Andrew S. Terrell - Capitalism & Globalization!

Fall 2009

•Incoherent Empire. Michael Mann @ 2003 Verso Publishing, New York.

Historical sociologist, Michael Mann, seeks to explain the fallacies of the so called “new

imperialism.” He approaches the twenty-first century United States as a falling global empire in

attempts to convince his audience that the United States has an exaggerated power. While the

premise may seem cliché, Mann’s comparative approach to the twenty-first century world and its

major powers does create new series of questions. Throughout the monograph, Mann argues that

while the United States may have the fundamentals of an empire, the state itself is incoherent by

definition because of its over extensions, contradictory foreign policy, and economic practices.

The book is written in and about contemporary events post 11 September 2001. As such,

Tony Blair and George W. Bush and their respective administration officials are often mentioned.

Mann begins his study explaining the differences between the United States at the end of the

Cold War to the post-9-11 entity. Ideologies have shifted drastically in less than a decade; H.W.

Bush called for an age of global peace composed of humanitarian efforts while his son

established the principles of preemptive strikes. According to Mann, the staggering shift in

direction has been a direct result of Bill Clinton’s failure to control zealous personnel and

outspoken activists during his successive administrations, the scattered election of George W.

Bush, neoconservative Christian chicken-hawks in power places, and of course the events of

9-11. Because of these triggers after the fall of the Soviet Union, new imperialism became a

realism; Mann points out that the United States had an empire and the policy makers believed

they should use it for world good.

Andrew S. Terrell - Capitalism & Globalization! Fall 2009

Every great empire has enjoyed a potent military. For the United States, military

supremacy has been an understatement. Mann goes so far as to argue by 2001 that the United

States was the sole military superpower, and even before that turn of the century no power save

the Soviet Union early stood near equal. The U.S. military is giant, but Mann questions whether

it could create his definition of an empire. The requirements, according to Mann, for military

resources in an empire are secure defense or deterrence against attacks, offensive strike power,

ability to conquer territories and peoples, and the ability to pacify them afterwards. Mann uses

many examples of failures to achieve all four requirements from communist countries to

Somalia. Because of limitations--and deterrence and humanitarian principles--the giant nuclear

arsenal of the United States cannot be used. Thus, the responsibility for exerting American will

falls to conventional forces which are substantial, but not as staggering as the unconventional

capabilities.

However, Mann is quick to point out that the United States has a global deployment

adeptness unmatched by any power in history. This matched with superior fire power among

land, air, and sea positions helps make the lacking conventional troop numbers efficient at their

assignments. Nevertheless, as seen in the panicked withdrawals of the latter decades of the

twentieth century, America can not stand to see casualties and this is a grounding, limiting force

to empire. Furthermore, Mann points out that the U.S. superiority is being checked by the

evolving world of rogue states who are more than capable and willing to proliferate

unconventional warfare items and use them as their needs dictate. Because technology is quickly

adapted (or stolen), and because of the policies that limit use of unconventional arsenals, rogue
Andrew S. Terrell - Capitalism & Globalization! Fall 2009

states and organizations have a vast advantage that levels the battlefield between the United

States and the lesser powers.

Mann challenges the assertions by U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, nine days

after 9-11, “Economic strength at home and abroad is the foundation of America’s hard and soft

power. Earlier enemies learned that America is the arsenal of democracy; today’s enemies will

learn that America is the economic engine for freedom, opportunity and development.”

However, as most know such great economic prominence faded quickly throughout the 1950s as

war-torn Europe and Asia rebuilt at the mercy of the United States. The Vietnam War ended

American the period of U.S. economic preeminence. In 2002, Russia was trading substantially

more with the commonly associated allies of the United States in Europe that European states

were with the United States. Billions of dollars have gone into funding regimes that contradict

the image of America. Unfortunately, even more (especially in the southern hemisphere) would

not be granted American financial aid in the twenty-first century, thus far. The American

economy is weakening still, and even if countries are indebted to us, we are even more indebted

to the new economic giants such as China. Since the United States can no longer direct policies

of foreign investors or economies, the United States has become what Mann calls a “back-seat

driver.” Seeming benevolent economic imperialism is a myth according to Mann and has only

accelerated a shift in economic dominance from the United States to new powers.

International politics also limit an American empire. According to Mann, in 2003 there

were 190 self-styled nation states, “that is states claiming sovereignty over their territories in the

name of the nation or people.” However, Mann notes that not all of these states are effective. At

the same time, the United States or any other policing power cannot interfere with internal affairs
Andrew S. Terrell - Capitalism & Globalization! Fall 2009

of other states because it would go against the UN Charter. Mann expounds on the Multilateral

and unilateral geopolitics. He points out the hypocrisy of multilateralists in the UN where

inequality of states is exacerbated by the existing structure, especially in the security council.

The UN is looked to in order to invade another power because of violations. Thereby, the United

States is held in check to an extent which in turns help limit war funding. Furthermore, Mann

points out that the reality of the situation is that interventions go better for the United States

when they are multilaterally sanctioned. Because of the multipolar world, American concerns

have focused on the Middle East and North East Asia where rogue states exist and cannot

legitimately challenge American influence. Interventions in these zones, however, is not

supported by the majority of power states, and as such unilateral approaches harken deflation.

Additionally, the United States has failed to create an effective regime. Thereby, it is

essentially stuck in zones where it intervenes. The bottom line is that the United States cannot

exact a regime change; it can neither afford it financially nor militarily. Classic empires did not

have to attempt nation building. The era, thus, has influence in limiting an American empire.

What can be created is client states with weak leadership. However, even these succumb to

disorder and fail. The United State here exaggerates its ability to exact a nation state.

Ultimately, Mann argues that American political power is schizophrenic in that, “International

politics are large, but oscillating unsteadily between multilateralism and unilateralism.” The

world is different than it was for previous empires, the existence of sovereign nation states limits

imperial, interstate control.

Andrew S. Terrell - Capitalism & Globalization! Fall 2009

Mann argues that American ideologies are in flux. The neoimperialists are self righteous

and hold sway over the majority of the population, according to Mann. We push forth the image

of tranquility and equality, but the United States is hardly equal. Mann points out members of

Congress have to raise millions of dollars just to be considered for election. Furthermore, Mann

believes the public is being mislead by the media. He believes talk radio hosts, especially,

worked to incite hatred and violence against Iraqis and Muslims as the United States invaded

Iraq. The American desire has historically been to extend democracy, human rights and equality

to other nations, but Mann believes such ideology is being exploited in hopes of advancing a new

imperialism.

The majority of the monograph goes into great detail relating contemporary, post-9-11

events to historical examples in hopes of proving that what Mann calls neoimperialism is

unattainable for the United States. In his eyes, America is leading an incoherent empire

unwittingly. One walks away from the book convinced that the current state of affairs is

questionable at best, but Mann does little for advancing what he thinks should be done. His

preface explains one of his points in writing the monograph was to convince his audience of

imperial fallacies, but the abrupt end after demeaning the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions leaves

the reader adrift. The work was published by a historical sociologist, so perhaps comparisons are

exactly what Mann sought out to reveal and use those as bases for the disjointed existence of an

American empire.