Inside CentCom: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

Rating:
Summary: Excellent but too concise
Review: DeLong has produced a useful book for those who want to understand the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He provides the ultimate inside view of things and provides a unique perspective not found in other books. The book is an easy read, concise - indeed, too concise - and can be read quickly.

The chapters deal with the nature of Centcom, the US Central Command based in Florida; 9/11; the Afghanistan conflict; preparations for the war in Iraq, including exerts from discussions between the principals (i.e. Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.); the invasion itself; and the aftermath. About half the material deals with his unique experience as Centcom deputy commander, and about half deals with his perspective on events which have been widely discussed elsewhere.

I appreciate the fact that DeLong includes in the appendices a copy of the National Security Strategy of the United States and a congressional statement by General Tommy Franks. The former is the most important document almost no one ever reads, and the latter is important as well.

The major weakness is the brevity of the book, which means that DeLong doesn't delve deeply into issues he raises. For example, attempts to correct the widespread impression that Iraq did not have chemical and biological weapons. But aside from noting the materials moved to Syria in the months prior and the weeks following the invasion, he doesn't discuss in detail the other evidence that convinces him that Iraq did have such weapons. I am aware of the evidence from other sources, so I know what he is talking about, but less informed readers will not.

Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing
Review: I found this book to be very disapointing. After reading American Soldier by Gen. Tommy Franks I was looking forward to another fasinating veiw of the planning and execution of the Afgan and Iraq wars. Inside Centcom only regurgitated what Gen. Franks already wrote in his own book. Also, Delong didn't follow a single thought through, he was all over the place, it was difficult to follow. If you are going to read a book about the latest wars I suggest American Soldier.

Rating:
Summary: one sided?
Review: I have read the book, in fact it is autographed by him. I write this in response to Mrs. Sharmin who claims it is a one-sided view. Considering all three pages of your prior reviews display cheers for anti-Bush books and jeers for the swift boat book , which I remind you was signed by 250+ plus people who were there with him, I would be wise to surmise that YOU madame are in fact the one-sided one. Now as far as him being biased.... for one, I highly, highly doubt you even read the whole book. General Delong isn't just some pundit, he and Franks (another person I met and admire) RAN THE WAR. it's strategy was absolutely brilliant, if you read the book you would know that. How could he be biased, he was there and knows far more than ted Kennedey or John Kerry. "JFK" as he so absurdley likes to be called doesn't see the tons of intel data the pres. and others see, he's too busy whining to get elected. The WMD issue will come to light, many nay sayers are going to have egg on their faces. Don't forget, when bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave or be removed on march 17th guess where numerous trucks drove... into Syria and later Iran. You said the Iraqis were not happy. Well, the people I know have been there and say it's not anywhere near as bad as the news makes it look. The fact is they did give troops flowers, kisses and hugs. It was just a month ago young school children were blown up while receiving candy from soldiers. You need to get your priorities straight and concentrate your faux rage on Islamic extremists, not our mainly humanitarian actions. The longer the regular Muslim community is virtually silent about it's extremists and some of the venemous "fiqh" that permeates from certain fatwahs, it is going to get worse and worse and worse. No political correctness, no ACLU will stop the backlash, if this keeps on. It will be an unfortunate occurance as I know some very good muslims, who DO stand up to these disgusting acts done by al-qaeda and the like. BTW, I have read the Koran and speak Arabic. "Get ready the steeds of war to fight the enemy of God" That being said, Senator Kerry's continual and abysmal undermining of the war (just as he did in Vietnam) will do nothing but strengthen the Terrorist resolve. The Iraq war has been going on for 12 years now, with missiles fired at our aircraft everyday since 98. I know because I was there. I don't derive my knowledge by reading a book, I derive it by experience or straight from the horse's mouth of those who have been there and yes "done that". You may like John Skerry, but personally I think he is pompous, oppurtunistic and a damned fool. Waxing poetic and monday morning QB'ing about something one has little intimate knowledge is not only foolish but dangerous.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing Account
Review: Lt Gen DeLong's account of his time at CENTCOM was not at all the unbiased account he claims to provide. It is, at its root, an effort to convince people (and perhaps himself) that he was a relevant player in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. I cannot say to what extent GEN Franks and other decision makers relied on DeLong, but after reading several accounts of this period of time, I'd guess DeLong exaggerates his relevance.
This book is also inaccurate. DeLong claims that Afghan Warlord Rashid Dostam freed Kabul from the Taliban. In reality it was Fahim Khan that entered Kabul after the Taliban left the city out of fear of Coalition air power. DeLong also refers to Hamid Karzai, later to become President of Afghanistan, as General Karzai. Karzai never held a military post and was never called "General" by any Afghan natives or non-Afghans familiar with Afghanistan.
If you want to read an unbiased and accurate accord of the Afghan and Iraq Wars, I would suggest waiting 50 years until a real historian turns his/her attention to this time period. In the interim, read Woodward's Bush at War or Plan of Attack. I wouldn't normally support Woodward, but if you must read something now, those are as good as it gets.


Rating:
Summary: Succint Book Full of facts
Review: Michael DeLong, a retired U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Gen, has written a book that is brief but very informative. If you are looking for a book that reports on the United States war on terrorism and is not a lengthy tome, this is the book. I base my premise after having read AMERICAN SOLDIER by General Tommy Franks, THE HUNT FOR BIN LADEN BY Robin Moore, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, and THE IRAQ WAR by John Keegan. I have also read several books by Bernard Lewis, probably the Western world's foremost scholar on the Middle East.

First off, after reading this material, I would say that the mainstream media in this country has done a great disservice to the American public by not reporting much of this information. One can hang any label on the reasons why but basically, one has to dig to find the real story.

Take weapons of mass destruction. Gen. DeLong describes how, in the 48 hour grace period given Iraqui leadership by President Bush, people and material fled Iraq for Syria and other locations. He confirms the fact that both the king of Jordan and the president of Egypt as well as every intelligence operation in the world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Franks also reported this in his book. John Keegan notes in THE IRAQ WAR that David Kay, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, after make their report to the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, 2004, told British media that he had evidence of the transfer by Iraq of WMD to Syrian territory. Christopher Hitchens, writing in VANITY FAIR magazine during the early stages of the war, reported that trains were leaving Iraq in the middle of the night and not being stopped at the Iraqui border by customs. The unofficial word was that the trains were transporting weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq. One was hard-pressed to get this information from the mainstream media. Gen. DeLong, in a presentation on C-Span2 BookTv, was asked why the Bush administration did not publicize this information. His answer was "I don't know."

Regime change in Iraq was not something new. In RISE OF THE VULCANS, James Mann details how Middle Eastern policy had been in the making for almost thirty years from Republican adminstrations through the Clinton administration into the George W. Bush administration. In 1998, The Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. If not for Monica Lewinsky and the subsequent impeachment trial of President Clinton, there is a school of thought that suggests that President Clinton was preparing to do what President Bush eventually did. You were hardpressed to read this analysis in the mainstream media.

The tug of war going on between France and Germany and the United States is basically a philosophical one. Robert Kagan's book, OF PARADISE AND POWER, describes the argument as being an argument between the Thomas Hobbes' school of thought as opposed to Immanuel Kant's way of thinking. Hobbes believed basically that there are rules in society and as long as everyone abides by the same rules, peace occurs. If a part of society does not abide by the rules, then force may be necessary to bring them back into the fold. Kant believed that everything could be resolved through negotiation, that issues with the worst dictators could ultimately be resolved through discussion. John Keegan calls this "Olympianism". Civil servants would replace soldiers and supreme court justices would replace generals. Neville Chamberlain tried this with Adolph Hitler. It did not work. The problem with terrorists is that they conform to their own rules, whatever they choose them to be. You basically have a clash of values and one side of the issue has to convince the other side of the issue that their behavior is not acceptable and that they must change that behavior. This is what is going on in Iraq today. Saddam Hussien, while he was not part of the 9/11 event, was a terrorist. He came to power through murder and assasination and continued to hold that power through those means. He was part of the terrorist activities taking place in the Middle East and was a threat to his neighbors. Since we now live in a global society, he was ultimately a threat to the United States and had to go.

Finally, I must say that in terms of what is taking place in Iraq today, again the mainstream media is letting the American public down. I have a member of my extended family who is a Lt. Col, U.S. Army Reserves, currently serving in Iraq. Outside of the hot spots in the Sunni Triangle, most of Iraq is relatively peaceful and getting on with their lives. He reports that the U.S. military is working well with the Iraqui people in terms of helping them to restore their country. I have read that northern Iraq, the home of the Kurds, is like being in southern California, the result of the benefit of being protected by the U.S. Air Force in the no-fly zone for over ten years. You certainly do not get a feel for that in the mainstream media. Southern Iraq and the city of Basra are doing quite well thanks to the efforts of our British allies.

Gen. Delong has written a concise account, detailing many of these facts. If you want to read something that takes a few hours, this is the book to read.

Rating:
Summary: Puff Piece, Bland, Avoids Conflicting Facts & Big Picture
Review: On balance I found this book very disappointing. It reads more like "how I spent my summer vacation" (and like all school essays, avoids the negatives), and it also reads as if the author is either oblivious to or unaccepting of the investigative journalism reporting. I use Tora Bora as a litmus test. For this author to fail to mention that Secretary Rumsfeld authorized a Pakistani airlift that ultimately took 3,000 Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Tora Bora trap, tells me all I need to know about the over-all balance in this account. It is a glossy rose-colored view more suited for Fox viewers than for any military or intelligence professional who is actually well-read across global issues literature. A great deal of important detail is left out of this 140-page double-spaced book (the additional 80 pages are largely useless appendices used to bulk up the book).

In no way does this diminish the personal accomplishments of the author. He was clearly a great general and a loyal hard-working individual within the military chain of command. The book does however trouble me in that it has a very tight narrow focus on military operations "as ordered," and does not reflect the kind of geo-political awareness and nuanced appreciation of non-military factors--diplomatic, cultural, economic, demographic--that I want to see at the flag level. His treatment of Sudan in passing is representative: astonished delight that they are "helping" in the war on terrorism, and no sense at all of the massive genocide of the Sudanese government against its own people.

On the intelligence aspect, this book smells a bit. The general has not been close enough to CIA to know that agents commit treason, case officers handle them--calling a CIA officer an "agent" is a sure sign of ignorance about what CIA does and how it does it. He also claims, contrary to many open source reports as well as government investigations, that Guantanamo produced "reams of intelligence." In my own experience, tactical combatants have very little to offer in the way of strategic third-country intelligence leads, and on balance, I believe that while the general may have been led to believe that Guantanamo was a gold mine, in fact it was a tar pit and a blemish on the US Armed Forces. The author continues to be a believer in the now long-discredited Chalabi-DIA-CIA views on the presence of weapons of mass destruction, to the point of still being in the past on the issue of the aluminum tubes.

There are exactly two gems in this book. The first deals with the problems we had in supporting our Special Forces in Afghanistan above the 12,000 foot level (actually, anything above 6,000 feet challenges our aviation). I ask myself in the margin, "why on earth don't we have at least one squadron of helicopters optimized for high-altitude combat operations?" The Special Air Force may claim they do, but I don't believe it. We need a high-altitude unit capable of sustained long-haul operations at the 12,000 foot level, not just a few modified Chinooks and brave Chief Warrant Officers that "made do."

The second gem in the book is a recounted discussion on the concept of Arab honor and how US troops in Iraq should have a special liaison unit that approached the families of each person killed "inadvertently" to offer a profound and sincere apology and an "accidental killing fee." This resonates with me, and I was disappointed to see no further discussion--evidently the general heard and remembered this good idea, but did nothing to implement it.

I have ordered a copy of the Koran and will read it, because I respect this officer's account of how much good it did him in understanding his mission and the context for the mission (aided by a regular discussion of the contents with an Islamic practitioner).

Bottom line: great officer within his scope, moderate author within his mandate, the book is at about 60% of where I would expect to be given this officer's extraordinary access.

Rating:
Summary: A simple, professional prespective of war on terrorism
Review: One has two options in order to follow the events of a military campaign: it can be done either by reading the official histories about the great strategic and operational level of the war, or by chossing the personal accounts of soldiers, airmen and reporters who witnessed the story close to the battlefield. Between these two categories stand the memoirs of the commanders involved and this book by Lt General DeLong is a very good example of a work where the personal views are mixed with the gretaer picture of the world war against terrorism. DeLong is a hardened Marine veteran and the time he served as deputy commander of the busy CentCom was a fascinating one, marked by the exceptional and innovative campaigns "Enduring Freedom" and "Iraqi Freedom". The writer presents an insider's look to the crusial planning and battle management and reveals many details about the personalities involved, like Franks and Rumsfeld. He confronts "armchair generals" with justified anger, concerning their criticism for the operation "Iraqi Freedom" but his insistence regarding Iraq's WMD is groundless, to say the least. (He writes that "On another matter of controversy, let me say that we will eventually find Iraqi WMD. The intelligence evidence we had before the war was too overwhelming to be wrong"). I think that DeLong is either unwilling to accept the obvious but terrible truth or he simply does his duty defending the US political and military leadership over a bad argument.

The general uses plain language throughout the book, explaining in a fine way complicated military issues like "jointness" and he reduces the personal details to a minimum prefering to give emphasis to the war story itself. The problem is that this is not a professional operational account of the campaigns which would thrill a military history buff, since DeLong doaes not describe even the main ground units participating in the operations, nor the reasons behind their choice for assignement. He does not include appropriate campaign maps, also. Obviously this was done in order to attract a wider audience and I suppose that this target has been achieved because the staff work on top level is very well described and explained.

Rating:
Summary: Only half a book
Review: The book is reasonably well written and would deserve four stars if not for the fact that it is only 150 pages long and, as a result, glosses over or avoids answering real questions (or even giving real meat to the events in general). It is an interesting account although only maybe a third to half of the book is new information over what Tommy Franks provides in his book. If you have not read Franks' American Solider I suggest reading it first then this book.

DeLong does present a few mistakes we made along with all the things that went right, but both he and Franks seem to avoid the real questions and both avoid going into any depth on the mistakes. Both admit they wanted, and expected, the Iraqi Army and police to remain in place post-war. Well they didn't. Why? Whose fault was it? Why did we have no plans in place if they didn't? How could we have better compensated for that loss?

DeLong also insists that we could not have used more troops in Iraq because the Kuwait front could not support them. Well knowing what we know now of the aftermath should we have not started the war before a second front was available? I don't think anyone has any doubt the military phase of the war was masterful but boh DeLong and Franks seem to want to pretend the post-war disaster has not happened. The military seemed very focused on defeating the Iraqi Army but it seems not much attention was then paid to the result of that objective, namely occupying and rebuilding the country afterwards. DeLong does address the post-war situation briefly and this is one of the huge disappointments with the length of the book. His experiences here would have been very interesting. He ends up working for a civilian company that has contracts to build an Iraqi military base.

Delong remarks he likes and admires Wolfowitz but then admits the Chalabi thing was useless. Well was that a bad decision? What were the results of that? What should have been done?

I also found it interesting that both DeLong and Franks state that Richard Clarke was rather useless and `out of the loop.' Well if he was out of the loop then why was he out of the loop? Whose fault is that? Shouldn't he have been in the loop? Why did we have a terrorist Czar anyway then? Was that a position that was supposed to coordinate with the military? Was it Clarke's fault he was useless or was the position a joke? This is another example of not enough depth to help the reader make any real conclusions.

DeLong says that Bush's address on the aircraft carrier about the `end of major military operations' was his idea (and Franks). The fact was, in their minds, major combat was over and the `post' phase needed to start to get more allies helping. But he doesn't then detail what additional contributions or allies resulted. He makes a big deal about the large Coalition for Iraq, which was a completely separate group from the Afghan Coalition, but doesn't put their contributions in any light (besides the British). The fact is even with roughly 30 countries helping us I think no more than about 5,000 troops (not counting Britain) were sent. How much money was given? What other support was vital? The reader is in no better position to compare the Coalition from the first Gulf War to the current Coalition because of the lack of information presented by both DeLong and Franks.

DeLong does present some interesting facts about the interests of France, Germany, China, and Russia in Iraq before the war. Why did we allow Germany to build massive tunnels and bunkers for Iraq? Why did we allow China to attempt to put in a fiber optic network for Iraqi air defense? Again, not enough information is given. Obviously some mistakes were made somewhere in the current and/or previous administrations if these actions went unaddressed.

DeLong still says we will find WMD in Iraq. I hope so but at this point it seems a pretty dicey assertion. I also believe we have found no proof of the remote piloted vehicles with WMD spraying capability that DeLong highlights as a reason for war and a concern during the campaign.

DeLong does make a good case against the media coverage during the war but doesn't provide an alternative. This seems a good area for discussion that would help America.

Both DeLong and Franks speak very highly of George Tenet. Given the obvious intelligence issues that have come up something is missing here. Either Tenet was great and the organization failed, which would still be his responsibility, or the Bush administration did `bend' the facts, or Tenet was simply not a good Director even if he did work well with the military. Another mystery.

Overall it is a quick and interesting read but, like Franks' book, leaves one with more questions unanswered than answered. I'm afraid we'll need to wait for the historians to get those.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating New Point Of View
Review: This beautifully written, brilliant book about what really happened during the war gives us an entirely different point of view. It takes us directly into the minds and hearts of the men who actually made life and death decisions. We see their strategies, struggles and the never told story of what they were truly up against. I could not put the book down and came away with a truly expanded understanding of the inner and outer workings of what happened. This is a must read. It is fabulous reading.

Rating:
Summary: The Inside Story
Review: You don't really know what's happening in the world until the books come out. The news suppliers certainly make little or no attempt at going beyond the death of the day.

In this book one of the insiders of the war on terror speaks. General DeLong was in on the conferences, in on the decisions, central in the formation of the Coalition of countries in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is able to separate out the daily flak and put what happened in a perspective that certainly wasn't covered in the sound bytes of the election. This is one central player's view of what really happened in a story that will be analyzed for years just like Pearl Harbour.

In my opinion this is a mandatory book, required reading.