Colossus: The Price of America's Empire

Rating:
Summary: controversial and cogent arguments
Review: In one of the most controversial and thought provoking books of the year, noted historian Niall Fergusson defends America's empire building quest. In his earlier book Empire, he showed himself a staunch defender of britain's quest to colonise and dominate the world. In succint and convincing prose, he argues that America has taken on the mantle of `civilizing' the world. He argues that imperial control by a distant power is imperative for the development of an orderly socio-political structure in "new and untidy" countries.

He claims that America has failed in its duty as an Empire and has shirked its responsibilities. He accuses America of working on a nation-building process in many pl[aces but leaving before the building is complete.

While many readers might disagree and even be appalled by his arguments, Fergusson stakes a strong claim for America as an empire with a strong sense of humanity, clear head for long-term planning and most importantly accepting its role as the world's leading country.

Flawed as his arguments might be, they are persuasive, cogent and extremely relevant to the debate of America's role in the world today.


Rating:
Summary: Considers the dangers of denying empire status
Review: Is America an empire? Few Americans would admit it, but Niall Ferguson, one of the most renowned historians and public commentators of modern times, maintains in Colossus: The Price Of America's Empire that this country is indeed an empire - and always has been. From its initial expansion west across over two thousands miles in less than a hundred years to its approach of a thousand military installations in two thirds of the world's countries, Ferguson assesses the many qualities which define America as a real empire - and considers the dangers of denying empire status, which consist of not accepting or acknowledging responsibility for world conditions.


Rating:
Summary: Intriguing and well argued
Review: It's interesting to have read this positive and thorough take on empire and helping build democracies where there are almost none, Middle East and beyond

Rating:
Summary: An Interesting View Of Imperialism
Review: Niall Ferguson has made quite a name for himself by taking a counterfactual view of subjects like World War I and the British Empire. In Colossus he maintains that the US is imperialistic, should not be ashamed of being imperialistic, and in fact should be encouraged to be even more imperialistic, both now in Iraq and in the future as well.

As in Empire, his history of the British Empire, Ferguson believes that imperialism, particularly what he calls liberal imperialism, is highly desirable in that it provides stable governments and institutions. There seem to be some blind spots n his view, however. Ferguson claims that imperialism is needed to overcome the multitudinous problems of the Third World. But weren't many of those problems caused by imperialism in the first place? Ferguson also claims that earlier imperialists went out and imperialized in order to do good, citing a quote from Toynbee as evidence. Of course its always nice to claim that you are doing something for someone else's own good, but most of the time people see through it pretty quickly. Ferguson also dismisses the original governments and societies of areas that were imperialized as being ineffective and impractical, but surely the people living under them would not necessarily agree.

There are many other holes that can be poked in Ferguson's arguments, but even so the book is well written and highly thought provoking. It ought to be read at this moment, when the question of American involvement in Iraq and elsewhere is in many people's minds.

Rating:
Summary: The Colossus Has No Clothes
Review: Niall Ferguson is a brilliant scholar and a talented writer. As a prose stylist, in fact, he may have no equal in the among historians his age. In fact, Ferguson modeled his writing style on the late popular historian A.J.P. Taylor, who also reached a large, popular audience through his writings and lectures. Unfortunately, Ferguson's dazzling rhetorical skill camouflages an occasionally interesting, but highly dishonest book.

For Ferguson, like Taylor, has a very serious weakness.
He understands European history (and its colonial appendages in the 19th and 20th century) very well. But he is WAY out of his depth writing about the 21st century, and world affairs. Worse, Ferguson is so desperate for America to be an 'honest and successful' empire that he intentionally misleads his readers to advance his dubious passion.

Ferguson claims that America can invade and successfully reform 'failed societies', were it not handicapped by an unfortunate 'imperial deficit disorder'; i.e. a refusal to commit the manpower (half-a-million soldiers for invasions, hundreds of thousands for occupation), time (decades), and money (hundreds of billions of dollars) necessary for (possibly) successful imperialism.

Put this way (in hard numbers, not catchy-cutesy phrases like 'imperial ADD'), Ferguson's proposals seems absurd; indeed, almost megolamaniacal. Nevertheless, it remains a very popular view among armchair generals (just look at some of the sycophantic reviews here!). However, most Americans would never agree to such massive imperial commitments-nor should they. Donald Rumsfeld (whatever his shortcomings) was fully aware of this. His attempt to invade and occupy Iraq using a relatively small, affordable, high-tech army proved to be an abject failure, even before the occupation descended into a nightmarish maelstrom of torture, chaos and corruption. But unlike Ferguson's pie-in-the-sky, million-man imperial army, Rumsfeld's plan was not complete fantasy.

And here we arrive at the heart of the matter: empires cost money. For all of Ferguson's whining about how Americans are unwilling to 'pay the cost of empire', it is never made clear why they should do so. Deposing brutal dictators is indeed laudable goal, but most Americans will oppose intervention unless it is perceived as cheap (in both lives and money) or necessary (for national security). This might disappoint Ferguson, but the historical record does not seem to support his views of 'benevolent empire'.

Ferguson is so desperate to see America play the role of 'New Model British Empire' that he descends into uncharacteristic intellectual dishonesty. He absurdly uses Japan and Germany (long established nation-states, ethnically homogenous, enjoying temperate climates, ultra-indutrialized...) as the paradigmic examples of successful American occupations.

In fact, Nicaragua, Liberia, and South Vietnam are far more representative of America's attempts at 'nation-building': tropical, agricultural countries ruled by corrupt elites, where the US sank billions of dollars into the pockets of brutal dicatators (and in the case of Vietnam, saw thousands of American and *millions* of Vietnamese die) only to reap a legacy of hatred and failure. Iraq seems destined to be the latest (and hopefully the last) in a long series of American imperial failures.

In his continuing quest to justify American empire, Ferguson ends his book grasping at straws. He points out that Medicare (the medical insurance program for seniors) costs more than the Defense budget, and suggests that cuting Medicare would make it possible for the US to engage in regular imperial operations of foreign invasion and occupation without adversely affecting the lives of ordinary Americans. Does Ferguson seriously believe that *any* American would risk death from illness or seeing their parents die for lack of medical treatment...for the sake of empire??? Or does he suggest that Medicaid can be magically 'reformed' to deliver the same service at half the cost (but if fiscal magic tricks are so easy, why not do the same with the defense budget?)

As the more honest British writer Anatol Lieven bluntly put it: America can either have an army capable of dominating the world; or medical care and pensions; or tax cuts for the rich. We can't afford all three; in fact, we can probably only afford one of these choices. Attempting to have guns, butter AND tax cuts, AND paying for it by borrowing from abroad AND printing money is obviously recipe for disaster-on this last point, at least, Ferguson is clear and correct. Unfortunately, it is what we are doing right now.

Niall Ferguson has written excellent books on the British empire, financial history, business history, and historiography. But in Colossus, he is clearly out of his depth; worse, his advocacy of an "American Empire" has led him to write a dishonest and misleading book. A great dissapointment from such a great scholar.

Rating:
Summary: Neoimperialist book.
Review: Prof. Ferguson delights in writing about empires: such as were a hundred years ago and such as he perceives today. His problem is his love for global empire where there is none. What do you think Thomas Jefferson would say to the idea of an American Empire based on the principles of British Empire? Thus, I proclaim this book a sham. Sorry, global power projection does not work by "soft power" as any realist knows. Ferguson works on two wrong premises: "empire" and "soft power". What a needless book!

Rating:
Summary: Post 9/11 "Guts," but does U.S. Have "Grit" to Finish Job?
Review: Professor Ferguson argues that a liberal empire is required in today's world. His definition of liberal empire is one that has the self-interested motives of security and economic gain, while at the same time having the altruistic motives of instituting peace and order, the rule of law, noncorrupt administration, stable fiscal and monetary policies, etc., to the "colonies" it rules.

While the outcome is still uncertain, Professor Ferguson paints a bleak picture of America's ability as a liberal empire to "build" democratic governments on very short time frames. He points out that we Americans are good at implementing "regime change" (see the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq), but poorly suited at effective nation-building due to domestic and foreign political pressures to leave places like Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible, even if the proper institutions to effectively govern and induce foreign investment are not in place.

Thus, what the U.S. needs to do is stay (even if we say we are going to leave soon-e.g., the British empire model) in these young developing nations to ensure that the proper institutions are set up to foster economic, political, and cultural success.

Great book, and written in a mostly objective manner... I highly recommend it to anyone interested in history, economics, and foreign affairs.

Rating:
Summary: The Trouble with Empire
Review: Since September 11 there has been much discussion about the challenge of integrating failed states or rogue states into the international system, lest they become havens of fanaticism and terror. Historian Niall Ferguson has an innovative - but retro -solutiion, a solution that would not sit well with most readers. He argues that the world needs an empire. Not just any kind of empire, a liberal empire. A liberal empire would provide the dysfunctional states of the world with the international public goods that they would otherwise lack or would otherwise be unable to obtain. The liberal empire that he has in mind is of course the American empire. But wait, America is not an empire.

Americans, or most of them, would cringe at the thought of being called an empire. Foreigners would be even more alarmed if the American government self-consciously described itself as an imperial power. To the contrary, Ferguson says that given America's enormous military, economic, and cultural power it is the most powerful empire the world has ever known, not only that, it should acknowledge and embrace it. America currently has over 750 military installations in more than 130 countries. The upside of a liberal empire is that it can provide peace and stability, rule of law, stable fiscal and monetary policies, infrastructure, and the free exchange of commodities, labor, and capital. And the downside? Ferguson does not go deeply into the downside, but former colonies and dominions of previous empires will remind us of the racism, violence, and exploitation that is part of the legacy of empire.

In his call for empire, Ferguson concedes that America may not be up to the task, but he urges us to change our ways. Aside from a few successes at nation-building - notably Japan and Germany after World War II - America has had some disastrous overseas interventions. America, as an empire, is burdened by three deficits: an economic deficit, an manpower deficit, and an attention deficit. The economic deficit is that Americans would rather see their tax dollars going towards Social Security and Medicare than towards nations that do not welcome their presence. The manpower deficit refers to not only to our overstretched volunteer military but our lack of civil service personnel necessary to run an empire. The third deficit is our national attention deficit disorder. After spectacular military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan there is already talk of quagmire and exit strategies. America does not have the staying power to see through its military interventions.

The main problem with Ferguson's thesis is that even though he can demonstrate that a liberal American empire would be a net good for all parties involved, the beneficiary country would still be unconvinced. No amount of nation-building will convince that country that an external power can better manage their affairs than they themselves can.

Ferguson believes that America will remain the dominant military and economic power for the forseeable future, and that it has a leadership role to play. With that I wouldn't disagree, I just wish he wouldn't call it empire.

Rating:
Summary: Author Discredits himself
Review: The author claims that Palestinian terrorism in Israel is the result of Israel's failure to negotiate peace and instead make war on terrorism. He either intentionally or ignorantly omits a consideration of the fact that israel numerous times has offered peace to the Palestinians, and most recently offered to give the Palestinians it's entire infrastructure in Judea and Samaria and Gaza (i.e. all the housing, etc.). The result of that offer was the most recent intifada. You can't negotiate with an enemy who irrevocably wants to destroy you, or who in many cases sees your destruction as an end in itself.

Although the author writes with seeming intelligence and insight, his failure to acknowledge basic facts such as those I have presented above, discredits his own work. If he fails to inform his reader correctly on one issue, how can one know whether or not he falsly presents facts on other issues. I don't know whether or not to believe him.

Sometimes we believe people know what they are talking about because they write or speak well, not because what they have to say is true. I believe this is one of those cases.

Rating:
Summary: Cogently argued; Extremely perceptive
Review: The United States of America is a de facto empire; the United States of America is a liberal empire; the activities of liberal empires are on balance beneficial; the United States of America is the only power capable of being a liberal empire; but, the United States of America lacks the financial and political will to fullfil its global responsibilities, which is regrettable, because no one else will do it. This is the thesis of Niall Ferguson's latest book length essay, which is cogently argued and chock full of perceptive observations.

Mr. Ferguson notes that American overseas adventures typically begin with a rapid and effective military campaign but lose steam in the post-war "nation building" period. In particular, the author accuses Americans of having a national "attention deficit disorder" to postwar responsibilities, the notable exceptions being Germany, Japan, and Korea in the second half the the twentieth century. The author's explanation for American nation building success in those three countries is that opposing the Sovier Union gave the United States political and moral freedom to exercise its true imperial proclivities. No national consensus now exists to support current imperial endavours. The book abounds with similar insights.

Most fascinating is the author's thesis that in addition to lacking the political will to empire, the United States may be unable or unwilling to pay the price of empire. This financial failure is rooted in government deficits, and in the future liability to pay the pension and health care costs of its aging population. Interestingly, Ferguson notes that the bulk of this projected financial deficit is in spiraling Medicare costs. How ironic if the Republican impetus to American empire depends on the political will to rationalize the American health care system.

Read this book The most quoted commentator on the American spirit is a Frenchman. Now a Scot adds a timely perspective on the American condition.