Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower

by Zbigniew Brzeziński

America’s most distinguished commentator on foreign policy, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, offers a reasoned but unsparing assessment of the last three presidential administrations’ foreign policy. Though spanning less than two decades, these administrations cover a vitally important turning point in world history: the period in which the United States, having emerged from the Cold War with unprecedented power and prestige, managed to squander both in a remarkably short time. This is a tale of decline: from the competent but conventional thinking of the first Bush administration, to the well-intentioned self-indulgence of the Clinton administration, to the mortgaging of America’s future by the “suicidal statecraft” of the second Bush administration. Brzezinski concludes with a chapter on how America can regain its lost prestige. This scholarly yet highly opinionated book is sure to be both controversial and influential.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, International Relations, Political Science, American History, Presidents

240 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski was a Polish-American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. Known for his hawkish foreign policy at a time when the Democratic Party was increasingly dovish, he is a foreign policy realist and considered by some to be the Democrats' response to Republican realist Henry Kissinger.

Major foreign policy events during his term of office included the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China (and the severing of ties with the Republic of China), the signing of the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), the brokering of the Camp David Accords, the transition of Iran to an anti-Western Islamic state, encouraging reform in Eastern Europe, emphasizing human rights in U.S. foreign policy, the arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet-friendly Afghan government, increase the probability of Soviet invasion and later entanglement in a Vietnam-style war, and later to counter the Soviet invasion, and the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties relinquishing U.S. control of the Panama Canal after 1999.

He was a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of various boards and councils. He appeared frequently as an expert on the PBS program The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

Reviews

[Trish · Rating 4 out of 5]

First published in 2006, the title ‘Second Chance’ refers to the possibility that the United States would be able to recognize and seize its historical moment as the world’s only superpower to do the moral and necessary thing: to lead the world towards greater amity, less divisional politics and severe wealth disparities, and to prepare for the changes climate change will unleash.

Brzezinski was National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter 1977-81 and went to academia (Harvard, Columbia, Johns Hopkins) since. This book looks at three U.S. presidencies after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Brzezinski was a Sovietologist by education and is never so articulate and convincing as when he is discussing the intentions and pressures of Russian society.

Brzezinski begins with the intellectual disarray that accompanied the end of the Cold War, something America had been waging for some forty years. He notes the rise of the “mixture of opinions, beliefs, slogans, and pet formulas…that expressed a pre-disposition…for relatively flexible formulations based on a broadly shared, loosely defined set of convictions”: the globalization of Clinton I and the neoconservatism of Bush II. Brzezinski discusses and debunks the neocon attempts to articulate foreign policy: “without 9/11, the [neocon] doctrine probably would have remained a fringe phenomenon, but that catastrophic event gave it the appearance of relevance.”

Bush I enlisted the help of Arab states to oppose Saddam Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait, and began to set in motion a process to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue which, along with American troops on religious ground in Muslim lands, fed resentments in the Middle East .

“A second term might have given Bush I the time to become a truly innovative president, the shaper of a new historical era. Certainly, his record in handling the agony of the Soviet empire deserves the highest plaudits, and it is doubtful that his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, would have performed as skillfully. But on the Middle East, a stunning military victory was diminished into a mere tactical success whose strategic legacy gradually became negative…In brief, George H.W. Bush’s greatest shortcoming was not in what he did but in what he did not do.”

Clinton I is characterized by Brzezinski as a cheerful, idealistic president embracing globalization but primarily concerned with domestic concerns, unwilling to involve the country in adventures outside the borders. Clinton I had a casual style of leadership on the kaffesklatsch model featuring prolonged meetings with spontaneous participation by a wide variety of White House officials whose personal influence was “fluid.”. Only when forced to acknowledge widespread large scale violence in Yugoslavia did he belatedly put together a NATO coalition to oppose it. Clinton I had the smarts, the smooze, and the talent to put the United States into its role as “leader of the free world,” but he did not have the temperament nor discipline for it.

The presidency of Bush II had a “catastrophic” effect on America’s standing in the world. The simplicity with which Bush I elucidated his Manichean worldview, “If you are not with us, you are against us,” shows his complete unawareness of the complexity of world alliances and nations’ decision-making realities. He squandered his opportunity to lead the world by risking the goodwill of every nation by operating on gut instinct rather than through reasoned consideration, turning his adventurism in Iraq into a global disaster that plagues us still.

“…the war on terrorism took on the menacing overtones of a collision with the world of Islam as a whole…the blend of neocon Manichaeanism and President bush’s newfound propensity for catastrophic decisiveness caused the post-9/11 global solidarity to plunge from its historical zenith to its nadir.”

Thus, we turn to strategists like Brzezinksi when things go very badly wrong and we need to know how to extricate ourselves from the holes which we have dug for ourselves. We can see his point, that world leadership is desirable and needed to smooth the differences in opinions among diverse countries. It might as well be the United States, since we are [still] the world’s only superpower. Our internal divisions, however, preclude our ability to solve even the smallest issues we face domestically, negating any privilege wealth and might may accord us.

Brzezinki’s point in writing this book in 2006 was that American could still manage to lead if it could manage some restraint and regulation in domestic affairs, and put our values to good use. The book he wrote in 2011-12, Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power , is far more strident and apocalyptic, with far less optimism that the world would look anything like it had for the past several hundred years. It is a new century, and America is in decline.

[Hartley]

"In today's restless world, America needs to identify itself with the quest for universal human dignity, a dignity that embodies both freedom and democracy but also implies respect for cultural diversity and recognizes that persisting injustices in the human condition must be remedied."

In Second Chance, Brzezinski, writing in 2008, assesses the leadership of the three post-Cold War presidents: Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. On average, he finds that each ultimately failed to achieve the broad strategic goals made possible by the collapse of the USSR.
Bush I handled the collapse of the USSR and the invasion of Kuwait with tact and skill, but essentially failed to press the advantage. The United States indeed sent some aid to the new Russian Federation, but failed to establish a frameword or restrictions meaning that much of the wealth simply inflamed the crisis of oligrachy and corruption. While the Gulf War was a tactical victory, Brzezinski believes that Bush I should have attempted to use the momentum from this victory to secure greater peace in the Middle East.
Clinton championed globalization and succeeded in both the expansion of NATO and the EU. He failed, however, to prevent Russian blood shedding in Chechnya or to secure Israel/Palestine peace. He received kudos, however, for leading NATO to strike Serbian positions in Kosovo.
George II (understandably) get's the worst of it and for all the standard reasons. The Iraq War and the turn to unilateralism are abhorrent for an insitutionalist like Brzezinski.

[Jon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe I missed the point of this book. It was a hard read with too much detail. Yeah, makes me sound dumb. Overall, it came off to me as a book that says the neo-con idea of the New World Order was a grand idea, we just messed it up over the last three presidents. Or at least, each tried to do somethings but were constantly interrupted. And then when they did try things, they all had different was of managing, etc.

He wraps up the book by saying we have/need a second chance at the NWO with the next president.

According to Adam Curry and the Daily Source Code, Brzezinski has family (I think 3 sons) who are involved in some way or the other with the US government and foreign affairs who would benefit from a NWO. So, perhaps this love of NWO by him is benefiting some people. If you know what I mean. In any case, both Dems (Brezinski was Carter's head of the NSA) and neo-con Reps like the NWO. God help us if someday they work together to get it done.

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

[Review originally written July 2009]

Second Chance features the pictures of the book's 3 main actors chosen to reflect the point-of-view expressed by the author. Bush I (looking sternly to the left), while skilled and in control of an unusual number of world crises, led by looking in the rearview mirror. Clinton (with the befuddled look to the right) was a forward-looking leader whose style (personal and professional) didn't allow his administration to reach its potential. Bush II (looking to the right with his back to the camera) was also a forward-looking leader who wasn't about to listen to anything anyone outside his inner circle had to say.

Most of Second Chance consists of a nice stroll down memory lane. The author concentrates on the 3 Presidents since the fall of the Soviet Union as only they have governed in the rarified air of truly being *the* Global Leader. The reader emerges from this reminiscence 3/4 of the way through the book with 3 main concepts: 1) foreign policy is more complicated than ordinary citizens tend to think of it - spanning much longer timeframes and involving many more actors; 2) Bush I was a better President than he's usually given credit for being; 3) Bush II was a worse President than even his detractors tend to know.

The final portion of the book provides some good food for thought, and implores the next Global Leader not to blow the opportunities presented in the same way as his predecessors. The concepts are presented simply and rationally - there aren't a lot of wasted words in this text, which is part of its appeal. That said, I felt much more should have been done in this section. Looking forward is where the value of the author's experience comes in, not in the retrospective - ironic that he bashes Bush I for this.

My only significant beef with the retrospective is that the author is a little unfair to Bush I. His hands were full, by the author's own admission, skillfully reacting to crisis after crisis heaped on him by external events - when the heck did he have the time to pay more than lip service to the catchphrase of the day, "New World Order" (the author's primary complaint)? Bush I did what he knew how to do, and did it well, setting the stage for a new style of leadership to follow, even if 4 years sooner than he would have preferred. I feel he was fair enough with Clinton and Bush II.

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brzezinski has written a concise analysis of the foreign policies of the last three presidents. The titles of the Chapters provide an insight into his views of each. For George H.W. Bush (Bush I) the chapter is titled “The Original Sin,” for Clinton it is “The Impotence of Good Intentions,” and for George W. Bush (Bush II) it is “Catastrophic Leadership.” In each chapter on each president Brzezinski provides a chronology to provide an idea of what president up against in the rest of the world. One fault is he doesn’t discuss the control of Congress very much. During Bush I there was general bi-partisanship. The Republican Congress elected in 1994 seemed to have it in for Clinton which made it difficult, if not nearly impossible for the President to get his way. Unfortunately, the Congress elected in 2000, along with Bush II, provided a rubber stamp and no oversight for six years the Republicans maintained control.

He starts his book comparing the Imperial Hubris of Britain and the Boer Wars with the current administrations imperial hubris. A comparison of Bush I and Napoleon is given as ‘proclaiming that America’s historical mission (and his own) is to spur the transformation of no less than the culture and politics of the entire world of Islam.’
Brzezinski takes on Reagan idolaters by noting the Cold War was won because of the actions of all the Presidents and several other world leaders and events since World War II, not just Ronald Reagan. It is Neocon revisionist history with its cherry picking and misinterpreting of events that led to the view Reagan single-handedly brought down the Soviet Empire.
On a few occasions he gives single sentence comparisons of the three Presidents. Early in the book he says “[Bush I:] sought to pursue a traditional policy in a non-traditional environment while America’s two competing worldviews were still crystallizing. [Clinton:] embraced a mythologized version of globalization in charge of mankind’s destiny. [Bush II:] pursued a militant commitment to prevail in a world dogmatically conceived as polarized between good and evil.
Bush I appropriated Gorbachev’s ‘New World Order” phrase according to the author. He
really admires Bush I’s handling of the breakup of the Soviet empire but noted he was caught unawares by the Yugoslav Crisis and had a passive stance toward Afghanistan. In a connection to the current administration Brzezinski states that Bush I’s encouraging of Shi’ite rebellions in 1991 complicates Iraq now.
Unlike Bush I, Clinton had a global vision. Foreign policy was an extension of domestic policy. Consequently there was no one dominant voice on foreign policy. However, the newly established National Economic Council had a central voice. Appropriately, one of the connections to the current situation has a domestic aspect. Brzezinski states, “[t:]he paradox of an objectively secure and might America, victorious in the Cold War, searching for global demons to justify its subjective insecurity crated fertile soil for the fears that became so pervasive after 9/11.” Yet the author also notes: “American power was not only seen as unquestionably dominant but also legitimate and America’s voice was credible.” Brzezinski says for that, Clinton deserves credit. Domestically, “[Clinton’s:] economic and financial stewardship transformed the ominously escalating budget deficits of earlier administrations into large surpluses.”
On the first page of the Chapter Catastrophic Leadership (and the politics of fear) Brzezinski sets the tone for the rest of the chapter. “Neither the tactical realism of Global Leader I (Bush I) nor the self indulgent optimism of Global Leader II (Clinton) could save America from destruction at the hands of its mortal enemies. “[Bush II:] saw himself bring ‘firm resolve and clear vision and a deep faith’ to the new global confrontation between good and evil….” He ties the two Bush administrations together by noting the strategy that emerged (from 9/11) was a blend of the more imperial formulation of the 1991 draft national security document prepared by DOD officials in the Bush I administration and the militant notions of the Neocon world view.
A damning indictment is given: “The blend of neocon Manichaeism and President Bush’s propensity for catastrophic decisiveness caused the post 9/11 global solidarity with America to plunge from its historical zenith to its nadir. . . . He continues by noting “the endless war on terror thus became a domestic political tool as much as a foreign policy.”
Brzezinski brings Reagan into the current situation by noting that “America’s plunge into Iraq transformed the lingering crisis in the Middle East—allowed to fester under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton—from a chronic problem into a make or break challenge.”
Among the missteps Bush II has made, so far, is ostracizing Iran in the early years of his administration (and continuing to do so) strengthened fundamentalist elements in the Iranian regime. He also made errors in dealing with Russia, China and pretty much the rest of the world. Many will agree with Brzezinski’s conclusion that “[i:]n just five years George W. Bush dangerously undermined America’s geopolitical position.”
Brzezinski’s concluding chapter, Beyond 2008 (and America’s Second Chance), is a conclusion. He provides another one sentence of how each defined his own historical essence. Bush I was the policeman, relying on power and legitimacy to preserve traditional stability. Clinton was the social welfare advocate, counting on globalization to generate progress. Bush II was the vigilante, mobilizing domestic fears to pursue a self-declared existential war against the forces of evil. He goes on to note the general mistake of each: the first did not seize the opportunity offered to America, the second was too complacent in addressing it and the third turned the opportunity into a self-inflicted festering wound while precipitating rising global hostility toward America.
To give America a second chance the author has a few suggestions. He calls for a more active and formalized consultation between executive and legislative branches. He asks for stricter lobbying laws because much of the fragmentation of foreign policy is due to lobbies. As a conclusion the author says: “Only by identifying itself with the idea of universal human dignity—with its basic requirement of respect for culturally diverse political, social and religious emanations – can America overcome the risk that the global political awakening will turn against it.”
One of the Figures in this book is a Global Leadership: A Presidential Report Card. Though I heartily agree with the F rating for Bush II, I do not think he rated Clinton high enough and he perhaps gave Bush I too high a grade.

[Joseph Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book could be cheekily summed up as former Carter National Security Advisor and political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski giving letter grades to three post-Cold War presidents: Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. I'll go ahead and spoil the result for you: Bush I scores highest, not much bad to say, following is the disappointing but not necessarily bad Clinton presidency, and then there's Bush II in the distant rear, a clear disaster in the view of Brzezinski.

More important, if not as sexy as rankings or grades, is the reasoning. Reading this book in 2016 gave me two main takeaways: one is the in depth history of the geopolitical challenges of America in the post-Cold War world and how these challenges were met or not met, the other is Brzezinski's desperate plea for more sensible leadership in the wake of Bush II, the War on Terror, and the Iraq War. Reading this book after the election of Donald Trump is particularly haunting as it is very clear, whatever we may think of the Obama presidency, that we have utterly failed at what Brzezinski had hoped would be our second chance at global leadership (the first unappreciated by Clinton and then squandered by Bush II). I suppose if Zeb lived to write a sequel he would have to call it "Please, Dear God, Just Give Us One More Chance!".

I don't know if this could be called ideal reading for those who want to study recent US diplomatic relations, its premise is very cheeky with the letter grades, but there's a lot of knowledge here and it's a worthwhile short read for those wanting to understand recent world history and how the US is fairing as global leader.

[Joseph Freedom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brzezinski’s memoir offers a rare glimpse at hard-won wisdom in the halls of American political power, as well as scathing and impartial critiques of the presidencies that have come to define the United States’ position among global superpowers in the 21st century.

Brzezinski doesn’t just criticize, however; he offers realistic and sustainable solutions to global problems created by U.S. conflict and political insight on how we can best leverage regional powers as the global community continues to grow around us.

[Zeynep Demir · Rating 1 out of 5]

Kitabın özünü kavrayamadan bırakmak zorunda kaldım, çünkü birçok "çeviri hatası" denebilecek talihsizlikler vardı. "Toplama kampı" anlamına gelen "concentration camp" ifadesinin "konsantrasyon kampı" olarak verilmesi gibi.

[Jake Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the ideas discussed are a little dated at this point but I think it’s still a good read today. Really helps put some perspective into some of the interesting situations we are in with various foreign governments.

[Angel Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

ZB's fears are coming true lmao. He asks three questions in the last chapter (Beyond 2008) that reveal his faith in the US. ZB's USA does not exist. I don't think it ever did. He truly believed a self-serving country like the US would wield the self-restraint necessary to lead on a global scale.

[سلمان · Rating 4 out of 5]

الفكر الاستراتيجي الأمريكي قاده اثنان بريجنسكي وكيسنجر..هذا كتاب مهم في مجاله لفهم سياسات الولايات المتحدة

[Sean Sharp · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written at the height of the Bush II presidency, Brzezinski’s 2007 Second Chance is a quick temperature-taking of the American “empire” 15 years following the fall of the USSR. Brzezinski, statesman and National Security Advisor during the Carter years, articulates as best as anyone the triumphs and downfalls of the initial three presidencies of the lone standing world superpower. He also articulates the opportunities available to the country during this timeframe – and subsequently the opportunities that the country has failed to capitalize on and the potential longstanding ramifications (some of which we’ve already seen come to pass since the book’s publication, namely the 2011 Arab Spring and Russian aggression not once in 2008 but again in 2014).

Though unabashedly left-leaning, Brzezinski is at once a realist and a counterweight to the neocon agenda and refuses to be swept up in the idealisms of a perfectly harmonious post-colonial world. The challenges that the US now faces are stiflingly complex and numerous, as opposed to the lone sickle-and-hammer enemy of the latter half of the 20th century. How the country ought to react, or conversely pro-act, is summarized nicely in the final chapter, which also discusses the devolving nature of imperialism.

All told, Second Chance is a quick summarization of US diplomacy in its inaugural years as the first lone world superpower, as well as a prescription for future foreign policy maneuvers should the US intend on retaining its allure of a bastion for peace, hope, and prosperity.

[Mariana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zbigniew Brzezinski combs through the foreign policy decisions of the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations and draws out the shortcomings and failures of each president. Do not read this book if you are looking for a fairy tale or reasons to be proud of American leadership. Read it to learn from our past modes of thinking and to draw your own conclusions for what you believe is sound foreign policy, so that you may make well-informed decisions on who to vote for in the future based on one's foreign policy platform.

After these administrations, the author stresses how we can move forward, how we still have a "second chance" to maintain global hegemony (because the "only alternative is global chaos"). He warns that if America (the leadership & the public) does not adjust itself now to lead a world in this era of globalization, there will not be a third chance.

[PJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent summary of the last 3 American presidents in the context of their ability to be Global Leaders. Brzezinski scrutinizes specific foreign policy decisions as well as the ability of each president to capitalize on the unprecedented global standing of the US after the Cold War. Each president since 1990 has had very different approaches to foreign policy with mixed results. The conclusions that Brzezinski lays out are particularly insightful in terms of the repercussions that may result from a lack of focused US foreign policy since the Cold War. The political and economic consequences are not always clear, but Brzezinski does a fine job of presenting long term trends that may isolate the US in international affairs.

[John Jaeger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book examines the performance of our last three presidents specifically in regards to their capitalization of this nation's newfound status as THE global superpower. It is written by Carter's National Security Advisor. I took a star off because it is a somewhat dry read that meanders a bit. This book is by all means worth reading, however, for its unique perspective. Zbigniew (Zbiggie to his friends) pulls no punches and criticizes Bush I and Clinton for their inability to realize the country's potential. He saves his most scathing criticism, surprise, for Bush II. Thankfully, it ends on an almost improbable high note as Zbiggie states his belief that all the harm can be undone. Just...you know...not very easily.

[Ray · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's former National Security Advisor, discusses Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush #43. Brzezinski remains active in strategic and international studies, and
tries to describe how each President handled the challenges as Leader of the worlds sole superpower.
The book started slowly for me, but had enough segments of interest to keep me engaged. If you're a big Bush 43 supporter, you're not likely to enjoy the book, since Brzezinski takes a dimmer view on his performance than on the others.
A surprise to me was a recognition of all the global changes and challenges faced by Bush Sr. While his term was short, I developed a heightened respect for his Presidency and for the number of international situations he dealt with.

[Jared · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reading this book I did learn quite a bit about foreign poliics in the last 20 years. I appreciated learning about Bush Senior because I was a young child at the time and do not remember what happened. His explanation of Clinton as being wishy washy as a global leader seemed accurate. W and his politics of fear is something I was already familiar with. What I found difficult about this book was his big overviews of what different countrys think about us. The book is full of sweeping generalizations, and I was never certain how the author came to some of his conclusions. I also did not like the author's pessimistic mood, it made me feeling left on edge. But I learned a few things along the way.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brzezinski is an experienced expert on American foreign policy. This exposition is indicative of that. His assessment of the US executive from 1991 (right around the official collapse of the Soviet empire) up until 2006 is precise, detailed, and exacting. He does not spare any of the three presidents he analyzes with criticism, though the levels of criticism for each of the three different presidents vary by president.

Overall, excellent writing as well as being concise and informative. My biggest criticism of this work is not really criticism: the book only discusses events up until the year 2006, as it was published in 2007. Still, it is enjoyable analysis from an expert.

[Will James · Rating 3 out of 5]

A sweeping account of the first three post-Cold War Presidents from this Cold Warrior. As an arch-realist, the more idealist Presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were never going to come out of Brezezinski's analysis very well (especially the uber-idealist George W Bush Presidency, which he gives a big fat F). Nonetheless, this is a very interesting take on 21st century geopolitics and America's role in it, from an expert in the field.

[John Fredrickson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction to a macro-view of the role that America has actually played in world politics, seen through the author's assessment of the past 3 presidents. His assessment of their strengths and failures is very interesting, as is his sense for the role that America could be playing in leading the globe. It is clear that he believes that we have seriously neglected our chances to lead the globe with a moral and ethical stance, instead relying on force and global bullying.

[Mary Godwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a John Stewart (Comedy Central) recommendation, and a read I'm glad to have done. Though the text was a slow read at times for me, there was no end to the value added as historical context with which to better understand the importance of the coming election. It was a perfect precursor to Al Gore's book, Assault on Reason.

[Dana · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm on a nonfiction kick. I think his thesis makes sense but I'm not sure one needs to read the entire thing to understand U.S. Foreign Relations. Unless, you're me and you knew nothing about it to begin with. It's kind of cynical about how the U.S. fails to adequately manage its foreign affairs. It's also dated because it stops with George W. Bush. But is a fast US Int'l Relations primer.

[... · Rating 2 out of 5]

بوش الأول كان سياسي بارع واشرف على انتقال عالمي كبير بسلاسة،كلينتون اهتم بالشأن الداخلي ومفاهيمه الخاصة (عولمة) لكن تأثيره على موقف أمريكا عالميا ما كان كافي،وصلت لمرحلة بوش الثاني والفصل الأخير من الكتاب،برجنسكي يتحدث عن مواقف الرؤساء في الفترة الحرجة مابين سقوط السوفييت والالفية الجديدة،تقييم جيد لهذا الكتاب

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A clear articulation of the squandered opportunities of the last 20 years of American foreign policy and strong proposals for future efforts.

Also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

[Ken Elser · Rating 3 out of 5]

Presents objective reviews of Bush 41 and Clinton (B.) and their performance in foreign affairs, mostly so that he can emphasize the extent to which Bush 43 has screwed up everything he's touched. And I appreciate that.

[Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chilling. Anyone who thinks that the US isn't an empire should read this book from "the human rights President" Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. While he stops just short of calling the US an empire, he places its power and scope in the context of other empires.

[Ms Piot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting review of the past three presidents in light of undeniably, irreversibly, growing globalism, the rise of the southern hemisphere and eastern worlds...a great predictor for Obama's rise, and considering his approach to the presidency so far, he must have studied Zbiggy well!

[Donald Shank · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was very impressed, which is odd because I don't remember feeling that way when he was Carter's Secretary of State. Like his boss, America's best ex-president, he seems better out of office than in it.[br/]Favorite quote: "Feeling morally superior makes it easier to commit immoral acts".

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really should give this book 2 1/2 stars. It is terribly simplistic, covering three presidents' foreign policy in a scant 250 pages, but also greatly insightful. A reasonable primer.

[Nicole · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book is cut into three parts. i have read two and enjoy them but it is dry non-fiction so it is taking me a while to finish the book.