Rating: 
Summary: Imagine there's no bad guys, it's easy if you.......
Review: One always gets the chilly feeling that in the mire of 'international politics' and 'international law' lies the membership requirement of the suspension of disbelief. Today we all cheer an Iranian 'dialogue' that will supposedly, somehow, lead to them not acheiving nuclear status. This is a fools wish, and if pressed, I find that most anyone of any political persuasion will admit as much.
In step Perle and Frum who tell you what you already know: don't be silly...these agreements have a flawless track record of failure for you to ignore at your peril. Wish all you'd like, but the truth just sits there, whether you choose to recognize it or not. By the ever-lofty and sadly humorous standards of 'world-opinion', this book would somehow be considered extreme. However, if we can't muster the backbone to realistically stare a problem down and see it clearly at this moment in history, in a decade this books suggestions will seem very practical, indeed.
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: 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: An Appeal to the Hardline
Review: This book is a solid common sense argument for taking the hardline in national defense. Regardless of your politics, it is worthy of a read. Frum sees multilateralism in this time as akin to the wacko appeasement policies of WWII. Poignant citations show that many of the nations most in support of multilateralism have something to be gained by thwarting resolute actions to eliminate terrorist cells and state sponsors (financial, national pride, UN influence etc.). Frum's examples of what is considered "moderate islam," his explanation of the titular differences of the political and active branches of terrorist organizations, the henous policies of terrorist states that are in many cases sponsored by the U.S. (Saudi Arabia, etc), and the advances in nuclear technology in Iran and North Korea are shocking indeed. Something horrible is definitely brewing. Proactive intervention is unavoidable. Frum takes aim at appologists, cowards, and multiculturalists that are blinded by pc dogma and allow evil to manifest. I am generally a moral relativist and unreligious but even I can agree that a lot of what is going on is EVIL. Multiculturalism is a good thing; changing the way young females in Finland dress so as to prevent extremist Muslim men from raping Finnish women at an alarming rate is hog wash. Saying the US is responsible for 911 because of our active sponsorship of Israel is blaiming the victim and vile. Regime change in the PLO, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, North Korea, the liberal media, Saudi Arabia, blind and cynical US leaders who are unconvinced and don't value life, Somalia, Nigeria, faculty that foment fashionable nonsense, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, Portland OR bongo drum leaders, Libya and France would be a good thing (just kidding about France). Frum's methods for diffusing the problem are generally viable albeit costly. I disagree with his suggestions that Syria and Iran should be properly invaded and North Korea should be blockaded. These regimes are more interested in self preservation than ideology promotion through overt terrorism. Kim Jong Il, for example, would be committing suicide if he were to kill anybody but his own people in a nuclear detonation. Even Kodhafi recognized the new dynamic and became compliant after the example of Sadaam Hussein's downfall. Then again, it is dangerous to rely on the reason of irrational leaders. These states, instead, should be allowed to whither through stringent economic sanctions, covert special forces assasinations of key instigators, and radio/tv/flyer blitzes of pro Western propoganda. Also, perhaps dissident groups inside these countries should be organized, covertly funded and trained by military experts. A new cleverly crafted worldwide pr blitz praising the will of oppressed young people living in oppression- a la Tianenman Square- could be implemented. China needs to enter the picture as a stalwart ally in the fight against terrorists in the East. Their impetus would be that their emerging economy could be derailed by Philipino and Indonesian cells destabilizing the region and possibly even attempting to proselytize Chinese citizens. This is another great book by Frum. I can't wait to read his book on the 70's. He is a very insightful clearheaded writer.
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.
|
