When one hears the term “colonialism,” thoughts turn back to the 1800s when
European nations divided up countries such as Africa and imperialism
reigned. However, the term is coming back into conversations during the
past several years as people in the United States either fear or support
the country’s interventions in other countries. Depending on who is
describing America’s recent actions, this move toward so-called colonialism
can be quite necessary and an answer to the future or one of the worst
Lance Selfa in “A New Colonial Age of Empire,” recaps this rising
move toward colonialism over the past several years, especially after the
September 11 tragedy. He stresses the increased support seen from a host of
individuals as proof. For example, Max Boot, editorial features editor for
the Wall Street Journal, wrote in the Weekly Standard a week after
President’s Bush’s war in Afghanistan “Afghanistan and other troubled lands
today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once
provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.”
National Review editor Richard Lowry added his support with a desire to
establish a U.S.-sponsored “protectorate” over Iraq after U.S. troops oust
Saddam Hussein’s regime. And Sebastian Mallaby in Foreign Affairs nodded
Empires are not always planned. The original American colonies
began as the unintended byproduct of British religious strife.
The British political class was not so sure it wanted to rule
India, but commercial interests dragged it there anyway. The
United States today will be an even more reluctant imperialist.
But a new imperial moment has arrived, and by virtue of its
power America is bound to play the leading role.
However, notes Selfa, it is not only individuals from the U.S. who are
supporting this push for increased interven…