1
War, Discipline and Imperium
Ronnie D. Lipschutz
An empire does not have allies, it has only vassals.
Ignacio Ramonet, “Servile States,” Le Monde Diplomatique (Oct. 2002).
Introduction
What might another paper on “empire” contribute to the general chatter about
U.S. foreign policy and its future? Would another such paper offer an understanding of
empire that has not already been described and discussed? And can anything be said
about the empire’s future? In this essay, I examine the imperial policies and strategies of
the George W. Bush Administration in a American historical context, rather than a
variation on the European empires of the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries. In one sense, I argue
that the American Imperium is, indeed, an exceptional one, if only because it is not
organized along the lines of previous empires. In another sense, I argue here that the
American Imperium is little different from previous ones, in that it is based on particular
forms of territorial control and intense faith in its teleology. Whether this empire can be
sustained is hardly assured for, as Michel Foucault might have pointed out, the more
Washington attempts to discipline its vassals, the more strongly are they bound to resist.
I begin this essay by discussing my use of the term “imperium.” What is most
critical to this political formation is the relationship between the center and its territories,
how this relationship is constituted, and how it is maintained. The American Imperium is
based on rules, rather than rule but, as we shall see, this system of rules relies heavily on
“self-regulation” and the discipline provided by biopolitical management. As the attacks
of September 11, 2001 indicate, however, these are weak reeds on which to base an
empire. I then offer a summary of the historical background to the American Imperium.
Convention