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 multiple decades past. The two are presented as interconnected since the excessive use of military power in deciding international matters makes it an empire. This is perceived differently from 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 nations raised concerns over its foreign policy to settle international issues. This stimulated the debate to determine the extent of the country was shifting its superpower status to embrace imperialism. Is the excessive use of military power to decide international matters and hostility illustrating the new foreign policy that appear to replace diplomacy? 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 is today referred as states whose territorial and resources controls stretches beyond its boundaries by exercising its superior influence 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). Although many states reveal of their attempts to impose and extend their territory influence and control over other states, such actions barely show imperial actions. The empire concept requires demonstrating ones desire to subdue other states through either direct efforts or collaborating with its local elites to influence its 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 where one dominant state exercises its superior military power against other states by ignoring the established international law and order to fulfill its own desires.
There exists notable features distinguishing dominant and empire though often overlooked leading to an obvious confusion. An empire arises when a single powerful state acts unliterary beyond the established order such as when the U.S invaded Iraq. Conversely, hegemony emerges when a lead state stimulate the establishment of multilateral institutions and rules that itself becomes a subject to their compliance (Stokes& Raphael, 2010). The September 11 attacks on the US soil showed signs of imminent imperialism. The Bush-led administration believes in using military power capabilities to resolve the challenges then facing the country and applicable in future days. Using the military intervention would become successful to protect the country’s freedom, economic free market, democratic institutions, and way of life. They perceived the military power as essential to retain their dominance over the south. This would help it extract additional resources in spite of contravening the international law provisions.

Oil and global energy security:
Oil dependency witnessed in the United States and desire to control the global energy security is a factor associated with U.S militarism. The enormous amount of energy requirements in the country accounts for over twenty percent of the global needs. The huge oil consumption accounts for forty percent of the energy requirements in the country. Besides, the country consumers twenty-four percent of its oil supply in a single day. This matches the capacity consumed by the European block and Japan combined (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). While the United States has the largest oil producer, its huge consumption compels it to result in foreign imports. In 2006, the country relied upon oil imports to meet sixty percent of its oil consumption needs. This capacity shows no signs of declines as the US Department of Energy forecasts the oil imports to hit seventy percent (Stokes & Raphael, 2010).
Shortages experienced in oil supply cast the United States into the energy crisis. This explains the priority of treating oil as a critical element of the country’s energy security level. However, oils remains a scarce and nonrenewable commodity with all capitalist productions dependent 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 such 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 results in using its superior military capability to secure them. This is noted even with the collapse of Soviet Union left the country lacking a military match. The United States continued with its additional arming through huge allocations to meet its expanding military expenditure. This is 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 its global energy critical for its present and future. Since the Bush-led administration through Obama reign, the huge US economy brings 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 their concern extends beyond guaranteeing supplies to US shores but maintaining its dominance and dependency for its power to decide international issues. The country devotes to transnationalize countries identified with rich oil depositions to ensure substance 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 guise 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 witnessed in the oil-rich region of Middle East and North-Africa (MENA) demonstrated the powerful foreign hand. She documented her findings in the article titled, Coercive Institutions and Coercive Leaders, revealing of lacking democracy in the region. The study demonstrated that the status of MENA region arose from coercive apparatus exercised by the ruling regimes to repress the democratic initiatives rather than socio-cultural factors. The study revealed that most of the MENA regimes benefitted from huge oil-export revenues and foreign aid they utilize to purchase ammunition. The huge allocations to modernize their security offices and equipping the military, leave the regime with robust coercive apparatus. This makes 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 eleventh attacks on the US soil showed that the West interests are beyond the controls provided from by 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. This contravened the Geneva Conventions while providing unlimited support to the authoritarian regime. These events serve explicit illustrations of US dependency on military power to accomplish its objectives and exercise practices that affirm of its endless imperialism. The dependency of 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. 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 supplies. This 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 perceives themselves in devout religious practices with active political input. The Pew research center estimates the population of evangelical Protestants accounting for 25.4%. They align themselves to voting for their fellow white evangelicals, conservative in their principles and thus Republican supporters (Bacevich, 2005).
Individuals professing evangelism demonstrate increased support to military institutions in the belief of influencing their future their future to support Evangelicals heavily support 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 of warfare and religious morals. It contradicts the emphasis on preserving their moral behaviors to avert warfare (Fine, 2015). This was demonstrated by evangelicals involved in the Vietnam War where they perceived existing compatibility between Christian belief and fulfilling American citizenship duties through military services. They believed military failure arose from sinful indulgence as the cause rather than the unjust invasions against other nations. This showed the belief that God favored the American victory reasons for empowering 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. This is equally demonstrated by thousands of military veterans joining the evangelical religion. This demonstrates of the armed forces being 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 gave 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 new culture capable of spilling political, economic and spiritual damage (Fallows, 2002). He 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 and lost productivity 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 sever 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. This 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, in one of side, areas with a huge population of defense industries face an economic vulnerability a scenario that encourages legislators to provide their support of ore 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 a 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 out 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 their voter are their 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. This means that 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 under 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 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.