Not sure I'd agree with historical underpinnings of that definition, or perhaps I'm just too wedded to the understanding of the word before 1914 - the Age of Imperialism.

But having troops fighting in Afghanistan for geopolitical reasons and overthrowing the Iraqi regime for somewhat more muddled geopolitics is still not a very good way to define an empire. If we *controlled* Iraqi oil and Iraq was a profit center for our government, I might agree ( wars for oil only make sense if you take the damn oil)

Certainly isn't cultural domination. Less so in Afghanistan. If you want to count Puerto Rico or American Somoa I might give you that, but again, not an impressive empire.

I the 1930s Britain *ruled* a quarter of the population of the earth (and did a better job of it that anyone had before or since) Now *that's* an Empire. (as opposed to the plantation model of the French and the abomination of the Belgians.)

(where does the definition come from, BTW? The last part of it - hegemony etc - sounds a bit revisionist and tailored to fit the late 20th century "national liberation" view of "Imperialism" )


>Here's a definition.Doesn't sound so far from where we are.
>
>An empire is a state with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture[3] — unlike a federation, an extensive state voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. As a state, an empire may be either territorial or a hegemony, wherein the empire’s sphere of influence dominates the lesser state(s) via divide and conquer tactics, i.e. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”
>
> Just because there's no imperial family doesn't mean it isn't one.
>
>
>>I think what muddies the argument and hence makes it unproductive is the word "empire" (and the "imperialism" label ) has historic meaning that doesn't fit current global reality. It is used now to attempt to score political points but otherwise has no meaning other than what the polemicist thinks he's bundled with it.
>>
>>The US hegemony in some areas can be argued. Our dependence on global realities we can't control (as much as some of us might like to) is another reality. Like most things, it is more complex than bumper-sticker polemics can do justice to.
>>
>>(and yes, I know that a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with <s> )
>>
>>>
>>>You don't agree there is an American empire then?