Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century Book

I recommend that you read this book! Excellent writing, excellent ideas. The arguments here are always well developed, civil,and articulate, and the authors have a lot of wisdom to share. Make sure you get the 2003 edition with the post 9/11 afterward.
The title alludes to President Wilson's fear of the "typhoon" to come if the nations of the world did not ascribe to the moral goal of reducing killing and the political goal of multilateralism in international affairs. The authors do not spare Wilson the criticism he deserves for unintentionally encouraging communal killing by his promises of self-determination, but they use it as an excellent lesson in the need for multilateral input in policy making, and the need to employ realistic empathy (as opposed to sympathy) with regard to friends and enemies. In fact the conclusion is that lack of empathy was Wilson's Achilles heel.

WHAT WAS REALLY GREAT:
1. Given that McNamara spent a long time in politics, I was truly impressed by his nonpartisanship. He practices what he preaches regarding empathy. For instance, I was surprised at McNamara's praise of MacArthur's attitude during the occupation of Japan. McNamara says nothing less than total surrender could have healed relations with Japan so well, and he uses it as a model for successful intervention in situations of communal killing. His treatment of the many presidents discussed seems relatively fair-handed as well.
2. The discussion on developing "realistic empathy" was absolutely tremendous and very timely even now, over a decade after the last revision of the book. Not only is it a great principle for statecraft, but for personal relations as well. It is also a great corrective for the rash conclusions and actions we might arrive at via nationalism and exceptionalism. If you only skim, read this discussion p64-6.
3. The discussion of "bringing in Russia and China from the cold" --helping them to become and be treated as partners at the table of nations, rather than ostracizing and stigmatizing them--was thought provoking.
4. The insider anecdotes and illustrations from the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War, and even more revealing, the conferences held by parties involved years later, were very illuminating. McNamara has a wealth of personal experience in international affairs and he has taken the time to reflect on that capital to arrive at very fruitful observations, particularly on the fragility and unpredictability of international crises.
5. The discussion of the moral and strategic limitations and dangers of nuclear weapons is excellent.
6. The discussion of multilateralism was good. Multilateralism and empathy should be pursued always as a first option, and always as an ongoing political strategy. I agree that getting perspective from our allies and friends would help save us from a multitude of international gaffes and missteps. I would not personally step to the policy of "zero tolerance multilateralism" however. At some point every sovereign nation must have the option to take an action for the preservation of the nation, whether other nations agree or assent or not.
WHERE I DISAGREED THE MOST
Suggestions to modify the UN to phase out the Security Council and give the Secretary-General command of a fighting force with a mandate to demand total surrender are well-intentioned, but I have two concerns. First, democracy is not infallible, and eliminating the great power vetoes could make it more likely for the UN to take action for reasons other than clear preservation of life from killing. Second, these changes would make the Secretary-General a very powerful figure, and clearly erode the sovereignty of constituent nations.