US an empire with attention-deficit disorder

[pkt]

Heard Prof. Ferguson on CBC's Ideas this week.

His views on the US's 'incursion' into Iraq from a Brit's point of view: Been there, done that. And, "He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat it."

Enjoy.

PK

http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225

When They Were Kings
Can the U.S. really learn something from the British Empire?

by Arthur Kimball-Stanley (Arthur Kimball-Stanley is a Newsweek intern.) | Aug 07 '03

Niall Ferguson's most recent book, "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons For Global Power," has been praised by some as vital to understanding America's foreign-policy challenges, but by others as neoimperialist claptrap.
His next book, "Colossus: The Price of American Empire," out next year, discusses America's imperial experience. NEWSWEEK's Arthur Kimball-Stanley sat down with him to discuss America's current experiments in nation building.
NEWSWEEK: How similar was what the British were doing 100 years ago to what the United States is doing today?
Niall Ferguson: I think there is much less of a distinction in philosophies than people in the U.S. imagine. It was a British general in 1917 who turned up in Baghdad and said we come as liberators, not conquerors. When the British took over Iraq at the end of the first world war, it was under a League of Nations mandate; and they were very quick to install an Arab monarch and an Iraqi national assembly. There is no need to draw a sharp distinction between imperial rule and independence. We have got to recognize that there are all kinds of shades of gray in between. The important implications for Iraq or Afghanistan are that you can certainly have partial power transfers to local elites or local assemblies, but you can't simply hand power--lock, stock and barrel--over to such institutions within months of a major conflagration, when their economics are in a state of collapse, and simply go home.
Do you think the United States will be able to make the necessary commitment to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan are rebuilt successfully?
The U.S. is an empire with an attention-deficit disorder. There is an essential paradox of American power: colossal military capability, far greater than anything Britain ever enjoyed, huge economic resources, but an impatience with foreign entanglements that leads to premature withdrawal, whether it be Iraq, this year, next year, or Afghanistan, or Haiti and Somalia in the last decade. The real problem is the lack of staying power, and I think that has partly to do with American domestic politics and partly a kind of cultural reluctance to admit that this is an imperial project, whatever one may call it: nation-building or any other euphemism.
Where do you think that attention-deficit disorder comes from? Why didn't the British experience it?
The U.S. has curious ambivalence about its own power so that periods of self-confidence have been followed by periods of introspection. I think this is really part and parcel of the political economy of the United States. It's a very long way, both literally and intellectually, from Kansas to Kuwait. I don't think you ever felt that long a distance from Clydesdale [in England], where I grew up, to Kuwait, where my uncle spent a large part of his working life. In the end, many more people in Britain 100 years ago had an interest in the outside world.
Will Americans ever be able to concentrate long enough to successfully rebuild a failed state?
I think the odd thing is how easily the Americans have forgotten their great successes: West Germany, Japan, South Korea and Italy. These countries were either rogue regimes or failed states in 1945. The United States effectively ran them for the better part of five or 10 years and very successfully transformed them into the kinds of societies we'd all like to see emerge in the Middle East.
Is the United States following those models?
I think one of the biggest differences is that Iraq is being reconstructed on the cheap. The sooner policymakers face up to the fact that you needed Marshall [Plan financial] aid, as well as military occupation to get West Germany off the ground in 1945, the sooner they'll realize that something similar is needed in Iraq. People will not settle down, stop looting, stop demonstrating in the street until there are jobs; and there won't be an economic takeoff without some investment of Western capital.
So, is this the future? Will U.S. Marines be tromping across the globe and rebuilding the world's troubled spots?
If domestic economic conditions come to dominate the campaign for the presidency, then these [current attempts] may well be the last to use American military power to bring about successful regime change. And I think that will be a great pity. If they get Iraq right, then people in the United States might start to feel more positively about this strategy. The key thing is whether Americans have the patience to put up with several years of instability. It took several years for British rule in Iraq after the first world war to be stabilized. It took several years for the West German economy to begin to recover from the second world war. These things take much longer than most American media commentators seem to want and that may also be true of American voters.
How important is what you write about in all this?
Generally, I think if the United States is at all serious about the project of nation-building, it needs to recognize that the nearest precedents lie in the history of the British Empire; and that if one can study that institution without prejudice, then one can see that there were rather sophisticated systems set up in the 19th and 20th centuries to deal with precisely the sort of activity that the United States is now attempting. The history of the British Empire for America should be much more than the War for Independence. It needs to be recognized that the British Empire is a historical role model as well as a historical enemy for the United States.

Arthur Kimball-Stanley is a Newsweek intern.
Newsweek Web Exclusive

[MyrddinsPrecint]

i think this article gives those of us with ADD and ADHD a bad name....

[jeff]

I've read Ferguson's stuff before. He makes interesting points, but he makes it clear that he wants the USA to take on the role that Great Britain had in its colonial days, lock stock and barrel. Not only is that NOT what the US is interested in doing, but it's not obvious to me in the post-colonial era that any country could impose colonialism as was done in the Victorian era. Those days are not coming back, and if they were, the US national temperament would make us unlikely candidates to do so. It's not ADHD - it's whether we actually want to do such things (run countries the way GB ran India and Bermuda? I don't think so), or whether these countries would permit it.

That said - his point that fixing the current state of Iraq in a short time or on the cheap being unlikely is quite the case. We don't want to be colonizers, at least, not overtly, but we have to resist the temptation to declare victory and pull out while things are still in a mess.

[Inquartata]

"The U.S. is an empire with an attention-deficit disorder. There is an essential paradox of American power: colossal military capability, far greater than anything Britain ever enjoyed, huge economic resources, but an impatience with foreign entanglements that leads to premature withdrawal, whether it be Iraq, this year, next year, or Afghanistan, or Haiti and Somalia in the last decade. The real problem is the lack of staying power, and I think that has partly to do with American domestic politics and partly a kind of cultural reluctance to admit that this is an imperial project, whatever one may call it: nation-building or any other euphemism. Where do you think that attention-deficit disorder comes from? "

There it is in a nutshell, and it is the source of a lot of other problems as well.

American Presidents are term-limited to 8 years. This institutionalizes short-term thinking and fluctuating policy. Britain does not suffer this problem: how long was Maggie Thatcher Prime Minister?

It's why so much of the world considers us a chancy friend: next year, or 4 years hence, a new leader may decide to redefine the friendhip, or abandon it altogether. This is a puzzling tendency to peoples whose rulers---and thus policies---are often measured not in years but in decades...

[pkt]

Even your senators have a 6-year term...

It's not a matter whether the USA overtly WANT to be an empire. Prof. Ferguson's point is that by its behaviour, the US is an empire. Judge not a nation by its policies, but by its deeds. That's also the crux of W's words in the RNC on the matter of 'value'. But that is another topic.

PK

[Inquartata]

Even your senators have a 6-year term...

Well, a 6-year MINIMUM. There is no maximum except the human life span. Presidents, however, have a "hard" limit on their reigns; they cannot run again after that. ( At least since FDR. )

It's not a matter whether the USA overtly WANT to be an empire. Prof. Ferguson's point is that by its behaviour, the US is an empire. Judge not a nation by its policies, but by its deeds.

Main Entry: em·pire
Pronunciation: 'em-"pIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

By that definition and most others, the US is not an "empire". It does not directly rule any other nations. Hegemon, yes; empire, no.

[jeff]

In a shocking development (birds fall, stunned, out of the sky; two-headed calves not only are born but go shopping at Bloomingdales), Jeff agrees completely with Inq's post above. Besides, we covered exactly this notion (and the distinction of what it means to be an "empire") quite a long time ago.

[pkt]

...

Main Entry: em·pire
Pronunciation: 'em-"pIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

By that definition and most others, the US is not an "empire". It does not directly rule any other nations. Hegemon, yes; empire, no.

IN4,

It seems to me that you have overlooked this line in 1b [I've bolded the above for your benefit.] which says "something resembling a political empire".

I know, "empire" as i and the professor used is more like an adjective than a noun.

pk

[jeff]

I'm going to take a break from my regularly scheduled argument with Inquartata, which we are probably both tired of anyway, to argue on the same side as him (I think).

We went over this subject in a thread named (IIRC) "Is America an imperialistic power". With the obvious, and I presume temporary exception of Iraq, the USA doesn't "run" any country in anyway resembling the empires of Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy: We don't define the laws, coinage, trade rules, language or provide the administration - as, for example, Britain did in India, Australia, or Canada, or France in Algeria, or Belgium in the Congo. We don't demand fealty, tribute, preferential trade terms, cannon fodder from other countries. We don't send our civil servants to define and administer the policies and rules of other countries. As the current world situation shows, other countries freely and frequently disagree with us and withdraw their support.

To call what we have an "empire" is only metaphorical (like "Hearst publishing empire"). We do a bad job of being imperialists because we've never taken that job on.

On another note, I distrust "argument by dictionary example", because they treat word definitions as if they were meaningful in the context of whatever is being debated, and can be distorted (as above) by highlighting one or another portion of a definition.

[keith]

on the other hand the willingness to drop bombs from planes to maintain spheres of influence and control is very British (post WWI).

Simply defining the British Imperium by australia, canada, india leaves an awful lot out - of course apologists for the great gifts the empire left tend to focus on these countries as examples of the 'good' an empire can do. That doesn't mean that in denying the application of the term 'empire' to the extraterratorial activities of the USA you can simply point to the absence of any equivalent entities for the USA.

Remember the main thing about empires is a much spheres of influence, balance of power, the great game. By these much more wobbly definitions the use of empire to describe the activities of the USA becomes more reasonable.

Although your definition of empire seems to limit you to regarding these secondary imperial activities as 'unimperial'.

[Inquartata]

Nonetheless, political scientists generally use the phrase "hegemonic state" in regard to a nation which exerts influence but without the trappings Jeff enumerated, rather than "empire".

Many nations have "spheres of influence" of various sizes, from large to tiny, and exist in "balances of power" regional or otherwise. Are they all empires? I think those sorts of things are conditions often characterized as "necessary but not sufficient"...

[keith]

Nonetheless, political scientists generally use the phrase "hegemonic state" in regard to a nation which exerts influence but without the trappings Jeff enumerated, rather than "empire".

that depends more on the political scientists one goes drinking with - many regard the "hegemonic state" model as missing many of the activities of an empire.

Many nations have "spheres of influence" of various sizes, from large to tiny, and exist in "balances of power" regional or otherwise. Are they all empires? I think those sorts of things are conditions often characterized as "necessary but not sufficient"...

indeed they are - I don't really want to get into arguement by definition. Once a sphere of influence etc is beyond a certain point it is imperial, the point being the point of course.

Which is of course why argueing 'empire' in this way gets a bit strange; although the statement that most nations act with the permission, actual or implied, of the united states is always a fun one.

[pkt]

jeff,

Do you remember who started the "Is America an imperialistic power"?

There are differences between "an imperialistic power" and an empire.

The former is my observation. The latter that of Prof. Niall Ferguson.

If you google our names - if you know my name - you'll find that there are 47,200 references to the good prof. and for me 219,200 and none of this - i think - refers to me...[i should verify that.]

PK

[jeff]

I remember the thread, but didn't look up who started it. So, obviously we've thrashed this subject out at length already.

Once we get into the "adjectival" style of characterizing a country we're clearly working on a gray scale (or grey scale, if you prefer) which is highly subjective - and attempts IMO to associate the US today with the truly imperialistic behavior of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium &etc in the past. Two very different systems of political behavior, but with a common word. A handy way for the US's detractors to smear us by using the word that describes the imperialism of the past.

Except for Prof Ferguson, who I read months ago: he chides us for not doing the job we haven't signed up to do.

[jBirch]

I'm going to take a break from my regularly scheduled argument with Inquartata, which we are probably both tired of anyway, to argue on the same side as him (I think).

We went over this subject in a thread named (IIRC) "Is America an imperialistic power". With the obvious, and I presume temporary exception of Iraq, the USA doesn't "run" any country in anyway resembling the empires of Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy: We don't define the laws, coinage, trade rules, language or provide the administration - as, for example, Britain did in India, Australia, or Canada, or France in Algeria, or Belgium in the Congo. We don't demand fealty, tribute, preferential trade terms, cannon fodder from other countries. We don't send our civil servants to define and administer the policies and rules of other countries. As the current world situation shows, other countries freely and frequently disagree with us and withdraw their support.

To call what we have an "empire" is only metaphorical (like "Hearst publishing empire"). We do a bad job of being imperialists because we've never taken that job on.

On another note, I distrust "argument by dictionary example", because they treat word definitions as if they were meaningful in the context of whatever is being debated, and can be distorted (as above) by highlighting one or another portion of a definition.

I disagree. The base building initiatives of the US on foreign soil are pretty imperialistic to me. Do you think that the Cuban government sanctions a US naval base on it's land?

http://www.doublestandards.org/bases2003.html

[Soldier]

Except that the bases aren't meant to control the nation they're in. You still haven't said anything about most of Jeff's points, including using other nations for cannon fodder, defining coinage, laws, etc.

Also, how many of the countries that we have bases in really mind? Cuba, I'm sure. But how many of the others? Or how many welcome the increased population and trade that a base brings? Many times in the past, we've seen foreign countries go out of their way to clear land, lay an airstrip, and set up a bunch of buildings, then turn around and say, "Hey, look! Turns out we've got an unused airfield here! Want to build a base on it? Please?"

[Gav]

American Presidents are term-limited to 8 years. This institutionalizes short-term thinking and fluctuating policy. Britain does not suffer this problem: how long was Maggie Thatcher Prime Minister?

THis is not correct. Any party that has a controlling majority in the House of Commons is only guarenteed a maximum of 5 years in power. They have to be re-elected. No matter how it is presented in the press, the UK system is that you do not vote for the "presidential candidate", you are voting for your local MP. That MP will be a member of the political party and it's the majority of constituencies won that determines which party has power. It has been argued that Tony Blair has abused his position as party leader (and therefore Prime Minister). Thatcher could also be said to have ruled in this fashion but history shows that her style was ever so slightly diffferent.

In fact, her government was obbsessed with a short termism [not to mention social engineering] that created the Boom and Bust economy, wrecked communities and did nothing to help people move from the old econmies to the new.

All of the above assumes that you are voting for the UK house of commons and no the Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly, GLC, Local Council or the European Parliament. All of which have different voting methods.

It seems that El Tony has not learned from his mentor...

[jeff]

Thanks Soldier.

Hey Gav, do we need a new thread about Tony Blair? Yanks like me probably aren't the best candidates for starting it, but it might be nice to have something less US-centric for a change. FWIW, it seems that while a lot of people don't trust Tony, that the Conservative party is trusted and liked even less, and UKIP is biting their heels too. Hey, nice house Tony just bought...

[pkt]

I disagree. The base building initiatives of the US on foreign soil are pretty imperialistic to me. Do you think that the Cuban government sanctions a US naval base on it's land?

http://www.doublestandards.org/bases2003.html

I so dislike using this word in non-fencing situation, but i'll make an exception this time since it definitely is the correct word to use:

Touche!

PK

[pkt]

...

Also, how many of the countries that we have bases in really mind? Cuba, I'm sure. But how many of the others? Or how many welcome the increased population and trade that a base brings? Many times in the past, we've seen foreign countries go out of their way to clear land, lay an airstrip, and set up a bunch of buildings, then turn around and say, "Hey, look! Turns out we've got an unused airfield here! Want to build a base on it? Please?"

Japan, esp. the Okinawans really mind.

The Germans. The cold War IS over.

Canada, not so much because of an existing base but an evacuted base that was left in a severely polluted state. [Sorry I forgot the name of the base. But i'm sure you can google it.]

Just to name 3 countries.

The flip side of the economic benefit argument is what happens when the US base was pulled out as in the Philipines... [I know this is a specious argument. Thought I'll throw in in as a freeby.]

PK