Rating: 
Summary: Actually Read The Book
Review: Misters Kristol and Kaplan deliver a thorough, well researched, case against Saddam. Not just a one-sided political diatribe, they carefully examine the historical record and what lead us to the situation we are dealing with today. They cast a critical eye to errors made during the Bush 1 administration. Not cut from some whole-cloth they back up what they say with end notes and research.
Rating: 
Summary: A Somewhat Revisionist History
Review: On a positive note, Authors Kristol and Kaplan do an admirable job of addressing the Iraq problem in the larger context of retracing the evolution of American foreign policy since the end of World War II. The authors discuss, albeit cursorily, the tension that existed throughout ten presidential administrations between the appropriate projection of American military power and the appropriate definition of an American "interest." The Realpolitik School, represented by the Carter, Nixon and first Bush Administrations' foreign policy conceptions, advocated that American power should only be used only when American interests are directly compromised; the Internationalist School, represented by the Kennedy, Truman and Reagan Administrations' foreign policies, defined "American interests" more broadly which resulted in American military intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama to name a few. The 'Iraq Problem' since Saddam Hussein's ascent to power, as the book explains, has been treated differently by each administration depending upon its respective World view. Interestingly, the book delicately side-steps the Reagan Administration's complicity in Iraq's development of WMD during its 1980-88 war with Iran, although the authors do recognize the Reagan Administration attitude toward Iraq/Hussein as an enabling element in the 'Iraq Problem' that began with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The authors do a nice job of chronicalling Saddam's crimes beginning in 1979. The authors remind us of Saddam's brutality, his genocide of the Kurds, and the panoply of reasons why Saddam is a horrible human being. The authors also remind us of the role played by several American administrations to enable Saddam, including that certain elements of the Bush I administration had advocated constructive engagement up the eve of the first Gulf War. This work's biggest failing is in its attempt to convince us that the present Bush Administration's policy towards Iraq culminating in the war that is currently winding to its conclusion as I write this was anything other than sheer opportunism produced by 9/11. The authors would have us believe that the Bush administration's post-9/11 foreign policy - a hybrid of classic Wilsonian internationalism with a moral focus, to paraphrase the authors - is the process of learned evolution rather than simply that certain neoconservative elements of the administration - Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld - seized upon an impotent opposition to advance their foreign policy agenda. While the authors recognize that the present administration's pre-9/11 foreign policy - to the extent one existed - was based upon the realpolitik view of American foreign policy (rather than neo-isolationism if anyone recalls Bush's criticisms of the Clinton foreign policy during the presidential debates), the authors' argument about its post-9/11 evolution is less-than convincing. The authors do nothing to prove that Iraq actually had WMD or that it actively abetted Al Qaeda which were the principle justifications for the war in the first place. Rather, the authors simply accept these as "facts" and proceed to justify the war based upon these accepted facts. With the military phase of the Iraq War drawing to a successful conclusion and the post-War administrative phase just beginning, we will witness the practical effect of the present Bush Administration's "noble" application of American military power. We forget that then-candidate Bush criticized the Clinton Administration for "national building" in former Yugoslavia and in Somalia. Now we face the task of effective administration of and 'national building' in post-Saddam Iraq. History will be the judge.
Rating: 
Summary: Saddam and Michael Moore Should Marry in Massachusetts
Review: SADDAM HUSSEIN HUNG A PHOTO OF THE BURNING TWIN TOWERS IN THE LOBBY OF IRAQ'S REVOLUTIONARY COMMAND COUNCIL HEADQUARTERS. HIS NEWSPAPERS HAILED THE ATTACKS OF 911.
Here is what the anti-war crowd wants you to think now, spitballs from the peanut gallery that they are:
Regime change was a strategic blunder, Bush rushed to war, we've created more terrorists; the war is a quagmire; the USA is not any safer (oh, and Bush is the one exploiting our fears);
We need more troops (or maybe we need a complete pullout; get more foreign countries involved (oh, and the coalition only came together by coercion and bribery);
Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein; there were no weapons of mass destruction; the invasion was a diversion based on Western imperialism, neo-conservative chickenhawk delusion, and brainwashing by the Likud party in Israel.
Now for grown-up truths that that Kristol and Kaplan saw correctly:
The scum killing American soldiers NOW were trained by radical Islamic terrorists BEFORE 911. No pre-war intelligence agency from pro-Saddam countries (old Europe: France, Germany, Russia) disagreed with USA's pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Brilliantly, Bush is getting rid of the main problem in the Middle East: containment of both Iraq and Iran. In the Michael Moore/John Kerry worldview, the USA would now be trying to contain both Iraq and now Iran (six months away from being able to deliver a nuclear bomb). Libya (had the bomb and worked with Iraq) and Pakistan (had the bomb) are now boxed in.
As far as the USA's interests and foreign polucy mission is concerned, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were absolutely together in THEIR mission to destroy the USA.
Rating:
Summary: Unlike "reader from NY" I actually read the book
Review: Some folks just refuse to let real facts get in the way of their good story...how pedestrian that those who disagree with conservatives would call this book racist...apparently they lack original thought. Misters Kristol & Kaplan lay out a complete, fact laden picture of the Real Saddam. This isn't just current events, they cover Saddam and his interactions with the U.S. from his rise to power. The authors are rightly critical of Bush 1's errors in the first Gulf War and lay out a strong case of the clear and present danger this butcher-ous tyrant presents to people here in the U.S., the middle east, and his own country.
Rating:
Summary: Choosing A Just War Today Over A Destructive War Tomorrow!
Review: The book is a first-rate review of where America has been, is now and will be going to fulfill Professor Strauzz-Hupe game plan. Professor Strauzz-Hupe saw an interdependent world founded on Principles of Free Institutions so individual pursuits can prosper within a community framework as we raise each nation for their own people to prosper with good government created of, by and for them. The authors correctly points out that two oceans no longer protect America. If weapons of mass destruction are given to terrorists from tyrants of regimes such as Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Libya, and Iran seeking to build them today, then escalation of death will only increase and progress cease. The book correctly points out that these regimes of dictators, radical religious cults and narco-drug dealers that use fear or chaos to control their masses can no longer be ignored. If they are aloud to rule and create Weapons of Mass Destruction they will cause havoc on each one of our own pursuits towards happiness under wide opened democracies dependent on the goodwill of educated people to thrive. The author points out, we can no longer stand by and let tyrants be tormenters to weave webs of turmoil so they can plunge the world into backward anarchy to flourish with delight. The time has come to change them before they ruin the world for all of us! The book outlines how each American President has error by not reacting to terrorism only emboldening the terrorists to foster more violence. It includes criticism Of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. I might add it also praises all of them except for President Carter (Appropriate As Well), for taking action after making such mistakes including crediting President Clinton. Presidents prefer not to wrestle with preparing a strategy that shifts according to the terrorist's actions and reactions. Thus, the need to change the terrorists and transform the states that sponsor them is the first priority to a brave new world to prosper. Certain Islamic Whabbism believers have been planning revenge dating back to the 7th century since they are too lazy to work, think and provide in the 21st century. European politicians are thinking back to the 20th century since they are incapable of understanding the means necessary of using weapons and strategy being able to decide the safety for the 21st century. As Americans with a growing number of European and Asian visionaries we see the need to act in order to save the world from tyrants sponsoring terror into the 21st century. The alternatives are to do nothing and watch our nation and economic interests retrograde to 7th century thought! Or see our cities ruined with biological, chemical or dirty nuclear bombs by those who hate us no matter what we do. The Western Societies will then react and demand revenge to where our very own leaders will have to be militant aggressors to where the escalation of death will spiral out of control. Thus, the author is saying the need for the "Doctrine of Preemption," is necessary today to stop and change those seeking destruction tomorrow. Some left wing critics will say this book is about replacing the threat of Communism with Terrorism to preserve the Military-Industrial Complex but as usual they are too late and quite wrong. These critics prefer undermining free institutions for socialistic ones and pointing finger is their only feat never lifting them to progress culture. The fact remains our Military-Industrial Complex has been transformed to one of Military-Technological innovations where creating casualties can be avoided as we go after terrorists who are responsible for killing innocent life. On 911 America lost 3,000 innocent people, but wars in Afghanistan and Iraq averted that number of innocent civilians in contrasts. We are now capable of catching and if need be killing the bad guys far easier and saving the innocent during such pursuits towards justice. There is no question that this task needs to be proficient to save a world against errant men bent on destruction not construction. The book outlines such a blueprint for why we need a better world and how to achieve it! The authors deserve credit for an easy to read understanding that America had to choose a "Just War" of choice over a short term appeasement policy that lets despots gather weapons of mass destruction towards everyone. Time to stop the Tyrants and change others now to save the world not when it is too late as the author points out in his book.
Rating: 
Summary: Purposely full of holes
Review: The message of this book is loud and clear: as long as we are going to force democracy on Iraqis, then killing 500,000 civilians is just fine (oops, I forgot, the book didn't mention that Pentagon estimate--that's one of the gaping holes). Nothing is said of the dangers of the United States possessing weapons of mass destruction WHICH IT HAS USED--nuclear and bio-chemical both--or of how overwhelmingly powerful our military is as compared to Iraq's. The imperialistic and ethnocentric mindset reflected by this book is frightening.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Read
Review: The title is misleading. "American Foreign Policy and Iraq" would be more appropriate. That said, it is an excellent depiction of the distinctly different foreign policies pursued by the current and two previous administrations towards Iraq. Importantly, it provides an ideological framework for understanding better the views expressed by current newsmakers from within the current (e.g. Powell, Rumsfeld,etc)and past administrations (e.g. Albright, Snowcroft, etc). For obvious reasons, Bush 43's policy (a distinctly american internationalism combining "national self interest" and "values")receives the most attention. The authors argue that Bush 43's policy is an extension of those followed by Truman, Kennedy and Reagan and that America and the world will be more secure and free if he stays the course. I agree.
Rating:
Summary: Most open minded book on this subject.
Review: There are a few books on this subject which are selling quite well. Almost all of those imply it is necessary to attack Iraq. This book properly analysis the situations which involve a matrix of questions, in many cases provide more than one answer. However all these books take the physical approach or the traditional approach of seen evidense rather than the more important evidense in this specific region, belief and sentiment of the rest of the surrounding countries of Iraq. Kristol and Kaplan do not touch this in The War over Iraq. These books all rely on information being passed through the system. Most of that information is historical actions of Hussien, and past weapon systems. This book also assumes Iraq does possess significant amounts of weapons of mass distruction, recent United Nations inspections reveal nothing, more or less on this level Kaplan assumes. I see this book as being cautionary as none of us really know what Iraq posseses, that is a favorable trait to this particular book. However not one mention of the rest of this regions response to an invasion of Iraq. If we are fighting a war to prevent terrorism, which comes from many different independent but sentimentally connected peoples in this region, we should try to undersatnd what the re-actions from these people will be. The only book that I've read(which also states we do invade Iraq and leave Saddam inept, then terrorism escalates beyond thought) which covers the entire spectrum well, to include what will transpire after this war. Title is SB or God by Karl Maddox. I recommend reading that book to complete the subject of attacking or not.
Rating:
Summary: Respectable author, terrible book
Review: They say the man who reads only one book is much more dangeroud than the man who reads none. This book, released during these times, is meant to appeal to those who, instead of needing objective and scholarly convincing, only need a well known personality to solidify their knee-jerk patiotism. Bill Kristol, no doubt, is a very respectable columnist and Harvard teacher who really has let me down this time. Although I usually disagree with him, I usually find his political analysis well informed and cogent. In "war over Iraq", Kristol sets out to "prove" the need for invasion, in what can essentially be considered nothing more than a propaganda pamphlet, by making an extremely incomplete and sloppy case for war. Although the author addresses the history of U.S. relations with Hussien, and admits to alterior motives as the basis of American foriegn policy in the region, Kristol makes the wishful assumption that somehow this history does not reflect on the fundamental American attitude toward the rest of the world and that, amazingly, a future policy of American global aggression and geopolitical coersion will suddenly be based, as if isolated from the political and human nature of those that came before Bush, on the ideological altruism of an administration intent on making the world safe for freedom and democracy. Kristol makes little attempt to hide the extreme centrism that underlies his thesis. The basis of his argument is this: America is better than everyone else and, thus, our ideas and policies are what the world needs - they just don't know it yet. In order to make the world safe for peace and stability, we need to maintain American military and political preeminance at any cost. We cannot allow any nation, friend or foe, to compete with the America, especially those nations who's policies are not consistant with our interests. Kristol makes a token attempt to justify this attitude by invoking Sept. 11th and detailing how bad a guy Saddam is...revealing a considerable gulf between his evidence and conclusion to anyone who approaches the book with stoic and informed objectivity. Indeed, this book is meant to convince rather than to inform. Anyone who thinks this book lays out a comprehensive backdrop of current events is either uneducated or is comforting themself intellectually by consulting a text so extremelly selective of historical examples as to justify their bumper sticker patriotism. If you read this, do yourself a favor and read up on the history of this topic first. Do NOT go into it without a historical knowledge base.
Rating:
Summary: World Domination through 'Premptive War'
Review: This book preaches that 'American' ideas are good for the entire world and should be imposed by military force. Read this book and others by the neo-conservatives ('The Threatening Storm', 'Of Paradise and Power') in order to understand what the men who run The War Machine (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz) believe and act on. This book advocates the neo-conservative policy of 'preemptive war' for Iraq and other 'potential threats' to the US. As foreign policy, one can compare this advocacy of preemptive war with von Neumann's early fifties advice to bomb the USSR immediately. von Neumann was one of the greatest mathematicians of all times. He contributed mightily to computer theory and design, and also contributed significantly to quantum physics. It was necessary to consider his advice, and then judge it wrong. Since the implosion of the USSR we know that Bohr and Einstein were right, that preemptive war is not the answer to national security. Kristol and Kagan, unlike von Neumann, are not scientists. They are philosopher-policitians following a line though Allan Bloom that goes back through the rabid Nazi Heidegger to Nietzsche, the author of 'God is Dead'. The origin of their philosophy is Nietzsche's idea of 'the superman' and consequently imperialist, warring strength as 'virtue'. That is, in effect, the message of this awful book. Ths reader can judge for herself if she believes it to be 'American' or foreign. The origin of the philosophy espoused in this book lies partly in confusion over standard economic theory with economic reality. I offer the following definitions for the readers' consideration. A neo-classical economist believes, on no empirical basis whatsoever, that unregulated markets are stable and can approach equilibrium (this is the idea of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand). A neo-liberal believes in globalization via deregulation on the basis of neo-classical economics. A neo-conservative is a neo-liberal with a modern techo-army and the will and desire to use it to enforce on the globe his illusion/fantasy of the best of all possible economic worlds. The latter is basically the message of this book. Without the terrorism of 9/11 the neo-cons could not have had an adequate excuse for putting their blood-drenched program into effect, thus making the desire of this book come true. Hitler had to burn the Reichstag in order to create enough fear and anger in Germany to destroy civil liberties there and go to war, but 9/11 fell like mana from heaven into the laps of the neo-cons, who have started a preemptive war following exactly the advice of this book, and have additionally given us the Orwellian ‚Patriot Act', a virtuous Nietzschean destruction of our civil liberties. The reader should also consult my much earlier review of Allan Bloom's 'The closing of the American Mind'. As I pointed out in that review, I read the book and reread it many times, found it fascinating, but never could figure out what Bloom really wanted to say. Through his student Wolflowitz, we now understand much better what Allan Bloom wanted us to believe. By not making his program explicit, by keeping his scary program for America hidden, he helped the neo-cons to launch that program without the American people knowing what would follow.
| 
