Customer Reviews

Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy

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

 

 

This book was welcome follow-up to Benjamin Barber's famous book Jihad vs. McWorld and in it he expands on the themes of already established in that book. In many ways the first book foretold the present foreign policy challenges faced by the 'North'and the 'Sout'h'. However, unlike harsher dialectics proposed by Samuel Huntington and more recently Richard perle in his draconian solution to world problems featured in the lamentable but unequivocably harsh "An End To Evil", Barber does not speak in terms of black or white. His approach is well reasoned, and differs in tone even from other alternative, or so called 'liberal' texts that criticize America's current foreign policy approach. Barber writes with reason and suggests that rather than exporting democracy and markets, the more priviliged world under America's leadership should be engaged in the building of citizens and civil society first, for it is on that basis that lasting democracies are built. I found the book became more interesting and engaging in the second half where the argument against the idea of a preventive war, turns into an argument against the éxport'of democracy for the creation of the right structures and circumstances that help to build and sustain democracy in the developing world. This is an important work that should be read by all those who wish to understand - reasonably and without hyperbole - the dangers of America's current foreign policy

I've been thinking of reading this book; Reading Gaetan Lion's negative review convinced me to go ahead, since in my view Lion's polemic overreaches. This is one way I decide whether or not to read or not read books -- by profiling the reviewers and analyzing their polemics.

In more than 100 reviews on Amazon, Lion writes in a concise, informative way, giving generally balanced in-depth reviews. But something in this book peeves him. I wan't to find out what it is, since his overt criticims just don't seem justified to me.

In his review, Lion criticizes Barber for failing to recommend specific solutions to the Jihad vs. McWorld dilemma. Lion finds Barber's "preventative democracy" too unspecific.

I would suggest that the principles of preventative democracy are so simple that Barber felt no need to elaborate. Brainstorming a few as fast as I can type and think:

1) Pay for election monitoring processes (UN does this well)
2) Support micro-loans, a well known economic strategy
3) Do not send weapons systems to dictators, this just distracts
them from trying to become more democratic.
4) Give grants for internet infrastructure to increase the
power of free media in countries where there is little
5) Do not train military advisors from countries that do not
practice democracy.
6) Support religious freedom
7) Increase cultural exchanges with so-called "bad" countries
to allow democratic ideals to penetrate their insularity

I don't understand why Lion faults Barber for omitting specifics as a wide slate of democracy-enhancing programs is well-known.

Lion also writes, strangely that "[Barber] forgets that we have tried the "preventive democracy" route, supported by hundreds of $millions in foreign aid, in our dealings with the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire."

In my view, the historical reality in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current hot spots, is that most of US funding went into speculative military alliances, not democracy making or nation building. Specifically,

1) In Iraq, funding went to support a CIA coup and install and sustain Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years as tyrannical dictator of Iraq, complete with Stalinist purge (and execution) of parlimentary members. The US helped arm Hussein with chemical weapons (which he used with delight against the Kurds), fund his war against Iran in retaliation for the Islamic radicalism inspired there by US support of another dictator, The Shah. This aid was not, as Lion suggests, preemptive democracy, but preemptive dictatorship support.

"Check out the details:

http://208.39.216.125/news/2003/12/5936.php

The war cost is currently at 95 billion dollars. So when Barber suggests using multilateral democratic persusion, it seems obvious to me that he means spending that 95 billion not on war, but on democracy-making alternatives. After all, if we are going to spend 95 billion dollars, we should invest it in democracy. That's the point. Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it's so much more cost effective to support fledgeling democracies than fight failed dictatorships. Way more cost effective. It's like Head Start. Every dollar in up front pays itself off four times over in future costs.

2) In Afghanistan, the US funded the Taliban against the Soviet Union; At the time, the President's CIA men bragged at what a neat strategy they had cooked up, blending fanatical, fundamentalist Islam with militarism to create a guerilla army that defeated the USSR in the first Mother of All Battles. After the US defeated the Taliban though, they just migrated to Pakistan, where they continue today in huge numbers. We still have the Taliban, only they're in Pakistan. One wonders what would have happened if Afghanistan had simply waited out Soviet domination for a few more years and then gone independent when the rest of the Eastern Block of the USSR broke up.

In essense, both countries manipulated USA cold war paranoia. The pretended to be our friends just long enough to get enough aid and arms to take over their countries, though they disguised this as it was happenging. Once they had won their battles though, the psychological inertia of the shadow warrior state took over, along with a tyrannical facism (Iraq), and fundamentalism (Afghanistan).

One interesting futurism: Barber is an advisor on foreign affairs to democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, potentially the next president of the United States. If Dean is elected, we are going to be hearing alot more about Mr. Barber. He could potentially even be appointed Secretary of State.

Read the book, and see what you think.

Kip Leitner

JIHAD vs. McWorld was good, but this is much better! Above all the author well understands the importance of what George Washington once emphasized as a maxim of American Foreign Policy: international coordination. What the Bush Administration has done so far is almost reversal of the heritage. Preventive war (means nothing but invasion) not Preemptive war, list of 'Rogue States,' democratization with missiles, etc. Only 10 out of about 200 countries reluctantly follow the U.S. The author excellently illuminates such endangering America. Really brilliant! I am convinced that Prof. Hoffmann also recommends.

A couple of centuries ago, essayists voiced opinions in newspapers or pamphlets. Some, hidden in anonymity, could counsel protest and sedition. Today's freer societies allows the writer to drop a mask hiding identity. Voicing opinions openly is easier. The downside is that it may take a whole book. And the problems appear to be looming far larger than they were long ago. Examining foundation causes takes more ink. In this insightful study, Benjamin Barber applies the best essayist's style to address the issues underlying today's American expansionism. A nation that once based its relationship with other nations on the promise that it would never start a war, has adopted an unilateral adventurist role. And that new identity has far outstripped in time and scope any historical precedent. The entire globe is threatened with becoming "Americanised". Why should that be happening?

With clear, incisive prose Barber examines the roots of the values held in the United States and how those are being manifested in its "foreign policy". Once, it was important to Americans that society be governed by "the rule of law". This commonly-used and nearly trite phrase reflected both the foundation of compromise among the States embodied in the US Constitution and in how Americans interacted with other nations. The attitude created a sense of moral superiority to American dealings with other nations - an attitude Barber labels "exceptionalism". This high sense of self-worth carried the American population across the continent. Who else could coin a term like "Manifest Destiny" to sweep aside indigenous peoples in creating a contiguous empire?

Once the North American landmass was occupied, according to Barber, the United States could sit smugly isolated from the remainder of the planet. Two global conflicts, which the Americans viewed in absolutist terms, eroded the notion of "isolationism", but didn't erase the concept of "exceptionalism". With the high moral fervour it adopted in pursuing two world wars, the United States has entered on an expansionist programme, accellerated by the attack on the World Trade Centre. That assault gave the Republican incumbent administration the impetus to use fear in two directions - within the United States and beyond its borders.

Are Bush's foreign policies derived from his cabal of "neo-con" advisors? Barber dismisses that notion. Bush, he says, is sufficiently motivated by a strong belief in America's "missionary rationales" and "exceptional virtue". With the power available to enforce those values elsewhere, Barber demonstrates how Bush is able to divide the world into "Manichean camps" of good and evil. From that stance the President has convinced enoughAmericans that foreign intervention is just and proper. It allows him to sacrifice troops in a flawed campaign to force democracy in Iraq at gunpoint while retaining domestic support. Using fear at home allows Bush to instill fear abroad. Barber insists that all that military might driven by a sense of dread, real or manufactured, is a threat to global security. If American hegemony isn't sustainable in today's conditions, what can restore stability?

Barber reminds his readers of US leadership in forming the United Nations. He notes that the theme of "internationalism" of the post-WWII era was too vague and utopian. The fear of eroded "national sovereignty", he argues, should be replaced by a new, pragmatic idea - "interdependence". Interdependence recognises that all nations have their own interests. Like the collection of States making up the US, Barber's proposed framework would work through mutual respect and compromise. Bush's assault on Afghanistan and Iraq shows how far the US has moved from its post-war ideals. "Independence", as currently expressed in the US' exceptionalist framework, is a false mythology. Barber wants it replaced by a realistic outlook. "Pax Americana", reflective of the "Pax Romana" of the Roman Empire, is unsustainable. It is nothing more than an expression of power which must ultimately fail.

If we must adopt labels, Barber argues, then let us adopt "lex humana" or a rule of law for all people. Barber suggests the US learn to cope with "preventive democracy" - variations of the American model applicable to different cultures. He offers examples of democratic societies that aren't blind imitations of what the US practices. For numerous reasons, other societies cannot simply copy the US blueprint. They must build with their own materials and plans to build similar structures of equal strength. The only aspect of this book lacking is the mechanism by which one man might be convinced to shed the false mythologies he's operating under - and dragging the American people with him. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

There are so many books out there on Terrorism, Politics, Foreign Diplomacy and how America is seen in the eyes of the world...Barber has been writing about it for a long time.

Read the reviews for all the other books he's written and you will see that this man is a highly regarded and consistent writer. It's so easy to theorize. Barber walks the walk and talks the talk.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this book. You'll also feel like you have a better sense of what America needs to do in order to come to terms with a reality in this world that is greater than America's borders...and America's bank accounts...and America's dream of "manifest destiny".

I finished this book feeling like there was something I could do in response to what's happening in my world. I don't have to "leave it to others" to get involved and make decisions. I can choose to live in an interdependent world...not one where everybody is killing everybody else - or forcing everybody else to do things "their way" in the name of their "independence".

Thank you, Mr. Barber...but, as I'm sure you know, "you can lead horses to water but you can't make 'em drink".

Barber geeft een ontluisterend beeld van de Amerikaanse buitenlandse politiek in de eerste jaren van de regering-Bush. Dit boek, dat in 2003 kort na de inval in Irak verscheen, analyseert op heldere wijze de gammele, illegale en onrealiseerbare uitgangspunten van de 'War on Terrorism'. In tegenstelling tot de beschouwingen van bijvoorbeeld de querulanterige John Gray (Black Matter, Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern) legt Barber overtuigender de achterliggende structuren en falende ideologie in de Amerikaanse politiek weer die tot het strategische en diplomatiek echec geleid hebben waar de US zich in 2009 in bevindt. Opmerkelijk, en afwijkend van de meeste andere beschouwingen over dit onderwerp, speelt de factor olie bij Barber een marginale rol. Dat is op zich wel verfrissend (de Amerikaanse olie-belangen in het Midden Oosten leveren vaak erg mono-causale verklaringen ter verduidelijking van de buitenlandse politiek van de US op), maar doet uiteindelijk de compleetheid van Barbers essay geweld aan.

This book is interesting, it is a quick and easy read. It uses many references to great political theorist that can lead to new pathways of learning. However, the basic premise of his book appears to be incorrect in my opinion. The man is clearly a "Leftist," easily denoted from his diction is descriptive matters. However, even though he is a leftist, which I generally do no subscribe to, he is still informative, and his opinions cannot be dismissed offhand.

This is interesting to read, you can learn from it. But I have learned more in recognizing and analyizing its follies rather than susbcribing to its doctrine.

It is well written, if not necessarily backed thourghouly in its basic premise, but the style of writting makes it enjoyable and quick enough to race right through.

Recommended for those who would like to see how others may think.

Barber is a quintessential liberal thinker who believes in unabridged ability of human beings to do good thinks - like improving living conditions and spreading good governance. Hence his vision on how to spread good things in the world - by reasoning, education, being nice, sacrificing sovereignity for the sake of international institutions, and acting on international arena in the way that is devoid of selfish motives.

In the end of the day, this idealistic vision brings Barber to lamenting the downfall of the Taliban. If anything, it proves that road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That is why.


1. That is a perfect agenda for acting with humans, societies, and governments that share your basic values and visions. This is not a preventive, but rather supportive democracy. It definitely has a legitimate role in international politics - but only this far.
2. Let us admit that not everyone is nice and can be changed by proper education. Some of the worst dictators like Fidel were educated in the West. Some of the worst terrorists, like 9-11 or London 7-7 bombers, received everything from the Western society in terms of education, affluence, and opportunities. This brings to the question whether liberal Wilsonian thinking is a proper compass to navigate yourself beyond the world of shared values.
3. Dictators, fanatics, and terrorist actually understand the power of good ideas. That is why they block their spread. You can educate and be nice to the people only where you are allowed to. Preemptive dictators easily block preemptive democracy by sensoring books, closing borders, disrupting broadcasts. Here is why wilsonian idealism stops. It simply does not know how to deal with the people who only perfect themselves in being evil. Oh, Mr Barber, did you travel to Kabul in 1999? Why did not you go and talk and convince Mulla Omar about the virtue of good education? Yeah, it is easy to talk multilateralism in New York and Berlin. But it is only because that is where it works.

4. Unlike what Barber says, terrorism is for real, and it is nourished by the dictatorial states. The threat of nuclear proliferation is for real and North Korean testings only confirm this. Here, Barber goes into what every ideologue (no matter left or right) falls when reality does not coincide with vision: that is, denial. Denial that evil in the world is not constrained to George W. Bush and neocons.

5. This denial makes him fail to recognize the fact that dictators and terrorists free ride on multilateralism. That is, they use international institutions, rules, treaties, etc., to obstruct democratic powers, to bind their hands, and to go on: with repressions, genocide, nourishing terrorism, etc. If you need examples how multilateralism kills, look at Bosnia and Darfur.
6. Preemptive democracy beyond the area of shared values is hence nothing but cover-up for this free-riding.
7. One thing I totally agree with Barber is much what he says about the Iraq war. It was a wrong decision to go into it. But let us face it: the character of war changed dramatically since 2003. It is no longer the war on Saddam's state. It is the war on stateless terrorism, on the people ready to slaughter their ethnic and religious kin, on the people ready to kill Italians, Russians, Jordanians, Shia, whatever stays in their front. Withdrawal from this war is capitulation equal to Munich. Oh, yeah, peace for our time, like Chamberlain said.
8. By no means war shall be a primary weapon in spreading democracy. But it shall be an option in exceptional cases. Let us admit not humans are perfectible. Let us acknowledge that some have to be constrained and deterred. Let us agree that rules of contstraining, deterring, and if necessary destroying evil shall not be entrusted with the bodies where Libya chairs the human rights commission. If we want for multilateralism: let us organize the community of democracies. Let us recognize that Luxembourg shall have more voice on the international arena than China only because it does not slaughter and persecute its people. If this is the case, I will have no problem to give Luxembourg and the US equal voice.

Preventive democracy shall be the first choice of the tool because it is safe and because it is nice. But insisting that this is the only available tool means denial of the obvious. If the world could have been changed by the nice means only, it could have been a nice world. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Insisting on the opposite means disarming oneselves from Osamas, Kim Jong Ils, and Akhmadinejads.

And that is why Barber mourns the downfall of the Taliban.

This book is a marvelous peace of work.
This book discusses the current strategy of our nation within Middle East.
The book offers long term solutions for the Jewish, Muslim and Christian and other states for international law and peace.
The book also discusses the key roles for Democratic states in establishing socio-economic stability for world peace .
Long term solutions are discussed for combatting and or eliminating terrorism with joint states.
The book also offers a guide for shaping Sentimental/political reforms with economic, and educational justice.
It is a roadmap for Israel/US/India/Pakistan and surrounding countries within the region for Peace and Prosperity.
Dr. barber has been requested to speak at prestigious educational and government institutions around the world.

A wonderful book - the best I have read so far among quite a few books covering America's foreign policy and recent events. A learned, lucid, and compelling response to the doctrine of preventive attack and unilateral military action against other states.