Rating: 
Summary: For Another American Imperial Century
Review: I don't agree with Kagan's advocacy of America Uber Alles, but the book does focus attention on what Europe needs to do vis a vis "The Hyperpower." The U.S. is no longer economically dominant, only in military power. Europe is leading the way toward a functioning world government, but is stymied by the unilateralist U.S. The problem is, if Europe builds up a counterbalancing military force (as realist theory predicts), the likelihood of a world war increases. What really needs to emerge is a true world government, representing the will of the world's people, not just a handful of the most powerful states. The arrogant U.S. is no substitute, as it will sooner or later give rise to powerful challengers -- it is blind pride that leads Americans to think "what's good for the U.S. is good for the world." Kagan, who wrote George Schulz's speeches from 1985-88, co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1997 with Bill Kristol. The group's neoconservative statement of principles is signed by all the hawks of the Bush administration. Consult the group's website for more on Kagan's worldview.
Rating: 
Summary: illuminating, concise, insightful
Review: The evolution and maturation of Europe after the European-led slaughters of the 20th century is amazing, and both the US and the Europeans should take credit. However, Kagan shows that the utopian post-modernist views of most Europeans work primarily inside Europe- a cocoon of like-minded, modern, democratic countries allowed to pupate under the protection of US power. If the US were able to pretend that the entire world consisted of the US, Canada and Mexico then things would be dandy, indeed. Unfortunately, the kind of international cooperation and good behavior found within Europe or within N. America or amongst modern, democratic nations generally does not seem to apply to states such as Iran, N. Korea, Iraq, etc. These nations don't follow the example of good European behavior and yet the Europeans are loath to discipline them- the utopian European view is "set a good example and hope for the best" and if this doesn't work, then try bribery and appeasement rather than punishment. Many of us would not want to spend much time around children raised this way, nor would I want to live in a society which treated its criminal element in such an undisciplined matter. If criminals get away with murder then citizens begin to question why any law should apply to them and vigilantism prevails. If N. Korea or Iran or Iraq can violate non-proliferation agreements with impunity, why should the US care to sign such an agreement? Are laws only for the law-abiding? The French chastise the US for not signing on to the International Criminal Court while extending a warm invitation to Robert Mugabe to visit Paris. While Kagan highlights the issues, and shows that the diverging European and US attitudes are closely tied to their contrasting ability/desire to project military power, he doesn't really come up with any solutions. However, the current situation at the UN security council highlights the choices- vigilantism (i.e. the US acts alone) or an international enforcement mechanism with real backbone (the Security Council actually attempting to enforce some of its resolutions). While most people in society (and most countries) are naturally law abiding, we still need police forces and jails, and for the small percentage of truly hard-core offenders the purpose of a jail sentence really isn't punishment for the criminal but rather protection for the rest of us. Until we figure out how to internationalize a truly robust system of international criminal laws and enforcement we will be left in a Hobbesian world run by a somewhat erratic US sheriff.
Rating: 
Summary: Biased.
Review: This book is biased but whatsmore the author is wrong and pandering to americans. Instead I recomend 'Après l'empire' by Emmanual Todd. Time to face reality America!
Rating:
Summary: K.I.S.S.
Review: K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple and Short... that's exactly what Robert Kagan successfully accomplished with writing a book on such a pressing issue in international relations. While all the conflicts and political mumbo-jumbo are taking place, my bet is not even half of the American people truly comprehend what exactly is occurring and the ramifications of such different perspectives of the variety of countries in the world. After reading this book by Kagan, the reader will not only be able to comprehend the issues (due, mainly, to Kagan's ability to write the information in laymen's terms) but also develop a deeper appreciation for what our politicans daunting tasks are insofar as keeping America strong and safe. An excellent book!
Rating:
Summary: Good Read
Review: Good for anyone wondering why Europeans disagree with Americans over the Iraq war as well as many other areas. The book covers both sides pretty well. I read it in one sitting. Fits the times perfectly.
Rating:
Summary: Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus
Review: This is an erudite exposition of the differences between the American and continental European approach to diplomatic crises. The primary explanation, according to Kagan, is the arms gap. That is, nations attempt to exercise what power they have. The US is the lone power in the world with the ability to conduct expeditionary warfare on multiple fronts across the glob. As was demonstrated in the Balkans in the 1990's the Europeans are unable to project a credible military force even within Europe. Therefore the Europeans resort to the only thing they have for managing international conflicts, international institutions like the UN and ICCJ. The success of European integration and solving the "German problem" has led Europeans to believe that they live in a Kantian paradise where multilateral supranational institutions can effectively banish war. Americans, given different historical realities, view the world as a Hobbesian jungle were hard power rules. The difference really comes down to how the two view the proximity of threats. Outside of the Middle East, where the Europeans have a stake in maintaining order, the European sphere of influence is small. The US's sphere includes practically the whole globe now with the expansion into Central Asia since 2001. The only continent outside the US sphere of influence is Africa. The European Kantian paradise, could only have come into being with a Hobbesian American military presence to calm the fears about a Germany that might re-arm. Without the American nuclear shield protecting Europe from Soviet expansion, which in turn obviated the need to actually rebuild a German military, European integration may never have been possible, and we would still have Anglo, French, and German arms races today. Kagan offers no real solutions to the fracturing of the Atlantic Alliance. Instead, he basically says that both parties need to get used to double-standards as it applies to the non-Western world, ex-Japan. That Europe needs to understand without the American "sheriff" in town, their Kantian paradise of laws and compromise, is not secure. And that the US needs to get used to criticism from the weaker nations. Thankfully, the book is not a partisan political screed that is full of apocalyptic prognostications about what will happen after the 2004 elections. This is all too common in books on this subject. The partisanship is limited two a couple of minor attacks on the Bush diplomatic team (although praise is given to them for averting a Pakistan-India war), and a revisionist history of Madeleleine Albright's term as Secretary of State.
Rating:
Summary: Profound thinking explained in simple terms and compact form
Review: In the spirit of Kagan I'll keep this review short and to the point: This essay, delivered in a thin hardcover, has all the punch and insight (if not more) than most books 4 times its size, and is delivered in "plainspeak". I saw a graph the other day on CNN that showed a whole host of books of this type on a large 2D screen. It made connections between books that people polled read in common. Liberals were in blue, Conservatives in red. It looked like 2 spider webs. Liberals read one set of books (Bushwacked, etc.) and Conservatives (Deliver us from Evil, etc.). A sad paradigm considering the need for national and international unity. I found no clear bias in this book. Kagan doesn't set up Europeans as useless gun-dropping appeasement junkies, or Americans as dangerous gun-loving cowboys; rather, he uses history and philosophical conditioning (Hobbesian vs. Kantian) to assist the reader in - if not empathising with both sides - at least understanding the unique circumstances of each side, and the consequential positions they've taken on important world events of late (mostly related to security). This essay taught me more than most books do, and I didn't feel like I had to keep my "partisan bull**** filter" running on high (makes reading much more enjoyable). I recommend this highly. Christian Hunter
Rating:
Summary: An intellectual primer of Strategy & Philosophy of War.
Review: This little book has turned out to be vastly popular, perhaps for its brevity. Originally an article in 'Policy Review' in 2002, it was expanded into a treatise along the vein of Thomas Paine in another time. He worked in the U.S. State Department from 1984 to 1988, which made him an expert on American culture.
He compares us (the Americans) with Europe (primarily Britain) and the use of power politics. In my opinion, America as he calls us needs a bit of diplomacy and humility of the British system.
Throughout history, they waged war against each other, and even came over here to put us in our place once. Europeans have an ardent desire never to return to a past of disastrous events triggered by some former prime ministers of England and dictators elsewhere. We haven't reached that point historically yet. Will we live to learn from our mistakes?
Most of those who helped to form power politics want to believe it was the transformation of mind and spirit (from war to peace) to make possible a 'new order.' Now, the British base the rejection of force on moral consciousness in international affairs. They no longer have the mentality (most are highly educated, you know) for power politics. It all boils down to military might.
There are other profound differences in the way the U.S. and Europe conduct foreign policy. Here, he avers, the Democrats seem more 'European' than the Republicans, except in the use of force. Our founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and John Adams were well versed in the realities of power politics but recognized their deficiencies.
He writes, "With the check of Soviet power removed, U. S. was free to intervene practically wherever and whenever it chose -- a fact reflected in the proliferation of overseas military interventions" with the invasion of Panama in 1989, during the first Bush administration, Persian Gulf War in 1991, Somalia in 1992, and continued during the Clinton years with interventions abroad more frequently than it had throughout the Cold War. Thanks to the new technologies, the U.S. was also freer to use force around the world in more limited way through air and missile strikes, which we did in increasing frequency. The end of the Cold War thus expanded an already wide gulf between European and American power.
Americans believe in power as a means of advancing the principles of a liberal civilization and a liberal world order. Who are we to make this decision? If, as this former member of the State Dept. avers, that if Iraq was 'dangerous' to world order, why then allow thousands to emigrate and infiltrate the U.S.
Europeans today are not ambitious for power, and certainly not for military power. Over the past half century, they have developed a genuinely different perspective that springs directly from their unique historical experience since the end of WWII. They have rejected the power politics which brought them such misery. This is a perspective on power that Americans (the powers that be) do not and cannot share, inasmuch as the formative historical experiences on our side of the Atlantic have not been the same.
Paradise and power are not compatible, and this administration should know by now that they were not elected as world leaders, only here in America, and not by a majority at that. It's time to stop this nonsense and try to be literate and let us end our existence in some kind of peace. We cannot police the world.
Mr. Kagan writes a monthly column for the 'Washington Post,' which calls itself 'an independent newspaper.' He's cooperated on other books.
Rating: 
Summary: Concise Account of the Current Transatlantic Relationship
Review: At only 158 pages, Of Paradise and Power by Robert Kagan manages to do an exceptional job at describing the current relationship between the United States and Europe. While some may argue that Kagan's brevity is accomplished at the sacrifice of details and explanations, many should find the length of this text to be refreshing. Most longer works are not necessarily filled with more information, just more ways to say the same few points that could be addressed in half the length.
The basic premise of the book is that the U.S. and Europe practically live in different worlds, where the U.S. still utilizes power politics while Europe lives in a world governed by rules, laws, and diplomacy. Europeans disapprove of America's obsession with power politics and its comparatively large defense budget. Of course, they are allowed to live in the "post-modern" world they occupy precisely because the U.S. undertakes the task of being the global policman.
Kagan at times walks a fine line between being objective about the policies and practices of the U.S. and Europe and appearing to be in favor of U.S. policy and against European opinion. However, these instances are short and never take away from the overall impact of the work. In other words, any perceived bias from Kagan does not nullify his description of the transatlantic relationship.
Some have said that this work will come to be as important has Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. This is entirely possible, as the rise of the European Union and current U.S. foreign policy will have a drastic and important effect on the U.S.' relationship with it's European allies. Anyone interested on better understanding this relationship and where it is heading int he 21st century should pick up this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Naive Analysis
Review: After having read this book, I must say that I found it to be very disturbing and naive, disturbing in the sense that a work of such writing could be so naive in its analysis. While the author states that there are other reasons for the differences between Europe and America, he isnt able to elaborate and ends up with the assumption that everything is related to the military and the military powers of these two different schools of thought. This is very disturbing, and not nearly justify that the divide between Europe and America is becuase of this. What about the people? Europeans (not gots) view the whole war against Iraq as wrong, Americans (both the govt and people) stress it needed to be done. Propaganda sure works wonders!
Nations can prosper and countinue to do so without the need of military power, I believe this book tries to justify the war on Iraq with 100 pages of ranting about military power and the reason these two powers differ, but fails to do so greatly! Buyer beware, if you want to read a 100 page rant and pay more than what it deserves, then by all means go ahead, otherwise, find a better investment and read something with a little more substance.
|
