Rating: 
Summary: Highly convincing if you already agree with its conclusions
Review: Disappointing in the extreme. There is little doubt this is probably the most well-argued case for making an unprovoked attack on Iraq - big deal. Its extremely disappointing that he ignores all the most difficult arguments in the case against attacking and picks only the soft objections. It doesn't take a lot of effort to construct a straw man and rip it to bits. He does not discuss the widespread allegations of CIA involvement in the 1958 coup (although, interestingly, he does confirm that the CIA was ordered to subvert the regime). He avoids any serious examination of the connivance of the US and other powers in colluding with Saddam Hussein's WMD activities.
Although much of the material is partial or distorted, the book is useful in helping to understanding what's going on in Washington and in demonstrating the bankruptcy of the INC 'opposition'. I'm against the forthcoming war and read this book on the "know your enemy" basis. If the argument about war were decided on the basis of truth and logic, this is pretty feeble stuff. However, I'm sure it will provide good intellectual air cover for anti-Arab prejudice and oil politicking. If you've already made your mind up, this is the book for you. If you're still sitting on the fence, try Said Aburish's biography of Hussein, Scott Ritter's books and Milan Rai's War Plan Iraq. All of these have their deficiencies too, but they do raise some difficult issues which Pollack ignores.One thing that is still unclear to me is whether the author speaks Arabic or not, since all his quotations appear to be from FBIS translations, rather than first hand, which would raise deep doubts about his claim to be an expert in this area.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Just For Hawks
Review: What a fine book! Here is the background you need to discuss current events intelligently. Without reading this book, you're just blowing smoke. Don't assume Pollack makes his case. The insights here can be used to argue for "deterrence". But there is a broader point that Pollack makes very convincingly: that we have no good options. A superb and serious book.
Rating:
Summary: Well written and clear
Review: I'm not interested in telling you my opinions on the war, etc.. That is beside the point. People should read this book because it is so lucid and well thought out. There are no judgements that don't follow a well rounded argument. This is an academic quality work that is open to the intelligent observer (including rigorous end notes). It makes all the subjective newspaper articles and "news" shows look like high school analysis. Thank goodness there are a few intelligent people writing about modern affairs.
Rating:
Summary: Timely and Well-Considered
Review: This timely and well-considered foreign policy case study argues that an invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces with an attendant nation-building effort, though costly, is the best and least expensive option for the United States. Though Pollack worked at the NSC under the last Democratic administration, his writing feels entirely free of partisan polemic. Moreover, his intimate knowledge of Iraq's history and the major factors that need to be considered at this moment in history make this book a must-read. You may not find yourself in agreement with his final analysis and policy recommendation, but you will appreciate his efforts and be better informed for having read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Liberals Will Never Be Happy
Review: What an interesting book! Indeed, this author has made a much more cogent case for invading than the administration has -- nevertheless, it once again shows that despite its inability sometimes to get its point across in a convincing matter, the administration is right....and the liberals and anti-war crowd can't stand it, preferring instead to hold out until we are attacked before they finally commit to fighting. It just proves that those who are against the war will ignore all arguments that justify it. They are entrenched in their positions and will not waver. Who cares if Saddam was or was not involved in 9/11. This rabid dictator poses a threat all his own, regardless of whether Bin Laden is dead or alive and the sooner we do something about it, the less the cost will be later. As for other nation's feelings, I for one, don't care. What a ridiculous stance to wait until we are attacked. We made that mistake in WWII and so did Britian, and in the end, it probably cost a lot more than it would have had we had the moral courage to crush Hitler in 1939.
Rating:
Summary: The Logic Is Overwhelming
Review: Pollack has written a highly readable case for war with Iraq. He is not a right wing militarist. His case for war is rational and examines all the available alternatives that many of the anti-war faction say are preferred options. He concludes that war is the only available alternative. Otherwise, the eventual consequences of an unchecked Iraq to Israel, Saudi Arabia, or other mid-east allies will be disastrous. I bought this book out of an obligation to feel well-informed on the war issue. In the first few pages I became fascinated with this well-written, fast paced book. Mr. Pollack does not overuse data, but provides enough to make a persuasive case for invasion. It should be required reading for all citizens who want to voice an opinion. I defy even Barbra Steisand to read it and think the same about the issue. Bravo, Mr. Pollack for this service to the American people.
Rating:
Summary: A Real Education
Review: Mr. Pollack breaks down it down clearly and concisely. If you are interested in understanding the "issue" of Iraq, this book is a must read. His discussion of potential courses of U.S. action is intelligently and comprehensively presented and he provides thorough and objective consideration of the regional and geopolitical considerations that these actions would necessitate.
Rating: 
Summary: the strongest case for invasion that i've read
Review: I was opposed to an invasion of Iraq prior to reading this book, and I still am--barely. Dr. Pollack makes an excellent case for invasion, much better than the Bush administration or Congress has been able to do. He certainly disagrees with a number of things that our leadership wants us to believe. For instance, that Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. Pollack's argument is that no policy except invasion will keep Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons. He contends that Hussein is a uniquely dangerous person to have access to nuclear weapons, moreso even than other totalitarian leaders. He's got good reasons for both, and while I have a few reservations with some of the details, on the whole it's quite sound. Pollack should definitely have spent more time on some topics. For instance, I don't think he adequately addresses the effect of world-wide opposition to Iraqi invasion and how that compromises our standing in the world and specifically the Middle-East. He also constantly refers to the "perfidy" of China, France and Russia, and I don't think he makes a strong enough case that these countries are wholly corrupt. Sure, they're acting in their own interests, but the US does this all the time. I think in this case he is speaking from the point of view as a policy analyst who has been frustrated for a decade, and has written these countries off. I don't think we should ever do that, and I don't think we've exhausted our diplomatic options. His case for invasion is very well thought out, and as such he is cognizant of many potential traps and pitfalls. So he writes a prescription for invasion that is extremely specific, and admits that straying could well lead to disaster. His conditions for invasion include: international support (which we don't have much of), domestic support (which is diminishing every day), a large invasion force (costly in our time of recession), and a long and extensive nation-building effort (under a US President who has expressly and repeatedly stated that the US should stay out of nation-building. So even if it might be right to invade in principle (debatable), invasion is a recipe for disaster. Just great. This book is definitely essential reading for anyone who is interested in whether or not invasion is the best way to go. If nothing else, it'll give you reasons to believe that invasion might be the right thing to do, instead of just a bold and outrageous exercise in American empire-building (which it still could well be, especially given the lies we hear from the administration every day). And it will also make you aware of the dangers incumbent with any policy we take. Truly, these are dangerous times we live in. As a footnote, I wish Pollack would have spent a few pages on the big picture. For instance, he was on Fresh Air a few weeks ago and mentioned that he thinks there should be a more progressive energy policy to wean our country away from oil. Also he does not spend much time talking about the history of American foreign policy, which I think would be useful in evaluating how the US is viewed by the international community and the Arab world.
Rating:
Summary: A Truly Remarkable Book
Review: A friend of mine urged me to read this book because I was on the fence about our Iraq policy. This book gave me everything I ever wanted. It is a marvelous book, maybe the best I have ever read on a political subject. It is well-written, balanced, and very thoughtful, which made it easy to read. I appreciated Mr. Pollock's thoroughness and his respect for the reader. The book starts out by giving a brief history of Iraq and Saddam Hussein's reign and then provides a lot of the basics about Iraq including its political and economic situations, its military capabilities, and Hussein's goals and methods. The description of the Iraqi police state was chilling and Pollock's treatment of the impact of sanctions was very even-handed. What I liked most about the book was how it explored all of the different policy options that people have discussed. It explained what each one would mean and then assessed whether or not it was likely to work. I especially appreciated the fact that Pollock did not simply make statements but explained his answers and backed them up with history, facts and other evidence. Although he clearly knows a huge amount about the subject, he never browbeat the reader but explained his logic and the evidence for it. He also was very responsible about laying out both the pros and the cons of each policy, including being very honest about the costs of a war with Iraq. He never tried to claim that a war was going to be easy or that reconstructing Iraq afterwards would be unnecessary, which was a refreshing change from so many other hawks. I found this book entirely persuasive and am very glad I read it. Like the author, I am not excited about the prospect of a war with Iraq, but this book convinced me that we probably have no alternative. I agree that the choice America faces is probably one of going to war with Iraq in the near future while Hussein is relatively weak and does not have nuclear weapons, or having to go to war with him later when he will be much stronger and the costs of war will be much larger. I think the Bush Administration could learn more than a few lessons from this book, especially about how to explain why this war is important to the American people, and about levelling with us about the costs. I think far more Americans would support them if they did.
Rating:
Summary: Great background, failed case
Review: This book offers much important background on Saddam and Iraq, and is strongest in making a case for doing something new about or with Saddam. His case for invading Iraq, however, fails to convince me that the danger from Saddam is serious and imminent, and that it cannot be addressed in any peacable way. Nor does he show the destruction caused by an invasion would be outweighed by the benefits. If this book convinces some people to favor invading Iraq, I hope they at least consider these two points the author makes: 1.War against Iraq could be "quite costly." "The cost in casualties could vary considerably based on three critical factors: how hard the Iraqi armed forces fight, whether they are willing and able to defend Iraq's cities, and how able they are to employ their weapons of mass destruction against U.S. forces. We don't know the answer to any of these questions." (Page 344). 2. "We have a lot of work to do in terms of political, military and diplomatic preparations; the need to get the more immediate threat from al-Qa'eda under control; and the need to reduce the bedlam in the Middle East to lower levels. Unless and until we have done that preparatory work, an invasion of Iraq itself would be the risky option." (Page 421) How fascinating it would be to see the author debate Scott Ritter, the ex-Marine who inspected weapons in Iraq seven years for the UN! An example of their differences: Pollack partly supports his case by quoting Khidhir Hamza (Pages 174, 266), who Ritter says was rejected by the CIA and the entire intelligence community "because they knew he wasn't who he said he was" (War on Iraq, by William Rivers Pitt with Scott Ritter, 2002, Page 52).
| 
