Rating: 
Summary: A watershed analysis of foreign policy for the 21st century
Review: This short book is essentially an expansion of a seminal essay penned by Kagan for Policy Review magazine last summer.In that essay Kagan argued that the differences between the United States and Europe are real and widening. Kagan disputes the proclamations of policy makers of a unified "West" whose disparities are easily papered over. Instead, he claims that our differences are influenced deeply by our different psychologies that have developed in separate ways over the past 50 years. Kagan notes that our different worldviews are products of America's relative power and Europe's relative weakness. The buildup to the second Gulf War amply demonstrated the differences in our outlooks. Because the United States has the power to respond effectively to threats or potential threats on a global scale, it is only natural that we should seek to deal directly and finally with these problems. Over the past 50 years, Europe has grown steadily weaker by comparison. It is only natural that they should seek to avoid threats and try to settle differences by negotiation. Kagan's famous metaphor is that of the bear in the forest. If you are a man armed only with a knife, it is reasonable to adopt a strategy of avoidance, seeking not to instigate the bear's wrath. But if you are a man armed with a rifle, it makes sense to actively confront the bear, so as not to live under its threat. This is the situation that America and Europe find themselves in at the moment and it is one that is not easily resolved. Also contributing to the problem is that fact that over the past 50 years, Europe has successfully built a model of international interaction on the continent that stresses the abandonment of power politics. Europe, at this moment, lives in Franics Fukayama's "End of History" state, where democracy, economic pluralism and negotiation rule supreme. Because they have been so successful in this regard, and because they have lived in this paradise for so long, Europeans have long forgotten that the rest of the world, the world that the United States must operate in, is still mired in "history." Because Europe is so blinded by its success, it seeks to export this model of international consensuality globally. Again by way of metaphor, Europe thinks, "Yes Saddam is evil, but Germany was once evil too. Is it not possible that through negotiation and cajoling that Iraq may be brought back into the international community and into the modern world?" Of course, what Europe forgets is that their paradise is possible, only because the United States has guaranteed their security. German evil was crushed with American power, not French words. And more importantly, American power allowed for the reintegration of Germany into Europe. We solved "The German Question" for Europe, and thus allowed for the success of the European project. Without American troops in Europe as a brake for any resurgence in nationalism, and without American cajoling and pressure to build a stronger, united Europe to counteract Soviet power, countries like France could never have come to terms of agreement with Germany (the heart of the European project) for fear of their own security. For someone like myself, who advocates a greater co-operation with Europe, Kagan's analysis is disturbing because it is so persuasive. For those of us who believe that the members of the "West" must all hang together or "assuredly we will all hang separately" it is a wake up call. In the current war raging between the forces of the Medieval and the forces of the Enlightenment, it may seem obvious to some that Americans and Europeans, as children of the Enlightenment, are all on the same side. But if the differences between us are truly as deeply rooted in our separate psychologies so that a majority of Europeans could (unbelievably) feel that U.S. intervention in Iraq is more of a threat THAN IRAQ ITSELF, then we may be faced with a situation where America will have to continue to go it alone to secure the future of liberty.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a strong essay
Review: First of all, if you want to indulge in clichés, this is the book. The basic point is that Europe is Venus, and America is Mars. Simplicity in the extreme. Very American. Easy to consume. (Clichés call for clichés).
That basic point is nonsense of course: American foreign policy is totally dependent on which Administration rules. Clinton was soft, as was Ford. Bush is bombs, as was Nixon.
Europeans do use force when necessary (Congo, Côte d'Ivoire; also both undeveloped Third World countries, like Iraq and Afghanistan).
Secondly, I don't see why Kagan draws a line between Europe and the USA. We see that the USA is quite isolated when it comes to that bullish style of foreign policy. The new superstates of the future (Russia, China and India) already have a much more continental tradition of negotiation and diplomacy. They're obviously en route to becoming multilateralists.
This is my main critique: a book full of clichés makes a point indeed if it professes that living by clichés is cool (because unilateralist American foreign policy has now been proven to be based on lies, stereotyping and preconceived ideas).
When Russia joins the EU by 2010, Kagan may want to write a new book on Strong Europe. To conclude, I think Emmanual Todd's "After the Empire" has much more to say about the future. It's much more nuanced, but has an equally strong message. But then, it's written by a European. And as Kagan himself writes, Europeans have a much stronger longterm view of history.
Rating: 
Summary: ludicrous
Review: This book is very poor, its content is often unlogic and the conclusions Robert Kagan draws are absurd.
I'd not buy this book if I'd have to decide once again.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analysis, well articulated, and a quick read
Review: Mr. Kagan provides a cogent and insightful analysis of the who, the how, and the why behind the recent (public) fallout between the U.S. and Western Europe over how to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The differences have been in the works for years, like two tectonic plates slowly grinding against one another, until one day the seam can no longer bear the pressure and releases its energy in the form of an earthquake. Iraq was the "earthquake" that everyone noticed. Mr. Kagan pieces together the many small (seismic) policy differences that led up to Iraq. No blame is assessed, which is refreshing, because boths sides reacted rationally to the unfolding events. I believe Mr. Kagan's piece will have an equivalent influence on American foreign policy development in the post 9/11 world as did George Kennan's "Mr X" did on the post WWII world.
Rating:
Summary: WE GOT A BIG STICK
Review: Unless you've been on Mars the past year or so, you must be aware that the United States and Europe are not on the best of terms these days. Growing up, I always believed we were on the same side, but now it looks like we're basically the number one antagonist of each other. It's nothing new. In this short but important book Robert Kagan explains that this division is nothing new and comes about because the US and Europe live in completely different worlds. One lives in a fantasy paradise and the other in a dangerous world where power rules. Kagan doesn't pull any punches but he does infuse humor into his work. One of my favorite down to earth analogies was the stereotypical image of America by Europe (pretty much the world) as a sort of "cowboy". By this, they mean that we are out of control, take the law into our own hands, confrontational, unintelligent, and a host of other criticisms. Kagan turns this around. He does compare us to a cowboy, more specifically, a sheriff who imposes law on a lawless world. He compares Europe to a saloon keeper. A saloon keeper who gets financial benefits from the outlaws who come into town. I thought it was funny because it represents the whole situation to me. One of the main problems Europe has with America is jealousy. They are always trying to tie down the US with international law or diplomacy or telling us to use economic pressure to solve problems. They do this, Kagan says, because that is the only way they can solve problems. Their military weakness has forced them to rely on these methods. They can't exert influence with power so they don't want anyone else to either. A weaker nation will always try to rely on such things. Sort of like in the US Senate, where all states, no matter how small, have an equal say, to guard against more powerful states running the show. At one time, when the US was weak militarily, it too used the methods of the weak state. Europe shouldn't resent us simply because we have the power to solve problems quickly and by ourselves. The main dilemma presented in this book is that Europe has cocooned itself into a fantasy dreamworld. Ironically, it has been allowed to do this by the US military it so devoutly denounces. After World War II, the US took over most of the military duties of protecting Europe from the USSR. Europe willingly went along with it, and ever since have devoted themselves to becoming one nation with strong economic ties. Having no security worries, it allowed itself to turn inward and to solve its internal disputes by seduction and diplomacy. It no longer had any interest in military matters. It started to believe that the entire world could function like it did and we could all be one happy family. Unfortunately, somebody has to get bloody, and in this case it's the US. I think this was a great and very important book for the 21st century. It really lays the real problem between us and Europe down for everyone to see, and does it with gravity and humour. It really made the situation clearer to me. For example, it is in our best interests to see Europe in this fantasyland because before that, they were always trying to tear each others throats out and we had Americans killed trying to stop them. It also made me think that the world complains too much about us. They should thank God every day that it is the US who is the only superpower. Just think if a dictator like Hitler or Stalin or Saddam was leading a nation like ours, with the strength of our armies. In the end, the US tries to do the right thing most of the time. Even when we go to war, its usually for an ideal, even if it's wrong. In the end, the US and Europe are working for the same thing, to make the world a better place. If only Europe could see its dependence on our might that allows them to live in peace.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful
Review: A very enlightening view of European vs. US politics, noteworthy in that Kagan blames neither 'side' for the recent rift surrounding Gulf War II. More than anything, European (Kantian) and US (Hobbesian) politics have evolved from historical circumstances, and, more importantly, both require the other to survive. Also of note: his observation that recent US actions toward Iraq are not a function of W's politics, but are a essentially a pre-existing condition -- e.g., Clinton bombed Baghdad several times, in keeping with the precedent set by George Sr. This is a very important point for all those anti-war folks out there, who hailed W as some sort of monstrous imperialistic aggressor. On the contrary -- if anything, W's politics are unoriginal, and he merely followed the rhetoric established by his predecessor(s). It doesn't matter whether you were against this war or not -- to claim it as a Republican action is downright hypocritical, when, in fact, Clinton was virtually identical to W in his views on Saddam, and called for his ouster several times. This book is a must-read for both sides (pro- and anti-war), but since, to my dismay, the anti-war movement was downright pathetic in articulating a real and relevant reason not to go to war, I think they could have benefited most from this. The result is that we'd have seen a much more rational and even compassionate debate had the left stayed away from ad hominem vitriol against W. And, in this post-war chaos, the right could have benefited from the nobility of Kagan's arguments -- instead of focusing on alleged WMD's and ties to Al Qaida, they could have positioned the US as 'the defender of paradise', which is far more compelling and justifiable (this is similar to what Thomas Friedman called the "right reason" and the "moral reason" for this war, rather than the "stated reason" of WMD's and the "real reason" of 9/11). I believe they blew a chance of making this country stand for something bigger (rather than just being bomb sniffers). Regardless, this is a quick read (quicker than my review!), at times provocative, and definitely thought provoking.
Rating:
Summary: The best explanation on the Transatlantic schism.
Review: Summary.
This is the best book explaining the splitting of the Transatlantic Alliance. Europe and the U.S. have radically different foreign policy interest and behavior. Europe is the champion of multilaterism, supranational entities, representing soft power. The U.S. is the number one power in the World with no rivals. It has no interest in letting its own hard power being curbed by supranational entities such as the UN and the EU. Thus, the U.S. is becoming more prone to intervene militarily to fix problems on the international scene. Meanwhile, Europe is against military intervention at all costs. Read this book, it gives you an indispensable background to understand current foreign policy developments. Abstract.
The author analyses the growing schism within the Transatlantic Alliance. Formerly, Europe and the U.S. made up the Western block. Together we fought back Nazism during WWII. Then, the U.S. with the tacit support of Europe fought back Communism during the Cold War. We (Europe and U.S.) were deemed to have the same value (democracy, human rights, free trade, capitalism) and the same priorities, including maintaining peace worldwide. Kagan explains how the Western block has split open into two. Europe and the U.S. have diverging political interests resulting in different behaviors in foreign affairs. Europe and the U.S. represent the polarized opposite on the multilateral vs. unilateral axis. Kagan extracted his insight from studying "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," a remarkable document released by the Administration on the Internet in September 2002. From an economic and military standpoint, Europe is a declining power. Ever since WW II, its economic growth and defense spending has lagged the U.S. As a result, Europe has little military capability and hard power. Europe does not have the might or the will to resolve any foreign policy issue through military intervention. Instead, Europe has become the champion of multilaterism. First, it practiced multilaterism to achieve an ever increasing level of political and economic integration within its borders since WWII. Now, it wants to spread multilaterism throughout the World. Europe is very supportive of all supranational institutions such as the UN and NATO. This is because it is a mean to extend its own European soft power. This is a power that expresses itself through Worldwide treaties and agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. has become the number one power in the World with unmatched economic and military superiority. This has become obvious since the end of the Cold War. As a result, the U.S. has a ton of hard power, where Europe has none. The U.S. foreign policy is much more dynamic and interventionist than Europe. When the U.S. sees an emerging threat, it wants to fix it, not just talk about it European style. Since the end of the Cold War, under G. Bush Sr., the U.S. invaded Panama in 1989, lead the Gulf War in 1991, and humanitarian intervention in Somalia in 1992. Under Clinton, the U.S. conducted military interventions in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Now, under G. Bush Jr, the U.S. has conquered Afghanistan and Iraq, and is running these two countries as protectorates. As we know, the Iraq invasion was opposed by the majority of the UN Security Council. This seemed shocking at the time. Kagan thought this was highly expected because of the U.S. relative power position in history. He indicates that whenever a nation finds itself alone at the top in terms of hard power, it is in no mood to subject its hard power to the soft power generated by supranational institutions. He mentions numerous examples of the past, namely Europe 200 years ago, when France and England were wielding their respective hard power, and the much weaker U.S. was begging for them to recognize our soft power. But, in 200 years, we have completely traded places. So, according to Kagan, we can expect to see the U.S. to go at it alone more frequently unilaterally. The U.S. may routinely send the UN and EU packing on various policy issues. The U.S. has no interest in cooperation in anything that will curb its supremacy. Thus, it is opposed to supranational entities that hinder its supremacy. Europe has just the opposite interest. It loves supranational bodies, as it views them as the best way to curb U.S. superiority. In the future, can the U.S. go at it alone? And, police the World without the support of Europe? Will it suffer from imperial overstretch? Kagan answers that the U.S. is already policing the World on its own now, and has no need for European support. The U.S. with an increasingly efficient and technologically advanced military can go a long way with a huge military budget approaching $500 billion. Yet, it represents less than 4% of GDP. This is a lot lower than the 7% of GDP the US spent on defense during the Reagan years. Thus, the U.S. is not overstretched by any means.
Rating:
Summary: Should Be Required Reading for American Voters
Review: Short, readable, important and controversial. Every American who cares about the direction our country is taking should read and think about this book. Kagan is strikingly candid in admitting that future historians will depict 9/11 as the "inevitable consequence of American involvement in the Muslim world" and that it will perhaps lead to "a long-term occupation of one of the Arab world's largest countries" - read "Iraq". He also says that "the only stable and successful international order Americans can imagine is one that has the United States at its center" and that Americans cannot "conceive of an international order that is not defended by power, and specifically by American power." Though not currently a member of the Bush administration Kagan is not without influence therein. For example in 1997, almost four years before 9/11, he co-authored with Paul Wolfowitz an article entitled "Sadam Must Go." Kagan seems to advocate a new world order in which America makes the rules and also enforces them. This implies that the rest of the world should have no meaningful vote in this new world order and that citizens of the rest of the world should enjoy fewer rights and privileges than American citizens. We surely face a daunting task imposing such a new order on the rest of the world. Americans should ask themselves if this is what they want or do they prefer, in the words of FDR, "an end of the system of unilateral action" and (refering to the United Nations) "a universal organization in which all peace-loving Nations will finally have a chance to join...a permanent structure of peace." Lets think about it when we vote in 2004.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent analysis
Review: Kagan's essay is a tremendous look into the relationship between the United States and Europe. Each political scientist inevitably has it's own views and ideologies, but Kagan sticks to the facts and shows that without a doubt there have been significant rifts in relations between the two nations in the past 100 years.
This is a must read for anyone interested in U.S. and international foreign and domestic policies.
Rating:
Summary: Bridging the Atlantic
Review: Robert Kagan tackles the key issue that will impact U.S. foreign policy for many years to come: why can't Europe and America see eye-to-eye on policy questions? Why has the Atlantic Ocean become such an ideological separation? Kagan argues that Europe has entered an era of postmodernism, and it creates foreign policy based on the Kantian ideals laid out in "Perpetual Peace." Europe seeks resolution through consensus. Conversely, the United States still operates according to Hobbesian realism, which places a premium on force instead of diplomacy. Europe wants international agreement, and the U.S. wants to go it alone. Of course, these paradigms are what the world community should expect. As the weaker entity, Europe must rely on international law and diplomacy to find solutions. As a nation of enormous might, both economically and militarily, America can use power (unilaterally, if it must) to address conflicts. This situation is the reverse of what it was at the dawn of the 19th century. As a fledging country, the United States trumpeted the validity of international law and agreements, and European countries utilized their military might in the international arena. Luckily, Kagan avoids condemning either side, and generally lets the reader determine which approach to foreign relations should be followed. He does suggest some avenues for change (Europe should spend more on defense and the U.S. should respect multilateralism), but they seem relatively obvious. This book is an analysis of the status quo, not a prescription for the future. Overall, Kagan provides a great perspective on an issue that should interest all Americans. His style is very easy to read, and at only 102 pages, this book is a very quick read. Europeans and Americans may never agree, but with the help of Robert Kagan, those differences are much easier to understand. I highly recommend.
|
