Most Helpful Customer Reviews
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The American Project, December 31, 2004
Walter Russell Mead is the Henry A Kissinger Senior Fellow on US Foreign Policy at the Council of Foreign Relations and the intellectual power that he brings to bear on the issues of foreign policy are as impressive as his job title. He marshals the disciplines of politics, economics, sociology, history and religion to produce a provocative and compelling analysis of America and its role in the world.
This important book describes what Mead calls the "American Project...to protect our own domestic security while building a peaceful world order of peaceful states linked by common values and sharing a common prosperity." This project is rooted in American history and tradition. (This work should be read in tandem with Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis.)
Mead identifies four schools of thought that animate our way of thinking about foreign policy. 1)Wilsonians are idealistic internationalists who believe the spread of democracy abroad will give us security at home - many of the neoconservatives are of this persuasion. Present-day Wilsonians are notable for their lack of confidence in international institutions. 2)Jeffersonians adhere to isolationism, even less of an option today than it was in the 19th century. 3)Hamiltonians are the business class that promote enterprise at home and abroad; they believe that globalization contributes to peace and security. 4)Jacksonians are described as "populist nationalists." They have the individualist's suspicion of government. And, oh yeah, they like to fight. In foreign policy that translates into overwhelming force and total victory.
The Bush administration's war on terror has been, according to Mead, a combination of Revival Wilsonianism and Jacksonianism. The internal conflict between these two approaches are never more obvious than in the present occupation of Iraq. While the Wilsonians are delicately trying to plant the seeds of democracy, the Jacksonians want victory over the evildoers regardless of the consequences.
Another trend that Mead describes is the shift from managed capitalism ("Fordism") which is a cooperative arrangement among the managers of state, business, and labor to a global capitalism ("millenial capitalism") which is less regulated and less equitable in its distribution of winners and losers. The Hamiltonians are promoters of millenial capitalism. It is a worldwide phenomenon that the state elites dislike because it diminishes their control over the economy. One more reason they hate us. The poor also liked the old system because it brought government subsidies. Alas, they too hate us.
Mead's prescription for helping the poor is of course in tune with millenial capitalism. The money for old style foreign aid is no longer there since Western governments are all running huge deficits already. He advocates private banks lending money in the form of microloans. This has been done succussfully in Bangladesh and elsewhere. (Read Banker to the Poor:Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty by Muhammad Yunus.) Outreach to the poor is not only a good in and of itself but it also provides fewer soldiers for international terrorism.
The Revival Wilsonianism of the Bush administration also has a religious element. Mead believes that the religious aspect of the foreign policy agenda should be embraced by us and the rest of the world as a basis for action since international institutions are not providing us with the proper values necessary to guarantee our security. This is where I part company with Mead. Even though international institutions have failed on many occassions, I still have more confidence in the United Nations than evangelicals in charge of foreign policy. We must guard against becoming like the enemy; trying to fight Islamic fanaticism or fascism with evangelical Christianity is not the proper course. The proper solution would be reforming existing international institutions to reflect new realities. Long live the separation of church and international governance.
This book is very good at identifying the domestic sources of our search for solutions to our international problems. The goal of this book was to offer important discussion on securing America domestically within a network of states that share our values and it achieves that goal reasonably well.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a perfect book, June 9, 2004
This book, along with John Lewis Gaddis' SURPRISE, SECURITY AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, will tell you what's going on in U.S. foreign policy and why. POWER, TERROR, PEACE, AND WAR is a page-turner. I read it in two days, and am now wishing for more. Probably the most important aspect of the book is that it explains what America is trying to build in the world, not just what America is trying to destroy. It also explains why the world is not convinced that the American project is either sound or good. POWER, TERROR, PEACE, AND WAR contains the most balanced assessment of the Bush White House I have seen. I would not call this book an argument for American unilateralism, although it does explain why the Bush administration has acted as unilaterally as it has. And I cannot predict, after reading this book, which candidate Walter Russell Mead will vote for in 2004. The final chapter is a tour de force, offering novel solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to U.N. reform, to Mexican immigration and to the retirement of the Baby Boomers (hint: the last two issues are linked). Amazing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
21 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
An uneven but enthusiastic defense of American unilateralism, May 21, 2004
This is largely a justification of American foreign policy. Mead's position is that Bush made mostly the right choices even if some of the planning and execution were not the best. Along the way I think Mead does a good job of explaining why the current administration believes that preemptive wars and unilateralism are sometimes necessary. He uses a plethora of coinages, American Revivalists, Arabian Fascism, millennial capitalism, harmonic convergence, Wilsonian Revivalism, Fordism, etc., in an attempt to provide a historical context. To be honest I got a little lost among these labels and had to frequently turn to the index to look up their first use so as to keep them straight in my head. Mead's approach is bipartisan and he strives to make it non-religious as well, although ending the book with a quote from Christ is perhaps not the best way to achieve that, nor is some seeming naivete about the double meaning of the word "revival." Indeed one gets the sense that Mead is not only cozying up to neoconservatives but to Christian fundamentalists as well. Nonetheless he also quotes the Prophet; and the label he pins on Middle Eastern terrorists, "Arabian Fascists," attempts to secularize the conflict. Of course he can use all the labels he wants (some of which are clearly euphemistic while others are attempts at political correctness and bipartisanship); regardless the conflict between the West and the terrorists in the Middle East will continue to be played out in quasi-religious terms. In addition to labels, Mead also uses special terms to define American power. There is "sharp," "soft," "sticky," and "sweet" power. Sharp power is military force and it is, to use Mead's words, "a very practical and unsentimental thing." (p. 26) Soft power is "cultural power, the power of example." Sticky power is economic power and it is sticky because it enmeshes others into economic dependence on business with the US. Sweet power is pretty much the same thing as soft power, "the power of attraction to American ideals, culture and power." (p. 36) In some places in the world, I would guess, sweet power would more properly be called "saccharine power." Clearly this is American foreign policy seen from and justified from an American point of view. Thus Mead writes, "We do not want to...[impose] our will at gunpoint, but we also do not want to live in a world in which the United States cannot act without permission from a majority of other countries." (p. 63) This seems reasonable, and at any rate is realistic, but there is a fine line between realpolitik and the sort of absolutist belief in our righteousness that leads to the use of force to impose our will. Indeed Mead writes "that, for neoconservatives and Revival Wilsonians generally, American power is itself the summum bonum of world politics." He adds, "The End is so noble...that realist means are fully justified." (p. 90) The danger here is that along the way we may become that which we are fighting against. Sometimes Mead's tone gets away from him and we are treated to indecorous outbursts. For example, while justifying the invasion of Iraq as a part of the greater war on terror, Mead writes, "This was a war, and the enemy had to learn who was the strongest and, if it came to that, the most ruthless." (p. 117) I dearly would hope that we can conduct the "war" against terrorists without becoming more ruthless than the terrorists. At other times he is a bit snide, as when he remarks that "stroking Europe only seemed to increase Europe's already inflated sense of its importance in the world of American foreign policy." (p. 132) This is the mentality of the old politics among nations based on power. However I don't think this is the way we can best achieve American values and goals in the world. As Mead himself admits later on, less than five percent of the world's population, regardless of its power, cannot hope to control the other 95%. (p. 212) Often Mead uses fuzzy phrases to make what are largely rhetorical points. In this way he reveals the politician in his soul rather than the professional journalist that he is. For example he writes, "The United States is not going to slow down its capitalist development to avoid offending the sensitivities of foreign countries..." (p. 159) But what does "capitalist development" mean? Is that the development of the Brazilian jungle or the Iraqi oil pipelines or is that about some infrastructure at home? One can discern Mead's bottom line position from this statement on page 160: "A perfectly justifiable military action against the rogue regime in Iraq was effectively and widely portrayed as an assault by the United States against the foundations of international order." And one can see that he has a desire to broaden the war on terror when he avers that "Countries that allow their territory to host terror camps...and who...allow their financial systems to be used...[by] terrorist groups, are committing acts of war against civilization." (p. 174) I tend to agree with this sentiment, but does that mean we should consider invading Saudi Arabia? Where I find myself in substantial agreement with Mead is that the structure of the United Nations must be amended in such a way as to reflect the actual distribution of power in the world. As Mead notes it is not right that (for example) France should have veto power over the rest of the world, or that a country with a million people should have the same voting power as a country with a billion people. Indeed, I believe that restructuring the UN and other international organizations such as the WTO should be a major goal of US foreign policy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
