|
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" 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 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. To his mind there is little that has occurred in the past 20 years of foreign policy worth continuing. 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. 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. Spanning Bush to Clinton to Bush Bzezinski harshly reprimands all of their administrations for squandering U.S. 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.
But therein lies the problem. foreign policy. Bzezinski's most recent book appraises U.S. power and prestige and argues for a genuinely post-Cold War globalist foreign policy. 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.
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. I feel he was fair enough with Clinton and Bush II. That said, I felt much more should have been done in this section. 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. 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).
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. 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 concepts are presented simply and rationally - there aren't a lot of wasted words in this text, which is part of its appeal. 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. "Second Chance" features the pictures of the book's 3 main actors chosen to reflect the point-of-view expressed by the author.
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. 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.
Brzezinski wrote fairly and honestly and accurately in all about all of it. Brzezinski does. 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. 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.
Who's your Daddy, America. 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. 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. 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. (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. 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.
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. The five out of six chapters in this book were both well-written, clear but saddening analyses of the last three Presidents before Obama. He captured each President's administration as a distinct personality perfectly. He advocates not only the redistribution of power but as well of wealth.
It's interesting, but not an easy read, but history was never my strong suit. I've only gotten halfway through. Brzezinski has great insight,though.
Why not start the Spanish empire at say 900 when the Christian states in Northern Spain broke away from the Muslim South. Peacekeeping he gets a B+ probably for Serbia but what about Rwanda and Haiti. He also give Clinton a B- for environment, why. Last chapter with his report card. I find often his criticisms unfair. For example, Bush I for not demanding as a condition of peace that Saddam be removed after the Gulf War of 1991. Take out the Holy Roman Empire as it is a dubious addition. Clinton signed the Kyoto but never did anything about it.
The F for the Middle East, fits with the writer's theories. Bush II. Nuclear proliferation a D although again surely Bush II deserves a higher score than Clinton here. In peacekeeping, I would have thought that Panama and Mogadishu should count for something. I will add a few more empires like the Khazars, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Bulgarian. Iraq is clearly a disputed issue. If Saddam's generals at the peace tables had even appeared to considered this choice, Saddam would have removed them immediately.
Finally for Bush II he gives him a C+ in the Far East, less than Clinton. Finally Bush I never had a second term, his presidency was cut midterm. 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. The scale of what happened in Rwanda would in this category alone rate a F.
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. Surely domestic affairs are more important. While reading what he said about Clinton, I was wondering what do you want of a leader. Whether neoconservatism had much to do with the invasion is unlikely but the writer clearly has his ideological enemies to attack.
Japan is not quietly going it alone. Russia and China are stronger now so they are more assertive. Bush has done more then Clinton in Japan, South Korea, India, and ASEAN. Also I would have thought that Rwanda deserved more than just a passing mention. This I am not sure but I can understand his view. President Carter under whom the writer served tried that and that policy failed.
The writer's view is that Bush II was wrong to invade. I could argue the Ottoman Empire is a continuation of the Arabian Empire starting with Mohammad. Then I could argue the Chinese Empire has continued since the Mongols conquest with a few regime changes. Figure 8, the chart of declining longevity. Now the conclusions from my chart looks different. 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.
Similarly I am wondering what did Clinton do in the Far East to deserve a B-. Then I add to the chart the Russian Empire starting from 1480. This book is an example of that.What the writer is trying to do is rate the US presidents since the fall of communism. By the same logic, the British Empire could start at 1066, when the Normans conquered it. 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 US public got in foreign appears what Clinton promised, little. For peacekeeping, how does Bush I rate an n.a.
Probably about the same for China. Europe today is not alienated from the US. One criticism, I often make of US policy makers, is that they often overestimate the power of the US in world affairs. Here I think the writer is playing politics here. I do not see why.
|
