The extent of American military strength is so obvious a fact, that it need not be re-emphasized. Some refer to the United States as "The American Empire" -a metaphor which deserves neither nationalistic embrace, nor rejection by denial.

The United States has much less choice in world affairs than many of the pacifists or foreign critics would like to believe. Despite the wishes of the French, no coalition is likely to form that will counter-weight US strength and restore a military balance similar to post-Napoleonic Europe. Contrary to the wishes of idealists, the UN has proven incapable of maintaining global order without the military, diplomatic, and financial support of the US. Lastly, if the pacifists had their way, and we became isolationists with a mediocre military ,the result would be International anarchy, rampant totalitarianism, and mass-bloodshed -- all of which is too horrifying a thought to contemplate.

America's current situation is most commonly paralleled to that of the Roman empire. However, the parallel is insufficient. The Roman empire was built by legions who slaughtered their way to world power. In the process, they suffered catastrophic defeats at the hands of the Gauls, Persians, Carthaginians, and numerous other Germanic tribes. The grand legions fell in clashes with rival dictators, and massive revolts the humiliated citizens of their occupations. The United States hasn't suffered comparable defeats since the Korean War. It also bears mentioning that the Legions owned their allegiance, not to Rome or the Emperor, but to their leaders and fellow troops. Thus, while Rome did dominate the world, it did so without the military superiority or discipline of the United States at present.

The other common parallel is that of the British Empire during the late 19th century. Unlike the Romans, the British had a relatively small army. Bismarck once joked that if the British army landed on the Baltic coast, he'd send the Berlin Police to arrest them. The British Empire was mostly sustained by their legendary navy. However, the huge mass of ships in the royal navy became increasingly obsolete. The Ironclad was introduced into the French Navy well before the British caught up. Even when the British introduced the revolutionary Dreadnought battleships, the superior industrial power of the Americans and Germans closed the gap of sea power within a blink of an eye.

Historically, the strength of the United States military is without parallel. Our military budget accounts for 50% of the overall international expenditures on defense. Within the annals of military history, the US is the only country to enjoy superiority in all spheres of warfare (land, sea, air, and space). No other country's military can compare to our technological sophistication. Not a single country can compete with the US's capability to move large forces within short periods of time to any part of the globe. In short, the legions of the United States have no match, and the gap between them and other militarize is only growing.

Perhaps the biggest military blunder in recent history was Vietnam. However, the damage of Vietnam is not comparable to that of Disraeli's regiments at Isandhlwana, or Augustus's legions in the Teutoburger Wald. In the end, its not the terminology of "Empire" that matters; rather its America's overwhelming military dominance. For now, no international coalition could be capable of blocking it, let alone willing to replace it. Our strength lies in our remarkably stable economy and political system, and our growing and extraordinarily productive workforce. The fact is that no president will call for a major reduction in defense spending in the next decade or deny that we must have the strongest military in the world: ready to exert its power at any point the world unilaterally.

In the end, our real choice is to exercise our power foolishly or prudently, safely or dangerously. In the case of Iraq, we excercised our power foolishly and dangerously. Our military is a mighty machine, but even now is showing signs of fatigue and ware. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would have ended a genocide in Sudan by now- which would have been an example of wise use of military force. However, we've over-stretched ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our European allies have shown complete denial and apathy towards the situation. If anything is clear regarding the future international order, its that Europe will continue to behave much as they did at the Munich Conference of 1938, and delude themselves into thinking that the temporary lack of war is peace. As for America, it rests in the hands of the people to elect a president who will continue to make the world safer. Judging from Bush's first term, he will not be that man.

Cross-posted at Net Politik