Analysis of Michael Mann's Incoherent Empire: Book Review

This report offers a critical review of Michael Mann's 'Incoherent Empire,' analyzing the arguments presented regarding the United States' role as a global power. The review assesses Mann's evaluation of US military power, comparing it to historical standards and international relations theories, particularly realism. It delves into Mann's examination of US military spending, global military presence, and the limitations of US military capabilities in terms of pacification and global influence. The report also explores Mann's perspectives on the US's approach to foreign policy, the impact of modern warfare, and the internal political and economic factors shaping US actions. It further discusses Mann's views on the concept of empire, the role of nuclear weaponry, and the US's engagement with international relations based on political realism, including the influence of mass media and the challenges of global resistance to US policies. The analysis highlights the complexities of the US's position in the modern world, focusing on its military strength, its capacity for global deployment, and the interplay of political and economic factors in shaping its foreign policies.

Running Head: MODERN SOCIETY
Modern Society
Book Review -INCOHERENT EMPIRE: MICHEAL MANN
Student Name
Course Code

1
MODERN SOCIETY
In the following book, Incoherent Empire, the author Michael Mann has condemned the
concept of successful establishment of a global empire by the United States of America. The
author eludes to establish a precise declaration concerning the speculative outline of Foreign
Relations he witnesses to for the evaluation of the United States and its overseas strategy
comportment (Baylis et al. 2017).The following critical essay in the form of a book review will
assess the conjectures, realistic information and the arguments of reasoning which Mann has
used to state the United States of America being a world power and there will be comparisons
and disparity among the number of theories and structures of International Relations (Bell 2017).
In Incoherent Empire, Mann has begun the argument with the assessment of military
power possessed by the United States of America, compared with the historical systems and even
with the global standards of the contemporary world. Mann is imperative in his stance that the
United States has no rival in the military power as it is above and beyond every country in the
world (Daddow 2017). This conclusion is drawn by him by considering the military agendas of
different countries in the world who have the potential to become a superpower. He takes the
example of the European Union and Japan who are not in pursuit of military power. In his book,
Mann has done an analysis of the military budget allocations and spending of the United States
which determines that the country has no substantial contender in the military prowess (Devetak
et al. 2017). Mann supports his argument in the book by a strong evidence of pragmatic nature
which has helped to justify his point. The data goes as in 2003 the entire budget for military
alone of the United States was forty-five percent, cumulatively taken of the entire world. One the
same grounds, United States claims that its military spending was twenty-five times more than
all the seven enemy countries which the United States considers to be, taken combined (Gilpin,
2016).

2
MODERN SOCIETY
But this argument made by Mann does not comply with the real notion of Realism.
Mann’s logic when compared to the Realist theories are not consistent as the evaluation of power
in the role of a realist. There are actually two types of realist, one of which are the traditional
realists who believe in the actual capability of a nation and another one are the neorealist who
tend to believe in the relative capability of a nation (Guilhot 2017). This theory sets the position
of military power on top of any other forms of power which countries of the world and especially
United States possesses. Mann has been a pessimist in his method and he explains the things not
as they are in their existence but how the things supposed to be.
However, Mann in his book Incoherent Empire leaves the conventional Realist method
quite early. He thinks that the notion of other powers of the world such as Europe and Japan do
not pursue military power is inconsistent with the realistic method (Haynes et al. 2017). As it has
been stated by the realists that power is endemic in the international relations and there is no
such country in this modern world who does not seek power. Mann has ascertained that the
policies of Japan and Europe are in contradiction with the expedition to gain military supremacy
as their thinking and behavior suggest that they elude violence and conflicts of military nature.
The reasons that made Mann believe about the countries like Japan and the entire continent of
Europe to be a superpower is the additional factors of supremacy other than the military powers
(Jervis 2017).
Taking Realism as the concept of discussion, Mann has identified four major factors for
building an empire. These factors are: capacity of a nation to pacify the citizens of the land
which has been occupied, defense, capacity to annex territories and the power to launch an
offensive strike. Mann has been open to discuss the nuclear power of the United States and has
made a point by declaring that united State has about 9000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal which

3
MODERN SOCIETY
is way more than any other country in the world (Jørgensen 2017). This is a strong point for
Mann to support his argument. However, it has been stated by Mann in his book that United
States lack in the relative capacity of the soldiers when it comes to pacification action in the
territories which are conquered. As China has 2.5 million soldiers in its military United States
only has 1.45 million soldiers which is quite less that its competitor (Guilhot 2017). When the
number of expandable human force is taken into consideration, United States have insufficient
number of soldiers to police the entire world at once as they have only 5% of soldiers of the
global total (Kelly 2017). Therefore Mann states that United States is not an empire which is a
position for a country, if it has a global presence of military. But this logic is not correct from a
historical point of view as the British Kingdom established a global empire with a very less
number of military force as compared to what United States has today. Mann states that if the
United States is unable to pacify people with its military power then it has to do it with the
weapon of modern nationalism (Mathur 2017).
When it comes to global deployment of military forces, Mann states the United States has
the capacity for global deployment. He supports his argument with the fact that United States has
132 military observations in the countries all around the globe which ranges from refueling
centers to proper military bases. Mann takes history in his support to state that United States is
the first country in the history of the world to have complete global military presence
(Miskimmon, O'Loughlin and Roselle 2017). However, Mann pints out that there is one major
hindrance in the ruling of United States as they are bound to take permissions and have to
comply to the rules of their surroundings to take any radical step. The government of United
States is not allowed to make decisions on their own. There is a downside to the military
presence of United States in many countries as it encourages the sense of hostility among the

4
MODERN SOCIETY
leaders of those countries and indigenous people feel insecure due to a foreign military presence
in the proximity of their country (Parrington 2017).
Mann has done the evaluation of United States firepower which according to him is
considered as the biggest asset. Mann establishes that the introduction of “Revolution in Military
Affairs” and their superiority in the information war provides leverage to the United States to
inflict great damage to its rival with very minimal loss of lives of its citizens. Mann has his
empirical evidences to support his argument as this advantage of United States in the
sophistication of weapons and modernization of technology gives them the cutting edge (Purdon
2017). The modern weapons such as guided missiles of long range, self-steering tanks, predator
planes and self-destructing landmines which comes in the paths of ongoing vehicles
automatically are some military assets of the United States which no other country in the world
has. Another reason for United States to develop their arsenal is that the “rogue nations” which
are defined by the U.S. have started procuring nuclear warheads and weapons of mass
destruction. There is a need for U.S. to be prepared as the terrorist activities are increasing as
they are known to build primitive bombs and have frequently used suicide bombers (Ravenhill
2017). Mann states that these are the traits of weak powers as they rely on chemical and
biological weapons to compete with the strong nations. Mann has also added that U.S. has not
stopped production of chemical and biological weapons till the late 70s and they still have them.
Mann asserts that ruling the territories which are acquired needs enlisting and
empowering locals who are loyal to the U.S. government. Sometimes U.S. succeeds in
establishing such system and sometimes it fails. Mann describes the military presence with a hint
of wit that U.S. military does not take help from the natives they use M-16s. Mann refers to the
cases where U.S. military has involved local helpers in Afghanistan and have also taken help

5
MODERN SOCIETY
from the Kurds in Iraq (Steele 2017). Mann concludes that U.S. is not an empire because of its
military and also says that U.S. does not have the highest number of nuclear warheads on the
present day. The power of nuclear weaponry has been mooted by other countries that possess
them as their use by U.S. will compel other nations to use their nuclear warheads too. The
collateral damage will be unfathomable that is why U.S. cannot use it (Daddow 2017). Mann
states that if U.S. was to build an empire, the global presence of military would have been based
on autonomous authoritarian decisions and the U.S. does not have to take consent of the
respective countries. It has been proved from the earlier attacks that the firepower of U.S. is
irrelevant to tackle the extremely distributed terrorist activities.
When International Relations are discussed on the basis of political realism, then it
becomes apparent that Mann is in consensus with many of its possibilities. Mann believes that
U.S. can be seen as a balanced actor which is doing the same things which the historical
superpowers have done in their time which is to rule in a classical way (Baylis et al. 2017). U.S.
always tries to maintain its hegemony by retaining its relative capacities and avoiding any
depreciation in its relative power. U.S. exercises it international relation policies by following the
concept of domination and survival. Mann states that U.S. portrays its foreign policies are based
on the notion of “freedom”, hence it calls its military as the freedom fighters and has also named
the Iraq invasion as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (Jervis 2017). This policy, as perceived by Mann
justifies the actions of U.S. and gives them a legitimate angle so that public of the U.S believe in
its greatness. Mann has noted that the mass media of U.S. has staunchly appreciated its
development of mass destruction weapons and has shown that with the use of these weapons
there will be very few human causalities. Mann states that U.S. has been successful in
manufacturing consent of its people which is a part of its rational actor approach (Kelly 2017).

6
MODERN SOCIETY
Mann refers that according to the Burchill text and in accordance with the fourth
principle of Realism, state behavior is not influenced by the moral principles but they have
certain implications which every nation has to adhere. Mann believes that the notion of U.S. that
“if you are not with us then you are against us” is creating more enemies of the state. He states
that there is a global resistance to the policies of U.S. If there is any terrorist attack the other
powers come and sympathize with U.S. but behind its back they strengthen the hostility
(Jørgensen 2017).Mann in his work Incoherent Empire has also talked about the internal politics
in Incoherent Empire which has become very dirty with time. According to the Public Choice
Theory, the politicians of U.S. are looking to maximize their chances of getting reelected. Mann
has also discussed the Structural Approach in which he has mentioned strong involvement of
global capitalism. He has suggested the economy of U.S. is on war footing. He states that U.S.
has applied the economic tactics in its warfare techniques during its invasion in Cuba and Iraq
(Mathur 2017). Mann has done heavy analysis on the political economy of U.S. He has
mentioned that the Latin America has been hit by neo-liberalism which caused the division of
wealth in the world. He has mentioned the contract killings of Columbian Labor Organizations
by the American sweatshops. Mann has also raised the issue of U.S pharmaceutical companies
have been extorting good amount of money from the AIDS patients in Africa (Miskimmon,
O'Loughlin and Roselle 2017). Through the book, Mann has talked about the structural approach
adopted by U.S which is inclined towards the foreign policy framework and implementation
which manipulates certain people to gain special interests.

7
MODERN SOCIETY
References
Baylis, J., Owens, P. and Smith, S. eds., 2017. The globalization of world politics: An
introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
Bell, D., 2017. Political realism and international relations. Philosophy Compass, 12(2).
Daddow, O., 2017. International relations theory. Sage.
Devetak, R., George, J. and Percy, S. eds., 2017. An introduction to international relations.
Cambridge University Press.
Gilpin, R., 2016. The political economy of international relations. Princeton University
Press.
Guilhot, N., 2017. After the Enlightenment: Political Realism and International Relations in
the Mid-Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press.
Haynes, J., Hough, P., Malik, S. and Pettiford, L., 2017. World Politics: International
Relations and Globalisation in the 21st Century. SAGE.
Jervis, R., 2017. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University
Press.
Jørgensen, K.E., 2017. International relations theory: A new introduction. Springer.
Kelly, G.A., 2017. Politics and Religious Consciousness in America. Routledge.
Mathur, S.P., 2017. International Relations in South Asia and Attitudes of United
America. Journal of Social Sciences & Multidisciplinary Management Studies, 1(2), pp.27-
38.

8
MODERN SOCIETY
Miskimmon, A., O'Loughlin, B. and Roselle, L., 2017. Forging the world: strategic
narratives and international relations. University of Michigan Press.
Parrington, V., 2017. The Beginnings of Critical Realism in America: Main Currents in
American Thought. Routledge.
Purdon, M., 2017. Neoclassical realism and international climate change politics: moral
imperative and political constraint in international climate finance. Journal of International
Relations and Development, 20(2), pp.263-300.
Ravenhill, J. ed., 2017. Global political economy. Oxford University Press.
Steele, B., 2017. Broadening the Contestation of Norms in International
Relations. Polity, 49(1), pp.132-138.