|
But therein lies the problem. Bzezinski's most recent book appraises U.S. Spanning Bush to Clinton to Bush Bzezinski harshly reprimands all of their administrations for squandering U.S. "Second Chance" comes across at times as a bit of the harsh headmaster giving stinging rebukes to his students, as Bzezinski gives pretty harsh criticisms of these administrations. foreign policy. power and prestige and argues for a genuinely post-Cold War globalist foreign policy.
And those that he does offer seems unconvincing or timid, such as creating yet another agency to conduct foreign policy; as though we don't have too much overlap already. foreign policy from 1989 though to 2008; a twenty year period that included the collapse of Soviet style communism, the rise of globalism, the devolution of state control in many nations, and the rise of rogue states. While Bzezinski doles out harsh criticism he also has few ideas of his own as to how he would do things differently or new courses of action to avoid potential problems. There are perhaps few individuals with such expertise to make such a claim and have the credentials to back them up outside of Bzezinski and policy makers would be wise to sit up and take notice. To his mind there is little that has occurred in the past 20 years of foreign policy worth continuing. Other recommendations like reigning in lobbying groups seem sensible, yet those same groups will howl and stop such reforms dead in their tracks.In the end "Second Chance" serves better as a critique of past administrations rather than as a polemic to arguing for a new direction in U.S.
Bzezinski does well in poking holes in the foibles of past presidents, but his own new ideas are ones best forgotten or quite simply beyond the realm of the possible.
"Second Chance" features the pictures of the book's 3 main actors chosen to reflect the point-of-view expressed by the author. The concepts are presented simply and rationally - there aren't a lot of wasted words in this text, which is part of its appeal. Looking forward is where the value of the author's experience comes in, not in the retrospective - ironic that he bashes Bush I for this.My only significant beef with the retrospective is that the author is a little unfair to Bush I. Clinton (with the befuddled look to the right) was a forward-looking leader whose style (personal and professional) didn't allow his administration to reach its potential. Bush I did what he knew how to do, and did it well, setting the stage for a new style of leadership to follow, even if 4 years sooner than he would have preferred. Bush II (looking to the right with his back to the camera) was also a forward-looking leader who wasn't about to listen to anything anyone outside his inner circle had to say.Most of "Second Chance" consists of a nice stroll down memory lane. Bush I (looking sternly to the left), while skilled and in control of an unusual number of world crises, led by looking in the rearview mirror. That said, I felt much more should have been done in this section.
The author concentrates on the 3 Presidents since the fall of the Soviet Union as only they have governed in the rarified air of truly being *the* Global Leader. The reader emerges from this reminiscence 3/4 of the way through the book with 3 main concepts: 1) foreign policy is more complicated than ordinary citizens tend to think of it - spanning much longer timeframes and involving many more actors; 2) Bush I was a better President than he's usually given credit for being; 3) Bush II was a worse President than even his detractors tend to know.The final portion of the book provides some good food for thought, and implores the next Global Leader not to blow the opportunities presented in the same way as his predecessors. His hands were full, by the author's own admission, skillfully reacting to crisis after crisis heaped on him by external events - when the heck did he have the time to pay more than lip service to the catchphrase of the day, "New World Order" (the author's primary complaint). I feel he was fair enough with Clinton and Bush II.
Brzezinski wrote fairly and honestly and accurately in all about all of it. He advocates America compromise in every means possible to accommodate other religions as well as other traditions if it wants to maintain global leadership and show itself as cooperative with other emerging economic powerhouses like China. Going back over the tremendous opportunities that began with the fall of the Russian empire and seeing more and more chances slip away through increased inability and narrow-mindedness as each next President came on board was sad but especially maddening when Brzezinski finally wrote about "W." I found no qualms with his analyses of Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. The five out of six chapters in this book were both well-written, clear but saddening analyses of the last three Presidents before Obama. The book was published in 2007 and here it is, March 2009, and already we had the financial collapse Brzezinski suggested "might" happen (in Chapter 6) and the House and the Senate have both approved the Americorp National Service Act. He prescribes that our young be put into national (mandatory) service as a means to instill "civic consciousness" that he declares America's young do not presently have -- because they're soft and greedy and watch too much TV.
Brzezinski does.
He captured each President's administration as a distinct personality perfectly.
He never refers to capitalism once in this book or in this chapter, nor does he mention the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech.
Each President gave up or ignored chances to establish global diplomatic leadership and harmonious relations with other nations.
He advocates not only the redistribution of power but as well of wealth.
(We haven't had a really good President for a hundred years).After having read five chapters and discovering there was no mention of a "second chance," I wondered why the author titled his book with this phrase.
At the point where Brzezinski mentions the war in Iraq under Bush II as "catastrophic," I thought perhaps the book should have been titled "Missed Chances" or "Lost Chance." The reason for the book and its title is found in Chapter 6, "Beyond 2008." Do you think it's possible to look upon the days of Lenin nostalgically.
He speaks in global-baloney terms about "social justice" and "compromise." The astute reader knows he's advocating the New World Order run by a small coterie of the wealthy and the powerful.
Who's your Daddy, America.
I've only gotten halfway through. It's interesting, but not an easy read, but history was never my strong suit. Brzezinski has great insight,though.
Probably about the same for China. Then I add to the chart the Russian Empire starting from 1480. The US public got in foreign appears what Clinton promised, little. Bush has done more then Clinton in Japan, South Korea, India, and ASEAN. Finally Bush I never had a second term, his presidency was cut midterm. Iraq is clearly a disputed issue. Also I would have thought that Rwanda deserved more than just a passing mention. Whether neoconservatism had much to do with the invasion is unlikely but the writer clearly has his ideological enemies to attack.
Europe today is not alienated from the US. For example, Bush I for not demanding as a condition of peace that Saddam be removed after the Gulf War of 1991. Last chapter with his report card. Surely domestic affairs are more important. I do not see why.
Figure 8, the chart of declining longevity. Bush II. If Saddam's generals at the peace tables had even appeared to considered this choice, Saddam would have removed them immediately. While reading what he said about Clinton, I was wondering what do you want of a leader. Finally for Bush II he gives him a C+ in the Far East, less than Clinton. President Carter under whom the writer served tried that and that policy failed.
He also give Clinton a B- for environment, why. One criticism, I often make of US policy makers, is that they often overestimate the power of the US in world affairs. By the same logic, the British Empire could start at 1066, when the Normans conquered it. Then I could argue the Chinese Empire has continued since the Mongols conquest with a few regime changes.
Clinton signed the Kyoto but never did anything about it. Japan is not quietly going it alone. Peacekeeping he gets a B+ probably for Serbia but what about Rwanda and Haiti. This I am not sure but I can understand his view. Here I think the writer is playing politics here. Later it took an invasion by Bush II to get rid of Saddam.The writer criticizes Bush I for not pushing Israel more to make peace for what the writer considers Israel own good. The scale of what happened in Rwanda would in this category alone rate a F.
I find often his criticisms unfair. Similarly I am wondering what did Clinton do in the Far East to deserve a B-. Russia and China are stronger now so they are more assertive. I could argue the Ottoman Empire is a continuation of the Arabian Empire starting with Mohammad. If the Byzantine Empire is marked to last till the 1400s when it was little more than a city-state why does Britain, Spain, Frances etc empires stop before 2000.
This book is an example of that.What the writer is trying to do is rate the US presidents since the fall of communism. The F for the Middle East, fits with the writer's theories. Nuclear proliferation a D although again surely Bush II deserves a higher score than Clinton here. Now the conclusions from my chart looks different. For peacekeeping, how does Bush I rate an n.a.
In peacekeeping, I would have thought that Panama and Mogadishu should count for something. Here he criticizes Sharon, an opposition leader at the time out of power for causing the Palestinian uprising yet we know this uprising was planed long before Sharon's visit. Take out the Holy Roman Empire as it is a dubious addition. The writer's view is that Bush II was wrong to invade. My immediate thoughts looking at this report card is nothing is here on civil rights, democracy and world economics.Bush I surely for his work in Russia on nuclear proliferation, deserves an A here.
Why not start the Spanish empire at say 900 when the Christian states in Northern Spain broke away from the Muslim South. I will add a few more empires like the Khazars, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Bulgarian.
|
