In the epilogue of Island of Shame, David Vine creates a slight moment of shock by presenting a letter directed to the Washington Post, which called for “measures to repair the unforgivably inhumane wrongs inflicted on the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia and other islands of the Chagos group” (Vine 2011, p. 197). The shock factor kicks in when Vine reveals that the letter's author was Stu Barber; the same Stu Barber who was considered the "brains of the group" of "Op-93", which led to the implementation of the strategic concept of the island and the eventual relocation of the Chagossians. Throughout Vine's account of the American empire as an “empire of bases” there is an impulse to delineate responsibility for the suffering of the Chagossians; Barber and his friends in the Navy and the Pentagon appear to be the natural perpetrators—after all, they were the primary architects and implementers of the strategic island concept. Thus, Barber's mea culpa represents a shift from the book's sweeping narrative that, to some extent, paints him as personally responsible. Thus, the epilogue features the words of another Stu Barber, one who Vine tries to introduce through his personal story, but who must ultimately be distinguished as “Stu the man” rather than “Stu the statesman.” He was “Stu the statesman”, or even the bureaucrat responsible for “Op-93”. This difference is evident in the choice of words, since in the letter he writes “it is my firm opinion”, while the bureaucrat relies on the impersonal language of cost-benefit analysis. Vine's conceptualization of empire implicitly touches on the relationship between bureaucratization and the proliferation of American imperial actions, yet remains one-dimensional because it fails to fully explain the logic of American imperialism. The growing military presence of the United States globally should be analyzed through a systemic framework, in which the ideological thrust of American imperialism and its concrete manifestations converge, of which the military presence is but one aspect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To understand the nature of the American empire and break its cycle of denial, it is imperative to distinguish the man from the statesman. The inability to draw such a distinction is often a source of difficulty in describing this empire according to a concrete imperial typology. Historian and political scientist Alexander J. Motyl classifies empires as part of a matrix of dense vs. loose and informal vs. formal (Motyl 1999, p. 128). David Vine's "empire of bases", by definition, tends towards the loose empire type, as its military sphere of influence is geographically dispersed across the globe. The book's case study, the displacement and relocation of the Chagossians occurs in the Indian Ocean, approximately 10,000 miles away from the continental United States. American bases have become ubiquitous around the world and the same could be said of American economic influence. However, establishing formality, defined by Motyl as “the degree of control exercised by central elites over peripheral elites (p. 128),” is apparently more difficult because it is necessary to first establish the imperial actors and then consider the self. -conception of these actors, both tasks in which Vine engages. Motyl warns against the incorrect conflation of empire and imperialism, as empire refers to a type of political system while imperialism refers to a set of policies (p. 131). It follows that the United States has engaged in imperialism since the westward expansion of the colonies and continues to do so in Vine's “empire of bases.” However,imperialism does not always lead to empire, that is, it is not always formalized in terms of a political system. For imperialism to materializeTo create a political system requires a cohesive conception of the United States as a fundamental dominant force. Citing Yale Ferguson and Richard Masnbach, Motyl suggests that this is a rather difficult conceptual task, since the subject matter to which this conception is to be ascribed is fragmented. Typically, when talking about the American empire and its actions, the topic is the state. Ferguson and Mansbach argue that this leads to the anthropomorphization of the state, “which is seen and treated analytically as unified actors (p. 132).” In reality, the state is never itself an actor in global politics, largely due to fractured political factions, bureaucracy in fighting, and interest group politics. To further examine Vine's conceptualization of American empire through the framework developed by Motyl, we must look at the political system; the unifying structure that outlines the “empire of bases”. Although Vine's account dates back to 1955, there is no mention of party politics, despite numerous commanders in chief of both parties who, at least indirectly, were responsible for both the Pentagon and the Navy. In fact, the words republican or democratic do not even appear in the book's index. This suggests that despite the political debates and political factions between the two parties during this period, there was some consensus, logic, or discourse that allowed the proliferation of American imperialist actions. Such logic or discourse is what can simply be called ideology, and its enabling apparatus, the place where the political system appears, is the bureaucracy. Max Weber's extensive description of bureaucracy is relevant here in several respects. Weber writes: “It is decisive for modern loyalty to an office that this does not establish a relationship with a person such as the faith of the vassal or disciple under feudal faith or patrimonial authority, but rather is devoted to impersonal and functional purposes ( Sharma & Gupta 2009, p. 51).” The “objective” conduct of business primarily means the conduct of business according to calculable rules and “without regard for persons”. “Without respect for people”, however, is also the watchword of the market and, in general, of any pursuit of naked economic interests (p. 58).” harnessed. Unlike the “nobleman” who performs administrative tasks as an honorific duty or subsidiary occupation (vocation), the professional bureaucrat is chained to his activity throughout his economic and ideological existence (p. 62).” According to this point of view, The manifestation of two Stu Barbers becomes more evident. "Stu the statesman" was forced to "objectively conduct business" in order to advance the interest of the United States and as such had little regard for the Chagossians, until he could fully be "Stu the man" again . However, as Motyl would likely interject, there are numerous bureaucracies around the world that never show imperial interests, much less become empires. Bureaucracy is a site of reproduction of ideology, so the imperial impulse that creates empires rests on ideology itself. So, what is the ideological drive behind American imperialism? Anthropologist David Graeber would suggest that capitalism and imperialism are virtually inseparable. While the essence of capitalism is “momentum,” reflected in how economic activity itself is measured through GDP, the logic of empire is expansive (Graeber 2014). It follows that the ideological drive behind contemporary American imperialism is the proliferation of capitalist activity itself, what is generally termed.