What do you think?
Rate this book
The Failure of America's Foreign Wars
The Failure of America's Foreign Wars strips away the truth-obscuring nostalgia for America's foreign wars and shows the perverse and bloody consequences of these wars.
383 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1996
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 30, 2017
This is a book built on immutable principles and that ends up being both its greatest strength and weakness.
It's not really a single book, but an anthology of anti war essays, however the focus is overwhelmingly on
World War II, and that is my first complaint. It's somewhat understandable given the war's immense importance,
and subsequent impact on US policy in relation to the rest of the world, but if one is going to write a book criticizing US involvement in World War II that's one thing, if one is going to write a book about the failure of America's foreign wars you would expect a little more variety in subject matter. Nonetheless all the expected topics are covered: World War One, Vietnam, Desert Storm. As this was published before the Iraq War, its actually is a little dated, though if anything the results of that war vindicate the books arguments.
This is a shameless and thoroughly libertarian book, and yet libertarian principles shine most brightly in opposition to war in which opposition to government interference in the lives of individuals and their property
comes off as much more appealing than it may during peacetime. There is a recurring warning that emergency measures and
powers taken by the government during peacetime never really go away. Could anyone at all at any level of government
roll back the military industrial complex and pull out of our international bases at this point? Could anyone roll back the powers of the president to the point where they couldn't rule by decree and even have to seek congressional approval before any military action? I have pessimistic doubts, and I'm sympathetic to attacks on the developments that got us here.
You have to admire opposition to measures like conscription based on unshakable principles, rather than
on shaky and easily manipulated utilitarianism, yet the book never offers the reader an alternative
of when foreign intervention would be acceptable if ever. I don't remember a direct attack on the principle of foreign
intervention for the sake of humanitarian reasons, the book merely argued that those reasons tend to be negated
by subsequent unforeseen consequences. It's very bold to say this about World War II, but there's a lot to
write about when one of your allies is the Soviet Union, and very few would consider it heterodox to criticize
Allied atrocities like the bombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This is a book that absolutely despises FDR, and essentially accuses of him of ruining the country. The book also commits the cardinal sin of referring to
policies one doesn't like as fascism. Now then if one finds issue with Keynesianism and government run industries surely one can express that without reference to Hitler? I will agree that the federal government was forever changed by FDR and given that he has become deified in the public consciousness, I don't think
it's harmful to pursue a less black and white examination of those years. Nobody would complain about critiquing the Japanese internment, which this book does of course, so why not go further and find more nuances in that golden presidency. Nonetheless the book goes as far as to tarnish itself by pointing towards
conspiracy theories involving foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor. I also wonder that if Japan was committing known atrocities in its conquest of China, should
the US not have imposed any sort of economic sanctions? Because this book presents US actions as the deliberate economic strangling of an innocent nation in order to provoke an attack and have an excuse to join the European fray.
That's really the extent of my criticism. There are some very powerful essays in here rightfully attacking the government for arrogantly pursuing wars abroad and
neglecting domestic issues. It brings up a lot of uncomfortable truths, and serves as an invitation for further research.
It's not really a single book, but an anthology of anti war essays, however the focus is overwhelmingly on
World War II, and that is my first complaint. It's somewhat understandable given the war's immense importance,
and subsequent impact on US policy in relation to the rest of the world, but if one is going to write a book criticizing US involvement in World War II that's one thing, if one is going to write a book about the failure of America's foreign wars you would expect a little more variety in subject matter. Nonetheless all the expected topics are covered: World War One, Vietnam, Desert Storm. As this was published before the Iraq War, its actually is a little dated, though if anything the results of that war vindicate the books arguments.
This is a shameless and thoroughly libertarian book, and yet libertarian principles shine most brightly in opposition to war in which opposition to government interference in the lives of individuals and their property
comes off as much more appealing than it may during peacetime. There is a recurring warning that emergency measures and
powers taken by the government during peacetime never really go away. Could anyone at all at any level of government
roll back the military industrial complex and pull out of our international bases at this point? Could anyone roll back the powers of the president to the point where they couldn't rule by decree and even have to seek congressional approval before any military action? I have pessimistic doubts, and I'm sympathetic to attacks on the developments that got us here.
You have to admire opposition to measures like conscription based on unshakable principles, rather than
on shaky and easily manipulated utilitarianism, yet the book never offers the reader an alternative
of when foreign intervention would be acceptable if ever. I don't remember a direct attack on the principle of foreign
intervention for the sake of humanitarian reasons, the book merely argued that those reasons tend to be negated
by subsequent unforeseen consequences. It's very bold to say this about World War II, but there's a lot to
write about when one of your allies is the Soviet Union, and very few would consider it heterodox to criticize
Allied atrocities like the bombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This is a book that absolutely despises FDR, and essentially accuses of him of ruining the country. The book also commits the cardinal sin of referring to
policies one doesn't like as fascism. Now then if one finds issue with Keynesianism and government run industries surely one can express that without reference to Hitler? I will agree that the federal government was forever changed by FDR and given that he has become deified in the public consciousness, I don't think
it's harmful to pursue a less black and white examination of those years. Nobody would complain about critiquing the Japanese internment, which this book does of course, so why not go further and find more nuances in that golden presidency. Nonetheless the book goes as far as to tarnish itself by pointing towards
conspiracy theories involving foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor. I also wonder that if Japan was committing known atrocities in its conquest of China, should
the US not have imposed any sort of economic sanctions? Because this book presents US actions as the deliberate economic strangling of an innocent nation in order to provoke an attack and have an excuse to join the European fray.
That's really the extent of my criticism. There are some very powerful essays in here rightfully attacking the government for arrogantly pursuing wars abroad and
neglecting domestic issues. It brings up a lot of uncomfortable truths, and serves as an invitation for further research.
Displaying 1 of 1 review