Rating: 
Summary: An interesting take on a new subject
Review: An interesting new analysis of the American 'empire' This book looks at how the new American state and its empire differs from past empires. The main difference cited here is that America refuses to admit that it is an empire, unlike say the English and Romans who are proud of their empires, America enjoys self denial. According to this enlightening text, we find that America may very be a benevolent if not at least a benign empire and we will indeed be a unique world power. A refreshing account in light of so many like minded books that are anti-American, this is an entertaining analysis.Seth J. Frantzman
Rating: 
Summary: Good if you like reading notes
Review: An intreaging read, yet it reads more like a cut and paste with commentary than an orignial thesis; almost a fourth of the book is notes, bibliography and index. I think the author was trying to avoid the taint that other writers have suffered for borrowing from other's work; however, each page is littered with numbered citing that forces you to keep going to the back of the book. if you buy it, get two bookmarks; one for the page your reading and one for the notes.
Rating: 
Summary: Is there a new EMPIRE?
Review: At first glance, "Colossus" appears to be answering one simple question, "Is America an empire?" The answer that streams back is a resounding yes, however, the inherent problem is the negative connotations that the word "empire" brings up. Empires have become synonymous with evil, therefore, nobody dares say the "e" word-America's own inhabitants and current president deny this label.
Niall Ferguson, the economic historian, tracks the rise of the United States from its humble beginnings after the Revolutionary War and up to its present struggle in Iraq where America has been once again reluctant to take the role of "pax Americana." Ferguson argues that an American empire has the potential to do tremendous good with its bountiful resources. Prime examples of an effective U.S. intervention are found in Germany and Japan after World War II. The U.S. aid of money via the Marshall Plan, a prolonged manpower presence (10 years in West Germany and 7 years in Japan) and several other factors such as NATO helped prime the economic pump of these once devastated countries. This is in sharp contrast to the failure that has been the norm for U.S. involvement in most countries that recently have included Liberia, Rwanda and Haiti. The main reasons for those failures the author argues are "a fatal combination of inadequate resources for nonmilitary purposes and a truncated time horizon."
On the surface "Colossus" is a persuasive history book that points to one inexorable conclusion: the United States is an empire. But the core of the text is a critique of U.S. foreign policy and a dissertation that encourages the United States to use it empire status to better the world and inevitably itself. He states, "Toppling three tyrannies within four years is no mean achievement by the standards of any past global environment. Since 1999 Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and now Saddam Hussein all have been overthrown." The author then quickly points out details, at times excruciating to bear, that the aftermath is often a greater disaster story after an U.S. intervention. Ferguson says, "The United States has invaded and occupied many countries over the past two centuries. Yet in terms of their economic and political institutions relatively few of these have evolved into anything remotely resembling miniature Americas."
Ferguson observes three deficits that "explain why the U.S. has been a less effective empire than its British predecessor. They are its economic deficit, its manpower deficit and-the most serious of the three-is attention deficit." The author's historic arguments are cogent for an "anti-imperial imperial" United States to rule with a benevolent hand for its own sake and the world's. He invokes history lessons in order to steer the United States away from the disastrous paths taken in Haiti and Rwanda. "It would be a tragedy if the same process were to repeat itself in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq." But a weak point is the author never allows for the opposing viewpoint that perhaps America and the world would be better off without our interference in the first place. Just because the United States is the supreme power, that does not automatically mean it should flex its strength over less fortunate countries, appears to be a foreign concept to Ferguson.
Rating:
Summary: A plea for American leadership from abroad.
Review: Eschew your notions of empire for a moment. It's not all Darth Vader and Leonid Brezhnev. Colossus is a fascinating book that argues America is the lone global superpower and an empire whether we (Americans) like it or not. To ignore that fact is far more dangerous than to embrace it, because of the power vacuum that becomes filled with chaos and misery. Niall Ferguson doesn't argue for regime change all over the world. He doesn't argue from the much-maligned "neocon(servative)" point of view, although some of the reviewers seem to think so. Ferguson's work is more descriptive than prescriptive; in other words, he attempts to enlighten what has been and what is more than what ought to be, although he certainly gives away his opinion right up front that he wants America to embrace its position in the world. His only real prescriptive plea to Americans is to fix their social security and medicare systems before they hit the same kind of debilitating levels as Europe. The book is well-researched, to be sure, and Ferguson's prose is elegant. It examines some of the notions regarding Europe (EU, to be more specific) and China emerging as counterweights to the United States in the future, but he argues the United States is at a unipolar moment and will likely be so for a while. I love some of the history included, particularly the brief snippets of America's flirtations with empire over the centuries, going back to Thomas Jefferson's comment about America being an empire of liberty. But don't get the wrong idea. Niall Ferguson does praise the British empire moderately, saying it was on whole more a force for good than bad, but he still says that traditional imperialism is generally a bad thing. He even ranks well-known empires for their nefariousness, or lack thereof. He argues that, because America was founded through a revolution against an empire, and because Americans are so reluctant to want to set up shop in other countries, American empire is wholly unique--- and mostly good. American empire, for its flaws, is progressive and modern, and it exists in spite of our reluctance. Essentially, it is a call for American leadership (because who else will lead?) rather than a retreat from the world. I was against the concept empire entirely before reading this book, and I am still against traditional European-style empire, but after reading Colossus, I am left with a sense of the dangers of isolationism and the consequences (good and bad) of finishing the job or failing to finish the job after being compelled to act.
Rating:
Summary: what goes up must come down
Review: Ferguson (a British academic) breaks one of the cardinal rules in the U.S. when it comes to discussing foreign policy and international relations -- he says there is a U.S. Empire. This is just not done. Talk of Great Powers, or "The American Project" is one thing, but we don't have an Empire, for goodness sake! Never mind that Rumsfeld ordered a study of the Roman Empire not too long ago in search of useful guidance for an Empire that makes the Roman one look like kid's stuff, critics like Chomsky who talk about the Empire are persona non grata. Ferguson, however, is not a critic. He thinks the U.S. Empire could be a swell thing if it would just be more like the British Empire of the 19th Century. He has an absolutely good point -- if what the U.S. wants to do is be a maximally effective Empire, it needs to develop the capacity for colonial administration necessary to follow through with when it invades, overthrows governments, and occupies Afghanistan, Iraq, and the next countries on the neoconservatives' list. The U.S. needs to take its imperial responsibility seriously, stiff upper lip and all that. We should take pride in our civilizing role vis a vis the barbarian parts of the world, and it is nice to make all those profits as well. I'm sure Ferguson is right that the U.S. Empire will last longer if we don't try to run it on the cheap. Ferguson considers Americans naive not to understand our imperial role, but clearly he is the one who is naive. A large percentage of Americans are quite happy thinking the U.S. is nothing but a victim and that we do nothing but good in our endless series of overseas military operations, most never called wars outright. They are quite happy to carry out bombing runs that kill lots of "bad guys," come home leaving the place in ruins, and then they love to complain bitterly about the mystery of why "everybody hates us." Peacekeeping and nation-building is for Europeans and other wimps. The American way of war involves massive firepower, destroying the village in order to save it. We're the Oil Police now, and nothing is going to stand in the way of Our Precious Oil, certainly not some British academic who says we should pay higher taxes for colonial administration. We plan to go out in a blaze of glory, dropping bombs and burning the last ounce of oil -- let the wimps clean up the planet after we've "set everybody free" just like in the Randy Newman song.
Rating:
Summary: The sun never sets on the American Empire..................
Review: Ferguson explores America's Imperial history from its westward expansion, the Monroe doctrine, two world wars; it's rise as a global economic power, and the war on terrorism.
Ferguson chronicles America's imperial success and failure, attempts to democratize Latin America evidenced by a series of U.S interventions, too often without the sustained attention and high ideals spoken of by the American politicians leading the crusade. Juxtapose that with America's sustained commitment to Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Countries which enjoy robust industrial economies, open political systems, and free-market's
When effective, "American Global Leadership", for millions may be the only light in a cruel dark world. When half hearted and unsupported, American efforts abroad lead to the road of unmet objectives and compromised morality.
"Colossus" is a well written, thought provoking, and important text. All the more valuable to the American reader who it seem is in denial of Americas Imperial roots, it's Imperial present and future.
O.K, you don't like the word.... Imperialism......then call it something else. After reading "Colossus", you will find it impossible to deny, that America's global reach, militarily and economically, far surpass anything the Roman's, the British or any other great civilization of the earth could have ever imagined. How can you be against American Imperialism if you are in denial that it exists? P.S. You may not like (or understand) the message, but don't take cheap shots at the messenger. This book is fascinating, and written with clarity of thought and passion that make an intellectual subject approachable to readers without PhD's.
Rating: 
Summary: The flash Harry of historians
Review: Ferguson, Professor of Financial History at New York University, has a lifelong passion for finance capital, witness his books The cash nexus and The house of Rothschild. Having written an overrated history of the British Empire, he here tackles the US empire.
He tells the Americans how to run their empire, even criticising Bush for being `too diplomatic'. "I write not as a carping critic but as an avid admirer of the United States who wants it to succeed in its imperial undertakings."
Ferguson backs General MacArthur's approach in the Korean war, that the US should drop atomic bombs on China and Korea. When he writes of `casualties in Vietnam', he means US casualties, ignoring the three million Vietnamese killed by US aggression.
Ferguson notes, without explaining, that all the US interventions in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean never produced a single democracy. He claims that Cuba supports terrorist groups, ignoring the 40 years of terrorist attacks on Cuba from Florida.
He sneers, "Like all revolutionary regimes, Khomeini's Iran was soon embroiled in a war with its neighbour." He ignores the US backing for Saddam's attack.
He aims to give us a cost/benefit analysis of empire but gives us instead a stream of caricatures and smears. For Britain, empire meant capital exported abroad rather than invested in British industry and jobs. The ruling class gained its profits through imperial theft; the working class lost the work. India under the Empire grew only 0.12% a year, because, says Ferguson, it got too little British investment. But independent India has grown far faster.
From the facts of increasing wars, poverty and inequality, he deduces that there is still too little movement of capital and labour. He complains that workers are generally too well paid and leisured, and that the costs of Medicare and Social Security threaten to capsize the US economy.
Ferguson is the flash Harry of contemporary history-writing, cavalier with the facts, crude in his views and contemptuous of most of the world's peoples. His book is one long, unsuccessful, attack on the democratic right of national independence.
Rating:
Summary: A thought provoking look at empire.
Review: His basic thesis is that a liberal empire can be a greatly positive force in the world, and that the United States is already an empire, but that our inablility to acknowledge the fact leads us to waste our opportunities to be the afore mentioned positive force. Ferguson writes that America is plagued by an attention deficit disorder and too much love of the good life. Thus, we get distracted too easily from important events overseas, and when we do try to intervene, we want quick fixes and low costs.
I couldn't agree more with most of these points. As an American, I'm greatly ashamed of our collective ignorance. I hate feeling like a foreigner in my our country because I watch to news or can find Sumatra on a map. Also, the book strikes a chord with me because of my frustration with half measures in foreign interventions. Countless times, I believe America has done more harm than good by, if you will, talking the talk but not walking the walk. If we commit to something, we need to follow through. This is as true in Iraq today as it has been in the past. We've claimed to support democracy in Latin America, but then turned bannana republics into bannana autocracies. We greatly prolonged and increased Vietnam's suffering without changing the end result at all.
With all this commonality, however, there are a few leaps of logic that Ferguson makes that I can't bring myself to agree with. Basically, he didn't sell me on the thought that the imperial model is the best way to develop the world. How are we supposed to know what is best for everyone? Won't our own biases and self interests inevitably harm even our most altruistic efforts?
When Ferguson hold's up the British Empire as a model of success, I can't help but notice that the best results came only to those places of British colonization, with horrendous consequences for each of the native populations there. And the two greatest examples of beneficial American imperialism - Japan and Germany - were already highly developed before World War II, so it probably wasn't that much of a wonder that we were able to help them return to such a state.
Even if the positive power of empire is conceded, there are important differences between the state of world during the British empire and the state of the world now. It's a concern of immunity from repercussions. In the golden age of imperialism, Europe was in a kind of splendid isolation its empires. Not to say that there were no reprercussions, but, with the only modern navies in the world, Europe was immune to any very serious threats. On the other hand, in today's world, as an effect of globalization, power has become more decentralized in some respects. Think WMDs,terrorists, and foreign investments in the U.S. economy, for example. Can America as easily afford to make enemies in the developing world as the British could?
In the end "Colossus" didn't settle any agruments for me, but raised new and interesting questions. It is a book that makes you think, and that in and of itself is worth four stars.
Rating: 
Summary: 21st Century empire based on 18th century model??!!
Review: I am not an historian, but an avid reader trying to make sense of America's role in the world in light of the current mess in Iraq, Viet Nam, WWII, etc. Ferguson's thesis is easy enough to grasp, and if nothing else, I admire its boldness and originality--advocating empire (!) and its alleged benefits, based on the 'good' done by the British empire in the form of free markets, free trade, liberal institutions such as rule of law, representative government, and all the rest.
But my sense while reading this very intelligent book, by an author I learned of from listening to an interview with him on NPR, is that empire creates the very conditions that Ferguson claims can best be solved...by empire. From what I know, India's feudal system did not have the millions of homeless, destitute poor until the country was modernized and "opened" to the rest of the world. Empire did a bit of damage in this country, too, before it became a nation, but nothing a few casinos can't remedy. But that's another issue. The carving up of empires in the late 19th and early 20th century created nation-states while busting up ethnic and tribal communities...that have never stopped struggling to be reunified. Empire has never solved this challenge.
I think it's in a Barbara Kingsolver novel that an African tribal council, accustomed to generations of decision-making by a system of elders, can't quite 'get' the superiority of the democratic town-council approach, much to the frustration of the missionaries 'helping' them. So many moral and ethical issues beg for discussion, and yet Ferguson doesn't address them in his call for a new American empire.
You can't view 21st century globalism through a 19th century lens.
Like Viet Nam, Iraq is a quagmire that previous colonial powers have failed to control or 'tame.' Ethnic identities, nationalistic fervor, and religious traditions are often stronger than brute imperial force. As the suicidal American soldiers in Iraq have said, "They don't want us there, Dad."
Quietly, the European Union is proving itself to be better adapted to the demands of this century. Is it empire? If we weren't so addicted to middle east oil, would Ferguson be arguing the same thesis?
Rating:
Summary: No desert for me
Review: I find this whole book to be more than a little disturbing. But while it is mostly a forward-looking effort from the sadly puzzling historian and author Niall Ferguson, I find it most frightening when it looks to the past. It's in those parts of his thesis that Mr. Ferguson argues, for example, that the U.S. should have dropped as many as 50 atom bombs on China in order to end the Korean War quickly and neatly, and where he opines that the Vietnam War should have been fought even more ruthlessly starting back in the mid-1960s, as a way to snap the North's resolve. It was all enough to compel me to temporarily close Colossus with a scowl and a wrinkled brow to reach for the comfort of a dusty old volume containing he works of Tacitus, the first and second century Roman historian who Mr. Ferguson no doubt knows far better than I do. Tacitus, best known for his opinions about the throne's power to corrupt and the scandals and ruined lives its corruption produced, famously wrote about Domitian's reign of terror: "They made a desert and called it victory." Evidently, if Mr. Ferguson had his way, the desert would stretch far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. He backed the controversial U.S. war effort in Iraq from its first rumblings, criticizing it only where it has paused to reassess or deny its imperial designs when that time could have been used to forcefully to indiscriminately crush resistance (or anything that appears to be resistance ... or that might evolve into resistance). He argues for a U.S. foreign policy along the lines of that employed by imperial Britain, endeavoring to win the Middle East's hearts and minds by ruling their pocketbooks and politics. If these dangerous points had been made by almost anyone else, I would have stopped reading after 30 or 40 pages and dismissed the writer as a crackpot. But I grew to know Mr. Ferguson through the Pity of War and The House of Rothschild -- not books that swayed me with every argument, but which were full of worthwhile, uncommon, meaty, and complex theories that forced me more than once to dramatically reconsider what I believed. And while last year's troubling effort Empire now seems like a kind of uncomfortable preface to Colossus, it had been easy for me until now to dismiss that book as an aberration. So I returned to Colossus after a short break and finished its 400 pages, sadly shaking my head almost the whole time. Without a doubt, Mr. Ferguson is a talented writer with a stunning command of information and historical context. He writes compellingly and with great enthusiasm, more so in Colossus than in his earlier work. But it appears to me to be sorely misdirected here: he fails to convince that the U.S. has the power to develop the kind of empire he describes and, more importantly, he fails to explain why it should even try to do so. I get the idea that without many decades of time to provide context to what he writes about, Mr. Ferguson loses almost all of the edge that previously made him stand out among his contemporaries. Sigh. I don't know what sparked this apparent evolution in Mr. Ferguson's interests, but I can only hope that it doesn't get around.
|
