This book drew me in with it's insightful, easy to understand dialogue. It gave me the opportunity to view the world in a whole new way. Dr. Brzezinski and General Scowcroft offered me a new perspective and I felt included in the global community for the first time. I can recommend this book to anyone hoping to better grasp our role in foreign policy, past and future.

Insightful conversations. Too bad we don't listen and act on the recommendations of such thoughtful and experienced individuals.

I checked this book out from the Library over this last weekend. The conversation is between Bret Scowcroft and Zibignew Brzenski on how they viewed and presently view foreign policy. Bret served under a Republican administration and Zbig under a Democrat.
What's delightful is that these conversation gave the other a chance to disagree or dispute opinions. There was very little of that. I feel that the dialog between these two Foreign Security advisors was throughly open and honest.
In reading this book I gained a fuller understanding of American foreign policy in the past, it's successes and failures. Historically this is a very important book. Much of what is said at this 'conversation' was never reported nor analyzed at the time events took place.
Their conversations about past and future policies in China, Russia and the Middle East give clarity to both tenses.
The disappointing part of this book is that no attention is paid to Latin America and little to Africa. (Egypt is mentioned but only in the case of Israel.)

Despite the fact that this two gentleman reside on different sides of the political divide they put forth a honest, frank and sober assessment of American foreign policy in the post Cold War era, warts and all, with none of the rancor that has so come to dominate 'political discourse' in American societal organisation recently. Moreover, the moderator is to be commended for letting the principals discuss and engage in debate and not become as some many 'talking heads'unfortunately do, inject themselves in to the dialogue and in a clear majority of cases distract from the quality of the subsequent debate. One could only hope that both candidates campaigning for the office of president read this text, so as to not repeat the recent missteps as this is something no US administration nor its polity can affords to endure again.

Zbigniew Brzezzinski and Brent scowcroft are the two most competent authorities to discuss about the future American Foreign Policies. While Scowcroft is handicapped in respect of the first Gulf War on Iraq, he can't support a total withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq right now since he himself was not sure if the American decision not to topple Saddam in the first Gulf War was a right or wrong decision.

Brzezzinski, on the other hand, has been consistent in discouraging use of force to consolidate US supremacy on a global scale, much like professor Wendell Bell's interview on the heels of the 9/11, when the latter thought that the United States ought to be more understanding and restrained. Professor Brzezzinski is very realistic and he along with Scowcroft rightly thinks that a resolution of the Israli-Palestinian issue and the Iran imbroglio must be energetically pursued to act as a firefighter in that tinder box region. Incidentally the M-E issues made much headway when Brzezzinski was the NSA.

The future US leaders must draw from the great fountainheads like the former NSAs in question since the United States now stands at a crossroad vis-a-vis the rest of the world in the present century where both the possibilities and adversities coexist. It remains to be seen how America enhances the former and reduces the latter. In that respect the views of both these luminaries are important.

Gautam Maitra
Author of 'Tracing the Eagle's Orbit: Illuminating Insights into Major US Foreign Policies since Independence.'

Refreshing in its candor and broad in scope, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have put forth sound ideas about how we got to where we are, globally, and where we stand now. Added to that, they have made recommendations for the incoming president. These two men, one Democrat and one Republican, are men of stature and experience and both have been successful negotiators, so when they speak, people listen. It would have been beneficial had the Bush administration heeded their advice in many areas.

Washington Post associate editor, David Ignatius, "chairs" the discussion, in that he set up a series of interviews with the two and plays the role of moderator. He's good at it, too, gently prodding them with his own thoughts. That Brzezinski and Scowcroft agree on most of the larger issues comes as little surprise. It hearkens back to the day when foreign policy had a bipartisan component...something that has all but disappeared.

The book covers such topics as Iraq, Israel and Pakistan, ("two unsolved problems") China, (and Asia) Russia and Europe. They comment on the changing world situation and if there is one person who is largely absent from their discussions, it is President Bush. Brzezinski is more open in his disdain for the current president and one gets the feeling that Scowcroft's impressions of Bush are similar but just under the surface. They do disagree to an extent about the timetable of withdrawal from Iraq and the European Union and NATO, with regard to Russia.

Each chapter is riveting and no words are wasted. Brzezinski and Scowcroft are clearly two who have thought long and hard about America and have some disheartening feelings about America's loss of respect around the world. But they are optimistic about American global leadership in general and that it's necessary for us to regain our footing when the new president assumes office. "America and the World" is a tour de force and I highly recommend it for the wealth of experience that Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have given in service to our country, which is shared with readers here.

This is a must read for next president. For a couple of cold war warriors, Brzesinski and Scowcroft both recognize 21st century problems are entirely different and do excellent analyses of current foreign relations problems, offering well thought-out recommended actions. Both optimistic thinkers. A well constructed interview format led by David Ignatius.

America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy
This is a phenomenol book that has great application in the here and now
regarding America's future foreign policy and view of the global family of nations. I especially appreciate the collaboration of a liberal thinker (Brzezinski) and a conservative (Scowcroft) in the enterprise.
Both men have had extensive experience in our past foreign policy mistakes and successes. This is a book for the ages. Hopefully, when our grandchildren read it, they will realize how prophetic the book became. Good Doctor, Wayne, San Diego, California

I would like in this review to focus on one central conception the authors share i.e. It is the idea that a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, including the entire Arab and Islamic world is possible. And that this Peace will essentially be a key to transforming the Middle East into an area more friendly to the United States.
These misconceptions raise the question of how wise the authors' recommendations are in other areas.
But I will confine myself to the Middle East. The fact is since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 the Middle East has turned even more in the direction of radical Islam than before. Iran the major terrorist player is also the major Shiite player. It has at times cooperated suprisingly enough with its Sunni non- state fellow terror entity, Al - Quaeda but it has largely acted through its Shiite surrogate in Lebanon, Hizbollah. It was Hizbollah terrorists who bombed the Marine base in Beirut and drove the U.S out of Lebanon in 1982. The radicalization of the area , its Islamization means that one central set of actors, the Iranians , Hizbollah, , Hamas are simply not able ideologically to contemplate Peace with Israel. This means that any persistent American peace effort is bound to end in failure, as did the major effort made by President Clinton.
Blaming Israel for the situation of the Palestinians who have in Gaza adopted the position of radical Islam is unfair. The Palestinians have had through the years peace offers in which they were offered their own state. They repeatedly rejected this.
Even more ridiculous is the claim that an Israeli- Arab peace would put an end to rivalries in the Middle East. The Iranian- Saudi divide, the Shiite - Sunnite divide is not one which is going away through any negotiation. It is well to remember that factions of Shiites and Sunnites are murdering each other in Iraq.
My own sense is that it would be a lot wiser if experienced political people like Brzhenski and Scowcroft recognized not only the limitiations of American power ( This is a major theme of the book, the overreaching of the United States) but of the power of any of the present players to finally put an end to longstanding, persisting, chronic problems and conflicts. Perhaps they too might admit their part in some of the past failures. ( Brzhenski was a major player in the Carter Administration bungling of the Radical Islamic Iranian Khomeini rise to power. This perhaps more than any other foreign policy mistake is the one which has had the most telling consequences through the years.)

If you had suppositions about how you thought the world was, this book brings to light that we are in an emerging age of the politicization of the world. The ushering out of the old Cold War mentality is now being replaced by a new awareness of self beyond borders and a higher conversation of how to achieve balance in the world. It is a stand that democracy cannot survive if it is militarily forced upon people, but instead, with alliances, can be allowed to take seed and to flourish. And that the United States is still capable of creating balance in the world, instead of the division caused by the mis-step of the War in Iraq. And it is written to the democratic and republican nominees for President of the United States. Well worth your time, Senator McCain and Senator Obama.

There is something about this book that compells you to stop reading it for a second and to go to Amazon.com to say "something."

I love the format. You feel like you are sitting with Brzezinski, Scowcroft and Ignatius just listening as a child who seemingly should be in bed would sit on the stairway listening to grownups talk about important issues in the living room below.

What I especially like is the way you can stop and ponder what they are saying, or look up a point that is unfamaliar to you on the internet. I am new to foreign policy, and I'm hooked. A glossary or endnotes and a map would have been nice since many events, terms, etc. are new to me (what is the "green zone" or the "Perm Five", etc.) but this should not deter anyone.

I also like the gentlemenly way they discuss differing points of views as well as how they agree with each other. And you can almost smell the leather chairs... Enjoy!

--Leah

I had to make myself put this book down every so often as I wanted to read it all in one sitting. So far, I haven't finished the book yet but wanted to comment on it anyway. This is a non-partisan book containing much wisdom.

The authors are so knowledgeable and so wise about about how America can be a positive influence on world affairs (and how we have failed at times in the past). They both are highly critical of the attitude that America can push people around and go to war with anyone that we think is a threat.

They offer so much hope for our country and the world if we are led by people who truly understand the best way to go about our foreign poilicy. But to do that, we will need leaders who are willing to take the time to read and listen and be willing to explore a new way of being part of the world.

If most Americans would take the time to read and think about the important ideas in this book, we would have a so much better informed electorate when choosing those who will get our vote.

I have not finished the book yet, but near the end. I just had to say something about this extraordinary book. This book just gets one in the right frame of mind, for the coming of real change and hope in America. I was so engrossed in it, and flying along with the positive and true message of hope this book gives us, here in America. Fellow readers, you will feel instantly that all is not lost in America after reading this book. Bush, Cheney, Rice and Co., may have made America a laughing stock to the rest of the world, but Dr. Brzezinski, and Dr. Snowcroft give you a feeling that their is someone out their with common sense, even reasoning and backbone. As you read, page after page, you find yourself saying over and over again: Yes, yes, yes,i.e., there are people in America that see real problems and have real centered and even answers. I need to get back to this book. It is awesome and very necessary, right about now, to say the least. I'll be back to elaborate on the book. I hope Brzezinski and Snowcroft are writing their next book and go on a book tour! You really feel, as though, Brzezinski and Snowcroft are looking out for Our/America's best interest and safety first. I gotta' get back to this book - it's a real page turner. Even though Bush has taken America to a low and humiliating point in her history - a change for the better is brewing - and the recipe is in this book. Thank you gentlmen and true scholars. Feel rejuvinated and optimistic for a "change." Read this instant classic! !Volvere!

"America and the World" is built around a series of non-partisan foreign policy discussions between (D) Zbigniew Brzezinski and (R) Brent Scowcroft, led by reporter and author David Ignatius. Both were very knowledgeable and rational. Following is some of their comments.

The defining challenge of this century is the shift of power from the Atlantic world to the Far East and the surfacing of common global problems. Unfortunately, America has lost confidence as a result of 9/11 and now has a culture of fear. Instead, we need a stewardship based on an intelligent society that understands its responsibilities and is not terrorized into rash decisions demagogically justified that isolate us in the world.

Scowcroft reports that he saw our command and control operations in action on 9/11 (was aboard one of our specially outfitted aircraft) - "not a pretty picture." We then said "No, thanks" to NATO's offer of aid. Both are concerned we may get involved in Iran and then Pakistan as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, delighting Osama.

After we went into Iraq we adopted the notion of being a transformative power. Our belief that Iraq could be managed by us is contrary to the Israel experience vs. its Lebanon invasion in 1982. (Nothing like failing to learn from history!)

The U.N. no longer works well in a world of shifting power. Kofi Annan tried to reform the U.N. to make it more effective - the U.S. submitted over 700 amendments and was the primary culprit in sabotaging the effort.

About the only issue the two disagreed on was Iraq - leave or stay.

I was surprised to learn that Iran has the right under international law and the Non-proliferation Treaty to enrich. That doesn't make it a good idea - the major problem is that a number of other Mid-East countries will want to follow if Iran succeeds. Regardless, the U.S. "negotiating" position is a non-starter - "we'll negotiate if Iran starts by giving up enrichment - the point of the negotiations!"

Iran got involved in Gaza and Lebanon because of actions by Israel, not via an invasion. There would be a severe reaction if we bombed Iran.

The notion that we have to prove friendship to Israel by starving people in Gaza (non-cooperation with Hamas) is immoral. Palestinian refugee camps are a breeding ground for terrorism.

American cultural imperialism through democratization in the Mid-East was disowned the moment it was tested (Gaza). Sending Karen Hughes to teach democracy to Arabs makes us the object of ridicule.

We should restart training support for young Pakistani officers, thus making them less vulnerable to Taliban infiltration.

Taiwan and China have improved relations lately, helped by Taiwan's investments in China and tourism there; thus the "one China" issue has somewhat receded because the Chinese now see time as on their side. Much of the world looks at China and concludes there's a lot to be said for authoritarianism; the Russian embrace of democracy produced chaos and near economic ruin.

The U.S. exclusion of India's 14 reactors from international control damages our non-proliferation credibility. It is unclear what the purpose was, and we have now also upset Pakistan.

It is also unclear what the purpose is for a missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. On the one hand we say Iran can't have nuclear weapons, and on the other act as if they have them. Further, the Europeans are not asking for protection, and the system is not viable vs. Russian missiles.

Foreign-policy areas for the next president to focus on in his first 100 days include climate change, the Palestine-Israel conflict, Iran and Iraq. The two also suggest he stop the competing/duplicated presidential and v.p. National Security Council staffs, and emphasize bipartisanship.