The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership

Rating:
Summary: world domination (Bush) or global leadership (Kerry)?
Review: "Our choice is between dominating the world and leading it." That is how Zbigniew Brzezinski sees it, and it seems to me that the same choice applies to this November's election. ZB doesn't say so in so many words, but his new book is quite critical of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Advisor, but I'm not sure if he is still a Democrat -- in any event, he has always been a hawk on foreign policy.

You can always count on Brzezinski for the use of good old-fashioned realist, geostrategic analysis to produce a coherent strategic vision. (Personally I reject the U.S. imperial role on principle, but if wishes were horses... ZB, as a practicing Machiavellian, knows that the Empire is never referred to as an Empire.) He says the principal challenge to American power over at least the next two decades can only come from within as there is no such power or conceivable combination of powers externally (a sober rejoinder to the more outlandish fears of Terrorist Evil). The challenge from within could take the form of either A) a repudiation of power, ie a turn to isolationism, or B) the misuse of power. Repudiation could come from either liberals or conservatives, while the misuse is most likely to come from the unilateralist tendencies of conservatives -- witness the current Bush Administration.

Brzezinski sees the main threat in the world, with the collapse of the old USSR, as "turmoil," or as he put it in an earlier book title, "chaos." This turmoil is not evenly distributed throughout the world, but rather concentrated in the Middle East and Central Asia -- ZB calls this region "The Global Balkans" to indicate its instability and frequency of wars. For the U.S., the "pacification and cooperative organization" of the region is the top strategic priority for the next several decades. He notes in the most fantastic understatement in the book that this area of strategic priority just happens to be where most of the world's oil and natural gas is located! (The U.S. Armed Forces should be renamed The Oil Police.)

Obviously the U.S. cannot accomplish this alone. Thus allies must be identified, created, and cultivated. ZB sees Europe as absolutely necessary for this, and unlike Kagan does not dismiss the Europeans' concerns. In fact he sees that it is the U.S. that must accomodate the Europeans in order to come to a more even-handed approach to finally settling the Israel-Palestine conflict with a workable two-state solution. Iran is another case where ZB sees an advantage for the U.S. to move toward Europe in forging a joint approach aimed at moderating Iran, which could again play a key role in stabilizing instead of destabilizing the region. ZB sees terrorism and WMD as symptoms, not causes, and that what is needed is a concerted, long-term plan, not a series of bombing runs.

"Leadership entails a sense of direction that mobilizes others." With this, Brzezinski challenges the Bush Administration's arrogance toward the rest of the world. He sees that the threat of "turmoil" requires "confronting complexity," and says that "[t]he political education of a large democracy cannot be pursued by patriotic slogans, fear-mongering, or self-righteous arrogance."

All this would seem to be sound and sensible advice for John Kerry and the Democratic Party in 2004. It's too much to hope for to think that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. could or would change their ways now.

Rating:
Summary: A Cold Warrior's take on the Bush Foreign Policy
Review: "Preponderence, however, is not omnipotentence."

This short sentence is the essence of this short book's thesis. America is preponderent in the world today; it is the uncontested hegemon. However this does not given the United States carte blanche to abjure multilateral institutions in favor of "coalitions of the willing" in pursuit of an unending "war on terrorism" -- a war that, by definition, cannot end. I vehemently agree with this thesis. I believe the "war on terror" will join other phrases such as "war to end all wars" in history's marked grave of quixotic rhetoric (to paraphrase the president).

Because of this overly ambitious and interminable national strategy, we risk both losing strategic cohesion as well as isolation in the international community. In addition, our unilateral conduct fosters a "law of the jungle" that will in fact encourage states to arm themselves with WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in order to protect themselves. This is long term threat to national security and global stability.

This is not a critique coming from a naive peacenik. Zbigniew Brzezniski is a shrewd political operator and strategic thinker, and is responible for some of the more deviously Machivellian manuevers in American foreign policy history during his time as National Security Adviser under Jimmy Carter. He was in effect responisible for the policy that lured the Russians into Afghanistan in the late 70's, and he is unrepetant about arming the radical mujaheedin (this quote is taken from an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, a French weekly):

"What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

From his past history, I can conclude that he does not oppose the Bush foreign policy because of some instinctive aversion to the exercise of American power; he opposes it because he thinks it is utterly stupid. Brzezinski's points are both well-argured and convincing.

I do not believe the book is perfect though. Brzezniski decries the Manichaean demonization of Islamic terrorists and admonishes the reader to understand the political basis for the violence. He writes:

"To paraphrase Clausewitz, terrorism is politics by other means ... Almost all terrorist activity originates from a political conflict and has been spawned as well as sustained by it. That applies to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Northern Ireland, the Basques in Spain, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, the Chechans in Russia, and to all other groups."

To compare the IRA or ETA to Al Qaeda is folly. The nature of the organizations is vastly different. The IRA performed large numbers of smaller attacks in order to achieve a very specific political objective, rather than an totalitarian ideology of relgious martyrdom. I do not seriously believe that IRA or ETA would want to attack London or Madrid with WMD, whereas Al Qaeda surely would. Traditional terrorist groups have been more politically-motivated as opposed to ideologically-motivated, and this is an important distinction.

For Al Qaeda and the rest of the Islamic extremists, the political objectives -- if they even exist in the traditional sense -- are far more nebulous and ambitious, and the ideology is far more nefarious. In the words of their spokesmen "we love death and you love life." It seems as if killing is an end to itself. Unlike ETA or the IRA, I do not believe that Al Qaeda could be satiated by a negotiated political settlement.

The Choice also seems to lose focus as Brzezniski digressed into issues of globalization and demographics. Although these are extremely informative and pertinent to the thesis, they lack the clarity of thought of sections on American national strategy.

That being said, this is still an invaluable book in the foreign policy discourse, as well as a not-so-subtle attack on the incumbent administration's foreign policy in an election year.

Rating:
Summary: world domination (Bush) or global leadership (Kerry)?
Review: "Our choice is between dominating the world and leading it." That is how Zbigniew Brzezinski sees it, and it seems to me that the same choice applies to this November's election. ZB doesn't say so in so many words, but his new book is quite critical of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Advisor, but I'm not sure if he is still a Democrat -- in any event, he has always been a hawk on foreign policy.

You can always count on Brzezinski for the use of good old-fashioned realist, geostrategic analysis to produce a coherent strategic vision. (Personally I reject the U.S. imperial role on principle, but if wishes were horses... ZB, as a practicing Machiavellian, knows that the Empire is never referred to as an Empire.) He says the principal challenge to American power over at least the next two decades can only come from within as there is no such power or conceivable combination of powers externally (a sober rejoinder to the more outlandish fears of Terrorist Evil). The challenge from within could take the form of either A) a repudiation of power, ie a turn to isolationism, or B) the misuse of power. Repudiation could come from either liberals or conservatives, while the misuse is most likely to come from the unilateralist tendencies of conservatives -- witness the current Bush Administration.

Brzezinski sees the main threat in the world, with the collapse of the old USSR, as "turmoil," or as he put it in an earlier book title, "chaos." This turmoil is not evenly distributed throughout the world, but rather concentrated in the Middle East and Central Asia -- ZB calls this region "The Global Balkans" to indicate its instability and frequency of wars. For the U.S., the "pacification and cooperative organization" of the region is the top strategic priority for the next several decades. He notes in the most fantastic understatement in the book that this area of strategic priority just happens to be where most of the world's oil and natural gas is located! (The U.S. Armed Forces should be renamed The Oil Police.)

Obviously the U.S. cannot accomplish this alone. Thus allies must be identified, created, and cultivated. ZB sees Europe as absolutely necessary for this, and unlike Kagan does not dismiss the Europeans' concerns. In fact he sees that it is the U.S. that must accomodate the Europeans in order to come to a more even-handed approach to finally settling the Israel-Palestine conflict with a workable two-state solution. Iran is another case where ZB sees an advantage for the U.S. to move toward Europe in forging a joint approach aimed at moderating Iran, which could again play a key role in stabilizing instead of destabilizing the region. ZB sees terrorism and WMD as symptoms, not causes, and that what is needed is a concerted, long-term plan, not a series of bombing runs.

"Leadership entails a sense of direction that mobilizes others." With this, Brzezinski challenges the Bush Administration's arrogance toward the rest of the world. He sees that the threat of "turmoil" requires "confronting complexity," and says that "[t]he political education of a large democracy cannot be pursued by patriotic slogans, fear-mongering, or self-righteous arrogance."

All this would seem to be sound and sensible advice for John Kerry and the Democratic Party in 2004. It's too much to hope for to think that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. could or would change their ways now.

Rating:
Summary: End of An Era--And About Time....
Review:

Zbigniew Brzezinski is considered by the Chinese to be one of America's top strategists (along with Steve Metz from the Army War College), and that is entirely his due. He is brilliant when it comes to state-centric strategy, but falls short with respect to emerging threats, sub-state threats, intelligence reform, and the roles of non-governmental organizations including religions, and civil networks instead of government-driven "command and control."

While it used to be fashionable, when confronted with a choice between, say, market economies and controlled economies, to cleverly say "some of each" and earn the top grade, today things have changed and the answer is more often than not, "none of the above." This estimable author, whose wisdom must certainly be taken into account at all times, does not actually present a choice, only an opinion as to how a state-centric system--largely irrelevant in the 21st Century--might best be managed.

Especially troubling to me was the almost complete lack of attention to substantive books published in the last ten years, including those, most recently, of George Soros (abusive capitalism), William Greider (immoral capitalism), Herman Daly (ecological economics), Jonathan Schell (unconquerable world), Howard Rheingold (Smart Mobs), Thomas Stewart (the wealth of knowledge as an alternative to violence), and so on. The author is not alone in this oversight--Joseph Nye, whose book on Soft Power I am also reviewing today, bases his work on Op-Eds, many of them not written by the people signing them, and has almost no substantive references either. The think tank culture has lost touch with true scholarship.

The author's claim that Washington, D.C. is the center of the earth (pages 131-132) reflect in my view the last gasp of the Reagan-Smart Bush-Clinton era. While the author alludes to New York as the "other center", I and my colleagues think instead of a loose network on "nodes", some financial (Tokyo, London, Kuala Lumpur), some religious (Jerusalem, Rome, Salt Lake City, points in India), and so on. The author's emphasis on the Trilateral Commission and the now-dying World Economic Forum (Davos) as the bastions of a global elite that is in agreement struck me as being astonishing insular and inaccurate. The author says that "This elite is fostering the emergence of a global community of shared interest in stability, prosperity, and perhaps eventually democracy." I do not think so. All the other books I have reviewed for Amazon suggest that this elite is doing all it can to plunder the world by enriching micro-elites through corruption, while disenfranchising the broader publics (e.g. Canadian companies displacing villages in Peru to loot the gold, French companies buying up the water in Brazil to increase charges to the public for the water they used to own, etc.).

The author is to be commended for at least recognizing that America is losing its moral standing in the world, and this is an intangible value that cannot be easily purchased nor replaced.

In passing, footnote 4 on page 38 is inadvertently incorrect. There are 175 violent internal political conflicts, not 38. There are also 32 countries engaged in complex emergencies, 66 with millions of displaced refugees, 59 with plagues and epidemics, 33 with massive starvation, and 18 genocides now on-going.

The book ends somewhat quietly, suggesting a transatlantic convention and what one other reviewer very appropriately called "baby steps." My bottom line: Brzezinski is a solid citizen with a big mind and an old framework. He *must* be consulted for his wisdom as we move forward, but it falls to others now to define the bold new steps--faith-based diplomacy, ecological economics, public intelligence, global accountability of leaders--that are essential is we are save the world for our children.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent account of the problems facing the US
Review: After readng a one column interview with Brzezinski in Newsweek as part of the publicity for this book, I was taken by the overlap with in my thinking that ad come across in such a short space.

The author makes a case for how the US fits into the world as the sole-superpower as well as how the country is percieved elsewhere and at home. He speaks extensively on the contradictions in the perceptions of the US (the rapid absorbtion of US culture throughout the world while at the same time a rising tide of anti-Americanism) as well as ways he sees to use those to our advantage.

It's probably clear from the pharasing of the title that his belief is that the US should be striving for a position of global leadership rather than forced domination. He makes an excellent case for the reasons why this is both in the best interest of the US and the best interest of the rest of the world for the forseeable future.

At the same time, Brzezinski devotes a lot of space to the alternatives along the way and why he things they're undesirable and ultimately will be detrimental to our interests.

In my opinion, the book makes a good case for the importance of multilateralism in US policy. At the same time, the author doesn't attempt to let the reader believe that the motivations are primarily altruistic, but rather "it just makes sense" for the US to be remain a pivital force in the world.

I wasn't terribly pleased by the use of end notes that elaborate at the end of the chapter. It makes follow up something of a pain and following up on sources is an important part of my reading these sorts of books.

The end of the book lays out a number of conclusions that are obvious to someone paying attention but at the same time Brzezinski also pulls a few items in from nowhere that very well may be issues moving forwad in the world but seem out of place in the context of the book, perhaps even afterthoughts of things he thought he should mention but didn't have time to tie in to the rest or some such. I don't think this distracts from his central points, either, it's just a bit puzzling.

While I consider the book to be a well-thought out read and an excellent choice for someone wanting to explore this line of thinking, it's also a very academic book. Other books of this genre that I have encountered are a breeze to read and go by quickly, this one was a bit more slow going than most. This may be explained by brevity or just the compactness of a lot of idea in a few words. This is not a reflection on how comprehensive the book is, but rather an attempt to set expectations for the potential reader.

Rating:
Summary: The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership
Review: American power and a pervasive globalization are the central realities of today's world, and the source of its most difficult dilemmas. America's historically unprecedented power is the ultimate source of global security, yet Americans feel less secure than ever. Global interdependence and the widespread political awakening of humankind promote American dominance even as they breed anti-American envy, mobilize resentment, and empower America's enemies through the diffusion of ever more destructive technologies." "In The Choice, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, reminds Americans that their might should not be confused with omnipotence. America's well being and the world's are entwined Panicky preoccupation with solitary American security, an obsessively narrow focus on terrorism, and indifference to the concerns of a politically restless humanity neither enhance American security nor comport with the world's real need for American leadership. Unless it can harmonize its overwhelming power with its seductive but also unsettling social appeal, America could find itself alone and under assault in a setting of intensifying global chaos

Rating:
Summary: A Mixed Bag for a Multilateralist Argument
Review: Brzezinski and Kissinger are considered the two doyans of American foreign policy. Of the two, however, Brzezinski is usually much more accessible to the general reader. "The Choice" is his latest offering, building on his classic "The Grand Chessboard" but with a post-911 polish.

In "the Choice," Brzezinski accepts the reality of American preponderence and firmly believes in an America "engaged" with the world, but the Cold Warrior cautions against "unlilateralist" impulses, instead arguing that America work more closely with its allies to meet emerging threats and challenges. In short, the book is a rebuke of some aspects of the Bush approach, calling instead for a return to the serene days of the Atlantic alliance in the Detente period of the Cold War.

Brzezinski is at his best when he describes the linkages of global instability to US security, and he his convincing in arguing that such challenges as mass migration, organized crime and spreading WMDs cannot be solved through traditional, national policy options, but only through concerted cooperation with allies and international bodies.

However, his insistence that Europe be equally engaged on all fronts, and in all regions of the globe, seems highly unrealistic...confirmed by the authors own data! Brzezinski demonstrates that declining and aging populations in Europe will shrink their resource base and increase feelings of isolationism and anti-militarism, yet he insists the US must drag Europe into strategic negotiations in East Asia, develop a rapid reaction force to intervene in Latin America, and share security responsibilities in the Gulf. His strategic predictions for Europe simply don't correspond to his advocacy of globally projected Europe engaged with the US in stabilizing a global order, and this issue becomes a major problem throughout his book.

Similarly, Brzezinski's regional policy analysis is spotty. On the one hand, his discussion of the delicate balance of power in Asia is remarkable, offering the reader a succinct paradigm to understand a complex strategic zone.

Sadly, this clarity stumbles badly when he discusses the Middle East, where he either makes all to obvious fix it statements (ie solve the Israel-Palestine dispute and tension will be reduced) or makes clear errors. For example, Brzezinski believes that Islamism is ultimately a prism through which democracy may flourish, and based on this assumption, he advises a wait and see approach, ala the loose containment strategy we now exert toward Iran. However, the idea that Islamism is sowing the seeds of reform is at best highly controversial, and in fact has fallen ito disrepute, and the policy implications are serious.

My last quibble with the book concerns Brzezinski's critique of Busk's public diplomacy. It is obvious that the author is piqued by the "Jacksonian" language often bandied by the administration, and his criticisms of the harmful effect this language has in foreign capitals is entriely justified. Sadly, however, Brzezinski blurs White House public diplomacy with their actual policy. For example, he insists that the highlighting of preemption by the White House after 911 meant that preemption had become a new policy. In fact, preemption had been a policy option long before Bush took office, and it seems likely that it simply highlighted it in public diplomacy as an act of deterence. In any case, the war in Iraq was preventitive, and when looking at the other two challenges of proliferation, Iran and Korea, Bush has been pushing multilateral solutions. For Brzezinski though, public diplomacy on preemption and actual policy are one and the same. He repeats this error frequently when criticising White House communiques.

Final analysis - Brzezinski is at his best in the theotrical realm on this one...which is a step below "Grand Chessboard," where theory was matched with excellent policy advice.

Rating:
Summary: A Mixed Bag for a Multilateralist Argument
Review: Brzezinski and Kissinger are considered the two doyans of American foreign policy. Of the two, however, Brzezinski is usually much more accessible to the general reader. "The Choice" is his latest offering, building on his classic "The Grand Chessboard" but with a post-911 polish.

In "the Choice," Brzezinski accepts the reality of American preponderence and firmly believes in a America "engaged" with the world, but the Cold Warrior cautions against "unlilateralist" impulses, instead arguing that America work more closely with its allies to meet emerging threats and challenges. In short, the book is a rebuke of some aspects of the Bush approach, and a call for a return to the serene days of the Atlantic alliance in the Detente period of the Cold War.

Brzezinski is at his best when he describes the linkages of global instability and US security, and he his convincing in arguing that such challenges as mass migration and population booms cannot be solved through traditional, national policy options, but only through concerted cooperation with allies and international bodies.

However, his insistence that Europe be equally engaged on all fronts, and in all regions of the globe, seems highly unrealistic...by the authors owns observations elsewhere! Brzezinski demonstrates that declining and aging populations in Europe will shrink their resource base and increase feelings of isolationism and anti-militarism, yet he insists the US must drag Europe into strategic negotiations in East Asia, develop a rapid reaction force to intervene in Latin America, and share security responsibilities in the Gulf. His data set for where Europe is headed and his insistence that Europe be made a globally projected force simply don't match, and it becomes a major problem throughout his book.

Similarly, Brzezinski's regional policy analysis is spotty. On the one hand, his discussion of the delicate balance of power in Asia is remarkable, offering the reader a succinct paradigm to understand a complex strategic zone.

Unfortunately, this clarity stumbles badly when he discusses the Middle East, where he either makes all to obvious fix it statements (ie solve the Israel-Palestine dispute and tension will be reduced) or makes clear errors. For example, Brzezinski believes that Islamism is ultimately a prism through which democracy may flourish, and based on this assumption, he advises a wait and see approach, ala the loose containment strategy toward Iran. However, the idea that Islamism is sowing the seeds of reform is at best highly controversial, and in fact has fallen ito disrepute, and the policy implications are serious.

My last quibble with the book concerns Brzezinski's critique of Busk's public diplomacy. It is obvious that the author is piqued by the "Jacksonian" language often bandied by the administration, and his criticisms of the harmful effect this language has in foreign capitals is entriely justified. Sadly, however, Brzezinski blurs White House public diplomacy with their actual policy. For example, he insists that the highlighting of preemption by the White House after 911 meant that preemption had become a new policy. In fact, preemption had been a policy option long before Bush took office, and it seems likely that it simply highlighted in public diplomacy efforts as an act of deterence. In any case, the war in Iraq was preventitive, and when looking at the other two challenges of proliferation, Iran and Korea, Bush has been pushing multilateral solutions. For Brzezinski though, public diplomacy on preemption and actual policy are one and the same. He repeats this error frequently when criticising White House communiques.

Final analysis - Brzezinski is at his best in the theotrical realm on this one...which is a step below "Grand Chessboard," where theory was matched with excellent policy advocacy.

Rating:
Summary: Hopeful yet incomplete
Review: Brzezinski has written a good, sober admonition for the Bush Administration, yet this book lacks critical macro-economic perspective. He does not delve enough into the stakes that oil and natural gas pose in the Middle East, and the bottom-line US/UK imperatives behind the current war. He also does not touch upon the dangers facing the global dollar standard, especially in light of America's massive national debt (at 3 times GDP) and trade/account deficits. These factors are inter-related and cannot be ignored in weighing why the US is at war in the Mid-East. They are also critical factors to consider when discussing incentives behind the EU and Asia viably alligning with the U.S., let alone the Mid-East calming itself with regard to America's presence in the Mid-East.

However, considering the author's pedigree and *seemingly* independent status as observer of current world affairs (Trilateral Commission and Council of Foreign Relations membership notwithstanding), this tome is a welcome change from the myopic, hawkish strategy coming out of the Executive Branch and its league of academic supporters. For instance, the author's consistent guidance to American strategists on how best to proceed with Iran is invaluably measured, researched and prudent. His treatment of globalization as a potentially divisive phenomenon, as well as valiant mention of the increasingly intrusive effects of various ethnic interest groups/PACs in American foreign policy considerations, provide important perspectives for American readers who may very well not see the collection of said perspectives from any other mainstream American political analyst.

I would also recommend "After the Empire" by Emmanuel Todd, "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson and "The Dollar Crisis" by Richard Duncan for a complete picture of what is truly at stake for the United States in this day and age. Said books help put Brzezinksi's suggestions into the proper context.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent account of the problems facing the US
Review: For all the fact that it might be doubted for accuracy, this book by an experienced and clearly highly knowledgeable US foreign policy expert offers a stark and truthful picture of the present state of affairs as the civilised world struggles against the spread of radical Islam, which clearly is preying upon the extreme wealth of the West and its rampant secularism.

Brzezinski's book is very well-written and stark, showing how the rapid growth of Islam and the decline of religion in the West and Far East in this post-state-capitalist era will be very difficult for everybody concerned. As Islam grows and Europe's population declines, we see the Middle East as likely due to its high fertility rates to develop into one or several major military powers that are likely to be a dangerous threat to the West.

Brzezinski clearly points out that the problems faced by almost every country in the West and Far East (primarily demographic but not exclusively so) means that the US, if it wishes to fight radical Islam, has no useful ally with which to do so.

"The Choice" clearly shows how militant Islam has arisen from discontent with Western influence in the Islamic world, and illustrates very clearly the various forms it has taken and the critical differences between them. We seen that radical Islam can take many forms and that it has adapted to an already-modernising Islamic world, in the process offering the only viable alternative to rampant secularism.

Art the same time, the author is not as despairing as he might be, shwoing that the US' being a target for radical Islamic groups means that it cannot sustain its role as a global dictator and can and must aim to change its foreign policy in order to counter these problems. he shows that at least in a few cases there is some room for accommodation between the West and the established cultures, and believes with very well-argued arguments that this is the only way to stop the world from succumbing to the very real threat of a takeover by extremist Saudi-style Islam.

This book, though most students will be taught to be sceptical at best because of its author, should be a keystone of understanding the problems of Islamic terrorism in the wordl today.