The War over Iraq

Rating:
Summary: The View From The Past
Review: I wonder if the authors of this book have since gone back and read it to see how close they came to predicting the reasons for and the outcome of the Iraqi war, or at least its progress up to today? I admit that one of the reasons I picked up this book was to get a clear view of the pro war crowd thinking and to judge their views with the advantage of hindsight . I also wanted to read this book because the two authors are both know to excellent writers and not too shabby on the intellectual front. Yes they are both poster children for very far right conservative thinking, but how else are you to truly understand an issue unless to read all sides of the debate? Lastly I had heard that if you wanted to get a solid brief explanation of the way the Bush Team thought about the Iraqi war then this was the book to read.

Given that the authors are rather conservation, it was humorous to me, if not totally expected, that they were able to work in so many digs at all the favorite whipping boys of the right wing in relation to foreign affairs. Judging by the rhetoric of the book, France will be the next country invaded followed by the UN, the offices of the Democratic party and ending at the office of Bill Clinton. I wondered if the attacks on this diverse group were truly heart felt or were they just the standard playbook that the authors fell back on out of habit. What struck me was that about 50% of the authors argument for taking action in Iraq was that it was vital to the U.S. national interests and that the U.S. should do everything it can along these lines, but that the authors felt that France, using the same justification, was somehow beyond the pale and close to a tyrannical world bully. It was also surprising to me that they complimented the Truman and Wilson administrations so often and tried to tie in what the Bush 2 administration wanted to do in Iraq with what these two leaders did during the World Wars. I could not tell if they truly felt this way or if they were trying to add some legitimacy to the Bush argument.

The last section of the book spent a good amount of time beating up on many ex officials of the Bush 1 administration that came out against the war. The area that, what in hindsight is very ironic, the authors gave these ex officials the most grief on was their predictions of the aftermath of the war. It turns out that, at the current time, exactly the difficulties that were predicted have come to pass and the rosy predictions of a smooth transition from Saddam to democracy 101 is not taking place. Overall the book was well written and the views for the pro war constituents are laid out in a logical order. It turns out that the facts, as they have come out, make about 75% of this book incorrect although I do not think that makes this book any less valuable because it truly is the overview of the war sales campaign. If I had one complaint of the book was that it was maybe just a little too high level, Kenneth Pollacks book The Threatening Storm provides far more detail and is a little less rabid in its overt partisan view of the world. Given the book is short and can be had rather inexpensively, it is a nice addition to your Bush 2 collection.

Rating:
Summary: The way monsters are born
Review: I would venture to guess that some others who reviewed this book did not read it, but assumed because of its authors it was propaganda. I found it a historical account of how we came to the clear and present danger of WMD in the hands of dictators and madmen who consider the American people their enemy.
While it did not explain why they hate Americans it does chronicle years and years of foreign policies that failed in their obligations to protect America.
While I did not find it a easy read I would say everyone should read it to understand how we got to this point in time and why we should not and will not take no for an answer this time around!

Rating:
Summary: I won't waste your time
Review: I've noticed many Amazon reviewers begin (or end) their reviews explaining why they are uniquely qualified to evaluate an author's work. So I must also say... NO! I'm no expert! I simply bought this book because I sought a reference that was objective and would answer my questions, specifically: is this war truly necessary? My comments to you are: judge for yourself.

The authors did an excellent job 'promoting' action against Iraq because they explained these heinous weapons, Saddam's genocidal attacks, and the splintered UN which he no doubt laughs about. And yes, Kristol and Kaplan talk about Clinton, Bush I and Bush II styles and THAT my friends makes it a more compelling read.

Let's face it: a war in Iraq will probably rid us of Saddam Hussein for good. Kristol and Kaplan do - IMHO - a thorough job telling us why that's a "good thing," and what we can expect afterwards.

Rating:
Summary: Kaplan is no Nostradamus
Review: If you enjoy cocky prophecies gone wrong, read this book. I particularly liked the fragment on page 98, where Kaplan speaks of an international participation in the occupation of Iraq as a sure thing, and estimates the cost of the said occupation at $18 billion per annum. This propagandistic pamphlet is chock full of such wishful and completely wrong thinking. Not worth the (nice) paper it has been printed on...

Rating:
Summary: A blueprint for future foreign policy
Review: In "The War Over Iraq", Kristol & Kaplan present an excellent case for the use of pre-emptive force not only against Iraq but also against other nations that threaten American ideals and interests, both at home and overseas. They highlight the grievous actions of Hussein's regime and then proceed to detail the shortcomings of both George H.W. Bush's ("narrow realism") and Bill Clinton's ("wishful liberalism") foreign policy paradigms in dealing with Iraq.

The crux of the book is their compelling argument, using the (George W.) Bush Doctrine ("American internationalism"), that the United States should pre-emptively strike Iraq. They fully explain the tenets of the Bush Doctrine, which is a viable model for dealing with threats in the post-9/11 world.

Though the war with Iraq is already underway, do not be dissuaded from reading this work simply for that reason. The Iraqi situation is a real-world case study that helps explain the Bush Doctrine. This new paradigm is being tested right now and will be the method of engagement for US foreign policy for the forseeable future.

Rating:
Summary: Finally, some reasoned analysis.
Review: In this era of renewed dissent, protest, ambiguous phrases, and vague analogies as to America's--and the international community's--call to disarm Iraq, Kaplan and Kristol have offered up reasoned analysis to a hot-button issue. Though it's nearly incomprehensible that there could be any doubt as to the need to depose Saddam, this book lays out not only the short-term implications, but also those for the future of American foreign policy. It should be required reading for all those who oppose the idea of war with Iraq, but offer little in viable alternatives.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting if flawed
Review: Kaplan and Kristol add an interesting perspective to the debate over the war in Iraq. Their argument is that this war is definitely not about oil, and not just or even mainly about weapons of mass destruction. It is about liberating Iraq and making the world both more democratic and a safer place for democracy. It's a breezy, argumentative book, not really so much an attempt to convince opponents of the war as an attempt to stake a theoretical claim that something they call a distinctly American internationalism is what informs the Bush Administration's action against Iraq. Naturally, Clinton's Administration is targetted for particular contempt, but interestingly enough Bush I and even Reagan are also criticised as narrow realists.

What's missing from this analysis is any sense of history and of how the US is perceived outside its borders--and even outside the Beltway. Not everyone is going to be able to accept the notion that the US should simply be trusted to do the right thing. The book's authors clearly have either no idea or--scarier still--no interest in how a book like this will be read by people who have either watched or experienced first-hand a less-than-idealistic USA in action.

At the precise time of writing (Baghdad seems to have fallen today) and for the next few months, the Kristol/Kaplan theory will be riding high. But whatever this book claims, what they charitably consider to be activist idealism is not going to turn into doctrine. It won't because the US is always going to feel the need for the moral flexibility that realism offers. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a catchy slogan, but will it be followed by, say, "Operation Uzbeki Freedom", aimed at liberating Uzbeks from a brutal and corrupt dictatorship in Tashkent that happens to be allied with Washington against radical Islam? Of course not. Nor is it going to be followed by "Operation Pakistani Freedom" or "Operation Zimbabwean Freedom".

My own conclusion is that Kaplan and Kristol either do not really believe what they are arguing, or they are dangerously naive utopians, not unlike the dogmatists who steered the Kremlin into wild Third World adventures in the 1960s and 1970s. I suspect it's the former, and this book is mainly about raising the authors' own profiles for the next few months. Otherwise, someone as ideologically pure as Kristol claims to be would have resigned several times over in protest during the Reagan Administration (e.g. over Iran-Contra) and refused to serve under a realist such as George H W Bush.

It's fascinating to watch just how far Kristol and Kaplan will go to make the evidence fit their theory. They ask us to believe, for example, that attacking Iraq today is akin to Kennedy's decision to quarantine Cuba. The fact that Kennedy was faced with a nuclear threat that could have unfolded in a matter of weeks, not years or decades as in the case of Iraq, seems lost on Kaplan and Kristol, who instead conclude that war on Iraq is further justified because Kennedy did consider a military option for a while. Amazing stuff.

This book will naturally appeal to ignorant ideologues who seek confirmation of their reflexive militaristic instincts, but it is actually quite worthwhile for others to read too. Just keep asking yourself questions while you read it.

Rating:
Summary: Compelling on one hand...hypocritical on the other
Review: Kaplan and Kristol are "neo-conservatives." This group within the Republican party can be identified by their dislike of international organizations like the UN, dislike of the US State department, their professed love of democracy, and their willingness to use U.S. military power to achieve their international goals.

This book was written before the war with Iraq started. Staking out a claim like this before anything had happened was a bold move. As a result, the book made much more sense two years ago than it does today for a variety of reasons. The most prominent reasons why this book is somewhat outdated is the authors argument about WMDs and ties to Al-qaeda. We now know that these arguments were unfounded. What does that leave us with?

Democracy in Iraq. Yes, it's a noble goal, but when we put things in proper perspective, we can see how reckless neocon thinking really is. First of all when we look at what happened in Haiti during the last few years, we can see just how serious these people are about democracy. The president of Haiti was put on a plane to Africa and the country was handed back over to the same death squads that were terrorizing the country a decade ago, all with the help of the Bush administration. Where were the neocons then? Where the hell was Bush? For all of their talk about freedom...etc...democracy...it's all rhetoric. The worst part is that people like Bush will take advantage of the fact that most people don't know any better for their own political gain.

I give the book two stars because the authors do somewhat of a good job at describing Saddam's tyranny, but when they turn a blind eye to the fact that the U.S. supported Saddam during his worst crimes shows how useless these people really are.

Rating:
Summary: Propaganda
Review: Like other conservative con jobs like Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve," this book loads it thesis up first and then either cherry picks data to fit or just makes it up.

In this instance, these guys wanted war with Iraq for a long time. (Never mind that either ever served in the military, they are more like keyboard commandos than fighting men.)

So they cherry picked the evidence or just made it up.

The key for was- just as Bush recited in his State of the Union 2003 - was that Iraq had WMD when in fact they were destroyed years ago.
The admin and these guys knew this but they had to present to the US public that Iraq posed a clear threat to American.

This book should be read in conjunction with Pollack's article in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of The Atlantic Magazine where he said:

"When the United States confronts future challenges, the exaggerated estimates of Iraq's WMD will loom like an ugly shadow over the diplomatic discussions. Fairly or not, no foreigner trusts U.S. intelligence to get it right anymore, or trusts the Bush Administration to tell the truth." -Kenneth M. Pollack, in "Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong,"

In light of the above, it appears that either the Bush administration lied or was willfully ignorant about the 'threat of Iraq.'

Whatever the reason, it does not appear as if the Bush administration was being honest to the public.

Kristol and Kaplan's book will be of interest to future scholars about how the Iraq war was sold to the American public. Not a pretty picture since the American taxpayers will be paying for the war in decades to come.

Rating:
Summary: Propaganda
Review: Like other conservative con jobs like Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve," this book loads it thesis up first and then either cherry picks data to fit or just makes it up.

In this instance, these guys wanted war with Iraq for a long time. (Never mind that either ever served in the military, they are more like keyboard commandos than fighting men.)

So they cherry picked the evidence or just made it up.

The key for was- just as Bush recited in his State of the Union 2003 - was that Iraq had WMD when in fact they were destroyed years ago.
The admin and these guys knew this but they had to present to the US public that Iraq posed a clear threat to American.

This book should be read in conjunction with Pollack's article in the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of The Atlantic Magazine where he said:

"When the United States confronts future challenges, the exaggerated estimates of Iraq's WMD will loom like an ugly shadow over the diplomatic discussions. Fairly or not, no foreigner trusts U.S. intelligence to get it right anymore, or trusts the Bush Administration to tell the truth." -Kenneth M. Pollack, in "Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong,"

In light of the above, it appears that either the Bush administration lied or was willfully ignorant about the 'threat of Iraq.'

Whatever the reason, it does not appear as if the Bush administration was being honest to the public.

Kristol and Kaplan's book will be of interest to future scholars about how the Iraq war was sold to the American public. Not a pretty picture since the American taxpayers will be paying for the war in decades to come.