17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
quick and useful read but incomplete, August 27, 2004
For the reader interested in a quick and easy introduction to the history of American multilateralism and a critique of the Bush unilateral approach, this is a useful book. On the other hand it is too sketchy and a bit simplistic.
For example, it really doesn't deal with the problems of utilizing the United Nations to deal with issues such as Iraq.
One of the repeated criticisms of the multilateral approach is that countries like Russian and France had economic interests in Iraq which prevented them from being willing to take action there to topple Saddam's regime. The argument is the kind of coalition which backed the Gulf war was not possible because of these collusions. I have never seen this effectively refuted. This is the kind of depth of examination which I believe is necessary to support multilateralism vs unilateralism.
Furthermore, the author contends that the invasion of Iraq created more potential terrorists and thus increased the chances of terrorism in the world. I did not read one piece of evidence supporting this contention. Although I believe it is true, the author did not back it up as I believe that he should.
The author did not extend his discussion to deal with likely hotspots like North Korea and Iran. How would a multilateral approach deal with these issues? How would it deal with "rogue nations" other than these?
One can look on this book as a good start for the full blown and fully articulated defense of multilateralism and critique of unilateralism that is so vitally needed at this time. I still await such a book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Balanced Review of Lessons from Roosevet and Wilson, November 12, 2004
This is a balanced book, well-grounded in history, with an objective air and a very pleasing integration of specific quotes from both the past and the present. It strips away the false airs of the neo-cons, and with trenchant scholarship shows how deeply ignorant America's neo-conservatives and their leading light are of the lessons of history.
The early portion of the book provides an excellent overview, concise, documented, easy to absorb, of the origins of American imperialism in the early century of Christian millennialism followed by civil millennialism. The chart on page 17 is useful, covering the seven period of various styles of American imperialism or avoidance thereof.
The book documents the explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of empires based on conquest and distance rule, and of foreign political entanglements.
I especially liked a 1780 quote from Reverend Samuel Cooper that captures my own personal belief in how America should relate to the world: "Conquest is not indeed the aim of these rising states; sound policy must ever forbid it. We have before us an object more truly great and honorable. We seem called by heaven to make a large portion of this globe a seat of knowledge and liberty, of agriculture, commerce, and arts, and what is more important than all, of Christian piety and virtue."
I find it relevant that Mark Twain, among many others in our history, was a staunch opponent of American imperialism.
The middle portion of the book provides a non-judgmental review of how America was lured into imperialism for largely economic reasons, including a fear of losing access to China as well as coaling stations for a global navy.
At the same time, there is a recurring theme throughout the book of the arrogance and ignorance of white Protestants, who believed-as the Spanish did when they began the genocide in the Americas-that the heathen are savages that must be either absorbed or exterminated.
Especially interesting to me is the concept discussed in the book regarding the early American view that all land not under direct human cultivation was "waste land" whose occupants merited removal as a precondition to "civilized" stewardship [exploitation] of the land.
Theodore Roosevelt is discussed in both negative and positive terms-I have the note in the margin here of Roosevelt as the originator of what can easily be called "macho shit racism"-yet Roosevelt also matured, and ultimately set the stage for a discussion of the League of Nations concept.
Woodrow Wilson is the other historical figure in the center of the book, and his ideal of a collective multinational "conscience of the world" receives a good review. Critical within this section is Wilson early understanding that the "balance of power" model for nations was an inherent unstable model. To this I would add a pointer to my review of Philip Allot,
The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State where he documents the absurdity of allowing any crime against humanity to occur within any political boundary as part of the acceptance of sovereign borders.
Other specifics include a discussion of morality as an international force, of the importance of trust in mediators who avoid entanglements, of the CIA's early days sponsoring socialist alternatives to communism that now dominate Europe, and of the US failure to respect the North Vietnamese when they first declared independence and publicly stated their respect for the early American model of governance.
The final portion of the book is a review of modern history. Clinton comes across as disengaged, out-sourcing foreign policy to a very ineffective team, while Bush comes across as provincial and ignorant. In both cases the author notes that underlying conditions have changed, with various bits suggesting to me that there are three major things than have changed: capitalism has become immoral rather than innovative; democracy has become apathetic rather than engaged, and dictators have become the norm as US partners, rather than loathed.
The author links Ahmed Chalibi the thief and Iranian double-agent, with Bernard Lewis the historian fool, in a very compelling manner-both contributed to the debacle of Iraq by deceiving first the neo-conservatives, and then the American people.
The book concludes with some thoughtful assertions on the perils of empire, the legitimate historical and current grievances of the Muslims at large, and the urgency of returning to an American foreign policy that relies on collective security, a collective conscience, and a restoration of America's commitment to the rights of individuals to self-determination.
See also, with reviews:
The Fifty-Year Wound: How America's Cold War Victory Has Shaped Our WorldThe Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the PeopleThe Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on DemocracyThe Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It AloneA Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Remember Your History, November 28, 2004
I firmly believe that history can teach us virtually everything we need to know about our modern world. We have thousands of years of civilization behind us as humans, and a few hundred years behind us as Americans. We have the extreme benefit of learning from the mistakes of our fore-fathers and hopefully the wisdom to not repeat them. Unfortunately, it seems that we as a people are often forgetful or simply unlearned about the parallels between our world and the past. In his book, "The Folly of Empire," John B. Judis makes the case that the current Bush administration has been unwilling or unable to draw parallels between their present actions and the post-Imperialistic actions of previous generations.
Judis claims that the current Bush administration is leaping head-long into a new version of 19 th and 20 th century imperialism in modern Iraq. Bush, he states, is heading down the same failed road as some of his American predecessors have already tread. To illustrate this, Judis lays out two major examples of failed US imperialism: Theodore Roosevelt's attempts to annex the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba and Puerto Rico, and Woodrow Wilson's attempt to overthrow the Mexican dictator, Huerta. In a nutshell, both presidents had what seemed to be honest intentions in their attempts to secure democracy around the world. However, their aims were short-sighted in the sense that they caused more backlash and ultimately failure.
Overall, Judis's book creates a strong parallel between our seemingly forgotten past as a country, and the current administration. The neo-conservatives love their Roosevelt in all his muscular imperialism, but forget his failures. They remember the failed efforts of Wilson to create a multilateral world but forget his lessoned learned as an attempted "liberator." Later generations would again forget these lessons in Vietnam where the fate of the world lay in the balance of US intervention. They would confuse the communist domino effect with Vietnamese nationalism. And they would again forget it in Iraq. Judis's points are well taken; the promotion of democracy and the ousting of dictators may be necessary from time to time, but the motivations must be reassessed and compared to the lessons of history. If we selectively cut off our history, then we cut off a wealth of knowledge on how to govern our country in the modern era.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
