The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq

Rating:
Summary: Highly recommended
Review: I emphasize the ease of reading this book. The author is not only educated and knowledgeable about the region, but he is also a fine writer. This is a page-turner in a genre that more often than not produces laborious facts and opinions dragged down with redundant and boring side-tracks. Pollack has the sense to trust the reader with having intelligence enough to "get it" the first time and move on.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Book
Review: This is an excellent book that not only provides a strong argument for invasion now rather than later, it also details the history and culture of the Iraqi people. Most interestingly, Dr. Pollack writes extensively about how Saddam Hussein has been able to control the Iraqi people for so many years: by overlapping his intelligence and security services with rings of trusted people, the closest of these rings being staffed by the closest of relatives of Saddam Hussein. Hussein, Pollack argues, has been the coldest calculator of human torture since Hitler. Most interestingly is the fact that Pollack believes that the most people in Iraq will be overjoyed to see the Americans liberate them from Hussein and even happier to see the U.S. military stay. (It's too bad that Dr. Pollack isn't out for President Bush helping to sell the war against Iraq.)

Rating:
Summary: The case for invasion.
Review: There are two parts to this book: one historical, and one analytical. The first part gives us the history of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, concentrating especially on the activity of his armies and security forces. The second part examines the strategies currently available to the United States with respect to Iraq: containment, deterrence, covert action, assistance of Iraqi opposition groups with intelligence, logistical, and air support (but no major commitment of US ground troops), and full scale invasion. Pollack explains why deterrence and invasion are the only workable options in the short term, and why invasion turns out to be the only workable option in the long run.

Each of the two parts is worth the price of the entire book. Pollack's work is thorough, careful, and nuanced, and of course a far better source of information than the talking points one typically gets from cable news. The pro- and anti-war camps alike must measure their reasons against this book.

Rating:
Summary: Better than the title suggests
Review: This is a calm, lucid argument about the case for war against Iraq. Despite the flashy title, Pollack does not come across as a rabid war-monger. He musters his arguments and presents them in a dispassionate fashion. He makes a far better case than the Administration has offered.

Rating:
Summary: I protested against the war in 1991
Review: In January of 1991, I marched around the White House with thousands of others, protesting the war with Iraq. Not a pacifist by any stretch, I felt the recommendations of Colin Powell to try sactions and containment had not been given a chance. Keeping troops to defend Saudi Arabia was fine with me; it just seemed that a focused multilateral effort to pressure Saddam would have resulted in the liberation of Kuwait without a war.

I was wrong. As Kenneth Pollack clearly shows, containment would have never worked. As a policy to prevent Saddam from developing WMD, containment (coupled with inspections) has been a complete failure, due in part to various nations (i.e. France, Russia, China) circumventing the policy to serve their own economic self-interests. Pollack demostrates the implosion of containment in explicit detail. Those who proclaim that a U.S decision to go it alone and invade Iraq represents a defeat for multilateralism should wake up and smell the coffee; multilaterism died with the failure of containment.

With containment off the table, Pollack leaves us with two choices: deterrence or invasion. Pollack claims a policy of deterrence will result in an Iraq with nuclear weapons and the ability to blackmail the world by threatening to nuke the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. That leaves us with invasion. But what if a threat to Saudi oil didn't threaten our economic interests? If the West and Japan pursued policies that drastically reduced our dependence on oil, deterrence might be an option. Pollack doesn't address this possibility at all. It is the one failing in an otherwise excellent book. Before reading it, I was on the fence. Not anymore.

Rating:
Summary: A very good book, especially onsidering its timeliness
Review: First and foremost, the book is well written -- calm, intelligently structured, well-reasoned (almost), highly informative. I said "almost well-reasoned" because it is still not free from propaganda (which, to the author's credit, he freely admits right at the beginning.) Nevertheless, it's obvious that when the choice is objectivity vs. "proving the case", the author, at least sometimes, opts for the latter, even at the expense of logic. For example, he argues that now is the good time to deal with Iraq thusly: a) after sep 11, the american public is more amenable to such an operation b) in general Iraq is dangerous. Well, what occurs to me upon digesting this argument is that "b" may not be a sufficient grounds for going as far as a war, while "a" is not a reason for it at all, and, directly, is irrelevant (though it might be a context under which a military solution would be more feasible in terms of internal politics -- provided there are objective reasons to go to war, which "b" is not an *obvious*, sufficient case of, and "a" is not a case of at all; therefore, imo, the argument as presented by the author, fails; the authors is obviously a smart individual, and I suspect, what I can see, he must see as well, so, unless my reasoning is flawed here (which is not impossible, but where?) the only remaining to me interpretation of the awkward argument here is that it's propaganda rather than logic.)

But, that said, the book covers a lot of recent, 20-th century historical ground, both in the region and related, it's written confidently, obviously by a well-informed, fully competent specialist (not a politician), it treats on-going developments of great importance not only to the specialist or armchair politics buff, but to absolutely everyone -- and it does it powerfully, with an uncommon authoritativeness all the more surprising for a matter of such an overwhelming political immediacy (rather than some historical context of long ago); for that alone it's a must read.

Rating:
Summary: No? Well then... what would you do?
Review: "The Threatening Storm" is a rather lengthy book in which Kenneth Pollack lays out the reasons why the United States (and others) have come to the final possible solution to saving the world from Saddam Hussein. Pollack is very fair (criticizing or complimenting both the Right and the Left, Democrats and Republicans) and thorough in dealing with how Saddam came to power, what he's done since then, what's been done in attempt to stop or contain him, what he is attempting and could eventually do, and what options the United States and its allies have left.

The most respectable characteristic of this book is the palpable regret with which Mr. Pollack has come to the conclusion that the only good choice the U.S. has left is to invade Iraq to remove Hussein. While many on the anti-war side will seek to target Mr. Pollack personally, attempting to find ulterior motives, there just simply aren't any. Pollack clearly hates the fact that we have come to this, as any civilized person does. But after laying out all the things we have tried: sanctions, embargoes, bombing runs, etc., etc... there just simply isn't any other option left, in his expert opinion. Saddam Hussein is actively working to acquire a nuclear weapon, already has smaller chemical and biological weapons, and is looking for every chance he can get to throw the Middle East and the rest of the world into chaos. Mr. Pollack goes into great detail in explaining how he has done and is doing this, as well as giving numerous facts and details as to how waiting any longer will only make the situation for us and the rest of the world... so much worse.

The crowds opposing the U.S. led removal of Saddam Hussein from power have their roots in the same Left-wing ideologies (as well as a few of the fringe Right) of the leaders that opposed stopping Hitler in 1938. These ancestors of today's Left won the debate in 1938. Millions died soon after because of their victory. Now we are facing a similar situation... and the Left is again clamoring to let Saddam Hussein go on murdering. This is not to say all that oppose the war are of these groups; some that are opposed are very logical, honestly informed and well-intentioned. But the Noam Chomskys of the world simply have none of these traits. Bill Buckley put it well in a recent interview by explaining that people that are opposed to war under ANY circumstance (as these people are) just simply don't believe America is worth fighting for (and driving one's Range Rover to the local college campus rally is not what is meant by "fighting"). Read the anti-American diatribes coming from some of these folks and their underlying vitriol becomes readily transparent. Kenneth Pollack did not write this book for these people. He wrote this book for the general public, and most specifically, for the people that will begin this book with a skepticism and doubts that are genuine and honest, not jaded and cynical. A reader in this position may not be convinced, but he will respect Mr. Pollack's sincerity and seriousness, at the very least.

Rating:
Summary: ***The Best Nonfiction Book of 2002***
Review: Some books are convincing because the author appears genuinely disinterested in the outcome of his book's argument, as if he or she is just laying down facts and lines of reasoning without regard for where they might lead. Other books are convincing because the author is so passionate, knowledgable, and even partisan about his argument, that he is able to develop good objections to his own case, and yet still demolishes them.

"The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" is the latter kind of book. It is an astonishing and timely analysis that seeks to explain the range of all possible U.S. policy options in dealing with Iraq, and convincingly makes the case that a U.S.-led invasion is the best one. While Pollack is up front about what he thinks the U.S. should do, he is fair in setting out the other main potential policy options: containment, deterrance, and covert action.

Pollack also looks beyond the decision to invade by closely examining the implications of his suggested policy. He admits, for example, that invasion will not be easy and explains why. One of the more interesting parts of the book is his argument that recent U.S. military strikes in Desert Storm, Kosovo, and Afghanistan are not good examples of what the U.S. military must do in order to successfully invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Those supporting an invasion of Iraq because they think it will be easy should think again. Pollack also admits that a successful U.S. invasion will not bring a clean break with the past, but require an intensive U.S. presence in Iraq for years to come. These admissions give this book a stature that it would lack if it argued that invasion is an easy cure-all for both Iraq and the U.S.

But the soul of Pollack's book is his arguments against what he calls "containment", "deterrance", and "covert action" -- the main policy options other than invasion for handling Iraq. Containment -- the current policy combining sanctions, no-fly zones, and occasional use of minimal military force -- is fast eroding. While Pollack believes containment has served its purpose, Arab allies of the U.S. will no longer support it for various reasons.

Pollack argues that deterrance -- where the U.S. no longer applies broad sanctions or no-fly zones, but maintains the capability to massively strike Baghdad if it again threatens the region -- will not work because it requires both parties practice conservative decision-making. After all, careful moves by all parties involved will be needed if the U.S. allows Iraq to develop nuclear weapons, which is implied in deterrance. Pollack shows however that Saddam's pattern of decision-making dating back to the seventies has been consistently marked by a bold recklessness. The Iraqi leader is not insane and does have a sense of self-preservation, but he also has little experience outside of Iraq and is surrounded by sycophants who tell him what he wants to hear.

Finally, what about the option to take out Saddam with U.S. special forces or Iraqi domestic internal forces? Since it is Saddam -- not Iraq itself -- that is the main problem, wouldn't it be more efficient and less bloody if the U.S. sent in a team to take the Iraqi leader out or assisted a domestic group in doing the same? Pollack says this is not a viable option. He argues that if the U.S. could have taken the Iraqi leader out, it would have already done so. But the security surrounding Hussein is far better than that which surrounds the U.S. President. Multiple layers of guards -- the closet of which are deeply loyal to Saddam -- protect the Iraqi leader. Multiple security agencies have proven extremely difficult to penetrate and are good at detecting any domestic plots against Hussein. And the Iraqi leader moves around the greater Baghdad area with such frequency -- often employing doubles to throw off any potential pursuers -- that it is impossible to be certain where he is at any time.

"The Threatening Storm" is a powerful book, the best I've read among the nonfiction books released in 2002. With conflict between the U.S. and Iraq looking imminent in 2003, if you are at all interested in what shape U.S. policy towards Iraq should take, this book is mandatory reading.

Rating:
Summary: We reap what we sow - dare we harvest the violence?
Review: I have only one thing to say in response to this book, which is to quote Stephen Hawking as saying:

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge".

If you insist on reading and taking this book to heart, then you are required also to read "War Plan Iraq" by Chomsky before you may consider yourself versed on the topic of Iraq. All "The Threatening Storm" will do is give you the rationalizations you need to agree with other conservatives. Using it to argue against truly informed opinion will only lead to your own public humiliation.

Rating:
Summary: Well-written but one-sided
Review: As a 15-year analyst on Iraq for the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, Pollack gives an USA-friendly picture of the story. He does not mention the use of poisoned gas by Winston Churchill against the Kurds, nor the CIA-engineered coup that brought Saddam's Ba'ath party to power after the Iraq Petroleum Company was threatened by nationalization. Nor does he mention the chemical and military build-up of Iraq against Iran by the West, or the failure of the U.S. ambassador to warn against the invasion of Kuwait or, above all, the human costs of wars. For Pollack, there is now a "window of opportunity created by the tragedy of September 11".
If you read this book, please also read more critical reviews such as the books by John Pilger or John Stockwell.