“A critique is not a listing of complaints or faults, but a careful analysis of an argument to determine what is said, how well the points are made, what assumptions underlie the argument, what issues are overlooked and what implications can be drawn from such observation”
A critique, therefore, is a reader’s personal reaction (positive or negative) or an evaluation of what an author has to say. The writer of a critique has a responsibility to explain how they reached their critical conclusions about the piece. Thus, statements such as “This book is fascinating” do not communicate much to the reader of a critique without an explanation of what is fascinating and why. A critique should differ substantially from a summary.
Reading for a Critique
1. What is the nature of the piece? Who wrote it? Why was the piece written? Who was the intended audience? Was it intended to inform, persuade, argue, or entertain?
2. What is the significance of the piece? What relation does it bear to other material on the same subject or to other material by the same author?
3. What are the objectives of the piece? What kind of material is presented to achieve those objectives? Are the objectives achieved by the author?
4. What is the design, plan, or method of the piece? Is it well conceived?
5. What is the particular appeal (or lack of appeal) of the piece? What are its most striking qualities? What are its most striking deficiencies?
6. What assumptions underlie the piece? Are they explained or implied? Are any of the assumptions offensive? What biases pervade the piece? Are the assumptions and biases obvious, or do they lurk behind a stance of neutrality and objectivity?
7. Do the assumptions and biases affect the validity of the piece? How do the assumptions of the author compare with my assumptions? Are there flaws in the author’s logic? What evidence or idea has the author failed to consider? Do I support the author’s position?
Writing the Critique
1. Introduce the subject of the critique and identify the author. Give some preliminary information indicating the main point to be discussed. Review any background facts or issues that must be understood before the point of the article being critiqued can be appreciated. Possibly include additional biographical data. Is this one of a series of essays on this theme? This portion should be brief.
2. Briefly summarize the argument of the author. Be as objective as possible so that the reader understands what the article said.
3. Analyze the author’s presentation based upon points presented and whether or not the author succeeded.
4. Respond to the presentation or focus upon the assumptions the author makes. State your reaction to, opinion of, and evaluation of these assumptions or assertions. Clearly support any reactions so that they do not appear to be arbitrary judgments. This may be accomplished by adding support from authority, using logic, observation, or personal experience. What emerges from the analysis?
5. Finally, state your conclusions about the overall piece reviewing the strengths/weaknesses.
The author's intent behind 'Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era'
Drawing from the title of the book, “Mission failure: America and the world in the post-cold war era” there is a clear picture on what Mandelbaum wanted to achieve. He intends to reveal the truth associated with the U.S. foreign policy and the failures accompanying its agenda at the end of the cold war (Mead, 2013). The author captures the adverse effects of the U.S. foreign policy and how it has trolled through President Bush through Barrack Obama’s administration. He presents a fairground of facts dating back to the fall of Berlin wall in 1989 and that no government from then has not encountered failure, hence, this gives the book some credit due to the author’s fair evaluation of various leadership (Mandelbaum, 2016). Consequently, it offers insights on the significance of experts who oversee the U.S. foreign policy. The essay will critique the book by evaluating the arguments presented by Mandelbaum.
Mandelbaum’s thesis statement has its backdrop on the United States’ failure on every post-Cold War mission which the State has often engaged. He identified many factors that must have contributed to what he termed as what he termed as mission failure. He claims that most of the missions the country undertook in most countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, and in the Balkans were merely humanitarian and focused on societal transformation (Betts, 2017). Additionally, the author wedges in the aspect of Israel-Palestine issue within his argument. Ideally, his intent here is wide off the mark because it is in the domain of the U.S. citizenry that the United States did not participate in military intervention in any country. In nearly all these dealings, the major aim of these missions was not dedicated on establishing “Denmarks” or preferably a model of democracies, and economic transformation in the Middle East as the author suggests (Mandelbaum, 2016). Instead, the main focus which he fails to address was the fulfillment of the specific goals linked to U.S. national interests which were eventually met. The author convincingly elaborated the failed efforts of peace-keeping mission between the warring Israeli/Palestine and the prime issue of reinstating democracies which were among President Bush’s official agenda. Nonetheless, he fails to capture the fact that these intentions were noble and just because they were not met does not necessarily mean they should not have been undertaken.
Many of the success stories that the author steadfastly makes assumptions on are quite profound and include humanitarian aid of food shipment to Somalia to the starving populace. Most parts of it was accomplished before the onset of the mission crackdown which led to failure in the restoration of order and wrestling power from warlords, but the author gives more weight to failed attempts alone such as the attacks meted on the U.S. military personnel which led to the demise of many (Mandelbaum, 2016). Additionally, it restored stability and the legitimately-elected government in Haiti under Jean Bertrand through a military coup (Mandelbaum, 2016). Within the context of Mandelbaum’s argument, this was a failed mission since Haiti did not end up as the expected Switzerland of the Caribbean. In another scenario, the author gives a different gesture in Balkans that the attention concerning prosperity and stable economy in Bosnia and Kosovo should not have been drive while the economy back home was dwindling.
Critique of the book by evaluating the arguments presented by Mandelbaum
The perfect piece of success that accompanied the peacekeeping mission that should be highlighted is the end of bloodshed and the level of stability that reigned later and brought normalcy in both countries. Moreover, the author reiterates how the issue on Iraq war was met with stern outlook in the domain of the public. Therefore, he suggests that democratic transformation was not the original mission but a foreign policy objective. Despite that, there were positive results from the intervention that he gave assumptions such as the forceful removal of the brutal dictator from power who financed terrorist acts across the Middle East (Henderson, 2013). The gesture has proven quite important globally even with retrospection now that the purported mastermind of the perpetrated 9/11 attack which affected the U.S. greatly in history was killed. However, financing the entire intervention was costly and bloody to the U.S. as the author points out and this drained a lot of funds meant to reinforce the county’s economy. Notably, we argue differently with a focus on International trade such as NAFTA and the expansion of NATO (Mandelbaum, 2016). If Saddam continued reigning, the region would not support harmonious trade fair.
Conversely, the U.S. citizenry was extremely paranoid about another heinous attack in 2002 and the subsequent years. Such threats were way too much for any sane society to withstand. Thus, the mission was regarded as successful amid the high expenditure now that the U.S. managed to depose the tyrant (Woodward, 2009). Concerning this, the post-9/11 in the U.S. has not encountered any terrorist attack, and that helps justify the issue behind the expenditure and helps minimize potential speculations relied upon by the author while trying to spearhead his point.
Despite the limitations of his central thesis statement, the book harbors a large amount of information regarding the significant challenges during the post-Cold War that faced the security sector in the United States (Mandelbaum, 2016). Furthermore, he offers thoughtful insight revolving around the reasons why the main objectives of democracy edification often resulted in failure and the need to be revisited and reviewed by those concerned in national security decision making to achieve better safety systems.
I believe that Mandelbaum is detailed and objective enough to uncover the truth. For example, he explains why September 15, 2008 (the day of Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Bank) marks the moment when the United States understands that their military spending can not be unlimited and that their global role will now be more small and modest: "In the future, the United States will behave like a normal country" (p.8).
Significance of experts overseeing the U.S. Foreign Policy
According to Mr. Mandelbaum, the international role of the United States since 1945 is far from being a mistake and even less the source of current evils. The US position deserves, on the contrary, to be celebrated: "The American power offers benefits to most people of the planet, because the United States plays a major role, constructive and historically unprecedented in the world. Massively and globally positive assessment. America has conclusively occupied the necessary function of a "world government" (p.54). According to this author, she maintained order, reassured those who were threatened, prevented nuclear proliferation, guaranteed oil flows and offered the dollar as an international currency. The only problem is that Washington can no longer take on this role - which is imperatively called to end. The reasoning here is exclusively economic. For a long time, both Democratic and Republican administrations have financed this "world government" with debt - now estimated at some $ 14 trillion. For at least two reasons, this cannot continue (Gerges, 2014).
The first reason is related to entitlements. In 2008, the social security and medical expenses (Medicare and Medicaid) score was 40% of the federal budget, or 4% of gross national product (GNP). Given the imminent retirement of 77 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964, this budget will represent 18% of GNP by 2050 (Onea, 2013). The difference between these mandatory expenditures and the tax projections amounts to $ 52,000 billion, or four times the value of the annual US GNP. To finance this almost inconceivable amount, it would be necessary to increase taxes by 150%, which is of course politically unthinkable. It will therefore be essential to make massive savings, and the most obvious and easy target is the current defense budget (Onea, 2013).
The second reason follows logically from these dramatic figures. The American taxpayer, faced with a heartbreaking choice, will opt for internal priorities (Onea, 2013). In 2009, in response to a question asked every year since 1964 by the polling institute Pew ("In your opinion, should America be more concerned with its own business, internationally?"), A strong majority answered for the first time in the affirmative. The Americans do not judge, contrary to Nye (2015), that the repeated interventions of the last 60 years were erroneous. They simply think that for purely economic reasons it cannot continue (Ullman, 2017). Mr. Mandelbaum, for his part, believes that adaptation to scarcity will not result in a return to isolationism, but in a choice of smarter preferences in diplomacy. Monumental errors - such as the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the war in Iraq - will be avoided in the future, and the US presence in the world will shrink significantly (Hook & Spanier, 2013). According to the author, this is certainly bad news for millions of people around the world (we can think of the Libyan people for example), but it is a fact.
Conclusion
From the analysis, it is apparent that Mandelbaum objectively revealed the truth about the situation of the United States. Despite the apprehended consequences of this diminishing role of the United States vis-à-vis the emerging powers, Mr. Mandelbaum remains optimistic. No power will replace the United States as a "world government" and there is little chance that the return of power politics will result in a world war. The geopolitical heart of the world is now in the Middle East, mainly for oil-related reasons. For the author, the solution of the puzzle is simple: by massively increasing taxes on US consumption, the price of oil will fall and the oil powers (Arab, Russian and Venezuelan) will be weakened; the US Treasury will find its account (Conradi, 2017).
References
Betts, R. K. (Ed.). (2017). Conflict after the Cold War: arguments on causes of war and peace. Taylor & Francis.
Conradi, P. (2017). Who lost Russia?: How the world entered a new Cold War. London, England : Oneworld Publications Ltd
Gerges, F. A. (2014). Obama and the middle east: The end of america's moment?. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Henderson, N. (2013). Failure of a Mission-Berlin 1937-1939. Read Books Ltd.
Hook, S. W., & Spanier, J. W. (2013). American foreign policy since World War II. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Mandelbaum, M. (2016). Mission failure: America and the world in the post-cold war era. Oxford University Press.
Mead, W. R. (2013). Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world. Routledge.
Nye, J. S. (2015). Is the American Century Over?. [Place of publication not identified] : Wiley
Onea, T. A. (2013). US foreign policy in the post-cold war era: Restraint versus assertiveness from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama. New York, New York : Palgrave Macmillan
Ullman, H. (2017). Anatomy of Failure. Naval Institute Press.
Woodward, B. (2009). McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure,’ Washington Post, 21.
