stefiem's review against another edition
5.0
This book took forever for me to read due to my work, but it was still such a tremendous insightful book into international relations. I'm aware Henry Kissinger certainly has a bad rep, but his intellect and work experience provides some great analysis in world politics. His book goes through the birth of a concept of order in various regions - Europe, Middle East, Asia, USA - and how the cultural and historical impressions have affected power relationships today. He also details the progression of American national strategies with the idea of a worldwide moral obligation. Lastly, he notes the dramatic changes that a nuclear and digital age has on national policies. However, he totally dismisses Latin America and Africa, seemingly grouping them under the umbrellas of other powers.
Generally, Kissinger's latest work is quite profound, despite a few blind spots. For a good study in pure realism, this read is most definitely a necessity. Much is based on history and his personal work experience, but I am left in awe of his level of analysis. (Just keep in mind the lack of moral values, apparently in both book and author.)
Generally, Kissinger's latest work is quite profound, despite a few blind spots. For a good study in pure realism, this read is most definitely a necessity. Much is based on history and his personal work experience, but I am left in awe of his level of analysis. (Just keep in mind the lack of moral values, apparently in both book and author.)
elihinze's review against another edition
4.0
Regardless of personal opinions on Kissinger, World Order is an informative (if occasionally Euro-centric) book on varying concepts of world order throughout time.
leonajasmin's review against another edition
4.0
While Kissinger is quite a controversial figure in international affairs, he has an eloquent and readable writing style. As long as one has an interest in foreign affairs and in both the past and present of international relations, then this book is quite a good one to ease one's self into the topic or even just an interesting piece for those more well-versed. I found that Kissinger fares slightly better in summarising the past of the past than dwelling on the future in this book, but he wasn't particularly weak in the latter regard either. Overall, an insightful read from a well-known figure in IR.
khushi__festus's review against another edition
Unnecessarily complicated sentence structures (and mind, I'm not someone to shy away from language complexity) and very little actual information. Frustrating.
chairmanbernanke's review against another edition
3.0
An expansive view of history and politics across nations. Systems and views interact with surprising effects.
jakedinero's review against another edition
4.0
Imagine if your Grandpa was really, really smart, and he was able to explain every important historical trend of his life through a slightly subjective perspective but then he goes onto detail how the internet is ruining this generation. This is Kissinger.
Without a doubt one of the world's top foreign policy experts, Kissinger is able to somehow explain most of modern political dynamics in a little under 400 pages. From the origins of the seperation between church and state in Europe, to the deeply tribal dynamics of Afghanistan, small but important political nuances are covered practically in this book. There are two things that I think merit discussion.
First is the western focus of this book. Although this is an english book, written by a German Jewish immigrant, from the perspective of American foreign policy there is NOT a deep enough understanding of non-western value systems and political ideology. The two main examples of such are the reductionist view of Islam and the lack of discussion around Confucian principles affecting asian political dynamics (particulary china).
Much of Kissingers criticism of the middle east revolves around a "key" islamic principle of dar-al-islam (land of the faithful) and dar-al-hard (land of the outsiders) , with jihad being the motivation for followers of islam to convert the outsiders. There are two things that make me seriously doubt Kissingers understanding of the muslim faith here. The first is that these principles seem to be only relevant to fundamentalist islamic groups (and maybe Iran). Outside of disputes between Islamic sects and the conflict with Israel, state actors have rarely exercised religious crusades over the last few decades. Secondly, his main criticism of this religious political framework is that it denies legitimacy to our western idea of "states" which makes them unable to work within westphalian principles of diplomacy. I think a simple history of russian and US involvement in the region tells us that regardless if it fits their religious principles, pragmatism forces these actors to recognize our legitimacy and that should be the only thing that matters.
Secondly, I don't think Kissinger spends nearly enough time discussing the history of China and or how the frame their foreign policy. Much of this sentiment derives purely from the fact that the first few chapters were some of the most rigorous historical and political overviews I have ever read.
Overall, a fantastic book and Kissinger is clearly a thinker whose ideas will reverberate for centuries. I wish he was a bit more scientific (as he is about the west) around the rest of the world and didnt talk about the internet but I sincerely enjoyed this book.
Without a doubt one of the world's top foreign policy experts, Kissinger is able to somehow explain most of modern political dynamics in a little under 400 pages. From the origins of the seperation between church and state in Europe, to the deeply tribal dynamics of Afghanistan, small but important political nuances are covered practically in this book. There are two things that I think merit discussion.
First is the western focus of this book. Although this is an english book, written by a German Jewish immigrant, from the perspective of American foreign policy there is NOT a deep enough understanding of non-western value systems and political ideology. The two main examples of such are the reductionist view of Islam and the lack of discussion around Confucian principles affecting asian political dynamics (particulary china).
Much of Kissingers criticism of the middle east revolves around a "key" islamic principle of dar-al-islam (land of the faithful) and dar-al-hard (land of the outsiders) , with jihad being the motivation for followers of islam to convert the outsiders. There are two things that make me seriously doubt Kissingers understanding of the muslim faith here. The first is that these principles seem to be only relevant to fundamentalist islamic groups (and maybe Iran). Outside of disputes between Islamic sects and the conflict with Israel, state actors have rarely exercised religious crusades over the last few decades. Secondly, his main criticism of this religious political framework is that it denies legitimacy to our western idea of "states" which makes them unable to work within westphalian principles of diplomacy. I think a simple history of russian and US involvement in the region tells us that regardless if it fits their religious principles, pragmatism forces these actors to recognize our legitimacy and that should be the only thing that matters.
Secondly, I don't think Kissinger spends nearly enough time discussing the history of China and or how the frame their foreign policy. Much of this sentiment derives purely from the fact that the first few chapters were some of the most rigorous historical and political overviews I have ever read.
Overall, a fantastic book and Kissinger is clearly a thinker whose ideas will reverberate for centuries. I wish he was a bit more scientific (as he is about the west) around the rest of the world and didnt talk about the internet but I sincerely enjoyed this book.
bloodyfool0's review against another edition
4.0
As much as I enjoyed On China, I hoped as much to enjoy reading this one.
The book is slightly disappointing in that some of the thought process is not enlightening nor did I feel as insightful. Coming from someone like Kissinger, I did expect a bit more in terms of an overall analysis.
In addition, I did not feel that the book flowed well. The writing I felt was a bit disjointed which made the reading a bit more cumbersome.
Why did I rate it 4*, well it is a book written by Kissinger.
The book is slightly disappointing in that some of the thought process is not enlightening nor did I feel as insightful. Coming from someone like Kissinger, I did expect a bit more in terms of an overall analysis.
In addition, I did not feel that the book flowed well. The writing I felt was a bit disjointed which made the reading a bit more cumbersome.
Why did I rate it 4*, well it is a book written by Kissinger.
wermyhermy's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
Good for a neocon