Rating: 
Summary: Iraq and Foreign Diplomacy Reconsidered
Review: Four-star General and presidential aspirant, Wesley Clark, has written a book that deals with the US role in Iraq and in world affairs. Clark does a good job of keeping his work concise and on-point. Clark begins the book by giving an excellent recitation of the background and actually fighting that occurred in the 2003 Iraq War. Clark also describes the post-war difficulties that America has experienced there since and he discusses how the Iraq effort may have impeded US policy in other countries. He faults the Bush Administration for failing to consider other alternatives to the war such as continuing with arms inspections and the embargo. He believes that even if war were necessary that the Bush Administration should have made more of an effort to seek United Nations approval and participation in the conflict. Lastly, he faults the Bush Administration for not having a better plan in place to police Iraq during the post-invasion phase of the operation. Clark does state, though, that it would be a big mistake for the US to pull out of Iraq at this point. Whatever happens--now that we have occupied the country--we must see the occupation through to a positive ending. Clark believes that failure to enlist more support from the international community before invading Iraq has harmed US interests in many ways: 1. Its detracted from the resources we have available to assist the pro-western government we installed in Afghanistan; 2. It destroyed much of the sympathy the US received from foreign countries following the attack by terrorists on 9/11; 3. It has strained our armed forces which are trying to get out a number of difficult missions around the globe with limited regular and reserve forces; 4. The cost of the war has limited the amount of money our government has to pursue homeland security needs within the US. The book is a solid matter-of-fact account about the Iraq War. It should give Americans who read it alot of food for thought about the direction their country has taken.
Rating: 
Summary: Typical Military Mentality
Review: Full of military directions and operations, most of which are dry and uninteresting. I wanted insight, I got none. Would he make a good president based upon his writing here? No!! He is a military man through and through and thinks the solution to problems can be solved with this type of narrow thinking. I was bored with the book after the first page, and it got worse as I read on. I do not recommend buying this book.
Rating: 
Summary: He's a decent man, a v. good general, but an average thinker
Review: General Clark represents everything good and righteous about America, its military, and its worldview. The trouble is that he seems overly keen to keep justifying his mixed successes in Kosovo. And the comparisons he makes between those days and now are an apple/orange thing. Peeling an apple is a different task to peeling an orange. Defeating terrorism will not, in my view, involve a change in the application of military force, but a philosophical change in the way America behaves and functions in the world. Not everyone wants free-market capitalism and the intrusion of outside capital and influence into their economies. Not everyone wants to abandon their own languages to speak English. Not everyone wants to be Americans. This isn't a criticism of America. God forbid. But what the world currently struggles with is a variety of perceptions. General Clark's strategies may just perpetuate a negative stereotyping of Americans. I admire the general immensely and sure like this easy to understand book very much, but it just doesn't dig deep enough into the cultural head-butting currently dividing the world. Now I don't have the answers. I don't know how to persuade non-Americans that great good can come from investing in us and with us, in trusting us. But I don't think new strategies of a political-military nature will by themselves ever defeat terrorism or restore America's untarnished image.
Rating:
Summary: Why win modern wars if you are more obtuse than Gengis Kahn?
Review: General Wesley Clark have been n.1 of all miliary school courses,had the best winn in kossovo with planes taking off from italian peninsula, studied roman empire , has a mondial first class culture , his courage is unsurpassable.
Gengis Kahn was a rider of the steppe a killer of peoples and towns, insane of his own power and was planning europe invasion:than he was said in europe is a strange peninsula,really strange,it not only has form of a boot but ,belive this impossibility, it also has spur ,it really seem that ,making that peninsula,God choosed to give a signe he can speek to men,a sign that he is not anything without shape and elegance,a signe he exist as a man.
Also he was said,a triangle insula was exacly in front of the point of that boot as presage one day two big country beyond the sea ,will have the oppotunity to be kicks to the stars or choose theyir own and all world destruction(in fact he dreemed a new zeland penisula on the other side of the world was similar but broken and that completed the picture).
Given the sign, when horsees will start to disappear ,like a cosmic timer,either one or the other:this is the time to choose.
Gengis Kahn choosed to go to another direccion , americans can't ,they choosed to come as rescuers, but now it is up to them to choose the empire or stars and I horrify reading that such an american intellect dont see that the country where he comanded,for umanity leadership is the only play to play.
But dont think I like this because I am italian,in fact I live in the back of this leg and so I hope you understand how I wish to live in the other side...,but I acept a sign as a sign.
So forgive me if I dont make the usual synopsis of this book that people love so much, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN WINNING MODERN WARS IS TO KNOW WHAT TO DO OF THE WIN and Whesley ,also if I apreciate his idealisms, is not enoght.
Rating: 
Summary: A magnificent book by a top military thinker
Review: General Wesley Clark is no ordinary general - top in his class at West Point, an Oxford Rhodes Scholar, this is the thinking general. His wisdom during the latest conflict in Iraq was indispensable and his is a voice that commands respect on all the issues covered in this book. Whether you intend to vote for him as your President or not (and being British I can't either way!) this is a must read book for all concerned people as we face the increasingly uncertain 21st century in front of us. Christopher Catherwood, author of CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan, 2003)
Rating:
Summary: An impressive analysis of the invasion of Iraq and terrorism
Review: General Wesley Clark's new book on the invasion of Iraq and the fight against terrorism is an absolutely first rate analysis not merely of those conflicts, but on the historical context of the innovations in foreign policy undertaken by the Bush administration. It is of especial relevance now not merely because of the ongoing difficulties in Iraq, but because Clark has become a candidate for president. Since he has recently been accused of having flip-flopped on Iraq, this book should serve as his definitive statement of his views on the subject. He comes across as deeply insightful, cogent, and profoundly analytical. Roughly the first half of the book is a marvelous recounting and analysis of the invasion of Iraq, with little regard to the reasons why Iraq was invaded or the overall political context. It is fairly straightforward military history. As such, it is likely to stand as one of the primary sources for future accounts of the invasion. In writing of the invasion of Iraq, Clark writes like the former general he is. He never writes of any unit in general terms; he always refers specifically to the units involved. He writes not of U.S. soldiers and marines, but of the 3rd Infantry division or the 101st Airborne. They don't merely attack the Iraqi army, but the Republican Guards, the Medina, or the Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar Divisions. He writes of the American units as of old friends, dropping their names as if they are luminaries with whom he is proud to have associated in the past. His discussions of the tactics, the technologies, and the hardware used in the war are enormously insightful. I can't imagine many individuals, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, who wouldn't enjoy the first half of the book. The second half of the book delves more into foreign and domestic policy in general, and more specifically into the kind of vision the Bush administration has for America and the kind of future he would have us move towards. Although he has since writing most of the book decided to run for president, the book is in no way the kind of puff piece that many politicians write before embarking on campaigns. In fact, one can easily imagine him deciding to run for president while mulling over the ideas that form the second half of the book. Clark is extremely critical of the Bush approach to a variety of issues. Having overseen an international coalition in waging war in Kosovo as head of NATO forces, Clark is acutely aware of the advantages of international cooperation and coalitions. He deeply laments the Bush embrasure of unilateralism and the eschewal of coalitions working through international organizations like the UN or NATO. He is likewise upset that much foreign policy is being waged through the army, which he points out-and here his argument carries all the weight of four stars-is designed purely and simply to fight wars, not to serve as an occupying force, or act as police, or rebuild national infrastructures, or do anything other than fight. His discussion of the particular pressures the Bush foreign policy unfairly place on the U.S. soldiers is especially illuminating. He also goes into considerable detail about the real reasons for invading Iraq, recounting conversations he had with members of the Pentagon months before the invasion, with generals explaining in disgust that the White House was trying to find any pretext for invading Iraq. Clark explains in great detail why the model the Bush administration utilizes in thinking about Iraq and terrorism-namely, that terrorists have state sponsors, whereas Al Queda represents a stateless form of terrorism-is both a relic of the Cold War and irrelevant to contemporary terrorism. He spends considerable time limning alternatives to both the Bush way of conceptualizing the current situation and more effective responses. Personally, I would have far more confidence in this man being in charge of the United States war on terrorism than the current administration. In addition to Clark's military and political analysis of Iraq and the war against terrorism, I have been tremendously impressed with his overall knowledge of history. Some writers make historical references as if they have just run to consult a book for a historical illustration. Clark's book bristles with historical references that obviously come from having long been a serious student of history. Moreover, he isn't a student of simply one period of history, but seemingly of all periods. He has a great grasp not merely of military, European, and American history, but Roman, economic, and world history as well. This is never in the foreground, but provides a great deal of depth to all of his discussions. This book will appeal to three classes of readers: first, anyone interested in the history of the invasion of Iraq; second, anyone interested in a critical discussion of current American foreign policy, especially as it pertains to terrorism; third, anyone wanting to investigate more fully the ideas of the man who could very possibly be our nation's next president.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but still a no win situation
Review: General Wesley K. Clark has enough experience to attempt to grapple with reality, but the title WINNING MODERN WARS seems to lack any insight into the nature of the problems that currently face the world. America has never been good at understanding balance while it achieved excessively in modern warfare. Even Nam, already, seemed like a waste to those who had an opportunity to observe the endless military build-up in yearly intervals that never gained much ground, particularly if the cemeteries for 243,000 South Vietnamese soldiers who died in Nam but tend to be neglected by the existing government, are counted as part of American plans for the future in the 20th century. In the 1960's, economic growth due to the Kennedy tax cuts was supposed to supply the eternal boost to keep everything booming, but economics often fails to add up for anyone who is concerned about catastrophes of greater magnitude than a cyclical slump. Putting "The American Empire" in the subtitle was a brave move for anyone who wants readers to face what is happening to the world, but what this book notices about economics is limited to the best that can be said about modern trends:
`At the beginning of the twenty-first century the United States is the world's leading economy, accounting for about 20 percent of global output and, during the period 1995-2002, for about 40 percent of the world's economic growth.' (p. 178).
Me again: in the world as a whole, the leading industry is tourism. The DVD called `Life and Debt' on the situation in Jamaica shows how increasingly difficult it is for small countries to obtain any money for local activities, including health and education, after a combination of the World Bank and the IMF controls a country's flow of international currencies to allow payment of loans from the global financial institutions. American economic controls in Iraq gave every indication, before and after sanctions were dropped, of maintaining as much control as possible, instead of allowing France, Russia, and Iran to maintain established activities. Clark describes this "benefit to ordinary Americans" as a result produced by a financial situation in which "the United States must consume more than it produces--while much of the rest of the world must produce more than it consumes." (p. 178). News from Iraq indicates that we have been particularly interested in Iraq producing oil, an item that the United States needs, but that the insurgency in Iraq has been unusually successful in preventing the United States from "sharing the benefits with others." (p. 178).
Clark calls the means of our success `the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communication and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world. The major beneficiary of this was the United States itself. This "globalization" was the New American Empire.' (p. 180). The U.S. mistakes which offended common values might be blamed mainly on the C.I.A. activities that used to be covered by plausible denial. "Worried about potential Soviet encroachments into the Middle East, the United States deposed an Iranian leader and replaced him with an unpopular shah. Siding against a Soviet-oriented India, the United States distanced itself from the world's largest democracy. Fearing a Marxist takeover of Chile, the United States backed Chilean military action to throw out the democratically elected Marxist leader, Salvador Allende. In Central America the United States fought for almost a decade . . ." (p. 183) blamed more in this book on "CIA and special forces personnel" (p. 183) than on Oliver North, a patsy who does not even appear in the index. Obviously the CIA had a policy then, but the world remains unconvinced that its policy regarding regime change is any different now.
Freeing the United States from the cold war mentality allows it to engage in more idealistic fights, such as a war on drug lords, called "the U.S. military peace operations in the Balkans, Latin America, Africa, and Asia" (p. 183) which are pictured as being nobler than our cold war heritage.
A year ago, things that could fall apart had started to show the danger: "By September 2003, U.S. forces were in Iraq--deeply committed, without as yet . . . " (p. 184). "Individually, some governments, especially democratic governments who must listen to the opinions of voters, would simply find it difficult to comply with American wishes. Turkey, for example, refused . . ." (p. 185). Part of the danger is economic. "In the narrowest sense, if foreigners should lose confidence in U.S. leadership and reject the implicit understandings and economic alignments that have led them--especially the central banks of China, Taiwan, and Japan--to accumulate dollar holdings, they could quickly diversify out of dollar assets, triggering a sharp decline in the dollar's values and significantly impacting our economy." (pp. 185-186). The idea of a "tipping point" (p. 186) understates the danger when the rest of the world has an incentive to design an alternative to a system which is dragging down whatever opportunity other countries might have to produce benefits for themselves.
You might notice that there is nothing in the index for money, dollars, or the budget, except "Bush administration, tax cuts of, 8, 156, 188-89." (p. 208). It can't mean page 8, and certainly not Note 8. There are only two chapters that have notes 8 and 9. How clear is page 189 ? :
"As states and cities across the country faced local problems of balancing receipts and expenditures, it was becoming increasingly clear that federal tax cuts either equaled reduced services and increased unemployment, or offsetting increases in state and local taxes."
Ultimately inequality is much easier to understand than the number of ways in which that might make sense, and that goes double for me and the tax cuts.
Rating: 
Summary: The General Bluff
Review: Having read this product I have come to a conclusion. That conclusion is that "General" Clark, as a Presidential Canadidate, should know perhaps more than anyone else that an Empire hints at expansion. I would like to know where Mr. Clark believes we have expanded to with the intention of annexing that "expanded" location into the Union.
Rating:
Summary: A great analysis of the Iraq situation
Review: I am not a military history buff. So, I have to say that I only read this book because Wesley Clark is running for President. However, I am so glad I picked it up! Winning Modern Wars provides a clear, compelling, and rational analysis of both the tactical and strategic side of this military operation. In addition, this was a great opportunity to get an in-depth look at Clark's foreign policy stance directly from the horse's mouth. Regardless of whether you plan to vote for him, check out this book. But, I'll bet if you're on the fence, this book will knock you over to his side.
Rating:
Summary: Informative, and surprisingly easy to read
Review: I found this book to be pretty well written, and rather informative. The first half of the book is full of information about the 2003 Iraq war. If you have followed the vents closely, you will not find much new here, although some additional insight from an insiders point of view is provided. Personally, I liked the second part of the book better, because it told me about General Clark and his opinions. Contrary to one of my fellow reviewers, I found his viewpoints to be surprisingly civillian for a military man of his rank. If you are wondering whether Wes Clark would make for a good president, this book can help to shape your opinion (one way or the other). I would def. recommend reading it.
|
