|
| America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy | 
 enlarge | Creator: Francis Fukuyama
Publisher: Yale University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $15.00
Buy Used: $4.19
You Save: $10.81 (72%)
New (30) Used (26) from $4.19
Avg. Customer Rating:  31 reviews
Sales Rank: 260043
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 264
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.7 x 5.4 x 0.6
ISBN: 0300122535
Dewey Decimal Number: 327.73
EAN: 9780300122534
ASIN: 0300122535
Publication Date: March 20, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Quality textbook. Minor water damage, but no sticking or obscured text. May contain highlighting/writing. a. We recommend expedited shipping for quicker delivery.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Francis Fukuyama’s criticism of the Iraq war put him at odds with neoconservative friends both within and outside the Bush administration. Here he explains how, in its decision to invade Iraq, the Bush administration failed in its stewardship of American foreign policy. First, the administration wrongly made preventive war the central tenet of its foreign policy. In addition, it badly misjudged the global reaction to its exercise of “benevolent hegemony.” And finally, it failed to appreciate the difficulties involved in large-scale social engineering, grossly underestimating the difficulties involved in establishing a successful democratic government in Iraq.
Fukuyama explores the contention by the Bush administration’s critics that it had a neoconservative agenda that dictated its foreign policy during the president’s first term. Providing a fascinating history of the varied strands of neoconservative thought since the 1930s, Fukuyama argues that the movement’s legacy is a complex one that can be interpreted quite differently than it was after the end of the Cold War. Analyzing the Bush administration’s miscalculations in responding to the post–September 11 challenge, Fukuyama proposes a new approach to American foreign policy through which such mistakes might be turned around—one in which the positive aspects of the neoconservative legacy are joined with a more realistic view of the way American power can be used around the world.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 26 more reviews...
 A neocon critique of the Iraq War, sure to raise eyebrows March 14, 2006
90 out of 95 found this review helpful
When Francis Fukyama writes a book critiquing the war in Iraq and the neo conservatives who backed the policy, one must sit up and take notice. His previous book, "The End of History," with its positivist view and thesis that history is inexorably marching towards liberal democracy and capitalism formed a central text in describing the neo conservative world view. Given his background, Fukuyama's decision to write a book attacking the Bush administration's Iraq policy will surely not be easily lumped with many other books opposing the war, nor will he make as easy a target for lambasting by the White House press office.
Fukayama's book focuses on two critiques of the war, on practical and the other philosophical. The first offers no real surprises as it simply states facts now widely published and generally accepted by all but the most ardent supporters of the Iraq War. These include the lack of troops on the ground, the absurd idea that all Iraqis would welcome the US as liberators, failure to quickly quell looting and lawlessness after the fall of Saddam, general lack of interest in the specifics of Iraqi culture and history, bureaucratic sidelining of experts from the state department, and the list goes on. Again, the only thing that makes this particularly interesting is that this author cannot be simply dismissed with hollow phrases like "leftist" or "Bush Basher."
In the second category, Fukuyama's book truly stands out for both a unique approach and perspective. Yes, the author does believe that world history moves towards democracy, but he looks wearily at the idea that American power can hasten that march through military power. However, the neo cons at the White House believed exactly that idea; that if one simply removed the stones of totalitarianism in Iraq, democracy would blossom. Accepting this given as an almost religious truism, the authors of the Iraq policy could simply ignore the cultural and historic realities that made it failure so tragically predictable. In an interesting connection, Fukuyama points to the simplistic idea held by many neo cons that the fall of the Soviet Union is almost entirely the result of the American military buildup in the 1980s, instead of one factor in a complex historical matrix. The author argues persuasively that, once having accepted the idea that military might led to this great historic sea change, one can easily conclude that military might can accomplish anything.
Fukuyama is not one who believes in shrinking from the use of American power. Instead, he argues it must be used judiciously or else risk a backlash. In particular, he examines the idea that American hegemony should not frighten the world because American policy is conducted with a high degree of morality, a concept near and dear to the hearts of the neo conservative movement. Fukuyama does not reject this premise, but rightly points out that it only can be meaningful if the rest of the world believes the US is moving from a point of high minded principles. Lamenting that America now stands near alone in the world, having squandered the great outpouring of international sympathy that came after 9/11 and led to the world standing almost united in the war in Afghanistan, Fukuyama offers powerful arguments about the value of diplomacy and cooperation.
In the end this more than anything else stands at this book's heart. When an American government takes a "with us or against us" approach, resentment and anger will follow as night follows day. Policy conducted based on high minded ideals may be all to the good, but one cannot simply dismiss real world concerns and expertise as "old thinking." While Fukuyama's belief in the importance of so-called "soft power," (economic aid, cultural connections, and diplomatic resources) clearly fell on deaf ears in this White House one can only hope future administrations will take such ideas more seriously. In any case, citizens wishing to formulate a post-Bush foreign policy would do well to spend time with this excellent work.
 The Start of (Revisionist) History March 21, 2006
65 out of 84 found this review helpful
Francis Fukuyama's place in the public consciousness is originally tied to his 1992 seminal work The End of History and the Last Man. With America at the Crossroads, he seems eager to prove not only that history has not ended, but that he feels it could use a little selective editing -- especially when it concerns Mr. Fukuyama himself.
As first glace, the book seems to be another thick tome from a heavyweight intellectual weighing in on the war in Iraq and the direction he feels the government should take. It even has added weight given that Mr. Fukuyama was an early supporter of the war, dating back even before the current administration. In 1998, Mr. Fukuyama joined more famous neo-cons like Pail Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Bolton -- collectively known as the Project for the New American Century -- in signing a public letter addressed to then-President Bill Clinton calling for Saddam Hussein to be toppled. It's available online, opining that Mr. Hussein had become "more serious than any [threat] we have known since the end of the cold war."
Many of the letter's 18 signatories eventually became the architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but before then, American at the Crossroads says, Mr. Fukuyama himself began having second doubts about the wisdom of the then-pending war. But if that is true, why did Mr. Fukuyama continue writing articles and essays lauding the war well into 2003? In public not a word about his misgivings was published until 2004 -- the internet is littered, meanwhile, with articles arguing the opposite -- and he apparently didn't become fully convinced of his opposition until the end of that year, more or less when he says he started to work on this book.
None of this is hard to find: it took less then ten minutes with the a9.com search engine to realize the nagging doubt I had reading the book was related to something real.
Put all that aside, and Mr. Fukuyama's suggestions make good sense. He argues convincingly that the government failed to correctly calculate the extent to which the war would ignite anti-Americanism, for example, and that plans exaggerated the threat Mr. Hussein represented. True and true.
But I can't get around the fact that Mr. Fukuyama built this book around the notion that he had misgivings about the war more than a year before he started to reflect those in his writings. If the timing is a fabrication designed to strengthen this book then that's just wrong. But if the book is right and the articles and essays were inaccurate then that's borderline criminal given that if he had used his influence in 2002 and 2003 there's little doubt that Mr. Fukuyama could have changed the shape of the war, lessening the impact of a bloody and costly blunder.
The Post-Neoconservative Moment April 28, 2006
36 out of 39 found this review helpful
For anyone who followed the Krauthammer/Fukuyama feud of 2004, this book, a follow-up, should come as no surprise. To summarize, Krauthammer gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute extolling the Bush administration's policies of unilateralism, preemption, regime change, and benevolent hegemony (empire?). For Krauthammer, it was the correct strategy for confronting the evils of Islamic totalitarianism. For Fukuyama, it was the breaking point; he could no longer support these policies and wrote his response for "The National Interest" called "The Neoconservative Moment."
Since then the debate has been raging and Fukuyama has started his own journal "The American Interest," fleshing out his post-neoconservative position.
In the present work, he traces the origins of neoconsevativism to a group of leftist intellectuals (Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz being the most prominent) at the City College of New York who were anti-Stalinist during the Cold War and anti-New Left during the Vietnam War. From this group emerged a set of principles that defines neoconservatism. 1)They believe that liberal democratic states are by their nature non-threatening and should therefore be promoted; 2)they believe in the use of American military power for moral purposes; 3)they are dismissive of international institutions for being too corrupted by illiberal regimes; and 4) they do not believe in government projects that entail "social engineering" or "nation building."
One can see from the fourth principle why the project in Iraq went awry. Removing a totalitarian regime with no civil society to fall back on, only forced the people into warlordism, sectarianism, and jihadist insurgency groups. Fukuyama, the Bush administration, and just about everyone else now realize that we are in an expensive long-term struggle to reconstruct a society that is coming apart at the seems. Our unilateralism and our disregard for the views of our traditional allies (cheese-eating surrender monkeys?) will make the task all the more difficult and costly. That said, he correctly believes that we should see this project through to the end. Pulling out now would only leave more fertile ground for Islamic totalitarianism.
Fukuyama feels that the neocons were seduced by the success of Reagan's policies toward Europe in the 1980's. They thought that as the Baathist regime collapsed the people would spontaneously embrace liberal democracy as they did in Eastern Europe earlier. It was a serious misreading of Middle Eastern culture. This is not to say that Iraqis won't achieve a liberal democracy, they will probably first have to experience a Reformation and an Enlightenment.
Fukuyama devotes the last part of the book staking out a revised version of his prior neoconservative position, calling it a "realistic Wilsonianism." He is a policiy wonk and a social scientist who believes that if the policy does not fit, it should be rectified. His updated version recognizes the limits of American military power and the limits of our ability to change other cultures. State-bulding in the narrowest sense is possible, nation-building is not. We should consult more with our allies and rely more on the proverbial "soft power." It is more effective, more likely to succeed, and it is cheaper to exercise power through mulitilateral institutions. We can still be the predominant power, but we have to be smarter about it.
Fukuyama is a very independent and creative thinker, but he is still the Hegelian author of "The End of History and The Last Man." He believes that all societies must inevitably embrace globalization and modernity. And that it is the proper role of American power to push this process along. But instead of using military force, we should be promoting it with the power of ideas. Fukuyama is very close to getting it right. I definitely recommend this book.
 Intellectualizing the Obvious! May 5, 2006
26 out of 64 found this review helpful
Fukyama, Professor of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins, has managed to take three obvious conclusions that most Americans have already reached - absent PhDs or expensive tuition - and create 240 boring, useless pages. These conclusions are: 1)The Bush administration wrong made preventive war the central tenet of its foreign policy. 2)It also badly misjudged global reaction. 3)The Bush administration's third error was failing to appreciate the difficulties involved in establishing a successful democratic government in Iraq.
The fact that Fukuyama was a neoconservative supporter does not change the triviality of the conclusions; it does, however, demonstrate that, unlike President Bush, he is open to accepting contrary information.
A total waste of time, money, and paper.
A disappointment. March 11, 2006
19 out of 60 found this review helpful
I very much enjoyed his The End of History and the Last Man several years ago but can't follow him here. I did enjoy his discussion of Neocon history, but his breaking with his Neocon makes only if one grants him his premises, namely that Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel are correct in their assessment of Islamist danger. They share the view that the Jihadists are few in number and the vast majority of Muslims don't supporth them. It would be nice if that were true but I don't believe that it is. The vast majority Kepel, Roy, and Fukuyama believe is benign shows every evidence of being a core support group for the Jihadists. Militant Islam is repressing dissent and is in essential agreement with the activists, the Jihadists, that Fukuyama thinks few in number.
This is critical to Fukuyama's thesis. If the Jihadists are few in number and not getting support from a large sympathetic core then perhaps Fukuyama is right. But if there is a large sympathetic core that hides, supports, and provides replacements for the fallen Jihadists, then Fukuyama is wrong.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
