Pesquise no site
Pesquisa personalizada
|
Equipe
Fundador/CEO
Editora 
|
Pensadores (152) Gideon Rose, Editor of Foreign Affairs: How Wars End
A discussion of Gideon Rose’s new book, How Wars End.
Topics covered include: his intellectual journey, the challenges of editing Foreign Affairs, public discourse on international affairs, the interplay between ideas and action, the politics of ending wars, Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan, and the lessons to be learned from the record of American war termination from World War I to the second Iraq War.
Artigos Relacionados:
26 Responses to Pensadores (152) Gideon Rose, Editor of Foreign Affairs: How Wars End
Deixe um Comentário
Você precisa fazer o login para publicar um comentário.
Livros
|
Loading ...
I was extremely interested of the preposed information because I like history and I like to study such a huge topic as international affairs. I think that it is very positive that one can receive the information not only about the new book but also the information about the biography of the author. Actually I was very impressed that the new book is not the sample of the boring statement of the well known historical facts but it gives the possibility to take a serious new view about the different pages of the history .
I’ve read it and it is truly a masterpiece, as it basically explains in a language for a general audience, how political and economical wars have become on the last century. There’s not that ‘romantic’ notion, but war is definitely a business.
I agree with Matie in that wars will always be a continuing business affair, and us mortals think that it’s just a matter of shaking hands and signing a peace treaty. There are interests in the way, and unless peace itself becomes an interest it will be unreachable.
I think this book has said nothing new, more than what we already know. But I think it overjustifies why wars can’t end, I mean it’s easy to think that there’s an economic agenda behind all, but is it that difficult to bypass it for the sake of thousands of people’s lives?
Its a good book but I can’t consider it as a masterpiece about war. It creates a success by approaching various aspect of wars from modern as well as historical point of view. Political domination and chauvinism acts as a key factor in deciding fate of any war.
Well, I read this book and it is quite amazing and interesting to read.
I see no new facts inside of it. All I have read are the things, I have already known or read somewhere else. So, you would not find at the endof the book a promising reasult for ending a war.
Besides this it is a good book for someone, who wants to know the first rules in politics.
Very interesting indeed. I agree with Jenna as there are really no new facts after reading the book. But it is still a very well written book.
I have a hard time with writers who attempt to explain away wars as being only motivated by corporate greed or political motivations alone; sure, there is a great deal to be said in defense of this argument, but in a few instances there have been conflicts where the moral necessities of waging them outweighed the need to avoid them.
A pretty solid book. Explains how America came into the lead role in international relations after the Cold War. However, more importantly it explains what the perils of such a role are. While I have not finished the novel yet, it feels that it has too narrow of a focus on the political motivations and implications of war.
This books seemed to cover information the reader should be aware of. It also supported its information with new analysis of the political motivations that seem to motivate most wars. It was very refreshing to see such a perspective analyzed to such an extent. Very well done in this regard.
Adam,
Narrow focuses don’t bother me; if a writer wants to focus his or her book on one theory or topic, it’s fine. Many non-fiction books on any subject, be it politics, sex, religion, history, science, etc. can be (and often are) very finely focused on one major theme.
Oh, and the book being discussed here is not, by the way, a novel. Not sure why you call it that. It’s a political science non-fiction work.
I think that wars in themselves are always unjustified. In the end it is the people who always lose by having their rights stripped away and the governments seizing more power. I just can’t really think of many good reasons for having war.
Matie, I think that you are correct when you say that war is certainly a business. I believe that most countries use warfare as a way to claim more territory and take more resources. It is also used to spread the warring nations own culture to the rest of the world.
Dystedd,
So what you’re saying is that there is NEVER any legal or moral justification for war? What about World War II (which in my view could have been avoided if the people who had won World War I conceived a better peace treaty with the losers and NOT divided the Ottoman Empire up for the resources in the Middle East)? Would you be willing to live in a world dominated by the Germans, Italians and Japanese dictators?
I am clearly not justifying all wars; the second Iraq War certainly can’t be morally or legally defended, nor can the Mexican War of the late 1840s be hailed as a great achievement in U.S. foreign policy. But to make a broad comment such as “all wars are always unjustified” seems to be both naive and unrealistic.
I am not sure if I agree with the thesis that all warring countries do so to spread their culture. I can accept that thesis if we are talking about either the colonization efforts of European countries in all the other continents up to the mid-20th Century or the Islamic jihad of the more recent vintage. Maybe the Soviet Union’s attempts to spread Marxism-Leninism can be included in this theoretical leap of logic. But to say that all wars are about spreading one’s culture everywhere? I think not.
I definitely do not agree that warring countries ‘war’ to spread culture. It is usually about property rights or human rights, but not culture. I just haven’t seen that anywhere. Even the old Soviet Union wasn’t about culture; it was power and property.
Generalities are very dangerous things, whether we are saying wars are justifiable or not justifiable. No matter which side you believe, it’s a generality and not a fact. Plus, because we are all different, our interpretations will be different, too.
A (weak) case can probably be made that by exporting (or imposing) Marxism-Leninism to other countries the former USSR was spreading its culture, but that’s only if one interprets political and/or economic theories as “culture.”
A stronger case can be made that Islamic extremism is, indeed, a war about them wanting to spread their culture and religion on a global scale and not just “solve” the problems of the Middle East.
I can go along with that to a point. Certainly what the terrorists are doing isn’t to protect themselves but at the same time, they aren’t trying to convert us. They want to destroy us, so that needs to be considered as well.
It is a matter of intent to an extent. The problem is that sometimes we really don’t know what the true intent of an adversary is. There are some guessing games involved. Then there are the secret, ulterior motives that we can only guess at as well.
You know what is exciting? No, it’s not the reality of what does or doesn’t motivate or justify a war or military conflict, but it is the ongoing discussion that it generates. A good book prompts discussion, and that is what I have been seeing here.
DJ One, I have been watching this debate but not participating in it, but I just had to say that you are right about the benefits of the comments. I have thought a lot about all sides of the issue, and while I don’t really know where I stand for sure, I like that I am being challenged.
That is a good point. Since I first found this site, I have come back numerous times just to see what was being said. I like discussion and exchanges like this one. I still think we need to be careful with generalities, though.
Star Gal, I agree with you about generalities and anything that claims as fact what is a stereotype or assumption. They get us in trouble, in fact. I know, though, that when people ‘talk’ in forums like this that they don’t always mean it to be a generality.
Matie, I don’t like the thought that any war has a romance element to it. I think that is more of a fictional element, something we are led to believe from movies, books, and TV shows. War is not poetic or romantic in any since. I believe they are ugly things.
My question is does a book have to state new facts or have something distinctive about it to be worth the price of buying it? I’ve read the posts and some believe they learned things and others say they didn’t, but it was still a good read. What makes a book worthy of purchase?