What do you think?
Rate this book
Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy
This new edition of Michael H. Hunt's classic reinterpretation of American diplomatic history includes a preface that reflects on the personal experience and intellectual agenda behind the writing of the book, surveys the broad impact of the book's argument, and addresses the challenges to the thesis since the book's original publication. In the wake of 9/11 this interpretation is more pertinent than ever. Praise for the previous edition: "Clearly written and historically sound. . . . A subtle critique and analysis."--Gaddis Smith, Foreign Affairs "A lean, plain-spoken treatment of a grand subject. . . . A bold piece of criticism and advocacy. . . . The right focus of the argument may insure its survival as one of the basic postwar critiques of U.S. policy."--John W. Dower, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists "A work of intellectual vigor and daring, impressive in its scholarship and imaginative in its use of material."--Ronald Steel, Reviews in American History "A masterpiece of historical compression."--Wilson Quarterly "A penetrating and provocative study. . . . A pleasure both to read and to contemplate."--John Martz, Journal of Politics
276 pages, ebook
First published September 10, 1987
5 people are currently reading
165 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 24, 2017
In 1987, Michael H Hunt wrote and published his revolutionary book “Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy,” with an unprecedented approach to understand and explain the history of U.S. foreign policy in a different light. Before his book was published the U.S. foreign policies had mostly been described from the realist and economic centered perspectives narrated by critiques such as George Kennan and William Appleman Williams. In his book Hunt argues that historians should instead “attempt to understand ideology in relation to a cultural system.” (p. 12)
To support his argument Hunt utilizes the works of cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz and describes the importance of beliefs, symbols, and values in discussing ideology in foreign relations. This was definitely a very different approach than what had been practiced before. And even though Hunt’s work in this book may not be held as the sole instigator in the increasing appeal of the cultural approach – looking at the advances cultural historians have made since the publication of this book within the field of American foreign policy, specially by Paul T. McCartney, Amy Kaplan, and Donald E. Pease, clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of Hunt’s approach that upheld the adoption of cultural influence as a tool of analysis to analyze American foreign policy.
Hunt’s first chapter “Coming to Terms with Ideology,” opens up the discussion by analyzing works of Richard Barnet, Melvin Gurtov, Earl Ravenal, and Richard Feinberg, etc. Their works had been calling for greater restraint in foreign policy making. However, Hunt argues that without providing adequate attention to the role that ideology plays in foreign policy making this cannot be achieved. He also questions the approach of the father of the containment doctrine, George Kennan, as Hunt thinks “that might just be labeled as pejorative.” (p. 5)
Kennan talks about the role of legalism and moralism as a deep seated and pervasive outlook that “had repeatedly obstructed a clear definition and effective pursuit of the national interest.” (p. 6) Hunt argues that American foreign policies were not the result of moralistic and legalistic outlook rather the illusion of the U.S. that war is an “instrument of policy which could bring total victory or, alternatively, that peace could be had through world disarmament, arbitration treaties, and the outlawry of war, the action of international organization, and other means that sidestepped ‘the real substance of international affairs.’” (p. 6) Hunt establishes the central argument of his book that “the fundamental propositions of American foreign policy are rooted in the process of nation building, in domestic social arrangements broadly understood, and in ethnic and class divisions.” (p. 16)
In his second chapter, “Visions of National Greatness,” Hunt introduces his three central arguments. At the core of his central arguments is the simple question of where does this vision of American greatness come from? First, he opposes Jefferson’s ideas about liberty which enormously contributed to the belief of American exceptionalism within the American presidency and public rhetoric. Even though the book does not go into detailed historical analysis of how the United States was created – it does question the treatment of the natives by the British, French, and Spanish colonists. Particularly, for the British colonists who decided to make the land their own. The concept of greatness of the new country was somehow perversely related to the domination over the natives and the conquering of the new land. This chapter strongly demonstrates the huge impact that visions of national greatness had on policy makers in the days to come.
Chapter three, “The Hierarchy of Race,” sheds the light on how the concept of American exceptionalism was established in its early years. To give us a clear understanding Hunt takes us back to the old world order, where the belief in the hierarchy of race was predominant. Hunt reminds us that these colonists who came from different parts of the European world already had a pre-established concept of Europeans being the top race in the hierarchy. Particularly, the literature that has been circulated prior to the finding and colonizing of the new found lands, along with the centuries of racist history practiced by the European rulers in different parts of the world clearly indicates the mindset that these colonizers had towards the natives.
Towards the end of chapter three on page 90 Hunt writes, “Americans inherited a rich legacy of racial thought from their immediate European ancestors. Westerners coming into contact with peoples of the ‘Third World’ in the fifteenth century had already betrayed signs of racism. Well before Englishmen took that first step on the North American continent, they had absorbed Elizabethan myths about blacks and easily extrapolated them to other non-white people.” How this inheritance of racial superiority plays out in the field of foreign policy is experienced first by the “Manifest Destiny” doctrine. The concept and execution of “Manifest Destiny” ideology was simply a projection of this racist belief that the world belongs to the Anglo-Saxons. Along with the twisted mixture of Darwin’s evolution theory the Anglo-Saxons undoubtedly believed that they were the top race and had no hesitation in massacring the native Indian tribes for their acquisition of lands which they believed were gifts from the creator.
In chapter four, Hunt introduces the effects of revolutions happening around the world that also shaped American foreign policy. The French revolution was not admired by the leaders of the United because of its notorious history of bloodshed and the utter destruction of its royal families. Instead the Americans viewed the violent revolutions of the nineteenth century as an expression of the “unfortunate traits of foreign people, and the personal failings of foreign leaders.” (p. 116)
American leaders and its public maintained the same tone towards the Bolshevik revolution as well. Every step of the way, Hunt shows that the American ideology of superiority downplayed the world revolutions. Even in the case of the Cold War, in the concept of “containment” the U.S. obviously wanted to be the dominant superpower in the world – which Hunt claims was the continuation of the U.S. racial supremacy. In these few chapters Hunt pretty much consolidates his arguments as he draws the lines to connect each themes to the next. And in his final chapters, Hunt attempts to bring all the arguments together to discuss the continuation of these ideologies and how they affect today’s U.S. foreign policy.
It is quite difficult not to agree with Hunt’s perspectives as the book clearly demonstrates the residue of racial supremacy throughout the history of the U.S. and its European counterparts. To maintain its domination and hegemony the United States have involved themselves in all parts of the world. How they had handled the Latin Americans, the Asians, or the Middle East clearly indicates the aggressive tendency of the United States which roots from this very old racial supremacy point of view. What Hunt fails to address though is the rise of corporations and their lobbying in the governments, how the average American citizen is fooled by the treachery of these corporations and politicians – that also had a huge impact on the American foreign policy and trade. Because at the end of the day, they are all interconnected. By putting up the facade of superior race, the politicians continuously bluffed the Americans into believing that whatever the regime was doing was for the best interest of the U.S. population.
American foreign policy had been severely influenced by corporate greed and special interest groups. Just to mention a few, the wars in the Middle East had mostly been dictated by the need of oil and the interests of corporations, and the relationship with China and the destruction of American industrialism by moving all our industries to China and other 3rd world countries. At one point after WWII and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “Uni-polar Moment” provided the U.S. to continue with their superior ideology, yet it chose to manipulate its own people by dragging the country into severe trade deficits and unwanted wars which yielded heartbreaking results every step of the way.
Hunt’s book has been an eye opening chapter for the history of U.S. foreign policy – but does it fully capture the grasp of the national exceptionalism, racial supremacy, and evolution had on the U.S. foreign policy. Albeit, there are other variables that had dictated the U.S. foreign policy, however, Hunt’s bold assertion on these three variables and how they have played a major role in shaping the U.S. foreign policy is admirable.
To support his argument Hunt utilizes the works of cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz and describes the importance of beliefs, symbols, and values in discussing ideology in foreign relations. This was definitely a very different approach than what had been practiced before. And even though Hunt’s work in this book may not be held as the sole instigator in the increasing appeal of the cultural approach – looking at the advances cultural historians have made since the publication of this book within the field of American foreign policy, specially by Paul T. McCartney, Amy Kaplan, and Donald E. Pease, clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of Hunt’s approach that upheld the adoption of cultural influence as a tool of analysis to analyze American foreign policy.
Hunt’s first chapter “Coming to Terms with Ideology,” opens up the discussion by analyzing works of Richard Barnet, Melvin Gurtov, Earl Ravenal, and Richard Feinberg, etc. Their works had been calling for greater restraint in foreign policy making. However, Hunt argues that without providing adequate attention to the role that ideology plays in foreign policy making this cannot be achieved. He also questions the approach of the father of the containment doctrine, George Kennan, as Hunt thinks “that might just be labeled as pejorative.” (p. 5)
Kennan talks about the role of legalism and moralism as a deep seated and pervasive outlook that “had repeatedly obstructed a clear definition and effective pursuit of the national interest.” (p. 6) Hunt argues that American foreign policies were not the result of moralistic and legalistic outlook rather the illusion of the U.S. that war is an “instrument of policy which could bring total victory or, alternatively, that peace could be had through world disarmament, arbitration treaties, and the outlawry of war, the action of international organization, and other means that sidestepped ‘the real substance of international affairs.’” (p. 6) Hunt establishes the central argument of his book that “the fundamental propositions of American foreign policy are rooted in the process of nation building, in domestic social arrangements broadly understood, and in ethnic and class divisions.” (p. 16)
In his second chapter, “Visions of National Greatness,” Hunt introduces his three central arguments. At the core of his central arguments is the simple question of where does this vision of American greatness come from? First, he opposes Jefferson’s ideas about liberty which enormously contributed to the belief of American exceptionalism within the American presidency and public rhetoric. Even though the book does not go into detailed historical analysis of how the United States was created – it does question the treatment of the natives by the British, French, and Spanish colonists. Particularly, for the British colonists who decided to make the land their own. The concept of greatness of the new country was somehow perversely related to the domination over the natives and the conquering of the new land. This chapter strongly demonstrates the huge impact that visions of national greatness had on policy makers in the days to come.
Chapter three, “The Hierarchy of Race,” sheds the light on how the concept of American exceptionalism was established in its early years. To give us a clear understanding Hunt takes us back to the old world order, where the belief in the hierarchy of race was predominant. Hunt reminds us that these colonists who came from different parts of the European world already had a pre-established concept of Europeans being the top race in the hierarchy. Particularly, the literature that has been circulated prior to the finding and colonizing of the new found lands, along with the centuries of racist history practiced by the European rulers in different parts of the world clearly indicates the mindset that these colonizers had towards the natives.
Towards the end of chapter three on page 90 Hunt writes, “Americans inherited a rich legacy of racial thought from their immediate European ancestors. Westerners coming into contact with peoples of the ‘Third World’ in the fifteenth century had already betrayed signs of racism. Well before Englishmen took that first step on the North American continent, they had absorbed Elizabethan myths about blacks and easily extrapolated them to other non-white people.” How this inheritance of racial superiority plays out in the field of foreign policy is experienced first by the “Manifest Destiny” doctrine. The concept and execution of “Manifest Destiny” ideology was simply a projection of this racist belief that the world belongs to the Anglo-Saxons. Along with the twisted mixture of Darwin’s evolution theory the Anglo-Saxons undoubtedly believed that they were the top race and had no hesitation in massacring the native Indian tribes for their acquisition of lands which they believed were gifts from the creator.
In chapter four, Hunt introduces the effects of revolutions happening around the world that also shaped American foreign policy. The French revolution was not admired by the leaders of the United because of its notorious history of bloodshed and the utter destruction of its royal families. Instead the Americans viewed the violent revolutions of the nineteenth century as an expression of the “unfortunate traits of foreign people, and the personal failings of foreign leaders.” (p. 116)
American leaders and its public maintained the same tone towards the Bolshevik revolution as well. Every step of the way, Hunt shows that the American ideology of superiority downplayed the world revolutions. Even in the case of the Cold War, in the concept of “containment” the U.S. obviously wanted to be the dominant superpower in the world – which Hunt claims was the continuation of the U.S. racial supremacy. In these few chapters Hunt pretty much consolidates his arguments as he draws the lines to connect each themes to the next. And in his final chapters, Hunt attempts to bring all the arguments together to discuss the continuation of these ideologies and how they affect today’s U.S. foreign policy.
It is quite difficult not to agree with Hunt’s perspectives as the book clearly demonstrates the residue of racial supremacy throughout the history of the U.S. and its European counterparts. To maintain its domination and hegemony the United States have involved themselves in all parts of the world. How they had handled the Latin Americans, the Asians, or the Middle East clearly indicates the aggressive tendency of the United States which roots from this very old racial supremacy point of view. What Hunt fails to address though is the rise of corporations and their lobbying in the governments, how the average American citizen is fooled by the treachery of these corporations and politicians – that also had a huge impact on the American foreign policy and trade. Because at the end of the day, they are all interconnected. By putting up the facade of superior race, the politicians continuously bluffed the Americans into believing that whatever the regime was doing was for the best interest of the U.S. population.
American foreign policy had been severely influenced by corporate greed and special interest groups. Just to mention a few, the wars in the Middle East had mostly been dictated by the need of oil and the interests of corporations, and the relationship with China and the destruction of American industrialism by moving all our industries to China and other 3rd world countries. At one point after WWII and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “Uni-polar Moment” provided the U.S. to continue with their superior ideology, yet it chose to manipulate its own people by dragging the country into severe trade deficits and unwanted wars which yielded heartbreaking results every step of the way.
Hunt’s book has been an eye opening chapter for the history of U.S. foreign policy – but does it fully capture the grasp of the national exceptionalism, racial supremacy, and evolution had on the U.S. foreign policy. Albeit, there are other variables that had dictated the U.S. foreign policy, however, Hunt’s bold assertion on these three variables and how they have played a major role in shaping the U.S. foreign policy is admirable.
September 3, 2024
There's a reason it's a classic.
May 1, 2016
An informative but flawed cultural critique of USFP. Hunt's argument is that 3 ideas/cultural memes have shaped USFP since the founding: 1. A sense of national greatness or destiny, i.e. exceptionalism. 2. A racial hierarchy with whites at the top. 3. Fear and opposition to the majority of revolutions that don't fit the moderate, responsible example of the American Revolution. His explanations of each of these are very interesting and detailed, and I'm convinced that these are powerful, even somewhat unconscious forces that have and to some extent still influence USFP. Hunt is careful not to assign too much causal value to these forces, although he rightly shows their presence in most cases
However, the book is also too one-sided and judgmental. Hunt is another scholar with little appreciation for the burdens of leadership, the situations in which leaders must choose among a series of bad options. While focusing on the things that America has mucked up in the past, he spends basically no time on the destruction of fascism, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, NATO, the containment of the USSR, and other key aspects of international order and prosperity that the US has established. Hunt is also like many academic historians who can't think about the dogs that didn't bark, or what might have happened had the US not done certain things and the possibility that the outcomes could have been worse.
Another problem with the book is the argument that these 3 forces have pushed the US towards greater intervention in the world quite consistently in our history. Hunt's book is about continuity in USFP and our inability to completely shake these cultural concepts because of their deeply ingrained nature. I'm not totally convinced that all of these ideas should be shaken. Nevertheless, Hunt does not appreciate the deep power of the isolationist sentiment in US politics. Somehow the fear of getting involved in WWI, 19th century aloofness from Europe, the denigrating view of the "Old World," and the post WWI and Depression Era isolationism count for nothing in this book. Rather, American taste for global dominance and reform increase geometrically from the start of the 20th century.
Lastly, Hunt has a very simplistic view of development in USFP. He says that the US racial hierarchy transformed in the mid-20th century into a division of the world as developed and undeveloped. He claims that this new division really just reflected old prejudices in a more scientific and politically correct garb. I think he's right to some extent, but he strongly overstates his argument. Development theorists held racial and cultural biases, but unlike early American imperialists like Teddy Roosevelt, they were not racial ideologues. Moreover, many of their development programs were incredibly helpful in, well, developing these impoverished societies. I'm often left scratching my head at many academics attitudes towards development. Obviously development should not be a basis for military intervention, but I struggle to see what's so wrong about conceptually dividing the world between have and have-nots and then trying to close that gap.
Judgment is easy, and this book is full of it. I much prefer (and recommend) the more measured criticism of John Lewis Gaddis than Hunt's work. He should have stuck to the more historical aspects of this book rather than the muddled critique of more recent policy.
However, the book is also too one-sided and judgmental. Hunt is another scholar with little appreciation for the burdens of leadership, the situations in which leaders must choose among a series of bad options. While focusing on the things that America has mucked up in the past, he spends basically no time on the destruction of fascism, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, NATO, the containment of the USSR, and other key aspects of international order and prosperity that the US has established. Hunt is also like many academic historians who can't think about the dogs that didn't bark, or what might have happened had the US not done certain things and the possibility that the outcomes could have been worse.
Another problem with the book is the argument that these 3 forces have pushed the US towards greater intervention in the world quite consistently in our history. Hunt's book is about continuity in USFP and our inability to completely shake these cultural concepts because of their deeply ingrained nature. I'm not totally convinced that all of these ideas should be shaken. Nevertheless, Hunt does not appreciate the deep power of the isolationist sentiment in US politics. Somehow the fear of getting involved in WWI, 19th century aloofness from Europe, the denigrating view of the "Old World," and the post WWI and Depression Era isolationism count for nothing in this book. Rather, American taste for global dominance and reform increase geometrically from the start of the 20th century.
Lastly, Hunt has a very simplistic view of development in USFP. He says that the US racial hierarchy transformed in the mid-20th century into a division of the world as developed and undeveloped. He claims that this new division really just reflected old prejudices in a more scientific and politically correct garb. I think he's right to some extent, but he strongly overstates his argument. Development theorists held racial and cultural biases, but unlike early American imperialists like Teddy Roosevelt, they were not racial ideologues. Moreover, many of their development programs were incredibly helpful in, well, developing these impoverished societies. I'm often left scratching my head at many academics attitudes towards development. Obviously development should not be a basis for military intervention, but I struggle to see what's so wrong about conceptually dividing the world between have and have-nots and then trying to close that gap.
Judgment is easy, and this book is full of it. I much prefer (and recommend) the more measured criticism of John Lewis Gaddis than Hunt's work. He should have stuck to the more historical aspects of this book rather than the muddled critique of more recent policy.
July 27, 2011
Overall good book. Hunt is not a writer and as a reader one should remember this but his critique on foreign policy and the facets that affect it are good and should be read today as the U.S. continues involvement in the Middle East.
February 4, 2022
I'm glad that other readers enjoyed this book; I consider my three stars generous. The story of US foreign policy is not new, but well enough told here. The problem is that it is so one-sided, and this is not something Americans need in a dangerous era of political divisiveness.
We read that American political leaders have been racists. This is well-known, but then they were men of their ages, when almost everyone in the world was racist, American and non-Americans alike (all foreigners being "barbarians," of course). Alas, 90% of Hunt's evidence for his claim is his collection of political cartoons with caricatures of Blacks and others. Well, yeah, everyone in political cartoons becomes lampooned and exaggerated figures, including whites.
The biggest problem with the book is the final summing up. We learn that American foreign policy is a history of failures, particularly of Americans arrogantly imposing their values on other countries, and failing. Sure, if you don't mention the remarkably successful nation-rebuilding in West Germany and Japan. And as for the putative anti-Americanism, Hunt conveniently ignores public opinion data showing pro-American opinion around the world. But this is much less important than the many countries that have adapted the American model of human rights (Wilsonianism), free enterprise/capitalism, and democracy. Finally, there's the little business of the end of the Cold War.
We read that American political leaders have been racists. This is well-known, but then they were men of their ages, when almost everyone in the world was racist, American and non-Americans alike (all foreigners being "barbarians," of course). Alas, 90% of Hunt's evidence for his claim is his collection of political cartoons with caricatures of Blacks and others. Well, yeah, everyone in political cartoons becomes lampooned and exaggerated figures, including whites.
The biggest problem with the book is the final summing up. We learn that American foreign policy is a history of failures, particularly of Americans arrogantly imposing their values on other countries, and failing. Sure, if you don't mention the remarkably successful nation-rebuilding in West Germany and Japan. And as for the putative anti-Americanism, Hunt conveniently ignores public opinion data showing pro-American opinion around the world. But this is much less important than the many countries that have adapted the American model of human rights (Wilsonianism), free enterprise/capitalism, and democracy. Finally, there's the little business of the end of the Cold War.
November 6, 2022
Groundbreaking in its day, evidently. But, after about 35 years, it has not aged that well. Granted, it is still a valuable read, for what it is.
Just be prepared for the "all white people" are racists chapter. Of course, isolating any people group and issuing a blanket condemnation is generalization and racist, so Hunt's approach is actually racism.
Beyond that, it took me a while to decide whether I thought he was arrogant or naive. In the end, I think there is a little bit of both.
He approaches U.S. Foreign Policy as though on the U.S. was at play, rather than the U.S. making decisions about Foreign Policy in a dynamic global context. So, I don't buy a lot of his assumptions.
In the end, he calls for an enlightened Foreign Policy moving forward. Of course, that means following his suggestions, as what he sees as the historic influence of ideology on Foreign Policy was obviously not enlightened. In other words, just do what Hunt says and everything will be fine.
Of course, I'm no Foreign Policy expert, so I freely admit to having less knowledge than Hunt. Still, other books provide other filters through which to assess Foreign Policy, some more convincing than Hunt's.
Just be prepared for the "all white people" are racists chapter. Of course, isolating any people group and issuing a blanket condemnation is generalization and racist, so Hunt's approach is actually racism.
Beyond that, it took me a while to decide whether I thought he was arrogant or naive. In the end, I think there is a little bit of both.
He approaches U.S. Foreign Policy as though on the U.S. was at play, rather than the U.S. making decisions about Foreign Policy in a dynamic global context. So, I don't buy a lot of his assumptions.
In the end, he calls for an enlightened Foreign Policy moving forward. Of course, that means following his suggestions, as what he sees as the historic influence of ideology on Foreign Policy was obviously not enlightened. In other words, just do what Hunt says and everything will be fine.
Of course, I'm no Foreign Policy expert, so I freely admit to having less knowledge than Hunt. Still, other books provide other filters through which to assess Foreign Policy, some more convincing than Hunt's.
June 4, 2025
Influential enough that in the last four decades, it’s spurred a body of work that outpaced the original. This is still a breezy overview of US foreign policy since the revolution, but has enough flaws I’d recommend reading a newer take instead that incorporates the scholarship since.
The book as a whole is readable, but there are some real clunker sentences in there—I’m talkin’ bewildering constructions that somehow survived the edit. The first chapter is especially rocky, with the remainder of book much better.
He also is so keen to distance himself from William Appleman Williams that he downplays the US concern about foreign revolutions being pure reaction 99% of the time.
The book as a whole is readable, but there are some real clunker sentences in there—I’m talkin’ bewildering constructions that somehow survived the edit. The first chapter is especially rocky, with the remainder of book much better.
He also is so keen to distance himself from William Appleman Williams that he downplays the US concern about foreign revolutions being pure reaction 99% of the time.
March 26, 2018
Hunt wrote a book on topics Americans don’t like to confront about themselves —which is a compelling reason to read and digest its points.
April 4, 2020
Amazing book
Would love to see a copy on the Trump Policy
Would love to see a copy on the Trump Policy
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 30, 2015
This is, it must be remembered, a critical, socio-historical analysis ... It aims to demonstrate, in particular, how the cultural biases of American foreign policy makers have skewed and altered American political behaviors. Hunt is particularly concerned wi the narrative of race and racial ideology, and while his work is powerful it suffers from being somewhat over deterministic ... Rather than racial ideology being a major generative force in our foreign policy it is "the" force, explaining both American aggression and isolationism, imperialism and free trade. Therein is its flaw, but the originality and impact still make it essential reading.
August 14, 2016
Excellent history of Ideology and U.S. Foreign policy from the origins of the nation to 1987 (publication year). Hunt presents a compelling case for three themes acting as the foundation of policy and ideology through the decades, consistently and without the so-called watershed transformations identified by other historians. The three themes are racial hierarchies, the conception of national greatness, and the fear of or contempt for revolutions elsewhere in the world. While at times difficult to follow, the writing is often witty and clever. All told, the book was insightful and a good primer on US foreign policy through the centuries.
December 16, 2009
The best book I ever read on why American foreign policy makes sense.
May 20, 2012
Excellent breakdown of American ideological principles. When one looks closely at the events of the Vietnam War, one will find that Hunt's arguments stand the test of scrutiny.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews