Rating: 
Summary: Food for the Ignorant
Review: This was the most informative book I have read in years.
Although I am to some extent a news junkie, I was woefully ignorant about the economic and military forces that have come to bear on East Asia since the end of the second World War and, more particularly, since the end of the Cold War. Charlmers Johnson provides a clear picture of these forces beginning with examples of the "blowback" (unintended consequences) of U.S.military action in friendly as well as not so friendly nations. His chapter "Stealth Imperialism" gives examples of the questionable behavior of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies. In subsequent chapters he provides recent histories of five East Asian countries including the effects of U.S. military, intelligence and economic actions on these countries. "Meltdown" explains the results of "finance capitalism" and the actions of the International Monetary Fund in a way that is clear and makes much of the ongoing news understandable. Indeed, while not specifically predicting 9/11, this book explains the sources of discontent that the U.S. itself has sown and that provide fertile soil for terrorism.
Johnson questions the "overreach" of U.S. imperialism. Does it hurt or harm us as a society? In view of the Administrations plans for continuing military incursions, this seems a vital question that should be discussed.
Rating:
Summary: American policy undermines autonomy abroad, Liberty at home.
Review: This book offers a concise interpretation of American policy in the Far East (i.e. Japan, the Koreas, Indonesia, etc.), concentrating on the post WWII Cold War era and, more recently, and perhaps more importantly, the post Cold War era we are now in. The author discusses both military and economic methods of a profligate American Empire. Indeed, the two appear inexorably intertwined. Even if you're an American, and really don't worry much about non-Americans abroad, this book argues that America's past and current policies are bound to continue to backfire on American interests abroad and American families at home.I am a Libertarian, and at times I found Johnson leaning a bit far to the left, but not to the point where he lets his philosophy entirely reverse-skew the situation (as perhaps people like Noam Chomsky do). This book may lead a reader to wonder how the American Public could be so in the dark about how they've been acting around the world. Since reading the chapter on S. Korea, I have already read one news report about the S. Korean intelligence service that completely failed to mention U.S. duplicity involved in the service's history, duplicity which is exposed in this book. A parallel look into the American media certainly bears investigation, but is not covered in this book. In order to understand the knowledge-gap at home I would also suggest combining this book with John Taylor Gatto's Dumbing Us Down and his Underground History of American Education as well as Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen. Perhaps by tying together the knowledge-gap at home with imperialist policy abroad do I think Americans can begin to reclaim Liberty at home from the bottom up, while not making the rest of the world less autonomous. I found Johnson's book to be useful in this endeavor.
Rating: 
Summary: Johnson's Discussion of Terrorism Should Be Required Reading
Review: Terrorism and international friction are two hefty costs of an overextended American military, argues Johnson. Despite his misguided economic nationalism, Johnson is especially good at describing how the U.S. military presence in East Asia has backfired... ...Among the costs is what he terms blowback-"the unintended consequences of policies" (p. 8). One obvious form of blowback is terrorism. Johnson points to the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which was probably retaliation for the attack on Libya two years before, and to the bombing of New York's World Trade Center and the attacks on U.S. facilities in Africa and the Mideast. And such attacks continue: the attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, last fall was likely a response to Washington's attempt to extend its reach to even that distant nation by establishing intelligence facilities... ...Johnson's discussion of terrorism should be required reading for every foreign-policy official in the new administration. Terrorism rarely occurs in an international vacuum. For the most part, foreign countries and gangs do not kill Americans for pleasure. Rather, they do so to wage what they view as war... ...Blowback is not limited to terrorism. Potentially more dangerous in the long term is the growing international perception of U.S. arrogance. One can quibble with some of Johnson's arguments-for example, that in 1997 in East Asia the International Monetary Fund acted in ways similar to the Soviets' actions in eastern Europe after World War II-but his examples of American arrogance and foolishness should cause any patriot to squirm... ...Johnson exhibits particular prescience in his discussion of North Korea. It is an ugly regime, of course, but as he points out, "American policy on nuclear nonproliferation has long been filled with obvious contradictions, and the officials in charge of the Korean branch, through overreaction and an almost total ignorance of their adversary, played right into the North's hands" (p. 122). He suggests cultivating Pyongyang-a policy the Clinton administration seemed belatedly to adopt last fall... ...Unfortunately, Johnson's security realism is accompanied by economic nationalism. He views managed trade as the best mechanism to deal with China. He also advocates a more restrictive trade policy toward Japan... ...Nevertheless, Johnson has gotten the most important issues right...
Rating:
Summary: Straight talk about U.S. foreign policy
Review: Chalmers Johnson does a very good job of detailing the consequences of U.S. foreign policy (which is based on military might and intervention) and how it is planting the seeds for future disaster. Those wondering why the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks happened September 11th can look no further than this book for the answers, if not insights from a different perspective. Although I disagree with some of his solutions (pay United States' dues to the U.N., ratify and sign the treaty banning landmines, sign and ratify the International Criminal Court treaty and enact trade embargos against Japan)and they are the reason for the four stars. I think, overall, Johnson has the right idea that our policies should be based on diplomacy and respect for the rights of other nations to determine their own destinies rather than us being the world's policeman via military force, micromanagement and economic bullying. In short, we should be a republic and not an empire. If you would like to read another good book along the same lines, I recommend "Isolationism Reconfigured" by Eric A. Nordlinger.
Rating:
Summary: A subject that most may find uncomfortable-
Review: I'd actually rate it 4.25, but I wanted to bump up the overall rating of this book because the subject is so important. Chalmers Johnson has spent his life studying East Asia and is, to paraphrase him, a former spearholder for the U.S. empire. He was *for* the Vietnam war in the 1960's and despised the anti-war movement at that time. He spent years in the military and academia specializing in popular and political movements in Asia and languages. So for all the detractors who have rated this as a fanatical left wing faery tale, evidently reading an opinion that differs from the propaganda offered on CNN will never suffice for you. That's too bad. He even spends quite a few pages on Osama bin Ladin in the introduction and predicts that the U.S. would experience more violent retaliations in the future by him. This book was published last year; it's a shame more people didn't read it then. After years of study, Chalmers Johnson has changed his formerly rigid black and white opinion of the world. Because of the fact that the United States has time and time again meddled in the affairs of foreign countries, too often overthrowing democratically elected leaders because they somehow expressed viewpoints that deviated from U.S. foreign policy objectives; replacing them with manicical, dictatorial leaders- (like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, any of the puppets of South Vietnam, General Suharto in Indonesia, it's a long, long list); propping up inhumane regimes; supporting monetarily and militarily fundamentally undemocratic and fanatical movements (think: the mujahadeen of Afghanistan, the Contras of Nicaragua), and not to mention our pervasive military presence the world over, Mr. Johnson has written this book to be a wake up call that we Americans are going to be victims of vicious anti-American sentiment and terrorism in the future. The reason I gave it five stars but think it only deserves 4.25 is that Johnson's focus is on East and Southeast Asia as that is the region he is most familiar with. It's too bad that Latin America, the Middle East and African nations were not discussed but perhaps that's a book for someone else to write. I for one would be quite interested in reading a book of the same subject matter that discussed our covert involvement in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Brazil, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, ect. (When Johnson does mention one or two of these countries it is in passing, and to make a point about our overall policy.) Still, especially with the current crisis in Afghanistan and our administration's desire to spread the war to Somolia, Iraq, Sudan, Lybia, or possibly North Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia (as our campaign has ignited tensions in these nations as well), it is good to know what our collective history is throughout the world- both what is part of the official rhetorical cannon, and the truth that is not told here at home. A valid and frightening book that more people should read!
Rating:
Summary: The tip of the iceberg
Review: I wonder why it is that, whenever somebody points out the truth about outdated and failed American foreign policy, that person is condemned with phrases such as... 'outdated arguments', 'Liberal Idealist', 'confusing'? Chalmers Johnson may indeed focus on the Pacific Rim region, but his observations accurately reflect the views of much of the rest of the world too. It is true that, at the moment, the extremists tend to be concentrated in the regions of the world that are fundamentally Islamic, but that does not mean that the rest of the world agrees with America's attitude. Where America stumbles is in its belief that it doesn't need to EARN respect .... that respect will be granted thanks to the purchasing power of the mighty dollar. Even America's friends in Europe are exasperated at the naïveté displayed by USA politicians and many of its citizens. Why, for example, should Britain now run to America's aid in the battle against terrorism - after all, American citizens have been openly sponsoring Irish terrorism for decades. Fortunately, Britain is a good ally. Britain also understands the attitude of empire-builders - attitudes that are stubbornly maintained but not yet fully understood by USA. - the outdated imperialism of treating the natives fondly, but with a certain superiority and disdain. Just because America has the hard cash that enables it to develop other people's science does not make America the originator. Remember that telephones, television, rocket science, computers were all invented elsewhere. Stop treating the inventors with contempt, just because they have less $ in their pockets with which to commercialize their inventions. And this is the real nub of 'Blowback : The Costs and Consequences of American Empire'. It is a timely warning to USA to learn the lessons of history and to approach its neighbors with a good deal more respect that is shown at present. From a personal angle, I would add that American people (for whom I have a fondness, a lot of respect, and a large measure of good will) would also do well to equip themselves with a better understanding of what is going on beyond their shores. I share a commonly-held view that American is insular in its understanding but global in its power. Something is bound to go wrong! It's not hatred for the American people (excluding a few demented fundamentalists), it's much more exasperation at the prevailing attitudes. 'Blowback', though limited in its coverage makes this abundantly clear.
Rating: 
Summary: Correct, but poorly argued
Review: I happen to agree with Chalmers Johnson that U.S. intervention abroad results in unintended adverse consequences at home, as 9-11, the revenge of Saudi dissidents for the U.S. occupation of their country amply illustrates. However, Johnson presents his argument very poorly. Consistent with his longstanding Japanese focus, the book revolves mainly around the Far East, including a long discussion of how much the Okinawans suffer from U.S. military bases there. However, it takes him half the book to even address the simple question of why if the presence of U.S. troops in Japan is so obnoxious, does the Japanese government force the Okinawans to accept them, and even pays the U.S. for the priviledge. Eventually I concluded that it is Johnson's view, never expressly stated, much less documented, that the U.S. has bribed the Japanese government to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in Japan by permitting it to run huge trade surpluses with the U.S. The "Blowback" Johnson is primarily concerned about is not terrorism, but the loss of American manufacturing jobs due to Japanese trade inroads. This is a curiously 80s style argument, which became distinctly unfashionable during the 90s when U.S. unemployment reached record lows at the same time its trade deficit skyrocketed, while the Japanese economy stagnated despite astronomical surpluses. (...)
Rating: 
Summary: The Pleasure of Self-Deprecation
Review: Please note the title that was given to the Italian translation of this book: "Gli ultimi giorni dell'impero americano," that is "The Last Days of the American Empire." Wishful thinking, or a threat. If you speak Italian, have also a look at the Italian reviews to the book (for example in "Pulp," November-December 2001). They ooze with satisfaction. Finally they can leave behind that annoying TV show that was September 11, and get back to their usual anti-American business. After all, what are a few thousand victims when, as Professor Johnson demonstrates, Americans have killed millions and millions all over the world in the last years? The global movement of anti-American hate is the audience of Chalmers Johnson's book. It's a minority but very focused, and it does not exist only in Islamic or poor countries. Whatever the American governments or corporations did, do, will do, or won't do, the United States as a country will get the blame for the overthrowing, by the majority of people all around the world, of dilapidated, repressive, and often fascist traditions - that high-toned professors do cherish, and build careers on. (The United States get also the gratefulness of many, but few write books and make careers on that). Reading this book explained me why history is written only by the winners: it's because the frustrated losers are too taken up with propaganda to care for facts, explanations, or reforms.
Rating:
Summary: Realistic: Why countries hate us, what we need to change
Review: "Blowback" is an important and timely critique of America's over-extended and obsolete empire not from a moral perspective but from practical considerations of the nation's future well being. The term "blowback" is derived from a CIA reference to American foreign policy decisions that generate unforeseeable, negative consequences. For example, following the Gulf War in 1991, the United States stationed more than 35,000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia to deter any further hostility from Iraq. An unexpected consequence of this decision was the sudden fomenting of intense hatred toward America on the part of radical Islamic fundamentalists including Osama Bin Laden. Johnson argues that while most great powers exploit their empires, America, is actually exploited by its own. During the Cold War the United States justifiably sought to create a buffer of Pacific satellite nations to cope with the threat of Soviet expansion in Asia. While this may have been an effective deterrent, it also came with a price. According to Johnson, the United States effectively bribed Japan with favorable economic conditions that fueled phenomenal growth in that country while largely destroying the manufacturing base in America. Although this may have been a prudent strategy during the Cold War, Johnson asks why the United States continues to sacrifice its productivity and living conditions at home in order to maintain a troop presence in Asia. Where American troops were once stationed abroad as a buffer against Soviet expansion, they are now used to influence the countries they occupy or to train governments in counter insurgency and political repression. Johnson points out that in several cases American intervention on behalf of a repressive government merely turned American protectorates into implacable enemies. Johnson sites Vietnam and Iran as two examples of this failed strategy, and he warns of impending identical results in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. The tragedy of America's misguided foreign policy, according to Johnson is that while it drains enormous resources from America, it fails to provide the nation with beneficial results. Instead of continuing its obsolete Cold War strategy, Johnson calls on the United States to reevaluate its strategic requirements and to formulate a new foreign policy. An honest evaluation of American objectives according to Johnson would probably result in the recall of most American troops stationed abroad. Johnson foresees enormous resistance to such change from the military, which is the chief beneficiary of America's global military deployment. Johnson also argues that America is much better off accepting and working with China's inevitable economic surge and its increasing political status than attempting to contain the inevitable. To anyone who is wondering why citizens of many foreign countries hate the United States, this book is a must read. In case after case, Johnson demonstrates the negative impact of American military bases on local communities such as Okinawa and parts of the Philippines where, rape, crime, noise, disease, and environmental contamination are routine byproducts of American military presence. Add to this American complicity in atrocities such as the Kwangju massacre (South Korea 1980) or the inept reorganization of foreign economies by American controlled institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank and foreign hostility toward the United States ceases to be a mystery. Written prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, this book accurately predicts increasing blowback against the United States both at home and abroad in response to its late 20th Century foreign policy. The American challenge in the 21st Century according to Johnson involves dismantling the American empire and coping with blowback. This book is also a must read for self-styled Machiavellians, or believers in Real Politic. Johnson effectively argues that blowback is not a unique American phenomenon but is the product of expansionist nations in general. To this day, for example, Japan must tread carefully in its political dealings with nations such as South Korea and China that retain bitter memories of Japanese conduct prior to the end of the Second World War. To argue that American imperialism in its current form is realistic and necessary is to ignore historical examples that demonstrate the failure of empires that displayed similar arrogance, aggression, and a distinct inability to comprehend the perspective of their protectorates.
Rating: 
Summary: What Happened to Machiavelli?
Review: This would have been a good book if the average, sensual man or government were ever in fact principally a moral agent. Dr. Johnson, an otherwise brilliant man, appears to have fallen victim to a questionable sort of worldly idealism, the sort that upbraids men and governments as they are, after having confounded them with men and governments as in a perfect world they perhaps should be. He's become a Liberal Idealist, the sort of thinker both Ibsen and Shaw parodied at the start of the modern period, for confusing what should be with what readily is. I fear Johnson's wish and not his knowledge of human nature and worldly powers is here the true father of his thoughts. What Johnson does not adequately consider is whether an American Empire and a consequent pax Americana may be preferable to the cowardly liberal disinclination to exercise authority at all, out of fear of abuses. A nation may have a role foisted upon it which violates the academic preference for merely and safely pointing out the real flaws (worthy of condemnation) in any nation which exercises authority. Given the times, I suspect a pax Americana, warts and all, would be preferred by the civilized nations of the world to the pretense that all countries at all times do or should have equal clout.
|
