Die Vorherrschaft der USA - eine Seifenblase

by George Soros

Proving that exorbitant wealth and allegiance to the Republican Party do not necessarily go hand in hand, billionaire George Soros offers a sharp critique of the neoconservative philosophy that he sees guiding the George W. Bush administration. In The Bubble of American Supremacy, Soros warns that American efforts to be the ultimate global superpower will not only be unsuccessful but will make America and the world infinitely more unstable. Bush and company, he says, have callously used the events of September 11th for their own political gain and misled the world about the threat posed by Iraq. In previous American presidential elections, billionaires Steve Forbes and Ross Perot have tried to run for president themselves to address the country's problems, but Soros--while no less zealous about his convictions--sees his role a little differently. "I have made it my primary objective to persuade the American public to reject President Bush in the upcoming elections," he writes, "We have been deceived." The arguments he makes and the evidence he presents are interesting enough, although there really isn't anything here that hasn't been written in scores of other anti-Bush books released around the same time. What sets Soros's book apart from all the others is the recurring presence of Soros himself, frequently citing previous books he's written, speeches he's made, and highlights of his career. The pronoun "I" is never far away. Granted, it's been an interesting career; his financial success coupled with his passionate political convictions would make for a terrific memoir, but at times in this book Soros's ego gets almost comically in the way. Referring to his long-held support for open societies, he says this philosophy "could almost be called the Soros doctrine" only to renounce propriety over it a page later. Soros is a capable writer and a clear thinker, and he ably articulates his views. Readers interested in criticisms of Bush and company have several options but readers interested in George Soros will find plenty to satisfy them here. --John Moe

Genres: Politics, Economics, Nonfiction, History, Business, Audiobook, American

221 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2003

About the author

George Soros is a Hungarian-American financier, businessman and notable philanthropist focused on supporting liberal ideals and causes. He became known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England" after he made a reported $1 billion during the 1992 Black Wednesday UK currency crises. Soros correctly speculated that the British government would have to devalue the pound sterling.

Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management, LLC.
As one of history’s most successful financiers, his views on investing and economic issues are widely followed.

Reviews

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Talán nem tudjátok, de mindannyiunk Gyuri bácsija, még mielőtt tekintetes és méltóságos miniszterelnök urunkat igyekezett megakadályozni a nemzetépítésben (amely épp most borul virágba egy pazar hatvanpusztai dácsa képében), nála némiképp marginálisabb közszereplőkkel is összeakasztotta a nem létező bajuszt – példának okáért ifjabb Bush elnökkel. Hiába, akkor még nem volt tisztában a prioritásokkal. Az összekülönbözés oka az iraki háború volt, amely a Bush-féle megközelítésben észszerű reakció volt a szeptember 11-i terrortámadásra, a Gonosz Tengelye elleni háború logikus lépése, ám Soros szerint az elnök varacskos nagy hibát követett el: egy kontrollálhatatlan, felesleges és költséges külpolitikai lápvidékre lavírozta az országot, amelynek következtében az USA a külvilág szemében elveszítette hitelét.

Persze a dolog nem az iraki háborúval, de még nem is szeptember 11-gyel kezdődött. Már Bush megválasztása után körvonalazódott az új irányvonal, az ún. „Amerikai Évszázad” program, amely a neokonzervatív agytrösztök álma volt. Lényegében azt értették alatta, hogy mivel az USA a földgolyóbis legpotensebb hatalma, ezért nemcsak joga, de kötelessége - akár a többi hatalommal való egyeztetés mellőzésével is - az egész világgal konfrontálódni nemzeti érdekeiért. Ebben a programban szerencsésen ötvöződött a globalizációpárti piaci fundamentalisták azon célkitűzése, hogy az egész világra kiterjesszék a szabadpiaci kapitalizmust*, és az agresszív háborús héják törekvése, akik mindig is jobban szerettek hasast ugrani a konfliktusokba, mint hosszas tárgyalások során konszenzusos döntéseket keresni. Nekik kifejezetten kapóra jött a Bin Laden szervezte támadás, mert ez legitimálta, hogy keménynek mutatkozzanak, és - akár a polgári szabadságjogokat megnyirbálva - olyan helyzetet hozzanak létre, amiben aki nem támogatja az offenzív republikánus politikát, az hazaáruló.

Pedig – mint Soros nagyon jól látja – a terrortámadás bűncselekmény, és úgy is kell reagálni rá, ahogy a bűncselekményekre szokás: átgondolt, minden részletre kiterjedő nyomozással. Viszont Bush nem ezt akarta, ő háborút akart, mert az jobban megfelelt az irányvonalnak. A háborút viszont nem lehet országok között szétszórtan tevékenykedő terrorsejtek ellen vívni, a háborúhoz államra van szükség – következésképpen kipécézte magának Irakot, Szaddám autoriter rendszerét, és uccu neki. Csakhogy Szaddám sok szörnyűséget csinált ugyan, de a terrortámadáshoz speciel sok köze nem volt, viszont azzal, hogy Amerika elfogta őt, Irakot pedig megszállta, legalább fel lehetett mutatni valamit, ki lehetett terjeszteni az USA szupremáciáját. Csak hát minek. Mert ha a háború gyorsan és eredményesen le is zajlott, az amerikai katonaság nem volt kiképezve arra, hogy megszállói feladatokat lásson el, ráadásul ottléte csak indokot szolgáltatott az Al-Kaidának arra, hogy fokozza tevékenységét. És itt tulajdonképpen találkoztak egymással Bin Laden és Bush céljai: mindketten azt akarták, hogy a félelem fennmaradjon, mert csak ez legitimálta hatalmukat. A helyzet pedig oda vezetett – és ezt is jól érzékeli a Gyuri bácsi -, hogy életre kelt az örök körforgás: az amerikaiak, akik szeptember 11. után áldozatok voltak, épp saját áldozatiságukra reagálva csakhamar elkövetővé váltak, méltánytalanságok sorát követték el a muzulmánokon, akik aztán maguk is az elkövetővé válásban gondolták feloldani saját frusztrációjukat… és így tovább. Soros szerint pedig erre csak az hozhat gyógyírt, ha visszatérünk az együttműködésen alapuló világrendhez.

Különben meg muszáj elmondanom, hogy milyen fura érzés volt felszállni ezzel a kötettel a buszra. Az embernek az a gondolata támadt, hogy muszáj eltakarnia a könyv gerincét, nehogy valaki ráhívja a TEK-et. Miért? Mi az a borzasztóan veszélyes a Soros-féle „nyílt társadalom” elméletben, ami ilyen hisztériaszerű reakciókat vált ki olyan emberekből, akik a világatlaszban még Kínát se biztos találják meg. E könyv függelékében aztán ráleltem a „nyílt társadalom” kulcsgondolatára: “Az adott társadalmi szituációk résztvevőiként mindannyiunknak rendelkeznünk kell bizonyos nézetekkel, amelyek alapján cselekszünk. De milyen alapon cselekedjünk, amennyiben elfogadjuk, hogy nézeteink nagy valószínűséggel tévesek, de legalábbis a valóság hiányos vetületei. A válasz ugyanaz, mint amit Popper adott a tudományos módszerre: nézeteinket átmeneti igazságokként kell kezelni, és közben biztosítani kell az állandó felülvizsgálatot. Ez a nyílt társadalom alaptétele.” Íme hát. Ez az a démoni gondolat, ami ezt a sátáni öregurat vezérli. Hogy ne legyünk biztosak annyira magunkban, ne legyenek kőbe vésett alapelveink, hagyjuk magunkat meggyőzni a tények által. Hát, rettenetes program, valóban. Nem csoda, hogy utálni kell.

* Soros viszonya a globalizációhoz amúgy is ambivalens: valahová a piaci fundamentalisták és a globalizációellenesek közé pozícionálja magát. Egyfelől elfogadja a globalizációt, mint megkerülhetetlen jelenséget, másfelől viszont csak akkor tartja elfogadhatónak, ha a globalizáció győztesei a haszonból kompenzálják a veszteseket mind nemzetközi viszonylatban, mind a nemzeten belül.

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

The topic, though still (unfortunately) relevant is a bit dated.

I'm mostly upset that the title actually gets scant treatment: Soros spends a lot of time describing the ills of the Bush administration and what he's done around the world to try to make things better in general. He doesn't actually get into the specifics of the 'bubble' he described, and he goes only into the most cursory detail about its formation. I found that disappointing, and I wanted more chapters like his last, which actually tried tying his concepts together.

[Sharon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had heard people complaining about Soros online, so I decided to do some research. Published in 2004, this was basically about the Bush administration and Soros' hope that the president would not succeed in winning a second term. Oh well. However, I could not help but note how some of the mistakes that GW did are being attempted by Trump. Soros warns, "It is the task of the president to provide leadership, and it is only natural for politicians to twist, exploit, or manipulate events to promote their policies. The cause for concern is to be found in the policies that President Bush is promoting and in the way he is going about imposing them. President Bush is leading the United States and the world in a very dangerous direction." Trump is definitely doing that every time he has a twitter rant or conducts a conflict with others like Kim Jong Un, the NFL, or the Mayor of San Juan. He also states, “A large majority throughout the world opposed the war in Iraq. One and a half million Europeans took to the streets in February 2003 to express opposition to the Iraqi war.” This explains Obama’s “apology tour” when he had to bow to our allies apologizing for American arrogance under Bush and regain their respect for the United States. This has since been lost under Trump in a matter of a few months. And let's not forget, “The combination of all the tax cuts with a large increase in military spending resulted in a radical shift from a budget surplus of $236 billion in fiscal 2000 to a budget deficit of $375 billion in 2003, with prospect of $565 billion in prospect for 2004 before the full bill for Iraq has been presented.” Again, Trump is trying the same tactics.
I'd be interested to see if Soros has written anything since regarding Obama or now Trump.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I figured I'd read a book by the ultimate conservative bogey-man to trigger some Trumpsters.

Anyway, this was an interesting book that sheds light onto Soros' pro-global-capitalism humanitarian ideology and his argument against the Bush Doctrine of America Supremacy. I wish the book was a bit longer and ventured more into other subjects, but I have a feeling his other books expand on the issues of interest to me. I'll have to check them out.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important book

"All in all, at no other time has America's position declined as dramatically in as short a period as it has since George W. Bush became president." (p. 74)

The first part of this book is a devastating critique of the imperialistic intent of the Bush administration. Soros constructs calmly and with measured deliberation a very sharp and very large pin, as it were, with which to burst the delusive bubble of what he calls the Bush doctrine of "American supremacy." He explains why it has failed in Iraq and why it will fail elsewhere. He avers:

"The United States cannot be either the police or the godparent of the world. America needs to work together with other countries." (p. 114)

I will not reprise his arguments here. Read them for yourself. To my mind they are utterly convincing. What I want to do instead is to present Soros's solution which is the subject of the second part of the book. His intent is to avoid a repetition of Bush's blunder in Iraq while at the same time protect the world from repressive and murderous regimes. What he has come up with is a shift in understanding of sovereignty from the sovereignty of governments to the sovereignty of people. He writes:

"The principle of sovereignty needs to be reconsidered. Sovereignty belongs to the people; the people are supposed to delegate it to the government through the electoral process." (p. 102)

He goes on to argue that the international community of states has the "responsibility to protect" the people from regimes intent on murder and mayhem. His intent is to justify intervention in the internal affairs of nations since he believes that what happens within a nation affects the world as a whole. Soros argues further that it would be a good idea to prevent crises before they develop. Instead of "the Bush doctrine of preemptive action of a military nature" he calls for "a doctrine of preventive action of a constructive nature." (p. 111)

Part of the impetus for Soros's argument comes from the Warsaw Declaration of 2000 in which it is proclaimed that "it is in the interest of all democratic countries...to foster the development of democracy in all other countries." (p. 112)

While Soros is a brilliant man of great visionary ability, I think it can be safely said that his doctrine is, considering the present state of international affairs, utopian. Nonetheless I think he is actually predicting what will happen in the future, although I don't think that such actions will be carried out by or under the auspices of the United Nations as it is presently constituted (and Soros says as much: see pp. 114-117). What Soros is envisioning is a coalition of democratic states led by the US and the European Union countries along with other economically and socially advanced countries deciding at some point that it is in their best interests to put the dictators and failed regimes out of business and to support and nurture democratic ones. If this works then the entire world might be constituted of nation states who solve their differences without recourse to the use of military force. At such time a new United Nations will be formed with a more equitable distribution of power among its members as well as greater authority and the real ability to enforce its regulations. Such a United Nations would be something similar to a United States of the World.

As interesting sidebar to Soros's argument is the idea that it is the very process of globalization that leads to the need to intervene in the internal affairs of nations. It is because of the international exchange of goods and services and the globalization of capital that the interests of one nation are affected by the actions of another. The resources of any one nation are themselves international. It used to be, as Soros points out, that most of the economic activity of any given state was internal. Now we have our wealth all over the globe. Consequently we must have the institutions that protect our interests and ensure the "maintenance of the market mechanism itself" all over the globe.

Should there be any doubt about the revolutionary nature of Soros's new world order, consider this from page 142: "The natural resources of a country ought to belong to the people, but the rulers often exploit the resources for their own personal needs. This violates the sovereignty of the people and calls for external intervention."

Consider this as well: "...the United States cannot avoid intervening in the internal affairs of other countries, but I claim that we must do so only on legitimate grounds." He quickly adds, so that there can be no mistake: "The Bush doctrine cannot be accepted by the rest of the world as legitimate." (pp. 171-172)

I highly recommend that readers read the Appendix entitled "My Conceptual Framework." In it Soros presents his ideas about "reflexivity," "radical fallibility," "the open society," and "the human uncertainty principle." Here's a sample of the profound understanding that this brilliant man has come to over the course of his extraordinary life: "We must treat our beliefs as provisionally true while keeping them open to constant reexamination. This is the foundation principle of an open society." (p. 195)

This principle, I must note, is allied to the idea of the invisible hand of the free market in which the intelligence of uncounted participants is reflected. There is a cognate in the ideas that are coming out of complexity theory in which we learn that intelligence is not a top down phenomenon, but something that can be brought about by autonomous individuals acting cooperatively like the neurons of our brains or ants in a colony or bees in a hive. But if individuals are not free to express themselves, but are oppressed by authority, their wisdom will never reach coalescence.

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

[Michel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Soros explains bubbles (and consequent busts) in a very powerful way as overstating reality. Take the housing bubble: while it is true that, over the *long term*, real estate increases in value (Mark Twain: "They aren't making any more"), it does not increase faster than the combination of population growth + inflation. When we act as if real estate will be worth more next year, no matter how much it sells for this year, we create a bubble which is bound to burst painfully sooner or later. The correction is also bound to be exaggerated, and the confidence gap it creates also becomes self-fulfilling. (This was 2003! Why didn't we listen to this guy?)
Similarly, American power is extensive, diplomatic, military, economic and cultural: the US is probably more powerful than any 2 second-rate powers put together (the EU and China, or Russia and Japan, or any other combination); it is also unprecedented: the US is more powerful than the British, or Ottoman or even Roman Empires ever were (the latter may have looked stronger compared to the then-known world, but it really was limited to Europe and the Mediterranean, "Mare Nostrum" or "our lake" as they called it then).
However, this unquestionable supremacy is only weakened when we use it as if it were unlimited. We can't take on the whole world at once and such an inflated view is indeed a bubble that will one day burst in a painful way.
So, why only 3-stars?
A condensed version of the book would have been an excellent article for The Atlantic; there simply isn't enough meat to fill a whole book. There is also too much opinion and not enough fact, too much topical urgency (the 2004 presidential election looming) and not enough scholarly research, too much moral critique and not enough pragmatism.

[Leo Jacobowitz]

Very light reading. Always interesting to hear the opinions of one of the world's most influential men. However, I would recommend this only as "airplane" reading for those interested in geopolitics and the topics of post imperial America - that folks like Chalmers Johnson, Francis Fukuyama and others discuss at greater and far more interesting depth than Soros. But hey, he's the billionaire that controls the world so what do I know?

[Yates Buckley · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book illustrates how you can feel like you capture the broad picture and yet how it transforms without apparent logic anyhow.

The bubble persists and doesn’t at the same time and is likely to continue to do so in some sense. The connected world sets up complex relationships that sustain certain systems while tearing down and transforming others.

[Mariy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Интересная книга для понимания мышления и некоторых направлений в американской политике. Многое -весьма дискуссионно. При этом автозаменой страны и ее «противников» можно получить методичку по проведению любых операций, взгляните сами (цитаты):
Президент получил иммунитет к критике, поскольку критика в условиях войны нации - это проявление непатриотизма

Государство сейчас находится во власти экстремистской идеологии, которая изменяет роль страны в мире и сам ее характер

Единообразные взгляды уже утвердились в исполнительной и законодательной власти. Расхождение во мнениях не допускается.
Управление стало более авторитарным и жестким, чем когда-либо

Пропасть между восприятием реальности страной и остальным миром никогда ещё не была так велика. Со стороны она видится как государство, злоупотребляющее доминирующим положением, а внутри страны ситуация иная - власти убедили народ в том, что ситуация представляет реальную угрозу национальной безопасности

Неправомерное использование термина «война» - это не просто вопрос семантики. Оно имеет более глубокие последствия. Объявление войны немедленно вызывает военный психоз, который может отдалить от желаемой цели, а не приблизить к ней. Оно порождает потребность в эффективной военной акции с очевидными результатами.

[Kerry Pickens · Rating 4 out of 5]

George Soros studied at the London School of Economics and was greatly influenced by Karl Popper’s theories on open societies that collaborate with each other. This book was published in 2004, and criticizes the neoconservative approach to military intervention in foreign countries. In particular, he focuses on Bush’s invasion of Iraq stating that increasing the hatred of Muslims towards the US was the goal of the 9/11 attacks and Iraq War was the outcome the terrorists wanted. To me, that’s a simplified version from someone who has never had the responsibility of leading a large country or intervening in a war in another country. Soros is definitely an expert in global capitalism but I don’t believe Muslim terrorists will be discussing collaboration and cooperation with democracies anytime in the future. Soros does make some valid points such as “the country is in the process of committing such mistakes because it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude.” As far as conspiracy theories surrounding Soros being the Evil Lord that disrupts society, those theories are nothing more than classic antisemitism.

[M. Peter Casey · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Bubble of American Supremacy is a now 19-year old tome, written by an author who has in the meantime become a conservative boogeyman. How is it?

Well, there are two parts to the book: the first details the mistakes of the GW Bush administration, the second discusses the United States' role in the world and what it should be.

For it's time, part 1 is admirably prescient. What would've been controversial to say back in late 2003--Colin Powell lied, the Iraq invasion was a tremendous waste of resources and standing, the occupation itself was a quagmire--has become conventional wisdom since.

Part 2 suffers from being a bit unfocused. Soros discusses the problems with various foreign policy approaches and extols the virtues of his own international organizations, but doesn't delve too deeply into either.

In any event, The Bubble of American Supremacy is a brisk enough read but not very useful in the year 2023 other than as a reminder that, at least on the Iraq War issue, George Soros was right.

[Gerald Kinro · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this with the intention of learning something. Aside from a few chapters, it was largely rhetoric to defeat President Bush in the 2004 elections (Soros denies this). Thus, this book is dated. It was more like listening to talk radio. The author does provide some ideas that make good sense. However, it is all in the execution.

[David Bocek · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book about 20 years ago in law school. Highly interesting critique of the Bush II Administration. He was right about Bush. I agree with Soros on basically nothing. He is a big proponent of Globalization, & in my view a world government. I would not take seriously any of his books. But this book is still highly interesting in re to in my view one of our worst Presidents.

[Leon van den Berg · Rating 1 out of 5]

George Soros advocates and rejects supremacy by aiming at global enforcement of "open societies". Fortunately no super force is needed, since democracy's literal "people power" is bursting through the internet-connected social media, constantly opening up our worldwide society. At the same time authorities show their true authoritarian colours in overreacting to the Chinese virus.

[mari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelente libro. Ayuda mucho a conocer un poco más de historia estadounidense y sobretodo sobre la administración de Bush como presidente, sus decisiones frente al 11 de septiembre y cómo se desenvuelve la guerra contra el terrorismo. Me gustó que tenga una visión fundamentalmente crítica y logre implementar ideas constructivas.

[Sparsh · Rating 2 out of 5]

An grumpy old man who somehow found the riches sees the world as black & white has had a ranting session on the mistakes of bush administration while praising the works he has done. He gave example of victims becoming aggressors , I think he is one of it.
He has become an aggressor disabling & dismantling countries & democracies around the World

[Ivan Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un análisis excelente del papel que tiene que tomar Estados Unidos internacionalmente. Es el país más poderoso y así mismo tiene que guiar a los demás a construir no a destruir. George Soros siempre dando cátedra de su filosofía y su inteligencia. Muy recomendable.

[Jacob Libby · Rating 4 out of 5]

George Soros definitely admits some sinister things in this little book, but he also reveals himself to be among the more enlightened of the world's high school-sized group of billionaires

[Yunling · Rating 3 out of 5]

端寫布希時期攻打伊拉克時的反省，索羅斯的重點在於附錄。

[Mark Geise · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'd probably give this about 2.5 stars if I could, but, unfortunately, that is not an option. "The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power" is based on criticisms that I generally agree with: George Bush and his cabinet led us into war dishonestly and without proper justification. This enmeshed the United States in a quagmire that was impossible to exit without leaving things in worse shape than they were previously. However, I don't agree with most of Soros's recommendations to alleviate this situation. He rightly says that the United States needs to shift its focus away from military interventionism. He then believes that the U.S. should ramp up its foreign aid budget and serve as an example for the rest of the world by intervening in other countries' affairs in non-military ways.

This book, written in 2003, paints the impending 2004 presidential election as a watershed moment in American history. If the American people reject the Bush doctrine, the U.S. has a chance to realize its mistakes and prick the bubble of American supremacy. We could fundamentally rethink our place in the world and choose to intervene in other countries' affairs in non-military ways rather than military ways. Soros favors increasing our foreign aid expenditures and taking charge in figuring out how to best channel this money so that it actually achieves positive objectives. According to him, we need to empower international organizations and cede more power to this organizations. At the heart of global inequities is the global capitalist system; in every chapter, Soros laments "market fundamentalists" and the harm that they have done in the world. He points to some statistics about how many people in the world live in poverty and don't have consistent access to safe drinking water. He tries to attribute this to the global capitalist system, but he does not give any statistics on what these numbers looked like prior to economic globalization. There's a reason why he does not do this: it would obliterate his entire argument. I think that he does a very poor job at drawing the line from Bush's "market fundamentalism" to his military interventionism. For a guy that has made his living in markets, Soros has an overly simplistic and caricatured understanding of how free markets actually work.

This is a short book - about 200 pages with large text. I would recommend reading it as a short summation of the view of many on the left. Military interventionism is bad, but other types of interventionism can be very good, this mindset tells us. Soros wants government spending diverted from defense to foreign aid; on net, this may be cheaper for the U.S. government, but he still advocates that the U.S. spend large sums of money interfering in the affairs of sovereign countries. I believe that there are foundations and NGOs doing a great job to help suffering people and to effect change in other countries. However, I do not believe that significant sums of taxpayer money should be used for this purpose. The United States is broke and does not have the money to finance either the Bush doctrine or the Soros doctrine. We need to figure out our own affairs and eliminate foreign aid expenditures. Charities, non-profits, and NGOs can fight these fights with charitable donations and philanthropic efforts.

[PJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

George Soros presents a driven account of the first three years of the Bush presidency, comparing the excesses of the administration's foreign policy to the boom-bust cycle of financial markets. Soros argues that reality and the perception of that reality often diverge, while constantly affecting each other. When the divergence becomes too extreme, a bubble is created, in this case, the "Bubble of American Supremacy". Much of the conceptual groundwork is based on his most famous work, "The Alchemy of Finance".

The book is divided into two parts: Part I focuses on the policies and ideological framework of the Bush administration and how it has lead to the current bubble of supremacy. The reality of American Supremacy and the perception of how that supremacy should and can be projected have diverged and moved well beyond a state of equilibrium. Soros argues that this has fueled anti-Americanism and has set back US foreign policy objectives, namely by leading us into the "quagmire" of Iraq.

Part II, the more interesting of the two, introduces a number of ideas for reasserting American power in a more constructive way. Soros reviews UN proposals for justified intervention in sovereign nations and how economic aid can be used more effectively as a tool of foreign policy. While highlighting his own successes, Soros focuses on the lessons to be learned from his own development attempts rather than on the the successes themselves. His goal to build partnerships with local citizens in countries where his foundations function is particularly interesting. Contrary to most foreign aid which is administered by the donor nation in one way or another, Soros suggests helping the recipients of the aid develop the expertise and institutions through which further aid can best be utilized.

While Soros presents a host of ideas in Part II, the lack of cohesiveness undermines the conviction of his own ideas. I couldn't help but feel that I needed to read a few other books of Mr. Soros to better understand how his ideas have evolved and how they can best alleviate some of the problems facing us now.

[Brian]

Interesting to see that he is far more hawkish than the neocons portray him.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I admire Soros' passion and candid perspectives on the dangers of Bush's aggressive and unilateral foreign policy doctrine. It takes a certain degree of boldness to make such ardent arguments against a current president in the hope of influencing an election outcome. However, at times I found the arguments contradictory; Soros wants more multilateral action but supports US's intervention in Kosovo without UN authorization and wished the US had avoided the UN in Bosnia. Soros is certainly constructive in his criticisms, but not effective in prescribing solutions. I agree we need to protect the sovereignty of people, that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect, and that developing countries need more representation in the governance of world order. I agree that foreign aid needs to focus more on empowerment by focusing on serving the interests of recipients rather than of donors and by taking risks in the maximizing the delivery of funds to intended beneficiaries. I agree that greater transparency and accountability across governments is critical for supporting development. Soros however fails to offer potential paths to follow to achieve his vision.

I did like one quote in particular: "Communism and free enterprise ... are deficient; the deficiency in each one can be cured only by taking some elements from the other. There can be no doubt that the Communism model turned out to be inferior to the free enterprise one. Bu that is only because the free enterprise model has been pursued in a less dogmatic, extremist way than the Communist one. Market economies are characterized by large doses of regulation and other forms of social intervention, not by the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest."

[Angel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I did not rate this book higher for two reasons. One, a lot of what Soros writes about is stuff I have read elsewhere. It is not that he is a bad writer. It simply is a matter that I have seen a lot of the material in other places already. The first part of the book is a summary basically of the mistakes and deception of the Bush administration and its neocon cronies. Much of this is already known to anyone who is well informed. Second, the book has dated a bit. Soros wrote in to coincide with the 2004 election, and we all know how that turned for the worse. Having said that, I think the value of the book lies in the second part where he lays out some solutions and examples of ways to change the way things are. Much of the bottom line is that the U.S. has to learn to abide by the rules everyone else follows and to take its leadership role seriously and responsibly instead of acting like a backyard bully. The book was a quick read for me, but it was because I could scan a lot of it. A pity that those who should be reading it are not reading it. More people should be reading books like this.

[Karl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Soro's lays out the failed foreign policy of American Supremacy practiced by the neocons of the Bush Administration and presents a compelling vision for a new foreign policy.

The insights on how the necons stole our foreign policy can be drab for those who already know the story but Soro's vision should get a good hearing.

[Shishir · Rating 3 out of 5]

An easy read about Bush doctrine era, terrorism and numerous mistakes of power plays. The role of a supreme power to be a guiding hand instead of a bully outlined and put in context of a world that needs empathy and fair treatment for all to jointly succeed.Unintended consequences to catastrophic events

[Emily Alp · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Soros' perspective and amazing level of intelligence and comprehension about global trends. I read this on a 10-hour flight and couldn't put it down ... of course, I was taking an entrance exam for Columbia within days, so that could have been a motivating factor.

[May Ling]

Typically Soros, it attempts to break through the propaganda and address the issues as he sees it. You have to love a man that has so much money and yet does not show the academic and intellectual laziness for which on in his position is normally susceptible.

[Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

By now it's a little out of date, but a brief and good overview of the W Bush first term foreign policy, and the Iraq war.
His ideas are good but the book is wanting of more depth, as to establish legitimacy behind his arguments. It's far too one sided.

[Kimmieverdi · Rating 4 out of 5]

very eye-opening & informative. a slow read, but worth it.