"You mean "Colossus" surely..."

Have you actually read it I'm beginning to suspect you really haven't and are just basing your opinions on digests or interviews with him. Colossus was about the American Empire, Empire was about the British Empire. So yes, I meant Empire.

Ah. My mistake. I stopped watching for him after "Colossus" and a second reading of "The Pity of War". Kind of ruined any respect I had for him.

"So we should forego our heritage and simply colour the atlas pink?"

Your heritage is an imperial one, by any measure. You should accept imperialism was a part of America from beginnning.

Interesting take on American history. Rather broadens the concept of 'imperialism' to absurd levels.

"And "Mein Kampf" was more widely read in the mid-to-late 1930s than "Sein Und Zeit" by Heidegger, but that hardly grants it or its author lasting importance."

Godwin's Law. I win.

Why do I bother trying to make a clear point with this one?

"The sad bit is that Ferguson possibly will outlast most others and his somewhat twisted view of history will be influencing our successors. More's the pity."

Ferguson is a provocateur. He's widely read but relatively narrowly agreed with (that is to say very few people buy his worldview in its entirety), because he's engaging and interesting and thought-provoking and erudite, even if you don't agree with him. The complete opposite of Glenn in my opinion.

Fascinating outlook. I see him as marginal historian who's carved out a contrarian niche and is only 'widely read' because he's giving an excuse for Bush's disaster of an occupation in Iraq.

"Granted, although one could quibble that such consequences obviate the advantages or advances of empire in the first place. Ultimately it depends upon one's moral code and what one is willing (or unwilling) to live with."

And are you willing to live with everything except Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is your line drawn?

Finally you're asking the right questions, albeit one that you'll have to answer for yourself.

"True enough, although the persistence of the Federal Republic system kind of minimizes the 'imperial' aspect do you think?"

So if Bush made Iraq the 51st state and resettled it with Americans, that would be okay with you? Iraq isn't contiguous? Well neither is Hawaii.

Now you're just being silly.

"Something we were much, much better at doing prior to the Bush Administration, don't you agree?"

The only real, lasting diplomatic triumph of the 90s I can think of is Northern Ireland. Otherwise, broadly speaking, the 90s put diplomacy and the apparatus associated with it to shame.

Fair point. Please note I simply pointed out diplomacy was more creditable back then, not that it was any more successful than it was under, say, France was under Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu.

Iraq has had the same effect on intervention, which was given added currency after failure to act in Rwanda and Bosnia and relative success of action the first Gulf war and in Kosovo.

Again fair point. Guess its time to go non-interventionist.

I'm beginning to feel we are fighting an insurmountable fight against the corporate media and the Bush/Cheney demolition crowd.

Merely a long-term struggle that will doubtless prove exceedingly slow to show dividends. Inertia, culture and general idiocy aren't the easiest things to turn aside.

To anticipate the only rebuttal argument our resident contrarians can try (without degenerating into strained irony, that is): the news networks are/were correct to retain retired general and staff officers from the DoD for commentary on the invasion and occupation of Iraq as they were the "professionals" at such things.

EXCEPT, as Glenn goes to pains to note, these 'professionals' were not confining their commentary to just the practical issues at hand and virtually parroted the Bush Administration's line of it being "a cake-walk". Worse, there was no effort to balance off their blithe optimism with more measured voices against both the invasion and the conduct of the occupation.

Even now, five years into this disaster, there continues to be a derth of dissenting voices against the continuation of this costly and frankly worthless occupation. The scandal continues unabated, and shatters what little trust might be afforded the outlets we so often depend upon for news of events. After all, why should anyone believe anything from the media when they continue to grant air-time to those who have been repeatedly proven wrong?

A truly, truly tragic legacy the Bush Administration leaves us all.

This encapsulates

Surely there must be something of interest in the world besides having generals on TV during a war.

Oh, plenty. John Ashcroft reduced to hysterics by college students for one, the town of Piedmont UT getting quarantined by the US military for another.

Please, shooter242, don't feel you need to linger here if something else strikes your fancy. I'm sure RedState.com would love to hear from you.

Or, I suppose you could consider those piles of right-wing blogs that trumpet a great new cause and following, then promptly fall flat on their faces.

I mean how can you measure 'failure' of ventures that, quite frankly, were batshit insane or completely untethered from reality in the first place?

"Market share" doesn't really work given their "market" are such a small sliver of the human race.

"Profitability" doesn't work either as they're usually subsidized by deep-pocket interests who don't give a toss and aren't actually looking for a return on the investment.

"Message penetration" might work, if one could actually make out the damned message to begin with.

"Social relevance"...forget this one.