Rating: 
Summary: Enlightening and thoroughly balanced
Review: In this fascinating little book, author Robert Kagan (author of Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude) presents the reader with a piercing and evenhanded analysis of why the United States and Europe have become so alienated from each other, and how we have come to this point. The author sees the alienation as being caused by two facts. The first is that there is a substantive difference in military power, with America having the might to do what it thinks best, and Europe finding its options limited by its lack of might. Secondly, both Europe and the United States are products of their own histories, with Europe finding its future by binding its members with multilateral agreements and forbidding unilateral military operations, and with America being shaped by its understanding that it faces enemies throughout the world that must be dealt with by force.OK, let me say that the summary above is completely inadequate to describe this thoughtful work. I found Mr. Kagan's analysis to be quite enlightening, and thoroughly balanced. He does not look for good guys and bad guys in the trans-Atlantic rift, but instead explains quite clearly why it exists. If you wish to understand the present rift between the United States and Western Europe, then I cannot recommend another book as highly as I do this one!
Rating:
Summary: An excellent book, with a couple of arguable conclusions
Review: This is easily one of the most topic clarifying books available to the public to help understand the present US/European turmoil. Wisely, the author leaves it to the future to decide if the US and Europe will be truly able to continue their close relationship and present to the rest of the world, the facade of "The Western Civilization". I do find fault with the author's assertion that the American period of dominance is certain to last several decades more, and he even uses Kennedy's classical strategic overextension argument to support his assertion, in claiming that the US does not overextend itself as other powers have in the past and will therefore be able to extend it's period of dominance well into the future. Regardless of one's opinion on such minutiae however, it should be evident, that the author has produced a well written, compelling, and lucid analysis of the US/European relationship and how each views the other and their respective place in the world for the present and leading to the near term.
Rating: 
Summary: solid argument, lots of facts, a bit padded
Review: The essay on which this book was based appeared in the journal POLICY REVIEW in the summer of 2002. Almost instantaneously, it ascended to nearly mythic proportions, getting e-mailed around the country and the world and printed for policy meetings at home and abroad. Among those who care about such things, it ignited a fire, either positive or negative, but no one could deny it was an important, influential article, having appeared at just the right time and capturing the mood almost perfectly. Last spring, it was required reading in a course I was taking on international politics; the professor (who was, in lectures, critical of Kagan's arguments) ranked it among other seminal articles, such as Fukuyama's "The End of History?" and Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations." The argument, basically, is this: foreign policy differences between the United States and Europe boil down to a matter of who is strong and who is, comparatively, weak. The United States pursues the policy of the strong--a belief in the necessity of using force, a disregard for international institutions, and a willingness to act unilaterally. Europe's is the policy of the weak--reliance on international and supranational organizations, calls for respecting international law, hesitation about the use of force. When the U.S. was weaker, say in the late 1800s, it pursued a policy not unlike what Europe follows today. Kagan, though, is quick to point out the nuances of Europe's policy, which are rooted in twentieth-century history, especially the last fifty years. Having been engulfed in two devastating, catastrophic wars, Europeans have seen firsthand the effects of war, and they seek to avoid it at almost all costs; having been tremendously successful in solving the seemingly impossible "German question" through the EU, they have an almost messianic belief in the efficacy of "their" way: integration, sacrificing national sovereignty, etc. Many are quick to dismiss Kagan's ideas, probably without even reading the book, as "neoconservative" (whatever that means), as part of some shadowy network emanating from the invidiously portrayed PNAC. But there are substantive points here, backed up by history and current events--arguments that cannot simply be dismissed by assigning a debate-stopping label. And Kagan even reproaches the Bush Administration for its hard-nosed approach to many issues and concludes his book with a heartfelt call for Americans to attempt to understand Europe and its problems and people better. One more thing: being the outgrowth of an essay, the book has the feel of being padded--with superfluous facts and repetition. I think it functions much better as an essay.
Rating:
Summary: Scathing Critique of European Mindset
Review: Kagan argues, convincingly, that Europe, understandably traumatized by World War II, is stubbornly peacenik in its approach to power, which results in its suspicion of American might. The European dove approach to everything, however, makes Europe heavily dependent on America for its protection and stability, costing Americans our tax dollars and bloodshed even as Europeans use the money they save from not investing in military technlogy to enjoy shorter work weeks, longer vacations and other socialist perks. Thus not only does Europe piggy-back on American tax money and military might, it has the audacity to condemn Americans as being a bunch of hot-tempered cowboys, even as they wallow in their peacnik delusions and cowardice. Kagan shows with very subtle prose that Europeans embrace an outdated peacenick approach that is rooted in selfisness and delusion and that forces America to be the only realistic power, a situation that ultimately is disadvantageous for America. Kagan would prefer that Europe use more military might in sustaining world stability and not rely so much on America, making the US the world police. What's impressive about Kagan's polemic is that he's never heavy-handed or overtly accusatory in his treatment of Europe. Rather, he makes his case with a certain sympathy and diplomacy, sympathizing with Europe for having been so devastated by World War II but ultimately wanting Europe to carry its weight when it comes to flexing military muscle.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, provoking but with American bias
Review: When I started to read this book I had high expectations of fair treatment of the differences between Europe and America and how they influence how people think about peace and war and power around the world. These expectations were reinforced by the great reviews placed both inside and outside the book. I had earlier read Samuel Huntingson's Clash of civilizations and also 'The paradox of American power' of Joseph S. Nye. I would recommend either of these books over Kagan's more biased book. What was one source of irritation with this book was his claim that for Europe to more powerful, they have to put more resources in the military. Often the argument of a strong association and strong power was made. USA is described as a strong and indispensible country to protect the world while Europe has had their time as world rulers unless they increase military spending. Legitimacy of power is discussed in the book and Kagan states that Europeans relies on UN security council to say what is a legitimate war and what is not. He then brings up the case of Kosovo where no resolution was made and how this could be viewed as hypocracy on the part of Europeans who wanted an intervention in that war. No real discussion of the differences in circumstances of the Kosovo and the Iraq situation was included, or justification for intervention. For anyone considering buying the book, go ahead. I wasn't bored reading it. At least it tries to explain the differences in thinking between the US and Europe. I just didn't think it was entirely successful.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting thoughts
Review: Although I concur with many of the ideas expressed in this small book, I cannot agree with its conclusions. It is nice to be the most powerful country on earth and to be able to spend 3% of GNP for defense. The author argues that the government could raise its defense spending up to 5-7% with much grumbling from the population. However, the U.S. saddled with a high debt rate, a slow recovery, and 40 millions of uninsured would face tough choices: as Greenspan has recently suggested, if tax cuts are to be made permanent, social security entitlements would have to be cut down. In the end, something has to give: world domination or economy. Although war can be brilliantly executed as in Iraq, pacification would be an expensive and lengthy undertaking. Without pacification, a war success could only be transient and meaningless. The U.S. are usually unwilling to fight a long war due to a drain of its human and economic resources and potential resistance from its people if the war lasts longer than expected.
The power of pure force will not last forever: just look at the examples of Babylon, Rome, Greece, Egypt, England, France, China, the Incas and other countries that had once ruled over the world.
Rating: 
Summary: Of Empire and Destruction
Review: Robert Kagan writes smooth, lucid prose, which makes this book seem to posses truth, or at least an iota of analytic insight; it does not. Kagan is a naive accolyte. He contends that our government actually believes in helping the poor and spreading democracy; he believes that we use force because we have to- what choice do we have? Kagan, in short, has swallowed the pill of traditional imperialist propaganda with out reading the label. The Los Angeles Times ran an important story, in it the authors blandly state that out of 30 post WW2 interventions America has installed Democracy only once, in comlumbia (SIC). Obviously this does not correspond to Kagan's belief that we are a beacon of liberal democracy. We use force for many reasons: increase power, control resources, install friendly autocrats, etc. Helping the world is not one of those reasons, those too guillible to realize this may enjoy Kagan's book; those who think for themselves will laugh when perusing the pages. After reading Kagan's little imperial apologetic, I sat it next to "Then End of History and the Last Man" on my book shelf. Two books not worth taking seriously.
Rating:
Summary: missing consideration
Review: There is one missing major consideration in Mr Kagan's book. It is almost always overlooked in the quest to find the differences in the actions and reactions of a nation's elected representatives. ( because few people in American even know of its existence.)
Too often we say Americans think and act this way and Europeans think and act that way. What we are really saying is that American administrations act this way and European administrations act that way. This is much more than a subtle difference in the perception of a citizen's or a nation's character.
"Only when an assembly represents the full diversity of opinion within a nation can its decision be regarded as the decision of the nation itself." (This is an Encyclopaedia Britannica quote related to electoral systems.)
Americans and Britain both use a similar system to elect their members of their respective legislative assemblies. (MLAs) Europeans, in general use one or more different systems. This may explain, to some degree, the alliance between the US and the UK on some aggressive foreign policies. (At this point most people will have no idea what I am talking about. Electoral systems make or break democracies and need to be investigated and understood. This is beyond the scope of this review)
If the electoral system elects representatives from a very narrow wavelength of the spectrum of a society then the resultant policies will be reflected back as the opinions, desires and ambitions of this small "wave length". (As in the US, the UK, Canada, India, and a few others)
If the electoral system elects representatives from the full spectrum of society then the policies will reflect the opinions, desires and ambitions of this full spectrum of thought of the society itself. (As in most of the rest of the world)
Mr Kagan is too quick to divide all individuals of both American and Europe into two distinct camps, (strong/weak - submissive/aggressive - right/wrong - generous/ungrateful) when in fact the average citizen isn't much different.
Rating: 
Summary: Unbalanced
Review: Instead of the balanced analysis I foolishly expected, this book is a tortuous attempt to justify Bush's imperialist aggression by linking it to Europe's relative military weakness. Kagan attempts to justify his analysis with many irrelevant facts from Europe's imperial past , while ignoring all the relevant truths about Bush's lies and exaggerations over Iraq.
I am amazed that anyone would take this trash seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Jingoistic drivel
Review: More chest-thumping from yet another delusional PNAC propagandist.
|
