Imperial America : The Bush Assault on the World Order

Rating:
Summary: Sleepwalking into disaster
Review: "Bush and the kindred spirits who advise him are not impressed by history," John Newhouse sums up at the end of this book, which explains why the Bush administration has turned much of the world against the United States.

It nicely sums up the policies of the radical right, which now controls the presidency and federal government. When you treat those who differ from you with insult and contempt, instead of listening and debate, it's hardly surprising they are not your biggest fans when you need help. In late September, President George Bush went hat-in-hand to the United Nations begging for aid to help rebuild the facilities destroyed by American and British bombs in Iraq. Not surprisingly, having advised Bush not to destroy Iraq in the first place, UN members had little respect and support for Bush's plea for help.

It's an incredible story. On the day after Sept. 11, 2001, the French newspaper 'Le Monde' declared in its main headline "We are all Americans." It was a widely shared attitude not only in France, but in Canada, Mexico and most of the world. Newhouse shows how it took the zealots of the Bush administration, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in particular, less than two years to generate anti-American feelings through most of the world.

The blunt reality is that America needs friends, supporters and allies. To cite one example: the Bush administration has turned the Clinton budget surplus into the most massive federal deficits in history, now growing by about $ 1.5 billion per day. As the war on Iraq showed, about 75 percent of the money to finance the deficit comes from overseas. If you think foreign opinion doesn't matter, try running the country without the foreign "opinion" that now pours into the United States treasury.

In incident after incident, detail after detail, Newhouse shows how the insensitivity and crassness of Rumseld and a few other Bush zealots is leading the United States to a new and absolute isolationism. Iran is one example, a country facing as much danger from Arab fundamentalism as any nation and eager, after 9/11, to join the United States in rooting out the terrorists on its soil.

Instead of cooperation, of which Iran had much to offer of great benefit to the US, Bush labeled Iran as part of the "axis of evil." It was a great sound bite for Bush's State of the Union speech, it got a lot of attention, and it utterly destroyed any chance of Iran providing major intelligence to the US to combat terrorism.

Pakistan, in contrast, which actively supports the Taliban and al Qaeda, is still one of Bush's allies. It makes one wonder whose side Bush is on.

There's little new or surprising in this book for anyone who's followed the news for the past couple of years. Instead, Newhouse does a masterful job of making sense of the radical transformation of American foreign policy that is now underway. It's a wonderful compilation for the isolationists, who want to see America as aloof from the world as Cuba and North Korea. Sadly, these isolationists are not impressed enough by history to know what happened because of American isolationism after World War I and after World War II until the Marshall Plan took effect. They will love the successes outlined in this book.

For anyone who is impressed by history, it shows how Americans are sleepwalking into a history filled with terror, disaster and decline.

Rating:
Summary: This explains why the USA is no longer as loved as before
Review: As a Briton married to an American, and who is deemed an Honorary Virginian by marriage, I love the USA! But sad to say, I am in an increasing minority over in Europe where I spend much of the year. Yet after 9/11 there were headlines in French newspapers proclaiming "Nous sommes tous Americains". Why did the great and very genuine outpouring of love to the USA after the tragedy of 9/11 vanish into smoke? Why do MORE people hate your wonderful country than ever before? This book gives you the chilling answers: buy it, read it, digest it, give copies to all your friends and then vote accordingly in 2004. You are a great country and deserve to be loved - make sure you elect someone whose priority will be to restore the USA to its rightful place as the most deservedly well-loved of the world's nations. Christopher Catherwood, author of CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan, 2003)

Rating:
Summary: Where did it all go wrong?
Review: Given the title of this book (IMPERIAL AMERICA: THE BUSH ASSAULT ON THE WORLD ORDER) one might be forgiven for assuming that this is a standard left-wing screed laying all the evils of the world at the feet of George W(MD) Bush. However, in this case, the cover isn't a great indicator of what lies beneath. There's blame for the Bush Administration aplenty, but the information is covered in a calm, rational narrative voice, and the author (John Newhouse, senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information) is more interested in detail than in rhetoric.

Newhouse's basic premise is that Bush failed in the aftermath of 9/11/01. After the terrorist attack, the outpouring of support given to America was without precedent. A French newspaper proclaimed, "We are all Americans." A moment of silence for the victims was held at an Iranian soccer match. But instead of seizing upon this moment to, for example, push for significant reform in Iran or demanding that Russia pay more attention to its dangerously unguarded stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the Bush Administration let these opportunities slip away.

Newhouse spends time focusing on one specific area of the world at a time. He describes many of the local problems, and details how those conflicts affect America and American interests. He then describes what position the Bush Administration found itself in, and then he offers possible solutions or diplomatic routes that the Administration could have followed. He compares these possible directions to where Bush actually went, and in most cases it's: "Bush decided to ignore the problem and instead focused on Iraq" (but we knew that already). Newhouse carefully shows how the absurd attention given to Saddam Hussein's (strangely absent) Weapons of Mass Destruction has actually weakened the global fight against terrorist extremists. It's interesting to note that this book came out well before Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 committee, yet contains a lot of echoes and concerns about an Administration focusing exactly on the wrong areas.

IMPERIAL AMERICA doesn't cover a lot of new ground; a lot of what is contained here has already been reported on in the press (though much of it has been buried underneath the latest Michael Jackson scandal, or whatever your media of choice has decided to waste time reporting). However, Newhouse conducted many interviews with government officials, so there is a little bit of insider information scattered here and there. My favorite tidbit of gossip was the official who likened a pre-9/11 Donald Rumsfeld to a cranky old man sending annoying, whining internal memos that interested no one.

I was frankly surprised by how much I enjoyed this book. Again, I was expecting something more along the lines of a Michael Moore-like screed, but what I got was a thoughtful, detailed and well-researched document. It certainly educated me to a lot of what is going on in the world outside of the Hot Spot Of The Week, and has given me a great start into more reading on these subjects. Recommend for anyone looking for a detailed, reasonable critique of the current Administration's rather glaring missteps.

Rating:
Summary: A solid indictment of the Bush Admin foreign policy
Review: Newhouse does a great job showing how the Bush Administration has pursued and enacted a terrible foreign policy.

This policy:

- Has weakened relationships with our allies
- Has shown the world that we don't care what anyone else thinks
- Has the potenial, or already has, created more anti-American attitudes in the Middle East.
- Has caused other Middle East countries to show less support for us, to appease their citizens, thereby weaking our chances at capturing and breaking up terrorist organizations
- Has made the World a more dangerous place to live

By bullying the World and ignoring advice from other countries, the Bush Administration has failed us in their most important task: To protect and defend its citizens.

Highly Recommended

Rating:
Summary: Bush's Impending Disaster
Review: Newhouse pulls no punches in demonstrating how the Bush administration has
disastrously mismanaged national security. He demonstrates that at a time when
we desperately need pragmatic policy, we have a leadership hijacked by radical
right wing ideologue s. These characters, including the President, abandoned the
realist/ internationalist course favored by Bush I. They have little use for
allies or honesty. Coordination of policy, a job made for the National Security
Advisor, is weak at best. Thankfully, this book should help destroy the false
image of Condi Rice the media has promoted. She is not the savvy operator most
accounts portray - she is weak and dangerously incompetent.

Anyone who thinks that this Bush administration has a strong foreign policy
record should use this brief survey of the world's mounting dangers to disabuse
themselves of that absurd notion. Newhouse does a particularly good job showing
how Bush let North Korea policy drift. Today that country may be cranking out
nukes, yet the administration remains of several minds on how to respond.

Skip the first, somewhat unfocused, chapter if you must, but be sure to read
the last chapter. It deals with Russia's unprotected weapons of mass
destruction and our shockingly niggardly efforts to help control them. Newhouse
shows that in a world teeming with apocalyptic terrorists and proliferating
WMD, the Bush administration's myopic focus on Iraq could portend unprecedented
tragedy.

Rating:
Summary: Imperious Newhouse, Assault on Busch
Review: No surprise that only nine of us have bothered so far to comment about this book. It's old news; word bytes from the various news/cable media; we've heard it before. A tedious read, the writing style is "word salad" at best, and it is hard to find the real tomatoes and cucumbers in there. Must have had a tight deadline to get this out to strike while the opportunities presented (sort of like the recent Clark book), and before the bytes became stale. Though the title and content is what the post Clintonian partisans seem to want. But it is very skimpy on real facts to support the book title and the author's global views and assertions. In some sections he even seems to contradict the book title premises. Anyway, what could we reasonably expect from recent authors whose government service was in the last two years of the Clinton administration?

If you are compelled to read this book, buy a used one for $1.95....difficult to justify even at that lofty price, I think. I was lucky to receive it free, from a friend in the news business who received it as a promo. copy, but who knew what it was about without even opening it. On the shelf, fiction section, next to the Clark book it goes.

Rating:
Summary: Imperious Newhouse, Assault on Busch
Review: No surprise that only nine of us have bothered so far to comment about this book. It's old news; word bytes from the various news/cable media; we've heard it before. A tedious read, the writing style is "word salad" at best, and it is hard to find the real tomatoes and cucumbers in there. Must have had a tight deadline to get this out to strike while the opportunities presented (sort of like the recent Clark book), and before the bytes became stale. Though the title and content is what the post Clintonian partisans seem to want. But it is very skimpy on real facts to support the book title and the author's global views and assertions. In some sections he even seems to contradict the book title premises. Anyway, what could we reasonably expect from recent authors whose government service was in the last two years of the Clinton administration?

If you are compelled to read this book, buy a used one for $1.95....difficult to justify even at that lofty price, I think. I was lucky to receive it free, from a friend in the news business who received it as a promo. copy, but who knew what it was about without even opening it. On the shelf, fiction section, next to the Clark book it goes.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book criticizing Bush foreign policy
Review: This is an excellent book criticizing Bush foreign policy. It includes excellent profiles of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell. It captures excellent geopolitical analysis of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. It also covers the impact of the neo conservatives policies.

Colin Powell, Secretary of State, is the only one earning the author respect. Powell is a balanced, thoughtful, intelligent, and patient centrist. He has exceptional knowledge on issues. He is the most popular Secretary of State we ever had. Because he is isolated within a conservative administration, Powell has not been able to fulfill his potential. On most issues, he is at the loosing end, while being usually right.

Dick Cheney, Vice President, is the most powerful Vice President, the U.S. ever had. He is very intelligent, and domineering. He is an harsh conservative. He operates through confidential communication with the President that no one else is privy too. As a result, his intent is almost impossible to overcome.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, is the opposite of Powell. He is loud, impatient, arrogant, and constantly overreaches on issues. The gap between the State Department and the Defense Department has never been wider. The Defense Department has preempted the State Department on foreign policies resulting in a radical shift to the right. Rumsfeld is very intelligent and cunning. This makes him a formidable nemesis for Powell.

The author is most critical of Bush. He knows little about foreign affairs. He is not intellectually curious. He has less knowledge of history than most other presidents. Regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict, an official mentioned that "he does not have the knowledge or the patience to learn this issue enough to have an end destination in mind."

The Iraqi invasion was ill advised. Iraq has little to do with terrorism. Hussein and Islamic terrorist networks had diverging objectives. Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Between 1991 and 1998, UN inspectors destroyed Iraqis nukes. But, the Administration became obsessed with regime change. Yet, the Administration lacks the necessary planning, and commitment of time and money the regime change entails. After WWII, the occupation of Japan lasted seven years, and Germany ten years. These societies were far less fractious than Iraq. It could take over 10 years to stabilize Iraq. Lawrence Lindsay, Bush first Economic Advisor, stated the cost of the Iraqi regime change will be $100 to $200 billion. After this statement, he was ousted. His estimate may be too low.

For the author, Iran represents the best hope of stabilizing the volatile Middle East. Iran has its own history and natural borders (not fabricated by the West). It has free election, and rising pro Western reformers. The Bush administration should support Iran undergo its internal transformation. Instead, he notes that Bush has made Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil." Bush frequent reference to this "Axis of Evil" has strengthened Iran hardliners. Bush aggressive attitude towards Iran contributes to further destabilizing the region. Rumsfeld is also bent on confronting Iran militarily. Thus, relationship with Iran has fallen apart. However, Iran is associated with serious policy issues that even a Democratic President could not ignore. These include Iran�s ongoing nuclear program that is being supported directly by Russia. Also, Iran supports financially several terrorist groups aiming their terror towards Israel. These include the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hizbollah.

Pakistan is the most dangerous country; yet, it is an ally. The author convincingly suggests that the Bush administration often has it wrong in selecting allies and foes. The Pakistan India border is the most volatile region in the World. Twice in the 12 months after 9/11, the two countries threatened to go to war. This is a frightening thought considering the nuclear arsenal these countries have on both side of the Kashmir. Despite General Musharraf stand against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, his army provides terrorist groups with training camps and weapons. Two provinces are controlled by Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers. Pakistan madrassas schools are breeding grounds of Islamic terrorists. Pakistan and North Korea have exchanged complimentary components of their respective nuclear technology. Thus, Pakistan is a powder keg. It should not be treated as an ally.

North Korea is a bankrupt country relying on foreign aid for its survival. Russia has assisted its nuclear program development. North Korea has sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. This is the only export it has. Their nuclear program is advanced, as they have tested a missile with a range of over 1,000 miles that flew over Japan. The government has attempted to negotiate a nonadversarial "Agreed Framework" with the U.S. for a decade. Clinton had done great progress on this issue. But, Bush interrupted all related negotiations. And, his "Axis of Evil" speeches have halted any diplomatic development. As a result, the North Koreans have developed their nuclear program more urgently.

In the authors view, the neo conservatives unilateral policies have destabilized the World Order. The European Union is more fragmented and Anti-American. Both the UN and NATO are ailing. Actual attention to terrorism has suffered due to the obsession with regime change with the �Axis of Evil� states. As expressed before, such foreign policies will do little in reducing terrorism.

Rating:
Summary: Masterful,Provocative Look At Bush Foreign Policy!
Review: This most timely tome surveys the landscape of the new Bush administration and finds it wanting. This is a scathing indictment of the spectrum of foreign policy failures of the Bush administration, which the author, John Newhouse, attributes to an intentional disregard for traditional diplomacy and a goal of establishing a new American hegemony over the landscape of the political world. According to his argument in "Imperial America", in its series of actions few fairminded people could conceive of as being unrelated, political operatives operating within the White House single-handedly managed to alienate most of the rest of the civilized world, thereby squandering a virtual tidal wave of good-will in the aftermath of the events of September 2001 from friends and supposed foes alike. The fact that we have done so can be traced with some confidence to the wrong-headed and quizzical disregard that the Bush administration has shown for the rest of the world.

The list of particulars is especially damning for an administration that claims to be acting to protect us from a dangerous world. This view, according to the author, has the unfortunately paranoid perspective of a far-right radical bent toward the surrounding world, seing enemies everywhere. Indeed, without such an interpretation of the world views of such administration stalwarts as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice (who appears here to be more opportunistic sycophant than intellectual heavyweight) and influential others such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and John Bolton, it is difficult to comprehend the collective actions of the current administration in terms of its continuing callous disregard of former agreements, alliances, precedence, or international law. Whether referring to our handling of the war on terrorism, our attack on Iraq, or our diplomatic stumblings toward nearly everyone from the Russians to the Iranians, the Palestinians to the North Koreans, or the French to the Iranians, we have literally squandered our unique opportunity to use the massive goodwill of the post-911 world to reframe alliances, rebuild agreements, and solve long-standing difficulties with the Iranians, the North Koreans, and the Russians.

For Newhouse, the singular disregard that the current crew in the White House has shown for multilateral diplomacy, and its corresponding penchant for such policies as preemptive strikes and unilateral action that vitiates long-standing agreements and alliances has turned the world against us, so that they are beginning to regard both us and our policies as those of what even conservative authors like Clyde Prestowicz calls a "rogue nation" in his book of the same name (see my review). -Are our leaders so singularly and so consistently inept as to have amateurishly bungled so many opportunities to strengthen alliances, reassure friends, and build bridges to adversaries? Or, perhaps, is this part of a new view on what constitutes American policy and a new view of the world as the territory for American military and economic dominance? Such questions as these are provocatively discussed and examined herein, and one walks away from the book with much more information about recent foreign policy decisions and the contemporary world scene than one had before reading it. This is a book I can heartily recommend for all history and public affairs buffs. Enjoy!

Rating:
Summary: I can handle partisan, but boy is this thing dry.....
Review: You'll love the themes of this book if you are on the left, you'll hate it if you are on the right. If you are in the middle, however, cousin John's writing style will leave you parched and reaching for water.

This book is unlikely to change anyone's mind about the current Administration's foreign policy. John is an ex-Clintonian and that informs his perspective. He is also a Foggy Bottom traditionalist. The problem with his critique is that what he focuses on is the revolutionary changes that the new administration has wrought on our foreign policy. The Bush administration is, unlike previous ones, committed to revolution. Their belief is that the current state of affairs abroad, especially in the middle east, are unsustainable and contrary to our national interest. If you accept that premise, then the correct approach to US foreign policy is regime change.

The upshot to all of that is that John is focused upon the process with out really addressing, at length and in depth, the ideology underlying the process.

And did I mention that this book is slow reading?

In a nutshell, this book will not change anyone's mind.