I was willing, and tried to absorb it, but it was just too dry. Seemed to have more generalizations than specifics. No timely advice here. ( )

The title is a rhetorical joke, of course. Of course the US needs a foreign policy.

This is an overview of the inter-state anarchy of international foreign policy, as viewed by the most calculating of grizzled realists. He cites the need for a more cohesive grand strategy, a few short months before 9/11. I read this book largely as a comparative exercise, to see how these early predictions have held up over the past 12 years.

The book begins with a cursory introduction of America's switch between idealist internationalism and realism since Roosevelt and Wilson, and then moves on to discuss the role of the United States in foreign policy with regard to these areas.

-America and Europe
First meditations upon the future of NATO without a common political enemy. Although there were tensions over the Iraq War, these have largely subsided as the US and NATO have collaborated over limited intervention measures during the Obama administration (Libya, Mali).

Kissinger also lays out a few sketches for the future of European economic cooperation, in attempts to smooth over the vast differences between European economies. These have not been dealt with properly, thus the EU debt crisis. Notes that Germany remains a strong economic power, and the newly chosen Putin is a strong Nationalist.

-The Western Hemisphere

Correctly pins Chavez as a nationalist petro-state dictator whose populist facade is fueled by oil prices. Leans towards appearing to be a leftist because that's what wins elections. Notes disappearance of state authority in Colombia. Stronger relations with both Brazil and Argentina.

[No references to Chile, I see.]

-Asia: The World of Equilibrium

North Korea requires an international united front, especially from the Chinese and the Russians. Steady commitment to trade, prevent them from feeling too scared or threatened. (Bush II messed that one up.)

Maintain status quo with cross-strait relations. Only use military intervention in case of Chinese escalation. (ROC/PRC)

Form stronger relations w/ India, as shared mutual interests.

-The Middle East and Africa: Worlds in Transition

Best detail in the Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, likely from personal intervention and consultation.

Main focus on Iraq, but does not advocate full intervention unless with international mandate. This is also before tensions with Iran worsened and the government remained relatively moderate.

-The Politics of Globalization

Some brief sketches of free trade, international corporations, migration, and humanitarian issues.

-Peace and Justice

Against the 'solipsistic' view of foreign intervention. In Vietnam, the US charged in, against the will of its allies and the UN, antagonizing the region, with no concrete goals nor an exit strategy. Of course, this sounds only too familiar, and Kissinger would live to see his advice entirely ignored by another administration.

Instead of the extreme personal detail of his own memoirs, nor the intense historical analysis of Diplomacy, this is a lesser book of his, offering only the broadest principles and guidelines. ( )

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger carefully gives a tour of the state of American foreign policy at the outset of the 21st Century. In "Does America Need a Foreign Policy?" Kissinger assesses the needs and desired outcomes from region to region, at least as things stood when he wrote the book around the year 2000.

Kissinger's analysis is intriguing, and one gains much insight into the challenge of foreign relations from his descriptions. Not all -- indeed, perhaps not even many -- will agree with Kissinger's underlying Realist assumptions of international politics, either because they dislike the militancy of the outlook or because they recognize that it does not offer much guidance in dealing with non-state actors, like Al Qaida and the Taliban.

Still, it is profitable to see Kissinger lay out the fruits of his perspective, nation to nation, region to region, issue to issue. While later chapters that attempt to dialogue -- or at least refute -- other more pluralistic worldviews over issues of transnational economics and justice issues, the heart of the study is the first half of the book. An afterward about 9/11 is a necessary addition, but rather an unsatisfying one given that it was written so close to the tragic event. Kissinger's later comments have been much more developed, given more time for reflection and assessment.

This book is dated, but it is still enlightening, particularly when placed in its context. It is difficult to imagine another person even attempting Kissinger's brief tour of global foreign policy , preferring to focus on hot spots (there are lots of books on the Middle East and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including some fine ones). So there is much to recommend this book, even several years after its release. ( )