I think 'Pack' (in the title) should be 'Pact'.
More importantly though, why are we still in Japan (or Germany, etc.), anyway? The war ended 60+ years ago, and Japan in no way resembles the militaristic country that it did back then.
This is why I think that no matter who is elected, we will, in fact, never actually leave Iraq (or Afganistan). Our empire of military bases, which has been written about at length by Chalmers Johnson, is effectively permanent unless we lose a war (Vietnam) or are thrown out by our hosts (Phillippines, but only after a volcano rendered the bases useless). Aside from those reasons, our overseas bases are never, to my knowledge, dismantled and handed back over to our hosts.
Our military empire spans administrations and, just like Iraq, the reasons the military and our 'serious' foreign policy experts use to justify their existence, change regularly.
Japan is an excellent example. Initially we occupied Japan to 'prevent them from going militaristic again'. When that reason evaporated, it was to fight communism. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the reason was to counterbalance China and/or stop North Korea from invading their neighbors with their diesel-powered Army/Navy. And as a result, we're still here.
Iraq fits this pattern nicely. Initially we invaded because we (mistakenly, at the very least) said Iraq had WMDs & a connection to al Qaeda. Then it was for Democracy. Now it's to stabilize Iraq, prevent al Qaeda from 'seizing the oil fields', etc. The reasons change constantly as required.
It doesn't matter what the situation on the ground actually is. They'll always find a new justification. I'm not an expert on history, but I imagine militarism always finds a way to justify itself.
It's our massively expensive empire of military bases that makes someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich appeal to me. We don't need it anymore and we can't afford it (though Japan, kindly, pays us to protect them as though we're a rental guard dog). Japan, Germany, etc. are, more often than not, perfectly capable of defending themselves.
I would enthusiastically recommend Chalmer Johnson's books by the way. they may leave you despondent, but he deals with the topic of America's empire of bases better than anyone I know of, with the possible exception of Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy. Chalmers Johnson deals with it in far more detail while Phillips' book is more wide ranging (it discusses the rise of fundamentalism in the US, how American, like other fallen empires, is dependent on the dominant fuel source of it's day, etc.)
I should add... our empire might be dismantled when China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and co. decide to stop financing it.
Same for the Iraq War. Ironically, I think they may have a better chance of ending it thru withholding funding than we have at getting our elected leaders to end it.
Mike, your description of the scope of the empire is spot-on.
But, IMHO, you're way off-base as to it's future. Because you seem to make the implicit assumption that the future is like the past. Specifically, that the options available to imperialists and anti-imperialists (including local insurgents) will remain essentially the same.
Not true.
Ever notice the way so many institutions carry within them contradictions that lead to their ultimate collapse? They start out doing fine, and then conditions change. Like a car traveling down an untraveled road at night. Everything is just fine until a a pea-soup fog rises up right out of the ground ... If you don't put on the brakes fast, you're liable to find the car's engine in your lap.
Most times, that change in conditions was set into motion by the success of the original institution.
Like Republican Rome spreading until the whole freaking Mediterranean basin was a Roman lake. But the optimized slave system that was a direct consequence of those conquests ended up wrecking the Republic.
IMHO, the American empire is staring that sort of failure to scale right square in the face, right now. Has been staring it in the face for 40 years. And in the course of the those 40 years, the consequences of that scaling failure have been failed colonial wars, one right after another.
In Vietnam, the local insurgency was crushed. The Viet Cong never managed to recover from the disaster that was Tet. The people who ended up winning that one were regulars: the NVA. But note that the end game was much more subtle than what you'd expect from regulars involved in a nation-state war.
In Afghanistan I (1979-1987 or thereabouts), the Soviet Empire (yeah, we're not the only one stalling out here) was simply ejected.
In Iraq, we've basically lost the war already. You think this SOFA al Maliki may or may not have assented to means jack shit? His successors will use it for toilet paper, if they think the parchment soft enough. Bottom line: it's Iraqi turf. We're playing whack-a-mole with literally scores of different factions (upwards of 75, the last I read) while the Shia sit back and make deals with Iran we're in no position to do anything about.
They're going to settle their own agenda, and what then? I don't think a piddling 140,000 people are going to successfully try conclusions with 20 million or so, should this come to a head. Which it will if we start dropping bombs on Iran in a serious way. What'll happen next is Stalingrad-on-the-Tigris.
Major trends fostering imperial destabilization
(1) Revolution in communications.
Computer networks, ubiquitous strong cryptography (assuming you've the need and the smarts), commo satellites hosted bu multiple parties in a multipolar, NOT bipolar world.
(2) Revolution in infantry smallarms.
(2.a) Introduction of reduced-charge "assault rifles" on the eastern Front by Germany, swift optimization and mass production by the USSR. These now permeate every military environment and every brushfire war on earth. Which means that disciplined volleys from long-service professionals (BEF in 1914) don't dominate light infantry battlefields anymore.
(2.b) Man portable assault rocketry: Panzerfaust, bazooka, RPG-7, RPG-29. A Chechen fireteam now consists of a three man squad. The RPG gunner and the sniper are the assault element. The AK man is there to protect the RPG gunner and the sniper.
(3) Revolution in operational methods.
In process since mid last century (c. 1860-1870) in Prussian/German army. Notion of "Mission orders" begins to gain ground. von Moltke uses "mission orders" to send three Army Groups off to converge on Koniggratz. Result was crushing of Austrian army and consequent decisive victory of Prussia.
Bankruptcy of First Generation "clockwork army" approach during WW I put this trend on fast track, particularly in Reichswehr. Von Seeckt Reforms. Heinz Guderian and the birth of "Third Generation" combined arms. "Auftragstaktik" comes into it's own. Increasing decentralization of command authority is major result.
Trend reaches apex in Afghanistan, where there is NO central hierarchical organization to oppose the USSR, which loses the war anyway.
(4) Revolution in technical scale.
"Small is beautiful" in ways Schumacher never imagined in his worst nightmares. It started with "smart bombs". Now we're seeing man-killing RPV drones. IEDs. The "Bazaar of violence" in Iraq, where IED manufacture and placement are outsourced by insurgent factions to contractors.
(5) Optimization of the kamikaze methodology: "Die to Win"
I think this one is self-explanatory. But it's been in use for a century, and the pioneers weren't even Moslem. The IRA: the Easter Rising. And the LTTE, who are Hindu, and who have set up an entire culture around suicide attack for going on 30 year snow.
Put all these trends together.
What the result is, IMHO, is potential for a perfect storm of resistance to ANY would-be empire-builder. Be they the United States of America or Shell Oil (Niger Delta, MEND).
The corporations are the real empire builders of today. The U.S. government is their puppet.
Off topic--speaking of Japan: On August 5, when the clock reaches 7:15pm in New York, or 6:15pm here in the Arkanshire, the fission-bombing of Hiroshima will have happened exactly 63 years ago.
As a wise man once said, "War is Hell".
The corporations are the real empire builders of today. The U.S. government is their puppet.
Yup.
They've been the empire-builders in this half of the world for the last hundred years plus. Most Americans don't know this ...
(1) Because the media have been systematically lying on behalf of their masters for even longer. And ..
(2) Because most of the "Joe Average" citizens have bought in to the process of denial.
Note that one characteristic of the British empire was its total ruthlessness and relative lack of hypocrisy. Compared to the United States, that is. That's because most Brits bought in to the concept of empire. So when a story about the latest massacre by the British Army during some colonial war made the evening news, most British citizens didn't mind.
Most Americans, OTOH, remain blissfully ignorant of empire and its sordid bloody realities, and they'll go to great lengths to remain so.
But conditions favorable to building and maintenance of empires are drying up even quicker than the oil under the ground. That was the whole thrust of my last comment.
Much quicker. The oil will still be flowing when the last empire either folds up voluntarily or goes to the wall.
"Or goes to the wall".
Actually, I think it most likely that the last empire will go to the bankruptcy court.
Stormcrow,
I need some time to digest your comment. I'll try to get back here to respond.
Hi Stormcrow,
Sorry for the delay in coming back. I hope I don't type this for nothing 
On the military side of the equation, I agree that imperial wars are becoming more difficult to 'win'.
I'm not as sanguine about the technological side of the equation though. While I realize there are probably numerous ways around any roadblocks an imperial power might erect, it seems to me that a determined empire could hamper people's ability to communicate with each other.
Coincidentally, I saw a link at the dailyPaul.com (I check it out every month or so) about Lawrence Lessig predicting an 'i-911' which could lead to severe restrictions on the Internet as we know it. I realize the links are from odd sites, but don't let that detract from the actual video of Lessig:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/57177
I may tend towards the paranoid side, but I don't think this is an idle threat, as the constant battle to ensure Net Neutrality reminds us. And imagine how much it would set back, say, the progressive movement, if the government one day decided to take the top 100 liberal blogs offline. I expect it would take several months, at least, to develop a workaround that is near what exists now and it seems (to me, anyway) that they could just keep blocking communication paths.
Additionally, a smart empire would try to use surrogates to do their fighting.
Finally, thru the use of economic institutions (WTO, IMF, World bank), empires could still engage in what I think is called 'neo-colonialism'. No need to occupy their country and plunder their wealth. Let these supposedly multi-lateral institutions call the shots. Our puppets, like Marcos or Maliki, will do much of the enforcement on the ground.
I hope this makes sense. Maybe I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I'm not sure we'll ever see the end of empires. As impossible as they are to maintain, I imagine we'll always have people, like Dick Cheney & George bush, who think that they'll be able to do it.
About the use of puppets.
That's what the empires already do. You mentioned Marcos, which is spot-on. But nearly every two-bit dictator over the last 50 years fits that description. A very few of the more tempting examples follow.
(1) Nicolae Ceauşescu
(2) a whole string of South Vietnamese dictators we sponsored, starting with Diem and ending with Thieu.
(3) Erich Honecker
(4) Francois 'Papa Doc' Duvalier
Both the US and the USSR subscribed to the "hegemonic" school of empire building rather than the "territorial" school.
Rome was an example of both schools of thought: their empire was hegemonic for the most part through the 1'st Century AD, but was systematically turned into a territorial one by a series of rulers starting with the Flavian dynasty.
Maliki? Well, it's not clear, there, who's the puppet. Our "control" over Nouri al Maliki can only be exercised through withdrawl of support. And that's exactly what he's pushing us to do.
One weakness of a hegemonic empire is that the political outliers are theoretically independent, with their own state hierarchies and standing armies. What that means is that if you pick the wrong people as puppets, you've got an instant revolt on your hands whenever they figure it's time.
Another weakness of a hegemonic empire is that the puppets aren't going to be very popular with the people they're supposed to control for you. They've got a legitimacy problem that can cause them to be ejected much more easily than fully autonomous rulers can, all other things being equal.
That's the weakness that modern insurgencies are designed to exploit.
A third weakness of a hegemonic empire is that the armies of your client states can't be allowed to become too efficient. Because you have to be able to reassert control if needs must. The Romans had this problem knocked - until the trans-frontier barbs started to experiment with heavy infantry, at the same time the Roman army was starting to go to pieces. Internal war'll do that to you.
What this means today is that client state armies are even less able to fend off insurgencies than American troops are, or Soviet troops used to be.
And neither one of these imperial powers knew jack shit about the sort of warfare required to subdue an insurgency without going completely genocidal.
Neo-colonialism is also tried and true. It's been used all over the world from Congo/Zaire to Central America to South Korea. It tends to develop problems when the local insurgents start kidnapping your worker bees or killing them outright. This is happening right now in the Niger Delta. It's been going on in Iraq since the first year of the war there.
And it just doesn't work, period, when ultra-nationalist local ruling elites decide to simply eject your corporocrats and be done with them. If you can't buy off or effectively threaten the local rulers, they can just thumb their noses at you if they think they can afford the blowback. Cuba and Venezuela are examples. So's the PRC, who told their then-patron, the USSR, to "get lost" 45 years ago.
Commenting by HaloScan
