Rating: 
Summary: Balanced, informative, and detailed......
Review: I was impressed by the comprehensiveness of "Winning Modern Wars", particularly with regards to General Clark's combined analysis of diplomacy and the use of force.Clark's well-rounded analysis of Iraq, terrorism, and current American interests informs the reader of how all of these factors are interconnected to the borader picture, the kind of political environment America faces, and more importantly why multilateralism is as important as it was in the past. If you support Clark, this book will reinforce your confidence in him. If you don't, you will at the minimum walk away being informed by the intellect of a credentialed ex-General.
Rating:
Summary: His thoughts on War, Diplomacy, and America
Review: In his book, "Winning Modern Wars", Gen. Wesley K. Clark lays out his thoughts on war, diplomacy and the current state of our country. Although this book was written before he publicly announced his run for the Democratic nomination, it sounds like he has known for some time where his political affiliation lies. The firs couple chapters discuss the war in Iraq and it's successes and failures. Clark says that, while the military did their job very well, Bush and his administration failed when it came to planning for the post-war situation. Clark also takes the Bush Admin to task for failing, or not trying hard enough, to get broad international support for the war. While we could have easily won the war in Iraq by ourselves, Clark feels that the burdern of rebuilding Iraq is going to weigh on America for years to come. The next couple chapters discuss Clark's thoughts on the direction of America's foreign policy. He thinks we need to concentrate more on building alliances with countries, who will help in the war on terror. According to Clark, the Bush Administrations war on terror will fail because they are targeting "nation states". This will fail because the terrorists will just keep moving and spreading around. We need to develop and implement ways to end the recruitment of new terrorists while finding and capturing the current ones. The last chapter covers the current direction of America's domestic condition. Clark feels that the large Bush tax cuts were the wrong thing to do during a time of war and recession. He also is disappointed with the current political climate in which Republicans attack anyone who dissents or disagrees with the "war on terror" (quotes are mine). Clark's presidential campaign is calling for a "New American Patriotism" in which love of country and dissent are both welcomed. Highly Recommended!
Rating:
Summary: His thoughts on War, Diplomacy, and America
Review: In his book, "Winning Modern Wars", Gen. Wesley K. Clark lays out his thoughts on war, diplomacy and the current state of our country. Although this book was written before he publicly announced his run for the Democratic nomination, it sounds like he has known for some time where his political affiliation lies. The firs couple chapters discuss the war in Iraq and it's successes and failures. Clark says that, while the military did their job very well, Bush and his administration failed when it came to planning for the post-war situation. Clark also takes the Bush Admin to task for failing, or not trying hard enough, to get broad international support for the war. While we could have easily won the war in Iraq by ourselves, Clark feels that the burdern of rebuilding Iraq is going to weigh on America for years to come. The next couple chapters discuss Clark's thoughts on the direction of America's foreign policy. He thinks we need to concentrate more on building alliances with countries, who will help in the war on terror. According to Clark, the Bush Administrations war on terror will fail because they are targeting "nation states". This will fail because the terrorists will just keep moving and spreading around. We need to develop and implement ways to end the recruitment of new terrorists while finding and capturing the current ones. The last chapter covers the current direction of America's domestic condition. Clark feels that the large Bush tax cuts were the wrong thing to do during a time of war and recession. He also is disappointed with the current political climate in which Republicans attack anyone who dissents or disagrees with the "war on terror" (quotes are mine). Clark's presidential campaign is calling for a "New American Patriotism" in which love of country and dissent are both welcomed. Highly Recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Depth and Breadth
Review: In this book, Clark not only provides a comprehensive description of the war in Iraq, he provides a historical context for this and other American military operations. With fairness and candor, he gives his readers the inside scoop, the play-by-play, and the big picture. His well-informed and intelligent account grows from a war-time tale to a powerful vision of the future based on historical experience as well as global trends. Because Clark is a candidate for President, I felt obligated to read this book so that I would be better informed about his background, his methods, and his perspective. Having read it, I am confident that Clark is well-equipped to successfully steer America and our critical role in world affairs. This book reveals the depth and breadth of his knowledge and understanding not only of history and of current affairs, but of homeland priorities, environmental responsibility, and the foundations of real and lasting democracy. Buy this book -- and get to know your future President!
Rating:
Summary: President Clark?
Review: Okay, the book is published in the political season. It's way too early to prognisticate whether Clark has a political life that will follow his military career. But this book's insights into what happened in Iraq at the war's outset and what is happening now is excellent. Cut through the bullpuckey. It was worth as always supporting the troops. They did their jobs damned well and give this country reason to be proud. The American military has grown and learned from its past. Too bad nothing so positive can be said about the inept bunch of bumbling politicans and liars now in Washington. Bush incorporated, the restoration of America's ruling family even if they're all stupid. America's military is in deep trouble. Why? The reason is simple. American political leadership. Republicans got a pass as the right guys for the military -- and now they've shafted it. The chickenhawk administration of draftdodger George Bush and his collection of right wing draft dodgers. Right, the same people who have mounted one vicious attack after another on others who did not serve. Bush, the reluctant National Guard pilot who was AWOL for six years, and his administration have stretched the military too thin, deprived them of needed rest and resources and currently is giving volunteers reasons not to re-up. Bush and his cronies at Halliburton and all the rest who are profiting from the blood of American troops need to go. Bush gets his wings on a phony flight to a carrier loaded with folks who want to go home, but instead steam away from California so Karl Rove can have a photo op and shoot a campaign commercial. Had the Republicans any honor, they would name a new candidate to replace the man who is bankrupting the country, enriching the obscenely wealthy and, who has lost the peace and the respect of the world that was won at such high price. Where is Osama and Saddam? And are we more secure? General Clark provides a lot of answers and suggests a lot of solutions. But in short, Bush has opened the barn door. And it isn't going to be fixed by three day wonders like Wolfowitz (his less than 72 hours in Iraq is closer than he's ever been in his life to the military. He's another draft dodger who's got a big Pentagon job thinking about places American soldiers can fight). Bushy and Rummy fired the Army Secretary and the Army Chief of Staff who dared to suggest we needed a better plan for after the "major conflict" ended. Instead we got a mess where soldiers, missing their needed body armor, are picked off daily. The real problem? The rest of the world knows more about the truth than we do. The British now know that Tony Blair and George Bush exaggerated and lied. One difference is that Tony Blair went to the Commons and asked for a vote up or down immediately before the invasion. Bush could not be bothered. But he's Teflon. We know our soldiers fought well -- outstanding.Intimidation of the few good reporters and publications in the United States has accomplished what amounts to a coverup of all the Bush lies. WMDs. Not there. Iraqi Freedom? Bush Administration polls show 80 percent of the Iraqis consider us occupiers and want us out of their country. Because Bush, Rumsfeld (the Saddam hugger), Wolfy and the rest of the neocon draftdodging chickenhawks made no places for after the battle, Iraq is disintegrating. We can't leave and if we did, Saddam might be back in power in a matter of days. And Osama, remember him. Bush got so focused on Iraq, which had nothing to do with Al Queda, that Osama's existence has continued quietly and prosperously for more than two year after he and his terrorists murdered thousands at the World Trace Center. But you know. Bush doesn't think New Yorkers are really Americans. They voted Democratic and as Bush's house psychotic, Ann Coulter says, that means they'll all traitors and stupid. So why did Osama attack the people that Ann Coulter and the other looney loopers hate and despise so much. We do need to elect someone who can represent all of America, not just appeal to the anger of the various nut groups and neoNazis. Have another Vicodin, Rush. YOu and Dr. Goebbels would have gotten along well as you talked about the big lie. But, oh, Rush. Leave the drugs home. Goebbels hated it.
Rating: 
Summary: Well, once again the fools buy in to Clark
Review: Overall, I found this book to be exactly what I expected, which is to say yet more of Clark's usual self aggrandinzing work. Their is nothing terribly brilloiant at all involved in realizing that their are advantages to working with a largr pool of resources (ie a coalition). What Clark has failed to do is examine the advantages and disadvantages of coalition and unilateral action IN THIS CASE, and then see which provides the better solution. That said, I do have to ask how any operation with troops and support from 42 nations can be concidered unilateral though. The truth is, it was extremely multinational, just that the French and Germans were not involved (for their own political reasons, but that is a different story). I did want to dipute something that Robert D Steel pointed out in hyis review too (another of Clark's supposedly brilliant insights that, at usual falls short) (7) He provides useful perspective on the *considerable* challenges of terrorism that faced Germany (Baader-Meinhof), Italy (Red Brigades), Spain (ETA), England (IRA), Greece (November 17th group), Turkey (PKK), and other nations including Israel. He notes that these were defeated by constructive law enforcement campaigns, not unilateral military invasions. I found this section of the book to be extraordinarily mature, worldly, and sensible. What do all these situations have in common (except the Israeli one? They were all domestic, non-religious, non-apocalyptic terror groups. Political terrorists are much easier to deal with, and behave completely differently. The same tactics do not work against religious ones. In the other cited example (Israel), they have used main force (The IDF) in the Palestinian enclaves, the terrorist's home territory. By the way, having served under the man, I can personally attest to the fact that the man is a moral coward who will change his stripes to whatever seems the most politically advantageous. This book is just one more example.
Rating: 
Summary: An Absorbing Entry By A Presidential Hopeful!
Review: Parts of this fairly brief yet well-written work by former general Wesley Clark fairly sing. For example, when describing the active military strategy employed that shrewdly manipulated the Iraqis into alternatively exposing themselves to Allied airpower and armor, Clark is obviously in his element, illustrating how the kind of 'lean and mean' profile of the new American military tactics can be used to actively spur and influence the conduct of overwhelming blitzkrieg-type rapid advances. Moreover, as he describes the geo-political hazards of playing bait and switch with Saddam Hussein, using him as the 'flight dummy', a substitute standing in for Osama Bin laden as the resident bad-guy American military might can be deployed against, Clark illustrates why he was a controversial yet acknowledged tactician who understood every element of the quicksilver calculus of modern battle. Yet when he begins to draw obvious political conclusions from all this, his argument somewhat stalls and slows down. While it is hard to argue with his observations regarding the way the Bush administration cynically manipulated and played on the fears and trepidations of the populace in pursuing rather conventional engagements since it would be easy and likley successful, first with the Afghans and later the Iraqis, it is also true that it is extremely self-serving to do so for a man who is now an announced candidate for President. And while I agree that he is very much on the mark in terms of the accuracy and cogency of his arguments against both the tenor and intensity of the war effort since 911, one tires of the repeated criticism and attacks on Bush, even though Clark sometimes does so quite convincingly. For example he cites how Donald Rumsfeld and others within his entourage craved a chance to attack Iraq even before assuming office, and also how both they and Condoleeza Rice consciously viewed the event of 911 as offering them an opportunity to use the situation to go after Saddam. For Clark, Saddam was a virtual "hobbyhorse" they wanted to ride, even at the expense of ignoring more pressing concerns such as the active pursuit of Al Qaeda and exaggerating the threat and the evidence concerning Saddam's possible role as a threat to America. So, Clark maintains, we attacked the wrong target at the worst possible moment, squandering our resources in an unnecessary and pointless showdown with Sadam Hussein. Finally, as he turns his focus to concentrate on more global concerns, including how he would approach the foreign policy issues he feels have so far vexed the current administration, he becomes more general, more philosophical, and less specific. Just like a serious Presidential candidate might! While this is to be expected, I was disappointed by his reflections, which seemed to me to be more likely written by consulting committees worried about offending popular sensibilities than anything else. Yet all that said, it is obvious that he is bright, energetic, and extremely ambitious. What worries me most about this remarkable man is the fact that he rose within the military to become a general, which mean he is a master politician, for no one becomes a general in today's army without being what they call a "team player" one who goes along to get along". The military values conformity and obedience more than anything, and we have to ask ourselves, do we really need another Colin Powell type, another guy so willing to work for consensus above all else that he sacrifices his beliefs and principles to carry the day? Based on what I read in this book, Clark is obviously bright enough to carry it off. Whether he makes a good choice to be our next President is something the reader will have to decide for himself. Enjoy!
Rating: 
Summary: Friendly Fire
Review: Presidential candidate retired General Wesley Clark examines how our unparalleled military capabilities are being (mis)used in place of the hard work of diplomacy. Not surprisingly, Clark has high praise for our remarkable military capabilities. And he has high criticism for how those remarkable capabilies have been used by the Bush administration. He argues that our military has succeeded despite narrow-minded, strong-willed and clumsy civilian leadership. The first half of the book is a chronological summary of the war in Iraq, with a particular focus on strategy and tactics. After the intense, embedded news coverage, this look back gives those events some needed context and perspective. The second half addresses the flaws, dangers and weaknesses in seeing our every challenge in military terms. The adage "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like nail" is the underlying theme. In particular, he strongly criticizes using front-line forces -- forces trained for initiative and manueuver -- as a village constable. The concluding chapter reads more like a campaign stump speech. Right or wrong, those observations are clouded (for me) by his political ambitions. I have a few quibbles. He frequently places words and phrases in quotation marks, as if they have an "unconventional" meaning. And his lofty praise of military personnel sounds like show-biz; e.g. "under the brilliant leadership of...", "they would have risen to the top [anywhere]". As events continue to unfold in Iraq and in the Presidential campaign, this book may become essential reading ... or quickly fall out-of-date. Recommended for those (like me) with a strong interest in United States' role in the world.
Rating:
Summary: A great review and commentary on the current Iraq problem
Review: The first part of the book focuses on the buildup and war against Saddam Hussein launched by the United States in March, 2003. While I was dissapointed in the lack of coverage of the intense debate prior to the war, expecially at the United Nations, the coverage of the actual military campaign is quite detailed and informative. The second part of the book focuses on more controversial topics, such as the appropiate use of force and who really is responsable for terrorisim. Some will argue that this was merely a campaign tome written for the author's present campaign for President of the Unted States. I can see how some could say that, expecially after reading the last chapter, but that would mean dismissing commentary of a combat veteran and the former commander of NATO during that orginization's first ever military campaign. It is critical of President Bush's policy towards Iraq. I would not recomend it for people who think that the "W" in President George W. Bush's name stands for, "Walks on Water". However, the criticisim the author offers cannot be dismissed easilly. I do recomend it for anyone who wants to read a thoughtful critique of the Iraq war.
Rating:
Summary: "Winning" requires more than military might
Review: The first part of this most interesting book written by the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe describes the buildup and conduct of the war in Iraq. General Clark provides a map and recalls operations and gives a detailed strategic look at how the war was won. Then on page 83 he begins his critique and analysis of the "victory" in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is here that the book becomes most interesting and most enlightening. Clark finished this book sometime early in the fall of 2003 before the full extent of the Bush administration's failure in postwar Iraq became clear. Nonetheless Clark anticipated the failures, and his critique is devastating. When one adds it to some of the other criticisms that have come from distinguished military experts--the latest of which was General Anthony Zinni's appearance on Sixty Minutes (May 23, 2004) in which he said that had he made the mistakes in planning that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had made, he would be compelled to resign--one is forced to recognize not only failure but premeditated and deliberate ignorance and incompetence. While the old saw that "war is too important to be left to the generals" is still viable, it is equally true that to ignore or to go against the advice of those most experienced in such matters is foolhardy. Imagine yourself as President of the United States being told by your most experienced and senior generals such as Wesley K. Clark and Colin Powell--just to mention the two most prominent--that an invasion of Iraq would be unwise, counterproductive, and very expensive both in terms of monies spent and lives lost. What would you do? What Bush did was to ignore the experts and to go with the neoconservative ideologues in and around the White House and people like Rumsfeld, and to do it without thinking the consequences completely through. As Gen. Clark so calmly and convincingly points out, the invasion of Iraq was a military success and a reconstruction failure of the most obvious and predictable sort. He writes, "Destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield creates a necessary--but not sufficient--condition for victory." (p. 88) More specifically, the planners failed to anticipate "various contingencies...including the possibility of postwar Iraqi resistance." (pp. 86-87) It is amazing to realize that the Bush White House apparently thought that the scattered Baathist elements and the Shia faithful would turn into flower children and hand out daises to the occupying soldiers. Perhaps the simplest and most telling criticism is that "decisive operations (how to defeat Iraqi forces) had taken priority over the postwar plan (how to achieve the real objectives in Iraq)." (p. 89) However Clark's most important criticism is this: "the Administration raised the costs and risks of the mission by preventing our use of the full array of tools available to win modern war" by being "unwilling to exploit the international legitimacy and support from international institutions like the United Nations and NATO." (p. 92) Now in May 2004 as I write this, Bush is practically begging the UN and anybody else who will listen to help us extract ourselves from the quagmire. As to Bush's motive for invading Iraq, Clark asks, "if a primary but unspoken purpose of the campaign was to demonstrate the skills and courage of the American armed forces, then surely... [the military invasion] was a success." (p. 101) What he is suggesting (in a larger and less sanitized sense) is that we showed the world not only the awesome power of our weapons but our willingness to use them. I think that this was the real purpose of the invasion of Iraq. An easy victory against an overmatched (and evil) opponent in which the "shock and awe" of our military might could be displayed for all the world to see was what Bush had in mind. One cannot help but observe that such a scenario (successfully constructed) would work toward his becoming a two-term president and would fit well the mind set of a mediocre man whose personal advantages had allowed him many easy victories in his personal life. Another "unspoken" reason for invading Iraq was to draw attention away from the fact that we had not caught Osama bin Laden and that the Bush administration really did not (and does not) know how to go about doing that. Let me make a suggestion: use the $200-billion plus that we have squandered in Iraq to persuade the tribesmen and warlords of Afghanistan and the government of Pakistan to help us find bin Laden. What Bush has accomplished in Iraq amounts to a giant recruiting poster for terrorists. Indeed the boots on the ground in Iraq serve as training targets for a mushrooming terrorist population. Clark also addresses the larger theoretical issues, that of preemptive wars (he's in favor of them but only as self-defense on a multilateral basis) and the delusion of an American Empire. He points out that the word "empire" no longer has any real military or economic meaning. The US in fact, through globalization, has in effect created an economic empire, the maintenance of which requires a lot more than military might. Clark calls this the "virtual" American empire, and I think that is insightfully apt terminology. There's a lot more to this book than I can discuss here, but let me add one more thing. Clark makes the astute observation that one of the tactics of terrorism is entice governments into instituting "repressive security measures...and so lose the support of its citizens" (p. 106) We can see the beginnings of such measures in the United States with the Patriot Act. One hopes that we do not fall into this trap, the ancient one of allowing the ends to justify the means on our way to becoming our enemy.
| 
