Book Review

[Muskan Ghuman]

Power, Terror, War and Peace: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk
By Walter Russell Mead



Walter Russell Mead offers a comprehensive account of America's foreign policy, its grand strategy for the world and the challenges it faces after 9/11. In his analysis of US foreign policy he takes into consideration the internal dynamics shaping the conduct of the US as well as its external compulsions not merely the terrorist challenge but the economic angle as well. He considers the successes in US policies as well as the mistakes.


The main theme of the book revolves around what Mead calls an "American project" - a grand strategic vision of what the US seeks to build in the world. The project - to protect America's domestic security while building a peaceful world order of democratic states linked by common values and sharing a common prosperity - has deep roots in America's past. Mead has written the book as an advocate of the American project with a belief that American foreign policy is consistent with the happiness and advancement of humanity as a whole and an even deeper conviction that the destruction of the American system in the world would lead to more misery and destruction than is currently seen in the world.


The first part of the book looks at what the American foreign policy has been about and what its national grand strategy has been. With the decline of British power in the twentieth century America was forced to fill the void and build its own version of the world system. Mead borrows the concepts of hard and soft power from Joseph Nye's book the Paradox of American Power and further divides them into sharp, sticky and sweet power representing military, economic, and cultural power respectively. All three types of power contribute to hegemonic power. He builds a clever account of how the US brings to bear these different kinds of powers as it goes about the task of building its world order. The American project is building a world of free markets and free governments under the aegis of American military power.


Part two looks at the forces that in the last twenty years have been undermining American power and setting the stage for new era of confrontation and danger. He identifies two groups of countries that do not agree with US vision of world order - the "Party of Heaven" represented by countries like Germany and Canada, and the "Party of Hell" represented by countries like France and Russia. The former believes that if the US submitted its power to international institutions the world would be well on its way to permanent peace. The latter thinks in terms of traditional power politics and believes that American power needs to be kept in check. The two parties often combine to retard American foreign policy objectives. Although the terrorist attacks forced security issues to the forefront of US foreign policy, Mead suggests that economic transformation is driving events. Fordist industrial capitalism with its cooperative arrangement among the state, business and labour is giving way to "millennial capitalism," - a less-regulated and less-forgiving system that is generating vide disparities between winners and losers - which America has exported to the rest of the world. This has given rise to anti-Americanism and a firm conviction in billions of people that unwelcome and confusing changes in their lives bore a "Made in the USA" label. Hatred of "Made in America" globalisation is strongest in the Middle East. Mead calls the supporters of millennial capitalism "American Revivalist". Within the US these trends have led to the formation of a new foreign policy coalition that includes US corporate interests, neoconservatives, "born again" Wilsonians, and Jacksonians seeking to assert US power and defend US honour.


Part three looks at the forces shaping the Bush administration's foreign policy and analyses both the strengths and limits to the administration's approach to world politics and the war on terror. Mead seems to think that the present administration has worked within the traditional concerns of American grand strategy - preventing hostile hegemonic powers from establishing themselves in Europe, Asia and Middle East; protecting the freedom of the seas and skies; and ensuring safe and free passage of oil to world markets. These factors remain the corner stones of the administration's security policy. The Bush administration has the war on terror the replacement for Cold War as the central organising idea around which American foreign and domestic policy would be structured for the foreseeable future. Mead shows insight into dynamics of the war on terror by pointing out how it was used as an excuse to by the administration to restructure its foreign policy. Mead also examines the collapse of Washington's relations with some of its oldest allies in Europe, with differences over basic strategic issues. He attributed the changes to a non-Eurocentric US foreign policy for the first time in its history.


Mead talks about the strengths and weaknesses of the Bush administration's policies but seems to be endorsing the strategic direction of its policies. This includes the shift in the nature of relations with Europe; the shift away from institution towards coalitions of the willing. Ironically, among the successes, Mead includes the regime change in Iraq, little knowing that two years later Iraq stands at the brink of civil war and disintegration. Other foreign policy successes include improved relations with China and strategic ties with India and multilateral engagement of North Korea. Among Mead's list of failures of the Bush administration policy is intelligence failure and assessment errors, especially in the case of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); failure to prepare the public opinion before the Iraq war; failure to read the situation correctly in Europe regarding Iraq's invasion, which later led to a crisis of Western alliance and estrangement of allies. The overall public diplomacy of the administration was faulty and suffered consistent defeats.


His analyses regarding the future of US foreign policy revolve around two themes - how to fight the fanatical terrorists and how to repair the damage to the American system and how to manage the American project in less favourable political and economic conditions


His grand strategy in the war on terror consists of "forward containment". He outlines a three-pronged containment strategy to deal with terrorism - cutting links between terrorist groups and governments; containing Arab fascist ideology; and resist Arabian fascist movements to establish political control over any states.


He outlines a new initiative for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict where a step-by-step strategy is needed to resolve conflict and pave the way to lasting peace. He takes a sympathetic view of the plight of Palestinians who have been suffering for generations. He gives several proposals for improving the situation of Palestinian refugees and recommends sweeping changes for reforming international institutions, including the United Nations Security Council.


His final analysis is that American hard power is in good shape but soft power is experiencing difficulties. Shift to millennial capitalism has given America hard power - both military and economic - but it has also posed new challenges to US soft power. He sees the successes and challenges of the Bush Administration as continuation of successes and challenges of the Clinton era. This at times sounds like a search for excuses for the policies of Bush administration. He firmly puts the onus of instability and change in the system on the realities of American politics and changes in global economy, which began before Clinton took office. He has little faith in global institutions.


However, he ends on an optimistic note about the future. While throughout having argued the merits of American brand of world order, towards the end of the book he does acknowledge that 5 percent of the population cannot impose a world order on the other 95 percent. He subscribes to Roosevelt's idea that one cannot rule without serving both God and the human race.


The author in his introduction professes that this kind of book would need generous helpings of explanations and apologies. However, throughout the book the closest he came to an apology was by noting that it is much easier to sit back and criticise American foreign policy than it is to run it. In his book Mead confirms US grand strategy of imposing its own brand of governance, economic system, policies on the rest of the world, enforced, at times, through unilateral means and indiscriminate use of force. Far from making any apologies for the grand strategy he endorses it. Mead dispassionately discusses US foreign policy choices and fails to underscore the human sufferings behind, for example, decision to go to war in Iraq.1 His view of US foreign policy shows many useful insights but it fails to see the outsiders' view. He suffers a blindspot over how US policies are creating dangers for US in the rest of the world. In the end his views sound suspiciously rightists and pro-Bush administration.


Jim Garrison in his book America as Empire: Global Leader or Rogue Power? examines American foreign policy and American power in the context of "America as empire." He subscribes to a leadership role of for America in the world and sees the challenge before it: to manifest a destiny of both light and power at the level of global affairs. However, he questions whether America would have the political and moral courage to lead a world fraught with crises. Unlike Mead, Garrison has a very clear-eyed and balanced approach towards America's actions where he sees the strengths of America as well its weaknesses, which breed discontent across the world. He challenges the political right's foreign policy agenda and articulates an alternative global vision that transcends nationalistic self-interest. He shows remarkable insight in pointing out that stewardship rather than force is becoming the most powerful tool for preserving the long-term security of US interests at home and abroad. He sees Bush's foreign policy - the "us against them" paradigm as a reassertion of the Jacksonian nationalistic tradition. He perceives Christian fundamentalism as a powerful player in America's drift from global leader to imperial bully. While Mead criticises Bush policy in Iraq in a very detached and impersonal manner, Garrison shows insight by asserting that Bush's strategy and style, particularly in Iraq, may do more to contribute to terrorism than to contain it. While Mead dismisses the role of international institutions and multi-lateralism, Garrison subscribes to a multilateral approach for dealing with problems that range from global warming and loss of biodiversity to persistent poverty and water scarcity. He warns of the dangers of myopic, market-oriented and apocalyptic focus of America. His visions is that of a global democratic society where the necessity for empires would be obsolete.


While Mead looks at internal dynamics of America's foreign policy and its external determinants purely from an American policy maker's point of view, Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes in their book America Against the World offer a unique perspective on America based on world public opinion. The book is based on an unprecedented survey of opinion of more than 91,000 people in fifty nations and revolves around the theme of the rise of anti-Americanism. Their findings conclude that America's image is at a low ebb - where once it was considered the champion of democracy, America is now seen as a self-absorbed, militant hyperpower. An overwhelming majority outside the US considered America a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam Hussain. Kohut and Stokes find that what pushed the world away is American exceptionalism - its individualism and its go-it-alone attitude. The book offers a unique perspective on the roots of global discontent against America and reveal how America's core values shape its image around the globe.


While Mead's work stands at the extreme right, Neom Chomsky in his book Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance stands at the extreme left. Chomsky presents a view of American foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. He is highly critical of US foreign policy. Chomsky dissects with meticulous research how the US has chosen to leverage its superpower position to pursue an "imperial grand strategy" which is poles apart from Mead's "American project." He sees the grand strategy in terms of imperial global expansion and military dominance. The imperial grand strategy is characterised by disregard for international institution and international law, establishment of new international norms like pre-emptive and preventive wars, and unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority. Countries must be aligned with US interest in order to ensure capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony or risk being targets of US backed aggression, or branded a terrorist state. He closely examines US political, military and economic motives, in comparison - often in sharp contrast - to its outward rhetorical support for democracy, the Middle-East peace process, free trade, and human rights. He is conderned with exposing the hypocracy of US policies, which are pursued under the garb of "huamnitarian intervention," "peace" and in the name of nobler causes.


Reference:

Strategic Studies Journal