Power, Terror, Peace, and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk Book

An uneven but enthusiastic defense of American unilateralism

This is largely a justification of American foreign policy. Mead's position is that Bush made mostly the right choices even if some of the planning and execution were not the best. Along the way I think Mead does a good job of explaining why the current administration believes that preemptive wars and unilateralism are sometimes necessary. He uses a plethora of coinages, American Revivalists, Arabian Fascism, millennial capitalism, harmonic convergence, Wilsonian Revivalism, Fordism, etc., in an attempt to provide a historical context. To be honest I got a little lost among these labels and had to frequently turn to the index to look up their first use so as to keep them straight in my head.

Mead's approach is bipartisan and he strives to make it non-religious as well, although ending the book with a quote from Christ is perhaps not the best way to achieve that, nor is some seeming naivete about the double meaning of the word "revival." Indeed one gets the sense that Mead is not only cozying up to neoconservatives but to Christian fundamentalists as well. Nonetheless he also quotes the Prophet; and the label he pins on Middle Eastern terrorists, "Arabian Fascists," attempts to secularize the conflict. Of course he can use all the labels he wants (some of which are clearly euphemistic while others are attempts at political correctness and bipartisanship); regardless the conflict between the West and the terrorists in the Middle East will continue to be played out in quasi-religious terms.

In addition to labels, Mead also uses special terms to define American power. There is "sharp," "soft," "sticky," and "sweet" power. Sharp power is military force and it is, to use Mead's words, "a very practical and unsentimental thing." (p. 26) Soft power is "cultural power, the power of example." Sticky power is economic power and it is sticky because it enmeshes others into economic dependence on business with the US. Sweet power is pretty much the same thing as soft power, "the power of attraction to American ideals, culture and power." (p. 36) In some places in the world, I would guess, sweet power would more properly be called "saccharine power."

Clearly this is American foreign policy seen from and justified from an American point of view. Thus Mead writes, "We do not want to...[impose] our will at gunpoint, but we also do not want to live in a world in which the United States cannot act without permission from a majority of other countries." (p. 63) This seems reasonable, and at any rate is realistic, but there is a fine line between realpolitik and the sort of absolutist belief in our righteousness that leads to the use of force to impose our will. Indeed Mead writes "that, for neoconservatives and Revival Wilsonians generally, American power is itself the summum bonum of world politics." He adds, "The End is so noble...that realist means are fully justified." (p. 90) The danger here is that along the way we may become that which we are fighting against.

Sometimes Mead's tone gets away from him and we are treated to indecorous outbursts. For example, while justifying the invasion of Iraq as a part of the greater war on terror, Mead writes, "This was a war, and the enemy had to learn who was the strongest and, if it came to that, the most ruthless." (p. 117) I dearly would hope that we can conduct the "war" against terrorists without becoming more ruthless than the terrorists.

At other times he is a bit snide, as when he remarks that "stroking Europe only seemed to increase Europe's already inflated sense of its importance in the world of American foreign policy." (p. 132) This is the mentality of the old politics among nations based on power. However I don't think this is the way we can best achieve American values and goals in the world. As Mead himself admits later on, less than five percent of the world's population, regardless of its power, cannot hope to control the other 95%. (p. 212)

Often Mead uses fuzzy phrases to make what are largely rhetorical points. In this way he reveals the politician in his soul rather than the professional journalist that he is. For example he writes, "The United States is not going to slow down its capitalist development to avoid offending the sensitivities of foreign countries..." (p. 159) But what does "capitalist development" mean? Is that the development of the Brazilian jungle or the Iraqi oil pipelines or is that about some infrastructure at home?

One can discern Mead's bottom line position from this statement on page 160: "A perfectly justifiable military action against the rogue regime in Iraq was effectively and widely portrayed as an assault by the United States against the foundations of international order." And one can see that he has a desire to broaden the war on terror when he avers that "Countries that allow their territory to host terror camps...and who...allow their financial systems to be used...[by] terrorist groups, are committing acts of war against civilization." (p. 174) I tend to agree with this sentiment, but does that mean we should consider invading Saudi Arabia?

Where I find myself in substantial agreement with Mead is that the structure of the United Nations must be amended in such a way as to reflect the actual distribution of power in the world. As Mead notes it is not right that (for example) France should have veto power over the rest of the world, or that a country with a million people should have the same voting power as a country with a billion people. Indeed, I believe that restructuring the UN and other international organizations such as the WTO should be a major goal of US foreign policy.

--Dennis Littrell, author of "The World Is Not as We Think It Is"