Rating: 
Summary: A Brilliant but sadly flawed book
Review: This book, as will all by this author, get 5 out of 5 for sheer verball brilliance and intellectual dazzle - as well as massive hard work in the statistics that most historians try to avoid as too complex. But Fergusson is an idealist, as well as a smooth talking lecture (always huge fun to hear in person). While it might be a good idea to have a Pax Americana in theory, we know that in our post-colonial age it simply has not the slightest way of actually working out in practice. The days of enlightened empire - first British and then American, are over. Just look at the mess in Iraq - a way to hell paved with the noblest intentions in the world. Read this book, enjoy it, learn from it - but don't be seduced into cuckou land! Christopher Catherwood (author of CHURCHILL'S FOLLY: HOW WINSTON CHURCHILL CREATED MODERN IRAQ: Carroll and Graf, 2004)
Rating:
Summary: What US citizens need to know.
Review: This dramatizes the US citizens dilemna of expecting the final result, such as Iraq, in the same time frame as the drama on television. True changes take time. The author uses examples from out recent past such as the 12 years in Germany and 7 years in Japan after WW II to show the value of sticktoitiveness. The author believes,as do I, that if we truly want the other countries of this planet to become something other than dictatorships, we need to invest not only our collective wealth, but out willingness to stay in for the long haul.
Rating:
Summary: He Brings Clarity to the Issues: USA Reluctant Imperialist
Review: This is a compelling and worthwhile read. It is not an "anti-US" book, but provides constructive analysis of foreign policy. Niall Ferguson is a professor at NYU plus a fellow at Oxford and the Stanford Hoover Institution. He has authored six other books on politics, history, and economics. In this book he attempts to bring together economic data, history, and political concepts to prove some points about the role of "empires" in the spreading of economic and political benefits.One of his main points concerns the success of past empires such as the British Empire in the spread of democratic institutions, democratic ideals, trade, investment, and economic growth. The British Empire was in fact a vehicle that spread positive economic and social development across the globe. It provided a political and economic framework for the development of many countries and regions. When there was de-colonization, some of the poorer countries that were not yet self sufficient failed to sustain develop on their own and have remained mired in war, disease, etc. and run by various undemocratic repressive regimes. These states - some even with the benefit of oil wealth - among others are now "failed states" and are problematic to themselves and other world citizens. The author claims that the UN is really quite a small and an ineffective political institution having a budget of less than 0.1% of the US federal government. It is not an institution (yet) where we can solve the world's problems. The US on the other hand, although far larger than any other country economically and militarily, is caught in an imperialistic ambivalence in which the US can perceive injustices and can in fact invade countries with overwhelming military force, but then lacks the ability to remain focused for any length of time once the war is over. Once the quick military victory is won, it wants to bring the troops home and in general it fails to follow through. The invaded country is not left in a state of political equilibrium or economic self sufficiency. Lacking the needed stability and permanent reform, such countries remain problem "failed states" - like Afghanistan. He claims that the US is an imperialistic nation but is in a state of self denial. Even though the rest of the world views the US as imperialistic, the US itself fails to grasp or wants to avoid that concept because of the potential negative self image connotations. So the US remains ambivalent and confused in its foreign policy, and according to the author lacks the ability to carry out comprehensive and coherent foreign policy. Symptomatic of that is the concept of a limited war - sending for example 250,000 troops to Iraq when the generals said send 500,000 (my figures). Also he thinks that US suffers from an "attention deficit" syndrome, plus self doubts, internal confusion, and looks for quick military solutions. It remains largely fearful of any long term conflict that produces American casualties similar to Vietnam. Conflicts that produce casualties - be they peace keeping or otherwise - quickly loose US domestic public support. The author claims that the American political leadership has been reluctant to make a case for sustained foreign involvement - often not finishing an engagement - even though a greater effort is often needed to solve the problem and reverse the fortunes of many "failed states". The US administration says that it is not in the business of nation building, but according to the author a long term investment in many countries is in fact that is the only way to solve the problems in a more permanent fashion (as we did in Germany and Japan). This is a very well written book with lots of facts and figures. It tends to pull together a lot of nebulous concepts and bring them into focus. Highly recommend. I found it to be a compelling read. Five stars. Jack in Toronto
Rating:
Summary: He Brings Clarity to the Issues: USA Reluctant Imperialist
Review: This is a compelling and worthwhile read. It is not an "anti-US" book, but provides constructive analysis of foreign policy. Niall Ferguson is a professor at NYU plus a fellow at Oxford and the Stanford Hoover Institution. He has authored six other books on politics, history, and economics. In this book he attempts to bring together economic data, history, and political concepts to prove some points about the role of "empires" in the spreading of economic and political benefits. One of his main points concerns the success of past empires such as the British Empire in the spread of democratic institutions, democratic ideals, trade, investment, and economic growth. The British Empire was in fact a vehicle that spread positive economic and social development across the globe. It provided a political and economic framework for the development of many countries and regions. When there was de-colonization, some of the poorer countries that were not yet self sufficient failed to sustain develop on their own and have remained mired in war, disease, etc. and run by various undemocratic repressive regimes. These states - some even with the benefit of oil wealth - among others are now "failed states" and are problematic to themselves and other world citizens. The author claims that the UN is really quite a small and an ineffective political institution having a budget of less than 0.1% of the US federal government. It is not an institution (yet) where we can solve the world's problems. The US on the other hand, although far larger than any other country economically and militarily, is caught in an imperialistic ambivalence in which the US can perceive injustices and can in fact invade countries with overwhelming military force, but then lacks the ability to remain focused for any length of time once the war is over. Once the quick military victory is won, it wants to bring the troops home and in general it fails to follow through. The invaded country is not left in a state of political equilibrium or economic self sufficiency. Lacking the needed stability and permanent reform, such countries remain problem "failed states" - like Afghanistan. He claims that the US is an imperialistic nation but is in a state of self denial. Even though the rest of the world views the US as imperialistic, the US itself fails to grasp or wants to avoid that concept because of the potential negative self image connotations. So the US remains ambivalent and confused in its foreign policy, and according to the author lacks the ability to carry out comprehensive and coherent foreign policy. Symptomatic of that is the concept of a limited war - sending for example 250,000 troops to Iraq when the generals said send 500,000 (my figures). Also he thinks that US suffers from an "attention deficit" syndrome, plus self doubts, internal confusion, and looks for quick military solutions. It remains largely fearful of any long term conflict that produces American casualties similar to Vietnam. Conflicts that produce casualties - be they peace keeping or otherwise - quickly loose US domestic public support. The author claims that the American political leadership has been reluctant to make a case for sustained foreign involvement - often not finishing an engagement - even though a greater effort is often needed to solve the problem and reverse the fortunes of many "failed states". The US administration says that it is not in the business of nation building, but according to the author a long term investment in many countries is in fact that is the only way to solve the problems in a more permanent fashion (as we did in Germany and Japan). This is a very well written book with lots of facts and figures. It tends to pull together a lot of nebulous concepts and bring them into focus. Highly recommend. I found it to be a compelling read. Five stars. Jack in Toronto
Rating: 
Summary: Colossus has Colossal thought
Review: This new foreign policy book really made me think. Ferguson's argument is that America is an empire, albeit a reluctant one. He alludes to believing that this could be a good thing -- both for America and the world -- but often also shows how the costly running an empire really can be. He concludes the book by stating "I believe the world needs an effective liberal empire and that the United States is the best candidate for the job."
But what makes his book extremely interesting is the historical context he uses. Ferguson goes over so many of the U.S. large wars and tiny wars over the last 150 years. He also draws many parallels to the British empire -- and shows how a great deal of their forays were not successful (both in terms of British and the colony's interest).
The examples that most stared at me were the Philippines and Egypt -- where he draws parallels to Iraq.
The first example is one that is often used. America "liberated" the Philippines in the Spanish-American War and lost about 1000 lives conquering it (which was a very small amount for that day). However, people in the Philippines were not content to just shake off one master and get a new one. Over the next decade America lost another 4000 lives due to rebel activities on the islands. The war and conquest, which in the beginning was extremely popular, became increasingly less so over time. So much so that successive Presidents were trying to find a way out ... and fast.
Egypt is an example I have not yet heard. The British effectively took over Egypt in 1882 when the country's pro-British ruler was overthrown. And though the British claimed on countless occasions that it wanted to leave Egypt as soon as possible, it was still ruling the country for the next 74 years. In fact, in 1956, the year the British did leave (and only because the national purse could not afford it), the British still had over 80,000 troops on its Egyptian base -- which was a tract of land near the canal that was the size of Massachusetts!
We learn from these examples that our transformation of Iraq is going to be enormously difficult and costly. If odds makers were making bets (and some surely are), the odds would definitely be against us succeeding. And Ferguson weaves in Americas huge debts (see Running On Empty by Pete Peterson) of unfunded liabilities to the tune of $45 trillion (!!!) make saving the world an increasingly difficult thing to do.
Like Peterson's book, my outlook after finishing Colossus is one of decided gloom. And gloom is generally not in my character. Though I tend to be an eternal optimist and believe the world is becoming an increasingly better place, it is difficult to not see the enormous challenges that lay ahead of my generation.
Summation: Colossus is a academic book, but very much worth reading. I'd like to leave you one of Ferguson's key quotes from the book:
"there are three fundamental deficits that together explain why the United States 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 -- its attention deficit."
| 
