The End of Peace

---

Farrow is a riveting storyteller with a great eye for colorful characters. This is one of the most important books of our time. And it is no wonder. It is perhaps the most riveting and relatable book on foreign policy and diplomacy I have ever read. I have covered these same corridors of diplomatic power, these same bloody war zones, yet on every page of War on Peace I was astonished by what I learned. Part insider account and part sober analysis, War on Peace traces the fall of American diplomacy and pulls no punches.

Only someone as incisive and unflinching as Farrow could have written this book—and we should all be thankful that he did. This is no surprise: This scoop-laden book is essential reading for those of us who yearn for peace and American moral leadership on a fractious planet. Cart Support Signed in as: Available Our Retail Price: By signing up you agree to W. Did we have a foreign service in the past two decades that was not consumed by military matters?

Believe it or not, we had a robust diplomatic core who was toiling away unsung, trying to wrest decision-making from generals focused on anti-terrorism and counter-insurgency. Richard Holbrooke was one of these. He was hard-headed, obsessive, egotistical. It was a bum job, but Holbrooke was happy to get it.

War on Peace

We get a view of Holbrooke from someone who knew his gifts and his faults. Ronan has a disarmingly frank manner. For this book he interviewed on the record every living Secretary of State, and just about every other Washingtonian who had anything to do with international work. Farrow does talk about the current president, but only to highlight how diplomacy has become a dirty word in D.

Most interesting for me was the access that Farrow had in talking about American foreign policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and how we never seemed to actually get anywhere. In Pakistan especially we never seemed able to take advantage of cooperation with the people who could bridge the trust gap. Farrow makes it sound like we were so close to better, more cooperative relations but the ship of state is hard to steer. Our relationships with other countries tended to impact our relations in Pakistan, to say nothing of the assassination of Bhutto, the misuse of aid funds, and bin Laden living in hiding there.

He quotes Merkel's dry and damning statements about "we really should all be trying harder to work out problems with our allies Our dysfunctional relationship with Colombia is spelled out in painful detail. How stupid and disrespectful has America ever been in South America? Perhaps we come off looking like the buffoons we are because of the unending corruption in every single South American country.

It is just exhausting and hard to believe an honest person cannot rise to the top anywhere in South America. But we just keep playing out the worst examples of bad behavior, on both sides of the border. In the end this book is an impassioned call to young people to create the change they want to see. Farrow is trying to gin up some enthusiasm for a diplomatic corps who can think, talk, and make treaties around the world rather than militarize our relationships.

It is obviously true that if you start with a gun in your hand you are going to have a very different mindset about solving disagreements. The inside scoop on how the Department of State functions is worth the price of admission. I listened to the audio of this, read by Farrow himself and it was terrific. View all 5 comments. Jul 14, Hadrian rated it really liked it Shelves: Study of the sidelining of the U. State Department by the military and intelligence communities.

Farrow is a bit of a renaissance man - he was the investigative journalist who helped break the Harvey Weinstein abuse story, and former Special Advisor to the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. Farrow has an incredible ability to get access - he has somehow managed to interview every living secretary of state since Kissinger. While he obviously cannot cover ever Study of the sidelining of the U.

While he obviously cannot cover everything Iran and North Korea are only barely mentioned , he is able to marshall an astonishing number of viewpoints, and he has an eye for detail and the telling anecdote. Holbrooke himself, instrumental in negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords in , comes off as coarse, ambitious, more than a touch of an egotist, but also truly devoted to ending or resolving conflicts.

In short, someone you can justify keeping around even if they can be an asshole. However, that clash of personalities did hinder his own efforts, well before his sudden and tragic death of an aortic dissection in But to the main point - the sidelining of diplomats by the military and intelligence agencies did not really begin under Trump, although he has been erratic with his own foreign service. While not all of the military leadership would advocate only military solutions, foreign governments would be more inclined to listen only to military points of view if they see them as being taken more seriously by the government in Washington.

The last parts of the book show the State Department's freefall after Trump, the exodus of both top diplomats and new recruits, and then scrambling between crisis and gaffe of the President's own making.

View all 4 comments. From what I could tell, Farrow structures the book mainly around the countries whose foreign relations he discusses. I'm sure this structure would be easier to follow while reading a physical copy of the book, but as an audiobook listen, it was occasionally disorienting when he jumped from Pakistan to Somalia. However, I think the positives far outweigh the negatives in this insanely well-r 3. However, I think the positives far outweigh the negatives in this insanely well-researched book.

Not only does this illuminate a whole part of government that I knew very little about, but I do think Farrow succeeds in laying out a case for the importance of diplomacy. All I can say is that if I had read this in high school or college, it would have made me seriously consider a career in the foreign service.

May 12, Owlseyes marked it as to-read Shelves: Ronan on playing "nice" with North Korea: View all 11 comments. Aug 13, Jill Mackin rated it really liked it Shelves: An excellent book of investigative journalism. The ongoing deterioration of the State Department and rise of Militarism as foreign policy. Tillerson parroted China talking points written by Kushner. Rachel Maddoow looks at past reporting on Jared Kushner's sketchy meetings with Chinese officials, and notes the tie-in to a scoop in Ronan Farrow's new book "War on Peace" that found Kushner to be the source of Rex Tillerson remarks parroting China's preferred perspective on U.

Farrow is a high-flyer with a very rosy future. May 04, Kelley rated it it was amazing. Ronan Farrow, former US State Department diplomat and current journalist, details how the use of diplomacy has diminished over the last several presidencies, at the hands of ever increasing military power that is now used by the US as a replacement to foreign diplomacy. Bush, and was heavily favored by President Obama and is now carried on by the current administration.

Now with key diplomatic positions unfilled in the State Department, and with a quarter of the its budget slashed, it seems that US diplomacy may be on life-support, if perhaps for the foreseeable future.

Instead Farrow shows how military might and the threat of it , and the military industrial complex seem to rule US international relations more and more, often supporting despotic rulers who pay lip service to US interests, but often actually secretly act in ways counter to US interests. Farrow has done meticulous research for his book. He interviewed over key players, including all living former US Secretaries of State, numerous career diplomats, and military officials. Clearly his access helps give his book tremendous weight. His close work with the late Richard Holbrook, the legendary diplomatist, is masterfully portrayed in this book — as a man whose skills are of a time past and was significantly under-appreciated and under-utilized at the time of his death.

He may have felt the outcomes were only too obvious, but in hindsight only which is what he forgets. Compromise must happen and only time will reveal that certain decisions may have been right or wrong ones, even when they might all appear positive at the time. I also think that Farrow could have been a little more objective in his approach. He admires Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who administration he worked under. I suspect those two events also harmed the credibility of the State Department in many ways as well, something he should have explored more to present a fuller picture leading to the current State Department.

This book was truly amazing though. I could hardly put it down, it was that good. Because of it, I found myself dwelling pondering the state of US diplomacy over the last many presidencies. May 15, Riley Haas rated it it was ok. This is a deeply flawed but fascinating book about the decline of the US foreign service and US diplomacy and general, the the ebbing of US influence as the American Empire slowly ends.

Farrow was an employee of the State Department at one point and perhaps he was too close to his subject. The first or so pages are essentially an apologia for his boss, Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke is no longer around to defend himself so Farrow seems to have taken it upon himself. I don't think it necessarily This is a deeply flawed but fascinating book about the decline of the US foreign service and US diplomacy and general, the the ebbing of US influence as the American Empire slowly ends.

I don't think it necessarily works as a point of entry into this topic for someone who isn't an American, or who isn't a Democrat, frankly, and it feels more like it's about Holbrooke than it is about failed efforts in Afghanistan. Until the riveting depiction of Holbrooke's death, I was seriously contemplating abandoning this book. Things pick up considerably in Part 2 and Farrow does a better job of chronicling problems the US has helped fester or even caused when he's less close to the material. This is the real value of the book: This point was made with Holbrooke, but the whole Holbrooke section is cast is a "best intentions" light that makes it harder to stomach.

And it's the idea of "best intentions" that brings us to the book's main problem, it's thesis. As a work of journalism chronicling the decline of the US State Department, this is mostly a success even the Holbrooke part. But as an argument that the decline of US influence is a bad thing, well that remains to be proven.

Because, the thing is, if you're not an American, and you don't believe the US should be the policeman world, then it's hard to know why this decline is necessarily a bad thing. Farrow himself doesn't really argue this point at all. He mentions Vietnam and some other past US foreign policy disasters, but claims that the good outweighed the bad; he never bothers to try to convince us, it's just assumed. It's a little like a British person during the Sinai Crisis saying "But whatever will the world do without our leadership?!?

Do you believe that the US has saved more lives than it has helped end? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm not sure the answer is affirmative. As someone who is not an American citizen, I find the assumption that the US has normally or mostly acted for the good of the world to be highly, highly questionable. I'm not sure the passing of American influence is as terrible as Farrow thinks it is. Though, as a Canadian, I should point out that the US being economically strong is in my self-interest and I definitely agree with Farrow that China is not necessarily the country we want to replace the US on the world stage.

So read this if you're interested in the declining role of diplomacy in US actions in the world, but don't read it if you want a coherent argument as to why the US should remain the policeman of the world, because there isn't one. Jun 02, Steven Z. The advent of the Trump presidency has wreaked havoc with the traditional American approach to foreign policy that has been in place roughly for the last seventy years.

Under the leadership of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the Foreign Service has been gutted as have the careers of life long diplomats leaving the United States with a lack of qualified personnel to conduct the daily work of the State Department, an essential component for an effective foreign policy. This is in large par The advent of the Trump presidency has wreaked havoc with the traditional American approach to foreign policy that has been in place roughly for the last seventy years.

This is in large part due to the paucity of regional experts, professional negotiators, and has resulted in the rising lack of trust in American foreign policy worldwide. A case in point is the current American-North Korean nuclear talks and announced summit for June Another example is the American withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal, with no thoughtful policy to replace it.

Bush, continued under Bill Clinton as the need to achieve budget savings was paramount as we refocused on domestic economic issues. By the time of the Islamic State twenty years later many experts in that region and subject matter were gone. Those who remained were undertrained and under resourced at a time we were desperate for information and expertise which were nowhere to be found. Since the State Department has ceded a great deal of its authority to the Defense Department whose budget skyrocketed, while the budget at State declined.

As a result diplomats slipped into the periphery of the policy process especially in dealing with Iraq as Powell and his minions at State were squeezed to the sidelines by Vice President Dick Cheney who ran his own parallel National Security Council. Obama also favored military men as appointees, i. He discusses how this situation evolved, who the major players were and how they influenced policy. Farrows is a wonderful story teller who draws on his own government experience and his ability to gain access to major policy makers — a case in point was his ability to interview every living Secretary of State including Rex Tillerson.

At the core of Farrows narrative is the time he spent with Richard Holbrooke who brokered the Dayton Accords to end the fighting in the Balkans in the s, and was a special representative working on Afghanistan and Pakistan under President Obama. Holbrooke was a driven man with an out sized ego but had a history of getting things done. From his early career in Vietnam through his work at State with Hillary Clinton, who held the job he coveted. Holbrooke saw many parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. First, we were defeated by a country adjacent to the conflict.

Secondly, we relied on a partner that was corrupt.

Включите уведомления

Lastly, we embraced a failed counterinsurgency policy at the behest of the military. These are the types of views that at times made Holbrooke a pariah in government, but also a man with expertise and experience that was sorely needed. His greatest problem that many historians have pointed out is that he was not very likeable. During the Obama administration Holbrooke butted heads with most members of the National Security Council and the major figures at the Pentagon. He worked assiduously to bring about negotiations with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan.

No matter how hard he tried he ran into a brick wall within the Obama administration. Secretary of State Clinton would finally come around, but the military refused to partake, and lastly his biggest problem was that President Obama saw him as a relic of the past and just did not like him. An important aspect of the book is devoted to the deterioration of American-Pakistani relations, particularly after the capture and killing of Osama Bin-Laden and the episode involving CIA operative Raymond Davis.

The lack of trust between the two governments was baked in to policy, but events in took them to a new level. Like Coll, Farrow hits the nail right on the head in that Pakistan reflected the difficulties of leaning on a military junta, which had no strategic alignment with the United States, particularly because of India. Trump concentrated more power in the Pentagon, granting nearly total authority in areas of policy once orchestrated across multiple agencies.

The military made troops deployment decisions, they had the power to conduct raids, and set troop levels. Diplomats were excluded from decision making in Afghanistan as 10 of 25 NSC positions were held by current or retired military officials, i. McMaster among a number of other former or serving military in his cabinet. The US had a nasty policy of allying with warlords and dictators in these regions and negotiations were left to the military and the CIA. Yemenis and Pakistanis could do our work, why send our own sons and daughters to do it was his mantra.

May 10, Meg rated it really liked it Shelves: Jun 20, Scott rated it liked it. Ronan Farrow is an investigative journalist who began his career as a State department staffer. In this book he makes the case that the State department has been minimized over the years, to the detriment of our country and security.

The emphasis throughout the book is on how and why diplomatic negotiations have been shuttled off to Defense and Intelligence, as opposed to civilian diplomacy under the State Department. In his mind this approach began with the Clinton administration, continued thro Ronan Farrow is an investigative journalist who began his career as a State department staffer.

In his mind this approach began with the Clinton administration, continued throughout Bush and Obama, and has culminated with the gutting of the State Department under Trump and Rex Tillerson. The book largely focuses on the war in Afghanistan, and the complexities of dealing with that country and neighboring Pakistan. Farrow highlights the efforts of his mentor at State, Richard Holbrooke, a long-time diplomat who fell out of favor over the years, due to his sometimes abrasive style.

This is followed by further examples of diplomatic failures via incidents in Somalia, Egypt, and Columbia. I thought it was interesting that he managed to interview all living Secretaries of State for this book and to hear their thoughts. To me this was a good but not great, instructive read for those who are interested in the current state of U. May 09, Dorian rated it it was amazing Shelves: Clear, sharp, intelligent, to-the-point and sometimes even emotional account of the state of Diplomacy in the largest empire in the history of the world.

See a Problem?

The demise of the State Department and its peace-bringing mission is told through interviews and stories. Jun 25, Susan rated it it was amazing. This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in the state of the world today. It is a fascinating and sometimes frightening look at the decline of diplomacy in the modern era. May 05, Ml Lalonde rated it it was amazing. This dense, gripping, impossibly detailed account of the decline of American diplomacy leaves me wondering how a single country can give birth to both Donald Trump and Ronan Farrow. How does this young scholar, investigative journalist and public servant even coexist in the same air space as Trump's government?

You'll be hiding under the bed to read this. One wonders if the ancient Romans knew their empire was declining while it was happening.

War on Peace | W. W. Norton & Company

Thanks to Ronan Farrow, the Americans will know for This dense, gripping, impossibly detailed account of the decline of American diplomacy leaves me wondering how a single country can give birth to both Donald Trump and Ronan Farrow. Thanks to Ronan Farrow, the Americans will know for sure. Jul 17, Lubinka Dimitrova rated it really liked it Shelves: This world is doomed. Doomed to be destroyed by the morons we elect to rule us. By the morons who elect morons to rule over them and over the fate of the planet.

It only remains to be seen how it will all end. Amidst the breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal and an imminent detente with North Korea, this book is a timely review of American foreign policy in mostly the post-Vietnam era. In the prologue itself, Farrow makes it clear that the Trump presidency has only accelerated the sclerosis of the State department which started as early as Bush 1 and continued through Clinton, Bush 2, and even Obama, in favor of a more militarized approach to geopolitical quagmires.

Much of the book analyses diplomacy th Amidst the breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal and an imminent detente with North Korea, this book is a timely review of American foreign policy in mostly the post-Vietnam era. He discusses how a primarily military-led approach to arming militias for fighting US's proxy wars has consistently backfired and made it harder for rehabilitating the nation's economic and political systems crippled by decades of dependence on US financial aid.

Even Holbrooke, with his record or probably because of it , found himself stonewalled in the Obama administration which ultimately preferred implementing Petraeus's COIN doctrine over reasoned negotiations with regional players. In the rest of the chapters, Farrow gives a broad overview of how the same theme has played out all over the world at different points in time.

As a coda, he, through the quotes and views of career diplomats and every living Secretary of State, rue the shunting of the department to the sidelines and the loss of young blood driven away from the profession.

By William C. Rempel

All local geopolitical conflicts, like a complex system, consist of different stakeholders with competing interests, embedded in the larger world-- with all elements evolving non-linearly in time. Even a perfect diplomatic solution, if achievable, needs to evolve with the system making it imperative to have a strong civilian component to foreign policy that underpins these goals.

May 10, Socraticgadfly rated it really liked it Shelves: Good but not great. First, what makes it good? Farrow notes with detail about how presidents of both parties, from Bill Clinton on, have contributed toward an increased use of the military as a tool of, or substitute for, diplomacy. He spells out specific instances of this. Second, he notes that, without wielding a meat-ax, State could use some budget trimming and reorganization as well.

Sam Harris

By focusing on Holbrooke, and his being knee-capped, Farrow shows one possible specific way in which reorganiz Good but not great. By focusing on Holbrooke, and his being knee-capped, Farrow shows one possible specific way in which reorganization would help — a less turf-warring, and less hidebound, department. What makes it not great? Farrow didn't get former Secretaries to talk in detail about how they'd reorganize State, first. Nor did he offer up any ideas of his own. Second, I disagree with his assessment of the s as a glory period for State.

• The Success Zone
• Analyse von Nikola Hahns Kriminalroman Die Detektivin auf die geschichtlich authentische Darstellung
• Succumbing to Gravity
• Evil and Christian Ethics (New Studies in Christian Ethics)
• Die Maschen der Frauen -: Friday Night Knitting Club - Roman (German Edition)