A central thesis of Kaplan's book is that the U.S. is now an empire with global reach. I just don't agree with his premise. If we are an empire, we're pretty bad at it. What is true is that the U.S. military has succumbed to "mission creep" with little or no public debate. Why are we training troops in places like Chad or Algeria ? Kaplan is fulsome in his praise of the ground-level troopers, and they deserve it for their dedication and resourcefulness. But it must be admitted that these qualities are often put to use in the service of missions of dubious strategic value.

The item arrived on time in good condition and was in excellent condition. I could not ask more from the seller.

In the current age of transnational threats and global insurgency, security for both the US as a nation and for the interstate system as a whole will only be found by bolstering those states that are weak and are unable to control their own borders are govern the entirety of their own territory. This is done through close military engagement on the ground with the armed forces of friendly states, what the US military refers to as "Building Partner Capacity."

Kaplan's book takes readers to the front lines of these efforts, both in active war zones and in countries around the world where the fight against the forces of chaos and terrorism takes a much more subtle form. It provides an indispensable view into how security is gained and maintained in the modern age.

The controversy arises because Kaplan's writing style leaves him open to accusations of jingoism and being an apologist for American imperialism. However, such a conclusion fails to fully understand Kaplan's point: that as the only superpower left, the US has to be proactive in its efforts to secure the world. But these efforts are conducted by working with, not against, other states. These sorts of efforts are central to pursuing security WITHOUT having to invade other countries and depose regimes on a regular basis, and are discusses without controversy in numerous academic works on the subject. To dismiss Kaplan as a war monger and neo-imperialist is to misunderstand his point.

A wonderfully thorough and accurate account of far-reaching American imperialism, maintained by obscure small wars and nation-building and a near-religious quest for "hearts and minds," the globe over. Kaplan successfully reveals the full-circle the U.S. has drawn from conflicts of centuries ago to the present-day struggles (some well-known, others of a nature more stealth) from Columbia to Afghanistan and Iraq. Unburdened by left-wing bias, untainted by hawkish neo-conservative idealism, it is a work staggering in scope and satisfying in its delivery. Overall, it casts America in its proper role as peacekeeper of the world and highlights (as it alludes to) the ways our military leaders must change and adapt so the U.S. can continue filling that role. In doing so, Kaplan also portrays the utter humanity of the troops on the ground doing the hard work, even as he trumpets their heroism and acknowledges the intangibles that grace their collective drive to serve. As a military man, it is gratifying that Kaplan observes firsthand and clearly articulates so much about American military might; its collective mindset; and its service members that is otherwise overlooked; misunderstood; or altogether unexpressed, or at least normally loses more than a small measure of accuracy. The "yup-that's-how-it-is; can't- believe-I-never-thought-of-it-that-way" factor is all over this book.