Rating: 
Summary: If you believe in containment, read this book
Review: I've been very troubled by the debate about the proposed war with Iraq. I haven't supported the war -- the idea of invading another country is extremely unpalatable to me (offensive, if you prefer), and I was of the opinion that the current containment policy was effective enough to be continued. With this book Pollack has more or less cut the legs out from under me. I don't believe my old position is viable.Pollack paints a pretty grim picture, and he does so with considerable authority and a mountain of facts. After reading this book it simply isn't possible for me to believe in containment any more. It may be that there's a pro-containment argument that could be made by someone with a strong command of the facts, an argument that could challenge what Pollack has written here. But if it's out there, I haven't seen it. One of the scariest things about this book is that it tacitly points out the superficiality of the war debate as a whole. I've been following the arguments, and I had an opinion about containment without having a clear sense of what that meant, what the elements of the policy were, or what specific factors were likely to determine its success or failure. The book is very well written, especially considering the speed with which it must have been done. Pollack is an exceptionally bright guy who has a gift for writing plainly and clearly. It is not a difficult book to read. Apart from the argument, his account of the events leading up to the current situation is invaluable.
Rating:
Summary: Another Perspective
Review: If the current administration expects to galvanize Americans to support a full-scale military invasion of Iraq, this book will prove indispensable to that effort. As a liberal democrat, I had no intention of reading this book because I assumed (erroneously) that it was no more than an insidious cocktail of Bush hagiography, right-wing invective, and knee-jerk patriotism. I was completely wrong. This book is simply remarkable. My opinion of George W. Bush is still what it was (very low), but Pollack has shown me that even a broken watch is right twice a day. Unfortunately, people tend to gravitate toward material which supports previously held opinions. I fear that Pollack's book will be championed by those already in lock-step with other administration sycophants (i.e., Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Peggy Noonan). This book is too good for that sad fate and it would be a colossal mistake to relegate its readership to the choir.
Rating:
Summary: Options listed, conclusion,,,War,,, but,,,
Review: I have never read such a detailed and thorough account of the pending actions to be taken against Iraq. All possible options are analyzed completely. The final conclusion of war however does contain a restraining message that its all war psychology with a serious hope Saddam is ousted before an attack comes. This book brought to light, to me, some of World War II tactics and psychological warfare. I have to say if a person really has presence of mind while reading this, Kenneth's conclusions are that it is in fact all psychological as the post war costs of setting up a new Iraqi system are going to be staggering (and post war time frame of at least 5 years)in comparison to the actual cost of military conflict, not to mention the same situation pending in Afghanistan. Many other accounts are registered here as well, the costs of continental anti terrorism are going to be shortly reflected on the up coming fiscal reports, much more than expected, and our waivering economy. Also there seems to be a background noise similar to that of Viet Nam era protest from the rest of the world esp Europe. There certainly is a strong air that the pressure towards Iraq is in fact all air to oust Saddam. But the simple outward message from Kenneth is to engage. I recommend another good book that goes into the details of the coming invasion of Iraq, however the Russians will step in to our disfavor after the Bush admin does leave Iraq inept. SB: 1 or God by Maddox
Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent Survey of (Some) Options
Review: Pollack's book comes at a time when unfortunately deliberation between the American public and its supposedly representative government is marked by its absence - most certainly still a symptom of the 9/11 impact upon the perception of what "unity" and "loyalty to the nation" mean. Although the author makes it clear that war (invasion) is the "less weak" of a diminished list of unsavory options, he at least makes his case by presenting, then skewering, the remaining ones - containment, deterrence, covert action, the Afghan Model, et cetera. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, at least there is a debate going on between the reader and the writer. I fail, however, to understand what Pollack means when he writes about "Arab-style democracy," which in my mind is either condescending or, worse, an open-ended concept meaning that dictatorship, as long as it serves American interests, would not altogether be unpalatable (yet another name to add to a list which, among others, includes the likes of Karimov in Uzbekistan, the al-Sauds in Saudi Arabia, and Musharraf in Pakistan). It must be noted that, since Iraqi independence in the early 1930s, not a single leader has come to power in Iraq by means other than coups, violent or otherwise. Why is it that the perpetuation of this ignoble tradition - this time from the outside - would, all of a sudden and because we have good intentions, make things different? We all know that democracy cannot be imposed. No magic wand here, for sure... I also take exception to his ill-concealed position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which, though he (correctly) doesn't spend too much time on the subject, is irritatingly one-sided (terrorism v. self-defense, as opposed to a more balanced use of words). To his credit, however, Pollack underscores the need to invest into post-invasion development and stay the course afterwards (as opposed to what "we" are doing in Afghanistan, which already appears to have faded from our radar screen). That Iraq is strategically more important, given its region, than Afghanistan, though, remains to be seen, as an unstable Afghanistan falling back into civil war could very well spill into, or exert gravity on, Central Asia (which is still a dangerous mess) and, more peremptorily, Pakistan and India, who have nukes of their own (as opposed to potential ones). It is difficult to see how the US' lack of staying power in Afghanistan (both for development and the hunt for bin Laden and his minions) could be reassuring to the powers in and around Iraq, and this will most assuredly have an impact upon their willingness to go along with a military invasion. A pithier discussion on how 9/11 has changed the apparent threat Iraq represents would have been useful. The book takes for granted that, all of a sudden, Saddam Hussein - with or without linkage with the al-Qaeda threat - is more dangerous than he was on September 10, 2001. Why has the perception changed, and how is this affecting our response to this threat? Would we be having this discussion had there not been a 9/11? If so, why? Finally, editorial inconsistencies, wereby Afghan Hamid Karzai turns into "Quarzai" and Osama bin Laden becomes bin "Ladin", then Laden, among others, are a bit annoying. All in all, an interesting exposition of the "hawkish" options, debate on which haplessly appears to be beyond the public's reach. For those who want to learn more about what increasingly looks like a fait accompli.
Rating: 
Summary: misses the truth
Review: The arguments appear credible and potentially convincing, and if you are already predisposed to finding reasons to support our Administration in invading Iraq, then you will find them here. But the book of course does not address the underlying reasons behind the U.S. focus on Iraq at his point in time. For that, try reading Anatol Lieven's enlightening 3 October article "Push for War" in the London Review of Books. Lieven makes it clear that the Iraq crusade is simply just one tactic in an overall policy to rewrite the rules of international law to serve very different interests of the administration. This book is good for one thing: it makes clear that any possible success at invasion of Iraq would require 300,000 U.S. troops. The loss of life on both sides, and repercussions both in the region, and elswhere would be enormous (if U.S. goals are achieved and the rule of international engagement have been rewritten, then who will be next on the Republican hit list -- Korea? Indonesia? China?). Perhaps a risk worth taking if the goals and threat were legitimate -- unfortunately, it is not, and this book at least helps to reinforce that if read closely.
Rating:
Summary: A Thinking Citizen's Guide to the Iraq Debate
Review: This book is a pre-requisite for informed discussion of the future of Iraq. Mr. Pollack offers a brilliant and concise account of US-Iraq relations, the history of Saddam's regime, and the nature of the threat that regime poses for the entire world. He provides a wealth of information regarding Saddam's mechanisms of repression, his designs on the region, and his current WMD capabilities. This information is neglected by most commentators on the Iraq debate, although it is all available through open sources. (BTW Mr. Pollack makes no effort to conceal his past employment with the CIA and no ideological tilt is discernible in his argument.) If I may presume to summarize Mr. Pollack's argument: Facing down Saddam now and rooting out his repressive regime will be unpleasant and difficult. Ignoring the threat and waiting one or two years until Saddam has nuclear weapons will be catastrophic. The "moderate" Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, etc. have notified the United States that if a strike against Saddam is to occur, it must happen quickly, because the people of these nations will not tolerate much longer an American military presence in the region. Therefore, in order to "withdraw in good order" it is necessary to eliminate the Saddamist regime first, lest the Republican Guard fill the vacuum created by the American retreat.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: This book is the clearest exposition of the possible policy options that the United States has with regard to Iraq that I have ever read. Pollack (who knows his stuff from first-hand experience as a CIA Persian Gulf policy analyst charged with evalluating Iraq) goes through the options one by one: containment, deterrence, removal and the possible scenarios by which each policy could be brought into play. One by one, he is forced to reject each option but invasion, removal of Saddan Hussein, elimination of the weapons of mass destruction, and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq.
It is obvious from this book that we will have to go to war with Iraq eventually -- the question is how and when. The potential consequences for the entire world of a nuclear-armed, miscalculating, risk-taker like Saddam who is determined to rule the Middle East, no matter what the costs, are frightening. There's no question but what Saddam Hussein will use nuclear weapons once he acquires them---the world's petroleum supplies could go up in smoke and the world's economy along with it. Remember the oil fields in Kuwait in 1991?
Sobering, thoughtful, crisply written, clear, concise and truly frightening.
Rating:
Summary: A remarkable book - worth every penny
Review: This book presents what is easily the strongest argument in favor of an invasion of Iraq that I have encountered. Utterly convincing, and amazingly thorough. It should, in my opinion, be required reading for anyone who wants to hold an opinion on this matter. If you are in favor of the war, then this book presents the ultimate summary of why it is necessary, and why the various alternatives are of no account in dealing with Iraq. If you are against the war, then this book is the argument that you have to defeat. And I defy anyone to do that. I was suprised to discover that the writer, Kenneth Pollack, is not even a Republican. He worked for the Clinton administration, and was their expert on Iraq for quite a few years. He fully endorses regime change in Iraq by full-scale invasion, and he paints a genuinely frightening picture of what we face if that does not happen - a picture, ironically enough, that has more to do with Middle Eastern culture and world economics, than terrorism. In every way, a must read.
Rating:
Summary: Worthwhile, But Slightly Off
Review: Important and comprehensive. Unfortunately, Dr. Pollack's book reflects the institutional prejudices of somone who has worked in the intelligence community and tends to believe the CIA's intelligence assessments. In particular, Dr. Pollack reinforces the following errors that are really damaging to our Middle East policy: - Dr. Pollack discounts Iraq's role in September 11, 2001. The evidence that Al Qaeda received support from a state in conducting the September 11th attacks is really quite compelling, as much as the CIA, FBI or MI6 want to deny it. See Ledeen's "The War Against the Terror Masters," Mylroie's "Study in Revenge" and Edward Jay Epstein's website. Dr. Pollack simply dismisses these arguments in summary fashion, without making an effort to consider the specific factual details. He really should have stated that he believes that consideration of the question of Iraqi support for terror, as opposed to its WMD program, is beyond the scope of his book. - The so-called "moderate" Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates), rather than being victims of their people's anti-Americanism, actually encourage it. It is in their interest to hold up America as a scapegoat for their own failings - their tyranny, repression, corruption and murder. They oppose action against Iraq because they fear the liberation of Iraq would cause a liberating domino effect, like the one that brought down the Soviet Bloc. Dr. Pollack makes obtaining Saudi support on an invasion a prerequisite, ultimately tying our hands. Worse still, he recommends that an invasion be conditioned on the absence of Palestinian/Israeli violence, giving Saddam an incentive to step-up his support for Hamas and PIJ. - The policy of "containment" has always been an immoral failure. America should have marched on Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War. Any other action was foolish, no matter how much Bush Sr., Powell, Schwarzkopf and Scowcroft try to explain themselves. America fights for freedom, not cheap oil. Pulling together one of the greatest armies in history and delivering a historically unprecedented defeat, only to leave the job half finished and Saddam in power, was the greatest American military blunder since WW II. See Hanson's "Soul of Battle." - Dr. Pollack sees great costs and risks in full-scale military action against Iraq. In fact, we have every reason to believe that Iraq would be crushed quickly and decisively in any conflict. See Hanson's "Carnage and Culture" and "Autumn of War." Further, Dr. Pollack's description of the conflict appears quite conventional. I suspect that the campaign that Central Command would actually wage would, like that in Afghanistan, shock observers in its innovation and daring. Dr. Pollack underestimates the importance of the INC and other opposition groups, toeing the Foggy Bottom line that the democratic opposition is incompetent. He appears to have personal knowledge, but I wonder about his objectivity. - Politicians who oppose the war, rather than being persons of conscience, are actually appeasers of the Neville Chamberlain ilk. They would rather accept the almost certain risk of more innocent Americans dead than give up their pacifistic, utopian, sanctimonious fantasies. I reject categorically Dr. Pollack's characterization of my position as "vicious slander." Al Gore and his ilk are appeasers, and there just isn't any way around that.
Rating:
Summary: An Absolute Must-Read For Everyone
Review: This is, simply, the best discussion of Iraq policy that exists, and makes practically everything else on the topic obsolete. The author is one of the handful of top experts on Iraq, having worked on the subject at the CIA, the NSC, and in various top think-tanks. His analysis is clear, intelligent, judicious, fair-minded, and relentless, and takes you through every possible policy option that exists. At the end of the day he favors invasion, although he's no shill for the Bush administration--he was the Clinton administration's point man for Iraq at the NSC, after all! But whatever your own position is, you'll find this a fascinating and sobering read. If there were more books like this on important subjects, our national debate would be vastly improved--and perhaps our policies would be, too...
|
