Next 100 Years, The [Hardcover]

It's not unsurprising that this book was a bestseller in the United States. This book postulates the shape of the 21st century and just what might happen. In 13 chapters, the author presents his opinion that this is the age of America. The war on terrorism: a counterfuge to stop the emergence of an Islamic superpower. The growth of China: a myth that will all fall apart very soon due to the inherent divisions and instability of the country. A United States of Europe: another myth- instead Poland will become a strong regional power whilst Germany fragments. Turkey: a potential powerhouse that will try to and fail to take over Europe and be severely punished as a result.

The thoughts of Friedman are probably wrong. Certainly they present a rosy view of the future for Americans- and who doesn't want to believe it. Yet for all its shortcomings, this book is no modern Nostradamus. Instead the text is easy to read and very entertaining and even if his predictions are far from accurate they at least will give the reader food for thought.

One of the things which attracts me to this author is he explains why things happen as they do, in objective terms. His work "America's Secret War" is so far the only explanation I've found of why America was attacked on 9/11, why they subsequently went to war in Afghanistan and why they later went to war in Iraq. There are many works, some good and some little better than angry rants, pointing out the obvious ethical and tactical flaws in US actions, but very few actually say why it happened and what the objectives were. This is Friedman's greatest strength and why I find his books, including this one, entertaining.

In this work he challenges your held perceptions that many of the things he predicts are too far fetched to be plausible by reminding us that the disintegration of the USSR was "too far fetched" a view in 1979, but 15 years later it was over and accepted as reality.

Whether some of his seemingly outlandish predictions will happen is matter for time but that's not necessarily the aim of the book. It is very well written work on why countries act the way they do on the world stage, bound as they are by geopolitical reality, which in turn is shaped by fundamentals such as geography, culture, mineral wealth and the like and thus what we can deduce a country might do, constrained as it is. He backs his statements with reasons and logic, and while some may regard the work as US-centric, he is not shy of some harsh statements of his fellow citizens and government.

The first part of the book establishes the actions of the world's most important players (past and present) and this was the best of the book for me. It gives a great understanding of the foundations of US (and other great world powers) foreign policy and thus, why these government act as they do. He then explains why other nations bind together to try to contain the US and thus, we have the great game.

The latter part of the book is an attempt to predict the future, based on the actions of how the US (which incidentally he describes as a barbarous country) will attempt to maintain it's position as the global power, and how other countries will either bend with this or resist, for their own rational reasons. This part will appear far fetched to many (including me I must say) but if you ignore the details a little and forget the science fiction and remember he is trying to give you the tone of the next 100 years, it's worth reading.

Taken together you have an good opinion on the tone that the next 100 years will take, in a broad sense and a good work on the framework by which geopolitics works. Very enjoyable.

Friedman totally misses the point by contradicting his own opening statements about "identifying long-term underlying trends". He bases the whole book on misguided assumptions and geo-politics. Alvin Toffler pointed out 20 years ago that geo-politics is on the way out...
The real "long-term underlying trends" are not about "dominating sea-trade"! And they are not about waging wars. Friedman thinks that "unconventional wars" are about shooting it out in spaceships. That is "Flash Gordon thinking", not forecasting...
Unconventional wars are actually about guerilla warfare, terrorism, inciting civil unrest, hacking computers. Looking into the next 100 years, the real questions are about how will countries try to exert influence over one another? How will economic disputes be resolved? Will missile threats be replaced by cyber-threats? Or by an attack on a country's currency? What about biological threats, like spreading H1N1 virus?
Friedman assumes that history will repeat itself in the same way. Big mistake. History sometimes repeats itself (not as often as people are led to think), but always in a different shape or form. Japan will not go to war against the US. Poland will not spark another war in Europe. Turkey will not try to re-enact the Otoman Empire. These are all ridiculous forecasts based on 19th Century assumptions.
A forecast of the next 100 years should challenge us to think about what kind of political issues will be relevant. For instance:
1. Will we move from a "bi-polar" world (20th Century US capitalism versus Russian communism) towards a truly multi-lateral world in which five blocks will have almost equal economic power, without clear dominance of one over the others? (US, Europe, China, India, South America?).
2. How will the US adapt to a world in which its share of world GDP will be 15% or less, the equivalent of other blocks?
3. How will education change, from the present mass-production format which was modeled on 19th century production plants, to formats based on universal access through the internet? How will that impact the way we think and act?
4. How will the decrease in religious participation influence ideologies and politics?
5. What about the increase in immigration and race-mixing? How will a mixed-race US and a mixed-race Europe interact with each other and with China?
6. If water will be "the new oil", how will that affect the role of water-rich countries like Canada, Russia and Brazil? Will water-deprived countries (like the Arab states in the Middle East) move from being overly wealthy to becoming totally poor?
7. Nation-states were created in the late 19th century and are decreasing in importance (see the fragmentation of the USSR and the consolidation of Europe into one economic entity). Will the US disappear into North America, while the UK, France & Germany disappear into Europe?
8. Will we have a single world currency, replacing the out-dated US dollar, British pound, and Euro?

It turns out that Friedman does not address any of these issues, but limits his "vision" to looking to the rear-view mirror. It is important to understand history in order to look towards the future, but Friedman does not understand history: he merely recites and repeats it, rather than interpreting and re-creating it.

The book is a fine example of how NOT to do a forecasting exercise: it is both narrow-minded and short-sighted. A big disappointment.