The reality about how the foreign policy is run
355531
This is a great book and it exposes the Israel loby and their influence inside the administration and the media. Maybe someday, someone will have the gut to say enough is enough and stop them. But until that day come, expect the worse from them. US keep sending them money and weapons even though we need that money badly here in education, healthcare and others just because of the influence of these people (AIPAC and others)
1818170
Former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has written a superb book about the diplomatic relations between the Great Powers since the origins of the state system since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. What is particularly interesting about this book is that the majority of it is written by Kissinger the academic; But three chapters covering the Nixon-Ford years are written by Kissinger the Statesmen. Kissinger tries to place himself within the context of other leaders throughout history, and show he tried to construct a foreign policy based on stratetic interests, and not moral or ideological concerns, which he believes have traditionally hampered US Foreign Policy. He is careful not to overplay his own role however. By far the majority of the narrative discusses other eras, with a special focus on the Cold War. Kissinger also explains his own theory of state behavior: States have overlapping and conflicting interests. Thus a certain amount of interstate war is inevitible. A statesmen should therefore focus on security, best gained through power, while leaving humanitarian and utopian issues aside. But the book is mostly a diplomatic history, focusing on the actions of individual leaders, and as such a compelling read.
2288358
The author's personal experience with our country's foreign relations is very eye-opening.  But, not too surprising!  He's just better at portraying what the situation really is than most.  I enjoyed this book.  I would recomend it.
4083657
Peters' is the high-quality thinking on geopolitical and military matters. Having written much the same unpopular truths over the years for Russian audience, I can only admire his courage and honesty.

Peters' approach to Arab-Israeli conflict is unusually balanced. His point is, basically, that both sides are content with status quo bellum, which allows them to draw the citizens' attention from otherwise unattractive civil realities. This is most definitely true.

His view of bin Laden and the likes as irrational terrorists is more dubious, until we realize that Peters probably speaks of their strategy rather than tactics. Evidently, they employ cruelly rational means to reach irrational objectives.

Peters' views on the professional intelligentsia sound very much Chomskian, though from entirely different perspective.

His critique of the US geopolitical strategy is incisive and quite correct. He concentrates on the often-overlooked major tenet of the American policy, preservation of borders, rightly arguing that this policy virtually guarantees ethnic conflicts of the Yugoslavian type.

Overall, this is one of the best books on modern politics.
4748104
Isn't it interesting how in just a few months we yet again see how Barry Rubin has delivered the goods and upset the favoured 'truths' of the foreign policy mandarins and think tanks.

Whilst European and US foreign policy pundits along with their governments have been cuddling up to arab despots, of which the Assads numbered amongst the worst, BR warned that the leopard didn't change its spots after marrying a nice english arabian girl, not even after having spent a few years studying to become an eye doctor (What with all the faked degrees that are handed out in the UK nowadays to despots kids willing to 'help' needy British universities, it was a blessing of sorts that Assad the Younger went back into daddy's business of being president rather than operating on gullible victim's eyes).

Well maybe a blessing for British people not having to undergo Assad's knife, but he seems to be wielding the knife pretty handily at the moment, 5,000 of his own people at the last count (December 2011) and rising.

There is shock horror in the West. How could this happen? After Bashir Assad was such a nice family man who along with his wife even appeared this year for a laudatory piece in Vogue.

Such a caring type would never commit gruesome massacres....

Well all this butchery is a surprise only to a west hoodwinked by ignorant journalists and university trained fools thinking along with the state department pack. The tyrants of the middle east know how to talk about democracy and human rights but in every arab regime lies the unmitigated and brutal power of the police state.

Rubin wrote all about the Baathist regime of the Assad's, of the mass murder in Hama, of the Lebanese parliamentarians who kept having their cars explode underneath them, of whom their prime minister Hariri was just the most famous example. Of the Syria that exported terror to Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled. And of course the Syria that allowed the mass murderers of Hamas to locate their headuqarters in Damascus, who sent waves of suicide bombers into Israel to explode themselves on buses and restaurants.

Of course as long as only Israel suffers, who cares? But Israel is the litmus test. What comes to Israel gets around after a while. The terror against Israel and Lebanon has now come to roost in Syria itself which is tearing itself apart.

And what is the world doing, the USA that was so happy to bomb a Libya that was no more a threat to any other country? The US has just sent its ambassador back to Damascus. This is after tasking islamist Turkey with setting up the opposition to Assad. Surprise surprise the opposition armed by Turkey and financed by the US has taken on a decidedly Moslem Brotherhood slant.

So how long will Assad last, not too much longer one hopes, but then what will replace Assad? Most likely the Moslem Brotherhood, and it just so happens that there's a very good book also written by Rubin to explain that unpleasant bunch. As with Iran one unpleasant regime will be replaced by an even nastier one.

The lesson to be taken from Rubin's book is not just that the arab world as represented by Syria is a bloodthirsty and cruel place to be, but that it will continue into the forseeable future to be a region where sham democracies and tyrannies will continue to be the rule . The only difference will be that the tyranny will increasingly have an islamist slant to it and gullible pundits in the west will just as formerly with the Assads mouth nonsensical platitudes about MB moderation.
2835270
Foreign Affairs is a bi-monthly publication of the Council on Foreign Relations and represents one of the most influential journals of international relations and diplomacy in print today.

Each print issue is nearly 200 pages long and is packed with insightful articles on all of the most important issues affecting the world today.  Some of the most significant foreign policies of the United States have been articulated within its pages, written by the most influential political figures of the day.  Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker, III, to name a few, have all been published in this journal.

It is an excellent choice for publication on the Kindle both because of the calibre of the content and the nature of the material presented -- this is not a magazine with pretty, glossy pictures in it.

Finally, at a price of only 1.99 a month, it simply cannot be beat.  Order today, and enjoy a whole new level of understanding of the world around you.
2579038
Antulio J. Echevarria II is a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and is currently the editor of the US Army War College Quarterly, Parameters. He is the author of several books, including Clausewitz and Contemporary War.  Georgetown University Press reviews include the following:

"Provides valuable synopses of the most important campaigns and explains what they reveal about developments in military practice, demonstrating the variety of ways in which US leaders have adapted their approaches to military force to fit the circumstances."Foreign Affairs

"Provides a valuable counterpoint to a topic relevant to current debates about American strategy and policy. It is always beneficial to understand clearly from whence one comes before determining where one ought to go."Lieutenant Colonel Brian L. Steed, US Army, Proceedings

"Asserts quite convincingly that what people actually did is at least as important and instructive as what they thought or said."US Military History Review, Robert S. Ehlers, Jr.
1688774
"S"ecretary of State looks at things this way.  Unlike many speculation for her presidential ambition, I did not take this book as her pre-campaign propaganda.  This looks back her days as Secretary of State as objectively as possible. Good reading for foreign policy folks.
176244
This book does agood job at dissecting the reason why we Americans are so easily seduced by war and the use of force but if you expect quick, Bush bashing rhetoric.....forget it. This a thoughtful, complex look at our foreign policy and even the author admits that his account is biased toward his career in the military but have patience . Be prepared to work to familiarize yourself with complexities in strategic thinking, foreign policy, domestic policy  and the coordination of those three areas .I have gotten about half way through but already am pleasantly surprised in being challenged in ways I did not expect. Enjoy

  Maestro
2274462
Our former Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger has it right: This book is a really compelling reality check for America. I have read a lot of books about Globalization, but this is one of its own kind. Why? Course the author is not satisfied with simple answers or populist doomsday scenarios. He delivers a lot of reporting on the ground from all the hot places - Kabul, Shanghai, New-Delphi  and others. And he delivers options for our tomorrows life and one of his option is really  outstanding:  The United States of the West. I don't know whether its realistic or not, but it seemed to be fascinating to bundle the whole power of the Western nations. May be the new administration in the White House should read this book. You know what: I will send one copy to the new President who ever will win.
1424710
With the state of world affairs it is easy to confirm the reality of this book.
3218476
In Bait and Switch: Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy, Julie Mertus presents a balanced and analytical view of how human rights have consistently been neglected as legitimate foreign policy considerations.  Although expecting to find human rights norms deeply "embedded" in post-Cold War presidential administrations and the U.S. military, Mertus finds that all too often U.S. foreign policy has been guided by a particularist "American exceptionalism" which threatens to undermine the core nature of universal human rights.

Julie Mertus provides a comprehensive and detailed examination of America's foreign policy decisions from a human rights perspective.  The issues raised in Bait and Switch have even more resonance in today's global environment, where fostering a human rights culture in America and abroad should be a priority. This an essential text for academics, policymakers, advocates and anyone interested in international affairs.
1171173
As the sub-title of this book indicates, this is not a Star Trek pastiche novel!  It is a look at the careers of part of the Bush White House-Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Condolezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz.  The goal of the book is to examine how their careers in government have shaped their views on foreign policy and the role of the US military.

 Mann's assertion is that the Vulcans have made a break from the previous post-WWII foreign policy which stressed pragmatism and detente, to a foreign policy which stresses: 1) the centrality and domination of the American military; 2) the reluctance to enter into treaties and alliances; 3) the idea that democracy and free markets should be spread around the world; and 4) an extraordinary sense of optimism.

How they formed these views over the years is the focus of the bulk of the book; only a small portion of the book deals with the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

 Mann's study seems well argued (and referenced), but I come away a bit dissatisfied with his lumping of Powell and Armitage with the other four.  While they both have both been major figures in the first term of Bush's presidency, they come off in Mann's account as being much more pragmatic, down-to-earth types, instead of the other four who focus much more on ideas and don't seem to worry about the details.

 While many will think this is a "liberal" attack on part of Bush's cabinet; Mann manages to stay objective and keeps his opinions to himself throughout most of the book.  There are a few cases in the last quarter of the book where he has a few strong opinions against the actions of the Bush administration, but he also proffers some for the Clinton administration and Chirac.

 And if you are curious as to why they are dubbed "Vulcans," it all has to do with a statue in Birmingham, Alabama (the hometown of Rice).
3902026
Ghost Wars is a prologue to everything that happened after 9/11.  Hard to read at times because we know the outcome, it is a telling documentation of an initially brilliant Cold War US policy that became a myopic, almost dismissive policy once the Soviet threat in Afghanistan was dealt with.  The missed opportunities, diplomatic missteps, and political paralysis that came to dominate US Mid-East policy in the late 80's and 90's is matched by a deep misunderstanding and underestimation of the cultures of the region.  Near the end, Hamid Karzai, upon being told of yet another in a long line of tragedies befalling his homeland, remarks, simply, "what an unlucky country."  By the end of this exhaustive and well-written book, you may be wondering what country he was talking about.  A must-read for anyone who gets their policy briefing from radio personalities or TV talking heads.
577842
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'&eacute;tre 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.
1899272
soros scores a huge win with a very direct, to the point, clearly written book of the current problems with american foreign policy and the way it can be righted. naming names and citing history, soros shows that he's as well versed on the subject as the most learned policital scientist. it's amazing that a man with a background of escaping persecution who went on to become one of the world's richest men, can be so wholly unbiased in his outlook.  rather than a criticism of america and americans, this is written from a perspective of restoring american values in our foreign policy. soros criticizes the policy of bush and certain other foreign leaders, while avoiding personal attacks.  whether or not you agree with what he says, you have to admire the man and the honorable manner he puts forth his plan.  a must read for the 2004 election season.
4406555
This excellent book tests the conventional theory that US foreign policy has always been driven by its commitment to spreading democracy. It looks at the evidence, examining US policy towards Latin America, focusing on Colombia.

Chapter 1 explores various interpretations of US foreign policy, conservative, liberal and radical. Chapters 2 and 3 show how the USA's aims in Latin America were the same during and after the Cold War. Chapter 4 shows how in the 1980s the US state backed state terrorism across Latin America, including in Guatemala where government forces killed 200,000 people. During Colombia's 1980s peace process, the US state aided and trained Colombia's army: by the end of the 1990s, Colombia got the third largest amount of US military aid, helping its army and its allied paramilitaries to kill tens of thousands.

The US state's motives were and are material: the open door for US and European corporations, access to oil. Colombia supplies 3% of US oil imports. BP pays paramilitaries to protect its pipelines. Attacking Colombia also puts pressure on Venezuela, which has 7.4% of the world's oil reserves - and also has a patriotic government that runs its own oil industry.

Only the US state's pretexts have changed. Until 1991 it was anti-communism. In the 1990s it was the `war on drugs' - as a US Special Forces trainer said, "the counter-narcotics thing was an official cover story." After 9/11 it was the `war on terror'.

The US Drug Enforcement Administration "has no evidence that [the insurgents] have been involved in the transportation, distribution, or marketing of illicit drugs in the United States or Europe." The Council on Hemispheric Affairs and the UN Drug Control Programme agree that drugs are smuggled into the USA by the US state's allies - "right-wing paramilitary groups in collaboration with wealthy drug barons, the armed forces, key financial figures and senior government bureaucrats."

The US state's allies are also the main terrorists. The US State Department concedes that the Colombian army and its allies have committed more than 80% of the country's human rights abuses.