Rating: 
Summary: Average (But Hardly Biased) Account of the Drive to Baghdad
Review: Atkinson, son of an Army officer, Pulitzer-prize winning military historian, and longtime reporter and editor for the Washington Post, spent two months in early 2003 embedded with the 101st Airborne Division during its deployment to Iraq and the drive to Baghdad. This resulting book is more or less his reporter's diary of that experience (although not, as the title implies, from the perspective of the average grunt). Those expecting the historical breadth and depth of his award-winning An Army At Dawn will have to wait a few decades for the dust to settle and perspective to emerge. Those expecting to be placed in the middle of firefights and intense combat action will be disappointed (they should check out Evan Wright's excellent, though poorly titled work Generation Kill). What Atkinson provides is a workmanlike portrait of a divisional command apparatus, based on his shadowing of Major General David Petraeus and his subordinates in the 101st as they move from Kuwait to Baghdad, with battles at Najaf, Karbala, and Hilla.
The book is being widely critiqued on two fronts. One is the limitation of its scope, or rather Atkinson's focus on the divisional leadership. The other is for Atkinson's "political bias". The first criticism is more or less on target. While it is interesting to see how the command structure works, how field officers have to deal with the layers above them, and how they grapple with the logistical complexities they are presented with, it doesn't make for very exciting reading. In many cases, the officers come across more like mid-level managers of some large corporation, with Petraeus as the COO. Most of the action the unit encounters comes to the reader through the filter of command post radios, or after-action reports. It also doesn't help that none of the officers emerge as individuals with personalities, other than Patraeus, who we are told over and over is ultra-competitive. For much of the book, Atkinson appears to be so flattered to be privy to high-command confidences that he repeats everything verbatim.
Still, there are plenty of nuggets of interesting information. For example, Atkinson details the logistics of moving an entire division from its base in Kentucky to Kuwait and highlights the importance of this being a smooth operation. This was especially critical as the civilians at the Defense Dept. forced the Army to jettison it's carefully modeled "deployment matrix." Similarly, for anyone interested in Apache helicopters, there's plenty to learn about their limitations in desert and urban environments. There's a section about how the rotors need to be taped or spray painted every few days which is unbelievable! For those interested in modern warfare, he explains how devastating "combined arms" tactics are and shows how complex they are to employ well. For those interested in intelligence, he shows how despite massive pre-war preparation, and a decade of close satellite surveillance, the Army still didn't have accurate maps showing urban sprawl.
The second main critique revolves around Atkinson's personal politics and "bias" as it appears in the book. Many people seem to want to read about the Gulf War in a vacuum--that is to say, they want to read about what the troops on the ground are doing without any mention of why they are there in the first place. Atkinson dares to try and give some context for why the 101st Airborne is doing in Iraq, but many readers seem not to want to be reminded that (A) why we go to war as a nation is the most important question, and (B) the whys for going to Iraq changed a few times along the way. For the most part Atkinson's "leftist political remarks" (as one reviewer put it) consist of quoting statements by the president, vice-President, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, and pointing out that they proved not to be true.
The whole point of a free press in a democracy is to empower the public through the flow of information, which most definitely includes pointing out when the statements of our leaders bear no relation to reality--especially when it involves going to war, with all the attendant sacrifice that means! I will agree that at times Atkinson gets a little snippy, but he's on the ground with the troops running for his gas mask, while we are sitting safely at home, so I can cut him a little slack. The most hilarious reviewer comment has to be "Everyone has a right to their political opinion, but Atkinson should have kept it to himself." In other words, "Just tell me what I want to hear, don't tell me anything that might challenge the way I think about the world." It's kind of amazing that people seem to think Atkinson is some hyperventilating peacenik--the guy is enamored of the military! In the end, it's perhaps making a mountain out of molehill, 'cause this book isn't particularly essential reading about the Gulf War anyway. It's worth it if you're really into the 101st, or Apache helicopters, but for the most part, it reads like a stitched-together series of dispatches lacking the perspective of time.
Rating: 
Summary: A taste of Disappointment
Review: Everyone has a right to their political opinion, but Atkinson should have kept it to himself. His book serves the cause of those against the war FROM THE BEGINNING, and not that of the historians (or journalists) fair, objective, and, if their good, thoughtful search for the truth. By all accounts, a majority of Americans supported the war, you won't get that from this book. The only "unease" felt by most Americans, was not at going to war, but at realizing how politics can blind some people to what has to be done. There are so many comments made by Atkinson that I could flag as bent, if not comically unfair, but I don't have enough space. The only really good thing I can say, is that the book is written well. But there are a lot of people who write well. I would not recommend this book. While Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" is exceptional, this book is a tremendous let down and leaves a lingering bad taste after spending $25.00 on it.
Rating:
Summary: A very mixed bag-disappointing overall.
Review: Having read Atkinson's brilliant book on the war in North Africa in WW II I was very much looking forward to this book. Sadly, this effort is a great disappointment. The book reflects Atkinson's time as an embedded Washing Post reporter with the 101t Airborne Division in Iraq during the early phases of the war there. Although the title would have one believe that this is a book about the ordinary soldier, that's a bit deceiving. In actuality, most of Atkinson's time was spent with Divisional Command. There is much more on the command aspects of the war than there is on the actual experiences of the foot soldiers. Atkinson certainly couldn't help where he was imbedded, but what develop such a misleading title when it doesn't fit the content. Having said all that, the actual reporting (and that's what this tract amounts to-first party reporting) is very good. The insights into the command structures, process and procedures of a combat unit on the move are fascinating. To the extent that Atkinson actually does report on the experiences of the men in the field, he does his usual excellent job ob bringing the experience to life in a most visceral way. From big picture issues to the irritating hassles that make up life on the move as a combat soldier, Atkinson has a unique ability to render them so as to genuinely reflect the nature of those experiences. Unfortunately, Atkinson also injects a lot of his own political philosophy and opinion into the text. Surely he's entitled to his opinion. In point of fact, a introduction that clearly states his positions and attitudes would have been fine-it would have satisfied his apparent nee to vent as well as providing the reader of a "head's up" to his bias so we could be ready for it insofar as it colored his reporting. As it is, his political meanderings are intrusive and detract from the book in general. Some have found Atkinson's opinions offensive. While I don't necessarily agree with him I'm not offended. It's just that all this ranting is immaterial vis-à-vis the object of the undertaking. Another problem is that the book lacks substantive overview. I see no reason why Atkinson couldn't have interjected some indications of how the actions of the 101st related to the wider war in general. Granted, the intent was to focus on the 101st but having insight as to how the experiences of other units impacted the 101st and how the actions of the 101st impacted the ward in general would have been a significant addition to the text. Atkinson's An Army at Dawn was one of the-if not the-best war books I ever read. This falls way, way short of that effort.
Rating: 
Summary: not a tatical manual, but a foreboding of what's to come
Review: I agree that this is not a history of the tatics used in crushing the Iraqi army... but is that the correct word to describe the contest that took place? I suspect that History will not focus on the tatical decision used to get to Bagdad ; it seems obvious the Us Army could have decided to walk and with our superiority in almost everything ( except perhaps the willingness to die) we would have been in Bagdad in a couple of weeks.
Atkinsons's book is valuable and enjoyable because it shows that 1) the local ground and area US miltary commanders are incredibly smart, capable, compassionate people who do what they are told and do it well 2) Early on they all knew that the problem would not be winning the war but winning the peace
3) they thought the biggest threat from Sadaam was chemical weapons (so they too were hoodwinked by their leaders, just as we all were).
My only concern is to be convinced that all of Atkinson's comments about the hell to come in the months ahead, really did occur to him and his subjects in march and April 2003... I get the idea that some of this is retrospecive analysis.
One wonders what Generral Petraus would tell Atkinson now, a year and hundreds of causualties later. Will he and others who have watched there boys and girls die on the ground be able to stand up to politicians in the future when the next " great idea for a war" comes along?
Rating: 
Summary: Fair and Objective Look at the War in Iraq
Review: I don't believe a better account could have been made of the ground war in Iraq. Atkinson focuses on the actual job of fighting the war, and like the soldiers, leaves the why questions and the politics for others. This book is an excellent look into how modern warfare is conducted, often "punching with one fist." He does the enlisted men and officers of the 101st proud, professing admiration while maintaining objectivity. Well worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: A bit disappointed ...
Review: I had read the "Army At Dawn" book before I had purchased and read this particular book. I really enjoyed the story telling of the North African campaign and had thought Mr. Atkinson would have done something similar for this book. I was wrong. My main complaint with the book is the choppiness in which it goes to tell the story. Having served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I laughed at some his stories (AFFES and the missing chocolate cookie), cried specifically when he briefly details the letters soldiers were getting from home, and anguish at the breakdowns in communications when a task is at hand. The story telling was not cohesive and made the book like at times reading a personal diary focused on one day at a time and not connected to either the days before or after.
Rating:
Summary: Best Book this Year!
Review: I listen to lots of audiobooks - one or more a week. This, in my opinion is the best I've heard this year. You gain a lot of insight into our modern day army, its leaders, their training, their character. It makes you proud of these troops and their leaders, as real people, not plastic heros. I also believe I enjoyed it more because the author read the book. The reader has a lot to do with the listener's enjoyment. Rick Atkinson is not only a talented author, but I believe he has put his real heart into this book, and it shows in his reading.
Rating:
Summary: Stick to the facts please
Review: I picked up this book at the library and glad I didn't pay good money for it. I expected to get an unbiased view of the front lines from the perspective of the normal foot soldier. Instead I got only the perspective from the commanding general, boring. The real combat was miles away. I also got the impression that the author of this book was more than happy to stick his nose up the general's behind and make the impression that the general highly respected him. Maybe so, but I doubt it.
Rick makes several factually incorrect statements in this book at the expense of the Bush administration. Rick misses no opportunity to get his digs on the Bush administration. This is ok as long as the information is factual but it isn't.
The bottom line is if you want a 10,000 foot view of the war, like to hear someone repeatedly pat himself on the back and hate Bush you'll love this book. Otherwise I recommend War Stories from Oliver North as a much better read.
Rating:
Summary: In the company of politics
Review: I purchased this book because I cajoled a young man into the Army prior to 9/11. He ended up in the 101st Airborne, the famous Screaming Eagles, who are the subject of this book. Instead of a chronicle of the heroics of this Division in Iraq (after their service in Afghanistan), this author confirms the liberal leanings of the media. The author cannot help himself, criticizing the Bush admininstration throughout the book, instead of building on the accomplishments of the officers and soldiers of the 101st and the US Army in their victory in Iraq.
Rating:
Summary: A riveting account of the war in Iraq
Review: I think what most people here are having difficulty with is Rick Atkinson's change from a historian to a journalist. As someone who frequently finds it difficult to make it through a history book, I found this first hand account much more accessible and enrapturing than a third hand account would have been. While I admire the loyalty of Mr. Atkinson's readers who purchased this book expecting a repeat performance of An Army at Dawn, I think that they did not realize that Mr. Atkinson's writings as a reporter naturally vary from his writings as a historian. He purposely used a different writing style due to the fact that he was located directly in the battle rather than researching it. As to people's objections to his personal commentary and opinions on the matter, I feel that once again, they expected a third hand historical account. Obviously if he is speaking to his audience in the first person, which I believe he does very well, he is going to offer his opinion. The book is a personal account-not a history book. I was extremely captivated with Mr. Atkinson's recount of his experiences and admire how multifaceted his writing talents are. I would highly recommend this book, especially to readers who are interested in the war in Iraq and want a personal account of what it was like to be in the middle of the action. While I found some of Mr. Atkinson's previous books somewhat daunting due to his voracious appetite for difficult vocabulary words I was very pleased with the accessibility of this book and his ability to describe the action in eloquent yet informative language.
|
