In favour of the American Empire
I find Professor Ferguson to be an incredibly insightful historian and a very concise writer, and I must say that I have really enjoyed the books of his that I have read. However, I did find that this book did start to become a bit dry and depressing near the end, but it is still a very good book and well worth the read. Without going into extensive arguments and discussions about what America should do with her unprecedented power, and also the concept of the rule of law (which he does not explore in this book, but I will make mention of it) I shall look at what I found insightful, the aspects of the argument that I do agree with, and then the aspects of the argument that I disagree with, and in a way believe that he has overlooked (not that it really changes his conclusion all that much).
The United States is unique among empires in many ways. The main difference is that it is an empire that seems to be repulsed by expansionism. In the early 19th century it expanded to take direct control of a large strip of land on the North American continent, and then all of the sudden it stopped. Since that time, the US only acquired Alaska, a collection of islands in the Pacific and the island of Puerto Rico. Every other country that they have occupied they have eventually left (though it is too early to see with Afghanistan and Iraq). In fact the American people seem repulsed by war. The anti-war protests in the lead up to Iraq, and the subsequent protests since are nothing new. In fact anti-war protests, and critics, date back to the Mexican American war, though even despite the fact that the US had an overwhelming victory against the Mexicans, they pretty much withdrew after they obtained the southwestern states. Secondly, unique amongst empires, America did not expand simply by conquest, but rather by purchasing land through the issuance of bonds. The Louisiana Purchase, the Gadsen purchase, Alaska, and even the Southwestern states were not so much the spoils of war, but rather a fire sale forced upon the Mexican government.
As for the aspects of his arguments that I agree with: the main one is that if the United States were to collapse as a world power, would that make the world any better - highly unlikely. First, when we look at the ashes of World War II there were four contenders to become the world superpower - Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States (Britain was in its final death throws). Out of those four contenders, we are pretty comfortable in picking the one we would all like. As for now, Ferguson's argument is that there is no viable contender - Europe is straining under an aging population, and China is a bubble that is waiting to burst. A withdrawal of American power is likely to leave an apolar world, or a world without a significant influence, which is likely to leave us in a worse position than we are currently in (though he does not consider the rise of corporate power over the last half century).
His case for liberal empire is very compelling, and in stating his case, he looks at Britain. While Britain is guilty of many atrocities, she also invested heavily in her empire in that a number of her former colonies are now quite prosperous (see Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong) and even India and South Africa, despite a widening wealth gap, are still better today than before they arrived. America, he argues, could to a lot, but it doesn't. It isn't the case that American as a power is not a nation builder, all we have to look at is Germany, Japan, and South Korea to see their successes with nation building. However, the American attitude of non-interference, and that when they do interfere, they simply want to topple the government and go home, is not conducive to the creation of a functioning nation state. Even trying to invade on the cheap just does not work. Ferguson points out that there is an abundance of labour available in prisons and on the streets to fill the army (the British did that), but they are loathe to instate conscription, even if it only applies to those who have forfeited their rights due to the commission of a crime.
As for my disagreements, they are twofold. In his discussion on an apolar world, he does not take into account the rise of corporate power. There are mega corporations today that function like countries, and have the capital of a developed country. However, unlike a country, companies cannot easily default on debt. Still, in an apolar world, corporate power is going to be much more noticeable, and much more oppressive than it is currently. It will not be a world of nationstates, but a branded marketplace of ever increasing competition and back room deals. Unlike a democracy, where there is one vote for all, in a corporate world it is one vote per share, so the biggest shareholders hold the greatest power.
Secondly, I simply do not accept his view on the Iraq War. While I agree that Sadam could not be trusted, and was a dangerous man, the government still lied. Further, the question of weapons of mass destruction is a moot point. North Korea and Iran are much closer to developing nuclear bombs, and other states, if they cannot make them they can still purchase them, pretty much puts Sadam alongside all of the other tinpot dictators out there. So, why Iraq. That is a one world answer - oil. Two words - cheap oil. I'm sorry professor Ferguson, it's not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. The US needs cheap oil, and bucketloads of it (okay, I know, oil is measured in barrels, but that is beside the point). With Iraq having the world's second largest reserves that the government is refusing to sell to them at prices they like, then with a bunch of hawks in government means that it is going to be too tempting a target to ignore.
