RoR: Forum

This review is superb and can serve as a paradigm. Informative, always eager, even in the short space it takes up, to show the points being made via very well selected quotations, it is clear and gives the reader all he or she needs to decide whether to shell out the money for the work, to look into the book's subject in greater detail. The author should be congratulated for a fine accomplishment in such a succinct piece of work.

Post 1

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 2:54pm

I agree, this is an excellent book. I checked it out at the library, read it straight through, and bought it the next day.

I've never seen a perspective like his before but it makes sense. I highly recomend it to anyone who is looking for historical reasons behind the different policy choices of Europe and America.

Post 2

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 3:28pm

I would also recommend Thomas Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" very highly.

Post 3

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:41pm

As Rumsfeld put it perfectly, we have the Old Europe (France, Germany, etc) and the New Europe (Eastern Europe). Old Europe is a museum. New Europe may very well lead us all to more sensible economics.
To me, it looks like the 21st century power centers are America, China, and India.

Post 4

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 9:08am

I certainly agree this is nicely done.

I do have a quibble:

If some country with a resource perceived to be important to America were to stubbornly refuse to sell, will an arrogant United States simply take it? After all, who could stop the most powerful nation on earth? No one. That is the point. That is the fear.

I can't imagine any one country being the sole supplier of something so vital that we would go to war to possess it. This is akin to fearing the bogey man.

Post 5

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 7:09pm

Tibor,

Your kind words and encouragement are deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Robert Davison,

Thank you for the compliment and the criticism. Perhaps a better, more realistic example would be the possibility that the U.S. would want possession of some Pacific Ocean territory to counter the growing Chinese influence. In that case, the strategic value would be the location, rather than some natural resource. What if the Pentagon wants to expand its military activities in Okinawa? This is already a diplomatic trouble spot. Many Okinawans (and Japanese) object to the current situation and any further encroachment would be opposed by them and other nations.

Post 6

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:52am

Randy,

I suppose such a thing is theoretically possible but not very likely, especially short of war. War is an emergency situation where all bets are off.

The US tends to honor claims of sovereignty made by democratic nations, as an extension of our belief in property rights. The examples of US 'imperialism' hate America firsters point to are actions against dictatorial regimes.

Post 7

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:04pm

Robert,

I think Kagan's point is that the rest of the world is hypersensitive to American hegemony. Without coming close to war, which would be the worst case, the U.S. can hardly make any moves; diplomatic, economic or military, without being accused of bullying or imperialism. It's just the nature of the situation. It makes 'normal' international relations extremely difficult and even dangerous. I agree with Kagan's analysis but I have my own opinion about what the U.S. should do and I don't think Kagan would agree. I will have to elaborate later. No time now.

Post 8

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 7:05am