<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is a follow-up to the thread on The Quiet American. It is true that many Brits have a snooty attitude to American world power because they believe the USA doesn't have the sophistician to run a global empire. On the other hand, many down-on-their-luck imperialist in the former British Empire look to the US as a vehicle for their ambitions. I discuss this matter in an article I wrote for the Boston Globe, a link and excerpt of which is below. Jeet</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>  <P class=MsoNormal>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/082/focus/Operation_Anglosphere+.shtml</P> <P class=MsoNormal> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></P> <P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P> <TABLE border=0 cellPadding=0 style="WIDTH: 452.25pt; mso-cellspacing: 1.5pt" width=603> <TBODY> <TR> <TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt"> <P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 18pt">Operation Anglosphere</SPAN></B> </P> <P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt">Today's most ardent American imperialists weren't born in the USA.</SPAN> </P> <P><B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">By Jeet Heer, 3/23/2003</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></P> <P>EMPIRE IS A DIRTY word in the American political lexicon. Just last summer, President Bush told West Point graduates that ''America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish.'' In this view, the power of the United States is not exercised for imperial purposes, but for the benefit of mankind. </P> <P>Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, many foreign policy pundits, mostly from the Republican right but also including some liberal internationalists, have revisited the idea of empire. ''America is the most magnanimous imperial power ever,'' declared Dinesh D'Souza in the Christian Science Monitor in 2002. ''Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets,'' argued Max Boot in a 2001 article for the Weekly Standard titled ''The Case for American Empire.'' In the Wall Street Journal, historian Paul Johnson asserted that the ''answer to terrorism'' is ''colonialism.'' Columnist Mark Steyn, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, has contended that ''imperialism is the answer.'' </P> <P>''People are now coming out of the closet on the word `empire','' noted Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. ''The fact is no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of world since the Roman Empire.'' Krauthammer's awe is shared by Harvard human rights scholar Michael Ignatieff, who asked earlier this year in The New York Times Magazine, ''What word but `empire' describes the awesome thing America is becoming?'' While acknowledging that empire may be a ''burden,'' Ignatieff maintained that it has become, ''in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike.'' </P> <P>Today's advocates of American empire share one surprising trait: Very few of them were born in the United States. D'Souza was born in India, and Johnson in Britain - where he still lives. Steyn, Krauthammer, and Ignatieff all hail from Canada. (Krauthammer was born in Uruguay, but grew up in Montreal before moving to the United States.) More than anything, the backgrounds of today's most outspoken imperialists suggest the lingering appeal and impact of the British empire. </P> <P> </P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>