Plan of Attack

Rating:
Summary: An insightful, enjoyable read.
Review: Bob Woodward, possibly one of the best investigative journalists of our time, has undoubtedly written the most essential work to date on the ongoing conflict in Iraq. No one (specifically right-wing Bush supporters) should criticize this book for being biased and as another attempt of the "Liberal Media" to degrade the President and his actions regarding Iraq. Plan of Attack is an unbiased account of the Bush Administration's foreign policy since November of 2000. What is important to realize is that at no time does Woodward degrade the President at all. After reading this book, my attitude towards the President (I am a registered Democrat and avid Kerry supporter) changed very little. I have a better understanding of the man who occupies the Oval Office. I see very little fault with George W. Bush and his close White House Aids, along with Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and Condeleeza Rice. I cannot say the same for the other powerful figures in the Administration such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. After the completion of reading this book, I found the President to be very ill served by various members of the Administration that ultimately led us down the path of war. Woodward's book is not a personal attack on anyone in the Bush Administration by any means, instead he wonderfully illustrates the power struggle and egotistical battle that emerged almost immediately as Bush took the Oath of Office. Woodward should be revered for his in-depth portrayal of the Bush White House, its politics, and its image behind the politically polished safeguard. Anyone of virtuous conscience should read Plan of Attack.

Rating:
Summary: Food for Thought
Review: Having read several other Woodward books, I agree with comments from other reviewers that this is his best book so far. He reached further down into the U.S. government to report what was going on than he did in "Bush At War", which reported events mostly from the perspective of the Cabinet members. The details about what CIA officers "Tim" and "Saul" were doing is fascinating.

The book is "instant history". In a decade or more we will most likely have better histories about what really happened, and what was done well or badly. This book certainly accelerates the process of getting the "behind the scenes" information into the public realm earlier than usual. It is hard to believe that some of the details in the book are now already published, while the principals are still in office.

What is NOT in the book, and among the issues for future historians or journalists:

WHY did Bush have it out for Saddam even before 9/11 and even before taking office? Woodward makes a clear case this was so, but

Why IS Cheney so closed-minded, seemingly uninterested in learning or acting on the basis of the facts? (He comes out looking the worst of anyone in the book.) Was he like that when he was Ford's Chief of Staff?

Why was so LITTLE attention paid to the post-war planning? (Bush kept asking if the war plans were ready to go, but there is nothing in the book about Bush asking if the POST-war plans were ready before he gave the order to attack.) Was it because Rumsfeld had his hands so full with war planning that post-war planning was allocated too low a priority? Because Powell was so focused on warning Bush that he would "own Iraq" after a war? Powell was right about that, but he didn't do much to prepare for that predictable outcome. Did Bush even think about what would happen post-Saddam? Do we need a Department of Nation Building?

The book gives one plenty to think about.

Rating:
Summary: A Truly Inside View
Review: I am a European, from a US-friendly country. In fact, troops from my country serve in Iraq. I would like to believe that my views on the US government are non-partisan and my evaluation of the Plan of Attack is unbiased.

Bob Woodward delivers a very interesting view of the dicision making process inside the White House. The author describes each member of the Bush's staff and his/her contribution to the decision to go to war with Iraq. Reading the book, I realized that in electing a president, Americans also choose the posse that will come with him. And this posse may have more influence on the state of the union than the President himself! (an interesting arrangement, considering Rice did not even feel she should testify before the 9-11 committe).

A reader will find that Washington is just one stale pond with people who have been rotating in and out of administrations for decades, people like Cheney, Rumsfield, Powell... (something to think about for those who feel America needs a vibrant, progressive administration)

Woodward shows how some decisions just could not have been undone. Reading about how the president made a decision to go to war and how it involved his relationship with the Saudis, it becomes clear that after some time (December-Jan) NOT going to war was no longer an option. In effect, it became a trade off between foreign interests, 1 - Go to war and please the Saudis, Kuwaties OR 2 - Don't go to war and please the French, Germans and Russians. Bush's internations INexperience (which was a hot topic during the 2000 election) seems to have played a major role in handling the decision. Though a credit should be given to the president for sticking with UN process for at least some time.

Readers who are bitter about paying taxes will find some fascinating information about the cost of intelligence delivered from Iraq. The CIA spent thousands of pounds of CASH to get the shaky intelligence; the book mentions that a million bucks in $100 bills weighs about 48 lb. The details of the intelligence are not discussed, but a reader will find interesting how some of was used to make the decision. Description CIA's pre-war activity in Iraq is among the most fascinating parts of the book.

All in all, the book gives a good insider view of the White House politics and interactions and how they played a role in the decision. The text will give its reader a clear picture of the characters in the current administarion and help understand what the Washington politicians mean when they say something...

Rating:
Summary: Honest, Reliable, Easy To Read, Accurate, Interseting...
Review: After reading Bush At War, I thought I would try Plan Of Attack, as I was impressed by Woodward's knowledgeable approach and seemingly unbiased attitude. I didn't want a book telling me that 'Bush is a useless idiot, for the following reasons'.... Nor did I want 'Bush is a GOD!'. Woodward's books are honest and reliable.

Where Bush At War left off, near the end of the Afghanistan crisis, Plan Of Attack starts mainly on the current war on Iraq. The portrayal of Donald Rumsfeld is again showed as aggressive and forceful. The book also looks into the planning before the war, Woodward shows he's done the homework and it's full of interesting facts.

Like Bush At War, Woodward's style is very conversational and easy to follow, almost like a diary of events with a timeline. One problem is that the book was written before the current run of events, which are drastically ruining America's credit. The supposed torturing of Iraqi prisoners has only recently come out. So, the general belief is that everything is going well, which is now incorrect. This though is the only problem.

Overall Woodward has once again produced an accurate, intelligent, honest and easy to read account on the proceedings with the war. I recommend reading Bush At War before this, then you will get the whole spectrum from Woodward.

Rating:
Summary: fair and balanced
Review: I heard a lot of information about this book. You know, people said it was liberal propaganda, that it was irresponsible journalism, etc. But when I read it it I was surprised to find that it is very balanced. Most of the points it makes are done very fairly, explaining thebackground of them and other possible explinations.

One is the famous point about whether the Saudi Arabians agreed to sell oil at a cheap price before the elections. I heard people criticizing this on television, a wellknown Republican defending against these idea, and the candidate John Kerry using them in a speach. But when you actually read them, it's not such a big deal as all that.

I have not read all of the political books of the season, but this one seems nicely balanced to me. I think it would be heard to criticize this book for taking sides for anyone who reads it. I bet the people so angry about the message one way or the other didnt even read it.

Rating:
Summary: A must read for Europeans
Review: This is a book every European should read. If you still had doubts that war in Iraq was up for debate in the UN late 2002, early 2003, this book will prove how wrong you were. It demonstrates that the world, and the UN in particular, are considered to be nothing more than puppets on a string to provide legitimacy to decisions made long before. It is difficult to believe that intelligent people like Blair, Aznar etc. became GW's poodles and lackeys.
I guess one positive thing is that America will think twice before starting another Iraq-style adventure. Being a successful colonial nation takes decades, if not centuries. We know.

Rating:
Summary: Important subject, turgid prose
Review: Rarely has an important book of this sort been written and published with such remarkable timing. Richard Clarke had similar timing but his tone was strident and potentially politically or at least commercially motivated. Woodward apparently had the inside track but manages to appear to maintain objectivity. A very important distinction.

Plan of Attack was written at a time when the war in Iraq, while ugly, appeared to be improving; and it was published (and its epilogue written) when the war had confirmed its ugliness and seemed to be deteriorating; all the while being one of the central issues of a close and fiercely contested Presidential election. This book is an important document written at an important time and one that forces reflection on one of the most important current events of our time.

However, the final verdict on this book will have to wait for events to sort themselves out considerably more than is the case at present. It is possible that events in Iraq have begun an irreversible downward spiral; it is also possible that the situation can be reversed and the strategic benefits of stability and peace can be achieved with the concomitant benefit to the Middle East and the security of the United States. Certainly the latter is to be hoped for; this book leans somewhat more to the former perspective, but it obviously is too soon to know.

The book moves through three stages:

• The first is the war planning; primarily the interchange between Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld
• The second encompasses a much wider cast as the debate about pre-emption and the value of UN involvement raged around the President
• Finally is the story of the war's beginning, including an epilogue written after David Kay's resignation after not finding WMD

All of these stages are a recitation of current events known to anyone who reads the newspapers. But it is useful to have the events recounted and the addition of the color of the interplay of the personalities is interesting and helpful to understanding.

I am sorry to note that the book is written in a style that seems to be merely an edited version of a diary. It plods from day to day in a way that sometimes loses the reader's interest and often makes it difficult to maintain the broader context of what was happening at the time of the events that are related. Furthermore, the use of gratuitous profanity detracts from the narrative, however true to life it may be. While demerits, however, these are not fatal ... this book should be near the top of everyone's list (in 2004, anyway).

Rating:
Summary: A Must Read!
Review: Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward continues to shine his lamp into the shadows of U.S. political life. Woodward has an uncanny ability to present a point of view without appearing biased, perhaps because he approaches truth with a complex worldview and eschews viewing individual leaders as either particularly good or evil. Although you may not want to hear what he learned, Woodward interviewed more than 75 officials directly involved in the war on terrorism, including spending three and a half hours with President Bush. He found out that Bush considered, and then planned, war in Iraq long before voters knew, and that his chief advisors debated it vigorously. Right or wrong, he seems to say, Bush's pivotal team members - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Franks - were entirely earnest. We strongly recommend this book to anyone who wonders how the U.S. became the proud new owner of all of Iraq's problems. It gives you a breathtaking behind-the-scenes understanding of the decisions, for good or ill, that led to America's second war against Saddam.

Rating:
Summary: Planning for war, but not for peace
Review: "Plan of Attack" is as great a chronicle of the road to war in Iraq as one can find right now. Tracing the debates in the Bush Administration from day one until the war started, Bob Woodward narrates the well-known and widely reported facts leading up to the war supported by behind the scenes accounts that add another dimension to the story.

In a way, much of the story is familiar-the debates between the hawks and the doves, the diplomatic maneuvers in the United Nations, the intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism. On that level, Mr. Woodward's contribution is to bring all the information together nicely.

But there is another layer-the interviews, the closed-door meetings, and the day-to-day preparations which give a good account of how this war was being planned; one of the major themes here is how the administration was more concerned about winning the war than winning the peace.

In all, "Plan of Attack" is probably the best story that can come out of this war at this point, given that the war is still being fought and everyone involved remains in office. But I suspect that this book will serve as a good narrative for those interested in the pre-war situation; it is also likely that it will be used twenty years' down the line as an authoritative historical record of the war planning.

Rating:
Summary: Wait for the paperback
Review: This book is a fascinating read, if at times a bit long-winded.

If you have the ambition, you might be inclined to take notes throughout, or, as I plan to eventually do, re-read it, maybe even a number of times. I might particularly recommend starting with the epilogue at the end, as it more or less summarizes the thought processes, decisions, and communications (or lack thereof) within the Bush administration leading up to war in Iraq, while the balance of the book gives a more in-depth analysis. Read the book with any level of concentration and focus you wish, but before you vote, you simply should read "Plan of Attack".

Refreshingly, the book, while not in the traditional sense "critical" of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, is quite illustrative of the lengths to which they go to influence
(read: manipulate) Bush. While I still have little respect for Bush, I now have a slightly more understanding view of Bush and that he is probably more misled than he is ignorant, as I initially thought. I didn't get the sense that Bush has acted without immense pressure from the two. For me, this candid analysis of Cheney and Rumsfeld is the most fascinating aspect of the book.

Also further implied here is some truth in the frightening and quite frankly upsetting thought that the people with perhaps the most knowledge in matters of military operations and war, specifically Secretary of State Colin Powell and General Tommy Franks, were and are given the least input, trust and respect in these decisions, and in general are often left dangerously out of the loop.

It should be obvious that we will never, ever get an entirely accurate and impartial account of the events and decsion-making process of the Iraq war, or any other issue facing our world for that matter. Not as long as there are people of opposing political viewpoints that dislike each other, and reporters and authors who avoid overly partisan tactics to obtain full and sanctioned access to each party's players. It can be said that such is the case with Woodward, but his latest effort is as neutral as it probably gets.

"Plan of Attack" is an important book. The seriousness of its subject matter explains the lack of "entertainment value". It's not supposed to be "fun" to read, but in a way, it is. Informative also, interesting, and as some have said, "it reads like a textbook", which is very accurate but I'll venture to say it is better than any textbook I have read. If you don't learn a lot about the war planning, you learn a lot about Washington operations in general. Regardless of which side you are on, Woodward's new book will likely not do much to change your point of view.

As much as I like "Plan of Attack", it is a little pricy, hence only three stars. My suggestion is to first borrow "Plan of Attack", and if you like it, buy it or wait for the paperback edition, which, if Woodward's previous book, "Bush At War" is any indication, will have additonal updated information.