The book was widely reviewed. It received both good and bad reviews. Moreover, an adapted except was published as an article in The Wall Street Journal on the day of its publication.[5] The book also influenced the 2012 State of the Union Address given by President Barack Obama.[1]
In The New York Times, Michiko Kakutani criticized the book for its "fuzzy generalizations, debatable assertions and self-important declarations of the obvious."[6] In comparison to Zbigniew Brzezinski's book Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power, she argued it lacked "perspicuity."[6] She added that some of Kagan's examples were "odd exercises in relativism or blatant rationalizations of current woes."[6] She highlighted Kagan's "shaky reasoning" and "failure to grapple convincingly with crucial problems facing America today" as well as his "condescending tone" and "sometimes less than coherent reasoning."[6] She concluded that it was disconcerting that both President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney appreciated Kagan's scholarship.[6]
In The National Review, Mark Steyn suggested that Kagan "prefer[red] to stick to big-picture generalizations, as if nervous his argument [wouldn't] withstand close contact with specifics," and criticized "Kagan's complacency."[2] He added, "Kagan never defines terms" and asked, "What does Kagan mean by 'democracy'?."[2] He went to say, "I had a strong urge [...] to toss the book out of the window and back my truck over it."[2] Additionally, he derided Kagan's assertion that the smooth transfer of power from Britain to the United States would be comparable to a potential transfer of power from the United States to China, arguing that the latter nations were too different, both in terms of culture (language, freedom of speech, etc.), but also in terms of economic system (Communism as opposed to capitalism).[2] In a muffled praise, he added "The nearest thing to an insight in Kagan's book comes toward the end when he states what ought to be obvious—that 'a liberal world order will only be supported by liberal nations.'"[2]
In National Interest, Christopher A. Preble, a Fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, described the book as "a cri de coeur directed at a foreign—policy establishment beset by doubts and a wider public harboring even deeper ones."[7] He added that Kagan's ideas were "shortsighted at best, harmful at worst."[7] Instead, he argued, "The world is both more complicated and more durable than Kagan imagines," lamenting Kagan's "flawed analysis."[7] However, he went on to admit, "His ideas represent something close to the reigning orthodoxy in Washington today and for the past two decades."[7] He concluded by saying that the book was unconvincing and paralleled an essay Kagan co-wrote in 1996 with Bill Kristol entitled, Toward a Neo—Reaganite Foreign Policy, adding, "He didn't prove [his] case before, and he doesn’t now."[7]
On the other hand, Publishers Weekly described the book as "intelligent, cogent, and timely."[3] Similarly, writing for Foreign Affairs, Bard College Professor Walter Russell Mead praised the book, saying, "As usual, Kagan's writing bristles with insights and ideas."[8] In The Financial Times, Gideon Rachman called it "a spirited essay."[9] He described the first two-thirds of the book as "fluently argued and [...] quite powerful," but added that the last part was "less convincing."[9]
Writing for the New Statesman, Mark Leonard described the book as an "elegant and perceptive essay."[10] In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mark DeSantis called it an "accessible, thought-provoking and extraordinary (short) book."[11]
In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dr Joseph S. Maresca called it "an important book about America's role in the world."[12] He added that it was "easy to read" and "directed to a wide audience in government, industry, and the general public."[12]
