 | Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com | "The United States today is an empire—but a peculiar kind of empire," writes Niall Ferguson. Despite overwhelming military, economic, and cultural dominance, America has had a difficult time imposing its will on other nations, mostly because the country is uncomfortable with imperialism and thus unable to use this power most effectively and decisively. The origin of this attitude and its persistence is a principal theme of this thought-provoking book, including how domestic politics affects foreign policy, whether it is politicians worried about the next election or citizens who "like Social Security more than national security." Ferguson, a British historian, has no objection to an American empire, as long as it is a liberal one actively underwriting the free exchange of goods, labor, and capital. Further, he writes that "empire is more necessary in the twenty-first century than ever before" as a means to "contain epidemics, depose tyrants, end local wars and eradicate terrorist organizations." The sooner America embraces this role and acts on it confidently, the better. Ferguson contrasts this persistent anti-imperialistic urge with the attitude held by the British Empire and suggests that America has much to learn from that model if it is to achieve its stated foreign policy objectives of spreading social freedom, democracy, development, and the free market to the world. He suggests that the U.S. must be willing to send money, civilians, and troops for a sustained period of time to troubled spots if there is to be real change—as in Japan and Germany after World War II--an idea that many American citizens and leaders now find repulsive. Rather than devoting limited resources and striving to get complex jobs done in a rush, Americans must be willing to integrate themselves into a foreign culture until a full Americanization has occurred, he writes. Overall, a trenchant examination of a uniquely American dilemma and its implications for the rest of the world. --Shawn Carkonen |
Average Customer Rating:   Another must-read from the great contrarian This excellent and thought-provoking book is a companion and follow-on to Professor Ferguson's best-selling and critically acclaimed `Empire.' Whereas `Empire' was an examination of the historical legacy of the British Empire, `Colossus' brings the USA and its role in the world under the spotlight. Ferguson is of course not the first academic writer to do this but he does bring an original and radical perspective to the subject.
The fundamentals of Professor Ferguson's thesis are that the USA is, and has been for some 50 years, an `Empire in Denial.' His controversial and `politically incorrect' perspective is that there is nothing wrong with empire, per se: if one examines human history empires have been the norm not the exception; that the 19th century invention of the `nation state' is artificial and flawed, and has demonstrably led to an unnecessary level of poverty, to petty tyrannies and internecine tribal warfare, to `failed states' and misery for millions, excluded from credit and prosperity. He also sees the UN as chronically under-funded with a General Assembly dominated largely by unelected despots, an impotent paper tiger which can not and will not for the foreseeable future do anything effective to keep global peace.
In the first half of the book, the author gives a good overview of the history of the USA and its de-facto empire-building tendencies: its continental expansion westwards, wars against Spain and Mexico, adventures in The Philippines and in various parts of Latin America, and how it came to colonise parts of the Pacific region and gain military bases around the globe.
In the present day (the book was written in 2004) Ferguson sees the USA as an empire in all but name because of, among other things:
1. Complete dominance in military power with a global reach unlikely to be matched by any other state or combination of states in the foreseeable future, with a qualitative technological supremacy which makes it unique in human history
2. Economic and political power not so obviously complete or unchallenged as its military dominance but nevertheless significant, challenged only by a politically weak, uncertain and incompletely unified EU & a not yet developed economic superpower in China
3. Due to the international media power of Hollywood in particular and US popular culture in general, plus the world dominance of the English language, the USA is THE globally-dominant cultural superpower
Ferguson sees the current 180-plus independent and disparate nation states making up the geopolitical map as an inherently unstable and unsustainable model which results in permanent warfare, instability and inequities. His thesis is that because Europe, the only possible alternative, is insufficiently united and demonstrably lacks the political will, the USA has to act as global policeman simply because no-one else will exercise the responsibility. However the author sees the USA as de-facto global superpower to be disappointing with poor results, and points to several inherent weaknesses which make it ill-suited to exercising its global responsibilities:
1. Chronic fiscal indebtedness due mainly to federal spending on Medicare and other welfare commitments - >US$50 trillion and rising
2. Addiction to consumerism at any price leading to a chronic imbalance of trade
3. The manifest unwillingness of American citizens to take up their global responsibilities and serve abroad
4. A national `attention deficit' - let's get in and bomb, then get the troops out quickly, never mind about clearing up the mess or making a long-term commitment to ensure stability
The author makes the case that a global hegemon - `Pax Romana' in the ancient world or `Pax Britannica' in the 1800s - is A Good Thing for global stability. These former empires brought rule of law, stable government and huge investment to the regions under their control. In contrast, the recent era of US geo-political dominance has seen the `developing world' starved of investment with corrupt, despotic and kleptocratic governments indulged and tolerated; the erosion of human rights, poverty and bankruptcy for millions all in the name of `independence' and `sovereignty.'
As outlined above, Ferguson sees the primary causes of this woeful state of affairs to be a reluctance on the part of US policy makers, and the population as a whole, to get involved. He cites examples in the mid-20th century of the US making long-term commitments to Germany and Japan following WW2 and to South Korea in the 1950s, resulting eventually in free, democratic and prosperous nations with respect for human rights and good, non-corrupt governments, net contributors to the world. However these three examples have been exceptions: the USA has subsequently been hyper-sensitive about being seen as `imperialist' and in most cases does not follow-through its interventions with sufficient commitment or thoroughness to see a worthwhile result.
So in summary, Ferguson's view is that policy-makers in the USA might learn from the British example and impose a new global order for the 21st century by force if necessary rather than let the world continue to live in factional instability and chaos, populated by too many bankrupt failed states and aid-beggars. He sees only the USA as capable of implementing such a New World Order dominated by free democratic institutions and prosperity due to its military, political and economic power and its global reach. The thesis is less ideological than practical, and asks - in reality, what is the alternative and are the results better or worse?
`Colossus' is a rewarding, intelligent and original thesis offering a new perspective on the responsibilities of being a global superpower. It opens up interesting discussions on the desirability or otherwise of global hegemony and slays a few sacred cows (like the myopic ideological belief that Empire is a bad thing, period - `compared to what?' he asks). Even if you find yourself disagreeing with all or part of the author's thesis, it's healthy to have the debate and think out of the box for a change.
The book is highly recommended by this reviewer, especially to the more intelligent reader who welcomes new and original thought and is not afraid to have his preconceptions challenged by new ideas.
Excellent perspective Mr Ferguson, as usual, has given a very insightful analysis of where America has been and where America is headed - willy nilly. The arguments and rationale he presents clearly shows America as a reluctant, but nevertheless, an Empire charging head-on to God knows where. In comparing America to Victoria's empire one is left uncertain as to whether a proud self-confident empire is better (or not) than one that is in denial. Like Sir Winston said that our current form of government is not perfect but the best that we have - Mr Ferguson argues that the world will always have an empire (?for its own good) and in that context, America's is probably the best we have now. Only time will tell. In summary, Mr. Ferguson has written an extremely readable, unbiased and objective analysis of America's continuing struggle with its destiny. Seeing that America will play a major role in the forseeable future, anyone who has an interest in our future should read this book.
Dark blue he may be, but Mr. Ferguson has done himself proud with this excellent effort. Fascinating but... This book doesn't have the sense of humor that Ascent of Money has,(the only other book I've read by this author) and its not the easiest read being perhaps a mite too academic, but its real problem for some may be the authors "ends justify the means" ethic. This realpolitik is somewhat convincing when he's arguing that MacArthur was right and that the West should have nuked North Korea; but when he says that George Bush was needlessly weak when he submitted to Tony Blair's request to ask for a second U.N. Resolution before attacking Iraq, he takes things too far.His assertion that the Vietnam War was "winnable" was also more than I could stomach.Ferguson is basically a fascist, who believes that American fascism is for the greater good vis a vis everyone elses fascism. His section explaining the "plight" of sub Saharan Africa is on eof the most disingenuous pieces of rubbish I've read in quite some time. His argument seems to be that Africa would be much better off if the Africans would only submit to benevolence of neo-colonial rule. Of course the problem with this argument is that it would force the Africans to admit that Europeans would be trustworthy masters, which of course is laughable on its face. His claims that Africa was better off before independence is an exercise in hair splitting that is nothing short of laughable.He gives little if any effort to the role that multinationals have played in supporting the dictatorships or to what role Metropolitan powers played in creating the conflicts, issues like creating countries arbitrarily through ethnic communities etc. His arguments are well thought out, but in the final analysis, he's running a game on those who arent familiar with the issues. The Ascent of Money shows an evolved author, slightly more willing to address America's faults. Head In The Air I beleive that Ferguson's analysis of the use of American power is superficial. From the standpoint of an historical analysis it is narrow and theoretical to the extent that it fails to adequately analyse what has actually occurred.That there are limitations on the effective use of military power is not a particularly stunning revelation. The fact that, in his opinion, the US has not 'managed the world' as well as the Britsh empire may be legitimately interpreted as an argument for the reinstitution and revival of good old fashioned victorian colonialism.As to the US and the present Iraq War the professor is theoretical to the point that he does not consider that the country has survived a hideous long war with Iran, the first Gulf War, a decade or so of sanctions then this war. His quotes of polls demonstrating the degree to which those polled believe that the country is better off without Sadam Hussein confirm what is not contested: Sadam was a tyrant who represented a distinct minority.
It seems as though the book argues that if only th US had a standing army posted around the world of approximately 3,000,000 men with deployed nuclear arsenals we would be on the road to maintaining our empire.
I have enjoyed some of the author's other works: money, banking history but find this a bust. One cannot know everything about everything. Perhaps the Professor may write a complete history of the washtub and help rid the world of disease.
A Liberal American Empire? Why not? This is a wonderful book with wonderful conclusions that is ill-served by a rather poor historical argument in the first half. Ferguson, swimming against the political currents, argues that not only has the U.S. always been an "empire in denial," but a Liberal American empire focused on ending genocide, introducing democratic values, and lowering poverty levels would be the best thing for the world. He makes the rather unique argument that, contrary to popular belief, the British Empire of old brought with it free market practices, notions of the rule of law, and democratic values to many of the nations it ruled over (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and India to name a few). While he doesn't turn a blind eye to atrocities done by both the British and America, he ultimately takes the view that, all things considered, a liberal empire, under America today or Britain before, is a good thing. The second half of the book is very good. Ferguson makes a compelling case for liberal empire, debunks the idea of the European Union as a potential rival, and warns his American readers of the greatest threats to their imperium: growing Social Security and Medicare costs, a short attention span, and little dedication on the parts of its citizens to maintaining its empire (i.e. small numbers of recruits for the government organizations and NGOs). Ferguson falters greatly though in the first half of the book where he charts America's rise to hegemony from the Revolution to the present. His retelling of American history only seems to hurt rather than help his argument. And his chapter on U.S. goals in Iraq glosses over the fact that the Bush administration made WMDs and not humanitarian concerns the main reason for invading Iraq. If Ferguson were to revise these sections in an updated text, I might be far more willing to give him a higher rating. |  |
Select button not working? 
