Customer Reviews

America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book singlehandedly restored my confidence in the potential for reasoned political debate in our society, and by extentension the future of our republic.

In a country where the likes of Sean Hannity scream in your right ear, and the likes of Michael Moore scream in your left, it becomes difficult for a reasonable, neutral citizen to make sense of what's going on in these our troubled times. In our frighteningly polarized society, the truth is easily drowned out by the din of the polemicists.

Enter Halper and Clarke. These two self-proclaimed conservatives calmly and clinically dissect a perversion of their school known as neo-conservatism. Tracing their development from roots in Cold War liberalism to their apex in the Bush administration, Halper and Clarke's sober and authoratative analysis warns us of the dangers of neo-conservatives' proclivities to unilateralism, closed-minded self-righteousness, and brute military force. As a result, the American government has lost credibility both domestically and internationally, forfeited its moral high ground, and fanned--rather than extinguished--the raging fires of anti-Americanism and terrorism.

I cannot stress enough the impartiality of this book. While they completely disagree with neo-conservatives, they do not launch into endless ad hominem assaults, throw out red herrings, or get red in the face. Quite the contrary, Halper and Clarke think that neo-conservatives genuinely believe that their policies are best for America. I suppose, in a sense, that this is damning them with faint praise. In the end, their analysis is rationally argued and compelling.

This is an exceptionally important book for our times. The only qualm I have is that there are numerous typos--completely unacceptable and surprising coming from the CUP. Read this book though, please.

Post scriptum: Pay no mind to C. Cotten "SimpleSimon." The book mentions Democrats maybe three times (and then only in passing). Their point is that unilateralism is a BAD idea, not that the Dems brought down the USSR. "SimpleSimon" clearly did not read this book.

Although George W. Bush has gotten credit for the new face of American foreign policy his is merely a reflection of an intellectual movement that's been around for decades, solidified in the early 90's and really took hold after September 11th. The ideology is known as neo-conservativism and its adherents litter the White House and Pentagon. They are marked by an intense hatred of international agreements and organizations, diplomacy and the State Department. The neo-cons preach a black and white, good and evil (with us or against us) worldview and frame their arguments in moralistic terms. To them military force is the catch all answer for international problems with some neo-cons going so far as to advocate continual war. Americans forget or perhaps don't realize that Iraq was intended to be just the first in a string of wars that included Syria, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern and African counties.

Rather than an attack from the left `America Alone' is a measured criticism of neo-conservativism from the middle right. The authors point to an intellectual wattage drain in the second generation neo-conservatives. Whereas the first generation went through an evolution in thinking and prided themselves on intellectual experimentation the second generation seems to have been, as the author put it, born middle aged. Experimentation gave way to inflexibility to the point where neo-conservatives found themselves incapable of adapting to a new and increasingly open Soviet Union emerged. The new generation has by and large abandoned academia and moved straight into politics and policy making but operate like someone working from within a gated community. Almost to a man the neo-conservatives have spent no time in the military while continually choose the military route.

Conservatives have long railed against small groups of experts, intellectuals or `elites' setting policy contrary to popular will yet this is exactly what the neo-conservatives have done. They have cynically manipulated public opinion on the Iraqi war using time tested propaganda techniques and brazen lies. There is an arrogance among neo-conservatives that the general public is unprepared for the lofty neo-con goals so rather than articulate their true agenda they offer answers designed simply to placate the populace. This was particularly evident in the WMD sales pitch for an Iraqi invasion. In the case of foreigners the neo-cons feel it's their right, perhaps even duty to completely alter societies that don't conform to western democratic free market capitalism. Although the neo-conservatives claim to be realists their liberal idealism is most evident in Iraq where neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle made obscenely rosy predictions about the outcome of the invasion and the so called `domino effect'. The neo-conservatives believe America can literally reshape the entire Middle Eastern region through sheer brute force and no amount of monetary or human expense is too excessive.

The last few years have seen an unprecedented loss of American prestige and moral leadership. While the United States continues to operate Guantanamo base and refuses negotiations on international treaties like ABM and Kyoto a message is sent to the rest of world that the United States couldn't care less about world opinion. This may satisfy a certain jingoistic spirit but it does immeasurable damage to the United States standing in an increasingly connected world.

`America Alone' is an extremely well researched book filled with important information and fascinating analysis. It's a hefty 340 pages but I never grew bored reading it. I heartily recommend this book to anyone with concern or interest in the future of the United States.

Stefan Halper, a White House and State Department official during the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, and Jonathan Clarke, a Counselor in the British Diplomatic Service, have written a scathing denunciation of current US foreign policy.

They show how Bush illegitimately extended the USA's war from counter-attacking Al Qa'ida to attacking terrorists in general, then to attacking `those who harbour them', meaning a state like Afghanistan, and then to attacking states that don't harbour them, like Iraq. The US ruling class hijacked the war on terrorism and aimed it at `universal dominion'. The authors describe this as `a highly imprudent trajectory of missionary imperialism and international confrontation'. They ask whether the US's policy "distracts the United States from the pursuit of terrorism and whether it may indeed aggravate the threat" and conclude that it does.

Rupert Murdoch's Fox News helped Bush: its watchers were three times more likely to believe the government's three big lies - that Al Qa'ida and Iraq were linked, that WMD had been found, and that the world approved of the US attack. These misperceptions `arose as the direct result of deliberate government action'; administration speeches showed `a pattern of deceit'.

Now the US government is bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq, dragging British troops down with it. It said that just 75,000 troops could occupy Iraq, and only `several thousand after a year or two'. It told Congress that Iraq's oil, not the US taxpayer, would pay for the occupation.

However, the US army is not geared to occupying a country, still less to nation-building; it is designed to carry out the old imperial practice of `Butcher and bolt'. Not too surprising then, that the USA's occupation of Iraq is failing, just like earlier British occupations in the Middle East, in Iraq, Palestine, Aden, etc.

In sum, the authors show that the costs of US foreign policy are huge, including economic damage, vast expense, reduced civil liberties and worse security. Unfortunately, they see this disastrous policy as due to the neo-conservatives' seizure of power, not as the inevitable result of capitalism's absolute decline.

This book shows the Neo-Con agenda to be the bankrupt policy that it truly is - a 21st Century fable of the "Emperor's New Clothes." Except people - American GI's, Iraqis and Afghans - are dying because of this fable. For anyone who wants to understand this administration's foreign policy - and just how it has been hi-jacked - this is the book! This is a concise recording of ideology over reality. The facts be damned. The ideological agenda is what is important - not the reality of the facts. "Damn the torpedoes - Full speed ahead." (And after all, those of us in Washington and Academia who espouse this theory aren't the ones who must do the bleeding and dying. We have others to do that for us.)

I think a few excerpts from the book explain our current foreign policy - and the reasons for the war in Iraq. A basic tenet of the Neo-Con movement is American Supremacy - military and other. Hence there is no need to be bothered with other nations or their interests. This is the famous "Unipolar Moment" which is now an "Era." This is the reason we need "no entangling alliances."

"Having, as we have shown, more or less abandoned international cooperation as a means of achieving American objectives, having an almost religious belief in military power, and living by a historically anomalous selfish interpretation of American leadership, Neo-conservatives prefer to go it alone." (pg 272)

On page 281 is a quote from a historical figure which is very apropos -

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil then the good becomes indistinguishable from the evil they set out to destroy" - John Locke. (pg 281)

We have very much come to this with the new permissiveness for the "invasion of privacy" under the PATRIOT and other laws put forward by this administration.

And most clear and concise of all is this Clausewitzian statement found on pg. 282, "Terrorism neither occurs in a vacuum nor is it generally a product of outside agitation or ideologies. Rather terror can be seen to follow Clausewitz's dictum as politics by other means. Placed in a political context, there can be no military conclusion to a counterterrorist campaign." (pg 282) Witness Algeria, witness Viet Nam, witness Northern Ireland, witness Basque Spain, and witness Iraq to come.

Neo-Conservatism is a bankrupt policy of military aggression and suppression. It can be explained to Iraqi's as "This is what is best for you." Is it no surprise that they reject it - and that our "allies" such as France, Germany, Korea and many others reject it also.

The book is a real eye opener. You should not miss it if America's future is something important to you.

It's refreshing to see two conservatives take on the neo-cons. Stefan Halper is a senior fellow at The Centre of International Studies at Cambridge University and served in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Jonathan Clarke is a foreign-affairs scholar at the CATO Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. They carefully and compellingly illustrate how the neo-cons abandoned the successful foreign-policy model pursued under the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush administrations. Halper and Clarke's book should give any Republican pause for thought, and it seems that the Bush administration is finally starting to make a slow return to the foreign-policy model that served America so well under Reagan and Bush Sr. Highly recommended reading!

America Alone is quite possibly one of the most important books to read if you want to understand Bush's foreign policy. The authors do a wonderful job of describing the creation and evolution of the neoconservative movement. Some of the people described in this book are the ones deciding this country's foreign policy, so it would do all of you well to read it.

As long as the authors stick to neocon history, the book is great. If this were the only thing Halper and Clarke discussed, I would give the book a five. However it is when the authors start talking about their own beliefs that things get sticky. Case in point: On page three, the authors state that "it was once a proud Washington boast that well-fashioned American policy towards Latin America had moderated that region's love affair with its generals and returned the military to its barracks." This type of statement is what gets the authors into trouble. Anyone familliar with the history of Latin America (particularly the past 50 years) that is not blinded by ideology knows that American policies were responsible for INSTALLING most of the military dictatorships in the region. Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Nicaragua all had military regimes with full American backing. I understand that this is not a pleasant reality, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

On page six the authors state that when it came to countries like East Germany, China, and Cuba, "they couldn't defend the mass murder that had taken place in defense of their ideology." This is an important point that says a lot about the authors. Yes it's true that the regimes in those countries repressed and murdered their own citizens. But Halper and Clarke leave out the fact that over a million people were killed in Latin America, mostly by the military dictatorships we propped up, in defense of OUR ideology. You either think murder in the name of ideology is right or wrong. These guys want it both ways. It's bad when the Soviets do it in Eastern Europe, but it's ok when we do it in Latin America. There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.

My advice is to pay close attention to the neocon history, but when the authors stray off that path, be wary.

This is a book that will appeal to conservatives, written by conservatives. It explains who the neoconservatives are, where they came from, and what they want.

It documents the facts that Iraq was always on their agenda for several years and only when they were in positions of power and when the opportunity arose could they implement their plans, albeit by covert means, rather than by openly proclaiming their intentions and having a fair foreign policy debate.

If you wondered who the neo-cons were, why we suddenly went from a war against Al Queda in Afghanistan to a war in Iraq, this book will answer your questions.

If you are a conservative this will show you that the neo-cons do not adhere to traditional conservative philosophies, since when has invading countries for nation-building agendas been a conservative approach to foreign policy?

This book by two veterans of conservative leaders, the Reagan and Thatcher governments, provide a thorough takedown of the Neo-conservative foreign policy as demonstrated by the (now former) leadership of the Defense Department and our current UN ambassador, among others. These Center-Right authors have provided a thorough trouncing of the neocon viewpoint, starting with its earliest iterations and ending with a discussion of the current policies and projections of the leadership.

Halper and Clarke write many sensible things to me, and I am coming from a Center-Left viewpoint. This may be one of the most incredible parts of the book. I have come of age in my foreign policy thinking since just before 9/11, and while I would take a more liberal perspective many of the criticisms of the Bush Administration foreign policy than Clarke and Halper have, they are still the same as my own thoughts. This may also be one of the book's demonstrated weaknesses. The authors quote heavily from liberal thinkers but cite only scarcely from their fellow conservative intellectuals. This seems to be because other, more serious, conservative criticisms of neocon failings either aren't popular or are non-existent. If this is the case it is a shame.

Whichever the case, this is an excellent book to get the idea that there are those on the right unhappy with Iraq and other unilateral foreign adventures undertaken by Bush and the neocons.

The two authors here are ex-Reagan foreign policy officials. They argue that the neocon groups, that dominate the Bush administration and who claim to be "neo-Reaganites", are essentially exploiting Reagan's popularity, not reviving his policies.

The real Reagan regularly over-ruled his hardline advisors. And the neocons turned on Reagan for his glasnost with Gorbachev and missile reductions. Contrary to the unilateralist neocons, Reagan worked closely with allies and was prepared to reverse course if he made a mistake (i.e. Lebanon). The authors wish the current Bush administration really was "neo-Reaganite" in deed as well as word. They should copy Reagan not just repeat his name as a mantra.

Reagan had some neo-conservatives and uber-hawks in his administration but they were on tap, not on top. He was prepared to listen to his foreign allies, not just demand their fealty. It was a two way street. When he determined, after being persuaded by Maggie Thatcher, that he could work with Gorbachev, Reagan, a long time cold warrior, was able to reverse course.

The authors highlight these differences but for my money I think they miss the real difference. The differences between Reagan and Bush, are not so much ideological as stylistic and personal. Like it or not, the big guy on top sets the tone for a whole administration. The personal and personality element colours whole administrations and their public and global reception. Reagan was certainly a better speaker and media performer than Bush, and he did seem to write credible material in his own hand. But there is more to it than that.

Reagan was an optimist by disposition, and a gambler. He was prepared to take risks, like funding Solidarity in Poland or providing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan rebels. Both bets that paid off. Few US leaders since Truman were prepared to play on the red side of the cold war fence. These were critical events in the ultimate undermining of the Iron Curtain. Reagan took some risks, like El Salvador and Lebanon, that didn't pay off. But in the case of Lebanon at least, he was prepared to reverse track on a bad hand and cut his losses. A good gambler knows when to quit. Maybe had the young George W Bush spent more time gambling and less time drinking fewer people would be dead in Iraq.

You can expect a horde of neocons to log onto this site and submit a poor rating of this book. They are starting to squirm and get nervous at all the negative publicity that they are now receiving as people in Washington realize what a catastrophic foreign policy mistake the Iraq war really was.

In hindsight, it is easy to see how an American public, which by its very nature is inward looking and self-centred, could have its foreign policy hijacked by a group of ideologically driven wingnuts - especially following 9/11. As several high ranking CIA agents and Richard Clarke have openly stated, Bin Laden is a savy strategist who no doubt welcomes this outcome. Sadly, most media pundits are only now starting to catch on.

What we really need is an "America Alone for Dummies" - written for those millions of Americans who are oblivious to the complicated world of geopolitics - and the dangerous world which the neocons have created.