Write a review essay using the previous reading (and two additional reading of your choice) to discuss the most important factors that contribute to U.S. militarism and empire. Provide an assessment of the coherence of U.S. foreign policy and critically assess its strengths, limitations and problems/contradictions.
Introduction
The widespread discussion of the United States militarism and empire concepts stretches across several decades. The two concepts are presented as interconnected since the excessive use of military power in deciding international matters makes it an empire, and not a dominant state. This became evident in the pursuit of the war on terrorism when the country led military invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The excessive military power deployed in the two states raises concerns on the use of military power to settle international issues and this stimulated the debate to determine the extent that the country was shifting its superpower status to embrace imperialism. The use of military power to decide international matters reveals the new foreign policy where diplomacy is replaced with hostility and dominance of other parties. Responding to the developing concern requires a conclusive definition of the empire to determine how the U.S befits this category. It will require a detailed exploration on how oil and global energy security, religion and possessing military-industry complex lead to militarism and its post-effects to the country’s foreign policy.
Is the United States an Empire?
An empire arises in what is today referred as a state using their vast territorial and resource controls beyond its boundaries by exercising dominance over other states through direct military invasion and political interventions. The empire status may reveal threats to intervene, persuading proxy states to impose sanctions or mediating the multilateral institutions where the premier country enjoys dominant power (Lutz, 2006). States embracing attempts to impose and extend their territory influence and control over others show imperial actions. The empire concept requires demonstrating the desire to subdue other states through either direct efforts or collaborating with its local elites to influence political decision-making, policy formulation, and implementation (Lutz, 2006). According to Stokes and Raphael (2010), the United States appears to hold on to imperial approach for its proven success in addressing international matters in the postwar era. In particular, the US imperial continuation is demonstrated in the successful deployment of additional troops during the sixteen-year war in Afghanistan. An empire arises when one dominant state exercises its superior military power against other states by ignoring the established international law in the pursuit of its own desires.
Exercising dominance features distinct features from the empire concept though often overlooked and obviously confused. An empire arises when a single powerful state acts beyond the established order such as when the U.S invaded Iraq. Conversely, hegemony emerges when a lead state stimulates the establishment of multilateral institutions and rules that it becomes a subject to their compliance (Stokes& Raphael, 2010). September 11 attacks on the US soil showed signs of imminent imperialism. The Bush-led administration used military power capabilities to resolve the challenges that faced it. Military usage replicated the practice the country embraced in later days. Using the military intervention would become successful to protect the country’s freedom, economic free market, democratic institutions, and way of life. The administrators believed the military power would help preserve the dominance of the country over the south states. It would extract additional resources in spite of contravening the international law provisions.

Oil and global energy security:
The oil dependency experienced in the United States compels it to desire control over the global energy security. The enormous amount of energy requirements in the country accounts for over twenty percent of the global needs. The large oil consumption accounts for forty percent of the energy requirements in the country. Besides, the country consumes twenty-four percent of the daily oil supplies matching the capacity consumed by the European block and Japan combined (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). While the United States is the second largest oil producer, its huge consumption compels it to import oil to meet its deficiency. In 2006, the country relied upon oil imports to meet sixty percent of its oil consumption needs. This capacity shows no signs of declineas the US Department of Energy forecasts imports will hit seventy percent (Stokes & Raphael, 2010).
Shortages experienced in oil supply cast the United States into the energy crisis. The need to overcome such outcome explains the priority of treating oil as a critical element of the country’s energy security level. However, oil remains scarce and nonrenewable commodity with all capitalist productions depending on it. The earmarking of oil shortage as a national crisis is accorded military intervention to prevent the possibility of a hostile power dominating the oil-rich southern region (Reyna, 2005). The country cites the requirement to stamp its superiority and dominance across the global power. The development demonstrates politics and economy are inseparable elements, a reason the United States uses its superior military capability to secure oil supply.Outcome observed following the collapse of Soviet Union left the country lacking a military match. However, the United States continued to expand its arming through huge allocations to meet its expanding military expenditure. Sustaining the allocations made it possible to strengthen its military capability with pockets of international violence cited as justifying the preservation and expansion of its empire (Reyna, 2005).
The United States perceives the connectivity involving its military power and securing global energy critical to ensure its present and future stability and economic prosperity. Since the Bush-led administration through to Obama reign, the huge US economy has brought with it massive energy requirements making energy security a top agenda. The United States perceives itself as the global guarantor to monitor energy security, thereby demanding performance of a managerial duty in-charge of the capitalist system. The country’s planners on foreign policies show concern that extends beyond guaranteeing supplies to US shores tomaintain its dominance and dependency for its power to decide international issues. The country devotes to transnationalism in countries identified with rich oil deposits to ensure sustenance of its global domination. The accomplishment of this objective compels the US to involve military force to ensure stability in regions with oil-rich deposits. Occasionally, such objectives are attained as guised counterinsurgency training and modernizing equipment of friendly security forces (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). However, invading Iraq and Afghanistan alongside the provision of extensive military support to regimes regarded authoritative in the South shows an erroneous commitment that poses threats to state democracy and human security. Moreover, providing limitless support to the authoritative regimes translated to endless instability, endless poverty, strangling illiteracy levels and turning the state government into a coercive apparatus. These practices contradict the principles enshrined in American constitution on liberty, freedom, and democracy.
The study by Eva Bellin on democracy versus authoritarian regimes revealed powerful foreign hand in the oil-rich region of Middle East and North-Africa (MENA). She documented her findings in the article titled, Coercive Institutions and Coercive Leaders, revealing of lacking democracy in the region. The study demonstrates that the status of MENA region arose from coercive apparatus exercised by the ruling regimes to repress the democratic initiatives. The findings showed that most of the MENA regimes benefitted from huge oil-export revenues and foreign aid they utilized to purchase ammunition. The huge allocations to modernize their security offices and equipping the military, leave the regime with robust coercive apparatus making them strong enough to prevent internal disintegration. Again, MENA authoritarian regime receives international support shown by the increased western interest led by the US to assure reliable oil supplies. This reveals the desire of West supporting the MENA regimes regardless of their democratic scores (Bellin, 2005).
The experiences of September 11 attacks on the US soil showed that the West interests are beyond the controls provided in the multilateral system. Instead, the foreign policy embraced by the US seeks increased militarization imposed through its unilateral system demonstrated by dictating international system rules and norms (Stokes & Raphael, 2010).The US-led invasion of Iraq demonstrated the direct violation of the international law provisions in the failure to seek explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Again, the country established a facility to hold suspected terrorist at its Guantanamo Bay naval base contravening the Geneva Conventions while providing unlimited support to the authoritarian regime. These events explicitly illustrates the dependency on military power to accomplish US objectives and exercise practices that affirm of its endless imperialism. The dependency on military force attracts increased condemnation within the national and international arena. The critics cite the extension of US imperial foreign policy may stimulate anti-US coalition with a sole mandate of countering the American power. Nonetheless, this trend may erode the interstate cooperation in international matters while invalidating the very existence of multilateral institutions including the UN. This possibility requires the United States to shift away from extending its imperial domination through military power. Instead, it should embrace realistic measures capable of generating similar protection to their national interests. From the illustration above, it is clear that the dominance exerted by the US over world military, economic and political matters is its own postwar era strategy. Excessive military deployment during postwar era shows no signs for preserving international peace, facilitating democracy, peace and safeguarding human rights. Instead, it is a means to maintain American economic prosperity and power over international matters (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). The interest in oil and global energy serves the interest of US strategy to control the oil-rich states, thus securing its future supplies which is a means to accomplish its objective of resolving international matters through militarism and empire.
The role of religion:
Religion serves a critical input in the American politics with the country being a dominantly Christian nation. A notable portion of Americans perceives the country as God-chosen country tasked to deliver and save the world in his grace (Bacevich, 2005). The role of religion replicates the experiences realized in political matters seen in other nations. While American Christianity exists in multiple sects, Protestant evangelicalism associates itself with devout religious practices linked to active political input. The Pew research center estimates the population of evangelical Protestants accounts for 25.4%. This portion aligns itself to vote for their fellow white evangelicals and being conservative in their support for Republican(Bacevich, 2005).
Individuals professing evangelism demonstrate increased support to military institutions in the belief of influencing their future. The trend replicates in the high number of evangelicals heavily supporting military institutions as their hope of saving their country from experiencing internal collapse. Regardless of the peaceful theme emphasized by Christianity, the events of World War I and II shows progressive shifts in the Christianity thoughts on warfare. This does not signify an easy choice made by a religious person in the interpretation and support of warfare given the separatist outcome it has on religious morals. It contradicts the emphasis on preserving their moral behaviors to avert warfare as was demonstrated by evangelicals involved in the Vietnam War where they perceived compatibility as existing between Christian belief and fulfilment of American citizenship duties through military services (Fine, 2015). They believed military failure arose from sinful indulgence as the cause rather than the unjust invasions the US had against other nations depicting the belief that God favored the American victory, thereby empowering it to implement his desires (Bacevich, 2005).
Evangelicals quote the Bible to demonstrate their support for having a reinforced military force. They encourage the administration to allocate vast resources and advanced technologies in the delivery of stronger military capabilities (Bacevich, 2005). This reveals of their support for the militarized operation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam as an exercise of patriotic citizens aiming to save the American principles from imminent extinction. They shower praises to military victories and advocate for improved voiced and support from the political arena. A similar experience is equally demonstrated by thousands of military veterans joining the evangelical religion which shows that the armed forces are a religious institution. A serving officer once asserted, “Christian fundamentalism was the hidden hand that changed the military for the better” (Bacevich, 2005).
The end of Vietnam War made evangelicals appear more social and religious support force that favors the invasion of states capable of disrupting world peace. They support the continual reinforcement of US military base as the crucial element to accomplish the saving mission.
Military-Industrial Complex:
The speech given by President Eisenhower in 1961 warned against the unreasonable acquisition and assembly of the military-industrial complex. He likened military reinforcement and huge equipping process as a new culture capable of spilling political, economic and spiritual damage (Fallows, 2002). This echoed the founding father’s assertions summarized by George Washington and James Madison. They criticized efforts to reinforce the military establishment since it would perpetuate warfare. Huge military spending would place the burden on the economy and citizens through excessive taxation. Besides, it causes productivity loss while empowering individuals who would orient the country into war. Save for the September eleventh attacks, US experienced no threats since the conclusion of Cold War. However, the Congress continued to support huge allocation to the defense budgets while the national debt burden increased even when the country witnessed severe fiscal period. For instance, the Congress would allocate annual military budgets of $700 billion annually (Thorpe, 2014). This showed other reasons besides securing the nation. In her book, The American Warfare State, Thorpe (2014) found military industry complex derived from economic prosperity and extending its geographic constituencies which explained reasons for supporting additional defense spending regardless of national security status. Some viewed additional spending creating employment opportunities and boosting the local economy from billions of revenue generated (Thrope, 2014).
In many semirural and rural areas, there is the centrality of the defense industry, which happens to be the areas where other industries are not able to provide adequate jobs. Thus, areas with a huge population of defense industries face an economic vulnerability, a scenario thatencourages legislators to provide their support of core military spending and make their priority be a robust defense sector. Nonetheless, a continuous growth of this sector undermines the budgetary control that the Congress has over the military. Additionally, it led to more frequent use of force in overseas a situation that has seen to cause shift of the power balance towards the executive branch (Thrope, 2014). The military-industry intricate affects both the representatives and the senators in terms of making an independent judgment a situation which has places the nation in danger. There is also likelihood that soldiers get affected. Often, most soldiers leave the service at mid-40 and immediately start looking for new options in different sectors of employment. However, the profitable opportunity that most of the soldiers have is in the defense industry and this is especially when they prepare beforehand. According to Fallows (2012), many soldiers while still in the service are faced with difficult decisions on the way forward. Obviously, there are clear indications that the military-industry growth in some areas benefits legislators and their constituents. Provision of jobs to the millions of American people who reside in the rural areas is significant because many of these places have a narrow economy that can support all their needs. In return, the legislators will offer support to the defense expenditures because its gives their votersa preoccupations. The Congress power in declaration of war and funding or raising armies is not limited by the Constitution despite when the Congress members decision have relation to the electoral calculations which would probably have an impact on their decision on peace and war. On the contrary, “incentives which drive the Congressional decision making have seen the reshaping of the balance of powers for war between the president and the Congress. The shift in the interests of the Congress provides rewards to key members especially those who expand the pool of the resources of the defense while at the same time increasing the ability of the president to exercise force in an independent manner (Thorpe, 2014). Moreover, this leads to weakening of the capacity of the Congress to put in check the powers of the president. Thus, when the Congress capacity to check the president is limited, the more the probability of war emerging a scenario which puts the United States under the mercy of the industry of defense which happens to likely push for war in a bid to sell more weapons.
Conclusion:
The US imperial stance is fueled by multiple tools such as the energy security, oil and global energy security as well as the military-industry complex. The United States depended more on the diplomatic route before the 9/11. However, after the attack led by Osama bin Laden, the country shifted its position relying more on military force as witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and many other places around the world. The recent acts of using military force contravene the international law and show no respect to the international system of order. Clearly, the US foreign policy is a contradiction of the country’s principles on liberty, freedom and democracy, which are evident in the United States soil but disregarded when engaging other nations.