Rating: 
Summary: Illuminating, readable inside view of policy being developed
Review: Fascinating account, published before the recent war, by a leading government (NSC) Iraq analyst during the 1990's. Not at all party political. Exhaustive (400 pages) analysis of the US's policy options towards Iraq. The author reluctantly concluded that by 2001 a large-scale invasion to depose Saddam Hussein, despite all the disadvantages, costs and risks, had become the US's most conservative option. Came out last year, I wish I had read it before the war. Many things would have been clearer as the conflict unfolded, with fewer surprises.I find compelling, given his position as a 'fly on the wall' at the center of official foreign policymaking, his stark observation that whatever justifications would be offered for war when it came, the real (and basically, within government, bipartisan) reasons for it would be: (a) Saddam Hussein's continuing effort to acquire nuclear weapons (which would necessarily eventually be successful),
(b) his history of using on his neighbors whatever WMD he got his hands on (especially given his wild miscalculations of likely consequences, making it essentially impossible to deter him), and
(c) the catastrophic impact on the world economy of a nuclear strike on the Saudi oilfields. He was also fascinating on what the timing of an invasion would have to be: only after enough progress against al Qaeda that a(ny) US President could not be criticised, in the event of another al Qaeda attack, for focusing on the wrong opponent (as it turned out this meant after success in Afghanistan), but equally before the US public's concern over 9/11 subsided. The analytical conclusion in the government was that if you weren't ready to seize that opportunity as it arose then you'd better hunker down for whatever Saddam was going to throw at you, as the US would never get a better shot. In retrospect the one area where his predictions were off, out of so many, was where he thought France, Germany and Russia would come down once it became clear we were going to invade. He thought they would frustrate every effort to work through the UN until it became apparent the US would invade, and then switch sides and support UN-authorized intervention because the one thing they were afraid of about us globally would be seeing the US begin to act unilaterally. To be fair to him he did describe the prospect of relying on inspections as a "trap" (into which we now know we fell). Unsurprising that he was, as a Middle East specialist, stronger on the Arabs (where his predictions all proved correct) than on the Europeans. On the other hand his account of the Europeans' actions is still pretty compelling, and this is what makes the earlier comment by someone else, that the book is no longer relevant, incorrect. He describes the French and the Russians (and the Chinese who were building a massive fiber optic communications system for the military in Iraq) during the 1990's as being happy to maneuver global security problems into the US's lap, and even make money out of making the the problems worse (e.g. by undermining sanctions against Saddam), because of their supreme confidence that the US would have to sort them out in the end. What he missed is that when "in the end" finally arrived (and France and Russia's opportunities to make money evaporated) because we made up our minds to go in, they would focus on trying to drive up the cost to the US of intervening, even if it meant a train wreck at the UN, rather than on being helpful. This, it seems to me, delivers a gripping and realistic if also ghastly glimpse of the truly post-cold war world we now face, going into the future. Our enemies hate us and our allies... well many of them are not in practice, since the fall of the Soviet Union, that much different. We are so strong that they don't feel any impulse or need to lift a finger to help us. This is unfortunately today the real world. The stark picture the author paints here, though incidental to his main subject, is what I found in the end to be the most valuable thing in the book.
Rating:
Summary: Thorough, albeit a little biased
Review: Kenneth Pollack had the great fortune of being a fly on the wall for many years during a period of great upheaval in the Persian Gulf. His breadth of topics is matched only by the depth of information - including his depictions of Saddam's childhood and the details of life within his regime. While "Threatening Storm" was intended as the argument for invasion, the book more than exceeds its purpose, and the information it provides allows for a greater understanding of the intricacies of politik in the region. The only flaw I see in the book is its bias, which Pollack admits from the start is toward invasion. Why 5 stars, then? What is a political dissertation without a persuasive element? Nothing but a collection of facts and figures. Pollack's expert interpretation is welcome here, and although I disagree with his conclusions, I respect and understand much more fully his point of view. This review written by an economics student at the University of Illinois.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Compelling enough to go to War
Review: An excellent book for the Pros of going to war. In order to get a balanced perspective, I recommend that readers also read "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know", and "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked", September 11, 2001". There is no doubt that Saddam was a bad person. But being a tyrant and oppressing people is not a tenet for going to war. There were more vicious regimes after WWII e.g Pol Pot of Cambodia, and and more dangerous foes than Saddam e.g. Kim of N. Korea with clear Nuclear aspirations. There are many, many more examples e.g. in the African continent, but none meet the strategic (read "economic") interests of the U.S. For those reviewers who think this war is simply about terrorism and regime change and not about "Oil" are mistaken. The only differientating factor between say N. Korea and Iraq is our economic interest in Oil. During the first Gulf War, the World recognized the dangers of Saddam taking over a substantial amount of the known world's Oil reserves; however, in the second Gulf War - Oil is never mentioned as a factor.
Rating:
Summary: A terrific read. Compelling facts and conjecture!
Review: I picked up this book a few days before the war started in Iraq. In short, I found this book compelling for many reasons, the least of which was Iraq's WMD program. For those interested, even now after the ostensible hostilities are over, the book gives a compelling overview of Iraq and how the United States arrived at the confrontation that overthrough Saddam. I defy anyone who reads through the chapter detailing the brutal oppression of the Saddam regime to say that our war was unjust. Perhaps the lesson of Stalin, Mao, Pott, Hitler was not enough. Perhaps the Baathist regime's modeling of Stalinist tactics and strategy is not enough. Perhaps actual facts are difficult to understand, or the THOUSANDS of mass graves and "dissappeared" are to be absorbed because of the current occupant of the White House. I find such a view very foolish, and most scary. In light or recent events, of course, a reader would read the chapters related to WMD programs with particular interest. Was the U.S., and the world community duped into believing Iraq possessed WMD programs? The book makes it pretty clear that Iraq had some type of WMD program operating. However, I find myself thinking now about the location of the WMD's. was it all faked? The book makes it seem very doubtful, but it is certain that one way or the other, Iraq was a threat to us, either through its support of terroism world wide or through numerous attempts to procure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Personally, the book provided a lot of confirmation about my thoughts about the Iraq situation. I believe the author provides a lot solid reasons detailing why the invasion was necessary, and that delays were actually more dangerous to the US. This book exposes that fallacious thinking of the UN boosters, and the containment crowd because it points out that the UN route
was never designed to end Iraq's murderous regime; and that the containment crowd never addressed the danger to our pilots and military in enforcing the no-fly zone, the continued presence the military needed in Saudi Arabia ( causing great tension), and the fact that the UN enforcement regime was weakening all the time. This is a good book for someone interested in seeking answers beyond the blather presented as news, and the empty (and empty-headed slogans of the moron crowd (ex. "no blood for oil"). Perhaps you will not agree with all of Mr. Pollack's views, but one can never dispute that Saddam was one bad dude, with one of the most vicious regimes of the 20th century. ... This is an interesting book that will engage you with its compelling and logical discussion of the issues Iraq presented to the US and other responsible people...
Rating: 
Summary: Hype and bluster
Review: Time has proven Mr. Pollack to be one of the many hype artists beating the war drums for the Bush administration and logic such as this has led us into an unjustified war (at least in terms of international law) and earned us the scorn of other nations. What weapons of mass destruction? And at no point does the author observe the American companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton (previously trading with Saddam) who are now pigs at the trough at taxpayer expense.What a fiasco this has been.
Rating: 
Summary: Propaganda feeding Paranoia
Review: This book was written by a former american intelliegnce agency employee,so must be taken with tonnes of salt. To make sense of this kind of work, one has to understand the "Invisible Hand " that works in American Society so as to mould opinion in favour of the American Establishment.At the most basic level,it is the street talk circulated, this for your average joe next door(who, anyway hardly needs any convinving for most matters).The next level is the television in America ,which after the Attack on Iraq,has proved itself to be among the most biased news manufacturing systems on the planet. Third level is made up of print media propaganda, these are meant for poisoning the minds of the middle class and those who needs more than just TV propaganda. "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq
by Kenneth M. Pollack " falls in the third category ,and it performs this task admirably. Before the Attack on Iraq,everyone from the American President to small town newspaper coloumists peddled stories ,which now ,with benefit of hindsight has being proved to be completely baseless.
The aftermath of the Attack On Iraq ,has proved conclusions of this book wrong.
The reason i gave 2 stars is the methodology employed in writing this book,which is deft and racy(though superficial)
Rating:
Summary: Deeply flawed work
Review: Invade Iraq because they have WMD? Where are they? Hidding? Why would they hide their WMD if they are to be used in repelling or launching an attack?
On 05-24-03 Mr. Pollack gave an account of all this on NPR with Steve Inskeep and he asked:
INSKEEP: I really appreciate you agreeing to talk to us especially since -- I do want to put you on the spot a little bit. I want to know if the news from Iraq or maybe the lack of news from Iraq about weapons of mass destruction has changed your opinion about anything. Mr. POLLACK: Yes and no. Probably not as much as I think you'd suspect. At first, what you may remember from my book was I'd never thought that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. INSKEEP: That's right. Mr. POLLACK: I felt that it was a much more distant threat. And the real threat that I felt from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was the potential for Iraq to eventually develop nuclear weapons. Now I did believe that the Iraqis probably had some weaponized [chemical and biological] agents in the country, somewhere that they probably did have some ballistic missiles. INSKEEP: U.S. officials did suggest that Iraqi military units were ready to use chemical or biological weapons, that chemical weapons had been distributed to front-line troops and that sort of thing. That does seem to have turned out not to be true at least. Mr. POLLACK: Right, that's absolutely the case. And, you know, here's one where, you know, I think that, you know, my expectation was off base. INSKEEP: On another point, which is the most crucial point to you, about nuclear weapons. You told us last November when you came on this program that you believed there was a consensus among American, British, French, German and Israeli intelligence that Saddam Hussein had everything he needed to develop nuclear weapons. I suppose some people would question now whether all of the components for a nuclear program could really be hidden that well, whether they could have disappeared. Mr. POLLACK: Yeah, I mean, you're now getting beyond my area of expertise, Steven. I try very hard not to talk about things I don't know. I mean, the point that I made on your show was a true point. That was the consensus of opinion among the intelligence community. It was hearing things like that that brought me to the conclusion that, you know, 'Boy, if this is the case, we've got to do something about this guy.' I think, you know, that is exactly the kind of thing that we're going to need to go back and look hard at the evidence that we were getting and those various intelligence services who were making those claims, I think, are going to need to go back and re-examine the methods they used. As I said, that was not me making that claim; that was me parroting the claims of so-called experts. All this is VERY troubling and I doubt if the public will ever know the truth.
Rating:
Summary: A Prescient Review of America's Foreign Policy Options
Review: Like many Americans, when the recent war in Iraq commenced on March 20, 2003, I had only the vaguest notion of what had led up to it since Operation Desert Storm in 1991. I knew from exposure to news accounts that Saddam had survived, had continued to defy the United Nations and still ruled Iraq with a fist of iron. I remember the frequent turmoil surrounding weapons inspections and understood that the Saddam Hussein regime was a source of political instability in one of the most critical economic regions in the world. However, I didn't really have a good sense of what all the hubbub was about. Why the escalation? Why now? What was happening in 2002-2003 that made the threat so much greater that the United States felt it was time to pull the trigger? And so, like many Americans, I began to look for a book that could answer some of my questions. I spent a considerable amount of time browsing, looking for the right combination of good writing, intelligent commentary and comprehensiveness to give me the background I wanted in order to follow what was coming. Imagine my surprise when I read the following in the introduction to "The Threatening Storm": "As I will explain over the course of this book, I believe that the last option [of (i) containment, (ii) deterrence, (iii) covert action, (iv) the "Afghan Approach" and (v) invasion], full scale invasion, has unfortunately become our best option - or at least our "least bad" option." Here was a guy who had "called it" at least a year before the axe finally fell. Here was a guy who was well-educated, heavily steeped in the world of foreign policy and appeared to be level-headed and thoughtful, reluctantly proclaiming that war had become the only realistic policy. Up to that point, I had had mixed feelings about a war and I was desperately trying to get a feel for whether the advocates of war were deliberating the question fairly, or were just a bunch of warmongers seeking a foundation for popularity and reelection. I won't say that this book drew me conclusively to one side or the other. But it certainly helped me to understand the logic of the pro-war faction and frankly helped me to accept the war and place it in an historical and political context. As such, this book delivered exactly what I had hoped. It gave me background, insight and context. And it made me a far more informed news watcher, a dying breed in this world of media sound bytes and one-minute clips. About the only negative thing I can say about this book is that it is no longer relevant. It is, at its base, a book about the proper way to handle the Saddam Hussein regime. Whether you agree or disagree with America's war policy, the Saddam Hussein regime is no longer around to be handled. If you want to "go back" and understand why we did what we did, I don't think you could do better than "The Threatening Storm". However, if you want a more current book dealing with the "what now?" question, well, perhaps we can persuade Mr. Pollack to write a sequel.
Rating:
Summary: READ THIS FOR A PERSPECTIVE, IT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE
Review: I guess there are two kinds of people who may be reading about this book. First, those who came here looking for some fodder to support their own convictions about why the war was necessary or at least inevitable. The second, those anti-war aficianodos who believe that the "shock and awe" raid into Iraq was neither of the above, but were referred by friends who disagreed to read this book. I'll fess up that I belong to the second 'clique', that I read Chomsky and Eqbal Ahmed more than daily tabloids, and that I am by now armed with a ton of examples/evidence of why US' foreign policy over the course of last 3 decades has been nothing short of shabby, inconsistent and in fact (eventually) self-hurting. But this is a tireless debate, and we are not the first ones to hit upon it. Pollack's effort, in case you did not notice, is JUST A BOOK. Even though I believe that countering terrorism effectively would call for smarter strategies than war, strategies that Bush Inc seems to be happy in overlooking, The Threatening Storm still remains one of the BEST works out there with which to temper my anti-war sentiments. Instead of bickering about my opinions pro or anti war, I'd still recommend someone seriously interested in this atavistic debate to read this book. Ideally, with an open mind. If there was a sequel to this book, a sort of "Part 2 - The AfterMath" which I believe should almost be mandatory, I would scamper to grab that too.
Rating: 
Summary: A specialist on Iraq?
Review: I feel there is something strange with this book. It seems like a comic book or rather like science fiction. The author shows that he has read a lot of history. Somehow I can't take seriously his work. I am pretty sure that he has been given the duty to make a case for attacking Iraq. I mean nobody who is subject to normal media or scientific critism would boast to have been always right. Even less when this Pollack was not even known to be real expert on Iraq before - outside CIA circles. Suddenly Time and other magazines - apparently under pressure because of war on terrorism - raise him to superstardom.
Pollack has very simplified models. If Hitler was stopped few years before...As if Saddam nearing his grave was just planning to conquer the world. In Pollack's formula high cost of war is better to pay rather now - otherwise it will be more costly to do it later.
I can't see how anybody who has been following Saddam or lived in that country could say that Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 just to gain control of Iran's oilfields. Pollack is somehow giving western motives for eastern ruler's actions.
Pollack's book reveals more about the thinking of CIA than about Saddam. I hope that CIA men - experts of lies - are not consulted in rebuilding. If you built new Iraq in pure falsehood - to use Pollack's formula - price could be much higher in the future.
| 
