:: Empire is a drag
	Now it’s Syria
	by David Hoppe   
	 Empire is a drag. 
	If the bloody mess known as Syria tells us nothing  else it is this: being the biggest, baddest Superpower is no bargain. 
	Superpower, of course, is how we prefer to think of  ourselves here in the United States. It’s a role we grew into during World War  II when, along with our mismatched allies, Great Britain and the Soviet Union,  we whipped the Axis of Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan.  
	Comic book heroes possess superpowers. Like Superman,  they can be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and  able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Naturally, they always use these  gifts for Good. 
	Empire, on the other hand, is a more complicated  thing. The USA was part of an empire once. We didn’t like it. There was  taxation without representation, among other insults to our growing sense of a  national self. Our British overlords were alternately patronizing or bullying,  and they were terrible listeners. So empire, to us, has always been synonymous  with arrogance. It is a kind of bullying — what some countries do to others  because they think they can get away with it. 
	What makes all this complicated is that imperial  powers — or Superpowers, if you like — have a way of thinking they are doing  something for the countries they are actually doing something to. 
	Which brings us, as in U.S., back to Syria. 
	The debate over whether or not to attack, fire a shot  across the bow, or whatever you want to call doing something violent to people  and places in this slaughterhouse of a Middle Eastern country has revealed the  love-hate relationship Americans are developing with their Superpower status. 
	It wasn’t always like this. After the Second World War  ended and the world became the equivalent of a cage match between Americans,  representing the Free World, and Soviets, or the Red Menace, there was a kind of  Superpower symmetry. This seemed good, even necessary, because it meant we were  there to balance the nefarious ambition for world domination of Soviet-style  communism. 
	But then the Soviet empire collapsed. Only one  Superpower was left. For a moment, lasting about as long as it takes to blink,  this seemed like liberation. Maybe there wasn’t a need for Superpowers anymore.  People talked about something called a Peace Dividend — what we might be able  to do with all the money we had previously spent on building up our military  might. 
	Others, though, saw this as a different sort of  opportunity. To them it meant that now the U.S. could have its way, whatever  that meant, anywhere in the world. This crowd got a considerable boost when  terrorists hijacked airliners and flew them into the towers of the World Trade  Center in New York City and the Pentagon. 
	Now being a Superpower meant being able to protect  ourselves — preemptively, it turned out. Soon we were fighting wars in  Afghanistan and Iraq which, we were told, were not about defeating either of  those countries so much as a notion: Terror itself. 
	As we know, those wars are ending badly. Over ten  years have passed, we’re broke, our armed forces are exhausted, and the  countries we’ve been fighting over appear to be teetering on the precipice of  civil wars like the one tearing Syria apart. 
	So what do we do? For starters, we debate. This has  been a welcome, if woozy, thing. President Obama called for this debate after  it became clear his threat to blow things up in Syria for its use of chemical  weapons failed to rally enthusiasm among other countries.  
	In Britain, for example, Parliament voted down Prime  Minister Cameron’s passionate proposal for a military strike. According to  members of the Obama Administration, and such bellicose fellow-travelers as  John McCain, this exercise in representative government only goes to show what  an UnSuperpower Britain has become. 
	Here at home, the question of whether to attack Syria  has managed to do something observers of our dysfunctional Congress thought  impossible — effectively blur previously polarized party lines. And so the  likes of Senators Rand Paul and Tom Udall have found, for once, common cause in  their shared opposition to the idea that America has a right or obligation to lower  a boom on Syria because…well, because we are a Superpower. 
	For those of us who have come of age in this country  since the end of World War II, our country’s Superpower status is practically second  nature. If we are the world’s policeman, we are also its biggest consumer of  natural resources. Our military is deployed around the world, but then English  is spoken everywhere. We take such things for granted. 
	Then something terrible happens someplace most of us  can’t find on a map. We’re lectured that if we don’t act, no one else will. 
	It’s like I said: Empire is  a drag. 
	  
	
        
	  
	   |