|
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 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 after 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. 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.
Since the Arabian Empire starts with Mohammad, 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.
Candidly, I was hoping that Brzezinski would have dissected the flawed assumptions and misguided strategies of Global Leader III (Bush W). But the lack of substantive explanation of the grades caused me to start losing faith in the book. got the following grades from Brzezinski: 1-B, 3-C's, 2-D's, and 2-F's. Instead, Brzezinski appears to go on an anti-Bush tirade that is based solely on ideological differences of opinion. Huh. He repeatedly makes assumptions of cause-effect relationships that are highly questionable and in some cases, are factually incorrect. Such an analysis would have provided a nice framework for America to learn from her mistakes. More interestingly, Bush W.
I give him 1-star because he does an OK job of itemizing the chronology of world events over the course of the last three presidents.The final credibility was lost when I saw Brzezinksi's final report card for the presidents. He grades each of the presidents on 8 attributes of global leadership. which according to Brzezinski, adds up to an overall final grade of an F. The following 30 pages was something of an ideological rant that rapidly loses credibility if you're a reader interested in factual analysis.
After the fall of Communism, America was given a window of opportunity claims Zbig Brezezinski in his book Second Chance. The opportunity was squandered but Zbig says that our position can still be restored with the right leadership. The opportunity was for a grand leadership strategy allowing the United States to become the single supreme military superpower and use that position to increase trade, diplomacy and the spread of peace worldwide. Instead the first President Bush used his position to tighten bonds with the homocidal regime in Saudi Arabia, then Clinton made limited moves towards globalization and finally Bush junior arrogantly attacked the middle east outright. We have a second chance to influence the course of history towards a stable and less violent world. His plea is not one of imperialism but rather a rational and patient set of advances well within our capabilities.
|
