Rating: 
Summary: Excellent- but half of the story
Review: War in a Time of Peace is a well-written account of several foreign policy challenges that faced the Clinton administration. The book has sparked debate both on the role of US foreign policy and popular interest in international affairs. To supplement understanding of this complex topic Robert Kagan wrote an excellent, and lengthy, review of this book- expanding on many of the issues Mr. Halberstam raised. Mr. Kagan explores the Vietnam Syndrome effect on policy makers, its resulting impact on military intervention during the 1990's, and the motivations of public support for military intervention. A combined reading of Mr. Halberstam's book and Mr. Kagan's essay is esential to understand the breadth and direction of U.S. foreign policy. The essay "When America Blinked" is available online (. . .)
Rating: 
Summary: Halberstam's second most important book.
Review: This was a tough read because of the author's too frequent clauses within nearly every sentence. Also, there are many names to remember, and the publisher could have provided a map of the region in question. Otherwise, I would have given this book a full 5 star rating.
That aside, this was an exceptionally good book on the recent Balkan war that was fought by NATO. The Balkan war is notable in military history for being the first war waged and won strictly through the use of air power. It is also considered Pres. Clinton's greatest foreign policy success. As military history, the book is a worthwhile read. The author, however, ventures beyond the military aspects to tie in the political, historical, sociological, and psychological countenance of the individuals involved with the campaign. I found it of particular interest to read about the pettiness of the military structure as it related to the president, and its own field commander. The author is not shy in offering his analysis of each major character, but he remained even-handed. He, for example, described the power of Gen. Powell's personality, but who also used his position to prematurely close discussion on important international issues. He similarly discusses other major characters (especially Clinton, Gore, Gen. Clark and Bush I). The author does not attempt to present the most encompassing story of the war, and he is generous in citing authors of very recent publications including the recent memoirs of NATO commander Clark. The serious student will be able to find greater detail of the Balkans, the diplomacy, and the Serbian genocide from these other authors. What the author does provide, is incorporating his forty years of experience as a student, and commentator of domestic and international policies. He also ends the book ( I believe published prior to September 11th) with a comment about the government's pre-occupation with the missile defense system instead of understanding that terrorism is the more likely threat. For anyone who believes that foreign policy, is as simplistic as a Tom Clancy novel would have you believe, then this is a much needed read. But be aware, that no one comes out looking too good in this very thoughtful story with long term implications for world peace and security.
Rating: 
Summary: A Must Read for Better Understanding of Foreign Policy
Review: Halberstam's words keeps you turning the pages like a bestselling thriller. There are lots of behind the scenes inter-plays of power that will give you a better understanding of politics inside the Beltway. You will not regret having read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Post Cold-War Pitfalls
Review: David Halberstam masterfully weaves the story of the evolution of post-cold war American foreign policy. He begins with the Bush years, leading into and ending with the Clinton years. Bush, he points out, was in love with foreign policy and, for the most part, excelled in its execution at the sacrifice of his domestic duties. Clinton was elected largely for his commitment to domestic issues in a time when we all thought that foreign policy was less important after the cold war...a time of peace. However, even given Bush's love of foreign policy, the confusion of the post cold war era made it difficult to determine where the issues really were. Iraq was easy for Bush. In his mind, a clear cut case of good versus evil. Bosnia, on the other hand, didn't draw as much interest and he ignored a situation that ultimately led to genocide. Enter Clinton, who early on professed that foreign policy did not matter. Only when it threatened his presidency did he finally act. Beyond Clinton, the conflicting viewpoints of other key players such as Tony Lake, Dick Holbrooke, Colin Powell, and Madeleine Albright come clearly into view in Halberstam's excellent analysis. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to find fault in retrospect. What becomes clear in this book is how muddied the post cold-war era has become. The possible paths for our foreign policy are more complex than ever, with no clear arrow pointing the way. What is certain, however, is that there is no avoiding the need for a strong American foreign policy. Now, more than ever, all Americans should read this book to better understand why we are once again at war in a time of peace.
Rating:
Summary: Simply the best book on civil-military relations in U.S.
Review: This is the best book on civil-military relations that has ever been written in our history. It gets into how decision-making at the national level works, both politically and militarily (and not surprisingly, it's primarily military means justifying political ends). It is written at the personal level (Clinton said this, Clark did that, this person is like this because...) and that makes the book immensely readable. You will feel remarkable insight into American government after reading this, but it is very redundant. I got the feeling I was reading the same thing over and over again (and I was), I just flipped back and realized that Halberstam had written virtually the exact same thing three chapters back. But all in all, I great book.
Rating:
Summary: Wow ...
Review: Halberstam is among the best we have, and his latest book displays why. If you've ever wondered about the faces you've seen in the Pentagon and State Department briefings during the last twelve years, this book will be a page-turner.
Rating:
Summary: David Halberstam Hits Another Out of The Park
Review: I have read each of his books .Starting with the best and the brightest ,they reflect his outstanding knowledge of the subject and a unique way of describing it.I could not put the book down !I had the privilege of hearing this patriot speak at the US naval war College in 1973.His was one of the few mandatory talks we had durign our course of study where all the members of class stood up and applauded him. These being the "Best and the Brightest"Most of us spent two tours in Vietnam.Too bad that our Senators and Congressmen/Women don't take the time to read his work. He adroitly picks out the biases and self serving policies which many of our leaders demonstrate.Bravo Again!!
Rating:
Summary: An almost invisible foreign policy
Review: Halberstam expertly chronicles American foreign policy after the fall of the Soviet Union. He starts with the end of the cold war under Bush senior, when the cold war ended, America no longer wanted to worry about foreign policy. Unfortunately President Bush did not realize this. Bush and his people ran his election campaign poorly and lost to Clinton.
Clinton believed that he could ignore foreign policy. He had no interest in it and he ended up with the wrong though very capable people, in the wrong places. Clinton did not specify goals or methods. He did not give any direction to his subordinates until the new administration realized that foreign policy could effect the all important image of the administration.
Halberstam explores in depth what happened when some people wanted to intervene against Serbia and the President did not want to. He details the decisions and relations between the people who made the decisions. He also describes the people and their background, explaining why the people made the decisions they did. Halberstam also spends some time discussing the disaster in Somalia and the events in Haiti.
Halberstam's book is a veritable who's who of Clinton's administration. He describes the strengths and faults of many people, some barely known in Bush administration as well as Clinton's , without favoritism to either party. Halberstam lauds Republicans such as Colin Powell as well as Democrats such as Bentsen. Halberstam's descriptions of the individuals does get a bit tedious at times, but it always is informative.
Rating:
Summary: Solid review of recent, troubled history of presidency
Review: Halberstam weaves a detailed analysis of the last ten years of the Amercan presidency. From Bush's rapid 1992 fall from grace following his Gulf War high, to the bumblings of the Clinton administration, Halberstarm adds intricacies of people, places and events, tying in less visible characters. Clinton rose to the presidency when the more significant Democratic players calculated (incorrectly) that the Gulf War triumph made Bush unbeatable. Clinton the opportunist, had nothing to lose by running. Running was his life and this was too good a chance to pass on, even if he'd promised Arkansans he wouldn't run. It was not to be the first time he changed his mind and broke a promise, nor his last. Sadly, what Halberstam aptly describes, is that the Clinton administration was like the dog who finally catches the car he's been chasing. Lips firmly around the tailpipe, Clinton had to wonder: "Now what?" From Haitian immigration policy (Oops, I didn't mean it!), to Bosnia (I didn't understand what I was saying when I was running.), to gays in the military (You mean there might be a problem if we do what I said I would?), the dream of becoming president was shattered by Clinton's deaf ear to foreign policy and his intimate knowledge of the polled populace. Only foreign affairs are not as neat as domestic issues and the polls and the people turn quickly. Just ask his predecessor. Clinton's domestic policy successes were best described by what he didn't do: a failed health care plan and doing no harm to the economy, poised for a recovery. What he did do was more harmful to his own interests: reduce the military and turn over his party's control of congress by 1994 and, by 2000, the White House, over to the Republicans. And his lame attempt to 'attack' Bin Laden has come back to haunt us terribly. Statesmanship requires deep-seated knowledge and courage, not a quick study, a facile analysis, or feet of clay. Both Clinton and George Bush, Sr. lacked "the vision thing" when it came to foreign policy. Let's hope that George Dubya, finding foreign policy crises thrust upon him, surfaces a vision of his own. Halberstam must have done a lot of research or else he has a canny way for reading the minds of the players. As he did in "The Reckoning", he reconstructs the decline of an important American greatness. Not recommended for the impatient or the weak of spirit.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed, But Looking Forward to Halberstam's Next Title
Review: "Best and Brightest" and "Reckoning" are probably the two most influential books in my life. Overall this book is actually pretty good but it is not on par with Halberstam's earlier works.
What Halberstam does well, he really does well in this book. No one carries the reader through the military and political decision process better than Halberstam. Careful attention is paid to the the players involved, personality clashes within the highest spheres of government; the doctrinal conflict between the "new" and "old" thinkers of air power; the reservation of the army and the willingness of the army to wage war; the doctrinal shift in the air force precipated by a visionary colonel and new weapons; among others. His portraits of some of Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke and Anthony Lake (from their formative Foreign Service days in Vietnam to their pivotal role in the Balkans 30 years later).
But the shortcomings really bothered me. Among them, there is an absence of a critical posture. Unlike "Best and Brightest" in which he traces and tries to find an explanation for why our very best went so very wrong, this book is much closer to descriptive reportage. In some ways, and I hope Halberstam will forgive for this, this book is a pastische of "Best and Brightest" because it duplicates the latter but without its critical posture. Second, Halberstam doesn't spend enough time with the events themselves. The complexity of the problems is lost by omitting the complexity of the events. Frequently, we are left with what looks like a personality squabble. Overall, it is still a very good read and a good introduction into the decision process.
|
