Ferguson argues that the US suffers from 3 deficits that have to date limited its success as an empire in comparison to the British empire.
1. Economic deficit. The US has become the worlds biggest debtor since 1985
2. Manpower deficit. The US military is chronically short of troops and civil administrators to stay the course with its current commitments, let alone taking on new ones.
3. Attention deficit. He feels this is the most difficult to overcome and as we discuss it now the US is in danger of prematurely halting the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would think that the US should be able to continue to intervene internationally when required, provided the long term benefits of intervention are realized through the long term commitment toward regeneration.
devil39, sorry it took so long to get back to this topic - been giving it some thought (just as well you can't smell smoke on these things).
Of the three deficits I was trying to figure out which one I thought was most important, economic, manpower or attention. I couldn't. They are all intertwined.
No money. Can't afford to hire Americans to fight overseas. Americans die the sacrifice makes people want to get out of there - Attention deficit essentially - reward not worth the sacrifice.
Then it occured to me that maybe the two of us Ferguson and myself, can't speak for you, are seeing it wrong. Maybe we are looking at a Public Empire rather than a Private Empire.
The British Empire that I most commonly associate with is the Late Victorian, Edwardian Empire that finally died out in the 1960's - characterized by military looking civil servants, the District Commissioner Wallah in shorts, knee-socks, solar topee and Sam Browne belt. An employee of the state running a department in a vast Crown Corporation. Supplying Peace Order and Good Government and filling the coffers of Her Majesty's Government.
But if the Americans have an Empire, and I stipulate they do, their Empire doesn't look anything like the British Empire. No government chappies in pith helmets lounging at Raffles. But if they don't have the government chap, what is his counterpart? I think the counterpart is the Harvard educated consultant with an MBA.
I think that the American Empire is a Private, for Profit Corporation rather than a Crown Corporation. If it has a British analogy it is the British Empire before the Sepoy Mutiny in India in 1857. That was when the Reformers, with the best interests of the natives at heart, took over the Empire from the various private corporations that were running it.
If we look at Iraq in that sense what do we see.
Suppose the following:
Step one - spend as few american dollars on manpower as possible, hire local soldiers and police with Americans as Stiffeners and Trainers (think East India Company, Skinners Horse, Gurkhas and the Indian Army). So far a very British solution.
Step two, and this is the American solution, rather than sending out civil servants on the US government payroll, send out consultants to be paid by the Iraqis. This has the added benefit of not just reducing the draw on American coffers but actually swelling them as Iraqis pay Americans. Making headway on deficit number one, the economic deficit.
Step three - encourage Americans to do business in Iraq.
Now some will argue that the security climate in Iraq doesn't allow for investment. If you are thinking in terms of investment bankers and Wall Street you would be right. But there is another kind of American - the kind that Sheila Copps sees in her nightmares. The kind I had a lot of experience with in the fishing industry in Alaska.
These essentially are the cowboys and the gamblers. People that will take any risk if there is a prospect of a dollar at the bottom. Risk being capsized on an iced-up crabber in the Bering in return for $100,000 paychech for 4 weeks of hard work and sleepless nights? No problem. Risk being shot or blown up for a similar paycheque driving truck, putting up cell towers, repairing oil wells, running construction companies? They are queueing up. The prospect of low taxes, few lawmen, no speed limits, SUVs and your own personal sidearm do not constitute deterrents.
They may not be John Kerry's, or Jacques Chirac's, cup of tea but they represent a well known side of America. And when the go they take with them Hollywood and Britney Spears, Coca Cola and Budweiser, Levis and Nikes, and they also take with them an awful lot more egalitarian view of the world than the locals have, even if a good chunk of them could be fairly described by the PC set as racists and chauvinists.
So looking at the three deficits again, starting with the bottom first,
Solve the attention deficit by getting their attention - show them how they can make a dollar
Solve the manpower problem by keeping the government out of it , privatize commercial enterprises and nationalize security
Solve the economic deficit by decreasing government expenditures and increasing revenues by selling what you know best, for the Americans that is "knowledge".
The American Empire got this far on the backs of Coca-Cola and Hollywood, perhaps they, Morgan-Stanley and Blackwater can take them on from here.
Oh by the way getting back onto the track of this thread, it seems while the Syrians are still talking a good game for there domestic population, there seems to be a move to start back-pedalling:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040923-084644-8505r.htm
