Customer Reviews

America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Bitter, partisan rancor has characterized most discussion of foreign policy in America in recent years. This is a long tradition that has waxed and waned in intensity, depending on the perceived success or lack thereof of the country's involvement in international affairs, since the founding of the Republic. When this rancor runs high, it encourages our enemies, confuses our friends, and makes difficult the formulation and execution of any coherent U.S. foreign policy.

But there is another tradition as well, involving agreement on broad principles - the Monroe Doctrine, the containment policy of the Cold War - as well as restraint in name-calling and judging motivations - dissent is not termed un-American and intelligence mistakes are not called lies - combined with a vigorous bipartisanship that actively seeks consensus.

When this tradition is ascendant, as it was, for example, in the 1940s, American foreign policy tends to be more successful than when it is not, for example, in the Vietnam era and since 2003.

This book, as defined in its introduction, is "an experiment to see if a prominent Democrat and a prominent Republican - speaking only for themselves and not for or against either party - could find common ground for a new start in foreign policy." The experiment succeeded, and it produced what its dust jacket blurb correctly calls "a deeply informed and provocative book that defines the center of responsible opinion on American foreign policy."

The book consists of a series of discussions during the spring of 2008 between Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, and Brent Scowcroft, who held the same position under Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, moderated by David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist and former Executive Editor of the International Herald Tribune.

Brzezinski and Scowcroft might be considered foreign policy realists, in that they tend to begin with consideration of the national interest. But they both resist categorization as realists or idealists, agreeing that U.S. policy must strike a balance between the extremes of either school, combining power with principle, acknowledging limitations, and recognizing that everything can't be done at once.

They agree that the next president should stress bipartisanship in his foreign policy.

Here are some other important points of agreement:

A Cold War mindset that obscures new global realities, including the reduced role of the nation state, persists among U.S. policymakers.
The United States has become "too frightened in this age of terrorism, too hunkered down behind physical and intellectual walls."

While the "global center of gravity" is shifting toward Asia, a strong Atlantic community is vital for the United States as well as Europe, and the West will remain pre-eminent for some time.

Chances are good that China can be peacefully assimilated into the international system, and there is no need for the United States to choose between China and Japan as its principal "anchor point" in Asia.

A vigorous U.S. effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem should be a high priority for the next president.

In spite of its limitations and current problems, the United States remains the country most able to "exercise enlightened leadership" for the global community.

There are also some significant points of disagreement:

While both publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq before it was launched, Scowcroft believes it has "created new conditions" requiring that we stabilize the situation before leaving. As he put it, "I think simply withdrawing is an impediment to a solution. And Zbig thinks it helps."

Both believe that Russia is trying to re-assert pre-eminence in the territory of the former USSR, especially Georgia and Ukraine; both are skeptical of the utility of putting missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic; but Brzezinski favors the option of NATO membership for Ukraine while Scowcroft opposes it.

Scowcroft is more concerned than Brzezinski about a nuclear Iran, fearing that "we stand on the cusp of a great flowering of proliferation if Iran is not contained in its attempt to develop a capability for nuclear weapons;" but neither seems to have a good prescription for thwarting this development other that continuing the thus-far-futile effort to mobilize greater international pressure.

These wise men agree that U.S. policy has not adapted well to a world that is changing in fundamental ways. They want to "restore a confident, forward-looking America," and they are optimistic about the country's future - but only if it "can rise to the challenge of dealing with the world as it now is, not as we wish it to be."

There is something about this book that compells you to stop reading it for a second and to go to Amazon.com to say "something."

I love the format. You feel like you are sitting with Brzezinski, Scowcroft and Ignatius just listening as a child who seemingly should be in bed would sit on the stairway listening to grownups talk about important issues in the living room below.

What I especially like is the way you can stop and ponder what they are saying, or look up a point that is unfamiliar to you on the internet. I am new to foreign policy, and I'm hooked. A glossary or endnotes and a map would have been nice since many events, terms, etc. are new to me (what is the "green zone" or the "Perm Five", etc.) but this should not deter anyone.

I also like the gentlemenly way they discuss differing points of views as well as how they agree with each other. And you can almost smell the leather chairs... Enjoy!

--Sara

I had to make myself put this book down every so often as I wanted to read it all in one sitting. So far, I haven't finished the book yet but wanted to comment on it anyway. This is a non-partisan book containing much wisdom.

The authors are so knowledgeable and so wise about about how America can be a positive influence on world affairs (and how we have failed at times in the past). They both are highly critical of the attitude that America can push people around and go to war with anyone that we think is a threat.

They offer so much hope for our country and the world if we are led by people who truly understand the best way to go about our foreign poilicy. But to do that, we will need leaders who are willing to take the time to read and listen and be willing to explore a new way of being part of the world.

If most Americans would take the time to read and think about the important ideas in this book, we would have a so much better informed electorate when choosing those who will get our vote.

Refreshing in its candor and broad in scope, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have put forth sound ideas about how we got to where we are, globally, and where we stand now. Added to that, they have made recommendations for the incoming president. These two men, one Democrat and one Republican, are men of stature and experience and both have been successful negotiators, so when they speak, people listen. It would have been beneficial had the Bush administration heeded their advice in many areas.

Washington Post associate editor, David Ignatius, "chairs" the discussion, in that he set up a series of interviews with the two and plays the role of moderator. He's good at it, too, gently prodding them with his own thoughts. That Brzezinski and Scowcroft agree on most of the larger issues comes as little surprise. It hearkens back to the day when foreign policy had a bipartisan component...something that has all but disappeared.

The book covers such topics as Iraq, Israel and Pakistan, ("two unsolved problems") China, (and Asia) Russia and Europe. They comment on the changing world situation and if there is one person who is largely absent from their discussions, it is President Bush. Brzezinski is more open in his disdain for the current president and one gets the feeling that Scowcroft's impressions of Bush are similar but just under the surface. They do disagree to an extent about the timetable of withdrawal from Iraq and the European Union and NATO, with regard to Russia.

Each chapter is riveting and no words are wasted. Brzezinski and Scowcroft are clearly two who have thought long and hard about America and have some disheartening feelings about America's loss of respect around the world. But they are optimistic about American global leadership in general and that it's necessary for us to regain our footing when the new president assumes office. "America and the World" is a tour de force and I highly recommend it for the wealth of experience that Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have given in service to our country, which is shared with readers here.

If you had suppositions about how you thought the world was, this book brings to light that we are in an emerging age of the politicization of the world. The ushering out of the old Cold War mentality is now being replaced by a new awareness of self beyond borders and a higher conversation of how to achieve balance in the world. It is a stand that democracy cannot survive if it is militarily forced upon people, but instead, with alliances, can be allowed to take seed and to flourish. And that the United States is still capable of creating balance in the world, instead of the division caused by the mis-step of the War in Iraq. And it is written to the democratic and republican nominees for President of the United States. Well worth your time, Senator McCain and Senator Obama.

In a world threatened by political and religious conflicts, warning nations, nuclear threats, economic scarcities, human right violations and terrorist bombings, we need a roadmap to plot our foreign policies.
This book is such a roadmap; it plots many viable courses down some pretty threatening roads.

David Ignatius has paired two experienced All-Star foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, to discuss America's future and the decisions that will confront us. David's question and answer format is always interesting with in-depth discussion on all topics. David, Brent and Zbig do not always agree, and they have different political affiliations, which makes the reading much more interesting.

I am accustomed to a faster read, but many times I paused just to let the discussion sink-in. I needed to ponder the ramifications. As a consequence, this book really challenged my belief system. And I often referred to my world globe. (Who was it that said, wars are Gods way of teaching Americans geography?)

The depth and breath of topics covered is extraordinary and the countries discussed are those you hear about nightly on CNN: Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and India, China, India, Japan and the European Union, Russia and the former soviet block spin-offs. But, you do not hear this depth of reporting and insights on CNN; this is what the joint chiefs probably talk about for hours in the White House.

Terrorism was discussed:
The discussions covered our new global reality. Today, outdated cold war thinking and solutions obscure new global realities such as fighting terrorism. NATO was a solution to the cold war, how relevant is NATO now? How can we better protect against terrorism today, who are our partners, what assets do we use? The internet is a great asset and a hindrance as it helps terrorists communicate and spread their fear of death ideology around the globe. Zbig stated that the U.S. is, "too frightened in this age of terrorism, too hunkered down behind physical and intellectual walls."
Anti terrorism is, after all, identifying your enemies and dealing with them appropriately. The poster child of terrorists is Al-Qaeda so we go after them in Afghanistan.

Combating terrorism is about intelligence gathering. I would have liked to read commentary about the electronic intelligence gathering systems used by the TSA, NSA and CIA. I guess that's another book.

Afghanistan was discussed:
Post 9-11, NATO convened and voted for Article V, "condemning terrorism and calling on (but did not fully commit) member states to assist another member under attack." The U.S. did not seek further commitments from our allies, but mobilized into Afghanistan and militarily freed Afghan cities from the Taliban and Al Qaeda, all who retreated into Pakistan. What might have happened had we sought further solidarity with our allies in NATO? Might the U.N. become involved and helped politically? We will never know. Later we assisted Afghanistan in setting up a new democracy, which we are obligated to support and nurture.
This December week president Obama sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan to again overthrow the Taliban and defeat Al-Qaeda. (All who may just again retreat back to Pakistan?) Listening to Obama's speech, I realized he'd heard many hours of enlightened foreign policy rhetoric by his own national security advisor, the joint chiefs and his field commanders. He had to frame all these discussions into a sales talk to convince the American people that a troop surge was necessary, a talk to be understood by Americans, not necessarily the world.
My take away, and the advice expounded by Zbig and Brent was that once you go down this path (of war started in 2002) that you open up variables and conditions that are very much out of your control. Brent stated that, "War has a momentum of its own. Just the fact of making war creates a new environment, which may be favorable or may be unfavorable, But it's frequently different from what anyone can anticipate." Zbig stated: In Iraq we have become, "the solitary player, relying...on force...to structure what cannot be structured by force. We try to do it on the cheap and end up doing it in the manner that becomes prohibitively costly for us." Still, the U.S. must finish the imbalance we created in the region. That much is our responsibility.

The thesis for the U.S. incursion into Iraq was discussed:
In 2002 we all knew Saddam had chemical weapons of mass destruction. He used them to kill hundreds of Kurdish people. Saddam bragged to the media that he had these weapons of mass destruction. Zbig stated, "Saddam was bluffing." Brent's reply, "In retrospect it was quite clear. Saddam was afraid of his neighbors (Iran) and afraid of his own people."
In America and Britain it way easy to believe this murderous tyrant was telling the truth, we assumed he had these weapons. Look at the political damage this assumption caused the Bush administration. Eliminating these weapon systems was our major thesis for going into Iraq. What if we had gone into Iraq based solely on human rights violations? Again we will never know.

I've highlighted only some of the discussions regarding current policy topics. David's chapters cover dozens of other foreign policy decisions in foreign lands.

It has been a few days since I finished the book. I still reflect on what I learned. I suppose we all have to make decisions based on limited knowledge. Many of our world's leaders make decisions based upon this ambiguity. When we look up and see the sky, do we all see the same sky?

America and the World paints a hope filled future for America and the World. In an interconnected world where America is less centric as a superpower...what is good for the world can be good for America.

Robert F. McLaughlin AIA, NCARB

I checked this book out from the Library over this last weekend. The conversation is between Bret Scowcroft and Zibignew Brzenski on how they viewed and presently view foreign policy. Bret served under a Republican administration and Zbig under a Democrat.
What's delightful is that these conversation gave the other a chance to disagree or dispute opinions. There was very little of that. I feel that the dialog between these two Foreign Security advisors was throughly open and honest.
In reading this book I gained a fuller understanding of American foreign policy in the past, it's successes and failures. Historically this is a very important book. Much of what is said at this 'conversation' was never reported nor analyzed at the time events took place.
Their conversations about past and future policies in China, Russia and the Middle East give clarity to both tenses.
The disappointing part of this book is that no attention is paid to Latin America and little to Africa. (Egypt is mentioned but only in the case of Israel.)

This is the best book I have seen that both lays out many of the major current foreign policy choices the US faces today and in the years ahead while providing enough context and background to be helpful to citizens interested in informing themselves about these matters. It is a primer that also offers food for thought. You don't need to agree with the views expressed to benefit from understanding how two prominent, still highly respected foreign policy analysts view the challenges and choices that lie ahead of us.

Brzezinksi and Scowcroft combine experience at the highest levels of government with a willingness to elaborate their reasoning processes with greater richness, openness and candor than is typically the case with those currently serving in government or aspiring to do so. They are both intellectually curious in challenging themselves over the years since they served to understand how the world has changed, and they offer large, strategic thinking and ideas.

One can of course challenge and disagree with their analyses. And the book is not entirely free of vague passages. Given the high quality and minimal extent of BS in their remarks taken as a whole, though (kudos to the editors), I took this as more a reflection of these practitioners' evolving thinking than as evasiveness.

Would that we had more seasoned public servants willing to share their thoughts in this way--and able to make it worth readers' while when they do. I found the book interesting, informative, and an enjoyable and quick read as well.

Great reading for some of the most experimented foreing policy analysts. It's a recorded interview with two National Security Advisors to Ford and Bush Senior, Scowcroft, and to Carter, Brzezinsky. They talked answering questions from a moderator from Hamas to China and Iran.

This book provides a wonderful view into world affairs. Both Brzezinski and Scowcroft have served as National Security Advisors and are probably the two best respected authorities on International Affairs. David Ignatius, editor for the Washington Post, is the moderator for the book.

The book is set up as a series of interviews between Zrzezinski and Scowcroft moderated by Ignatius. You even get little headers to tell you who is speaking when with each chapter devoted to some of the most pressing world affair problems out there.

I found the book quite easy to read and filled with some very level headed thinking on world affairs.

Some cautions though: I felt that both Zbig and Scowcroft were careful and very diplomatic in towing their party lines to an extent, held back and didn't really come out with some of the problems facing America. They kept their thinking global and pro-world vs pro-America and in some areas like climate change they played into the hype vs really looking at the costs and what it means to do these kinds of big things. Although in their defense these guys are great poker players, global strategists, and diplomats so they have to look at all sides and be welcoming to all in some respects. They play in a strange arena having to be pro-world while at their core they have to be pro-america (I hope). Its like hearing CIA spies talking never knowing if this guy is a spy, a double agent, or a triple agent. Whose side are these guys on? and I dearly hope they're on our side.


Overall, I found the book worthwhile to read as it gives you insight into what these guys are thinking but at the same time as you read the book you can't help but feel the slight tug of an undertow current that lies just below the calm surface; an undertow current that you are not told about but which you are left to decypher on your own. I don't know if the two writers and Ignatius don't mention this on purpose, if its irrelevant, or if they just don't know. Don't get me wrong, I'm not conspiratorial its more like things are left unsaid.

So overall, the book is great but it certainly does not cover domestic affairs, only international affairs and these only within the narrow scope of the author's experience and expertise. This is good in the sense that they keep to their strenghts and don't write about stuff that they don't know about but don't expect a book about everything or expect to be entirely enlightened after reading this book. So this book is not about America and then also about how America relates to the world -- this book is purely about how America relates to the world. You should come out with a baseline context for world affairs and the world we're coming from and moving into.

Its almost as if this book needs to be part of a 3 book series: with a second book being about domestic affairs and then a capstone book that puts it all together. As it stands, this book gives you only the world affairs portion of the picture.

Good luck.