Reviews of several books that look very interesting.  First is on Dennis Ross’s Statecraft.  I wrote on this book before, but I think it is useful to keep in mind tricks of the diplomatic trade since diplomacy is a bit of an art that will be heavily used in the next Administration irrespective of who wins

The next is on “Making War to Make Peace” a book by the late, great Jeanne Kirkpatrick.  In many ways her writings were very much cornerstones of the foreign policy vision outlined by President Reagan in the 80s.  As his UN Representative, she was a true intellectual force who was kind of like John Bolton, but shrewder in delivery.  She was and is considered a neoconservative.  However, as the review indicates, while willing to employ unilateral force, Kirkpatrick was cautious.  She supported Gulf War I and not the Iraq War.  She did not think 2003 was the time to topple Saddam Hussein (though she did think 1991 was).  She recognized that had the UN embargo on Iraq collapsed (as I believe was likely) then war to overthrow the regime could be justified.  This seems reasonable.  Her skepticism about democracy promotion was also somewhat well grounded.  While I still support the decision to invade and maintain that many of the poor postwar decisions have helped to create the situation we are in, I admire her hawkish prudence.  It may reflect where we need to move towards in a post Bush era.  I plan to buy and read the whole book because it is evident it will have lessons worth learning.

Another is on the shaping of Henry Kissinger’s world view.  I have posted on this book before, but given my interest in Dr. Kissinger, I can’t help it when a new review pops up.  I think his way of viewing the world represents a serious perspective that policymakers must grapple with, consequently, understanding him helps us understand ourselves.

Finally, a NY Times review of two books focusing on Eisenhower, General George Marshall and Douglas MacArthur.  These men lived through the Second World War, led during it, and faced critical early years of the Cold War.  They were each great in their own way.  I think Eisenhower, somewhat maligned at the time, was the wisest of all, while MacArthur, a great general, was not built for true grand political leadership.  He was much too militaristic and not able to be self contained and reflective.  They key lesson of these figures is that moderation is not always a vice.  It took moderation for Marshall and much of Truman’s Cabinet to promote the “Marshal Plan.”  It certainly was not an obvious policy decision for Congress at the time.  It took moderation for Eisenhower to watch how much was spent on the military and work to keep it in line with legitimate needs.  It was he who coined the now dreaded phrase “military-industrial complex.” 

It takes wise people who can weigh multiple streams of information and decide quicky without passionate overreaction to lead during trying times.  It is interesting to debate whether we can produce people of this caliber anymore.  The jury is resolutely still out.