He chose to dismiss the blogger criticisms by comparing us to the neo-cons unfavourably. Glenn pointed out that they still fete the various neo-cons, but to even have moved him so far as to use neo-cons as tar to brush on us is actually some progress.

It is the smallest and most back-handed admission the pro-war fools were horribly wrong. Perhaps unintentionally, and maybe even (dare I risk psychoanalyzing so far) a freudian slip.

In any case, we are getting under their skin. And the weakness of the reply is a good sign.

The fact that one can, without a hint of hyperbole or jest involved, engage in a debate over whether the US is an "empire" is a huge departure from the history of the country.

That there is even a non-trivial case to be made for an "American Empire" is an obvious sign of badly things are going.

Like pornography, we know it when we see it. Drezner may feel some comfort in the US failing to meet some aspect of someone's list of 147 "necessary and sufficient" criteria for being an Empire, but I would rather get back to the days when the question was laughable, rather than failing to meet some minor technical facet of the Webster's Foreign Policy Dictionary definition for imperialism.

Wherein should any member of the left ever dare to call a member of the current administration or Republican leadership a "fascist" the debate immediately grinds to a halt over some petulant and irrelevant distinction between the person in question and historical examples or narrow definitions of fascism.

This question of America being an empire or not in the current day is a similar form of filibustering and a strawman. If the US is not, technically or legally an "empire" does that make the current state of US foreign policy any better morally or more effective in achieving the aims of its citizens?

Calling the US an "empire" or Tom Delay a "fascist" is a way of highlighting how awful and reprehensible their behaviour has been. Loaded terms are sometimes useful in making clear the level of disgust one feels for the actions of object in question.

So also to Mr. Drezner: If the US is not an Empire, how would you characterize it? We have a clue in his comparison of US actions to Australia among others. Clearly the US is in a category of its own in terms of contemporary world actors, both in breadth and scope of operations and perceived "interests" abroad. Empire is a pretty good shorthand for this, but if there is a better one, let's have it.

I can forgive a Bush 2000 vote. I wouldn't have voted for him, but his campaign rhetoric on foreign policy was the diametric opposite of how he has run things since (literally) taking office.

People voting for Bush then were not voting for more wars and invasions, they were ostensibly voting for less. Probably they were just voting for tax cuts, who knows?

2004, I definitely agree. By then the writing was clear as daylight on the wall. Rarely does the mere act of voting become "reprehensible" but that one qualifies. One might suggest Kerry was hardly running as a pacifist, but he was talking much more about police and intelligence operations that more wars. For which he was derided by the predictable foreign policy gurus now mocking Obama for his crazy notions about not nuking people.

Is that a huge portion of the psychological premise of invading Iraq is the scare the pants off of "the enemy" by showcasing US "resolve" and "strength."

My question:

How is this any different from essentially instilling "fear" (or "terror" if you will) in a set of combatants by using acts of overt force that materially impact civilians whom the combatants care for?

I acknowledge that so far, it has not been US military policy to explicitly target civilians (that we know of) and that is a material difference from classic terrorism, but it is one that becomes much more problematic when you invade a country to scare off an enemy. You are taking on an act which will certainly have civilian casualties, to instill fear in an enemy.

It's perilously close to being terrorism and my fear is that it only averts that definition by a kind of legal kung-fu because the individual soldiers making war on that country are not being told to target civilians, however in the aggregate that will still be the result.

A child that closes his eyes, swings his fists wildly and walks in the general direction of a sibling shouting "If you get in the way, it's your fault" is employing a similar tactic.

Naturally this question can never be asked by anyone in a position to ask it meaningfully since it would be equated with calling the troops terrorists. It is among the Ward Churchillian sins to wonder aloud about such things.

I guarantee many who are not sympathetic to the US are asking this question, and it would be better if the US had a good answer for it that didn't come off as legalistic evasion, much like the Bush administration positions on torture.

The mere fact that we are having this substantive and focused debate on whether America now constitutes an "empire" is an obvious sign that whatever America is, it is too close to "empire" for any comfort for anyone who would not have it so.

Quit splitting hairs. The fact that there is some grey here tells us the US is not in the clear.