The widely reviewed book, The World America Made by Robert Kagan, who serves
as a member of the secretary of state’s foreign affairs policy board, is subject equally to
both positive and negative critique. Kagan uses a back and forth argumentative format by expressing his fondness of America’s foreign affairs, then countering his opinion, and ultimately validating his point of view once again in form the of a rebuttal against his counter argument.
He aims to portray America as a mediator for foreign democracy and deters the notion that America’s power should decline. Although it is clear that Kagan is passionate about the subject matter, the text in all is unclear, and his exemplifications are ambiguous to say the least.
Not only are the examples he uses confusing, but the way they are structured makes it difficult to follow what he is trying to say. The text is unclear first and foremost because of the counterarguments he makes that often become stronger than the author’s reasoning; this leads readers to become hesitant to agree with him and unsure where he stands on the issue. To exemplify, a prominent claim in Kagan’s text is that the spread of democracy around the globe is attributable to American ideals. He does well defending his statement in saying that “the United States used a variety of tools, including direct military intervention, to aid democratic transitions” and to protect existing democracies after the “Carnation Revolution” in 1974 and so on through the “1989 invasion of Panama” (Kagan). He goes on to say that the U.S. interventions were critical to a whole list of South American democracies. Although, the disconcerting part of his argument comes when he introduces that many developments played a role in the trend of democratization “[…]and there might have been a democratic wave even if the United States
had not been so influential” (Kagan). This kind of contradiction in the book is frequent and
the purpose of the text becomes easily blurred. To expand the confusion, he shortly thereafter confirms that “the United States […] set the fashion trend” and “embedded them (democratic principles) in international institutions and agreements”. So, should all the credit of the spread of democracy really go to America?
In addition to a confusing structure, the examples used in Kagan’s work are often excessive. This was actually one of my least favorite parts of the entire book. He uses entirely too many different examples all at once that mask the point he is trying to make, or he repetitively uses one example for an extended amount of time. For instance, in the part of the book that is explaining how the United Stated never goes to war alone due to the fact that they are presumed to be trustworthy in their decision making by other countries, he leads into a paragraph that is a whole half of a page worth of just listing the names of countries. By starting out with “American forces were joined by those from […]” and continuing on for a whole half a page, the format becomes redundant and readers forget the initial statement. This forces the reader to have to go back to the beginning of a paragraph or even re-read further than the paragraph in question in order to get back to the author’s point and understand the connection he is trying to make.
Likewise, Kagan used faulty generalizations. The examples he used were not specific and it is most likely because they would only work in a general sense and that if he went into specifics, his argument would deteriorate because of the underlying complexities of world politics and interrelations. He uses the example of the transition of power from Britain to the United States as justification for the transfer of power from the United States to China (Kagan). In this analysis he fails to mention the differences and severity of the two situations such as the fact that the world is more advanced in technology and more connected through it. This makes these newer transitions much more complicated than world power transfers back then.
Kagan also states in many different scenarios that global democratic order is left up to America to maintain through military action rather than other more useful diplomacies. His fault lies not in claiming that the United States can maintain political power in this way; it lies in that he doesn not go into any detail of how the military goes about doing this. Yes they fight wars and help set an example for other countries on how democracy works, but the humanity of their actions is not specified. There is no way to know that this is being done humanely or that the peoples of these foreign countries consent to America’s bombardment on their governmental choices. This points me in the direction of questioning the U.S. morality.
Despite all of this, the message in Kagan’s work is that it is America’s duty to project to the rest of the world their political success and protect the growth of democracy, and that the American order must be preserved for the sake of a successful world economy. So, the predicament here is should it, or should it not, be America’s job to police the world? After examining this text I am torn- I believe that we should intervene with foreign affairs, but only if it is in our best interest for the safety of our people. An example of this is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba is a communist area that didn’t quite get along with the U.S., but when Russia threatened to move missiles into that territory, it threatened America’s economic status. In this particular case the United States did not actually do any fighting, but they surrounded the island and protected Cuba from the Russians as a safety precaution for our own economy. If the Russians had put the missiles there it would have destabilized the Caribbean area because
the surrounding territories would have had a problem with it, and it would have caused issues. So, it was not a direct problem for the united States, but instead of letting things get out of hand, America stepped in to play big brother. Alternatively, in the case of Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq, America should have kept their nose out of it. Of course, it was a terrible dictatorship and a horrible situation for those involved, but it was not out of necessity that America decided to meddle in Iraqi affairs. The time was post 9/11 and the people of this nation were angry, and they sought out to place blame and reinforce their superiority in the world power game, but Hussein was not in any way posing a threat to the well-being of American life. The areas he was in control of were accustomed to this form of government and his rule did not impose on any economic aspect of the U.S., meaning our intervention was invalid. Not to mention that Iraqhad nothing to do with 9/11 attacks and it was all Bush propaganda, but that’s not the point, the point is that America should not have policed in that circumstance.
Conclusively, Kagan’s book had some interesting points that were worth consideration, but it was not a reader friendly book. The structure made it hard for the reader to understand, and what was understood about his argument was often in terms that were a bit too broad to really have any real effect on the argument itself; however, the book is one that I could see being recommended for college students because there were parts of it that had valid insight. I do not agree completely with his vindication of America’s involvement and influence on global democratization, but his point about it helping us was not altogether mistaken. I believe anyone who is interested in American diplomacy should take a look at this piece of work if anything to consider what is put forth in the book. Maybe not the best book for high-school students because of the intricate structure, but definitely a book that will help anyone make a clear decision on their views.