Fresh from watching Niall Ferguson analysing the decades through his TV documentary summary of his tome 'Collossus' (about the 'rise' and "fall" of the American "Empire"), I feel like I've been in a debate.

He gave three reasons why the US would fail to maintain its power (he scarcely mentioned the WoT with a kind of donnish disdain they drip-feed into the Oxbridge water):

Being too fat ('decadence' was the word he used).

Being Mummy's boys (or, preferring to stay at home rather than live abroad).

Having A.D.D. (or, losing concentration with so many media distractions- Ferguson argued this in a recent Telegraph article, too).

Niall Ferguson's one of the best and most positive British historians, and one of the few who tries to engage with America, and yet this, essentially (I have brutally summarised his fairly brutal summary), was the best he could come up with. It seemed superficial, anecdotal- without any really good anecdotes- and almost wishful (I think I might go back to my Oxbridge water theory over that one). There's been an interesting exchange in the opinion columns of the Telegraph about this seeming wishfulness between Mark Steyn and Ferguson (click a name for an example). Yet if Ferguson's (speaking relatively in the UK context) on the decisive right, what can be expected from the BBC and co. on the obsessively multipolarising left?

He did offer support for the US war against Iraq, but basically because he sees nothing wrong with a Liberal sort of Empire.

On the other hand, when you agree with him it's a lot of fun.

After making clear that he didn't consider France, Russia and Germany as the last word in multilateral diplomacy, he faced the camera squarely, paused for drama, and asked quizzically concerning the Second Iraq war, 'Unilateral (sarcastic pause, chuckle)? I don't think so', which was the highlight for me of a stimulating time.

That Ferguson's regarded as a right-wing historian shows just what a problem Bush and the WoT has been for the left in the UK. On the other hand, he illustrates the fact that politically in Britain we don't (today) have a functioning party that combines a heritage of the principles of humanitarianism, responsible sovereignty and interdependence to deal with the issues that have been raised by the Iraq war. That's why both sides of the political spectrum have been split.

In the US, both sides of the political spectrum can lay claim to it, and as everyone has remarked, if Bush hadn't been for the WoT, many Democrats wouldn't have been against it.

Here's an interesting article from the Policy Review which shows how entrenched the values are that GWB is currently tending to embody, explaining how 'We hold these truth to be self-evident'... and all that, relate to the WoT. I think the effect of that is possibly what Ferguson misunderestinates.