Exit Strategies

Part of Andrew's quote of the day is Harvey Mansfield's assertion "that if America is an empire, it is the first empire that always wants an exit strategy."

I don't think that's really true. I've been reading Robert Meredith's book on The Fate of Africa lately, and one striking thing about the section on decolonization from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s was precisely the extent to which in many circumstances the imperial powers were looking for an exit strategy. Outside of the unusual case of Algeria, it was almost never the stated policy of England or France (Portugal was different) that they wanted to stay forever. Instead, as with the US in Iraq, there was always just a reason you couldn't leave right now, and then another reason, and some more problems, etc., etc., etc.

Comments

Good point. Meredith's book is excellent, by the way, and I would recommend it to others.

Posted by Eric | May 3, 2007 12:08 PM

Uhm...

The 1940's to the 1960's were the era of dismantling empires. Instead of a contradiction, that period actually supports the view you are arguing against. If you wanted to contradict it, point to the history of the 1880's-the height of the Victorian era, or in the middle of the Napoleonic, or Roman eras.

Sk

Posted by Sk | May 3, 2007 12:28 PM

I'm afraid Sk is largely right, Matthew. However, the British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th Century, at least in certain liberal corners of Whitehall, began to float the idea of "black" and "brown" Dominions, because they recognized that keeping places like Nigeria and India forever in thrall contradicted Britain's stated reason for being there in the first place.
Also, though he is politically distasteful, Niall Ferguson brought up the point (about a thousand times, if I remember correctly) that the British, after sort-of-illegally-invading Egypt to take over the Canal in 1882 (under Gladstone, no less!), promised something like 60 times to leave in the next forty years.
Of course, this was cant, and everyone knew it.

Posted by Ben Cronin | May 3, 2007 12:41 PM

I should also add that this kind of serial and imperial mendacity was something Ferguson thought we should be _actively engaging in,_ which shows you something about his worldview.

Also, though I know you love PITY OF WAR, Matt, it really was just a historical version of contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism (a la Mickey Kaus); or, should I say, contrarianism-for-the-sake-of-a-chair-at-Oxford.

Posted by Ben Cronin | May 3, 2007 12:44 PM

Matt (can I call you matt?), do you recommend the book? I was going to check it out from the library but it's massive and it's playoffs season.

Posted by Jerry | May 3, 2007 1:41 PM

One thinks of Trajan, Hadrian and Ctesiphon, of course.

Posted by Pudentilla | May 3, 2007 1:44 PM

matt - please share your thoughts/review of the meredith book. i read it recently and enjoyed it, but have found few thoughtful reviews out there. . .

Posted by danack | May 3, 2007 2:07 PM

it was almost never the stated policy of England or France (Portugal was different) that they wanted to stay forever.

As Sk noted, this is certainly not true if you look further back in history. When people compare the US to an empire, they're talking about 19th century Britain or 16th century Spain, not mid-20th century Europe. The Brits certainly weren't looking for an exit strategy when they crowned Victoria Empress of India. And it's an important distinction that no one has suggested renaming Baghdad "New Washington" or calling Iraq "Bushland".

Posted by right | May 3, 2007 2:22 PM

"that if America is an empire, it is the first empire that always wants an exit strategy."

This is ridiculous. If you take the Project for the New American Century as a proxy for "American Imperialism" and given the signatories to the Statement of Principles (I think that is fair, because who is missing from the list?) you can look long and hard and still end up with nothing that suggests 'exit strategy'
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

"We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"

If there is an exit strategy it is over the horizon at least a hundred years. And the list of signatories never ceases to amaze me. This is from 1997 and EVERYONE is already there. For these guys 9/11 changed nothing, it just allowed the team to implement the plan.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky

Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney

Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby

Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen

Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

If this was a novel it would be rejected. Who could believe that one man could simply select himself to be Vice President and simply insert his own security team into place in almost all key foreign policy posts. With others firmly in place controlling magazines and in outposts in academia. When I first saw this list I had no idea who Khalilzad was. Didn't surprise me when his name started popping up in key slots though.

At least they had the grace to pretend to adhere to Constitutional norms before launching the coup and quest for American Empire.

Posted by Bruce Webb | May 3, 2007 2:50 PM

It's not Robert Meredith but Martin.

Excellent book. Probably the best on post-independence Africa.

Victor

Posted by Victor | May 3, 2007 3:35 PM

Not only that, Mansfield mis-understands the point of occupation. When nations were basically mercantilists, the only way to get value out of a foreign country was invade, occupy, export natural resources (i.e. suck dry), then pack up and find new resources for extracting. 21st century occupation is really about introducing and institutionalizing capitalism so the occupied country becomes a trading partner for the occupier, enriching both companies. Admittedly, this type of 'occupation' is WAY less bad than invading, raping, and pillaging, but it also eliminates any meaning from Mansfield's claim that the U.S. is somehow superior to previous occupations. Everyone's goals have changed.

Posted by shaister42 | May 3, 2007 6:19 PM

While I do believe that Bush is exaggerating in his whole chaos theory for Iraq regarding this bill, I also think that it would be foolish to pull out of Iraq without thinking about the repercussions and alternatives for this war. I think that for Iraq to escape ruin, insitutions and funding need to be in place to address and prevent further poverty. Is there ever an easy answer though? No. But there are wiser paths to take than continuing with this war as is. We're already embroiled in it, now we need to be responsible and find a way out without abandoning Iraq.

If the original principle of why we are fighting this war is as important as Bush claims, the $340 billion already spent and the further $100+ billion to be spent should be redirected toward plans to fight poverty and develop the country to prevent another Afghanistan. According to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually can end starvation and $15 billion provides water and sanitation all over the world. If ending terror is the goal, the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty is the way to to go for our leaders.

Posted by elc | May 3, 2007 7:27 PM