The Famous Historian Whose Wishful Thinking Keeps Blaming America
Historian Niall Ferguson, originally a native of Scotland, has for years warned against the U.S. government retreating in any way from its international commitments. Mr. Ferguson's a smart guy who generally thinks clearly and expresses himself quite well. And while his wish that America (which is now his adopted country) remain the one great superpower that keeps some semblance of order and fairness in the world is understandable, I wonder whether this wish is really wishful thinking.
Wikipedia explains that wishful thinking is "the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality." With that in mind let's look at the following from Mr. Ferguson's recent Opinion in the Wall Street Journal, where Ferguson characterizes the Obama Administration's inaction in Syria in particular, but other countries as well, as a "strategic failure":
For example, how do we know what might have resulted if the U.S. government had become more actively engaged in Syria? Might we conjecture that an attack using the might of the U.S. military's missiles, bombers and jet fighters may have resulted in many deaths, possibly more deaths than the lack of direct involvement? That such an outcome might be a possible could be arrived at by a simple application of reason and common sense, don't you think? After all, we have not only Bush, but that good old boy Bill Clinton and his free use of the weapons of war in, for example, Serbia to know that mighty weapons kill a mighty large amount of people, never mind destroy a mighty large amount of property.
An interesting query to Ferguson might be whether he thought Clinton's use of deadly force in Serbia was in the end such a great idea, never mind a moral action. In any case, I would propose that such an application of reason and common sense bears more weight than what really does appear as nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Niall Ferguson. Perhaps he might consider using his sharp mind and fertile imagination to envision a world that will have to function without the steady and frequently heavy hand of the U.S. government guiding its every move. I'm sure he could come up with such a world and might even learn to appreciate and embrace the idea.
And I hate to add this, although on second thought maybe I shouldn't, but I've yet to see Ferguson volunteer to ship out and plant himself in harms way in some of the far-flung outposts where many of our soldiers spend their days and nights.
Wikipedia explains that wishful thinking is "the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality." With that in mind let's look at the following from Mr. Ferguson's recent Opinion in the Wall Street Journal, where Ferguson characterizes the Obama Administration's inaction in Syria in particular, but other countries as well, as a "strategic failure":
The scale of the strategic U.S. failure is best seen in the statistics for total fatalities in the region the Bush administration called the "Greater Middle East"—essentially the swath of mainly Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Pakistan. In 2013, according to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, more than 75,000 people died as a result of armed conflict in this region or as a result of terrorism originating there, the highest number since the IISS Armed Conflict database began in 1998. Back then, the Greater Middle East accounted for 38% of conflict-related deaths in the world; last year it was 78%.Is Mr. Ferguson blaming the American government here for these deaths? It certainly appears that he is, based on the following:
Mr. Obama's supporters like nothing better than to portray him as the peacemaker to George W. Bush's warmonger. But it is now almost certain that more people have died violent deaths in the Greater Middle East during this presidency than during the last one.We might, of course, point out that Mr. Bush did engage the U.S. in two prolonged wars, one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, (both in the "Greater Middle East") that resulted in a few more than the 75,000 deaths referenced by Ferguson here. And in the end, who cares whether the culprit is called "peacemaker" or "warmonger" if the facts can speak for themselves? But the facts speaking for themselves really isn't what this article relies on. Rather, I think, it relies on wishful thinking. Ferguson prefers Bush to Obama because he prefers the U.S. government's continued involvement in virtually every corner of the world. We can talk another time about whether or not that's even possible anymore, given the cost vs. the resources available to the government, never mind the wishes of the American people. For now, what really does stand out here is, as noted in Wikipedia, Ferguson's "formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality."
For example, how do we know what might have resulted if the U.S. government had become more actively engaged in Syria? Might we conjecture that an attack using the might of the U.S. military's missiles, bombers and jet fighters may have resulted in many deaths, possibly more deaths than the lack of direct involvement? That such an outcome might be a possible could be arrived at by a simple application of reason and common sense, don't you think? After all, we have not only Bush, but that good old boy Bill Clinton and his free use of the weapons of war in, for example, Serbia to know that mighty weapons kill a mighty large amount of people, never mind destroy a mighty large amount of property.
An interesting query to Ferguson might be whether he thought Clinton's use of deadly force in Serbia was in the end such a great idea, never mind a moral action. In any case, I would propose that such an application of reason and common sense bears more weight than what really does appear as nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Niall Ferguson. Perhaps he might consider using his sharp mind and fertile imagination to envision a world that will have to function without the steady and frequently heavy hand of the U.S. government guiding its every move. I'm sure he could come up with such a world and might even learn to appreciate and embrace the idea.
And I hate to add this, although on second thought maybe I shouldn't, but I've yet to see Ferguson volunteer to ship out and plant himself in harms way in some of the far-flung outposts where many of our soldiers spend their days and nights.
Comments