The U.S. tries to dismiss its label as a world empire

U.S. military experts discussed the aims and goals of the United States' military involvements around the world on Saturday, and whether those involvements could be sustained in the long term.

Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Greg Fontenot, retired Army General William Nash, London School of Economics professor Dr. Gwyn Prins, and Tufts political science professor Jeffrey Taliaferro spoke to a full Cabot Auditorium amid rolling video cameras and photographers for the EPIIC symposium lecture, "U.S. Grand Strategy: The Future Role of the U.S. Military."

Taliaferro contended that "the U.S. has been an empire since the Spanish-American War" in terms of its "preponderance in all aspects of material power," but that the United States has been reluctant to cast itself in that light. "We don't like the e-word," he said, referring to the label of empire.

Nash insinuated that the present administration's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan took a more aggressive and less developmental approach to intervention in foreign countries than previously.

The United States, Nash said, involved itself in other countries in order to rebuild the economic, social, and political infrastructure of the "failed" state.

Most recently, however, the United States saw Iraq and Afghanistan only as rogue states, whose corrupt systems of government needed to be dissembled.

Prins stated his opinion of the typical U.S. intervention strategy as "pour on fire, go fast in, fast out. War is hell, and needs to end as quickly as [possible]."

Despite "the preponderance of the U.S. in all forms of material power," Taliaferro questioned the decision to go to war in Iraq so soon after engagement in Afghanistan, effectively engaging in two wars at once. "[The] military is spread much too thin," he said.

While maintaining that a military presence was imperative for stabilization purposes, the panelists discussed the definition of a real victory, agreeing that pure military exertion was insufficient for creating true security in terms of long-term stability. "[War] is as much building as destruction. [It] is much broader than a military context," Nash said, emphasizing "the integration of political, economic and social factors."

Killing and mayhem may occur in the absence of war, but it is "not peace," Nash said of the current conflict in Iraq, where over 500 U.S. soldiers have died since the war was officially declared over last spring.

Prins agreed, citing the inherent limitations of strictly military power. "Hard power is like a razor blade, it's sharp, but inherently brittle. When used alone, it will break," he said.

Nash, in his closing remarks, emphasized caution regarding the moral nature of warfare. "The problem of Iraq is the age-old problem of greater and lesser evil, it's an arena that challenges us morally," he said. "When force is used, the most terrible danger is to have it transform the person who uses it. [We must make sure] that when terrible things have to be done, that they do not destroy us."

Tom Butler, an outside guest who attended the panel, strongly opposed the attitudes presented. "I'm appalled," he said. "These are very rational brilliant minds, [but] they accept this concept of a permanent war on terror. The war wasn't about weapons of mass destruction -- it was a political gesture [to displace Saddam Hussein]. They talk about the invasion of Iraq as justified, and accept future wars."

One student asked Nash whether the management of Iraq and Afghanistan would change were President Bush not re-elected. "I see little change regardless of the president in 2005," Nash said, who did not see "any likelihood of a cut and run or dramatically changed priorities" among the potential presidential candidates.

During the presentation, Nash was presented with the Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award by Adrienne Van Nieuwenhuizen of the EPIIC Colloquium.

William Lange and Guergana Petkova, also of the EPIIC Colloquim, moderated the panel.