This is one of that books that I love because it makes me really wonder if maybe a bunch of things I believe are ill-founded while bolstering a strain of thought that I think I've "secretly" harbored for a long time. But I also think the book leaves out a lot. Sure, a "unipolar" world, a US-led liberal order, is safer and more stable (for many... or at least for some.) And, sure, a "balance of powers" between "great powers" has a 100% terrible history. And a China-led illiberal order seems like it would be the worst of the US-order, writ large.

But there is a part of me that just... pushes back and says, "There's got to be a better way." I think part of that comes from the (obvious) admission from Kagan that of course the US, as global cop, will have to make choices: we can't be everywhere, we can't "fix" things, so we have to pick where and how much and how long and how hard. And all those choices leave a lot of room to f* up. Which Kagan also admits.

I guess it come comes down to the "Communism" question. I.e., communism is great on paper, it just turns into a disaster when you actually do it in the real world. I don't think the US ever did anything even approximately Stalin-scale, so I'm not drawing a false equivalency here. That said, maybe the US-led unipolar world is "great on paper" only. Maybe the alternatives aren't a US-led liberal order or a new "Great Game." Maybe we can actually have a truly multi-polar world... but I suspect that might be more a wish than a reality. ( )

5 stars. Erudite and beautifully written, this should be the standard defense of an American-led liberal world order. It does not, however, address the urgent question of whether the cost of upholding that order includes the hollowing out of rural America, and of cities like Youngstown and Detroit.... ( )

Robert Kagan entwirft in „The jungle grows back“ ein düsteres Bild der globalen Zukunft. Er sorgt sich dabei nicht um das Klima, sondern um den Zusammenbruch der Weltordnung, die seit dem 2. Weltkrieg eine ungeahnt lange Periode von Frieden und Wohlstand auf der Nordhalbkugel gesichert habe (von regionalen Kriegen mal abgesehen). Diese Ordnung sei nicht Ergebnis kultureller Evolution, sondern Resultat eines kontingenten Konglomerats historischer Ereignisse, von denen jedes ein-zelne auch hätte anders ausgehen und den Lauf der Weltgeschichte in andere Bahnen hätte lenken können.

Kagan beschreibt zunächst, wie die USA zu dem „Weltpolizisten“ wurden, ohne dessen Schutz das friedliche Europa, das die meisten von uns gar nicht anders kennen, kaum vorstellbar sei. Da ist zu einem die geopolitische Lage: Ohne ernste Bedrohung an den eigenen Außengrenzen – die nächs-te Großmacht ist tausende Kilometer weit weg – müssen die US-Truppen nicht zur Verteidigung im eigenen Land, sondern können weltweit eingesetzt werden – wenn das von Nutzen ist. Da ist an-dererseits eine trotz allem bestehende nationale Einheit und eine wirtschaftliche Stärke, die es ermöglicht, eine starke Militärmacht zu unterhalten. Und da ist der nach dem 1. Weltkrieg gewach-sene Konsens, es sei für die USA das bessere Kalkül, die Rolle des Weltpolizisten zu übernehmen und eine liberale Ordnung möglichst überall durchzusetzen und zu schützen.

Dieser Konsens bestehe nicht mehr. Die Wahl Trumps sieht Kagan nur als Symptom dafür, dass die Amerikaner das globale Engagement nicht mehr unterstützen. Interessant und plausibel erscheint mir dabei, dass Kagan schon die Außenpolitik von Barack Obama als vom Rückzug geprägt beschreibt.

Das ist bedauerlich, aber bedroht das den Weltfrieden? Ist Europa, ist der asiatische Raum nach über 70 Jahren nicht so stabil, die internationalen Beziehungen nicht so gereift, dass sie ohne US-Unterstützung den Frieden bewahren können? Kagan meint: Nein. Mit Blick auf nationalistische Tendenzen in vielen westlichen Ländern (Brexit, Populismus) sieht er ein Durchbrechen natur-wüchsiger, alter Muster und Reflexe in den Gesellschaften der Nordhalbkugel. Mit dem Dschungel wachse wieder die Gefahr von Krieg, Autoritarismus, Totalitarismus usw., die im wohlgepflegten Garten der liberalen Nachkriegsordnung im Zaum gehalten werden konnte. Wir haben in einem Hort geliehener Stabilität gelebt. Der Rückzug des Gärtners, der USA, könnte uns dem alptraumhaf-ten Dschungel ausliefern, der bis in die erste Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts gewuchert hatte. Kagan hält die These, der Autoritarismus sei eine überwundene gesellschaftliche Stufe kultureller Evoluti-on (S. 147), für eine Illusion. Die Geschichte und die Rückkehr des Nationalismus zeigten, dass diese Grundströmung nur unterdrückt, aber niemals ausgetrocknet worden sei und jetzt wieder anschwelle.

Kagans Buch finde ich brilliant geschrieben, klar argumentiert und eindrucksvoll historisch fundiert. Ich habe viel über die amerikanische Perspektive gelernt, die historisch gewachsene Rolle der USA in der Welt verstehe ich nun viel besser. Neu für mich war etwa, dass die Integration des wieder-vereinigten Deutschlands in die NATO in der Sowjetunion nicht als Bedrohung, sondern als Sicher-heitsgewinn gesehen wurde – weil es sich in der NATO quasi „unter Kontrolle“ befinde. Zugleich haben wir Europäer kein moralisches Anrecht auf den Schutz durch die USA, sondern müssen unsere Sicherheit so weit als möglich selbst organisieren, ohne die Verflechtung mit dem Partner USA zu lockern.

Das Buch bietet zahllose Anlässe zum Weiterdenken und auch zum Widerspruch. Tolle politische Literatur. ( )

The Jungle Grows Back, by Robert Kagan
To agree with the ideas in this book, one first has to accept the premise that liberalism is the reason for the lack of an outbreak of a major conflict for the last 7 decades. I do not believe it was simply geo-economics vs. geopolitics. I do not believe that the other countries decided America was the kindly “Green Giant”, but rather that it served the political needs of the countries involved, the United States included. The accidental byproduct was a lack of a major violent conflict. Many countries were floundering after the war. They had lost much in human treasure and in value, they had been decimated by battles and the occupation by the enemy. The way forward was uncertain, and it simply played out the way it did because of mutual concerns for survival; there was no real movement to support each country’s need. The spoils of war dominated the playing field of ideology. There were weaker and stronger countries. The weaker ones were in no position to reorganize and fight, as Germany had already done twice before. The European countries were suffering from a lack of almost everything they required, food, shelter, military strength, and the resources to rebuild.
One could just as easily have taken the opposite point of view and proved that it was the values of conservatism, perhaps the idea of charity, of faith in something higher than oneself, that had prevented outbreaks of violence in these same places, and that it was the decline of these same conservative values that has heralded in a time in which peace may come to an end, with many countries returning to their nationalist beliefs and their worship of their leaders rather than in something greater than themselves, even if the view was unscientific. Certainly in more tribal countries, there were violent outbreaks, as in Libya, Somalia and Syria. If it was Liberalism, why were these areas unaffected. The author provides no scientific evidence of his theory, but it makes for a good talking point. American schools and media are controlled by the left, so the prevalent view has been force fed into the public’s diet. The view that liberalism is good and conservatism is bad is learned. The view that the right is fascist and the left is compassionate leaves out the very current history. Where is the mention of the Black Panthers, Antifa, Occupy Wall Street, Pink, and other organizations that promulgate violence in some way or another to contradict the liberal viewpoint? Because it is on the left, it has been purged.
Liberalism, as a way of life is not quite the liberal think of today, but it was credited by the author and other liberal scholars who follow this way of thinking, with keeping the peace we have enjoyed since World War II. For seven decades, there has been a mutual goal to prop each other up, rather than to compete with each other with the end result being winners and losers. The idea that it is the approach the leader takes that is more important, using a silver tongue, like Obama who had the gift of gab, rather than plain speaking Trump, who does not, has been supported. The ultimate goals have taken a back seat so that the plain speaking Trump is demonized although he is proving successful in leveling the playing field for all those who have been forgotten by those with the mastery of political speak. The end results have largely been ignored to promote a process which has failed in some cases. Why has the Middle East not followed suit and remained peaceful? Certainly leaders have used their politically correct speech to try and broker a peace there. Is it because they have not suffered a large enough defeat and been abandoned to fend for themselves? Is it because they do not have faith in something larger than themselves that is judging them, but rather judges the rest of the world and praises their warlike behavior?
The enormous strength of the United States has enabled this atmosphere of peace to prevail because it is said that the weaker countries felt they could rely on us to protect them and guarantee their security. However, what choice did they have in the matter? Was it that we offered police protection or was it simply the byproduct of America’s hubris that they intervened in countries they found were weaker in an attempt to bring democracy to them, whether or not hey wanted it. For 70 years, peace more or less prevailed, and after awhile, was it simply taken for granted as a state of being that would always be? Are we simply being faced with the fact that it was circumstance rather than ideology that prevailed?
Lately, there are factions growing up and gaining support that want the United States to stop being the policeman of the world, to stop providing military assistance when it deems it necessary. They believe that America is overstepping. As the “so-called” liberal world order suffers, and cracks form in its veneer, one can only wonder if it presages a return to violence to settle disputes and usher in more conflict and wars to resolve our differences. Will we continue with the prevailing largely peaceful world, working seemingly together to improve each other’s economies without having a winner or a loser, or will reality set in pointing to the fact that there have been winners and losers with America being the largest winner of that lottery!
Suddenly, there are people clamoring for socialism and abandoning capitalism. They are rejecting the idea of assimilating large numbers of immigrants that want to come to their country because they are discovering they bring their problems with them and often try to recreate the country they left. They are discovering there are huge costs when outsiders do not melt into the existing framework. They refuse to assimilate and continue to maintain their own identities as members of another culture, country and religion. Is the recognition of the reality of the cost a conservative, fascist point of view or simply reality?
Have we ceased to encourage a liberal order to the world? Instead, are we are fostering illiberalism which can cause chaos? Is it a liberal vs. a conservative view or simply a changing world view based on the needs of different realms. Have we grown soft and selfish? Do we want to isolate ourselves and not be bothered with the outside world, or do we want to do it without having a negative effect on our own country and its structure. If we prefer to support our own country first, in addition to supporting others, does that mean we do not want to share the wealth and embrace all people? If we no longer want to be the world’s watchdog, but rather the world’s conscience, if we have expended an effot to rebuild failed economies and those wracked by war for seven decades, is it time to see a reward on our investment?
Large numbers of us do not seem to be aware of the fact that it is liberalism that has nurtured our society into a state of peaceful coexistence. Is that because it is not the sole catalyst and inspiration? It is true that wars have been kept away from our shores. Are the reasons geographical and not ideological? With the evolving tools of war so improved, have we lost our advantage? Will peace remain a constant if we stop being the superman of the world? Will America be able to protect its allies if it continues to weaken its own armed forces and lowering its own defense budget in an effort to prop up our potential enemies? Have they gotten so used to our help that they are like spoiled children chomping at the bit for more. No one ever seems to want equality, though the clamor for it. In the end, they choose superiority and commit the same sins they rally against.
Does liberalism mean that you cannot fight back to gain some better terms for your own existence? Does America have to only be on the giving end and never the receiving end? As China and Russia demand more recognition, as they develop their military and their economy, will America become less relevant, emboldening them to attack our allies, to make a power grab for their own hegemony? Will that loss of the ideals we have called liberalism, usher in a new era of violence? Will war return to Europe, Asia and the United States? Will the Middle East explode together with us, literally and figuratively?
As we withdraw from our position of beneficent power, will weaker nations remember their former desires for greater control and vie for more of a face on the geopolitical stage? Will the breakup of the European Union be a necessary byproduct? Will Brexit foretell doom for what has been a largely peaceful Europe, even as Africa and India/Pakistan and the Middle East explode anew with outbreaks of violence, as tribes war with each other for dominance? As we begin to calculate the cost of our effort to protect others, as we try to make the playing field more level, are we creating gaps in the fabric of our world which will be filled in by the hostile actions of countries that want not necessarily a better economy or better conditions for its citizens but more control and power? Already, some countries are beginning to resent America’s presence and a large contingent of Americans do as well. Partisan politics is on center stage. Jealousy begins to reign over the reality of the results achieved over the last seventy years in so many places. With the advent of technology, everyone can see what they are missing, and they want to have what we have. How can they achieve that goal without conflict, especially if we back away from our position of watchdog?
Kagan is an equal opportunity basher when it comes to Presidents, although he does make Trump out to be the worst villain of all, after he trashes Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Obama, all of whom he believes have dropped the ball, bringing about the weakening of the liberal order that previously existed. Their weakness has opened the door for bad actors to walk through, attempting to restore the world to the state it was in when wars were common and competition rather than cooperation was the rule. After reading the book, one realizes that Obama ushered in a period which allowed the decline of liberalism on a greater scale because he was weak; he did not intervene when necessary, and he always wanted to avoid a fight. If liberalism, with the United States as the policeman of the world, was an effective way to help all and to keep Europe, Asia, the Middle East and the Western world safer, than Obama was unqualified, unfit for the job, and he failed. He had the gift of gab and was able to give a good speech and inspire people to follow him, however, which was his greatest strength. It made him larger than life but reduced America’s profile in the eyes of the world. Liberalism once worked well, but now, it is fraying at the edges and people are clamoring for socialism and abandoning capitalism. They have grown soft, lazy and selfish, and they do not want to be bothered with the needs of the outside world; they believe they can exist alone. Has isolationism made a comeback? The silver tongue of Obama mesmerized the world, but failed to strengthen it. As the watchdogs of the world, we may have kept wars away from our shores, but without a strong military, can it continue? Will peace prevail if we drop the mantle of responsibility for the rest of the world? But have we protected all equally? How have the enemies and friends been chosen?
We have ceased to elect diplomatic Presidents. We have disregarded character in favor of charisma. We now have an entire population that believes they are capable of being President, regardless of the skills required. Obama, a weak, but highly revered President, let go of the reins that provided protection for the balance of power in the world. He drew red lines and never followed up. He made threats but didn’t follow through. He hoped that by attrition he could avoid conflict. He allowed public opinion to rule and provided poor leadership. He ushered in an era of partisanship which has only grown worse and Trump neither has the gift of gab or the diplomatic personality to reverse the trend, rather he exacerbates it with his acid tongue and tweets. Often his behavior overshadows his accomplishments. A complicit media, supporting liberals, ignores his strengths and stresses his weaknesses, giving fodder to the discontented of the world.
So what is the preference America, war or peace, strength or weakness, compassion or selfishness, greed or generosity, silver tongue or acid tongue? Is it better to have the gift of gab that smoothes ruffled feathers but accomplishes nothing or the uncultured tongue that steps on toes, but gains benefits and a fairer playing field for America and the rest of the world. If America has been abused in its attempt to benefit the rest of the world, must that policeman personality be a condition which remains forever or can negotiations to even the playing field take place? Why would negotiations be termed as winning rather than bargaining? Why not emphasize the benefits of a different approach, instead of the negatives? Why not present a more positive picture of America to the world, instead of propping up liberalism which appears to have run its course. To continue to remain at peace, America has to be viewed as a strong partner, not one constantly faced with the chaotic scenes now presented by the left and the media. They obstruct for their own personal hegemony! Isn’t that the problem that causes unrest? Can no one see the forest for the trees?
The author has presented his theory about the existence of a largely peaceful world for the past seven decades. There are many liberal scholars who agree with his synopsis. Although he attempted to present a fair and non partisan presentation of his ideas, it was obvious from his bio and employment history that he identifies with the left. Therefore, the book sings the praises of liberalism and fairly soundly trashes the ideals of conservatives, identifying them even as fascists. Does this largely one-sided view, albeit subtly presented, in which Kagan believes that the world was better off after 1945 because countries were working toward a common goal and not for themselves alone, which he identifies with liberals who do not want to gain more power on the geopolitical stage, but rather want to foster the economies of all countries, hold water? Does he ignore the reality we are now faced with, that I believe was simply that circumstances were ripe for and responsible for that rising tide that was intended to lift all ships rather than a liberal world order? Did it lift all ships equally? NO! So is that liberalism? Have we encouraged the large differences between the haves and the have nots, that have only grown wider in our attempt to control the idea of a more democratic world? Have we played G-d in our attempt to foster its creation? Are these not the reasons for the current indifference to America’s power? Are we now viewed, not only because of media presentation, but because of results, as the evil Goliath trying to destroy David? ( )

Kagan takes the exact opposite view I've always held (viz., that the U.S. must act as a global police force) and so expertly presents his case that I can't dismiss it. I'm not along with him yet, but after reckoning with it for a while, I have to admit his argument is persuasive and troubling. ( )