[.ca] America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (ISBN 0471741507)

On Target Revelations:
I found much of this book's information to be necessary reading material for any potential voter. It is time and pertinent that the Bush administration be exposed for what it is, and America Unbound provides a starting point for that. Much of what I read has been substantiated in other works (Chalmers Johnson's Sorrows of Empire, one example). The American public is being duped by the current governing group in its efforts to stuff its pockets with oil money and pursuits of empiracle dreams. READ THIS BOOK.

Engaging and thought provoking presentation:
While obviously opposed to the Bush approach to foreign policy in general and to Iraq in particular, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay have nonetheless succeeded in producing a remarkably fair book attempting to explain the reasons behind the President's about face from recent U.S. foreign policy. The attacks on 9/11 and other terrorist activities over the past decade had gradually convinced the President that the internationalist view espoused by Bill Clinton and his own father was simply no longer the answer. Bush has chosen instead to embark on a new unilateralist course favored by most of his senior advisors that the authors argue may be somewhat productive in the short run but likely to be a disaster over the long haul. Extremely well written, thoughtful and meticulously documented, this book should be an essential read for any citizen seeking to get up to speed on foreign policy issues before the 2004 Presidential election.

America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy:
Two Clinton-era National Security Council staffers offer muted criticism of George W. Bush's foreign policy from a realist perspective. September 11th is identified as the reason for Congressional deference to Bush's "revolutionary" tangent as Bush proceeded to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq, unleash the CIA from previous legal constraints, and generally pursue a "hegemonist" worldview in foreign affairs. Not unexpectedly, they would prefer the multilateral approach towards exercising American power that has largely prevailed over the past five decades.

A sober analysis that deserves to be read:
This book is a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the origins and consequences of the "Bush doctrine" in foreign policy. It's also a serious critique, made more so by the fact that it is not couched (unlike, say, Michael Mann's "Incoherent Empire") in the language of partisan name-calling and electoral bitterness. In fact, Daalder and Lindsay's argument kind of sneaks up on you, in that the first section of the book almost ... almost ... seems pro-Bush. Unlike many of his critics, these authors are willing to give the guy a little credit for having a brain in his head and a firm, relatively well-defined, set of beliefs. They argue that the discreet facts Bush knows (citing the famous pre-election "pop quiz" of world leaders) are less important than the principles he believes, since the latter are the raison d'étre of his policy. As they note in an important chapter titled "Bush's Worldview," while GWB may not be able to articulate the underlying logic of his hegemonist worldview in "a form that would please political science Ph.D.s" \op. 41\c, those principles are deeply held and guide his thinking on strategic matters. This might seem to be damning with faint praise. But it's still more of an admission than we'll get from most subscribers to the kneejerk-but-tired caricature of Bush as a puppet whose strings are pulled by the neocons (or the oil companies, or Dick Cheney, or his dad, or whoever). What it also does, however, is set up the authors' principal argument, that "the Bush revolution" can in fact be traced back to the president himself: his ideas, his declarations, and his decisions. The conclusion seems to be not so much that this revolution is evil (the arguments here are utilitarian rather than moral, which isn't necessarily a bad thing) as it is poorly thought-out. The administration is surprised to discover that America's historic friends and allies don't automatically line up behind the president's priorities. That falling into disfavor with world opinion can actually have consequences for our foreign policy (and that even a "hyperpower" can't do everything by itself). That pre-emption and unilateralism don't work so well in cases like North Korea or Iran. That how to stabilize post-war Iraq should have given more thought in pre-war times. And that "with us or against us" bipolarism gets murky with countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I've read a handful of books in recent weeks about America's descent into empire and this president's new direction in foreign policy. While "America Unbound" lacks the wide historic lens of Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire," it is still a fine look at this president, his administration, his underlying principles, and their geopolitical consequences. Its restrained and logical tone -- unburdened by the polemical language of the Bush-hating Left -- ought to attract thoughtful and open-minded readers, and be a useful contribution to sober debate about the direction this nation is headed.

A Compelling Read on Bush and Foreign Policy 2000-2003:
The present book is a compelling read and covers many but not all of the major issues on terrorism and Iraq. I feel like I have been on an overdose of these books just having read House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger - the biggest tell all blockbuster (my opinion), The Choice by Zbigniew Brzezinski (an excellent analysis), Disarming Iraq by Hans Blix, Noam Chomsky's Hegemony of Survival (truly a book that makes one think), Thirty Days (about Tony Blair) by Peter Stothard, and Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill (excellent book), Why America Slept by Gerald Posner, the very popular best seller Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke, and the Rise of the Vulcans by Mann and Mann. I put together a "listmania" list of the 25 best books - the best books - mainly non political taken together, no strong bias conservative or liberal - a spectrum of opinion when you take them all together. Many of the books are "gotcha" books that link Bush with some wrong doings or alternately books like Brzezinski that lay out solutions. This book is a bit different. It is more of a chronological history, and the book has been highly acclaimed by the Economist, NY Times etc. After reading I can see why. I started to read the present book and was unable to put it down until I had read it virtually cover to cover. It is a surprisingly good book and neutral in tone and a compelling read - for myself it was a page turner. It brings together the story of Iraq and WMD's in chronological order (all briefly). It starts with the Bush campaign and what he says in his run for the presidency regarding foreign policy, his philosophy, the team that he put together, plus the authors put in some historical perspective starting with Washington, then Wilson, Truman, etc. It then works its way through pre and post 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq until late 2003. Surprisingly I found that this book is in almost complete agreement with some of the more recent "tell all" books (Blix, O'Neill, Clarke), and I would strongly recommend reading this book. The overlying theme or conclusion is that the intelligence was flawed and incomplete. Like the Hans Blix book there were no WMD's in Iraq. The Iraq war was pushed by Wolfowitz and others prior to 9-11, and can best be described as a distraction or even an incitement of Muslims towards anti-Amercian feelings. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan lacked realistic follow up plans for the post military invasion. So those conflicts still remain unresolved. Also, the more serious threats of Iran and North Korea remain almost unsolvable due to the potential negative consequences of a military solution for those cases including the threat of North Korea dropping nuclear weapons on South Korea. An excellent book and I highly recommend. Jack in Toronto