Rating: 
Summary: Oustanding, thorough, compelling history
Review: Outstanding use of language, clear recollection and fair interpretations make this an outstanding read for the modern history buff.
Halberstam's language is clear, concise, yet insightful and sophisticated. His detailed diversions into the roots of conflict, the reasons behind the leaders' actions, and his detailed accounts of interpersonal interactions all pull the drama along.
Educational and fascinating.
Rating: 
Summary: A Case of bad timing
Review: This book has the misfortune of bad timing. It was published in the May, proceeding September 11. It provides an insightful and detailed review of the Clinton's administration problems in coping with the Yugoslavia crisis. Regrettably that is almost all that it covered. The near complete omission of any discussion of the Middle East and terrorism becomes glaringly apparent after September 11. It is likely that this book would have been considered too incomplete on the subject matter to be published, had it still been on the editor's desk on September 11. As a very pro Clinton review of the Yugoslavia crisis it is of value, but as a review of the overall foreign relations situation during the Clinton years it is only 1/3 complete.A great deal was going on in the terrorist arena during this time period, and it is simply not addressed in this book. Also Clinton's attempt to broker a Middle East peace, and its failure, is barely mentioned.
Rating: 
Summary: An Interesting Journalistic Account
Review: When I picked this book up I was looking for an interesting, readable book to serve as a break from ploughing through heavy academic texts. It fit the bill nicely. It's a journalistic account of the people who made American foreign policy from Bush Senior to the rise of his son. The tag line; "Bush, Clinton and the Generals" may be a touch misleading. Bush bows out early in the book and then it's mostly Clinton. and THEN it's as much people like Dick Holbrooke as it is the generals. But don't necessarily be put off by that.This is a journalistic account, largely sourced from interviews conducted by the author with the key players. One never quite knows how much stock to put in these books. Much depends on the objectivity of the author. I couldn't comment on Halberstam but it seemed pretty even to me. I find it amusing to look through the other reviews and to see that some people seem to feel "It'd be better if Halberstam wasn't so biased against liberals" and that the next review down can say "It'd be better if Halberstam wasn't a Republican hating Clinton apologist!" Of course, neither of these characterisations is true and reading it from an outsider's perspective (which I suspect may be valuable here) Halberstam DOESN'T discriminate along party lines. So who comes out of it well and who comes out badly? Bush Snr, Jim Baker, Laurence Eagleberger, indeed most of the father Bush's administration comes out of it pretty well. Colin Powell emerges from it as a shrewd operator, a safe pair of hands and a decent person - perhaps rather more Bush senior's man than his son's. Clinton emerges badly. Petulant, self centred and lacking in grip. The people who serve him come out of the book in a better light, often struggling against the tide to try to provide a coherent policy. But Halberstam is no Republican apologist - he is scathing (rightly in my opinion) about the gross hypocrisy and damaging opportunism of the Republican opposition (especially Newt Gingrich's people) who, with honourable exceptions (such as Bob Dole), emerge from the book as simply being profoundly unpleasant. The book is readable. Titled chapters rather than title numbers would have been an aid in finding areas of interest. It began to drag towards the end and is prehaps overlong. But it is worth reading as an interesting insight into the personalities that are running American foreign policy and how they (if we are to believe Halberstam) think, act and work together.
| 
