With September 11th, the perceived need for the United States to intervene in the governments of other countries became overwhelming. Not to intervene in Afghanistan seemed extraordinarily imprudent, given that the local government could create or support terrorists who were willing to strike worldwide. So the United States did what no one thought was possible: we quickly conducted an air and land war in Afghanistan, which, initially, was relatively successful. We did the same thing in Iraq. The Bush administration has been very straightforward about such activities. Its National Security Planning document states that we are now in the business of regime change.

This behavior, which did not begin with the Bush administration, is imperial. However, such actions are only part of the story. We also should consider the kinds of intelligence imperial governments need to run their empires and the ways in which these intelligence establishments look different from those of ordinary nation states.

Further, we should investigate the question of how empires make themselves legitimate in the eyes of the people they govern. In the twentieth century, the European empires were de-legitimized and, consequently, crumbled as the principle of national self-determination emerged. Historically, however, as William MacNeil, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago has pointed out, empires have been both common and frequent. Ordinary nation states are difficult to establish. They require a sufficient number of people who speak the same language and share cultural values to sustain a viable economy. Empires, in contrast, don't require such commonalities to make it possible for their subordinate states to integrate their economic and other activities. What empires do require is for the populations of their states to accept the imperial government as legitimate. And it's an open question whether the people within the area that's now being controlled by the United States think of this country's role as legitimate.