Most Helpful Customer Reviews
28 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A sober analysis that deserves to be read, March 31, 2004
This book is a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the origins and consequences of the "Bush doctrine" in foreign policy. It's also a serious critique, made more so by the fact that it is not couched (unlike, say, Michael Mann's "Incoherent Empire") in the language of partisan name-calling and electoral bitterness. In fact, Daalder and Lindsay's argument kind of sneaks up on you, in that the first section of the book almost ... almost ... seems pro-Bush. Unlike many of his critics, these authors are willing to give the guy a little credit for having a brain in his head and a firm, relatively well-defined, set of beliefs. They argue that the discreet facts Bush knows (citing the famous pre-election "pop quiz" of world leaders) are less important than the principles he believes, since the latter are the raison d'étre of his policy. As they note in an important chapter titled "Bush's Worldview," while GWB may not be able to articulate the underlying logic of his hegemonist worldview in "a form that would please political science Ph.D.s" [p. 41], those principles are deeply held and guide his thinking on strategic matters. This might seem to be damning with faint praise. But it's still more of an admission than we'll get from most subscribers to the kneejerk-but-tired caricature of Bush as a puppet whose strings are pulled by the neocons (or the oil companies, or Dick Cheney, or his dad, or whoever). What it also does, however, is set up the authors' principal argument, that "the Bush revolution" can in fact be traced back to the president himself: his ideas, his declarations, and his decisions. The conclusion seems to be not so much that this revolution is evil (the arguments here are utilitarian rather than moral, which isn't necessarily a bad thing) as it is poorly thought-out. The administration is surprised to discover that America's historic friends and allies don't automatically line up behind the president's priorities. That falling into disfavor with world opinion can actually have consequences for our foreign policy (and that even a "hyperpower" can't do everything by itself). That pre-emption and unilateralism don't work so well in cases like North Korea or Iran. That how to stabilize post-war Iraq should have given more thought in pre-war times. And that "with us or against us" bipolarism gets murky with countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I've read a handful of books in recent weeks about America's descent into empire and this president's new direction in foreign policy. While "America Unbound" lacks the wide historic lens of Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire," it is still a fine look at this president, his administration, his underlying principles, and their geopolitical consequences. Its restrained and logical tone -- unburdened by the polemical language of the Bush-hating Left -- ought to attract thoughtful and open-minded readers, and be a useful contribution to sober debate about the direction this nation is headed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The essential account of Bush's foreign policy revolution, November 21, 2003
The Brookings Institute earns its reputation as a unique think tank that blends excellent scholarship, a dispassionate tone, and accessibility for the general reader. "America Unbound" is emblematc of the Brookings creed. Although many books have critiqued America's radical new approach to foreign policy, "America Unbound" is the only title that retains a neutral, even clinical tone. There are no ambitious arguments forwarded in this book. Instead, the reader is presented with a very thorough account of the Bush administration's foreign policy record, and the policy circles that have shaped it. The authors do, however, tackle two popular tropes; that Bush is a rube to his advisers, and that "neo-cons" have played Rasputin to that rube. The authors offer a account that portrays a Bush who is master of his own destiny, who has formulated a consistent vision, and who has synthasized a foreign policy based on the advice of a number of polcy cliques - democratic imperialists, assertive nationalists, and defensive realists. My only criticism of the book is the inadequate treatment of the underlying premise of Bush's vision, which the authors describe as "hegemonist." In defining the "hegemonist" philosophy, they entirely neglect the essential examination of "minimal" versus "maximal" realism models, which are really the heart of the debate over the wisdom of Bush's foreign policy approach. Minimal realism is the wellspring for many critics and alternative thinkers (Joseph Nye, for example), and yet maximal realism has been an ascendent paradigm among many. The subject is simple, essential, and relevant. The authors would have been wise to address it. The other quibble I have with the book its hasty conclusions about the fallout from Iraq. Though the rubicon has been crossed, the jury is still out on whether Bush will be vindicated or villified for the intervention. As well, with an election year coming, it is erroneous to conclude that Bush's soft pedalling toward Korea is a retreat from his "revolution." If Bush is reelected and a stabilizing Iraq emerges, it might just as easily be argued that a Phase III in the War on Terror is launched, with a commensurate second wind of flourish.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Comprehensive Review of Bush Starting With the First Election, November 29, 2005
This review is from: America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Paperback)
The present book is a compelling read and covers many but not all of the major issues on terrorism and Iraq.
I feel like I have been on an overdose of these books just having read House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger - the biggest tell all blockbuster (my opinion), The Choice by Zbigniew Brzezinski (an excellent analysis), Disarming Iraq by Hans Blix, Noam Chomsky's Hegemony of Survival (truly a book that makes one think), Thirty Days (about Tony Blair) by Peter Stothard, and Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill (excellent book), Why America Slept by Gerald Posner, the very popular best seller Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke, and the Rise of the Vulcans by Mann and Mann. I put together a "listmania" list of the 25 best books - the best books - mainly non political taken together, no strong bias conservative or liberal - a spectrum of opinion when you take them all together.
Many of the books are "gotcha" books that link Bush with some wrong doings or alternately books like Brzezinski that lay out solutions. This book is a bit different. It is more of a chronological history, and the book has been highly acclaimed by the Economist, NY Times etc. After reading I can see why.
I started to read the present book and was unable to put it down until I had read it virtually cover to cover. It is a surprisingly good book and neutral in tone and a compelling read - for myself it was a page turner. It brings together the story of Iraq and WMD's in chronological order (all briefly). It starts with the Bush campaign and what he says in his run for the presidency regarding foreign policy, his philosophy, the team that he put together, plus the authors put in some historical perspective starting with Washington, then Wilson, Truman, etc. It then works its way through pre and post 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq until late 2003.
Surprisingly I found that this book is in almost complete agreement with some of the more recent "tell all" books (Blix, O'Neill, Clarke), and I would strongly recommend reading this book. The overlying theme or conclusion is that the intelligence was flawed and incomplete. Like the Hans Blix book there were no WMD's in Iraq. The Iraq war was pushed by Wolfowitz and others prior to 9-11, and can best be described as a distraction or even an incitement of Muslims towards anti-Amercian feelings. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan lacked realistic follow up plans for the post military invasion. So those conflicts still remain unresolved. Also, the more serious threats of Iran and North Korea remain almost unsolvable due to the potential negative consequences of a military solution for those cases including the threat of North Korea dropping nuclear weapons on South Korea.
An excellent book and I highly recommend.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
