The next decade pdf download george friedman

Friedman speaking frankly as Machiavelli indeed Friedman seems delighted to do a modern dress Machiavelli impersonation sees all actions by nation states as serving their unique national interests. All events on the international stage are rationally arrived at by nation states based on this singular criterion. Thus, Friedman argues p. It was an extraordinary performance.

The fact of the matter is that North Korea holds Seoul in hostage and has for literally generations. He writes p. Bush invaded Iraq to get the Saudis and Pakistanis to help with intelligence gathering and sharing?

No, the reasons that Bush invaded Iraq were several, including a deluded attempt to protect American oil interests in the region; to be a wartime president for the elections or a president who had just won a war ; to go one up on his dad who George W. Friedman even goes so far as to argue that although at the time of the invasion of Iraq Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were far from friends, they could become allies in the future and therefore that could serve as a rationale for the invasion.

What Friedman has done here and what he does throughout the book is interpret events in ways that are consistent with his overall message which is one of amoral, rational and Machiavellian nation states acting in accordance with their individual national interests when in fact the actual heads of states and their advisors who do the actual acting often behave in irrational and self-defeating ways, which is what happened to the US during the George W.

Incidentally, part of what Friedman is about in this book is to give advice from his Machiavellian stage to President Obama and presidents or princes! Basically what Friedman is saying is that regardless of what a nation state does we must infer that it is acting rationally in its own interests and that presidents must realize that they have to lie to their constituencies and be prepared to do brutal and even horrendous things in the pursuit of the national interest, and in fact any other behavior is dereliction of duty.

As for the rest of the book it is also very interesting, and I wish I had the space to go into it. Bottom line: worth reading and thinking about. View 1 comment. Mar 31, Andrew Barkett rated it liked it. While the work already feels somewhat dated, there are nonetheless lots of useful observations about the near past that can inform us about the near future. Oct 24, Kent Winward rated it really liked it.

Intriguing to read almost ten years after it was written. Frightening to think what the next ten will bring based on what Friedman was writing and warning about in Almost as if we have followed the road map of what not to do.

Jun 20, Joseph D. Walch rated it really liked it. I am glad to have found this author who is a very insightful foreign policy thinker.

He looks at foreign policy through Machiavellian spectacles and examines the forces that will shape the world going forward and gives interesting directives for the would-be President of the United States in exerting power around the world while maneuvering through national political discussions. The book starts with a short history primer and notes the current political realities. It then assesses each geographi I am glad to have found this author who is a very insightful foreign policy thinker.

For example, He recommends strengthening Poland to be the bone-in-the-throat between a Germany and Russian alliance, strengthening ties with Australia to counterbalance in Asia, doing nothing in Africa because Africa is irrelevant in modern geopolitics, doing nothing about immigration, and nothing to help correct the drug war in Mexico while giving the appearance of working to solve both, etc.

There is an interesting discussion about the current financial crisis in the EU countries that raise implications for renewed nationalistic conflagrations e.

There are little nuggets here about China's political and economic balance and the outlook for their continued growth and instability, how the blocking of the Strait of Hormunz might affect Japan, and the importance of the U. Navy even in this modern era of sophisticated satellite and aeronautical power. It was interesting to hear that Great Britain--once the world's preeminent power has just recently retired it's only aircraft carrier, and the role that Latin America esp.

Brazil will play in the future. It's well worth the read for anybody interested in world geography, economics and politics. Nov 12, Owen rated it really liked it. Once again, I don't generally give higher reviews than the average. In fact, I'm not sure it's happened apart from George Friedman books. After the acclaim heaped on his book The Next years Friedman, felt compelled to write one that focused more on the short term.

This is how he gives us The Next Decade. Again, I'm astonished by Friedman's ability to extract the signal from the noise.

He seems to use all the information anyone has available to them it manages to come to different and entirel Once again, I don't generally give higher reviews than the average. He seems to use all the information anyone has available to them it manages to come to different and entirely logical conclusions. For instance, his cogent critique of the Iraq war is the single most effective I've heard to date, an articulate dismantling of the the national security justifications for that war.

Effectively he says that what the final result of the Iraq war was to remove the lone Sunni counterbalance to our Shi'ite enemy in the region, allowing Iran to project power. Friedman is no peacenik, he is a tireless advocate of using the military for political purposes. He just failed to find any logic in removing a counterbalance to one of our enemies.

His greatest fear is not of China or Islamism, or even debt. It's of America learning to handle an empire, but losing our republic. I found this fascinating, as clearly Friedman shares my opinion of us as a new Rome, a republic of massive power that stumbled to empire, and learned to control it only to lose the foundations of republic It was also interesting how he treated the office of the president.

His continual reference to Machiavelli's The Prince probably will unnerve people who believe America is the city on a hill like myself. But the stakes do not get higher. Friedman simply makes the case that the job of the President is to ensure American hegemony for the foreseeable future. That will require actions that no President would ever campaign on, but will promote America. Another fascinating, readable book from George Friedman.

Owen Gardner Finnegan Jun 08, Julie rated it really liked it Shelves: non-fiction , audiobooks. Have you ever played the board game Risk? The game board is a map of the world partitioned into different colored continents, subdivided into countries.

Each player places their armies on different countries, battles their opponents, and conquers territory with the ultimate goal of taking over the entire world. The difficult decisions are where to place your armies and who to engage in battle. Friedman analyzes the world with a geopolitical lens, assessing different countries strengths and weaknesses, based on their natural resources, their borders and alliances with their neighbors, and a myriad of other factors.

He gives specific recommendations of how the US should approach different countries in order to maintain it's current dominance in the world. This book was a huge eye opener for me. In the US, we are naive in our beliefs that we engage in wars for democracy, freedom, or other ideals. Friedman is pretty blunt. The goal of America's role in foreign policy is the balance of power.

We want other countries to be fighting battles among themselves to keep us in our current position. The amount of information on our past relationships with other countries and his forecast on the power shifts that will occur in the next decade were interesting and filled with surprises.

Very informative. Feb 14, Lisa Reising rated it really liked it Shelves: non-fiction. I really enjoy Mr. Friedman's books.

His approach in predicting future events is based on historical analysis of all kinds. I learn history and details about every region of the world. There are reasons, backed up by data and sound precedents, why America should stay out of Africa politically and only send humanitarian aid, why we should chill out about border wars with Mexico, why friendly terms with Korea, Singapore and Australia are a good idea, and why we need to keep a sharp eye on Turkey, I really enjoy Mr.

There are reasons, backed up by data and sound precedents, why America should stay out of Africa politically and only send humanitarian aid, why we should chill out about border wars with Mexico, why friendly terms with Korea, Singapore and Australia are a good idea, and why we need to keep a sharp eye on Turkey, Russia and Germany.

If the author has a political leaning, it's hard to discern - most discussions are based on an honest look at what has happened in the past. Accomplishments and failures have been the story of both American political parties. And I'm coming to the conclusion fast that it is useless to yearn for a forthright President - by definition an American President must be a systematic manipulator, able to cut many backroom deals while lying to the public about it, in order to manage all the subtle and not-so-subtle intricacies of foreign and domestic policy.

What a world! Less bonkers than his "The Next Years", but still abounding with cringe-worthy statements. A choice example: Friedman recommends continuing sending aid to Africa not because it will do anything to help the Africans but because it will burnish the image of the U. One of Machiavelli's points is that good comes out of the ruthless pursuit of power, not out of trying to do good.

But if doing some good merely convinces Europe to send more troops to the next U. The first 40 pages, with its breezy homages to Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, and Clausewitz, should be jettisoned entirely.

Whereas The Next Decade is written in great style and is an absolute delight to read for those who like to shuffle around their armies and resources in strategy games like Civilization , the nearing end of this decade makes it painfully obvious how difficult it is to predict these trends. Germany and Russia are certainly not allies at this point, Israel-Iran relations have hardly changed, you might carefully say that the wars in Islamic countries are subsiding then again, most wars do within a de Whereas The Next Decade is written in great style and is an absolute delight to read for those who like to shuffle around their armies and resources in strategy games like Civilization , the nearing end of this decade makes it painfully obvious how difficult it is to predict these trends.

Germany and Russia are certainly not allies at this point, Israel-Iran relations have hardly changed, you might carefully say that the wars in Islamic countries are subsiding then again, most wars do within a decade , and China has not undergone a major crisis. However, the most grievous oversight is that this book, released in , failed to predict like most people what is arguably the most significant geopolitical event of this decade: the Syrian civil war and the international interventions which followed.

Feb 22, Chris rated it really liked it. Pertinent glimpse into the geopolitical crystal ball. Friedman's premise is that the United States must strike a balance between keeping the rest of the world stable while keeping regional powers constantly on edge to maintain "a balance of power".

Chapter after chapter is filled with prose underscoring the need for the US to strengthen some while weakening other countries. While this may be true, the repetitiveness of the call-to-manipulation by the author becomes grating. Certainly worth a rea Pertinent glimpse into the geopolitical crystal ball.

Certainly worth a read especially for those who are being spoon fed baby news food from network news outlets. Getting a glimpse into the motivations of foreign powers for those who haven't considered such on their own is well worth the time for this reasonably quick read. Sep 21, Jeff rated it really liked it Shelves: mark-s-suggestions.

I read this book following The Next years by the same author and I'm glad I did - panning out before zooming in is how I tend to view complex scenarios; also the author references in this book geopolitical concepts that are outlined in detail in The Next years.

His description of the often conflicting responsibilities of the president of a republic and leader of an empire was intriguing. His foreign policy recommendations per region included mini history lessons and were fascinating. The I read this book following The Next years by the same author and I'm glad I did - panning out before zooming in is how I tend to view complex scenarios; also the author references in this book geopolitical concepts that are outlined in detail in The Next years.

The book is extremely US centric by design. Jul 11, George rated it liked it. I go this book at the airport thinking it was by the same guy who wrote "The World is Flat", that was Thomas Friedman. It was a surprisingly interesting book and everything that he predicts over the next decade well now more like 8 yrs seems realistic. Now I am reading The Next years which was actually written before this, so it is like seeing Prometheus before Alien kindof I go this book at the airport thinking it was by the same guy who wrote "The World is Flat", that was Thomas Friedman.

Now I am reading The Next years which was actually written before this, so it is like seeing Prometheus before Alien kindof Jan 09, Kyriakos Michail rated it really liked it. Great for someone who wants to study the geopolitical role of USA and also wants to know some general facts concerning regional or possible regional powers. A worthy follow up to the next years written in the unbiased, unemotional, data-based, and calculated method that I have come to appreciate from the STRATFOR founder.

Very interesting prologue when he describes that predicting a century is much easier than predicting a decade. The short term actions of men are difficult to predict, whether by mistake, stroke of genius, etc But these actions tend to become averaged out in the long run when considering the larger subtle shifts over time. As Machiavelli, this book is highly focused on power and objective. Friedman delves deeply into the difference between great presidents and mediocre ones being that those are the ones able to sacrifice morality for the sake of long term strategy while making the public believe that they are acting in an interest consistent with the principles that we all hold nobly high.

Friedman attests that it was and our knee-jerk reaction to seek out revenge that ended such a long term functioning strategy, as we no longer sought to balance Iraq vs Iran or India vs Pakistan, but to go 1-sided towards those who would help us eradicate terrorism, an obviously impossible and expensive goal.

You really want to avoid unentangling alliances The art of telling the public what they think they want to hear while doing what you know is right is the key to good presidency. I especially appreciate the non-partisan view that Friedman offers. He could at any time have hammered away at Bush or told just 1-side of the story to pronounce why right-wingers are bad for democracy, or left wingers are bad for personal freedom But instead tells both sides as a historian, without bias.

And why I think I could never be a politico. Just how do you judge the true intentions of candidates then as a voter? This novel of course has to center around the US as the dominant superpower. Whether you like it or not, it's the reality and we are the 1 country where actions locally have the most dramatic impact felt by the international community And the president as the most impactful man.

At the same time, he must resist the temptation to try the impossible or undertake actions that have disproportionate costs relative to the effect. He can lie to the public, but he must never ever lie to himself.

Above all, he must understand the real threats to the country and act against those. As a result, Iran became empowered without balance in the region, endless resources have and will continue to be spent fighting terrorism that will never end, and no balance was paid to Russia's resurgence. A president must take into account how his citizens feel and he must manage them and lead them, but he must not succumb to personal feelings.

His job is to maintain a ruthless sense of proportion while keeping the coldness of his calculation to himself. If he succumbs to sentiment, he will make decisions that run counter to the long-term interest if his country. A president had to accept casualties and move on.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt calls for vengeance but privately decided to focus on Germany and not Japan. He understood that a president could not allow himself to craft strategy out of emotion. This is a natural procession following the rage against corporate abuses that led to the greatest recession since the depression.

Not a prediction, but suggestion to decrease the support for Israel and balance more towards the Arab states. Although politically difficult to do domestically, Israel has become too powerful to keep playing the Arab states against them. Freidman contends that the root of our support for Israel was after they lost French support, in order to provide a counterbalance to Syria on the side of Egypt.

Our alliance was one of convenience, not ideology and so could just as easily shift the other way. Not to say we abandon Israel altogether, just that we balance more support towards the other side especially since Israel is now a power in their own right and does not need to rely on US aid. Also a suggestion and not a prediction - making a formal alliance with Iran! Now that the Iran-Iraq balance has been destroyed, the US has to rethink how to accommodate the new shift of power in the region.

It is the option chosen by Roosevelt and Nixon when they faced seemingly impossible strategic situations: the creation of alliances with countries that had previously been regarded as strategic and moral threats. Roosevelt aligned the United States with Stalinist Russia, and Nixon aligned with Maoist China, each to block a third pier that was seen as more dangerous. This locks the United States in place, trying to entice the Russians when in fact the only thing the Russians want the Americans to do is to remain permanently bogged down in the war.

This Russian strategy reveals the price of the American over commitment to the war on terror. It also shows that it is imperative for the United States to find an effective response to radical Islam, as well as an effective response to the Russians.

As Friedman contends in "the next years", the rise of Poland is key and will see its rise in this decade. Strategically located right between Germany and Russia, and with a recent memory of brutal occupation by both, they will be apt to American aid to counterbalance these forces. Will require quite some skill from the president to pull this off strategically without alarming the Russians. Turkey is an easy ally that should be no issue to continue supporting.

Story in the east will be that of china vs Japan competing for the world's 2 spot in the economy. As in "the next years" I have a hard time seeing a world in which USA and Japan are not close allies, but the beginnings of it may be coming in this decade. US policy should be based on ensuring the china-Japan rivalry continues and remains balanced. The key 3rd party geopolitical allies that we should maintain with are Korea, Singapore, as Australia in preparation for the Chinese-Japanese conflict to escalate.

A-ha for me was Freidman's analysis of Japanese economy based upon their lack of a social safety net in the post war boom: this caused a reliance upon personal savings for retirement and thus not the high level of consumer spending that fueled the American boom. Japanese companies had kind of a social contract with the public to keep employment at the expense of margins, causing what we in the west refer to as "the lost decade" although they themselves were just fine due to high employment levels and social equality lost was just for American investors.

Following the theme of great presidents as those who can purposely deceive the public to accomplish longer term strategic objectives while making them believe that their short term shallow desires are being met, FDR blatantly lied about social security being both short term and a social safety net. The main outcome was to encourage public spending vs hoarding and thus avoid the stagflation that hit the Japanese economy seeing the growth model of European economies.

I imagine that he intended this to be a yr venture, but greed of infinite and unending growth led continued spending vs saving to the point of overbalance.

This probably would have been a positive consequence of W's push to privatize social security, perhaps intended and perhaps not he was one of the more transparent world leaders we have seen : likely would have caused a crash in social security coffers and thus spur savings anyways If you see a Google Drive link instead of source url, means that the file witch you will get after approval is just a summary of original book or the file has been already removed.

Be able to organize themselves better than 30 years later than to follow after about 8 years. The Great Depression and its constant unhappiness have made the worthless dual vision even worse.

Teenagers are more educated than ever, but a small percentage are looking for work after college. Many of them have gone beyond elementary level jobs, which makes it very difficult for bisexuals to gain a foothold.

You can read the review and download The Defining Decade pdf at the end. The definition of a decade emphasizes the most rewarding and important time of our lives: our twentieth year. The definition of a decade should be read in two ways for every twentysomething to improve their lives. Here are my notes from the book. Eighty percent of the dedicated moments of life are at the age of fifteen.

Two-thirds of living wages occur in the first ten years of a career. More than half of us are married in our thirties, or have become friends, or are living with our future partner. Distinguished geopolitical forecaster George Friedman analyzes these events from the perspectives of the men and women leading these global changes, focusing in particular on the American president, who will require extraordinary skills to shepherd the United States through this transitional period.

The Next Decade is a provocative and fascinating look at the conflicts and opportunities that lie ahead. Whereas Friedman's last book, The Next Years, focused on "the impersonal forces that shape history in the long run," now the geopolitical intelligence expert examines the impact of current decision making, especially of the United States government, on the world. Friedman suggests that problems currently affecting us significantly may not actually matter in the long run.

He compares the position of the United States today to that of Britain in , and argues that the U. Throughout, Friedman argues for an end to the reluctance, as he sees it, to entangle the country in global affairs. When it comes to Bush and Obama he doesn't play favorites, criticizing their policies and comparing them with presidents who possessed more Machiavellian attributes, in his view. While his ideas are well-researched and compelling, Friedman makes the occasional leap that casual readers might find confusing.

It's crazy how his predictions are already coming to pass, such as Russia becoming more assertive, China's economy showing weakness, and the US needing to distance itself from Israel.