There is an intense debate going on among western intellectuals over categorisation and naming of the phenomenon that is expected to emerge from the endeavours of Mr. George W. Bush and his neo-conservative colleagues. Sophisticated points are being made and some have warned that the term neo-Imperialism should not be bandied about carelessly — else the thing actually becomes neo-Imperialism. Some are hoping that one and a half years down the road a new American government would take over and may not continue the policies of George W. Others disagree and point out the inherent drives in American policy-making, domestic and foreign, that can only be called expansionist. If the implication is that the next Democratic Administration will change all that, it would seem to be a mistaken notion. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton who wanted NATO to be preserved, expanded and took it right up to the Russian borders. This inherent drive needs to remain in focus.

The criterion for imperialism is clear enough. What is an imperialism composed of? It requires a powerful state ready to impose its will on others who are weak enough to submit or get subjugated. Thus there are two crucially important elements: one a powerful state with expansionist impulses, ready to benefit from others resources, and with a will to go ahead. Secondly there are to be others that have to be cast in the role of victims who should be weak enough and rich enough in resources to attract the powerful. Insofar as this criterion is concerned, we have both elements in abundance: the US combines an expansionist will, possession of means to exploit others and its record of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, with virtually no proof of any stated wrongdoing on the part of either Iraq or Afghanistan, is there for all to see. These two countries do not exhaust the list of those who are likely victims. There is the rest of the Axis of Evil plus some more like Syria, Iran and may be other Middle Eastern nations. If, as is said, a thing looks like a duck, finds its food in the waters close to the land and cackles like a duck, no one should be blamed for taking it to be an actual duck. No amount of sophisticated arguments can change the broad contours of this reality. The world is faced with the imperial drive of America virtually around the globe, particularly in Asia, and the lure of resources, especially petroleum, is easily visible.

Who does not know the resource base of Iraq. Or for that matter, why it is so important because it is the heart of Middle East, with special significance for the security of Israelis. It is world’s second largest reservoir of petroleum and this fact can simply not be absent from the American calculations — though on the conscious plane and that of articulation there may be more voluminous concern for Israel’s security. The latter concern might probably be uppermost in the mind. But that does not obliterate the significance of Iraqi oil and the possibility of rich profits for the American oil giants after American arms have acquired control over it. Insofar as Afghanistan is concerned, with no connections to World Trade Towers tragedy, it had the misfortune of having a direct connection with Osama bin Laden and his pale shadows of Taliban. Apparently no American citizen is worried about what the GIs are doing in that mountainous and devastated land with not many resources of its own? The only answer that suggests itself is the pervasive and pernicious influence of the doctrine of Clash of Civilisations —- in which connection the Taliban did make the grade of an evil influence, inimical to western civilisation. It is mixed up inextricably with such American Neo Cons ideas and the world view whether or not it is affirmed. The Taliban government made the cardinal mistake of not cooperating with Zalme Khalidzade and Condaliza Rice when they lobbied for Enron’s subsidiary of Unocal — before Mr. Bush was placed on the Gaddi by the American Supreme Court. Afghanistan is also a necessary intermediate station on the long route to Central Asia where too, petroleum and other resources beckon; this significance of Afghanistan might be the reason why it attracted the American attention so strongly.

Apparently it now seems to be Iran’s turn, if only some of the grave uncertainties concerning North Korea would permit. Iran again, at one time, was the richest prize the Americans possessed in Middle East during the cold war after 1953 Coup with both its oil and strategic location on the soft underbelly of what used to be the Soviet Union. One is not concerned here with the complexities and difficulties that will be involved in selecting Iran as the next target. Iran is certainly not an Iraq or Afghanistan. All that one can say in passing is that the American ministrations in the Irani situation can only worsen things for America and be counterproductive to the causes it is supposed to champion, including the evolution of Iran away from religious obscurantism to modernity. Another remark in passing may be worthwhile.

Should America leave Iran alone with its growing contradictions between the religious clergy deeply entrenched in power and democratic impulses imperfectly represented by the Khatemi government, it might achieve much better results. The modernists can be expected to win in the longer run because of the persistent and burgeoning popular support. Should America interfere, the Khatemi government will lose out in the short run by becoming tainted with American support. And the Americans will end up strengthening the hands of the religious clergy by acquiring a new nationalist lever that they can use with telling effect. Anyhow control over Iran would certainly warm the cockles of Neo Cons’ hearts. One does not know if the Bush administration would push headlong into Iranian cauldron. Perhaps saner advice will prevail.

If it is true that the American foreign and domestic policies embody expansionist urges and tendencies, as one believes it to be so, the fact of the emergence of a neo-Imperial order is all too noticeable. It is unlikely to be reversed in toto, while its progress may be accelerated by a re-elected Bush or decelerated by the next Democratic President. Next elections would be crucial, of course. Whether Mr. Bush can cash in on his recent popularity and get re-elected as many Neo Cons expect him to or the American voters pay more attention to new emerging forces and elect a Democrat, the broad thrust of American policies would not change. The kind of advance that Bush has already made would require its continuation one way or another.

If this venture has been well truly launched, the implied commitment to complete it can scarcely be dodged. Even the mere fact that American citizens somehow believe that they and their government are forces for good and that the foreign opposition’s urging about a rethink is ipso facto undesirable is pushing them along an imperial path. Such slovenly thought but pervasive notions can, and do, combine with feelings of American patriotism. These can be turned to political advantage by any political group or force that further emphasises the need to add to Americans’ already clear advantage. Imperial ventures can be facilitated by the ease with which the American citizens buy propaganda such as Fox News spews out. No imperialist can want a better home audience. The simple common American goodness and affability are unfortunately combined with a profound gullibility. That is a great incentive for American government to venture on projects abroad that are calculated to benefit American economy and enhance its power and position in the world.

The frightening thing is that the Americans possess an unbeatable military machine. America is militarily supreme and a hyper-power. There is no countervailing force other than world opinion that is reflected in sporadic outburst of protests against the icons of modern American controlled world: the G8 meeting, the World Bank and IMF annual sessions and even EU’s significant meetings. Major powers, especially the US, are widely suspected of evil intentions and designs for enslavement of common masses everywhere by new names. The kind of popular demonstrations that had been occasioned on February 15, 2003 underline the point that the world opinion is, by and large, gearing up to the anti-podal position to America’s. Protests against the results already achieved by the neo classical economic restructuring by all capitalist countries in recent decades is also assuming epidemic proportions. How effective these will be is a matter to be mooted because its potential cannot be doubted.

There are people, quite old fashioned, who pin their hopes for great depression or crash of prosperity in major economies. The persistent downturn, represented by high unemployment levels in most of the European countries, it is somehow visualised that an almighty crash, perhaps bigger than 1929’s, will take place. That will produce great turmoil and many new forces will be released. Perhaps this would happen. Perhaps it will not. The Greenspans of this world will innovate and reverse the tide. The US, for its part has put Kenysianism on its head by making wars a profitable venture: Bush senior more than recovered from obedient oil rich Arab states whatever the US had spent in the Iraq War I of 1990. Bush Jr. is not so lucky. But he means to make more money by exploiting Iraqi oil during the next decade that it is likely that his military’s control over Iraq is scheduled to last. Who can say that the Greenspans of this world will not somehow navigate out of current stagnation or the US military superiority will not enable the Neo Cons to go from one victory to the next —until some law of nature intervenes.

While the Neo Cons and assorted American Imperialists rely on a tried and tested formula: use the overwhelming military force on selected weak but rich in resources targets. It has worked through history and may go on working. But there is a new difficulty that can dampen the enthusiasm of many Imperialists: Look at the Afghan Resistance — Taliban, Hekmatyar’s residual army and new anti-American recruits. Look at the steady toll of American soldiers deaths — 200 as one writes — that is worrying the American high command. By the look of things it can be said that these resistance movements in both countries will grow. The US government is calling for troops from elsewhere. Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi armies will gladly spare a few brigades if the US pays for them. Thus the US imperial ventures in future will require more mercenary troops. Is the supply of such troops infinite or at least can it keep pace with the need, depending upon how long does the US campaigns last.

There are other difficulties. As the Resistances in Afghanistan and Iraq expand and intensify, so will casualties in the soldiery of the “bag carrying nations”. Their ability to sustain these losses can only be finite. There are political considerations. What happens when a Resistance intensifies and soldiers try to suppress it? Well, casualties mount on both sides. The nations that contribute troops will earn the enmity of Afghans, Iraqis or whoever is involved. Will such “bag carriers” go on becoming hated wherever they perform such services? It does seem as if there are limits to Americans ability to find proxies for suffering casualties. Well, Imperialism is never trouble free.

Some people assume that American supremacy cannot last forever. Anything that goes up comes down is a popular belief among all historians. The process of decay of Empires is a legitimate field of enquiry and much attention has to be paid to the subject. Even in America many intellectuals have produced works that frequently talk of crashes and collapses. Some others pin their hopes on the exigencies of international politics that will somehow force Japan and EU to emerge as military superpowers as well, especially if Japan goes nuclear by exploiting the North Korean Crisis. Hitherto neither Japan nor EU have exhibited any noticeable inclination to rival America in political influence-pedalling or military build up. It is a field on which nothing definite can be or should be said. The processes of decay of Empires should be left alone to work themselves out over time: Noisy anti-imperialist demos can do little to start or accelerate the process, though countervailing forces can certainly be born amidst intense ferment that underlies such huge popular demos that are occasioned by the bigger meetings of IMF, World Bank, G8, WTO or even UNCTAD.