posed to the U.S. entry into World War II, both mennbecame loyal workers in the war effort—the AmericannRepublic, they felt, must show itself different from oldnEurope, which had debauched itself into self-immolation.nBut if President Jimmy Carter ever read his predecessor’snwords, as he put in motion his hostage policy, we do notnknow. What we are aware of, however, is that the Shiitenterrorists in Beirut pulled back from harassing the Soviets,nafter some of their gunmen (and their families) were foundncarved up—the V spread of their fingers did not mean theynwere willing to have their people die.nThe Russians have learned what Americans haven’t. In anworld where Tartar horsemen held banquets on platformsnsupported by the bodies of their still-living foes, andnTeutonic knights, Turkic raiders, panzer divisions, andnEinsatzgruppen killed more people than anyone can count,nknowledge came dear—he who will not vanquish, will benvanquished in turn, and no poems shall revive him. (ThenSerbs are a rare example of a people resurrected by thenmemory of former greatness.) Whether Russians are protectivelynimperial, as many American liberals hold, or malignantlynexpansionistic, as their enemies say, is immaterial.nFor millions of Letts, Latvians, Estonians, Poles, Germans,nCzechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Rumanians, Yugoslavs, Bulgarians,net al., the Soviet Empire is an evil, without anynhyperbole.nSpeaking of survival, in 1938 Charles Lindbergh attributednBritish success to “the past importance of the Channelnand the time it gave the British to prepare for war.”nTheodore Roosevelt said much the same from a differentnperspective: “I suppose that the United States will always benunready for war. . . . This is no new thing. Americansnlearn only from catastrophe and not from experience.” Yet,n”Anglo-Saxons” have reached the end of their insularities:nThe Channel is a creek, and the Ocean a river. WithnCanada neutralist or Mexico Marxist, not even the river willnbe there. In 1987, Canadian socialist New Democratsngained a 40 percent support at the polls; as for Mexico, inn10 years possibly a quarter of its population will be in thenU.S. The prospect of an unassimilable “minority” of 20-30nmillion should kindle memories of the internment of thenJapanese in World War II, a much-debated reaction to thenreality of a fifth column.nIs America to become a dump for an empire that neverntook shape? In Britain, second-generation Pakistanis wearnsaris, live in self-imposed ghettos, and demand that theirncustoms, religion, and culture be underwritten by thenBritish taxpayers. In Canada, Sikhs clamor for the right tonserve the Armed Forces in turbans and to carry their dirksninto Her Majesty’s courtrooms. In France, Algerians ask fornwelfare and a voice in the affairs of the Republic, while innGermany Turkish-speaking Turks attend publicly maintainednTurkish schools. In Holland, the Mollucans extolntheir Dutchness, and, in this country a federal director fornbilingualism exists, perhaps to help Americans read foreignnsigns on their subways, buses, public buildings, andnschools. (In comparison, in French Quebec a sign innEnglish is a crime, according to the much-celebratednProvincial Law 101.)n”Empire is the child of an inability or unwillingness tonlive within one’s means,” concludes American Marxistnhistorian William Appleman Williams, adding his voice tonLindbergh’s 1938 opinion that there is an “antithesis ofndemocratic ideals to empire.” There are many Americans,nliberal, radical, and conservative, who find nothing wrongnwith this view. Born in revolt against a world state,nAmericans are understandably reluctant to become themselvesnthe enemy —yet, isn’t an “inability or unwillingnessnto live within one’s means” just another definition ofnambition, drive, and courage? Those Europeans who couldn”live within their means” stayed in Europe, as did thosenVietnamese, Cambodians, or the Chinese who couldnreconcile themselves to a lifetime in a labor camp. Somenopponents of imperial expansion laud the Chinese 15thcenturynrefusal to start an African colony but seem to forgetnthat mainland China was and is an empire (as attested by itsncountless ethnic minorities). Historically, empires are oftenna matter of social physics—the strong and the large behavendifferently from the small and the weak. “The Americannimperial way of life,” writes Williams, “conditions peoplento be outraged about the death required to maintain annempire.”nBut when the Vietnamese lost over a million dead in anworldwide war against America, they didn’t count theirnlosses. They would have understood what Theodore Rooseveltnmeant by saying, “Let us pay with our bodies for ournsouls’ desire.” It may be possible that the U.S. policymakersnalso knew what they wanted but were afraid to say it—“thentheme of American participation in World War 11 wasnvictory at the lowest possible cost.” That, at any rate, is thenopinion of historian Stephen E. Ambrose. Others contendnthat “victory by the Red Army was the key to avoiding anynstructural changes [in America].” According to the HistoricalnStatistics of the United States, only 405,399 Americansndied in a holocaust that consumed over 50 million livesn(among them over 25 million Soviets and over 10 millionnGermans). The number of the American dead in Vietnamnwas comparable to the casualties at Gettysburg alone; yet,nnot many Americans north of the Ohio River upbraidnLincoln for being a mass murderer.nIn retrospect, it seems that in 1860 America was morenconscious of its destiny and more willing to pay its dues.nWhether Lincoln had a choice or, as many Southernersnbelieve, made a crucial mistake that forever ruined thennation, is a matter of historical conjecture. What is notnhistorical conjecture, however, is that the geopoliticalnrealities of today are no different from yesterday’s. Khomeini,nwhipping up the ghost of his people’s empire;nQaddafi, bloating up to have another go at Tours; Sovietsnbathing on Cuban beaches and teaching Nicaraguans to flynHind gunships; Canadians debating on whether to leavenNATO; Mexico on perpetual verge of revolution are all factsnof our time—as long as there are the weak and the strong,nthe rich and the poor, the capable and the incapable,nAmerica will have a choice. It is a choice many lessnfortunate nations do not have: whether to agree to “livenwithin its means” and wither away (or die, violentiy) ornwhether to secure for itself the position of comparativeninvincibility. “Right is the oncoming might,” according tonJohn Stuart Mill. The Soviets, the Chinese, the ThirdnWorld, “proletarians,” “capitalists,” even the Nicaraguansnare all striving after might. Can America afford to abdicatennnNOVEMBER 1987 19n