Current-order Books

Aside from virtually predicting the Colombian and Middle East conflicts the United State's currently finds herself embroiled in, Chomsky's World Orders Old and New offers a vast array of scholarly documentation to prove his over riding, and stunningly accurate thesis: American foreign policy is embarked upon for the benefit of the transnational corporations and wealthy Wall Street investors; the State Department, Pentagon, CIA and corporate owned media are their tools and propaganda apparatus to dominate the world's land, labor and resources.
The naivete of Chomsky's critics simply astounds me. It's as if they don't want to believe or acknowledge the pink elephant that's in the room. For some it seems they simply refuse to disbelieve the ridiculous fairy tales they were taught in grade school and by rightwing radio talkshow hosts about the well intentioned United State's government and its interventions abroad.
World Orders Old and New is a fantastic work that's filled with obscure references to sensational sources along with references from mainstream sources that are often buried beneath the stories about Clinton's sex life and the Juice's homicidal rampage. Moreover, Chomsky fills the book with quotes from our leaders that are hard to believe but impossible to ignore. Chomsky digs deep and unearths the quotes from old State Department flacks, which will leave you awed in there audacity.
In World Orders Old and New, Chomsky also touches upon the economic trends that have befallen 70% of the American domestic workforce. Primarily the fact that the Fortune 500 and unfair labor laws (dramatically favoring management) have assaulted American workers and the power for them to effectively organize strong unions. He vividly points out that wages for the typical U.S. worker have been on a steady decline since the early 1970's and that the number one cause for this is the business world's virtual destruction of unions -- the one avenue in which working people can have a say in their livelihoods.
The last chapter gives a detailed analysis of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, actually, as Chomsky demonstrates, that's somewhat of an inaccurate way to label the Mideast conflict. As World Orders Old and New so accurately points out, it should be considered the Israeli lawlessness and brutality campaign backed by billions of dollars in U.S. military and economic aid. Chomsky simply gives one the proof that Israel can get away with committing just about any human rights violation while at most the U.S. media will critize them in the most tepid way possible.
If one has never read Noam Chomsky, they should do themselves a favor and pick up World Orders Old and New, it will help them to understand why much of the international community holds the U.S. in contempt. The common citizens of the U.S. deserve better than what their current leaders are giving them. Chomsky's book will go a long way in helping others recognize the pink elephant sitting in the room. As an internationally respected linguistic philosopher, it appears Dr. Chomsky would have it no other way.

When Chomsky came to speak in Oxford recently, several hundred people were turned away because the Sheldonian Theatre where he spoke was packed full to capacity. I have still not yet seen him in person, but fortunately he has published a wide variety of books.

Of the handful of Chomsky books that I have read, this is the one I've recommended most to other people. It contains a fascinating retelling of the history of American foreign relations since the second world war. Even for those who disagree, it is vital to come to grips with the arguments it presents.

It would be an especially helpful antidote for those who think that all truth springs from the economics textbook (you know who you are!)

Chomsky emphasises historical and political facts that we are likely to find uncomfortable. Some of things he has said have made me think, "He can't be right, can he?" But then despite my diligent searching of anti-Chomsky web pages (and, indeed, this reviews section!) I have yet to find any convincing rebuttals of his arguments. Most of the time, his detractors seem to focus on merely attacking him and misrepresenting his views, which is a good sign that there is probably a lot of truth in what he (Chomsky) is saying.

Yes, there is something of a conspiracy theorist on the surface of Chomsky. But underneath there is a surprising amount of evidence and logical argumentation. I think part of the genius of Chomsky's view of the world is that it DOESN'T actually take some far-fetched underground conspiracy, but merely the normal operation of the capitalist world system to bring about the situation we have found ourselves in.

Chomsky's analysis of "world orders" is not based on some kind of elaborate fantasy, but largely well documented recent history and political science. One doesn't have to be radical political activist to appreciate the unique perspective that Chomsky has to offer.

I think that this book is a engaging and worthwhile introduction to Chomsky's thinking from a more historical point of view.

Chomsky is a true scholar, as is evident in the way he supports his ideas and conclusions with his analyses of reports and news literature from all over the world. It takes a ruthless analytical mind to present ideas as mind-opening and--for most people outside the USA--as vindicating as his. Here Chomksy dissects the significance of prominent post-Cold War events such as the bombardment of Iraq, and casts a sharp eye on the march of economic internationalization in the 90s (GATT, NAFTA, WTO), as well as on the Palestinian predicament and how Israel continues to violate basic human rights in the Occupied Territories. Chomsky cogently argues that there is an over-arching theme in the hostile world of global politics, or about American foreign policy rather. The book can get dense for the simple reason that he presents so many reports and findings confirming the biased and elitist nature of the New York Times and other American media. The volume of the evidence he presents can make you slightly indifferent after the depression or fury it invokes, forcing you to put the book down every now and then. Nevertheless, if you are looking for concrete evidence, the three chapters and the notes are replete with them. His work is valuable because it also exposes you to media and op-eds in other countries. For example, it is shocking to read what Rabin, Peres, and other notable Israelis have had to say to Israeli newspapers and television about the Oslo Agreement, and the Palestinians in general. Because he avoids talking in a mystifying and technical way about global politics and economics, Chomskys simply cuts to the chase in his criticism of the political elites. On a lighter note, his analysis of the writings of prominent journalists and academics can put a grin on your face. I especially relish his treatment of Thomas Friedman.

The above could summarize Chomsky's book.The end of the Cold War should have brought big changes in foreign policy, but didn't because the Cold War was a front for superpower agression(mostly the U.S.'s),not so much a Soviet threat. Chomsky is armed(as usual) to the teeth with evidence and a cutting sarcasm, which together sear in his point. By giving a fresh interpretation of U.S. foreign policy based on evidence from a true variety of sources, he manages to shed some light on real policy, and to debunk governmental/elitist propaganda. His estimation of the goals of U.S. foreign policy is:get as much(influence,business opportunities for corporations)without losing too much(military casualties, public concern/attention,dollars,etc). This book is for people who base their views on evidence and NOT on what whatever someone tells them.

When it comes to analysing how the world is really run, very people can beat Chomsky. His work is brilliant, rigorously sourced and meticulously strips away the lies and propaganda that characterises the "New World Order" and its advocates. I find it laughable that a reviewer below critiques Chomsky for not having a political science background. Well mate, I'm doing a DPhil in International Relations and I can assure you that Chomsky is very well respected. Not of course by the extreme right who defend to the hilt the United States foreign policy, or Israel's behaviour, but by thinking people who aspire to a better world. The comments about Chomsky's "defence" of Robert faurisson are way off beam - they've been comprehensively refuted not only by Chomsky himself but also by journalists such as Christopher Hitchens. I'm surprised the reviewer below is ignorant of such facts. Aside from this, buy this book - it is one of the most important works on global politics to emerge in the post-Cold War era.

At what point are citizens justified--and perhaps even obliged--to violate the law of the land in pursuit of justice? When is civil disobedience justified? And just what is civil disobedience, anyway?

These are the sorts of questions Howard Zinn sets out to explore in his masterful Disobedience and Democracy. The book first appeared in 1968 in response to a small pamphlet by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas defending a minimalistic interpretation of civil disobedience. But Zinn's book, and the debate in general, is just as relevant today as it was 40 years ago.

The crux of the debate is between those legalists who think that justice is identical to law, and those progressives who think that justice is sometimes quite distinct from law and that in fact the law is often one of the weapons by which governments wield and legitimize their power ("congealed injustice," as Zinn powerfully says [p. 4]). Legalists suppose that any contravention of laws, even shady ones, inevitably leads to social chaos. Progressives believe that sometimes genuine advances in social and economic justice can only be achieved by disobeying unjust laws or unjust conditions protected by the law of the land.

In a series of compact and extremely strong arguments, Zinn critically responds to what he sees as nine errors in the legalist attitude to civil disobedience, and in the process defends the progressive view. Zinn argues that the rule of law isn't an end in itself, that practitioners of civil disobedience aren't morally obliged to accept punishment for their actions, that unobnoxious laws can be broken with impunity when resisting unjust ones, that civil disobedience isn't needn't be absolutely nonviolent, that civil disobedience is a necessity in a democratic society in which the judicial system frequently sides with the government, that there's a double standard of morality typically invoked by governments, and that the interests of government and the people aren't identical. Zinn concludes his argument by spelling out seven characteristics of principled civil disobedience (pp. 119-22).

Zinn says several times that "we have been naive in America about the efficacy of the ballot box and representative government to rectify injustice" (p. 65). This is especially so in foreign policy, he claims, with elected officials pursuing wars regardless of the opposition of the public to those wars. That's why, he concludes, we need to be ever mindful of both the need and the righteousness of civil disobedience. This is good to keep in mind as we prepare to once again perform the ritual of a presidential election.
__________
* p. 123.

I've read books by Howard Zinn before and I have always been enticed by his writings. He writes a powerful message in a simple way to understand. In this book, Zinn taught me a lot about Disobedience and Democracy; not only what it is, but what it isn't as well. He broke it all down into nine subtopics, and managed to elaborate well on all of it. He shows such an abundance of knowledge and truth and all that he writes. I like the fact that he can tell us what Disobedience and Democracy should be, but what it has been instead. He does this by showing us many instances in history when disobedience has been used to achieve democracy. Though I've learned a lot from Howard Zinn in this book, I feel like all the information in the book was completely overwhelming. This book shows a lot of little lessons and history to get the big picture, and by doing so, I feel like I've read much more than necessary to understand his point. However, I think it's better to read more than what you need to know on a topic then less. Overall, I was very pleased with this book.

put aside the warm, fuzzy portraits of Office Friendly and harken back to a not too distant past, Chicago 1968, Kent State, 1970, the union strikes of the 1930s, the Bonus Army, the Poor People's March on Washington, World Bank protestors in Seattle and Washington, DC and a more realistic image of red faced and angry cops swinging night sticks, spraying pepper spray, chasing protestors, and really doing their jobs--protecting the status quo and the machinery of state.

Based on Zinn's literary challenge to Supreme Court Justie Abe Fortas's "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience," the author outlines nine fallacies where democracy fails and the iron fist of the state becomes a reality. Each one is punctuated with lucid commentary, historical examples clearly demonstrating where Justice Fortas only supports civil disobedience and dissent on his terms within the parameters established by the government.

Zinn points out throughout his analysis of the nine fallacies how creative the left could be with "CD" and how it serves as a safety valve for crisis much worse than disrupted traffic or blocking doors.

The details are important, the arguments flush with a fresh attitude of what has become a sometime tiresome left-wing ritual of march, demonstrations and planned CDs.

Part of what plagues the American people from organizing against the government's violence at home and abroad is a misplaced faith in institutions, particularly the courts, which are supposed to offer relief against injustice. If we placed as much energy and resources into our own efforts as we do the courts and the electoral process, the politicians might not feel so free to plague the American people with as much oppression and tyranny as they do.

Zinn's small but powerful work dissaudes the reader from any faith that the judiciary,the electoral process or any other mechanism established by government can solve the systemic problems facing the nation and the world, the world being as much a victim of American terrorism as the American people.

Zinn's work is a must read for a clear, convincing, well documented and thought-provoking perspective into the American system not, as Rush Limbaugh styles it, "The Way Things Ought to Be" but the way they really are.

I picked this title up at a local used bookstore and decided to give it a look and see how it stood up to the current political climate. It seemed very relevant in spite of its age.

First of all, this essay - 'Disobedience and Democracy; Nine Fallacies on Law and Order' - is a direct response to a position against civil disobedience given by Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas entitled 'Concerning dissent and civil disobedience'. Both were written in 1968 amidst considerable political turmoil on the issues of the Vietnam War and civil rights. I wish that I'd had a copy of Fortas' essay to refer to while reading Zinn's response, but instead I was left to take Zinn's interpretation of Fortas' document 'as gospel'. My other concern was that I was so far removed (over 30 years) from the atmosphere that ignited this asynchronous debate. In spite of these hurdles (which are the main reasons that the rating is reduced to 4 stars), I thoroughly enjoyed this short book/outlook.

Justice Fortas seems to advocate near blind obedience to the law (NOT for moral reasons, but for purely institutional integrity). Zinn exposes this to be counter to the revolutionary spirit which preempted the Constitution, as well as logically perverse to the idea of justice. At one point, Fortas apparently questions the value of Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience' which was instrumental in the advocacy of the abolitionist ideals of the time. Zinn gives him a thorough beating.

The idea of civil disobedience was so paramount to the growth of America in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and civil rights periods. It is necessary to prevent the stagnation of public policy, and to keep the law in tune with the people under it. Zinn does an excellent job of renewing my interest in this form of revolution with this book, and I heartily recommend it to those who may see the value of this American tradition in responding to the brewing conflicts of today - such as the death penalty, affirmative action, etc.

While Hayek is best known as an economist, he earned doctorates in law and political science. In the Law Liberty and Legislation trilogy Hayek returns to his intellectual roots. Here we see a detailed and insightful analysis of different types of political and legal order. Hayek contrasts free and prosperous spontaneous orders with coercive states that aim allegedly at social justice.

In this first volume of Law, Liberty, and Legislation Hayek spells out the difference between general rules of conduct and policy that consciously aims at particular ends. Law, as a set of general rules of conduct, are essential to societal spontaneous order. Private law is, contrary to what it might seem, more important to securing a free and prosperous spontaneous order than is public law. Hayek became an economist by reading Carl Menger's "Principles". We can see Menger's influence all through this book. This is Austrian economics applied to law.

Law Liberty and Legislation was intended to complete the case that Hayek made for classical liberalism in The Constitution of Liberty. This trilogy combines with the Constitution of Liberty to make a powerful case for strictly limited government and free enterprise. You should read The Constitution of Liberty before starting this trilogy, but be sure to read both. Hayek's analysis of spontaneous order and government planning is highly relevant. The collapse of the USSR might have made it seem that proponents of free social order had won. But it is all too obvious that the drive for "social justice" is gaining ground. Read Hayek along with Nozick and Buchanan. These ideas are vitally important.

The thesis of volume 1 of Law, Legislation, and Liberty is that "a condition of liberty in which all are allowed to use their knowledge for their purposes, restrained only by rules of just conduct of universal application, is likely to produce for them the best conditions for achieving their aims", and that "such a system is likely to be achieved and maintained only if all authority, including that of the majority of the people, is limited in the exercise of coercive power by general principles to which the community has committed itself" (p. 55). "[W]hat the spontaneous order of society provides for us is more important for everyone, and therefore for the general welfare, than most of the particular services which the organization of government can provide, excepting only the security provided by the enforcement of the rules of just conduct" (pp. 132-133). Therefore, "law is...to consist of abstract rules which make possible the formation of a spontaneous order by the free action of individuals through limiting the range of their actions" (i.e., through preventing coercion), and it is not to be "the instrument of arrangement or organization by which the individual is made to serve concrete purposes" (p. 71).

Law, Legislation, and Liberty was intended as a sequel to The Constitution of Liberty, in that Hayek wrote it to "fill in the gaps" that he felt existed in his argument in that earlier work. He wrote and published Law, Legislation, and Liberty on and off over a time-span of approximately 15 years (early-mid 1960 to mid-late 1970s), which were in part interrupted by ill health. Hayek admits that the result is at times repetitive and lacking in organization. The reason why he did not go through the effort of redoing the entire work upon completion is because he thought he might at that rate never finish it (he was 80 years old by the time volume 3 was published).

There are still plenty of great insights, which Hayek argues persuasively and in doing so manages to portray as common sense. There are also plenty of flashes of that true rhetorical brilliance characteristic of Hayek that can make his writings such a feast to the ear and mind. On the downside, however, these rhetorical gems are hidden in a large volume of pages that at times do indeed seem tedious, repetitive, and unorganized, unlike with The Constitution of Liberty, where they literally seem to jump off the page at you. All in all, read The Constitution of Liberty first, as Hayek himself suggests. And if you're not up for reading the approximately 500 pages that make up the complete Law, Legislation, and Liberty, two chapters (30 pages total) in the book The Essence of Hayek make for a comprehensive summary exposition of the ideas in the entire trilogy ("Principles of a Liberal Social Order", ch. 20 in The Essence of Hayek, covers vols. 1-2, and "Whither Democracy?", ch. 19, covers vol. 3).

Hayek's classical book is against the totalitarians and their thought about legislation. He responses them saying that the legislation is not the tool to reconstruct the people and the economical relationships between them, but it is the method to explain the irrationally and naturally developping law more clearly. Additionally he argues the cartesian method of thinking because of its results which refuse the social evolution. Therefore Hayek finds the philosophical base of totalitarian thought in the belief that "we can create the welfare with law, if we arrange it logically". That's why he calls every kind of totalitarian thought as "constructive cartesian rationalism", because all of them want to reform the whole world, law and order from the beginning to realize their specific outcome like in DesCartes' method. (I think that it's the same as "the social engineer" description of Sir Karl Popper.)

Hayek's book shows how order occurs naturally in society and in very large and complex organizations as a spontaneous response to numerous, disparate, even unanticipated purposes. We do not create social order deliberately; if you think about it, this is the reason why we find some laws contradict each other, and why people have different ideas about love of country and respect for others.

As a society, people tend to create general rules to govern as many examples of behavior as possible, to fit as many situations as possible, even those that haven't been imagined.

Hayek builds on two premises: (1) that humans have limited abilities to understand and predict all possible consequences of social choices and decisions, and (2) people abstract (verb; refers to how the mind works) reality to understand it.

The ideas in the book are not difficult to understand, but to read the book requires the reader to let go of the illusion that people can make rational decisions for society.

The books so far is interesting, and there are a lot of weird theories out there. It is worth taking a look at it.

While Chris presents a serious topic in a light-hearted way, this is quite a useful book about what, for many, is quite a confusing subject.

Having read all three of Chris' prior books and being a pretty active conspiracy scoffer, I'd girded my loins for a disappointment this time around. Just more Freemason conspiracy (Solomon's Builders) and more Templars conspiracy (Templar Code for Dummies) with a little lettuce thrown around on the edges to make it look fancy and different....

HARDLY!

Whether it's organized crime, the Illuminati, or world domination, Chris and Alice take you down the dark alleys of mystery and fear but always keep a flashlight focused carefully so you won't get grabbed by the hobgoblins. Trying to put a coherent order to the 'weird things of the world' would be a daunting task for anyone but the authors start with a very plausible premise: it all began with the French Revolution. They frequently reach back to that touchstone as the net grows wider in explaining the bizarre and while you might not accept it at face value, you soon realize that the premise has LOTS of merit.

In the basic areas of foolishness (such as the Hoaglund 'Face on Mars'), the authors are wryly dismissive but in the more controversial or confusing things there's a calm and deliberate presentation of facts and a laying out 'common knowledge' interspersed with 'the rest of the story' (i.e., the FACTS!). In few cases they do pull out the 'tin-foil hat' award but otherwise it's basic exposition with an admission that there's no answer when, in fact, there is none. There's no doe-like innocence to be found but neither is there overt criticism. It's reminiscent of Sergeant Friday: "Just the facts, ma'am." - but this time with some humor added.

It's clear that Chris and Alice have read from the major skeptics before beginning and they regularly refer to specific (and qualified) debunkers. Apropos of the subject, the book cries out for an annotated bibliography. Sadly, such is not the style of the 'Dummies' series. I'd happily pay extra for that because it would save me wearing out the binding looking back for things all the time. Sadly too, there aren't NEARLY enough Rich Tarrant cartoons here to satisfy: when you're knee deep in alien space monsters or gangland retribution, a little graphic levity can help!

Because the author's three prior works were so steeped in Masonic 'stuff', I was expecting to simply skip over the Masonic section as 'old hat'. What a mistake that would have been. Somehow this book has managed to circumvent the 'old wine - new bottle' conundrum and has included a fresh and relevant approach coinciding with the book's title. They've got what essentially could be called the 'elevator pitch' on Freemasonry with explanations that are simple and understandable - and something any Mason could use when asked that question "What is Freemasonry?" that brings even long-term members to the point of stuttering.

I did have a couple of small quibbles. One was the mention of a meeting between two 18th century conspiracists, John Robison and Abbe Barruel. My prior reading indicated that this had never occurred but they simply acknowledged (belatedly) the work done by the other (and, in fact, Barruel was quite dismissive of Robison's work. Vernon Stauffer's seminal work on this topic provides a quote in support of this. It's a bit of minutiae we can arm wrestle over elsewhere and it does not in any way lessen the assumptions, conclusions or assessments which cover FAR more ground more accurately and intelligently than any other work on this topic. The other quibble involved the loss by the town of Roswell, New Mexico of some 5,000 souls between the start of a paragraph and the end. Then again, who knows: maybe it was a conspiracy!

Like the Hodapp family predecessors, this is a book with an easy to read style and it's one you can consume in small pieces at your leisure. I'll bet, though, that like me you'll devour it within a few pleasant hours and set it down having learned a bunch of things about events and organizations you thought you had thoroughly understood prior to that. If you're looking to debunk things like the origins of the Rosicrucians or your friend who's convinced he has all the facts about 9/11, then this is the book for you. Of course, if you think that David Icke is the true messiah or that Coast to Coast is more factual than National Public Radio, you won't enjoy it AT ALL! Move along: there's nothing to see here....

Intelligently written, this book did not assume I knew too much about the Caribbean situation (I didn't) nor did it dumb it down. With particular attention to the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Panama, I feel I have gained an invaluable insight into Latin Caribbean political history (and to a certain extent, through comparison, the nature of democratization elsewhere from the latter part of the twentieth century through today).

For anyone interested in the Latin Caribbean situation or processes of democratization, I highly recommend this book.

"In the Shadow of the United States" is an interesting contribution to the study of US-Latin American relations because it factors the intricate political calculations that domestic actors in the region, as well as their US counterparts, in the formulation of their bilateral foreign policy. In the past, the sole variable used for the study of bilateral relations was the historical and political situations that occurred in both sides of the border, but the interplay between them, as well as the implicit characterizations of what each policy agent thought of the other, was left out the equation.

This book bridges the gap with an interesting theoretical approximation. To empirically attest the thesis, the book presents three interesting case studies about the situations in the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Panama. The presentation in these cases is not historically exhaustive, yet they are developed as a way to introduce the reader, very briefly, about the main argument. In the first two cases, the wealth of primary resources introduces a solid backing for the principal actor's conception of their own national interests, and what they think their counterpart's judgment is about. Unlike the previous two cases, the relative lack of primary sources in the treatment of the Panamanian situation is perhaps the biggest handicap. However, the author does consult a wealth of information on Panamanian history circa 1968, the Torrijos years and the events leading to the 1989 US intervention in Panama which proves an adequate treatment.

Nonetheless, the book proves to be interesting read for all those interested in US-Latin American relations.

How is the process of democratization different in those countries influenced by the United States? Being so close to this world power, the Latin Caribbean should have been one of the first regions, and not one of the last, to become democratic. An intersection between Comparative Politics and International Relations, the book portrays democratization not as a purely domestic process but as a regional one. It also shows the limits of US influence; US power distorted regime trajectories, without being sufficient to determine their outcomes. This book is central to understanding the impact of US efforts to promote democracy and the international dimension of regime transitions. It is also useful to grasp the configuration of the Latin Caribbean as a distinct sub-region.

Christian Reus-Smit has been writing well on issues to do with international relations for a while, but this is easily his most accesible book to date and the one most likely to make an impact on foreign policy studies.

The general informed reader will enjoy this book and come away with some important thoughts regarding contemporary international politics - you don't need to be a foreign policy wonk to get a lot out of this book.

This is one that is sure to become quite influential and to receive many citations in journal articles and books to come for many years.

`American Power and World Order' provides an intelligent and accessible rethinking concerning the sources, use and exercise of state 'power' and its relation to achieving influence and results. The discussion is relevant to all countries, but applies specifically and is drawn from the contemporary circumstance of the United States. The book is not very long and is elegantly written, making it easily and eagerly digested.

The core argument is that power (specifically the conception of power based on material preponderance - and including both 'hard' and 'soft' variants), does not automatically translate into influence nor automatically produce desired results. Despite the intuited understanding of many statesmen, academics and public service mandarins over time, there is no direct causal link between the exercise of power and achievement of goals. Rather, the relationship between the idea of power as a possession and any consequent real-world effects is at best an attenuated one.

The book attends to the fact that the US, for all its obvious sources of power and undisputed Superpower status, is currently experiencing mixed success in achieving its foreign policy aims. By contrast, it seems that in many areas the much less-powerful EU is achieving reasonable success in producing the types of foreign policy outcomes they desire. This may be due to a foreign policy posture that implicitly recognises far more the socially constructed nature of power as well as the materially constructed.

In his excellent book, Professor Reus-Smit provides a well-written, timely and insightful discussion (ground in contemporary international relations) of the conceptions - and misconceptions - of 'power'. Anyone interested in, studying, or professionally involved in international relations would gain from reading it.

I love this book
Writing style is amazing and the information is inspiring
I recommend this book 100%

Ferguson has obviously been embedded in African studies for a considerable length of time, and this series of essays reflects that in its depth. As indicated in the introduction, the author works to evaluate the relationship between Africa and globalization from a pan-Africanist view. Using a series of case studies from his own research and others, Fergussen succeeds in painting a picture of a globalized Africa that often goes beyond conventional understandings of the continent.

As a student of international development, I have almost exclusively looked at Africa through the lense of humanitarian crisis. This book provides the reader an opportunity to engage with the continent in a much more complex sense. I would certainly recommend it as the best text on Africa I've read so far.

Ths question this book raises is central to our understanding of how things go from bad to worse in political histories of nations.Runicman's brilliant book examines the question of how negative leadershp today increasingly moves to debtabilie hot areas around the globe through the ways they represent and misrepresent the problem of risk. Runciman shows how a very polarized, totally unnuanced negative and extremist view of possible responses to crisis leads governments into taking very problematic and increasingly dangerous risks. Viewing the only option as avoiding a worst case scenario whether a realistic assessement or not debatilizes the political international climaate further and further.The master of this slight of hand,and restructuration of reality and possible options, Runciman suggests is Blair, followed also by Bush and Cheyney. After reading this book, one can hardly forget the deeper question of how it is that most superpowers and empires fall.in a certain sense by their own huberis and tendency to overreach and in so doing to contribute heavily to a climate of international paranoia and distrust.

Runciman attempts to put 11 September 2001 into a longer term perspective. Along the way, he reveals a pronounced cynicism about both Tony Blair and George Bush. It is unclear which he seems to dislike more. Though on balance, perhaps it is Blair.

From the British vantage, he suggests that Blair following Bush into Iraq might one day seem like the ill-fated Suez adventure by Britain and France, when both thought they were still global powers. He posits that the new Iraq might turn out in ways unmeant and unpleasant. Given the continual unrest in Iraq, one can at best say that he has not been refuted.

The book suggests that sometimes, good intentions are not sufficient as a determinant of political decisions.

In having Dr. Ted V. McAllister as my Western and American Heritage Professor at Hillsdale College,I was able to fully appreciate his historical views on a personal basis. His knowledge of Niccolo Machiavelli and modernity, and the philosophy of Plato relating to Western history is unparalled. His views in his book are presented in a true and indepth fashion. After being his student for two semesters, I will truely miss his insight and knowledge pertaining to historical matters.

McAllister really seems to understand Strauss, which is more than can be said about many who write about Strauss (scholars and otherwise). This will serve as a useful antidote. And of course, Voegelin has long been neglected, so any work treating him seriously is a welcome addition. This should be in the library of serious political theorists.

This is the first Colin Gray book I have read, but I plan that it won't be the last. As one of the leading strategists of our age he takes a very fundamental and realist approach to America in the modern world. However this book is not so much a prescriptive strategy for America as it is a description of the role that America must assume for now and for the foreseeable future, that of the "Sheriff" to protect world order (a role less than a full on global policeman) and one from which any number of appropriate strategies can correctly flow based on temporal conditions.

In a short 150 pages of so or text he lays out that America is already fulfilling this role, is the only nation or institution that can fulfill this role, and depicts the need for the role. His argument is more centered on trying to make people, and particularly American statesman, explicitly recognize this fact and knowingly act within its confines, as opposed to pursue mere opportunistic action that is afforded by our military pre-eminence.

As the world's sole superpower it basically falls on America as the only nation that can protect some semblance of world order, which can maximize peace and prosperity beneficial for all (and particular the US, but should not be confused with an oppressive freezing of the world condition.) The UN, NATO, and G-8 are at best mere figureheads for none can practically act to take on threats such as terrorism or rogue states without the overwhelming influence (and thus overwhelming control) of American military might. This leaves the job to act, or not to act as the case may be, heavily on our shoulders and the author argues that it is one we should adopt with alacrity and dedication. Written largely in response to the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) in the harsh afterlight of the Iraq campaign of 2003 the author is urging for an increased appreciation of strategic thought to link and subordinate American military action and developments to foreign policies appropriate to our unique position and opportunity in history.

He provides far too much advice, and pointers, and warnings about how America should act as the world Sheriff to bear repeating here, but to make the book very worthwhile to read, especially for people involved in military or foreign policy matters.

Although overall highly recommended I have to take away a star for the fact that the author is highly repetitive to the point of being slightly annoying sometimes. On a positive note the book is heavily footnoted and the bibliography provides a huge reference library of excellent books to read to understand strategy and the full import of the author's argument.

I feel monumentally ignorant not to have known of Gray, or,
at least, not to have registered his work more securely in the
thoughts. As an admirer of George Kennan and his several
tours d'horizon, as well as of Robert D Kaplan's fantastic
journalism, I kept trying to find an approach that would tie
such work together. I have always heard the word "strategic"
kicked about, but this uncluttered gem makes it clear what
it means, means for the United States, and means for world
stability, all the while admitting that strategy is not easy.
I suggest that you dip into this book, and when you emerge,
you shall need to own it.