I know it's pretty common shorthand to describe American post-war interventions as "Imperialism". But Imperialism before Bretton-Woods was a very specific and intentional international policy - literally conquering and/or colonizing land to secure resources. Which is a bit different than America's "spheres of influence" thing today.
The two are very linked - the tacit agreement of the postwar order was for America to use its might to expand a common market on behalf of the shared benefit of NATO members. But the collapse of today's "American empire" does not mean the end of empires. If anything, the opposite: instead of one common international market, we will return to a 19th century scramble for land.
Well, that's just it. America has not so brazenly claimed territory for such selfish reasons in well over 100 years. Which is proof enough that America is pulling up the ladder on Pax Americana.
Obviously, but we're comparing apples and oranges here.
- Iraq was never a major oil concern for the US. Perhaps maybe stabilizing global oil prices - but the primary beneficiaries were actually our European and Asian allies.
- We never just "took" the oil for our domestic market (which is what we are basically doing in Venezuela)
- Even policymakers who have publicly admitted that Iraq was a massive intelligence and political failure all agree that regional stability was always the main goal.
Similarly we were in Afghanistan for-freaking-ever which had no clear resource benefit or even clear goal.
I would even go so far as to say that for most of the 20th century, America's foreign policy interventions are more easily attributed to our failed role as "World Police". We were brought into Iran because of the British, we were in Vietnam because of the French. Kuwait because of Saudi Arabia. Korea and Lebanon directly.
So while yes you could paint a broad brush and say all of this indirectly was to expand America's "empire", but as an international alliance where America carries the big stick, the US actually carried out a lot more on behalf of the overall alliance than one would realize.
That alliance that the US is now trying to dissolve.
> - Even policymakers who have publicly admitted that Iraq was a massive intelligence and political failure all agree that regional stability was always the main goal.
And in their spare time they pretend to sell bridges to people? Nobody sane would believe that invading a country promotes regional stability. The idea is absurdist, the point of invading a country is destabilising it and disrupting any power that the locals might have. Forcefully toppling governments and killing large numbers of people has never been a credible path to stability.
The two are very linked - the tacit agreement of the postwar order was for America to use its might to expand a common market on behalf of the shared benefit of NATO members. But the collapse of today's "American empire" does not mean the end of empires. If anything, the opposite: instead of one common international market, we will return to a 19th century scramble for land.