Book Review: Magic and Mayhem by Derek Leebaert
It would be a much shorter list to cite those statesmen of whom Leebaert approved – men like Henry Stimson, Dean Acheson, Matthew Ridgway, Omar Bradley, George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, George Schultz and Ronald Reagan. The book is not flawless. There are minor factual errors. Not every person or doctrine in Magic and Mayhem is considered in depth. At times, Leebaert comes across as glib or superficial in his criticism, but predominantly, as with the cases of Kissinger or Rumsfeld, his bitter jeremiads are skewering their targets.
Leebaert argues for a considered retreat from policy alarmism and the cult of emergency, and for a reduction of ambitious American policy grandiosity that would flow from recognizing and respecting the agency of other nation’s leaders and peoples. Implicitly, a call not so much for isolationism, as for restraint and a sense of proportion, coupled with a dimunition of status and power for national security “celebrities” and the cottage industry of think tank consultancy for which they stand.
Magic and Mayhem is a book that was written to demystify shibboleths and smash idols.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
J. Scott:
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Zen, I read this several week ago, and agree it is not perfect. I did a rough count, and myself in agreement with many on the partial list you posted. I like the way you closed the review; Leebaert was in many respects "firing for affect;" and I’d imagine he pissed off just about everyone who read it. Highly recommended.
Joseph Fouche:
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:02 pm
From Leebaert I learned that all you have to do to make a broad point about any aspect of American strategic history is pull George Frost Kennan out of retirement at any given point in his long life and kick him around i.e.:http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/tragedy-of-the-geopolitical-nerd/http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/where-have-americas-grand-strategists-gone/http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/strategy-of-the-headless-chicken/etc.I recommend a similar approach to anyone who wants to write about American strategy. George Frost Kennan is comedy gold.
onparkstreet:
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:18 am
I refuse to buy more books until I’ve finished those I’ve already collected. But for this one…
.
I have a weird thing going on with the online think-tank world. I’m obviously fascinated – and admiring – considering the time I spend reading much of the product. I love to be pointed in the direction of good quality papers and books.
.
On the other hand, I’m also vaguely repelled by much of what I read.
.
Here’s a fun game: count how many times a foreign policy expert uses the word "must."
.
We must, America must, the EU must, India must, China must, and so on and so on. It’s a fun game. Lots of "we must do this, we must do that," but no real advice on how, exactly, to acheive the stated aims.
.
Some time back I linked a Belfer Center paper in the comments section at SWJ (ran across it at Pundita’s first, I think) regarding direct wire transfers to certain countries. How can anyone write a policy proposal for civilian or military aid without outlining how exactly the money will be transferred, how we keep track of what we need to keep track of, and how we will collect metrics to assess outcomes. Assuming the metrics actually do assess outcomes. If you forensically audited most of our foreign policy schemes, I wonder what you would find?
.
Also, people cannot give up on an idea once it becomes conventional wisdom.
.
– Madhu
onparkstreet:
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 am
Oh, you know what else I hate? The realism versus morality debate. Half the time, the bloody "realists" aren’t realistic at all. They are playing a damn game with lives and money, and pretending they know what they are doing.
.
– Madhu
J. Scott:
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:43 am
Madu, You are right about the "bloody realists"—more often than not, they are not thinking—and see what they "expect" to see.
zen:
November 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 am
Hi Doc Madhu,
.
"How can anyone write a policy proposal for civilian or military aid without outlining how exactly the money will be transferred, how we keep track of what we need to keep track of, and how we will collect metrics to assess outcomes. Assuming the metrics actually do assess outcomes. If you forensically audited most of our foreign policy schemes, I wonder what you would find?"
.
You would find yourself about as popular and with as big a target on your back as if you were running for office in Cook County on a platform of doing a "forensic audit".
.
People would go to jail. VIPs would be outed as incompetent and/or corrupt in the media. Some of our money in these programs goes missing on purpose and with calculation to further US interests, but it is still technically illegal. Some of the money is misappropriated via petty and not so petty graft. It would be an ugly picture to say the least.
onparkstreet:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:24 am
You would find yourself about as popular and with as big a target on your back as if you were running for office in Cook County on a platform of doing a "forensic audit".
.
D’oh! I sure do write some silly things sometimes, don’t I?
.
Some of our money in these programs goes missing on purpose and with calculation to further US interests, but it is still technically illegal.
.
I get that, I just don’t get all the "pretend" capacity building and bleating on and on about it. It sounds hypocritical and silly.
.
Anyway, don’t mind me. I’ve decided to be cranky about our foreign policy, but I guess that puts me in pretty good company.
.
– Madhu
svvoy:
September 21st, 2011 at 6:14 pm
excellent! looks good, I’ll try to read this book.