Until recently, America's wars tended to be declared, infrequent, and fairly painful. In America's Splendid Little Wars: A Short History of U.S. Military Engagements, 1975-2000 (buy it here), Peter Huchthausen explores the undeclared, frequent, and less bloody (and thus, largely unchronicled) skirmishes that have characterized American military efforts between the fall of Saigon and 9/11. Huchthausen masterfully presents thumbnail histories of the SS Mayaguez incident (1975), the botched attempt to rescue Americans in Iran (1980), the disastrous peacekeeping mission in Lebanon (1982-1984), Grenada (1983), airstrikes on Libya (1985), the invasion of Panama (1989), the Gulf War (1991), and humanitarian interventions in Somalia (1991-1994), Bosnia (1991-1999), and Kosovo (1999).

Unintended consequences, both positive and negative, are a common thread through the recent "splendid little wars." Grenada and Panama, intended to rescue Americans trapped amid an internecine Marxist war and to apprehend a narco-dictator, respectively, happily resulted in free and democratic governments replacing thuggish regimes. Clinton-era airstrikes in Kosovo, designed to alleviate the suffering of the Albanians, "worsened the plight of the Albanians on the ground, for as soon as the bombing began, the Serbs' ruthless purge of the Albanians intensified."

While Americans could brag of an undefeated military record until Vietnam, the results of America's splendid little wars have been mixed. If there's a trend in these conflicts, it's that military engagements with concrete rather than abstract objectives tend to turn out well. Think of the differences between the two campaigns in Iraq. The allied forces achieved the concrete mission--liberating Kuwait and defending Saudi Arabia--of the former war. The evolving (and broader) mission--from removing the WMD threat to nation-building--of the latter war has resulted in more setbacks than in the Gulf War. The amorphously defined mission in Somalia mutated from a humanitarian intervention to an experiment in nation-building, and the eighteen-month U.S. presence in Lebanon, where "The original mission of deterrence and peace-keeping had given way completely," both resulted in embarrassing withdrawals with nothing to show for the ventures save dead Americans. The attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran provides a counterexample to this trend. The mission had a clearly defined aim in America's interest, yet still failed.

On occassion, American military interventions peculiarly find greater popularity among the invaded than the invaders. Huchthausen points to a CBS poll among Panamanians showing a 92% approval rating for America's 1989 invasion. Upon Ronald Reagan's trip to Grenada one year after the American invasion, "an estimated one hundred thousand Grenadians turned out--nearly the entire population--to cheer his speech." Though popular, neither campaign received anything near that level of domestic support.

America's Splendid Little Wars is a splendid little book. The slim volume, to paraphrase Joe Friday, provides just the facts. It is history--overlooked history--devoid of spin. In other words, it's more news story than op-ed. Isn't that what good history is?

Did he forget Haiti?

Yeah. Maybe that one wasn't splendid enough to make it in. Seriously, I think he was more into discussing the combat side of things, and there wasn't much of that in Haiti. He mentions it, but doesn't devote a chapter to Haiti.

www.911wasalie.com

I find that very few of these "splendid little wars" could actually be called a war.

But yes, part of being the most dominant nation on Earth is having troops involved in many conflicts overseas. The Romans faced it, the British faced it, the Soviets faced it and we face it. We are at the point now were we are undoubtedly the world's only superpower, and the greatest superpower in the history of the world. The only way we could change that now would be to change nearly ever single facet of American history dating back to December 7, 1941

Truth, show as all that you are more than a poor excuse for a talking head of the far left. Instead of simply linking or copying and pasting all your arguments, try creating a well structured argument that is worth responding to? Living in Massachusetts, I come across many on the political left that are shrewd debaters and are capable of making some strong points. You however, are behaving like an embarrassment.

Ben-T,

All three of those prior examples of superpowers you list were destroyed by their very overreaching attempt to dominate globally (with a healthy dose of domestic social decay). Why doesn't that cause you pause about the prospects of survival for our country?

It sort of spooks me, Brian. It's an age-old question - how do we get the good parts of the empire without the bad - or without the empire? The Romans gave a lot of good to the world (some of it borrowed from the cultures they long ruled); likewise, the British. The Soviet, not so much, I think, but I would hardly call them an empire anyway - seventy years is nothing compared to Rome or Great Britain. (And England has hardly fallen, come to think of it.)

Is a world-spanning power a net plus or a net minus?

Nightfly asks the big question. My first guess is that some empires have been quite good for mankind for long periods of time, but their failures and their fallings have been dramatic and hurtful. An empire that has the self-discipline to follow self-imposed principles can be a wonderful thing, but it is also rare.
The Americans of the founding generation were proud to be part of the empire and proud of their rights as British citizens. But the British got sloppy, sentimental, and forgot their own principles. They refused to listen to their American critics. Their "second empire" (after they lost most of North America) had a very mixed record of helping and hurting others.

Continuing on DocMcG's thoughts,

The Britons failed to listen to their own homegrown critics of the way the crown was handling the colonies (Edmund Burke for one).

But on the topic of decent empires, the Hapsburg empire was a great one and quiet beneficial in its time. A previous American president who worshipped the idol "democracy" played a pivotal role in destroying that empire, he too wanted death for all "tyrants." In the wake of the fall of the Hapsburgs came the dominance of Europe by Nazism and communism, and later led to the Balkan Wars.

Also, the Turkish Empire kept the Islamic world in check for centuries and had allowed for a truce between east and west. The decline and fall after WWI of the Ottomans gave rise to many of the problems in the region that we are dealing with now. Again, the Turkish empire was in decline through its own faults but was finally killed by European powers interested in gaining control of the various parts of the mideast. All of them had a miserable go of subduing the region and exploiting its resources in the 20th century, why we want to pick up where they left off is beyond me.

It is impossible to attain the good parts of empire without the bad. All empires will eventually pass into the annals of history. It is the effect you have on the world while you rule that matters. America will be destroyed by its own overreaching power just as Rome and Britain were. The game is to stay in power as long as possible, and achieve as much as you can while you are there.

Ben-T, Won't every country, empire or not, pass into the annals of history? Isn't it better to be destroyed by your own flaws (like an overreaching ambition which seems to develop in most empires) than to be destroyed by the flaws of others? Without an outside power to control others (and existing international institutions show no promise on this front) the only way to assure that others won't destroy a nation is for that nation to be able to project power. Usually that means it must become an empire.

Brian, I agree with you about the Hapsburgs and the Turks. But now that the Wilsonians have helped break the world order, don't we, as a country, have some responsibilities to the people who suffer greatly because it has been broken?

It is better to be destroyed by one's one flaws than by others, according to DocMcG ... oddness abounds!

That's why I smoke; even if it hastens my death, I'm in charge.

Judging from DocMcG, it is as though the Weekly Standard were populated by Hapburg-enthusuasts rather than by neoWilsonians. Oh, to dream...

Note that the Hapsburgs and the Ottomans ruled over "their own kind", really. In contrast to the British experiments with foreign cultures. Different types of "empire" entirely. We would have much better results ruling Mexico than we ever could ruling Iraq.

BenT: Empire isn't a game, and the point of a country is not bettering the world, but enabling its citizens to live good lives.

If one's only aim is to hold power as long as possible, then one is a tyrant. There's got to be a point to the power, as Ben says - "achieve as much as you can while you're there." But I would add most strongly that "achievement" is too morally neutral a term. You have to achieve GOOD. Again, using the Soviet example, they were powerful, but turned it all toward conquest and domestic tyranny. They got a lot of stuff done, I daresay - it's hard work starving millions of Ukranians and building a powerful, intricate, globe-spanning spy network.

This doesn't just "go without saying." We assume too much to assume that our own motives are noble.

Short,

Most of the people who were ruled over by the Hapsburgs and the Turks would have disagreed that they were ruled "by their own kind."

When I spoke of being "killed by your own flaws" it was in the broad historical context of a political community. It is better for us to set up a system where our children be allowed to smoke themselves to death than one where they are likely to be killed by murderers. They can choose for themselves to stop smoking, despite the temptation, just like they can choose not to be ensnared in the hubris of empire.

Both Short's point about "neoWilsonians" and Nightfly's point that "We assume too much to assume that our own motives are noble" question the motives of those who we would empower by taking on some of the roles of an empire. This is an excellent point. The effective counterpoint is to ask "Who do we empower when we refuse to accept those roles?" The only solution I see to this dilemma is to develop moral clarity at home and to accept moral responsibilities abroad. This seems an almost impossible goal. I will abandon it when anyone articulates a plausible, sustainable substitute.

Doc McG says we must "...develop moral clarity at home and to accept moral responsibilities abroad." Whatever that means, it doesn't imply empire, which is what he's been defending. Here's an alternative to empire: we should "accept moral responsibilities at home and foster moral clarity abroad."

Look, responsibility extends no further than ability. Thus the American people don't have the responsibility to set up a just and humane US empire over a bunch of people who hate us on the other side of the globe. If we can't destroy abortion, poverty and the racial division at home, there is no reason to assume we can solve abroad the economic, political and ethnic problems and theological errors internal to the Islamic world.

When and how did American conservatives become imperialists?! I am simply confounded.

DocMcG,

Nope.

That is my short answer (as opposed to "Short's answer"), although I admit that I am not of totally settled opinion on this question, particularly as the Christian duty to ease suffering is absolute.

Philosophically though I have real trouble with concepts of collective guilt in whatever non-theological form they take (thus making exception for original sin). It seems to me that you are suggesting that we Americans today are collectively guilty for the bad consequences of past actions by our government (through Wilson) and of western governments in general. Since "we" contributed to the instability of the mideast through undermining the ancien regime of the Turkish empire as well as imperial pursuits (more Europe's fault than the U.S.) we thus have an obligation to right these wrongs.

For the same reason that I reject the notion that contemporary Americans or American businesses should pay reparations for slavery I don't accept your contention that we are obligated to pacify and stabilize the mideast.

Actually, you have made me realize that I am being oddly Wilsonian myself in my disinclination to intervene in the mideast and dictate how the various nations there are governed. That is, I am basically accepting the modern impulse to create "nations"---so that as Wilson would have said all "peoples" could be "self-determining"---is one that will not disappear. The cat of nationalism was let out of the bag a long time ago and won't be put back in anytime soon. That being the case, I am content to let the Iraqis determine their own form of government without direct interference from us, be it a nasty and brutal dictatorship like Saddam, or a theocratic nightmare like Iran.

I'm not sure where Short gets the idea I have been "defending empire." My posts have been careful to point out both the advantages and the pitfalls of empire. This was in response to Nightfly's thoughtful questions: "how do we get the good parts of the empire without the bad - or without the empire?" and "Is a world-spanning power a net plus or a net minus?"

That we don't do everything well at home does not relieve us of responsibilties to others outside our home. This does not mean solving their problems. If my neighbor is a drug addict, I might not have a responsibility to cure him but I might still have a responsibility to keep the neighborhood's tough kids from beating him up. I think the international situation entails similar responsibilites.

Defining where these responsibilities end and "imperialism" begins is an important question and is part of the question that Nightfly asks.

Brian,

I appreciate our insight about the implicit Wilsonianism in your position. I hadn't thought of that but it is very true.
But I reject your comparison involving slavery reparations. If you discovered that long before you were born your father defrauded his business partner out of half the company, and now you are sole owner and you see the defrauded partner's children in distress, I believe you have some responsibility to them. This is not corporate guilt because we are not a corporation, we are collectively a sole proprietorship. The people of the states of the United States are sovereigns just like King George was sovereign and we inherit responsibilities through our ancestors' actions just as he did. This does not entail any specific action but it does entail some responsibilities for what our predecessors have done.

But the larger question is, even in the absence of guilt, when I see a stranger in distress, and I have it in my power to save his life, must I refuse because I foresee that afterward I will have to take him to an inn and nurse him to health and others will misconstrue my actions as directing his life and attempting to solve all his problems?

DocMcG: you very clearly defend the prospect of the US becoming an empire above. You claimed that we have the responsibility to take on some imperialistic roles in the world; that a very good empire is rare, but possible; and that you would support this "almost impossible" option of a benevolent US imperialism until someone offered a "plausible, sustainable substitute." Pretty clear cut to me. However subtle your position, you were indeed defending US imperialism.

Also, neighboring countries aren't quite like neighbors, and one country's government isn't quite like a person. So your amalogy is bad because the moral situations are different. E.g.: It might be good to get myself killed in order to save the neighbor's two children from a fire. I don't think it is good for the government of the US to destroy the people of the US in order to save Iran and Iraq from themselves. (Let alone that Iran and Iraq aren't our neighbors, really.)

Thus, all your sentimental "stranger in distress" talk applies very differently to persons and to countries.

The an-alogies break down when we move from individual to group responsibility.

To put it bluntly, my father is my father. If I find out he's done wrong, it's fairly clear that I have to look for ways to help those he cheated if he's no longer around. But reparations? My family got here from Sicily about 100 years ago. Do we owe anything? Should I cut a check to the Jamaican lady who works down the hall? Does Derek Jeter's mom pay his dad anything? It gets silly pretty quickly - we're no longer talking about clear duty and direct power to remedy, such as a slave owner's son setting his father's slaves free.

The picture gets even muddier at the national level. We see a people in distress - tsunami victims, let's say. We give of our time and treasure. If the US government does NOT, does that mean that America has failed?

Now, of course they did. (We had a give and take on this a while back.) Does that then relieve an individual of his own responsibility? And does it mean that the US has acted imperially?

Which brings us back to topic: empire.

The first question a nation has to ask is, "Are our lives at stake?" Then, "Are our interests at stake?" The second question offers us a lot more leeway in answering. (As an aside, I think that this explains a lot of the differences on Iraq - some feel, like I do, that it is our lives and not merely our interest. Some think it's only our interests at stake, and some don't even think it goes that far.) The answers to those two questions, in the aggregate, will show whether a nation tends to empire or not.

To throw a little more dirt into the air - to what extent does everyone think that the US has had imperial responsibilities forced onto it?

I have little to say in response to the last two commments since they don't address what I wrote but rather what the commentators read into what I wrote. So I will let this thread die. Except to answer this rhetorical question addressed by Short earlier. "When and how did American conservatives become imperialists? In light of Short's implicit characterization of these "Splendid Little Wars" as imperialistic the rhetorical answer must be "at least as far back as when President Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison sent the Marines to the 'Shores of Tripoli.'"

Ah, yes, I remember, our occupation of North Africa! Yes, I believe we trained several thousand local troops and they became able to govern themselves democratically. Good point, indeed, DocMcG.

"BenT: Empire isn't a game, and the point of a country is not bettering the world, but enabling its citizens to live good lives."

You are clearly deliberately misintepreting the use of the world game here.

Secondly I dont know if you have noticed, but America clearly does BOTH THING extremely well.

Ben T, I understand the word "game" in your sentence. It's just that your choice of words betrays a frivolous attitude toward world-domination. "The game is to stay in power as long as possible, and achieve as much as you can while you are there."

But besides, you have a much bigger problem. The point of a government is to allow its citizens to live well. You implied that it was to make the world a better place through power, even though that exercize of power will destroy the country in the long run. What profiteth a country if it gain the whole world and lose itself?

The word game implies a use of metaphor. Nothing else.

The point of the world of course is not the make the world a better place. It is the perogative of the United States, as the richest, most powerful, most influential world on Earth, to shape the world in it's own image. My assertion was simply that the United States will not be the richest most powerful most influential nation on Earth forever.

Srry forgot to address this in my post.

When did I say America exercising her power would destroy her in the long run? All I said was that she would not be the most powerful nation on Earth for all time.

We are currently at the very pinnacle of American power. But no, nations do not stay all powerful for all time.

You said it here: "America will be destroyed by its own overreaching power just as Rome and Britain were." (comment 10 above)

Ben-T says that it is America's "prerogative . . . to shape the world in its own image."

This is a fanatical viewpoint.

Pride goeth before a fall, sadly the neocons are taking this Republic with them.

*sob sob sob* Brian.

America is a superpower. Superpowers shape the world. Grow up and deal with it.