Customer Reviews

After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a rare and brilliant book: beautifully and clearly written, punctiliously researched, and with a clear and important message: that, once elected, American presidents have far more in common with one another than is usually believed, especially by their partisan supporters. What these two British co-authors have superbly succeeded in doing is---unlike the majority of biased books on American foreign policy---to step back from the frenzies of the moment and look at the big picture. Once they do, they see a significant continuity in the practice of American foreign policy among vastly different presidents of the two opposing political parties. All presidents seek to protect the American poeple from threats beyond the nation's borders. The co-authors are leading British authorities on the United States, and as such, they do not have the usual, tediously transparent axes to grind: their objectivity is clear and impeccable, and their conclusions are absolutely requrired reading for every American citizen, as well as for those citizens of America's allies, who live their daily lives in peace, security and prosperity, yet rarely cease complaining about the nation that provides the very safety and secutity that is essential to their own lives. This is a measured, fair and clear-eyed assessment that is a must-read for all Americans and for all readers throughout the world who care about American foreign policy. Only once or twice a decade does one encounter a book with such clear analysis, splendid prose, and utter objectivity, and there are, in my view, only two American-born authors who provide this level of clarity. If you buy only one book this election year, this should be the one.

If Congress had not amended the law to limit the number of terms a president could serve cynics would no doubt suggest that the co-authors of a book -- taking an historical as opposed to a hysterical look at presidential doctrine -- launched just weeks before the election were courting positions of high office.

As it happens, Bush's second term is nearing its end and he will soon be leaving the capital for Crawford, hence the title of Timothy J. Lynch's and Robert S. Singh's hardback: After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy. All the same the University of London duo could still be on Bush's guest list at the White House before the moving vans approach 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Though clearly, such an offer is not the be all and end all for Messrs. Lynch and Singh. If anything an invitation from the 44th President of the United States is just as likely given their book's non-partisan, political futurology and for all of Barack Obama's mantra of 'change'.

Their historical reference point is the Truman era and the First Cold War. And their central thesis is that we are in the early stages of a Second Cold War, this time against Islamist terrorism. Notwithstanding Truman remaining the gold standard for presidential rehabilitation the pair never set out to revise Bush and make him into one of America's top ten. Depersonalizing the debate only reinforces their case and prolongs After Bush's existence on module reading lists the world over. (Indeed the bibliography alone, if read, would be enough to earn a master's degree.)

Thus After Bush should be read by everyone from Bush-backer to Bush-basher. That said if you are a Bush (doctrine)-basher and invited to debate with Lynch and Singh, decline. Their witty repartee and ready access store of historical quotations not to mention geo-political savvy, would threaten your myths and misconceptions. For instance by placing Bush's response to 9/11 in historical context, Lynch and Singh frontally challenge the view that Bush was a revolutionary. It is here that the pair is to be congratulated for filling a vacuum in American foreign policy scholarship. (Until now all we had to quote was from the hands of John Lewis Gaddis, Niall Ferguson, Melvyn Leffler and Michael Gove.)

The duo's 300-page hardback is a confident and comprehensive rebuttal to Bush's critics. But that is not to say the co-authors overlook questions pertaining to the legality of intervention, the mismanagement of post-war Iraq and alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib. Rest assured no stone goes unturned.

As a consequence, Lynch and Singh are now among the heavyweights of today: Robert Lieber (The American Era) and Andrew Roberts (A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900). While Robert Kaufman (In Defense of the Bush Doctrine) and Norman Podhoretz (World War IV) battle it out in the middleweight division. Such an appraisal is based on their historical nuance; historical nuance that would give the likes of Walter Russell Mead (Special Providence) and Robert Kagan (Dangerous Nation) a run for their money.

Longsighted not shortsighted. Practical not polemical. Continuity not change.

Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh might have established a pattern of continuity in the American foreign policies but mere establishment of a pattern can't be and ought not to be a permanent feature of US foreign policy. My book 'Tracing the Eagle's Orbit', too, establishes a common pattern of continuity in American foreign policies since independence and justified President Bush's doctrine and his policies from the viewpoint of a superpower. While After Bush is a good attempt to justify President Bush's actions, the Bush Doctrine can't be taken as an unmixed doctrine in the new millennium.

There is need to overhaul the policies of previous presidents to suit the new international political environment in order to accommodate changes. Moreover, a policy must be judged not by its face value but by its effects. In my opinion, past US foreign policies may not be the appropriate ones now because success stories depend on time and time changes. The basic flaw in the post war US foreign policies is the application of too many alternatives, not without conflicts,to keep American super power status in tact.

Gautam Maitra
Author of 'tracing the Eagle's Orbit: Illuminating Insights into Major US Foreign Policies Since Independence.'

The argument Lynch and Singh put forward is two-fold in that not only WILL the Bush-doctrine continue to form basic structure of US foreign policy in the years to come, but that this is in fact desirable and needed in the framework of what they call the Second Cold War (with Radical/Militant Islam).

While I concur with the authors that a serious change of direction will require exceptional leadership skills, as well as a profound change in the priorities of the electorate, there is in my opinion little factual support for the thesis of a Second Cold War. The authors suggest that the global ideology (Radical Islam) should be considered a threat that requires offensive means (preventive war, long-term military engagement) in order to avoid these terrorists from acquiring WMD-capacities. The idea contains several major flaws:

- While Islamic terrorism certainly poses a significant threat to Western societies, such organizations are very diverse and distinct. Thus the only real threat to western societies remains Al-Qaeda. Other organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) are primarily concerned with their national struggles, and while they may sympathize with Al-Qaeda, they draw their membership in support against occupation of their particular homeland.

- Though Iran's theocracy pursues a very orthodox and extremist version of Islam, the idea that Iran would EVER give or sell nuclear weapons to Al-Qaeda is mistaken. Firstly Al-Qaeda is a Sunni-organization whereas Iran is a Shiite regime. Secondly, while Iran may have been and continues be very hateful in their rhetoric towards USA, they do have historically good reasons for this thus making it a very secular sentiment. And Iran has strategic interests that go way beyond a suicidal proliferation strategy (mutual destruction).

- Finally Al-Qaeda would never have gain this power of membership and sympathy in the Arab world had it not been for United States very permanent military presence on the Arabian Peninsula following the Gulf War of 1991. In fact Al-Qaeda leaders repeatedly points to the "occupation" to justify Jihad against the occupiers and the government. The authors, despite referring without any criticism to Robert Pape's "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" (2005), neglect to take on this point as well as the first.

So while Al-Qaeda is a threat to global peace and stability, the Bush-doctrine and the wider goals for liberation and democracy in the Middle East will ensure that the organization will remain a powerful player in the world for years to come. One also notices the complete absence any real debate on globalization, but since the sole aim of the book was to defend the Bush-doctrine, the parallel follows.

Yet for all the lack of reality presented in the chapters taking on the Middle East, excellent discussions of the US foreign policy tradition, a "better" more mature argument for the Iraq-war (essentially qualifying the discussion), as well as their elaboration on presidential primacy makes it an okay read. And while the authors seem to know little about the Middle East, they make the correct assessment that policymakers in the US will be bound to continue on the basic premises of the Bush-doctrine. From Reagan's exaggerated notion of "The Evil Empire" to Bush's incoherent "Axis of Evil", the consensus has arrived.

For those that wish to grow a deeper understanding of the threat posed by organizations such as Al-Qaeda I suggest reading among other books:

New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Second Edition

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

This is a fine and long overdue book of reasoned analysis. I would encourage those considering it to read the many positive reviews by professional political scientists and historians. It's true what another reviewer said, that long after the "noise" of the current anti-war hysteria is over, this book will be on the shelvs of historians and careful thinkers.

My review sets aside a critique of the author's scholarly work and reasoned arguments. This is undoubtedly one of the strongest arguments for President Bush's vision for a 21st century foreign policy I have ever read. Not much more needs to be added in this regard.

The book's utility is evidenced not within its pages but in the first six months of Bush's successor's administration. President Obama has all but completely confirmed the Bush vision of taking the fight to the enemy and its sanctuary, using technology to interdict potential threats, pursuing a legal framework that is suited to a war not a crime fighting enterprise and projecting American primacy, rather than shrinking to a global, UN-friendly position. Although the record is thin on the last account, there are signs that Obama is less the internationalist that he claimed, and committed to projecting American power when necessary.

A few examples: his acceptance and promotion through the courts, of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program; arguing for indefinite detention of the "worst of the worst" of Gitmo (despite urging closure within the year); continued predator drone strikes on the Pakistan-Afghan border; increased military presence in Afghanistan, withouth a further UN-mandate and without increased assistance from NATO allies; deployment of missile defense resources to protect against potential test launches from North Korea. All suggest a comfort with, rather than rejection, of Bush-era foreign and defense policy.

Singh and Lynch's are proven correct, at least to this point, in the Obama-era making this a must read for anyone interested in the durability of Bush's foreign policy apparatus bequeathed to successors.

As a child of post WWII Britain who moved to the USA in late 50's I commend the authors for their well researched and carefully written book. All Americans and Europeans born mid-60's and later should take note...The destruction of WWII led to a re-birth introduced by American ingenuity and the resulting prosperity in both America, Europe and Far East. Americans are generous and don't want to take back what they willingly gave...only help preserve the good results...and Bush deserves some credit for preserving the peace. Teachers, historians and parents should buy this book...congratulations again to the authors.

The fundamental error committed by the author, in a desperate attempt to justify the Neo-Con Bushies' reckless approach to foreign policy, is to compare a criminal enterprise like Al Qaeda to the Soviet Union and China. The author's arguments, based upon this premise, are therefore fatally flawed.

If the reader is interested in pursuing this topic in greater detail simply log onto the American Enterprise Institute web site and avoid the expense of buying this pathetic drivel.

Nemises, the goddess of retribution and vengence, the punisher of pride and hubris, waits impatiently for her meeting with us.

"The good Earth- we could have saved it, but we were too cheap and lazy."
~~Kurt Vonnegut~~