The Folly of Empire : What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson

Rating:
Summary: Do we ever learn from history?
Review: In twenty-five words or less, this book says President George Bush's "liberation" of Iraq is remarkably similar to President McKinley's "liberation" of the Philippines more than a century ago.

So, what do Filipinos think of Bush? According to the Sept. 6, 2004, edition of The Financial Times of London, Filipinos gave Bush the biggest margin in any of the 35 countries surveyed by GlobeScan, in conjunction with the University of Maryland. The poll says 57 percent of Filipinos support Bush, compared to 32 percent for Sen. John Kerry. This isn't recent bubble of popularity; in 2002, a survey by a Manila-based polling group, Pulse Asia, found that Bush enjoyed a 56 percent trust rating -- much higher than the president of the Philippines.

Judis, one of the most perceptive and knowledgable writers in America, uses all the history that fits to argue that "through international organizations and treaties, the United States would keep the peace and promote prosperity much more effectively than it could accomplish acting alone." He doesn't ask what will happen if others use his recommended techniques against America.

He cites the experience of presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush to argue "Until the 1890s, the United States had adhered to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's advice to stay out of 'foreign entanglements'." Of course, this ignores US invasions of Canada in 1775/76, 1812/14, and major threats in 1846 and 1865/67 which produced the Confederation of Canada, up to this century and the victimization of Canada by seizing lands in the Alaska Boundary dispute. It also overlooks the Monroe Doctrine, which in effect made the Caribbean "an American lake" and all of the Americas into a US colony.

"Bush was ignorant" Judis argues, saying his "religious beliefs seem to have grown out of a sense of personal redemption from sin -- in his case, alcoholism . . . . " After Sept. 11, 2001, he says US foreign policy was shaped by neoconservatives such as Irving Kristol and Wohlstetter who were both Trotskyists (i.e. communists) and former socialists who had undergone a sudden and complete transformation of faith similar to what Bush experienced.

True! True! True! He cites facts again and again and again. Only the uncurious and ignorant can dispute his facts. His conclusion addresses everyone who cares very deeply about the future, "When America goes out alone in search of monsters to destroy -- venturing on terrain upon which imperial powers have already trod -- it can itself become the monster."

This isn't a political book that will die with the election results, no matter who wins. The lessons Judis cites will live with us for decades, regardless of who is elected and whatever decisions are made. Maybe, in a century, 57 percent of Iraqis will think Bush was right. The real issue is the blood, treasure, toil, suffering and misery to get to that happy conclusion.

Judis says there are much better techniques than shooting first and letting Allah sort out the good guys. This book is for the years ahead. The election of 2004 is a mere speed bump on the road of history. The future may be a smooth highway, or a rutted mass of potholes and quagmires, depending on what voters decide.

Rating:
Summary: Lessons Learned.?
Review: John B. Judis' Folly of Empire is a wonderfully contructed case against American imperialism. From the Puritans to Fanklin Roosevelt to the current President, Judis clearly cites and explains the history and the role of imperialism in American.
He champions the Wilsonian belief that imperialism will inevitably lead to strong nationalism as well as world conflict. He also goes on to explain the source of the American drive towards imperialism. He cites America's vision of having a special role in history, a milienial mission. He states that this vision and the various interpratations of it are responsible for American foreign policy throughout this country's history.
In comparing the Indian Wars and the conquest of the Philipines to the present situation in Iraq as well as other areas of foreign policy, Judis makes a very clear and easily accessible overview of imperialism in America. I found this book to be intriguing and logical; it was well worth the read.

Rating:
Summary: quick and useful read but incomplete
Review: For the reader interested in a quick and easy introduction to the history of American multilateralism and a critique of the Bush unilateral approach, this is a useful book. On the other hand it is too sketchy and a bit simplistic.

For example, it really doesn't deal with the problems of utilizing the United Nations to deal with issues such as Iraq.
One of the repeated criticisms of the multilateral approach is that countries like Russian and France had economic interests in Iraq which prevented them from being willing to take action there to topple Saddam's regime. The argument is the kind of coalition which backed the Gulf war was not possible because of these collusions. I have never seen this effectively refuted. This is the kind of depth of examination which I believe is necessary to support multilateralism vs unilateralism.

Furthermore, the author contends that the invasion of Iraq created more potential terrorists and thus increased the chances of terrorism in the world. I did not read one piece of evidence supporting this contention. Although I believe it is true, the author did not back it up as I believe that he should.

The author did not extend his discussion to deal with likely hotspots like North Korea and Iran. How would a multilateral approach deal with these issues? How would it deal with "rogue nations" other than these?

One can look on this book as a good start for the full blown and fully articulated defense of multilateralism and critique of unilateralism that is so vitally needed at this time. I still await such a book.

Rating:
Summary: Remember Your History
Review: I firmly believe that history can teach us virtually everything we need to know about our modern world. We have thousands of years of civilization behind us as humans, and a few hundred years behind us as Americans. We have the extreme benefit of learning from the mistakes of our fore-fathers and hopefully the wisdom to not repeat them. Unfortunately, it seems that we as a people are often forgetful or simply unlearned about the parallels between our world and the past. In his book, "The Folly of Empire," John B. Judis makes the case that the current Bush administration has been unwilling or unable to draw parallels between their present actions and the post-Imperialistic actions of previous generations.

Judis claims that the current Bush administration is leaping head-long into a new version of 19 th and 20 th century imperialism in modern Iraq. Bush, he states, is heading down the same failed road as some of his American predecessors have already tread. To illustrate this, Judis lays out two major examples of failed US imperialism: Theodore Roosevelt's attempts to annex the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba and Puerto Rico, and Woodrow Wilson's attempt to overthrow the Mexican dictator, Huerta. In a nutshell, both presidents had what seemed to be honest intentions in their attempts to secure democracy around the world. However, their aims were short-sighted in the sense that they caused more backlash and ultimately failure.

Overall, Judis's book creates a strong parallel between our seemingly forgotten past as a country, and the current administration. The neo-conservatives love their Roosevelt in all his muscular imperialism, but forget his failures. They remember the failed efforts of Wilson to create a multilateral world but forget his lessoned learned as an attempted "liberator." Later generations would again forget these lessons in Vietnam where the fate of the world lay in the balance of US intervention. They would confuse the communist domino effect with Vietnamese nationalism. And they would again forget it in Iraq. Judis's points are well taken; the promotion of democracy and the ousting of dictators may be necessary from time to time, but the motivations must be reassessed and compared to the lessons of history. If we selectively cut off our history, then we cut off a wealth of knowledge on how to govern our country in the modern era.

Rating:
Summary: Quasi Intellectual Liberal Historical Rhetoric
Review: I read this "book" a few days ago and was appalled at anti Bush rhetoric spewed throughout it. I understand the author's desire to compared our annexation of Cuba and the Phillipines with the recent occupation of Iraq (cuz you know those Spanish terrorists were so awful) but it doesn't hold weight, for reasons I don't want to go into.

Judis practically kisses the ... rear of former President Clinton! All I saw of him was praise and compliments. The book didn't compliment Bush at all. Clinton's joke of a foreign policy, which helped make us vulnerable to terrorism, is infallible in the liberally-chromed-colored glasses of the author.

Until now, I've never stopped reading a book in utter disgust.



Rating:
Summary: fantastic book for now and tomorrow
Review: If you like History, are care about the future course of American foreign policy and its place in the world, this is the book for you. Wonderfully written and researched, it helps the reader understand how the views of two important presidents were shaped by events in the world and how George Bush should learn from their experiences. Those that do not study histroy are doomed to repeat it and those who care about the future direction of the country should start by reading this wonderful book.

Rating:
Summary: Provoking analysis without political anger
Review: Judis argues that President Bush and the neo-conservatives around him are overlooking critically important lessons US history should be teaching them relative to using imperial policies to make our country safer. Judis talks about Teddy Roosevelt's involvement in the Philippines (a disastrous event for America), our involvement in Mexico and what Wilson learned from these two events that led him to believe in the ideas reflected within the League of Nations. Judis argues persuasively that our current policy of anticipatory self-defense (also known as the doctrine of pre-emption) will have very negative effects to our credibility, our resources, and our ability to pay attention to other areas in the world where more serious problems are percolating.

Rating:
Summary: If you already hate Bush and don't want to think on your own
Review: The title should have been "How to Make a Statement with Selected Facts and an Obvious Agenda" or perhaps "How to Ignore Objectivity: A Primer for Prospective Bush Bashers with Citations" ... either way you get a book that is great to read if you hate Bush as much as you hate studying history and forming your own conclusions.

An magnanimous effort at non-partisanship was made to spread the imperialist legacy between politicians from three parties... two men who passed away before most readers were born are compared to the sitting Republican president only months prior to an important election... that's fair isn't it?

How much more pertinent it would have been to discuss the imperialist errors of John F Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs, or his introduction of military advisors to Viet Nam? Was this imperialism? The author's criteria suggest that these are prime examples but, oddly enough, JFK sees no developed analysis.

Perhaps you seek to unravel the events leading to the Carter Administration's disruption of the Russian food supply and the subsequent dismantling of the American farm economy with poor agricultural planning and a disastrous boycott of the Soviet Union? There too is an example of an imperialist attitude by holding back food from another nation's populace... no developed information here either.

If you like this book, you should read Michael Moore. Moore is equally objective and more inclusive of counter-examples which may stimulate earnest consideration of the facts as presented to the reader... right. Point is, if you are the sort of person who would buy this book anyway, it will probably be a good read to discuss by the water cooler so that you can present selected facts which cannot be immediately refuted by your misguided and pitiful Republican or Moderate conversational foil.

Rating:
Summary: Balanced Review of Lessons from Roosevet and Wilson
Review: This is a balanced book, well-grounded in history, with an objective air and a very pleasing integration of specific quotes from both the past and the present. It strips away the false airs of the neo-cons, and with trenchant scholarship shows how deeply ignorant America's neo-conservatives and their leading light are of the lessons of history.

The early portion of the book provides an excellent overview, concise, documented, easy to absorb, of the origins of American imperialism in the early century of Christian millennialism followed by civil millennialism. The chart on page 17 is useful, covering the seven period of various styles of American imperialism or avoidance thereof.

The book documents the explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of empires based on conquest and distance rule, and of foreign political entanglements.

I especially liked a 1780 quote from Reverend Samuel Cooper that captures my own personal belief in how America should relate to the world: "Conquest is not indeed the aim of these rising states; sound policy must ever forbid it. We have before us an object more truly great and honorable. We seem called by heaven to make a large portion of this globe a seat of knowledge and liberty, of agriculture, commerce, and arts, and what is more important than all, of Christian piety and virtue."

I find it relevant that Mark Twain, among many others in our history, was a staunch opponent of American imperialism.

The middle portion of the book provides a non-judgmental review of how America was lured into imperialism for largely economic reasons, including a fear of losing access to China as well as coaling stations for a global navy.

At the same time, there is a recurring theme throughout the book of the arrogance and ignorance of white Protestants, who believed-as the Spanish did when they began the genocide in the Americas-that the heathen are savages that must be either absorbed or exterminated.

Especially interesting to me is the concept discussed in the book regarding the early American view that all land not under direct human cultivation was "waste land" whose occupants merited removal as a precondition to "civilized" stewardship [exploitation] of the land.

Theodore Roosevelt is discussed in both negative and positive terms-I have the note in the margin here of Roosevelt as the originator of what can easily be called "macho shit racism"-yet Roosevelt also matured, and ultimately set the stage for a discussion of the League of Nations concept.

Woodrow Wilson is the other historical figure in the center of the book, and his ideal of a collective multinational "conscience of the world" receives a good review. Critical within this section is Wilson early understanding that the "balance of power" model for nations was an inherent unstable model. To this I would add a pointer to my review of Philip Allot, "HEALTH OF NATIONS: Society and Law Beyond the State" where he documents the absurdity of allowing any crime against humanity to occur within any political boundary as part of the acceptance of sovereign borders.

Other specifics include a discussion of morality as an international force, of the importance of trust in mediators who avoid entanglements, of the CIA's early days sponsoring socialist alternatives to communism that now dominate Europe, and of the US failure to respect the North Vietnamese when they first declared independence and publicly stated their respect for the early American model of governance.

The final portion of the book is a review of modern history. Clinton comes across as disengaged, out-sourcing foreign policy to a very ineffective team, while Bush comes across as provincial and ignorant. In both cases the author notes that underlying conditions have changed, with various bits suggesting to me that there are three major things than have changed: capitalism has become immoral rather than innovative; democracy has become apathetic rather than engaged, and dictators have become the norm as US partners, rather than loathed.

The author links Ahmed Chalibi the thief and Iranian double-agent, with Bernard Lewis the historian fool, in a very compelling manner-both contributed to the debacle of Iraq by deceiving first the neo-conservatives, and then the American people.

The book concludes with some thoughtful assertions on the perils of empire, the legitimate historical and current grievances of the Muslims at large, and the urgency of returning to an American foreign policy that relies on collective security, a collective conscience, and a restoration of America's commitment to the rights of individuals to self-determination.

Rating:
Summary: Imperial amnesia
Review: This sounding against American Empire shows the remarkable, and unsettling, resemblance of the current Bush escapade to the first brush with empire in the period of McKinley onward. The Cuban venture, of Rough Rider fame, and especially,the Philippine quagmire show the same sequence of intoxicating military escape followed by quicksand colonial ambitions. Many are accused of forgetting history. Bush couldn't have forgotten anything--he doesn't read history.