigh successes, if we're to believe The Washington Post. I am still hopeful that The Economist has this one right, and that we'll have the stamina to see out a successful transition and leave the country far better than we found it.

Of course, if we left right now, we'd probably have achieved that goal.
- posted by Anonymous @ 4:29 PM