The laziest paragraph I will read today

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, June 27, 2011 - 2:23 PM Share

The combination of President Obama's Afghanistan speech, recent congressional votes on Libya, and the tenor of the GOP presidential debate have prompted gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects about the rise of isolationism and the decline of America.  This is good -- a robust debate should be had about balancing America's role abroad with fiscal demands at home, what it means for the United States to have a robust overseas presence, and so forth. 

Please, however, for the love of God, can this debate take place without Niall Ferguson? 

I ask because his latest essay for Newsweek contains the laziest paragraph I will read today.  In this column, Ferguson strains to displace Tom Friedman as The Creator of Inane Metaphors.  He coins "IOU-solationism"  to descibe the instinct to retrench because of domestic difficulties.  There's a pedestrian description of rising sentiment for retrenchment.  Then we get to the lazy paragraph, which happens to be the only one in his column that provides a justification for why defense cuts are a bad idea: 

The United States certainly needs to get its fiscal house in order. But any serious analysis of the benefits of defense cuts needs to consider the potential costs of walking away from countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. If radical Islamism is a declining force around the world, I hadn’t noticed.

A few thoughts: 

1)  Psst... Niall.... just because you haven't noticed does not mean that radical Islamist movements haven't declined.  Last I checked, groups like Al Qaeda were waning in popularity among Muslim populations (to the point where Osama bin Laden mused about renaming Al Qaeda).  Oh, and if you failed to notice, you should know that Osama bin Laden is still dead. 

I understand that not every assertion can be backed up in an 800 word column.  Really, I get that.  It's perfectly fine to assert  "the U.S. economy is weak" or "China is rising"  or "Salma Hayek is hot" without providing any supporting evidence -- these stylized facts represent common knowledge.  The rising power of radical Islam does not fall into this category, however.  Seriously, this might be the worst paragraph I've seen in a published column this year.  It's all casual assertion and no evidence. 

2)  There is a difference between radical Islamist groups that wish to control their own territory and groups like Al Qaeda that want to target the rest of the world.  I'm not the biggest fan of the former groups, but Ferguson presumes that U.S. military force should be directed at them.  This strikes me as a great way to globalize local conflicts, amping up the threats to the United States rather than tamping them down.  I suspect Ferguson disagrees -- but he provides no counterargument. 

3)  Ferguson alludes to recent developments in Yemen as a reason to be concerned about Al Qaeda and its affiliates exploiting the Arab Spring, which is a fair point.  Here's a key question, however -- does having large numbers of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq help or hinder a policy response in other vulnerable countries?  And when is the use of force not the best allocation of resources for this policy conundrum?  

I'm not the only one to notice Ferguson's recent bloviations.  Last month Michael Lind wrote a broadside against Ferguson in Salon.  Lind paints Ferguson as someone who's always been a hack, which is unfair -- he produced some genuinely interesting economic history back in the day.  Still, it's genuinely sad to witness the odd decline of Ferguson from premier economic historian to hack commentator.  Financially, he's much richer from this move, but his writing has become so impoverished over the past decade that he's writing his way out of the foreign policy conversation. 

I've frequently bemoaned the ignorance of economic history and foreign economic policy in debates about international relations.  Because of this, I must mourn the passing of Ferguson's ability to make informed contributions to important policy debates.  The opportunity cost of reading his current hackwork, however, has become way too high.   

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, 2012 CAMPAIGN, AFGHANISTAN, FOREIGN POLICY COMMUNITY, ISOLATIONISM, UNITED STATES
 

WILLINA

7:18 AM ET

June 28, 2011

Difference

There is a difference between radical Islamist groups that wish to control their own territory and groups like Al Qaeda that Bathroom Exhaust Fans want to target the rest of the world. I'm not the biggest fan of the former groups, but Ferguson presumes that U.S. military force should be directed at them. agree

 

PAPICEK

12:42 PM ET

June 28, 2011

a couple things...

Ferguson is a compelling presence, though I haven't quite figured out how he manages it. However, that should raise an alarm right there that his content should be heavily scrutinized and having done so, I can report that his contribution is a nice tame layman's view which offers surprisingly little more than the general media themes we see presented everyday. He got space in Newsweek because he's editorially safe.

Which adds little to the debate, as it only tells us to find a way to remain where we are already.

So Ferguson can be safely avoided. He's no Jerry Z. Muller (www.tfasinternational.org/iipes/academics/mullercm.pdf>, Hutchinson or Niebuhr. Not even close.

 

JIMGREIG

12:49 PM ET

June 28, 2011

Pot and Kettle

If Ferguson gets the award for the 'laziest paragraph', then you get the prize for the 'most desperate for a topic' award. Did Niall kill your dog, sleep with your wife or in some other way pee in your Wheaties to deserve such an inane piece on your part?

 

KASEMAN

2:14 PM ET

June 28, 2011

Niall

he is the typical Oxbridge Brit Financial Times/Economist historian hack. And very good at giving lucid overviews pampering to the richest of the Anglo ruling classes.

Like others of this genre, he is ignorant of lands beyond the NATO countries, especially on current matters re Muslim countries. Like these facts:

At peak 9/10 AQ numbered less than 1000. Its prime target was and is the elimination of the Saudi and other Arba Royal families, not to impose Sharia law on the US. It hit us because of our support for these despots. So Dr. Economic historian, what is its cost;benifit ratio after 10 years? And what has it cost us, in $, blood , influence and liberties, of our reaction to AQ's attack? Its our elites' arrogant overeaction to 9/11, and using it to invade and smash Iraq on false pretences, that has/is hurting us most. ObL's stated objective was to bleed us and our elites have obliged to the tunes of $6+trllions to date in cash alone. .

Right now there are less than 50 AlQidistas operating in Afghanistan. Our official reason for being in A 'stan is to eliminate them. But they operate from bases in Pushtoonistan (no such thing as Pakistan) east of the Durand Line. Under the command of the Taleban who number a mere 30,000

The august and much wiser George Will wrote in the WashPost that we are deploying 1400 soldiers per AQ, thus costing us this year alone $1.2 billion. However he uses 70 AQ and only US uniforms, so add the other 70,000 NATO and mercenaries, and 50 not 70 AQs, its $2.2 billion/y/AlQista..

AQ in Yemen? The FT estimates 50-200, and WSJ 300. They are part of the Yemeni society in civil war that has been ongoing for decades against a despot who is still "our ally". AQ is after the Saudi Royals not us, so let them wipe out the AQ. They have the resources and if they can send 7000 troops to beat up and kill the Bahraini Shia demanding basic human rights, they can certainly send a lot more plus airpower to wipe out the AQ in the hills of Southern yemen. Why haven't they?

Because they react rationally even to a threat that really is existential. We however have a $1 trillion /y security-military complex that lives of fear and wars so keeps us scared. AQ in Yemen is no threat to us. Certainly not in the current scale of the Tijuana drug lords.

In short (!) Niall is the propagantist for the very elites that have vested interest in wars abroad on the flimsiest of excuses. Wars we cannot win.

 

FRED LIST

2:35 PM ET

June 28, 2011

Lazy Free Tradism

Lazy?

How about a commentator who is quick to opine on the benefits of free trade without evidencing the slightest awareness of the models developed by Paul Krugman, Ralph Gomory, Paul Samuelson or even the work popularized by Ha Joon-Chang, which all suggest large, absolute economic losses for the United States and other unilateral free trade states.

Free trade is destroying the United States. Either Drezner is too stupid/lazy to bother with even a superficial review of recent literature, or he's been paid off by the Wall Street cabal that benefits from massive capital inflows into the United States (ie, permanent large trade deficits).

Drezner is so lazy, he doesn't even bother to read his fellow blogger, Clyde Prestowitz.

Shame on you.

 

MUSE

3:22 PM ET

June 28, 2011

neocon wanna be

he just trying to be neocon British version .. if he want fight with muslims he should go to Helmad .. good luck

 

CEOUNICOM

5:06 PM ET

July 5, 2011

Mostly Dead

""you should know that Osama bin Laden is still dead.""

Ahh, but without ever-vigilant statism, how can we ensure he remains that way?

Zombie-Osama is a threat we should be prepared for.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More