Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the assumptions and purposes governing the exercise of American global power. Examining the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton--as well as George W. Bush's first year in office--he demolishes the view that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment as a basis for foreign policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold War administrations have adhered to a well-defined "strategy of openness." Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating the undisputed primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover, openness is not a new strategy, but has been an abiding preoccupation of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.

Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement of trade, capital, and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy, the aggressive pursuit of openness has met considerable resistance. To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive for openness for what it is--a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed at erecting a global imperium. Large questions remain about that project's feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that it will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S. policy, this book marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.

Average Customer Rating:

Food for thought	Customer Rating:
I found this book to be very thoughtful, and after reading it , I just wonder how many more lies we will be given. It shows how easily the common person can be fooled.

dont use amazon

Customer Rating:

Amazon lost my book, I waited four weeks, they finally refunded my money, THEN I got an empty envelope in the mail a week ago that was supposed to contain my book! They also "lost" a second book in this order that I never recieved! Then wrote me to suggest that I should have gone to the bookstore to purchase the books! Andrew Bacevich is awesome and all of his books are incredible reading!!! Too bad he is way to smart to become our commander and chief!

5 Stars

Customer Rating:

A fantastic description of how U.S. policymakers have broadened their perception of U.S. national interests to be essentially unbounded. In reality, the book focuses primarily on the history of U.S. diplomacy, as opposed to the consequences of its pursuit of increasingly unlimited aims. Bacevich perceptively describes the U.S. as at heart a revolutionary power whose domestic myths, desires, and insecurities cause it to look outwards in search of a transformative mission.

excellent study of US position in the world.

Customer Rating:

This is one the better books of analysis done on America's place in the world. Its an honest attempt to put down on paper the realities of America's interactions with the world rather than the idealisms that many authors (especially neoconservative ones) present. What make the book so good is that it actually tries to be neutral and to look at things from an objective point of view. His coverage of the American Military is unmatched. He is one of the few writers that actually talks about the reality of the Military and politics in America. The only point the author misses is an understanding of how the very size of prosperity of the United States forces it into certain roles. Economic sucess at home inevitably leads to economic expansion overseas. And economic expsnsion leads to concerns about security outside of the country's borders. The other thing it inevitably leads to is confusion over what the interests of the country really are. Empires are not usually created by force of will. They are created by political and economic circumstances that require them. If America were to disappear tomorrow, the next most powerful country or group of countries would be forced to deal with the same problems and take on the same responsiblities. The weakness of the book is that the author's expertise is more on the military side than the economic. To really understand the American empire, its as necessary to understand the international monitary order, the "dollar" standard and the international flows of trade/money. Two examples of authors in opposition to Bacevich are Thomas Barnett and Robert Kaplin. Barnett's message is that there are no American interests, only Imperial interests. As a result (for example) the US should surrender all its interests and retreat from East Asia to show our good will to Imperial partner China. Kaplan on the other hand views the whole world outside the US as the wild west and sees the mission of the US to bring American civilization to the "savages". Those books are different than "Empire" in that they are blatently pushing political policies than providing analysis. In spite of its lack of economics, its still a better book than those produced by others. The neutral tone and analysis itself is worth the book even if you don't agree with the conclusions.

Continuity is not Permanent

Customer Rating:

This work started out strong, beginning with an excellent chapter on 20th century American intellectual history covering Beard, Williams, and the myth of the Accidental Empire. Beard and Williams questioned the meaning and motive behind the open door policy, proclaiming it sheep's clothing over an imperialist agenda. Both historians were stigmatized and largely ignored by later historians for their trouble. Bacevich then connects the open door to the post cold war world, showing how globalization as conceived in American foreign policy was 'new bottles for old wine'. The majority of the book is an extended review of the Clinton years, looking at how Bosnia, Iraq, and Kosovo reflect continuities with the Open Door. Some bits I didn't know: The use of private military contractors started back in Bosnia because Americans wouldn't support a boots on the ground strategy and we weren't supposed to take sides. Also, the weak State Departments under Bush reflect a structural problem. The theater CINC's have much greater budgetary power and discretion of action, to a foreign power their words matter more then any ambassador (or Secretary of State?) I would avoid the last chapter on George W. Bush, it appears to have been written prior to the invasion of Iraq and is therefore useless as analysis. I think Bacevich is too quick to look for continuity between administrations and spends too little time on constraints. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all had adversarial relationships with Congress, and their policies were tailored around what congress would allow. As Bush II demonstrates, removing that constraint allowed wildly discontinuous policies. If it was so easy for Bush to push an overtly imperial agenda why can't the next President push an overtly anti-imperial agenda with equally revolutionary changes?