in the Communist East. The loss of allnsacred vision and our consequent myopicnpreoccupation with man and hisnpresumed abilities led first to Utopianism,nwhich is still honored, at leastnformally, in the Communist world, butnwhich in the West has given way to annincreasing moral fatigue, based on annawareness of man’s limitations, a sensenof man’s inability to meet his needs onnhis own.nMolnar speaks of a battle betweenntwo schools of historical and culturalnanalysis: the optimists, who look on thenbreak with the past as a good thing, andnthink that man can build a hopefulnfuture without sacred sanctions bynmeans of his own science and rationality,nand the pessimists, who see thenrupture with the past as fatal andnirremediable, and think that man facesna “robotized future” such as that envisagednby George Orwell and AldousnHuxley. Two classes of people stand onnthe sidelines: the “happy hedonists,”nwho are content to satisfy their materialnand sensual needs, and the strongnbelievers, who look to the final triumphnof faith. Although Molnar is definitelyna believer, he is not prepared to join thenspectators, but wants to do something.nGRAND ILLUSIONSn”America doesn’t have a foreign policy,”none of our editors is fond of saying. Ailnwe have is a variety of tactics employednby competing agencies, branches of government,nand political parties. Like thenRomans, we have done all right bynmuddling through — a good deal betternthan regimes that had a grand strategy.nLouis XIV, Napoleon, and Hitler allndevised master plans that brought theirnmasters to grief.nDavid M. Abshire thinks it is time wendeveloped “A Realistic Grand Strategy,”nwhich just happens to be the subtitle ofnhis new book. Preventing World War HIn(New York: Harper & Row; 331 pp.,n$19.95). Abshire has all the necessarynqualifications for a strategist, includingnservice as our NATO ambassador, assistantnsecretary of state, and presidentnof the Center for Strategic and InternationalnStudies.nMost of Abshire’s recommendationsnare eminently sensible and have receivednpraise from Sam Nunn, Henrynor at least to say something. He maynhave presented us with such a bleakndiagnosis that no therapy will be attempted.nMolnar asserts that humanity cannotncreate its own sacred order. A mythnis unpersuasive if we know that wenhave made it up ourselves. Yet it isnimpossible for a community to existnwithout such an order. He is notncategorical in asserting that a rationalncommunity is totally impossible withoutna sacred component, but says thatnwe are now attempting it for the firstntime in history. Therefore we do notnyet know whether success will be possible.nThere seems to be a certain ambivalencenin his position, as he first saysnthat it simply is not possible, and thennsuggests that it really hasn’t been propertyntried, no doubt because man reallynis incapable of attempting to live rationallynwithout the sacred in a consistentnway or over a long period. Thenultimate result of the attempt to have anrational society without the sacred willnbe the Hobbesian helium omnium contranomnes. Man cannot live withoutnthe sacred, and having lost it, he cannotncreate it for himself What thennmay one hope? The soul, a “rectifiernREVISIONSnKissinger, and Bill Brock. In thisnscheme, Washington would get its actntogether, concert our efforts withnNATO, cease to rely single-mindedlynon a nuclear deterrence strategy thatndoes our European allies little good,nand make sure that, whatever our grandnstrategy, it will enjoy broad public understandingnand support.nAll types of from-the-top-down globalnanalysis run the risk of excessiventidiness that sacrifices political reality tonthe rules of some hypothetical game.nStrategists and negotiators who spendntoo much time with NATO or the UNnmay begin to forget that they representntheir nation’s interest, not the cause ofnglobal harmony. They also fall prey tonthe delusion that rich and famous statesmennare necessarily in possession ofnpolitical wisdom denied to the lessernmortals who only pay the bills.nAbshire is not entirely immune to thendisease. When it comes to economicnmatters, the actual interests of thenAmerican people take a back seat to hisnconcern for the global economy, globalnnnof matter,” “may at any time requestndivine assistance.” This, Molnar says,nis not a program for civilization butnsomething better than a program,nnamely, “hope.” His concluding sentimentnreminds one of the last lines ofnthe Apocalypse: “Come, Lord Jesus”n(Revelation 22:20).nTwin Powers is difficult to read andnprobably should be read after ThenPagan Temptation. And it left me withna sense of frustration, because ;/ Molnarnis fundamentally right—and hisnerudition and arguments arenimpressive — then it does not help usnmuch to know what he wants to teachnus. We will understand some importantnthings, but we will not be able tonsay, “Tout comprendre, c’est toutnpardonner.” We will rather be in ansituation where, “Tout comprendre,nc’est tout souffrir”: “To understand itnall is to endure it all.”nHarold O.J. Brown is professor ofnbiblical and systematic theology andnthe Franklin Forman Chair ofnChristian ethics and theology atnTrinity Evangelical Divinity School.ninterdependence, and the tender feelingsnof our Japanese “allies.” He evenngoes so far as to remind us to considernthe 240,000 American jobs owned bynJapanese industry as a rough equivalentnto $9.3 billion of exports. What a reliefnThe Japanese are not only swampingnAmerican markets with their electronicngewgaws ripped off from US patents,nthey are so heavily invested in stocks,nreal estate, and manufacturing that wenshould feel grateful to them.nSet aside the dubious friendship ofnthe Japanese, who will never forgive usnfor showing up their master-race pretensions.nCanadian and British ownershipnof the US should also make usndistinctly uncomfortable, unless ofncourse the nation state is a shopwornnand antiquated item in the global marketplace.nUnevenly written and cryingnout for the blue pencil, PreventingnWorld War III is, nonetheless, a valuablencontribution to a vital nationalndebate. (TF)nAPRIL 1989/45n