Actually, we've known for a long time. I'm aware of the distinction, but I disagree with your definition. Lots of empires have had smaller than global reach throughout history. My discussion is more about the rights/responsibilities of empire, not the span of it, which I think is largely irrelevant - you're either an empire or you aren't. I would define superpower as the strongest member of a coalition of entities pursuing similar goals, where membership in the coalition is voluntary, or at least not mandatory. I'd define empire to mean the nations under the empire really have no other choice. And there is no requirement for concensus. There's really only one power in the region, and that power is the primary source of economy, security, etc. We've had opportunities to use SOF and expeditionary power to obliterate camps and training centers, and we haven't done it until recently. Iraq should've been dealt with severely sometime in the mid 90s, after it was clear they were in no way going to follow the rules. Camps in North Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq and other locations should have disappeared, their leaders publicly displayed post mortem. You and I have had this discussion before. I can't go into detail, so it's fruitless to continue. But soft power is useless when the enemy has no compunction to withhold any tactic/weapon at their disposal and does not share our cultural views of the rules of war. If we don't engage, we will find ourselves in engagements anyway and playing catch up. And that's exactly what happened after 9/11. The game had been on for a decade, and we refused to believe it.
We did not know instantly, as we would have had to to instantly respond as you suggested. Clinton demolished Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan twice, long before 9/11. He hit bases and facilities in Somalia, too. Iraq was overflown by US jets for 10 years n the 90's and Iraqis were disallowed use of their own airspace. Iraqi anti-aircraft systems were hit repeatedly by ARM missiles during this period rendering them useless in 2003. US inspectors destroyed 60 tons of chemical weapons and no WMD's were left remaining for Saddam. Clinton bombed Iraq twice with major airstrikes for attempting to assassinate Bush 41 inKuwait and for interfering with UNSCOM inspectors. Iraq was under severe sanctions for the whole decade and more. Saddam was left a toothless tiger with only rhetoric for a weapon (as the 2003 war proved) and was no threat to the US whatsoever. The notion that we did not deal with Saddam severely is simply wrong. Not every militant is a threat to the United States. Only Al Qaeda has hit us. Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, etc. all have more limited goals, involving Israel or other regional/local disputes. We have to deal with our problems, let the Israelis and other countries deal with theirs. Your choice, put up or shut up. In the middle East, we have invaded and occupied two countries, we have bombed five countries, we have sanctioned two countries, we have covert operations happening in at least seven countries. The notion that we aren't engaging is untrue.
