Rating: 
Summary: A stirring and thought-provoking exhortation
Review: Collaboratively written by Ivo H. Daalder (a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brooks Institution) and James M. Lindsay (the Vice President and Director of Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations), America Unbound: The Bush Revolution In Foreign Policy asks the politically loaded question: "How did a man once mocked for knowing little about the world come to be a foreign policy revolutionary?" Presenting an unabashedly positive portrayal of President George W. Bush's foreign policy, America Unbound draws upon recent modern history to chart a course for the future -- while warning of pitfalls and problems that could stir the resentment of other powers. A stirring and thought-provoking exhortation of President George W. Bush as a bringer of global change, America Unbound is strongly recommended reading for political conservatives, political commentators, and students of contemporary American politics as reflected by the Bush Administration as it engages in a global war against international terrorism.
Rating: 
Summary: Surprisingly Thin Arguments
Review: Daalder and Lindsay argue that George W. Bush has revolutionized U.S. foreign policy and that his revolution rests on two premises: the world is a dangerous place in which alliances and treaties hold back U.S. power and the U.S. must use that unfettered power to change the status quo of international relations. This revolution preceded 9-11, the authors claim, rather than was caused by it. The terrorist attacks in the United States simply reinforced a strong tendency already evident in the Bush administration. I expected better evidence and more solid arguments from a book which claims Bush, rather than 9-11, revolutionized U.S. foreign policy. The pre-9-11 unilateral foreign policy decisions made by Bush that are cited here (withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol and the ABM Treaty, for example) can hardly be considered revolutionary given the strong support for such moves during the Clinton administration among conservative intellectuals and Republican congressmen and senators. Bush's most controversial foreign policy doctrine to date - pre-emptive war - came after 9-11 and whatever plans Bush may or may not have had for Saddam's Iraq prior to the terrorist attacks, nothing would have come of them without hijacked airliners crashing into New York City skyscrapers and the Pentagon. Other arguments made in the book also do not point to a revolutionary foreign policy. Bush's strong moral language of good and evil when discussing foreign policy, for example, may be unfamiliar to foreign audiences and can be debated on its own terms, but it is of an accord with a not uncommon tendency in American foreign policy that can be found in the speeches of Ronald Reagan, John Foster Dulles, and Woodrow Wilson. Even John F Kennedy's inaugural spoke of foreign policy in grandiose and stark terms such as "twilight struggle" between Communism and the West and "supporting any friend and opposing any foe". Daalder and Lindsay's thesis begs for some historical perspective, but beyond a rough sketch, they rarely provide it. They're content to look at Bush's foreign policy on its own terms, or in contrast to the foreign policy of his immediate successor, and then judge it revolutionary. They admit that foreign policy was not a priority when Bush came to office, and that 9-11 transformed the views of his administration in some ways, but they don't connect the dots. It was not Bush that revolutionized U.S. foreign policy; it was 9-11 that revolutionized Bush's foreign policy. The monumental project of nation-building currently underway in Iraq is proof of that.
Rating:
Summary: Ivo Daalder has written another 5 star book
Review: Few people know as much about foreign policy from the inside as does Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, a think tank in DC that actually managers to be genuinely non-partisan and therefore all the more authoritative. This book is thus all the more well-informed, judiciously written and scrupulously balanced than much of the rabidly right or rabidly left material pouring out at the moment. If you really want the inside scoop on what to think of George Bush's foreign policy, especially with a war on terrorism going on (and possibly not that well....) and a Presidential election looming, you could do no better to look at this superb and well though out authoritative book on Bush and his foreign policy. Christopher Catherwood (who once spent time in a similar institution in the UK, and author of CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE, Zondervan 2003)
Rating:
Summary: Response
Review: I felt a need to respond to this review; "Mr. Daalder was a believer in "limited missile use" and that's what we got from Mr. Clinton regarding terrorism. And, like Clinton, he believes we need the United Nation's approval, which is apparently what Mr. Clinton also wanted and never got; thus, he let them tie his hands in really addressing the threat. There may be a different solution than that posed by the present administration, Mr. Daalder's is not the way. And by the way, neither the Brookings nor the Center for American Progress, of which Mr. Daalder is also an adviser, are non-partisan. This is a fiction. " But obviously Clinton was very sensible to do so. As the book demonstrates, there are more people who want to attack America than ever before, most of the world now sees America as the greatest threat to world peace, and Bush has isolated the intellectual elite and peaceniks. If this administration wins the 2004 elections, (more than likely) then it is certainly not unfeasible that Americas only allies will be those in dictatorships with lucrative dealings, where the people cannot have a say.
Rating:
Summary: On Target Revelations
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: If you agreed with Pres Clinton's handling of terrorism ....
Review: Mr. Daalder was a believer in "limited missile use" and that's what we got from Mr. Clinton regarding terrorism. And, like Clinton, he believes we need the United Nation's approval, which is apparently what Mr. Clinton also wanted and never got; thus, he let them tie his hands in really addressing the threat. There may be a different solution than that posed by the present administration, Mr. Daalder's is not the way. And by the way, neither the Brookings nor the Center for American Progress, of which Mr. Daalder is also an adviser, are non-partisan. This is a fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: A decent overview
Review: The book is an adequate overview of President Bush's foreign policy through the first three years of his office. But it does not do justice to the more intelectually challenging questions of the administration's foreign policy such as why exactly did America go to war in Iraq and what kind of role are the neo-conservatives playing in the administration.
Rating:
Summary: The essential account of Bush's foreign policy revolution
Review: The Brookings Institute earns its reputation as a unique think tank that blends excellent scholarship, a dispassionate tone, and accessibility for the general reader. "America Unbound" is emblematc of the Brookings creed. Although many books have critiqued America's radical new approach to foreign policy, "America Unbound" is the only title that retains a neutral, even clinical tone. There are no ambitious arguments forwarded in this book. Instead, the reader is presented with a very thorough account of the Bush administration's foreign policy record, and the policy circles that have shaped it. The authors do, however, tackle two popular tropes; that Bush is a rube to his advisers, and that "neo-cons" have played Rasputin to that rube. The authors offer a account that portrays a Bush who is master of his own destiny, who has formulated a consistent vision, and who has synthasized a foreign policy based on the advice of a number of polcy cliques - democratic imperialists, assertive nationalists, and defensive realists. My only criticism of the book is the inadequate treatment of the underlying premise of Bush's vision, which the authors describe as "hegemonist." In defining the "hegemonist" philosophy, they entirely neglect the essential examination of "minimal" versus "maximal" realism models, which are really the heart of the debate over the wisdom of Bush's foreign policy approach. Minimal realism is the wellspring for many critics and alternative thinkers (Joseph Nye, for example), and yet maximal realism has been an ascendent paradigm among many. The subject is simple, essential, and relevant. The authors would have been wise to address it. The other quibble I have with the book its hasty conclusions about the fallout from Iraq. Though the rubicon has been crossed, the jury is still out on whether Bush will be vindicated or villified for the intervention. As well, with an election year coming, it is erroneous to conclude that Bush's soft pedalling toward Korea is a retreat from his "revolution." If Bush is reelected and a stabilizing Iraq emerges, it might just as easily be argued that a Phase III in the War on Terror is launched, with a commensurate second wind of flourish.
Rating:
Summary: A Compelling Read on Bush and Foreign Policy 2000-2003
Review: 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
Rating: 
Summary: A sober analysis that deserves to be read
Review: 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" [p. 41], 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.
| 
