President Trump is the first President since WWII to recognize that our half a$$ed attempt to form an empire was completely misguided or, at least, terribly mismanaged.
Over the centuries Rome, GB, Russian then the USSR, Spain, and other smaller empires all got it right, that is, an empire takes over countries/territories in order to get something from them, in other words, in a national or corporate empire you don’t pour resources into the new area unless you expect to show a profit.
Otherwise it is just charity with taxpayers’ money.
After WWII the US was by far economically and militarily the most powerful nation on Earth but while it ran other countries one way or another, using moral, economic, military force, or threat of military force and thus fulfilled the most obvious element in forming an empire, republicans and democrats both failed to turn a profit or even try.
Yes, most of the world was in pretty poor shape after the war with the exception of the U.S.A., but after relieving much of the “free world’s” military burden for a decade, the US utterly failed to force the “colonies” (for what else can you fairly call all the countries we rescued and later bullied), to repay us after they recovered.
That sharing of the military burden let the UK and Western Europe mostly spend money on social services which should have gone to their own defense. A number of them are now looking at unmanageable debt and a population that has been taught to rely on government largess while simultaneously looking at a need to double their military expenditure.
NOTE, because of lend-lease the UK has a good argument that it did pay back the U.S. for WWII, although Churchill was also working to keep an empire together. France, on the other hand, although it helped in a big way to start the U.S. back in the late 1700s, was amply repaid in WWI and, it could be argued by almost any U.S. tourist in France, showed little gratitude for us kicking the Nazis out of their country.
Even the most obviously capable military alliance, NATO, was still, after 60 years, dependent on the US despite the powerful economies of Western Europe and massive military industrial infrastructures of two of the world’s largest arms exporters, the UK and France.
Empire Building and The Ukraine
A quick look at the numbers shows that almost exactly half the foreign military aid to The Ukraine came, until last week, from a country 4000 miles away.
What makes an Empire – a Modern Navy
Overwhelming military force and the ability to project it, either used or just existing has always been the backbone of empires. Circa 1853 Perry’s white fleet didn’t shell Osaka Castle, it didn’t need to, it merely showed what steam power and explosives meant on the sea.
It can be argued that the U.S. didn’t make a colony of Japan but it did use the threat of military force to make Japan open a refueling port for the U.S. Navy (paid for), treat shipwrecked sailors decently, and permit corporations to trade in Japan. What more did we need?
Napoleon largely failed because England had the world’s strongest navy beginning about the time of Elizabeth I. although invading the world’s largest country, one subject to terrible winters, and doing so in June with troops walking 800 plus miles (many only after walking from Paris to the border), wasn’t the best strategic decision when troops can only walk 15 miles a day – even horses only about 25 max day after day. BTW, that meant, even without pausing to fight, Napoleon’s army wouldn’t get to Moscow before late August and not back home until early November if they turned around immediately. In Russia it starts to snow in October.
England’s Empire – The Royal Navy
England had the world’s largest empire spread completely around the world because of the Royal Navy.
During WWII the world learned about the new sea power and the US built 151 aircraft carriers, having started with 8 in 1940. Most people outside the U.S. Navy and careful military historians.
NOTE, strangely enough for the largest navel ships ever afloat, there is considerable dispute over just how many aircraft carriers there are today, some confusion is about what is under construction, what is in overhaul, and what constitutes a carrier, the following numbers are therefore approximate but pretty clear overall.
Empire Builder Carriers Today
Today there are about 50 carriers operating in 15 navies.
The US has 11 full carriers and 9 helicopter carriers.
Deck space is a critical measure and with a capability of launching about 900 aircraft (not counting the copters) the US Navy’s deck space is about double that of all other country’s carriers combined.
China has 2 carriers as do Japan, India, Italy, Japan, and the UK.
Russia has 1, as do Spain, and France.
The Ukraine has none but has shown by sinking the flagship Moskva, one of Russia’s most sophisticated warships despite being launched in the 1980s, that it would probably not be wise to bring their carrier near The Ukraine, but it is also unnecessary since it has land bases.
Carriers are for projecting power which is why they count when looking at empire building power.
Is China – Empire Building?
China is reportedly now building the largest ever aircraft carrier which The Telegraph reports appears on satellite images to be about 20,000 tons larger than the current record holder, the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), making this one Chinese ship more powerful than the combined navy and airforce of the U.K. when it launches.
China has only been focused on projecting power for about 15 years but it is surging ahead, possibly at exactly the wrong time.
Is the U.S. Empire Building?
Short answer, NO. It would also have difficulty gearing up a military to aid in such an unlikely program. Republicans and Democrats have shown little interest in doing so and President Trump is concentrating on America First, although casting his eye on Canada and Greenland.
But the U.S. is routinely falling short in recruiting by a massive 20%.
The country is also rebuilding its hardware, in part because it has unloaded a lot of its older material and ammo on The Ukraine.
There is also considerable worry that the U.S., as has been true of every other military in history, has been getting ready to fight the last war and that is beginning to change.
Google Gemini Analysis of The Current State of the U.S. Military
The U.S. military remains a powerful force, but it faces challenges in terms of recruitment, modernization, and adapting to new threats.
Force Size and Composition
The U.S. military is facing a recruitment crisis 3. The Army, for example, fell short of its recruitment goals in 2023-4. This shortage of personnel could impact the military’s ability to meet its objectives.
Military spending remains high, but there are growing calls to reduce it (see reference 6 below).
Some argue that the U.S. is spending too much on outdated weapons systems and that resources should be shifted to address other priorities, such as public health.
This is always a long drawn out process (for 25 years I wrote a column for Government Computer News) with the Pentagon procurement process being a nightmare of bureaucratic bumbling and delays which alone seems to be aimed at never getting any new weapon approved, and the ever-present pressure of Congressmen who want to keep unnecessary bases in their districts and fight hard to keep terrible and even unwanted weapons in production long after any possible usefulness. Some weapons continued to be produced for decades despite not working at all.
Readiness and Modernization
The U.S. military is undergoing a period of modernization, with a focus on developing new technologies and capabilities (again see reference 6 below). However, there are concerns about the military’s readiness to address current and emerging threats.
The Future of the U.S. Military- Emerging Threats
The U.S. military faces a range of emerging threats, including cyberattacks, terrorism, and great power competition6. These threats require the military to adapt its strategies and capabilities to maintain its dominance.
Technological advancements are rapidly changing the nature of warfare. The U.S. military is investing in technologies such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and autonomous systems to maintain its edge.
Strategic Challenges
The U.S. military faces strategic challenges in terms of how to allocate resources, maintain alliances, and deter potential adversaries. These challenges require careful planning and execution to ensure the military’s continued effectiveness.
Conclusion
The U.S. economy and military are both at a critical juncture. The economy faces challenges in maintaining growth and addressing inflation, while the military must adapt to new threats and technological advancements. Understanding these challenges and opportunities is crucial for ensuring the continued prosperity and security of the United States.
Research Material:
3 “https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10984677/” academic articles on the current and future state of the U.S. military”
“At the end of its fiscal year (October 1), the Army acknowledged that its 55,000 recruits were 10,000 fewer soldiers than it had aimed to enlist.” That is a 20% shortfall, a very significant problem.
6 “https://www.cato.org/white-paper/building-modern-military-force-meets-geopolitical-realities“
“Budgetary and strategic inertia has impeded the development of a U.S. military best suited to deal with future challenges. Over the past several decades, the military has repeatedly answered the call to arms as American foreign policy privileges the use of force over other instruments of power and influence.”
China’s Empire Building Challenges
I didn’t need to read an article in Foreign Affairs’ newsletter to know that China is spending billions to construct a giant power-projection navy, perhaps the largest in the world, just when more countries such as the U.S. more experienced in power projection via aircraft carriers are quickly reevaluating not the usefulness but the vulnerability of giant ships.
The Ukraine spent a few million dollars sinking Russia’s $750 million flagship guided missile cruiser Moskva with two Ukraine-built R-360 Neptune anti-ship missiles which cost less than $3 million for the pair.
The Moskva was an advanced part of the Russian Navy despite being launched in the 1980s but an anti-aircraft support missile cruiser was easily and inexpensively sunk by a country which doesn’t even have a real navy because it didn’t attempt force-on-force, it used relatively inexpensive missiles to defeat the best ship in the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
This was the first Russian flagship sunk by hostile action since the Japanese sank the Knyaz Suvorov in 1905. Of course the Soviet Navy was mostly a defensive force in WWII preventing landings rather than pursuing any engagement with the Kriegsmarine.
(That is not to denigrate the Soviet military’s massive contribution to the defeat of Germany. The Soviet Navy began building several battleships to counter the German battleships but none were ever completed (or really needed.)
The Literacy Crisis in America: Why Can’t Kids Read? Why voters Can’t Reason?
