Darkcorp - draws a list of former global powers. Its interesting to note that many of those powers existed either in an age of absolutist monarchy or empire, and when they did not, these were societies that possessed ideologies that were bent on expansionism and conquest. In some cases those ideologies were based on a notion that they were bringing civilization to the rest of the world.
However, to think that it was those ideologies that drove those imperial or global projects is, I suspect, naive. To mobilize societies one needs ideological power. But it was similiar ideological power that drove civil rights, liberalism, communism. But ideology is only one form of power, and I suspect that it does little if its not organized and directed.
We all may have ideological beliefs- religion for instance is an ideological belief centered around a supernatural idea, and many of us have that. But there is a difference between a religion and a crusading faith of jihad. Likewise, there is a difference between a Facist state or even an authoritarian state and one that directs that operation towards war and conquest.
To make a long story short- ideology isn't enough. You need direction and mobilization. As Michael Mann- sociologist not movie maker- says- Ideology, Economic, Military and Political power- are all different sources and have their own mechanics. One can be strong in one, and weak in others- but generally you need all four.
For instance- right now the US has strong military power, weak political power, good economic power, faltering ideological power. To lead, the US needs stronger political and ideological power.
Europe has strong economic power, marginal military power, strong political power, marginal ideological power.
But how does that translate to war- you have to know who calls the shots. At the end of the day, the key question in politics is- Who gets paid.
Wars-
We can argue that wars are driven either-
(1) defensively- fearing one's enemies or instability in regions were precious resources or security interests lie, the regime pursues foreign ambitions- often by conquest. Here the theory of the security dilemma- may apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_politics/v050/50.1glaser.html
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~olau/ir/archive/jer8.pdf
(2) Aggressive- a state seeks to change the status quo in a way that draws it a higher return. Perhaps it does so because it anticipates a future in which it will lose power vs larger rivals. One could find this in Germany in both World Wars and Japan in World War 2.
http://wikisum.com/w/Copeland:_The_origins_of_major_war
http://books.google.com/books?id=95...+dynamic+differentials&source=gbs_toc_s&cad=1
(3) Commerce- this si a bit different than either theory above. If we understand markets and economic exchange as relations between 2 or more groups, then its a collective action problem. As such, it needs some set of rules. Within a state, the government provides the rules of economic exchange. In the international realm, those rules arise through common practices or a hegemonic actor. One sees the beginning of this in the 19th century led by British near hegemony.
Since World War 2- the global economy has been driven largely by a liberal set of institutions that were largely created by the US and which the US supported first against a rival block- led by the USSR, and then has continued to lead in the post-Cold War. Now this isn't the best of systems. Like any liberal system that has limited government regulation- it tends to lead to extreme inequality. Yet, the system does allow members that do well to prosper.
Unlike the defensive or offensive game- these are non-zero sum games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum
I would argue that US interests now are primarily commercial and largely defensive. The US lacks a crusading ideology at home. In fact, most Americans oppose the war and don't want a long occupation in Iraq. Rather, most of us are leaning towards alternatives to fossil fuels and thus reducing our dependence on dictatorship-petrostates.
There is significant displeasure over the significant inequalities of the world. That argument is being felt in the US where the dialogue has made a remarkable shift towards issues of social class. The Nation is coming out with an edition that takes on the problem of inequality on its face near the end of the month.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/
So what is motivating US ambitions abroad- in Iraq.
Part of it is unfinished business- the lingering and unresolved problems of Gulf War 1. Part of this war was driven by the desire of Americans to kick ass after 9-11. Afghanistan did not quench American appetite for kicking ass- afterall that war was pretty much fought by the Northern Alliance and US Special Forces.
But I suspect the real motivation for the war is simply oil- or more directly- oil dependence.
As China and other lesser developed countries grow- they will consume more oil, and there is limited supply. Increased demand has increased the speculative price of fuel- and is why our gas is so expensive. We feel that.
But what we don't acknowledge is-
(1) the West turns a blind eye to Darfur- because Sudan provides China with fuel.
(2) the US makes a quick peace with Libya- because we need the fuel.
(3) Iraq- sitting on the second largest oil field, could- if we won that occupation- take off the pressure for central Asian oil- or the New Great Game.
So the war in Iraq- is a commercial war- fought over a strategic resource. I believe, and supported, this war because I believed it was necessary to prevent further and more intense conflicts in other regions that more directly draw in the major powers. Its bad enough that we have potentially hundreds of thousands of causalities in Iraq. But that's peanuts compared to a major conflict over fuel.
But I am unsure- mostly because I see this war as going on too long when it shouldn't have. It has become a war based on compromises rather than the will to win. Which is why, I think, Americans are frustrated. If American had won the occupation- then McCain would have an easy election ahead. But we didn't. And its a problem. Why? Bush policies. What I am unsure of is whether the Bush policies were intended to cause these consequences or they just failed.
But what about the long-term. The US public is willing to support deployments in Europe- because of a history of major war. It has supported forces in Korea. But that's pretty peaceful. It isn't keen on major forces in Iraq.
But once the oil is no longer important, than those militaries need not deploy there any longer.
