The Jungle Grows Back
by Robert Kagan | History | This book has not been rated.
ISBN: 0525521658 Global Overview for this book
ISBN: 0525521658 Global Overview for this book
This Book is Currently in the Wild!
2 journalers for this copy...
This book was mentioned in the Thomas Jefferson Hour podcast and was highly recommended, so I ordered a copy to read and reflect on.
Normally, I wait until I finish a book before recording a summary of my thoughts about what I've read. I'm only about 30 pages into this one, but already it feels different, maybe important in a way that little I've read recently has felt. I don't trust myself to be able accurately remember all of my reactions to this when I reach the end of the book, so I think this time I'm going to record my impressions as I go along. And so...
I found the opening pages of this book deeply depressing. The author goes to great lengths to knock down the idea that the liberal world order that the US supported over the second half of the last century is an inevitable product of political and economic progress. Since I have long chosen to make every effort to be optimistic, these arguments struck the very core of what I desperately want to believe. But I'm glad I kept reading, because I think it quickly becomes clear that the author isn't arguing that the failure of the liberal world order is doomed, either. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book here, to see where the author takes this line of thought.
Finally, there was a quote on page 31 that caught my attention: "Normal nations did not have 'international responsibilities.' For most of its history the United States had been normal in that sense. This new grand strategy [i.e., assuming global responsibility after WWII] made the United States exceptional." I don't think this is what those who believe in "American Exceptionalism" mean, but I think it touches on a fundamental truth that better points to what is exceptional about the US than anything that is contained in the ideas encompassed by the concepts of "American Exceptionalism".
Progress: page 32 of 163.
I found the opening pages of this book deeply depressing. The author goes to great lengths to knock down the idea that the liberal world order that the US supported over the second half of the last century is an inevitable product of political and economic progress. Since I have long chosen to make every effort to be optimistic, these arguments struck the very core of what I desperately want to believe. But I'm glad I kept reading, because I think it quickly becomes clear that the author isn't arguing that the failure of the liberal world order is doomed, either. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book here, to see where the author takes this line of thought.
Finally, there was a quote on page 31 that caught my attention: "Normal nations did not have 'international responsibilities.' For most of its history the United States had been normal in that sense. This new grand strategy [i.e., assuming global responsibility after WWII] made the United States exceptional." I don't think this is what those who believe in "American Exceptionalism" mean, but I think it touches on a fundamental truth that better points to what is exceptional about the US than anything that is contained in the ideas encompassed by the concepts of "American Exceptionalism".
Progress: page 32 of 163.
Progress: page 83 of 163.
The course of history since the end of WWII marks a radical break from the patterns the defined most of the rest of recorded history. The commitment that the US made to build and protect a new world order based on democratic and capitalist ideals, while undeniably costly, resulted in the longest period of sustained peace ever in the history of Western Europe, helped to promote the most explosive period of economic growth the world has ever seen, and resolved the long standing confrontation with Soviet Communism peacefully. The author provides persuasive arguments that none of this would have been possible without the intentional engagement of the US with the world, and in particular to the commitment of the US to providing security well beyond our borders, including maintaining active military presence both on land and sea, worldwide.
From the point of view of our allies, this allowed them to focus their energy on building their economies and addressing domestic concerns without worrying about their security. The presence of US troops in Europe was not just a deterrent to the Soviets, but also allowed the Western European nations to feel safe from threats from their immediate neighbors. It is only because of the US engagement in Europe that the UK, France, and Germany could become, and remain, allies.
But also important in this was the notion that the US was perceived as behaving (for the most part) fairly. Had the leadership of the Soviet Union not trusted the US and its allies in the late 1980s, it is unlikely that they would have allowed the Warsaw Pact nations to break away from their control, nor would they have been willing to implement the political changes that led to the collapse of the Soviet government. Gorbachev and Yeltsin understood that the West would not take advantage of the situation to attempt to make territorial gains at their expense. Had they believed that this was possible, it is unlikely that the Cold War would have been resolved peacefully.
None of this was inevitable, but resulted from intentional decisions by American leaders, beginning before WWII even ended, to engage with the post-war world differently than had been done in the past. And it was only the prolonged commitment to those efforts that enabled the world to reform itself in the remarkable ways that it has since WWII.
The course of history since the end of WWII marks a radical break from the patterns the defined most of the rest of recorded history. The commitment that the US made to build and protect a new world order based on democratic and capitalist ideals, while undeniably costly, resulted in the longest period of sustained peace ever in the history of Western Europe, helped to promote the most explosive period of economic growth the world has ever seen, and resolved the long standing confrontation with Soviet Communism peacefully. The author provides persuasive arguments that none of this would have been possible without the intentional engagement of the US with the world, and in particular to the commitment of the US to providing security well beyond our borders, including maintaining active military presence both on land and sea, worldwide.
From the point of view of our allies, this allowed them to focus their energy on building their economies and addressing domestic concerns without worrying about their security. The presence of US troops in Europe was not just a deterrent to the Soviets, but also allowed the Western European nations to feel safe from threats from their immediate neighbors. It is only because of the US engagement in Europe that the UK, France, and Germany could become, and remain, allies.
But also important in this was the notion that the US was perceived as behaving (for the most part) fairly. Had the leadership of the Soviet Union not trusted the US and its allies in the late 1980s, it is unlikely that they would have allowed the Warsaw Pact nations to break away from their control, nor would they have been willing to implement the political changes that led to the collapse of the Soviet government. Gorbachev and Yeltsin understood that the West would not take advantage of the situation to attempt to make territorial gains at their expense. Had they believed that this was possible, it is unlikely that the Cold War would have been resolved peacefully.
None of this was inevitable, but resulted from intentional decisions by American leaders, beginning before WWII even ended, to engage with the post-war world differently than had been done in the past. And it was only the prolonged commitment to those efforts that enabled the world to reform itself in the remarkable ways that it has since WWII.
Progress: page 135 of 163.
I found the discussion of China (beginning at page 115) enlightening. Through the 1970s and 1980s, China benefited from the US imposed world order, while not really being a part of it. The commitments of the US to the security of our Asian allies also bolstered Chinese security, so that China could focus internally on building infrastructure and improving its economy. Chinese goods now flood the world markets, transported over oceans made secure by US naval power. However, the fact that China was never a true participant in the liberal world order is starting to become evident in their increasing efforts to exert their control over their "sphere of influence". China is threatened by the US imposed world order, not because they fear an invasion, but because we block their efforts to bolster their national "honor" by absorbing Taiwan and establishing total control over the South China Sea. Failure of the US to continue to oppose these Chinese ambitions will weaken the trust our Asian allies put in our security promises, and would likely lead to a weakening of the liberal world order in Asia.
Likewise, Russia has failed to absorb the lessons of the liberal world order, instead seeking to bolster its security through territorial acquisitions and by exerting a "sphere of control". (In fact the very notion of a "sphere of control" seems to be a throwback to the old, multi-polar world order from before the World Wars, where all of the major powers looked to their own security and were, at best, suspicious of the other powers, if not outright hostile.)
The role of the US in propping up the new world order established after WWII is essential. Reading this book, it is becoming clear that the failure of the US to remain committed to this cause, even at great cost, would likely mean that the global community would descend (perhaps slowly, perhaps not) back to the multi-polar competitions between powers that was built on suspicion and hostility, setting the stage for increased global conflict, and possibly another global war.
I found the discussion of China (beginning at page 115) enlightening. Through the 1970s and 1980s, China benefited from the US imposed world order, while not really being a part of it. The commitments of the US to the security of our Asian allies also bolstered Chinese security, so that China could focus internally on building infrastructure and improving its economy. Chinese goods now flood the world markets, transported over oceans made secure by US naval power. However, the fact that China was never a true participant in the liberal world order is starting to become evident in their increasing efforts to exert their control over their "sphere of influence". China is threatened by the US imposed world order, not because they fear an invasion, but because we block their efforts to bolster their national "honor" by absorbing Taiwan and establishing total control over the South China Sea. Failure of the US to continue to oppose these Chinese ambitions will weaken the trust our Asian allies put in our security promises, and would likely lead to a weakening of the liberal world order in Asia.
Likewise, Russia has failed to absorb the lessons of the liberal world order, instead seeking to bolster its security through territorial acquisitions and by exerting a "sphere of control". (In fact the very notion of a "sphere of control" seems to be a throwback to the old, multi-polar world order from before the World Wars, where all of the major powers looked to their own security and were, at best, suspicious of the other powers, if not outright hostile.)
The role of the US in propping up the new world order established after WWII is essential. Reading this book, it is becoming clear that the failure of the US to remain committed to this cause, even at great cost, would likely mean that the global community would descend (perhaps slowly, perhaps not) back to the multi-polar competitions between powers that was built on suspicion and hostility, setting the stage for increased global conflict, and possibly another global war.
Progress: page 143 of 163 (the home stretch).
Conservatives have always disliked the liberal world order because it is liberal. It opposes the old order, and all of the history that shows how "normal" nations are supposed to behave. For American conservatives, especially, it is galling because it necessarily translates into big, intrusive government and is *very* expensive. To the extent that conservatives supported the liberal world order in the decades following WWII, it was merely as a tool to combat Soviet communism, which was viewed as an even greater threat. But as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, true conservatives immediately began calling for the US to back away from its commitments to maintaining the new world order we helped establish in the post-war years.
Ironically, the liberal world order has also come to be opposed by the extreme Left as well. They focus on the mis-steps and abuses that have occurred in the name of promoting the world order, while taking the many benefits generated for granted. The have come to view a capitalist economy as the root of many (if not all evils), including the growing income and wealth gaps, and call for a radical change to Socialism. They point to Sweden as a model of an ideal Socialist state. However, Sweden is not Socialist. It is a social democracy, with a regulated capitalist economy and a strong social welfare system. The fact that this appears to be Socialist is less a description of the nature of Sweden than it is a reflection on how distorted our version of a capitalist economy has become. The problems with our capitalist economy stem from the withdrawal of adequate regulation and oversight, which has allowed greed to trump the common good in our economic priorities.
The liberal world order envisions a world that cooperates economically, for the benefit and improvement of all, while enjoying the peace that comes from the security assurances provided by the US, which is best able to ensure them. Pulling away from these commitments would return us to a world of multi-lateral competition, with every nation looking out for its own interests only, resulting in escalating tensions and significantly decreased security for all.
Conservatives have always disliked the liberal world order because it is liberal. It opposes the old order, and all of the history that shows how "normal" nations are supposed to behave. For American conservatives, especially, it is galling because it necessarily translates into big, intrusive government and is *very* expensive. To the extent that conservatives supported the liberal world order in the decades following WWII, it was merely as a tool to combat Soviet communism, which was viewed as an even greater threat. But as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, true conservatives immediately began calling for the US to back away from its commitments to maintaining the new world order we helped establish in the post-war years.
Ironically, the liberal world order has also come to be opposed by the extreme Left as well. They focus on the mis-steps and abuses that have occurred in the name of promoting the world order, while taking the many benefits generated for granted. The have come to view a capitalist economy as the root of many (if not all evils), including the growing income and wealth gaps, and call for a radical change to Socialism. They point to Sweden as a model of an ideal Socialist state. However, Sweden is not Socialist. It is a social democracy, with a regulated capitalist economy and a strong social welfare system. The fact that this appears to be Socialist is less a description of the nature of Sweden than it is a reflection on how distorted our version of a capitalist economy has become. The problems with our capitalist economy stem from the withdrawal of adequate regulation and oversight, which has allowed greed to trump the common good in our economic priorities.
The liberal world order envisions a world that cooperates economically, for the benefit and improvement of all, while enjoying the peace that comes from the security assurances provided by the US, which is best able to ensure them. Pulling away from these commitments would return us to a world of multi-lateral competition, with every nation looking out for its own interests only, resulting in escalating tensions and significantly decreased security for all.
Progress: Finished.
Some have argued that the progress towards a world of democratically elected governments with capitalistic economies is an inevitable evolutionary destination for the world order. Before reading this book, I might even have believed it. Having grown up inside the world order established after WWII, it is easy to take it for granted, to overlook just how remarkable the last seventy-five years have been in terms of human history.
This book reminds us what the previous world order looked like. It was a multi-polar world, where the powerful nations looked upon each other with suspicion and/or hostility, and devoted significant resources in efforts to ensure their own security. This feeling of insecurity in the face of powerful neighbors motivated people to willingly accept authoritarian leadership, and resulted in arms races that led to war after war, each sowing the seeds for the next.
This was the world order that the US and its allies intentionally tried to change in the aftermath of WWII. The strength of the US military provided security to all nations that were part of the order, allowing them to devote their energy and resources towards building stable economies and democratic governments. At the same time, the US (mostly) refrained from using its military strength to enforce economic conditions that were exclusively favorable to the US. Instead, the US allowed all nations to compete on a (mostly) level playing field, with the result being the most unprecedented economic growth the world has ever seen.
But all of this runs counter to the natural flow of historical forces, and requires an ongoing commitment from the US to sustain it. It now appears that the US might not be willing to remain engaged in preserving this world order, and if the US pulls back, it will likely collapse, returning us to the old world order and the tensions, hostility, and violence that it generated.
This book is a powerful argument for maintaining the US commitments to providing the security and support that allows the world order built since WWII to continue. This world order has resulted in the least violent period of human history, coupled with the largest period of economic growth ever seen. Only by maintaining this international order can we hope to see these trends continue...they won't happen on their own.
Some have argued that the progress towards a world of democratically elected governments with capitalistic economies is an inevitable evolutionary destination for the world order. Before reading this book, I might even have believed it. Having grown up inside the world order established after WWII, it is easy to take it for granted, to overlook just how remarkable the last seventy-five years have been in terms of human history.
This book reminds us what the previous world order looked like. It was a multi-polar world, where the powerful nations looked upon each other with suspicion and/or hostility, and devoted significant resources in efforts to ensure their own security. This feeling of insecurity in the face of powerful neighbors motivated people to willingly accept authoritarian leadership, and resulted in arms races that led to war after war, each sowing the seeds for the next.
This was the world order that the US and its allies intentionally tried to change in the aftermath of WWII. The strength of the US military provided security to all nations that were part of the order, allowing them to devote their energy and resources towards building stable economies and democratic governments. At the same time, the US (mostly) refrained from using its military strength to enforce economic conditions that were exclusively favorable to the US. Instead, the US allowed all nations to compete on a (mostly) level playing field, with the result being the most unprecedented economic growth the world has ever seen.
But all of this runs counter to the natural flow of historical forces, and requires an ongoing commitment from the US to sustain it. It now appears that the US might not be willing to remain engaged in preserving this world order, and if the US pulls back, it will likely collapse, returning us to the old world order and the tensions, hostility, and violence that it generated.
This book is a powerful argument for maintaining the US commitments to providing the security and support that allows the world order built since WWII to continue. This world order has resulted in the least violent period of human history, coupled with the largest period of economic growth ever seen. Only by maintaining this international order can we hope to see these trends continue...they won't happen on their own.
I handed this book off to a neighbor who rides the bus with me as I go to work in the morning. He works for the State Department, and I really want his feedback about this important book.
I didn't seem him stop by today, but my neighbor must have dropped this in my Little Free Library. I'm setting it aside to pass on to someone else.
This will be available at the BC-in-DC get together (our first in-person gathering since Feb. 2020!).
No takers at today's BC-in-DC get together. I'm going to set this aside to offer to some of my friends who might be interested in reading it.
This book will be available at today's BC-in-DC meeting.
======================
DEAR FINDER,
Welcome to BookCrossing.com, where we are trying to making the whole world a library!
If you have not already done so, please make a journal entry so we know this book has found a new home. You don't need to join BookCrossing and you can remain completely anonymous. However, we encourage you to join so that you can follow this book's future travels. It's fun and free, and your personal information will never be shared or sold. If you decide to join, consider listing ResQgeek (or any of the other journalers) as referring you.
Take your time reading the book, and after you finish, please make another journal entry to record your thoughts about it. This book is now yours, and you can keep it if you choose, though we would love for you to share it. If you pass it along, please make a release note to let others know where you left it.
I hope you enjoy the book!
This book was on the" book buffet" table at our 1st in person BCinDC meetup outdoors picnic, hosted by fellow BC'er ResQgeek, since pre-pandemic times. Our monthly BCinDC meetings have been held on Zoom since spring of 2020.
ResQgeek recommended this book to me.
ResQgeek recommended this book to me.
Journal Entry 13 by 
SqNutZips
at Gaithersburg Book Festival in Gaithersburg, Maryland USA on Sunday, April 24, 2022
SqNutZips at Gaithersburg Book Festival in Gaithersburg, Maryland USA on Sunday, April 24, 2022
Released 1 yr ago (5/21/2022 UTC) at Gaithersburg Book Festival in Gaithersburg, Maryland USA
WILD RELEASE NOTES:
To the person who finds this book.....
Keep it or release it, read it or not, but please make a journal entry to let me know it's been found. Keep it, pass it on to a friend or release it into the wild.... let the journey continue.....
If you are new to BookCrossing, welcome! You can remain anonymous or join BookCrossing, it's free, spam free and advertisement free and loads of fun.
By joining BookCrossing you can keep track of where the book has been and where it's going.
