Rating: 
Summary: Two Guys out of Touch with Reality!!!
Review: Rather than a How-to book, it reads like a polemic on the present administration's wish list of world domination and homeland Big Brother with a complete alienation of civil and private rights thrown in as a bonus. Under such a regime even justice Thomas couldn't engage in getting his dose of porn because Ashcroft would be watching. (But then again he could probably get away with it by finding a new "Anita Hill" to blame and beat on for his own shallow short comings for which he was not man enough during his selection process to owe up to.)
If this is "the book" on how to win the War on Terror, why not just start WWIII? WWI was started with an assination and we went to war to save the world for "Democracy" sound familiar i.e. President Bush's new tom-tom speeches as to why we went to Iraq. Oh! Yes, we were looking for WMD's but since they could not be found why not invent a new rational; after all Americans are dumb according to Bush-Cheney and their neo-con advisers. Besides their patron saint, Leo Strauss, the father of neo-cons said it was alright to "lie" to the people if the ends were justified, also a govenment needs an enemy (see S.B. Drury Leo Strauss and the American Right) and since we no long have the "Cold War" Iraq will do. After all it has "better targets" to use the words of Rumsfeld (see R.A. Clarke Against All Enemies)
In WWII we had Pearl Harbor a legitimate reason to go to war against a known enemy. We of course have 9/11 against an undetectable enemy. But in finding out that the enemy was cultivated by the Regan administration (who also had the same neo-con hacks working for it) and then abandoned by the first President Bush who also supported Iraq in its war against Iran and who may have been involved in the Iran-Contra dealings (we'll never know because the current President Bush has sealed those documents for all time (see Kitty Kelly The Family)) it gives me great comfort to know that the present administration has got the right handle on getting the job done against terrorists. (In fact good old "Rumy" went to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand but that's another story (see James Mann Rise of the Vulcans).)I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Oh Yes! Lets not forget that 14 out of the 19 plane hijakers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia (see The 9/11 Commission Report). But no matter, the Saudi's are our friends and we need them for the oil to drive govenor Arnold's Hummers (he has 6 you know) and all the other SUV's in America.
Mr. Frum and Mr. Perle need to get a reality check as to what is going on. If they think that America is as dumb as they believe in writing this book the way they have, they are sorely mistaken. Of course politcal hacks and trite pundits like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will stand up and cheer for such a shallow book as will others on the far right and other neo-con breathern. But to the descerning person save your money.
I think Mr. Frum needs to go back to writing speeches for the political hacks he knows so well. Moreover, he can go back to writing Mr. Bush's scripts (see Ron Suskind The Price of Loyalty) because without having the words the President of United States appears on the world wide media stage as the sorry C student he was at Yale. Or as Paul O'Neill put it in describing how the President conducts his cabinet meetings for the two years he observed him "... like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discenible connection." Well he certainly didn't connect during his first debate speech did he? And no amound of coaching is going to correct years of intellectual neglect and shallowness of mind.
As I said I think one should save his money and wait for this book to appear on the $1.00 table in Big Lots or the Dollar Shop. And then if you buy it you will be treated to a wonderful book of fiction that would make Orwell blush.
But of course as Rush Limbaugh and the other pundits on the right like to say "its only my opinion."
Rating: 
Summary: Fight to Win or Else!
Review: So-called "neo-cons" have taken their lumps over the past couple of years from the Washington punditry, from the left and from many others who have little or no idea what they stand for. In this new book, David Frum and Richard Perle set down on paper in straightforward easy to follow style, with unfailing logic, nothing less than a neo-conservative blueprint for a new American security doctrine in the age of Islamist fascist terror. I have read a number of reviews of this book and I must say at the outset that the critics seem to have read another book. Nowhere in these pages to Frum and Perle argue for non-ending war or the elimination of alliances or anything like that. Instead they make a rational cogent case for a robust and forward looking American security doctrine designed to protect the safety of Americans and not un-importantly, to make the world a better place as well. Frum and Perle begin by explaining in the most simple terms possible, just what the country is up against. We are not at war with a terrorist group but with an ideology. We cannot keep ourselves safe by killing or arresting terrorists (although this is vital). The authors show how tyrannies like Iraq and Iran and Syria use terrorism as a means of projecting power. It is indisputable that the threat of this kind of terror cannot end until the states that promote and enable terrorism as state policy are changed or ended. In the next section, Frum and Perle explain in the most cogent terms possible just why the Iraq War was justified. After describing the pitiable state of American intelligence services at home and abroad they set forth the failures of American foreign policy going back more than a dozen years. As one example, they single out the disastrous mixed signal given by a diplomat to Sadaam Hussein in 1990, leading him to believe he had an American green light to invade Kuwait. After describing the pretty pass America had reached by September 11, 2001, Frum and Perle set forth their comprehensive prescription for winning the war. The authors fret that the will to fight and to win has already been lost and they acknowledge that the only thing that can defeat us is loss of will. The book shows how the struggle is both physical and ideological. But most importantly, they show how it is not poverty but tyranny that breeds radical Islamism and terrorists willing to die to annihilate as many Americans as possible. The prescription for victory contains many components but it can be summed up with one word "robustness." Whether it is on the battlefield, at the diplomatic table or in the netherworld of ideas, Frum and Perle argue that the United States must fight to win. They argue succinctly that an America that promotes its interests to its friends and sets forth consequences to misbehavior by its foes will be an America that is successful. A great power should be respected by its friends and feared by its enemies. Critics who have argued that the book calls for the attack of country after country are lying. Only in the case of North Korea do the authors argue that the U.S. must prepare to attack the regime since they see NO chance of North Korea voluntarily giving up its nuclear weapons program. Even here, they hold out hope that the serious threat of a U.S. attack would lead China to intervene and force North Korea to eliminate its nuclear program. Frum and Perle have no illusions. They argue that a less insane Marxist dictatorship in North Korea that can be reasoned with is a perfectly acceptable short term alternative. Regarding Iran, Frum and Perle simply argue that we should fully and totally support the internal insurgents who seek to overthrow the Mullahs rather than attempt to engage so-called "moderates" who are not moderate at all. Regarding Saudi Arabia, they say that the U.S. should forcefully act to end Saudi support for Wahabiism by ultimately threatening to support a break away of the eastern Shiite portion of the Saudi territory where all the oil is located. Understand, they do not argue that this should happen, just that it should be threatened as a credible alternative to a Saudi change of heart. Other examples of how American statecraft should treat other nations abound. The common denominator in all the cases is that the United States should not allow itself to be rolled by its friends or its foes. Why should the United States kowtow to France when France has behaved like a rival not an ally? Why should the United States subvert its interests to a United Nations filled with tyrannies? Unfair critics will pick out individual quotations and worst case scenarios in the book to paint a picture of Frum and Perle as extremists. I do not think that any fair minded person reading this book can come away with that impression. Indeed, it is their critics who come off as the extremists. What do you call someone who continues to promote a course of action even when it is shown to be an abject failure? The book does not give an easy formula for victory. Indeed, the difficulty of the task is acknowledged over and over. But because a task is difficult does not make it wrong or unnecessary. Even if one does not agree with each and every assertion made by these men, it is undeniable that their argument is couched in reasoned language with logical point after point. The hysterical criticism is what frightens me. I recommend this book to anyone interested in statecraft and the war on terrorism.
Rating:
Summary: Sophomoric prattle from two yellow abdomens
Review: This book has to rank as one of the worse of all the political books that appeared in 2004. References are only sparingly given, and therefore a considerable amount of effort would be required to check the author's facts. In fact, if the authors had taken the time to include their references, or elaborated in more detail on the historical background on the myriads of claims that are made, the book would have swelled in size, which no doubt would have prohibited its publication. It is a rush-to-print polemic, and fails miserably in giving the inquisitive reader factual information on world events.
Here are just a few of the totally unsubstantiated claims that are made in the book:
- The claim that Iran was responsible for the murder of 86 people in Buenos Aires. Was it? Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
- The claim that it is the remnants of the Baath Party that have launched a guerilla war against the Allied forces in Iraq? Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
- The claim that Saddam Hussein harassed and threatened the weapons inspectors in the mid 1990's. Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
- The claim that Saddam Hussein arrested more than 200 hundred senior officers and executed 80 of them in July 1996. Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
- The claim that Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate G.H.W. Bush during his visit to Kuwait in April 1993. Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
- The claim that Iraq was smuggling billions of dollars' worth of oil through Syria and Iran. Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
- The claim that the UN collected 1.5% commission on all the money in the oil-for-food program. Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
- The claim that the danger from Iraq was underestimated and that it had started work on a nuclear weapons program in the early 1990's. Where is the evidence? How do they know this? An inquisitive reader wants to know.
But most troubling, and this goes to the root of any war on terror, nowhere in the book do the authors encourage those that agree with their "manual for victory" to enlist in the military to fight the "war on terror" or bring about an "end to evil." When viewing the authors on the many television news programs they are invited to, they both appear to be very healthy, indeed, healthy enough to serve in combat duty in Iraq. It is readily apparent they have no intention of serving in combat, and neither do the majority of those that agree with them and the administration of cowards they support. In the book they scold the "American political and media elite" for "losing their nerve for the fight", and chide the administration's Democratic opponents for being "ready to give up the fight altogether", but they let others do the actual dirty work of fighting and killing. There is no sand blowing in their face and no rifles aimed at them when they populate the podiums of their think tanks, and proclaim this book as a "manual for victory." But it is a victory that won't be attained with their help in actual battle. "We have wanted to fight," they say early on in the book. So why don't they?
The authors and the neo-conservative crowd they are a part of can easily be distinguished from others by their unwillingness to put themselves in the line of fire. The authors quote Donald Rumsfeld as saying "weakness is provocative". Was Rumsfeld showing weakness or strength when he avoided service in Korea or in Vietnam? How about Bush and Cheney when they avoided military service in Vietnam? It seems that weakness and cowardice are the rule rather than the exception for the authors and the administration they support. Without doubt they are all yellow, a sickening bright yellow, and their lack of intellect is only matched by their lack of intestinal fortitude.
Rating:
Summary: A Cogent Analysis
Review: This book occurs in the stream of a myriad of texts concerning the Post 9-11 world. Foremost among these prior to this book was Netanyahu's Fighting Terrorism. This book sits atop the heap in its very cogent analysis of the ways in which terror must be confronted, fought and finally crushed. Through separate chapters and many 'Items' this book weaves a web around the nature, practice and final end to modern terror. Libya, Saudi, Iran and North Korea are given special attention. The pacifists who want to surrender America to the Burkhaizers are condemned and their mission of giving in to evil is condemned. This book is a wonderful assessment written by two of America's foremost policy experts. However, lost from this are several key points. For instance; the authors do not thoroughly investigate other examples of how terror has been fought or defeated, where they should have analyzed Israel and Algeria's experiences. Also there is no real analysis of the role of Preemption in the war on terror, even though this policy has been inaugurated by Mr. Wolfowitz, a colleague of the authors. A good addition to any current events reading, you will not be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Makes some very valuable points
Review: Well, the bad news first. The analysis of the war against Iraq is not all that coherent. As I see it, one ought to evaluate the following sets of scenarios, whether one could have achieved them or not, about the decision to invade Iraq. Namely, what benefits and disadvantages would there be in all six situations: not trying to get UN approval, trying to get it and failing, and trying to get it and succeeding. Yes, that is three cases, but for each case, we could actually invade or decide not to do so.
Then the authors could have discussed the advantages of being able to avoid immediate commitment of our forces, and the flexibility that such a policy might provide. And they could also have discussed the risks of not fighting, including the possibility of incurring some catastrophes by refusing to take action, or of making future battles more difficult and losing flexibility of action.
I think the authors ought to have talked about the war against Iraq in something similar to such terms. Still, I won't fault them all that much for this, given that other writers are just as bad (or worse) in this respect.
In addition, there could have been a better discussion of the weapons of mass destruction. The issue is not whether the case for going to war was reasonable. It is whether the misimplications about this issue changed the minds of legislators and voters. If that is the case, then there are some procedural mistakes in the system. And if we don't fix this, we'll all be at a disadvantage in the future. We'll either be too aggressive, and make decisions based on misinformation, or we'll completely lose faith in our information and make decisions on even more illogical grounds.
Now for some of the good news. Frum and Perle do make some very straightforward and valuable comments. Here are eight of them:
1) Neither the Ku Klux Klan nor Jesse James were a "national resistance." Describing their political heirs as such is incorrect.
2) Toppling Saddam Hussein denied a huge victory to our enemies and may make future potential aggressors think twice about taking us on.
3) American Muslims ought to be expected, as citizens, to stop the flow of their funds to terror, end incitement in their schools and mosques, stop promoting antisemitism, and avoid denials and excuses for failing to do this.
4) Whenever militant Islam approaches power, it turns its wrath on women.
5) The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a cause but a manifestation of Islamic extremism.
6) Respect for America on the world stage rests not merely on our power and wealth but also on our moral authority. If we go back on our principles, we give credence to charges that we're a "rogue nation, an imperial state, and a threat to world order."
7) At the UN, "the heroes are in fact thieves, thugs, liars, and killers. The UN regularly broadcasts a spectacle as dishonest and morally deadening as a Stalinist show trial."
8) The defeat of Muslim extremism will come, maybe sooner than most of us expect.
I recommend this book. It has plenty for us all to ponder.
|
