Rating: 
Summary: A polarized review...I am dying to read this sick book...
Review: But only because of the disgusting, horrifying arrogance put forth in this text. It would seem to me, based on extensive quotes I have read, and the reviews of others, to be basically a design for the Fourth Reich. The Americans are establishing world domination abroad, now we have the war that in the Orwellian tradition is endless, the "War on Terrorism." Which is a complete joke!!!!! When do you declare victory??? The end of "terrorism????" At what point do you go "Yep - got em' all!" The answer is...NEVER!!!!
I would never advocate banning a book. The idea of suppressing any type of speech is repulsive to me. This should be read, by those who want to know what's REALLY going on, as so many reviewers have stated. But I would say if any government out there wants to seek out THE most offensive rhetoric written in the last 15 years or so, going after someone writing about snuff films, or rape, or gang violence, or even kiddie porn, or whatever other despicable act of human nature one could conceive of...which has been done for years by government...should realize THIS despictability outweighs them all, and go after this.
But no one should go after any book. I still say it should be published. Freedom of speech is sacred to me. But it seems to me someone advocating the slavery of the human race to a plutocracy of people who rule over the entire world is far, far, FAR more offensive than...some perv who wants to talk about sex with kids. Both are despicable, but only one seems to get notice, seems to get calls for banning, when it's published.
Which is part of the game I suppose. Distract the unwashed masses from the true genocide and hell that is going on.
Rating: 
Summary: you think 9-11 was not about oil?
Review: Coming from the most unlikely source, here is plenty of
evidence that 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts were
really about controlling the dwindling remaining oil
reserves.
Rating: 
Summary: 5 Stars For a Different Reason
Review: Dick Cheney was quoted by several publications as loving this book. Pretty spooky seeing the many lies and fabrications that are being told about the Iraq war and 9/11. If you truly care about people of the 3rd world and hate imperialist slime like this administration, you owe it to yourself to be educated on the enemy, by reading things like this book.
Rating:
Summary: bismarckian? maybe.
Review: Good background from MittelEuropa kind of guy.Brzezinski's premise: that what happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy. Couldn't agree more, only ... can Brzezinski possibly hope to offer a blueprint for success in this, the axial supercontinent, where the fog of contingency is at its most opaque? No harm in trying... Zbig's prior claims to prescience? In 'The Soviet Past and Future' Brzezinski outlined five scenarios for the future of the Soviet Union (petrification, evolution, adaptation, fundamentalism, disintegration). His prediction? "The more probable pattern for (the future)is that of a marginal shift toward the combination of the second (pluralist evolution) and third (technological adaptation)". The owl of Minerva, indeed. In this book, Brzezinski plays the great game of empires past, redux. Couched in the language and tradition of statist tactics, Brzezinski outlines actors and scenarios. A strategy of engagement is central to his formulation of coalition-based mechanisms for a "trans-eurasian security system". He calls for the development of a pluralistic core of mutual political responsibility, to negotiate a course of accomodation in the area. This prescriptive carries Paul Wolfowitz's imprimatur on the back of my copy (!) Brzezinski observes that there are inherent constraints to the exercise of sustained, focused policy initiatives. Stating that "Democratization is inimical to imperial mobilization", he echoes Toqueville's observation that "a democracy is ill-suited for conducting foreign policy." Some comfort to those who quail at the demands of realpolitik statecraft. If you need a primer on one mainstream view, this book fits the bill, even seven years after publication (though cracks are appearing ...) Mostly, it's a catechism for the Trilateral Commission library.
Rating:
Summary: I am astonished everytime I read the news!
Review: I bought this book in 1999 trying to figure out why America was in the Balkans. Why did we finally insert our military might there? The answer to that question, why we invaded Afghanistan, why we have invaded Iraq and why we will invade Iran next are all in this strategy that Brzezinski put forth in the Carter administration. I read an investigative report that put it this way: GOD = Guns Oil Drugs. But the book is about America maintaining status as Super Power and how we must look to the future to see our competitors and move our chess pieces into place. Ni Hao! China is our great competitor. We have taken Afghanistan under the guise of stopping terrorism, we have invaded Iraq under the guise of stopping WMDs, but Iran? What will convince the American people to invade Iran? According to the author Iran is on the list of countries America must control in the future. We will invade Iran next or cause a civil war there. Just look at todays headline: **** Feb 18. 2004 - TOKYO (AP) -- Japan and Iran sign basic agreement for a Japanese to develop major oil field in Iran. The negotiations have drawn concern from the United States that the estimated $2 billion investment in Iran could pay for nuclear weapons development and terrorist activities.***** The author does not predict the future, based on what I have lived through, he wrote it.
Rating:
Summary: I am astonished everytime I read the news!
Review: I bought this book in 1999 trying to figure out why America was in the Balkans. Why did we finally insert our military might there? The answer to that question, why we invaded Afghanistan, why we have invaded Iraq and why we will invade Iran next are all in this strategy that Brzezinski put forth in the Carter administration. I read an investigative report that put it this way: GOD = Guns Oil Drugs. But the book is about America maintaining status as Super Power and how we must look to the future to see our competitors and move our chess pieces into place. Ni Hao! China is our great competitor. We have taken Afghanistan under the guise of stopping terrorism, we have invaded Iraq under the guise of stopping WMDs, but Iran? What will convince the American people to invade Iran? According to the author Iran is on the list of countries America must control in the future. We will invade Iran next or cause a civil war there. Just look at todays headline: **** Feb 18. 2004 - TOKYO (AP) -- Japan and Iran sign basic agreement for a Japanese to develop major oil field in Iran. The negotiations have drawn concern from the United States that the estimated $2 billion investment in Iran could pay for nuclear weapons development and terrorist activities.***** The author does not predict the future, based on what I have lived through, he wrote it.
Rating:
Summary: 5 Stars For a Different Reason
Review: I didn't rate the book 5 stars because it's a good book. It got it's rating because it's important that Americans read stuff like this. Brzezinski's globalist views are what's ripping our country apart and it's always important to understand the enemy. In this book, which was written in 1998, brags about how America would be attacked by Afghan terrorists and then a war for global government would then take place in central asia. Prior knowledge a conspiracy theory? Doubt it.
Rating:
Summary: Do strategists love their children too?
Review: I read this book with disbelief. Brzezinski was for a long time a strategist, a political planner of the highest rank so I have to take him seriously. But I couldn't help but constantly wonder if the book is for real. It displays an unabashed and unapologetic view of the U.S. as a world 'hegemon' (author's word) and divides the rest of the world in 'vassals' (author's word), rivals, 'pivots' and strategically irrelevant countries. Western Europe and Japan are the prominent members of the first category, Russia and China of the second. The pivots are the countries that have strategic choices important to the U.S., such as the Ukraine. United Kingdom is an (amusing) example of strategically irrelevance. The book proceeds by systematically and often tediously analyzing case-by-case scenarios and what-ifs concerning the strategic impact of the policy decisions of the players (vassals, rivals and pivots) in four main theatres: Europe, Russia, Central Asia and the Far East. The analysis seemed rather un-principled to me but by the end I could discern some key points. The most important of them is that the U.S., despite is global hegemony cannot afford wars but it has to maintain its dominance by smartly playing the rivals against each other so that a major global rival does not emerge. I think the book's shocking disregard of democracy and national self-determination is quite consistent with the way the American administration tends to act in international affairs. Unfortunately, the current administration does not seem to take the book's main advice regarding the need for America to avoid outright wars and to dominate through smart diplomacy.
Rating: 
Summary: The emperor has no clothes
Review: I'm surprised by the popularity of this semi-sanitized rehash of 19th century Imperialism. Manchester's 'The Last Lion, Winston Churchill' trys to make 19th century imperialism palatable by claiming it was over (Churchill was the last) and it's death-throes saved us happy non-imperialist types from Hitler. Brzezinski uses the same "it's ok because it about over" trick. The concluding paragraph provides an excellent taste of the book's delights: "In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world's current "regent," which has for the time being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower." Here is what this means: At some unknown time, the United Nations will gradually take over the United States world regency. World regent America is 'ok' because the US will only do it for a few years and no one else will try it, again. I guess Churchill wasn't the 'last lion,' after all. After carefully hunting through the book, I don't think the 'temporary' side of imperialism is a serious concern for Brzezinski. His primary concern is insuring American power remains pre-eminent and American business monopolize it's 'regional sphere'. His method of operation involves catering to ethnic mythology at every turn, insuring a maximum of ethnic friction. The blandishments about an emerging 'structure of global cooperation' is just a fig leaf. There must be a lot the left and right could complain about this vision, but I find it primarily empty headed. Brzezinski's model is the status quo, his style is crisis management. I felt like I was reading a paean to good old days of the 'Grand Game' and aristocratic diplomacy. I won't go into the content. If you have played the board game Risk, you pretty much know what to expect. Brzezinski merely brings the 1960s game into the new millennium. I think it useful to consider the book from two alternative views. 1) Has it offered predictive value? 2) Does it help us identify the forces that will influence the future. On the first point, Brzezinski has no predictive powers. He doesn't peer into the future, he drives while staring at the rear view mirror. Written in the late 90s, he entirely misses the 'blowback' of his own Middle Eastern policy. In the late 70s, when Carter-era national security adviser, Brzezinski walked the Russians it "the Afghan trap." Did he ever imagine that his creation, the mujahideen, would blow up the World Trade Center?Brzezinski's blind spot for Muslim creativity extends to just about everything south of the Alps, Anatolian plateau and Himalayas. Weapons of mass destruction get mentioned as an after thought near the end of the conclusion. Christian and Muslim fundamentalism are ignored. Drug cartels and non-government paramilitaries escape his radar screen. On the second point, Brzezinski offers no systemic insights for global developments. What is it about the United Nations that makes it a fit 'future' for global government? What are the advantages of legitimizing the United Nations as the court of highest authority? How will Brzezinsk's world of vassals, protectorates and competitors find agreement on global authority? We never find out.
Rating:
Summary: The emperor has no clothes
Review: I'm surprised by the popularity of this semi-sanitized rehash of 19th century Imperialism. Manchester's 'The Last Lion, Winston Churchill' trys to make 19th century imperialism palatable by claiming it was over (Churchill was the last) and it's death-throes saved us happy non-imperialist types from Hitler. Brzezinski uses the same "it's ok because it about over" trick. The concluding paragraph provides an excellent taste of the book's delights: "In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world's current "regent," which has for the time being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower." Here is what this means: At some unknown time, the United Nations will gradually take over the United States world regency. World regent America is 'ok' because the US will only do it for a few years and no one else will try it, again. I guess Churchill wasn't the 'last lion,' after all. After carefully hunting through the book, I don't think the 'temporary' side of imperialism is a serious concern for Brzezinski. His primary concern is insuring American power remains pre-eminent and American business monopolize it's 'regional sphere'. His method of operation involves catering to ethnic mythology at every turn, insuring a maximum of ethnic friction. The blandishments about an emerging 'structure of global cooperation' is just a fig leaf. There must be a lot the left and right could complain about this vision, but I find it primarily empty headed. Brzezinski's model is the status quo, his style is crisis management. I felt like I was reading a paean to good old days of the 'Grand Game' and aristocratic diplomacy. I won't go into the content. If you have played the board game Risk, you pretty much know what to expect. Brzezinski merely brings the 1960s game into the new millennium. I think it useful to consider the book from two alternative views. 1) Has it offered predictive value? 2) Does it help us identify the forces that will influence the future. On the first point, Brzezinski has no predictive powers. He doesn't peer into the future, he drives while staring at the rear view mirror. Written in the late 90s, he entirely misses the 'blowback' of his own Middle Eastern policy. In the late 70s, when Carter-era national security adviser, Brzezinski walked the Russians it "the Afghan trap." Did he ever imagine that his creation, the mujahideen, would blow up the World Trade Center?Brzezinski's blind spot for Muslim creativity extends to just about everything south of the Alps, Anatolian plateau and Himalayas. Weapons of mass destruction get mentioned as an after thought near the end of the conclusion. Christian and Muslim fundamentalism are ignored. Drug cartels and non-government paramilitaries escape his radar screen. On the second point, Brzezinski offers no systemic insights for global developments. What is it about the United Nations that makes it a fit 'future' for global government? What are the advantages of legitimizing the United Nations as the court of highest authority? How will Brzezinsk's world of vassals, protectorates and competitors find agreement on global authority? We never find out.
| 
