5 comments about America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11.

1. America Between the Wars tells the story of 11/9 to 9/11 through informative, behind-the-scenes stories that illustrate the dynamic and contentious foreign policy debates from the fall of the Berlin wall to the fall of the twin towers. If you like the stories behind the history, you'll love America Between the Wars. And if you usually prefer novels, you may find Chollet and Goldgeier's narrative voice appealing. Rather than writing a wonky, boring foreign policy book as so many unfortunately do, the authors present a relevant and relatable book. Especially for those who lived through this period, America Between the Wars reveals critical elements of our past and our future.



2. An excellent read for someone who wants a non-partisan approach to history's impact on international relations and foreign policy. Additionally, Chollet and Goldgeier postulate how our current state of affairs will shape tomorrow's. This is a perfect book for someone who wants to understand where we were and where we are going.



3. This is a tremendously important book that explains what happened when the Berlin wall fell and America's foreign policy establishment was forced to confront a world that was no longer organized by the US/Soviet rivalry. As it becomes increasingly clear that the "war on terrorism" is only a part of the broader foreign policy needed to protect our nation in a complex and multi-polar world, this is the book to read if you want to understand how the next generation of policymakers will draw on the lessons of the recent past to set a new course. Chollet and Goldgeier know what they are talking about. They have done exhaustive research, and each of them has hands on experience in the foreign policy business. It's a bonus that the writing is lively and engaging. Don't miss this book.



4. I was in Jr. High and High School during the 90s and so wasn't very familiar with this period before reading this, and while interested and somewhat familiar with policy, am certainly no expert. After years of thinking I knew who neoconservatives were and what both parties "stood for", this book really put things into perspective and contextualized things for me. And though it's a "history", it draws extensively on interviews with leading policymakers & insiders during the period, so the text ends up reading more like a narrative (great for a novel-reader like myself).
   
   In sum, this was really informative, interesting, and a quick read - perfect for anyone looking for a genuinely nonpartisan, nuanced look at how we got to where we are - both domestically and abroad. Definitely a must for your summer reading list.



5. This book is the first account of US foreign policy in the 1990s that treats the decade as genuine history. I mean that it does not simply offer a chronicle of the period, or a set of newspaper clippings and individual events - it offers a guiding historical interpretation that sets those years in relation to the Cold War before and 9/11 and beyond. It is very convincing that there is far more continuity today with the foreign policies of those years than many people, left or right, give credit for. It is a highly persuasive interpretation of the period and I believe will remain the standard account of its foreign policy for a long time to come.

5 comments about Secret Asset (Vintage Crime/Black Lizard).

1. If forgetting you are being read to is the sign of a good audiobook narrator, then performer Emma Fielding hits the mark. Her soft voice lets the listener lose themselves in MI5 intelligence officer Liz Carlyle's hunt for an illusive IRA mole inside British Intelligence's counter-terrorism division. Although her voice is lyrical, Fielding doesn't convey the necessary tension and suspense of action sequences such as a car bomb that threatens to detonate in the middle of an Oxford graduation ceremony. Fielding's Irish accents are as believable as her own British speaking voice, but she struggles to sound realistic as other nationalities. Nevertheless, Rimington's mole manages to be more than a one note villain and his enactments of revenge have surprising motivations and unexpected outcomes.



2. The plot centers around a mole in British Intelligence. That's not giving anything away -- the inside cover tells us so. In the end, all the plot machinations can be boiled down to one word: vetting.
   
   Yet the discovery of a dastardly secret in the mole's past leads to one glaringly obvious question: how could British Intelligence have missed this very basic (i.e., immediate family) fact when the agent/mole entered their ranks 15 years earlier? This fatal flaw -- surprising given the author's strong background in intelligence (and where was her editor here? That person deserves some of the blame too) -- dooms the book and makes the whole story a disappointing waste of time.
   
   In addition, the writing is pedestrian and the pacing is plodding. Back cover blurbs elevate her to the ranks of Graham Greene and John le Carre, but this book isn't even close to that rarified class. A "C-" would be generous.



3. Shortly after returning from leave, MI5 agent Liz Carlyle learns that a terrorist cell is operating out of an Islamic bookstore in London and that an attack appears imminent. Before she can investigate, the Director of Counter-Terrorism reassigns her to a high-risk, secret mission: discover the IRA "secret asset" (sleeper spy) who's infiltrated one of the branches of British Intelligence and expose him/her before more of Britain's secrets are exposed. But more may be at stake than just secrets when it is revealed that the mole may have gone rogue, teaming up with British-born Al Qaeda sympathizers to plot a major strike intended to wreak total destruction. It's a race against time-but who can Liz trust?
   
   Originally published in 2006 (reprinted in a new edition), Secret Asset, the second book in Stella Rimington's spy thriller series, continues the promise shown in At Risk. Rimington, the former Director General of Britain's MI5, knows of what she writes and that authenticity resonates in the procedural details of her novels. As most know, the "devil is in the details," and it is here that Rimington's insider knowledge shines. Her descriptions of functions such as "agent running," supervising undercover civilian informants, elevates her novels above the pack.
   
   However, authenticity is not enough to make a must-read espionage thriller and, luckily for her readers, Secret Asset is built around a captivating plot of terrorist plots, double-dealings and hidden bombs. Peggy Kinsolving, the young research assistant assigned to work with Liz, is a great foil and allows Rimington to explore the rivalry between the branches of British Intelligence while delving into the psychological makeup and histories of the possible moles.
   
   Secret Asset is a must read for anyone who has ever wondered what it takes to betray your country, what mixture of character traits or personality quirks a double agent must possess to carry out their task.
   
   Armchair Interviews says: If you love thrillers, check out this author's work.
   
   From our armchair to yours...



4. This is the second of the novels written by Ms Rimington to feature MI5 Intelligence Officer Liz Carlyle. I've read them out of order and while this hasn't materially impacted upon my enjoyment of the novels, I would recommend new readers to start at the beginning.
   
   In this novel, Liz is investigating a tip-off that a mole has been planted in one of the branches of British Intelligence. This is happening at the same time as Liz's colleagues are trying to encounter an impending terrorist strike and the juxtaposition of the two increases the tempo of the action considerably. Enter a world where perhaps no-one can be trusted and nothing is what it seems. Are there links between the possible mole and the impending terrorist strike? What is an effective balance between hard fact and intuition?
   
   All three of the Liz Carlyle novels are enjoyable. While the character development is gradual, this seems appropriate for this series. Ms Rimington has succeeded in moving beyond the Cold War into a more contemporary world. She has done so in a way that is both entertaining but recognises that while old issues continue to age, they are never truly forgotten and in many ways never cease to be relevant.
   
   Jennifer Cameron-Smith



5. Sad to say, I haven't yet read the first book in this series, but this 2nd book and also the third make me anxious to read the first.This definitely will appeal more to the John Le Carre readers than to the James Bond fans. It gives the feeling of the workaday life of an agent. The key plot points are the uncovering of a mole and the investigation of a terrorist plot on an unknown target. The reader follows several well drawn characters and the requisite tension is slowly built by the author.Mystery buffs may be disappointed by the fact that the mole's identity is pretty obvious to the reader at an early point in the book. A group of five suspects is rapidly reduced to three, then two fairly early in the book. The author seems to make little attempt to keep the reader from then picking the right one out of those two. However, the guessing of the terrorist target is more skillfully obscured although the very alert reader may spot it well before the end.However the authenticity and the fascination in the details of such an investigation sure kept me engrossed throughout and I think it will do so for most readers.

5 comments about Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror.

1. People can say what they want about Scott McClellan, but there is no comparison as to the character differences between these individuals. Whereas Scott had no courage to do what he is now doing, Dick Clarke, here, had all the gull to infight with some of these individuals and let his discontent be known right off. Of course his book did come out a little over a year later, but that is still much more than most "tell-all's".
   
   Now, there can be no doubt that some of this was done out of saving his own arse, it still has to be said that he DID do what he was supposed to. He informed, time and again, and was treated as if he weren't there. Richard's job was to analyze, then inform. He did that. The president ignored what was given to him. It was then astonishing to learn that the new "goal-post" for where the buck stops, was, suddenly, not with the president, but with others.
   
   A sad-but-true tail, indeed.
   
   This is a necessary book. Thanks, Dick.



2. After more than 1,000 reviews, what can I possibly add? I noticed one little thing, a very small point, in the book that kind of twisted my jaw.
   
   Clarke is very clearly partisan in tone in the book. I think he comes across as being in the leftist/liberal mold politically. OK, that's fine, sometimes the libs get it right and sometimes the conservatives do. (Myself, I have no love or loyalty to either political party and prefer to endorse viewpoints that represent ordinary, self-supporting, responsible, hard-working people, as I think the majority of us are. Frankly, anymore, I think people who obey the law, work to support themselves and their families, pay their bills, try to teach their kids right from wrong, etc. are the most underrepresented and disenfranchised bunch in the country. Neither party represents us, in my view.)
   
   With that out of the way, the little point I caught in this book refers to Clarke being advised by the U.S. Secret Service that he needed to carry a handgun for self-protection. He describes being "issued" a semi-automatic pistol for this purpose. He mentions something to the effect that he is a big supporter of gun-control, but in this case he felt he should carry this weapon.
   
   Well, I'm glad he was issued this pistol and carried it. The underlying tone in his comment is that the rest of us really shouldn't have handguns, because guns are bad, kill people, etc. But of course, HE needed one for self-protection; so what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If he was true to his liberal view of the right/need of a handgun for self-protection as it applies to citizens, he should have been abhorred at the thought of a civilian carrying a weapon for protection and vigorously declined this advice--after all, he was not a law enforcement officer! (For what it's worth, I have been a federal law enforcement officer required to carry a firearm etc. so I have some sense of this.)
   
   I admit I have figuratively expressed his views, he did not use verbatim the words I have used above. If you read this passage though, it was relatively early in the book, I suppose somewhere in the first 1/4 of it, I think you will see what I mean.
   
   Does Clarke represent truthfully what really happened or does he have his own axe to grind? ONLY GOD KNOWS.
   
   I am writing this some 4 years after the book came out though I read it right after it was published. Subsequent events have left more data for people to digest about the truthfulness of the Bush administration. Still, I recommend people read the book to receive one view of events and judge for themselves.
   
   I see also now that Clarke has come out with a new book in the last couple of weeks. That should be an interesting read as well.
   
   Thanks for listening.



3. Rather interesting book by an counter-terrorist insider to several administrations. Clearly, he doesn't like Bush and his court very much, so it seems a wee bit partial. However, there is also some real insight about what it means to be tasked with keeping a democracy safe in the face of terror.
   
   You get the impression that he would have liked a more nuanced, more cooperative and diplomatic approach to neutralizing international terrorists. In fact, he compares Bush senior's handling of the diplomatic runup to Gulf War I with GW's go-it-alone policy in 2003.
   
   Nevertheless, no peacenik he. He strongly regrets having released the noose around the Republican Guards armor in 1991, in what people usually refer to as the Highway of Death. To him: escaping armor => Saddam stays in power and threatens neighborhood => US stays in Saudi => propaganda for Bin Laden's jihad. Mind you, as ugly as the Highway of Death was, Iraqi soldiers, maybe those troops, were soon afterwards involved in savagely repressing the Shias.
   
   One annoyance is his heavy use of "I, I, I" and tendency to put himself forward at every turn. Though he also says several times that he, and his team, failed at preventing 9/11 and that they failed at protecting their country. No one else from this administration accepts blame or admits mistakes, so that's refreshing.
   
   Concerning the pre-9/11 hunt for Al Quaeda, he often criticizes the CIA and the Pentagon, but just skewers the FBI and its director. Broadly speaking, he seems to sing the same tune as Ghost Wars, except that he thinks the CIA had unequivocal backing to kill Bin Laden and wasn't justified in hiding behind legal fig leaves.



4. As targets of the political mass suggestion discussed in my reviews of: Propaganda, U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960 (Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication), and Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s, we must be careful with books like this from an "insider". The pattern is the same on all these books "written" by insiders who have "left" the administration: There is one and ONLY one controversial assertion given in the book (the hook to generate sales and publicity), with the remainder of the book running parallel with the party line.
   
   I have no doubt, given corroborating evidence from other authors, that Clarke is correct that Bush and his cabinent were planning an Iraq invasion well before 9/11. The "Downing Street Memo" is the smoking gun on this.
   
   The much bigger purpose of this book, in my opinion, is simply to disseminate the party line, yet again, that Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman, that his world-threatening military is al-qaeda, and that they can deliver mass destruction anytime, anywhere (you know, the Cold War program). It's the repeat, repeat, repeat that we get from George Tenet, Michael Scherer (sp) and all others who are wittingly or unwittingly part of the propaganda campaign.
   
   The only question on Clarke is: is he witting or unwitting? The answer, however, is moot. As long as he is spewing party-line propaganda, his books are worthless to a suspicious public.



5. For an Australian, this book gave a huge insight into the workings of high levels of U.S. government and the selfishness of the people ultimately responsible in the various organisations, eg FBI, Department of Defense, in making decisions that could have saved many lives, instead of thinking only of their own reputations or fear that another department might impinge on their territory. Dick Clarke has shown that political views cannot be upheld on beliefs from 10 years ago. Nowadays, history is only as far back as yesterday and we need to be informed and alert. We lost too many Aussies in Bali because of historical blinkers.
   Thank you Dick Clarke for all you wrote.

No comments about Prohibido decir toda la verdad.

5 comments about Fair Play: The Moral Dilemmas of Spying.

1. FAIR PLAY could've been featured in our Military Shelf section - after all, it's by the former chief of CIA counterintelligence - but deserves a much broader reading audience than those who frequent military libraries. FAIR PLAY presents both a survey of the real world of spying and espionage and a concurrent survey of moral and ethical issues involved in spying, and dilemmas which come from field experience every day. The blend of intelligence history, political insights, and social issues makes for a survey which advocates a clearer moral sense in U.S. intelligence officers - and that holds many lessons for civilians as well. Even the general-interest lending library will find it a unique, compelling read.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



2. I wanted so badly to give this book 4 stars but couldn't bring myself to do it.
   The concept of the book is interesting and Mr. Olson tackled it very well. The early part of the book details Mr. Olson's experiences growing up in Iowa, attending the University of Iowa Law School (Go Hawks!), how he came to join the CIA, and gave a brief summary of his career, although I say it was TOO brief and if Mr. Olson ever wrote a biography about his experiences in the Agency it would make a tremendously interesting read. He also mentioned that when he was recruited into the CIA, all he knew about it was what he had learned in Allen Dulles' book The Craft of Intelligence, which is ironic because I ordered that book on the same day as Fair Play. Both turned out to be greatly enjoyable.
   The largest portion of Fair Play focuses on different (hypothetical) moral dilemmas potentially faced by Intelligence Officers, with each dilemma being asked in question form, "Would it be moral if..." Following each posed dilemma several people give their opinions and answer the posed question, answering either `yea' or `nay,' and telling why they answered in that way. At the conclusion of each `dilemma,' Mr. Olson himself chimes in and gives some basic background on the issue raised (these are the most informative parts of each section).
   In the back of the book is an index explaining certain words and concepts, used throughout the text, that those outside the intelligence community may not fully grasp, which was nice to have as a reference. He also lists some of his most highly recommended books regarding the Intelligence community. Again, nice bonus.
   All in all, it's a great book. So, why did I want to give it only 4 stars? ...Because the book wasn't entirely informative, as I prefer. That is to say, the questions were posed and people were allowed to give their opinions. Granted, the purpose of the book is to highlight the various dilemmas and take into consideration various perspectives, but that can grow tired after a bit. At times it made me feel like I was sitting in a moral dilemma debate conference.
   However, in taking the following into consideration I feel obligated to give it 5 stars and absolutely recommend it: the informative reference section, the real-world input of the author, and the recommended reading list add a lot of value to the books content. Heck, even the small font causes the pages to be jam-packed with content. And lastly, Mr. Olson does indeed what he set out to do. It's worth the price!



3. 
   Fair Play offers the reader a peek into the murky world of espionage. CIA veteran Jim Olson has a unique perspective that few other authors can offer to anyone interested in intelligence. Fair Play is not your standard historical narrative. It is an interactive experience, which invites the reader to participate in fifty realistic and morally challenging scenarios that our spies must contend with. Olson adds further credibility to Fair Play by sharing with the reader a cross section of responses to his very realistic scenarios. These elicited responses are from accomplished professionals, whose vocations vary from the former Deputy Director of the CIA to practicing physicians.
   Fair Play includes chapters on Olson's under cover career in the CIA, changing U.S. attitudes toward espionage from the Revolutionary War to the present, and historical, biblical, and philosophical justifications for committing espionage. Armed with this requisite knowledge, the reader is thrust into true-to-life situations that U.S. spies actually face in the shadows today. This approach redirects the reader from the role of arm chair quarterback to active participant by asking what he/she would do in that same situation. Among the many topics covered are assassinations, kidnappings, interrogation, torture, drugs, seduction, sexual entrapment, and blackmail.
   Morality and espionage are not mutually exclusive. As Olson says, it is about time someone started thinking about how morality and spying fit together in today's world. The community he continues to serve faces monumental challenges. Its operators need to have a clearly defined moral code with which to take the fight to our enemies. This book represents a great first step towards providing such a moral code to our clandestine warriors.



4. In the vast genre of intelligence writing, this book is simply unique. In presenting the moral dilemmas faced by intelligence officers, this work is indispensible--both for practical training for the professionals and for educating the public about the realities of the profession.
   
   Where the book falls down, I'm afraid, is in its judgments about other works of intelligence writing. Olson's list of the best books for a professional library include two that have been discredited as historical works. He also repeats the mythical canard that Winston Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed during World War II so as not to let the Germans know their communications were being read; he needs to read David Stafford, Martin Gilbert, and R.V. Jones on this score. Being taken in by [...] or by myths are disturbing failings for a former chief of counterintelligence.



5. Great book, great intro. to the intelligence field, and gives you a birdeye's view on the little spoken subfield, which is the morality of the intelligence field. Great demystifier of this field.

5 comments about The Moonpool: A Novel.

1. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RWTREM86YGHYJ Who will like "Moonpool" and why? In this video I do not re-hash the plot or give away the ending. Instead, I tell you who will like this book and who would like to receive it as a gift. Please join me! Frank Derfler author of "A Glint in Time" http://GreatGuyBooks.com



2. Plot seems to be a "knock off" of an old "JOHNNY QUEST" cartoon. Bad guy in government , secert prisons, Snakes ,dogs, etc. It was just a little to silly for me.



3. Allie Gardner had been with them since the beginning of Hide And Seek Investigations. Her specialty, and something that she went after with a certain fury, was cheating spouses. Her latest assignment was a simple case in Wilmington, North Carolina. It should not have gotten her killed.
   
   But, it did.
   
   For retired Lieutenant Cam Richter the news is a shock and a personal blow. After driving down and making the formal id of the body Cam wants answers. He isn't the only one. The state autopsy facility would like to know why her body is highly radioactive. She had to ingest something and the question is where did whatever it was come from? How did she get it? Who gave it to her? The search for answers for these questions and many others will take Cam up against the staff of a local nuclear power plant, the federal government, and other forces, as he begins to search for the truth as to what happened to Allie Lardner.
   
   Building on "The Cat Dancers" and "Spider Mountain" this third novel in the series is another strong read through it does start very slowly. Character development is at a nill here as the recurring characters, especially Cam Richter, were fully established in the first two novels. The team is once again brought together to help Cam and there are also multiple appearances by Mary Ellen and discussion of their shared past as well as other events in the series. Therefore, readers are cautioned that the previous books in the series should be read before embarking on this novel.
   
   A novel that is full of misdirection and deceit and political intrigue with frequent character commentary on the role of the FBI and homeland security criticism of both and a theme that many other authors seem to be mining in their fiction these days. The political commentary, though it may annoy some readers, does not take over the book. Instead, it is a piece of the book as are many other pieces that serve to entertain as well as confuse the reader.
   
   The read as a whole is a novel featuring a complex tale full of nuance and innuendo, dark secrets and plenty of action. This is one of those books that it is not wise to start late in the evening or take to the beach because you will lose track of time and the real world.
   
   
   Kevin R. Tipple (copyright) 2008



4. Pete, as always, you have turned out another great story that stands among the best of suspense novel... little did you (or any of us) know 45 years ago that you would become a great writer... your dad would be proud! Keep on writing... we, your faithful fans, look forward to the next book... and we know that it too will be a thriller as with all of your tales.



5. It's worthwhile to compare this with my own thriller set at a nuclear power plant, San Onofre. My novel is based on first-hand information and its characters hopefully more believeable than the genera stereotypes of Deuterman's work. San Onofre

5 comments about Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't.

1. Robert Spencer produces a hateful, revisionist, and triumphalistic argument about why he thinks Christianity and the Western world (he conflates the two) are superior to Islam. Christianity is a religion of peace and dialogue and Islam a religion of terror and suppression. He accuses Christianity's detractors of "cherry-picking" evidence of the support of violence in the Old and New Testaments, but then goes on to do the same in his treatment of the Qu'ran and Christian history itself.
   But the most basic error he makes is to dismiss the long and bloody history of Christian cruelty, forced conversion, slavery, destruction of native cultures, and environmental disaster with a flick of his temporal wand. Yes, there were Christians who did such things in the past, he notes, but this was not essential to Christian's message of peace and love for others. Besides, most of these more troublesome episodes of Christian history were not as bad as they seemed and have now passed. Christian anti-Semitism was not all that bad (especially compared with Muslim anti-Semitism). Slavery was a mistake and Christians finally figured that out.
   Even if one accepts the latter point that such Christian atrocity-mongering has diminished (which is eminently debatable with good Christians in America still enthused for racial and gender inequality and positively foaming at the mouth for guns, capital punishment, and a vast nuclear arsenal) it is patently false to suggest that it was anything other than the Enlightenment, the throwing off of theocracies, and the embrace of secular, constitutional democracies, that spurred our best, though always fragile, efforts to live with our differences without killing each other.
   No one is arguing, as Spencer seems to believe, that there are not Islamic terrorists and theocrats who wish to suppress people with Sharia law. They use religion to justify their violence. Yet Spencer ignores the consensus that most of the anger that drives such things is political rather than religious. It is anger at Western cultural hegemony, globalization, and the inequality of wealth that feeds the discontent of radical Islam.
   Why should Christians who do evil get the benefit of the doubt that they simply missed the point of their faith's deeper teachings on peace in the pursuit of more worldly and self-serving ends, while Muslims do so because they are just following their religion? Because Spencer wants to goad on the great "Clash of Civilizations" view of the world and take up good, loving, Christian arms, if necessary, to defend the great Western civilization of peace and reason. With books like these, he and his ilk may just succeed.



2. Don't listen to the reviewers who say Robert Spencer is not knowledgeable enough about Islam. He could teach quite a few Muslims about their own books and history, I have studied it deeply for seven years myself.
   
   Also bear in mind the doctrine of Al-Taqiyya and Kithman or kitman, which began as a shia practice (they claim)but is widespread in all of Islam to protect the faith from outside critcism for some of it's questionable teachings. I deal daily one on one with Moslems real time, online and they very frequently use this practice. Even posing as non-muslims in order to decieve others. It really is amazing how proud they are of outwitting.
   
   Mohammad himself said it was ok to lie to enemies (and that all infidels are enemies) as well as to your wives, and instructed a few of his followers to join the enemy camp by claiming they were friends and abhorred Mohammad. Islam is in no way, shape or form similar to Christianity, so one must bear this in mind and not assume the religion says to be kind to unbelievers or love your enemies. It is actually the opposite school.
   
   I have known of Robert Spencers work for some time now and he has always been impeccable and non judgemental in his work. This book is as equally fair and a valuable addition to anyone's library who wants to have concrete knowledge about Islam.
   
   I do not hate Muslims. But I have come to strongly dislike Mohammadism amd what it has been doing to the people as a whole, who choose to closely follow Mohammads teachings.



3. This volume by Robert Spencer should be placed alongside Paul Fregosi's "Jihad In the West", Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" and Ibn Warraq's "why I Am Not a Muslim". Spencer et al show conclusively that the notion that "Islam is a religion of peace" is one of the greatest frauds ever pulled upon the human race.



4. The title of the book is full of prejudice ... obviously the author has a very set, pre-judgment, which he wants to make the world aware of. Just because Robert Spencer writes something and it's published, doesn't make it a fact. If he knew 100 people, who each knew 100 Muslims who lived up to the unoriginal stereotypes and blatant lies this book is filled with, that would still only make 10,000 Muslims. That is less than 1/100th of 1% of the world population of the nearly 1 Billion Muslims alive today (and growing). Statistics based on so small a sample of the population cannot produce significant results; nor could they be generalized to the whole population. If cancer researchers exaggerated their findings as Spencer does his, we would all live under SPF 100 windows, clothing and glasses from sunrise to sunset and never let our bare skin see the sun. A real scientist has integrity as well as the scientific method. Spencer is not a scientist and though he may write a good game, his rhetoric, as well worded or carefully reasoned as it may seem, is all hear-say, rumor, and unoriginal stereotypes that any 12 year old could put together from an evening of watching CNN, or any other fascist-controlled anti-Islam media source. Read the book if you want to get a good idea of how hate-filled and lacking understanding the majority of scared Christian radicals are. Spencer does more than just describe the monster he imagines under his bed, he becomes it. His portrayal of lies and slander turn him into the very hate-mongering zealot he wants to convince you Muslims are. Keep this book away from children. It could very well inspire a few to join the KKK or another hate organization.



5. Robert Spencer has become one of my favorite writers after this effort (Religion of peace?). He is articulate, reasonable and, has an elegant writing style.
   
   This book is interesting and well researched. The author puts to rest a lot of misconceptions about the Judeo-Christian civilization while, at the same time, he indicts Islam for the numerous alleged transgressions of modern civilized ways.
   
   This is the best book on this subject that I have read so far.

5 comments about Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, 3rd Edition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, Vol. 13).

1. As a comparative cultural study of religious terrorism, Mark Juergensmeyer attempts to explain how and why religion and violence are linked. Juergensmeyer analyzes recent incidents of global religious terrorism in order to illumine overarching patterns that heighten the risk of religious violence. Splitting his book into two parts, Juergensmeyer, first, highlights examples of religious terrorism within the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Buddhist traditions. The author interviews religious leaders and activists within cultures of violence present in each of these traditions. In the second part of the book, Juergensmeyer identifies those characteristics that enhance the likelihood of religion becoming violent.
   
   Juergensmeyer believes the first common denominator in religious extremism is the act of violence itself: terrorism is a theatrical display of violence. According to the author, these acts are performance events, inasmuch that they make symbolic, not strategic, statements. They are performative acts, insofar as they attempt to create change. The location and the time of the violent act, also, have symbolic purpose. Terrorism needs an audience, somebody to terrify, in order to be effective, and with the technological advancements of the twentieth century, the audience of this theatre is virtually global.
   
   If religious terrorism is violent theatre, the image of a cosmic war provides the script. Violent activists view their terrorist acts as part of a larger spiritual confrontation, a battle between good and evil, between God and God's enemies. With the notion of warfare, compromise is not possible and violence, naturally, is morally justified. Religious symbols also undergird religious terrorism: all religions have symbols to overcome the images of death, disorder, and disarray. Religion asserts the primacy of meaning and order in the face of chaos, in this case, a world gone awry. Juergensmeyer identifies when these symbols can become deadly and when confrontation is likely to be characterized as a cosmic war.
   
   The processes of satanization and empowerment are a result of viewing the world as engulfed in a cosmic war. Juergensmeyer believes that terrorists believe that they are victims, and this justifies their violent actions. If they die in their cause they are martyrs - again, religious symbolism overcoming disorder - sacrificed for their community and religion. With every war, enemies must be created, and as such the process of demonizing the enemy is important. Terrorists must deny the personhood of the enemy and create stereotypes so that the enemy can be seen as individuals. Juergensmeyer explains the process of satanization, the creation of a cosmic foe, and the process of empowerment, to create the hope that history can be changed, are integral parts of the mentalities caused by the image of cosmic warfare.
   
   Religious violence provides a sense of empowerment to religious activists and their communities. According to the author, all terrorists fear social marginalization. In general terrorism is a male occupation, and women have minor ancillary roles, if at all. This gender specificity implies that sexuality is a factor in militant movements: sexual control needs to be established in a world gone awry, seen in active subjugation of women and homosexuality. Juergensmeyer finds commonality in terrorist groups: they are "anti-institutional, religio-nationalist, racist, sexist, male-bonding, bomb-throwing young guys," (210). Their marginality is experienced through sexual despair, which leads to violent acts of empowerment. Religious terrorists recognize they are in a struggle that cannot be won, but by dismantling the state's monopoly on power, the group demonstrates their power on behalf of the powerless.
   
   In his concluding chapter, Juergensmeyer believes that terrorists would do anything if they believed it sanctioned by God. Because of the increasing secularism and liberalism prevalent in the world, religious terrorists seek to vault their religious views, perceived as both marginalized and traditional, into the mainstream. Secular governments are by nature enemies of these terrorist organizations, and violence is an attempt to reclaim this public sphere. Juergensmeyer, extrapolating from current trends, concludes with five ways in which religious terrorism can be resolved: terrorist organizations can be literally destroyed; terrorists can be frightened into submission by the threat of violent reprisals or imprisonment; the goals of the terrorists can be accommodated; the religious aspects are separated from politics; or religion and politics can be reconciled. Juergensmeyer believes the last solution to be the most successful.



2. This book is being used in a Terrorism seminar class that I am taking and for good reason. Juergensmeyer does not rely wholly on second hand information but has actually visited and spoken with those accused and some even convicted of terror and gives a perspective that only a first hand knowledge would provide. This is an excellent insight into the minds of true idealists with a bent on death and destruction.



3. Excellent book covering all the major religions and their terrorists. I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a scholarly survey or someone looking to make more sense of the world.
   
   Many of the cases explored are chilling in their cold bloodedness, but the author makes all of them eminently understandable.



4. The thesis of this book is that religion and violence are always linked and that all religions are the same in having a violent strain and that all religions have violence in them naturally because religion is violent.
   
   This is blatently and historically untrue. In attempting, like so many works, to not single out Islam as violent this book wants the reader to beleive that Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and all religions are equally violent and a study of each reveals a strain of hate. Timothy Mcveigh is the Christian, the Sikh Kalistan fighters are the Sikhs, The Tamils are the Hindus, Osama is the Muslims, The strange terror cell in Japan is the Buddhist. This is easy. Rather tahn doing a comprehensive study this book found one murderer from each religion that led a sect and said "see this religion has a strain of violence". However Timothy Mcveigh was one man as were the Buddhist extremists in Japan. The Tamils are not religious, there ware is based on ethnicity. Where are the Jewish terrorists, well there must be Baruch Goldstien and recall those Jewish Zealots 2000 years ago.
   
   This is sheer lunacy. Different religions did indeed engage is certain levels of violence throughout history. THat is true. THere are also different forms of religions and religions change. Religions that were once violent or state controlled like Christianity and Buddhism, have become peaceful. Religions like Sikhism are naturally warrior based religions, but not neccesarily violent. Hinduism has never manifested itself violently, and Judaism hasnt been violent since the time of the revolt and that was a national revolt. This is just a gigantic scam. Islam has violent passages in the Koran. But this doesnt mean Bin Laden is timothy Mcveigh.
   
   It is also not true that religion is 'more' violent than secular societies. Hitler and Stalin killed more people in 5 years than any religion has ever done. If anything religion may work as a hand holding violence back but helping unify it when it takes place.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



5. Although history is replete with Crusades, Jihads, Holy Wars, etc. it still stymies me how, otherwise intelligent people can slaughter each other and bring chaos to thousands, over religion. Even if any of it were true, it would seem sane to avoid it simply because it is so divisive, violent and irrational.

5 comments about The Secret Servant.

1. `The Secret Servant' by Daniel Silva
   
   This was my first time reading Silva and his Israeli Spy / Assassin / Art Restorer, Gabriel Allon...I was not disappointed. In fact, I've already gone and ordered his other Allon novels with plans on reading them chronologically.
   
   In `The Secret Servant', our hero, Gabriel Allon tracks a radical Islamist terror cell responsible for the abduction of a prominent American. The story is smart, current and incisive that you'll find a frolic of a read.
   
   For fear of giving anything away, I'll say simply, that Mr. Silva has woven a fine spy tale that hooked this generally strict non-fiction reader and it comes with my recommendation...for whatever that's worth.
   
   - Johnny



2. I find it amazing that the author keeps coming up with fresh plots and an exciting story with mostly the same key characters. Gabriel Allon, the Israeli operative, comes out on top once again. Islamic terrorists kidnap the daughter of the U.S. ambassador to England while she's taking her daily run in Hyde Park. They request a swap for an important sheikh who is in prison in Colorado. Then, when that request is refused they accept a ransom offered by her wealthy father. However, they deviously plan on killing her in a spectacular fashion on Christmas morning. Allon is, of course, the hero. But even though Allon seems super human he does it in a believable fashion.



3. The premise is intriguing; a terrorist plot perpetrated at locations around London causes death, destruction and a diversion to the kidnapping of the daughter of the ambassador from the United States.
   
   Through a mysterious link used by a murdered author - who had maneuvered within the shadows of terrorism and intelligence - Israeli spy Gabriel Allon finds himself on the trail of the perpetrators and the mysterious mastermind who goes by the codename of the "Sphinx."
   
   Author Daniel Silva does a masterful job in linking stories culled from the front pages of newspapers and magazines - along with little-known historical facts - to lend an air of credibility the pursuit through Europe, but ultimately falls short with the use of typical scenarios found in less than thrilling thrillers.
   
   Allon has unbelievable recuperative powers - though he is viciously pistol-whipped, assaulted by several thugs and near a massive explosion - which makes him more super hero than human agent. The dialogue between Allon and the terrorists seems best in a cartoon-styled plot, as the tough guy banter sounds like boasting juveniles on a school playground. And there are story lines that come to an abrupt halt, which lead to many more puzzling questions than answers.
   
   Silva has built a franchise with the exploits of Allon. But this novel builds up to a large thud...and it isn't just the noise of the bad guys getting their comeuppance in the end.



4. Audio - Review of Secret Servant
   
   Plot - Quick, flowing, until the very end, the bit about the wedding could have been left out or confined to a quick five or ten minute, at the most a short chapter. It was nice to know they finally did get married but the details, I found to be unnecessary.
   
   The story was not only timely but also very realistic; the course of events could have easily been written in any newspaper. But we the reader or listener, get to hear or read all those little details that couldn't be released to the public. There's something tantalizing about knowing the details that the author stated that were not released in any official document. Pretend that only you and the characters are privy (along with the thousands of other people who read the book) to the book's `For Your Eyes Only' information.
   
   Characters - I will definitely read or listen to more books in the series. I loved the characters. I found the fact that the main character not only serves in an intelligence role but is able to maintain a separate and normal existence as an art restorer as a relief to all those other one dimensional James Bond types. Gabriel Allon, the main character is perfect for the simple reason he isn't. He has to do what he has to do. He is not without feelings but he knows when and where those feeling are appropriate. He's not some young stud that runs around bedding women without a second thought; he has an ex-wife with major problems, though I wasn't sure of details. But still it's wasn't dismal, sad but it didn't drown in self-pity. I plan to go back and read the rest of the books in the series after I read Moscow Rules. He's a man who's lost a child, a grown son, so you know he's not some young whippersnapper. He's intelligent, well organized, a man that you want to know, at least as an art restorer.
   
   The majority of the rest of the characters were well rounded, enjoyable and at times, scary. I wanted to know more about the characters and not just the good guys. It would be nice to learn what happened to them after the book ended which to me indicated an emotional investment that I developed for the characters. The use of characters were perfect, some had small but crucial roles.
   
   Settings - Wonderfully described, detailed without being boring or slowing the story down.
   
   Narrator - Excellent, I enjoyed the narrator's work a great deal, while the voices of the females character were not perfect, they within a tolerant range. It's not easy for a man to do a female voice without it sounding awful or laughable. Don't get me wrong it's no better for a female doing a male voice. It is truly an art when a narrator can nail the voice of a character of the opposite sex.
   
   Bottom line, a fantastic book with great characters and a terrific story.
   
   



5. An excellent mystery/thriller/spy novel and I look forward to reading the other books written by this author.

5 comments about War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.

1. This is an excellent background and first draft of history for the last seven years.
   
   Feith was a policy/ analyst guy. He is not a foaming at the mouth, neo-con ideologue. He is a DC area lawyer, that worked in the NSC under Reagan/ Bush the elder and then more law work during Clinton, while keeping an amateur hand in the defense/ policy world.
   
   As far as managing an office goes, I understood, that he was leading up an office of about a hundred civilian and uniform policy wonk type of guys, who reported directly to Sec Rumsfeld. In that sense, he offers a lot of interesting observations about how Defense Department of 2001 - 2005 worked, especially how it got along with the State Department and Rice's office, as Feith would often attend meetings with those folks for Rumsfeld, etc.
   
   Rumsfeld himself comes across as a hard guy to work for. Feith tells the story of, in late 2001, the SecDef coming into his office on a Friday morning, telling Feith to grab five trusted guys and that they will follow him on a five nation trip to Asia over the weekend, and be expected to be back at their desks by Monday afternoon. So they group travels to Russia, a few Central Asia 'stans, Pakistan, India, all while meeting top officials like Putin and Musharef. Feith's crew works virtually non stop, cranking out reports and speeches and memos. On the way home, Feith asks Rumsfeld to come to the back of the plane and give a morale boosting speech to the staff and thank them for dropping everything on a moment's notice to do some hard work. Rumsfeld refuses, and upbraids Feith about what a stupid idea that would be.
   
   But Feith is very clear that Rumsfeld is not particularly idealogical in his decision making. The SecDef did go to extreme efforts to search out every possibly solution to problems. In fact, he argues Rumsfeld wanted much of the opposite of what he has been portrayed as: a go it alone, shoot first, ask questions later guy.
   
   In regards to Iraq, Feith makes probably the best arguments I have yet seen on the real necessity of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. It essentially makes the argument made by Clinton in 1998, Blair about the same time, sums up the 2002 Congressional Resolution for Iraq, albeit far more cogently.
   
   I think he reads quite fairly. I got a lot out of Feith detailing a lot of the breakdowns in the decision making process in the NSC, especially Sec. Rice's lack of leadership and ability to move issues along. Essentially, he paints Rumsfeld as wanting to change and move the Federal Government to address the terrorist threats, and Colin Powell going along with the career government employee lines of operation. In a sense, Powell and Rice come off badly. The President is seen as someone who set policy, then trusted advisor's to figure out how to do it. Only in this case, the advisers had no real desire to work with each other and were often working in opposite directions.
   
   Feith is extremely critical of the lost opportunities of the Garner/ Bremer administration in post Saddam 2003/2004 Iraq. I think he accurately describes why decisions or the lack of them, made after the invasion, contributed to the full scale insurgency that is only now calming.
   
   Feith wrote a critical book of his work and the administration. He is highly critical of the US State Department, doesn't believe that much of value was added by the Committees on foreign relations and defense in Congress, and never doubts President Bush's good intentions for a moment, he really struggles with why the President or Rice, never stepped in and set clear policy and allowed things to drift as they did.
   
   Twenty five years from now, when college students are writing papers, or military officers are studying the events of the past seven years, they will be citing Feith. I don't agree with everything he says, especially the bit about disbanding the Iraqi Army, with a small Coalition invasion force. Yet, Feith has written a fair, critical, first draft of history. It is a must read.



2. Feith's book is largely an attempt to justify his actions and policies as #3 in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld, more specifically with regards to the Iraq war.
   
   Well, if your boss calls you in to grill on some mistakes you've made you can:
   
   - admit failure and throw yourself at her mercy
   - justify every single issue by saying that it wasn't your fault
   - tactically admit some failures and defend your record on the rest.
   
   Most people, but not Feith apparently, would recognize that rejecting any notion of having made a mistake is counterproductive. That is my main complaint with the book. It is very very defensive in nature. If mistakes were made, it's because Feith wasn't listened to. All the mistakes were made by Colin Powell, at State, or by the CIA. Later on, Paul Bremer, the 2nd US envoy to Iraq, becomes the book's scapegoat. Rumsfeld is brilliant throughout, except for _slight_ misgivings about his management style.
   
   Feith states that Rumsfeld, correctly in Feith's view, decided to achieve unity of command by having DoD in sole and exclusive charge of post-war Iraq. Given that DoD was now running the show, why is everybody, except for DoD to blame for what went wrong? Note that I am not really criticizing the military here, more the Pentagon. Bremer was reporting directly to Rumsfeld, except that well, he wasn't - according to Feith.
   
   Another interesting aspect is the focus on Iraq. The book starts at 9/11 and then takes about 150 pages (out of 520) to cover the invasion of Afghanistan and events up to mid 2002 at most. Past that? Nothing, no coverage of the decidedly mixed results in stabilizing the country. Just occasional pats on his own back to show how much better Afghanistan worked out than Iraq.
   
   Feith bemoans the lack of outreach to the Muslim communities but then dismisses Powell's insistence on finding an Arab-Israeli solution as a bunch of wishy-washy irrelevant thinking. I really don't think you can have it both ways. Feith neglects to mention his contributions to the 'Clean Break' paper in 1996, advocating war with Iraq and halting the Oslo peace talks. Odd that he forgot.
   
   Bremer's actions as head of the CPA are presented as mostly his. Well, who authorized things like the laws liberalizing Iraq's economy? I am pro free-market myself, but there is no justification for imposing capitalist laws on a country you occupy.
   
   Feith's regrets the insistence on WMD as the cause for war. I think that is hypocritical. WMD was the easiest way to convince the electorate to go to war. No more, no less. The intelligence was faulty but I give Feith the benefit of the doubt when he says that that only became clear after the fact. Regardless, if Colin Powell chose to emphasize WMD rather than other factors, I can't really believe it was over Bush's objections.
   
   
   Enough bad mouthing. This was a hard read - I don't like Feith and I don't like this administration. But there are some good reasons why this book is interesting:
   
   - Feith occasionally makes good points. For example, lack of nation-building capability in the US institutions. Lack of funding for the Department of State.
   
   - Difficulty of funding important initiatives by friendly foreign governments, as opposed to very loose purse strings to fund the Pentagon. I dunno about that one - what are the Cold War precedents?
   
   - Where the information is coming from. When Feith states that the President was already thinking about Iraq on 9/12/2001, it is coming from him. Not from some foaming-at-the-mouth 9/11 conspiracy theorist. It presents the administration's side.
   
   - Colin Powell looks a whole lot better coming out of Iraq than Bush's inner court. Rightly or wrongly, this book presents an alternative view of him as not having had the courage of his convictions.
   
   Finally, I find it sadly amusing that, coming as #37, mine is going to be the first 3 star review. Apparently, as is customary in debate about the Iraq war nowadays, Americans still can't get over the Democrats/Republican split. Everyone loves, or hates, this book. "A Drink In the Desert" vs. "Don't reward this war criminal by buying his book". This lack of common ground doesn't look good for future US foreign policy maturity.



3. Although General Tommy Franks famously referred to Feith as "the f****ng stupidest guy on the face of the earth.", this book demonstrates that he is in fact one of the most brilliant defense strategeists who ever walked the face of the earth. Feith has openly admitted that he had no desire to serve in Viet Nam because he was afraid of getting killed or having his beloved hair mussed up. But as undersecratary of something-or-other at the Defense Department, Feith was one of the fiercest proponents of going to war with Iraq for no good reason. In this great great book, Feith chronicles the monumental efforts he undertook to fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraq and of Saddam's connection to 9/11. Feith's detailed recounting of how the White House and the State Department were determined to go to war with Iraq for no other reason that to demonstrate U.S. military might to the world, is simultaneously chilling and comforting.
   
   Although Doug Feith and John Bolton and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and the many others who took this country to war have never had any desire to fight for their country when they had the opportunity, nobody can deny the patriotism and courage that these brave men have demonstrated in taking this great nation to war for no good reason against a country with a weak military but lots and lots of those Arab looking people who hate our freedoms.
   
   Feith may be the f*****g stupidest guy on the face of the earth, but he's our f*****g stupidest guy on the face of the earth and thank god for that.



4. This is an essential fact book for every person curious about the U.S. government's decision making that led to the Afghan and Iraq wars and their pursuit in the early years.
   
   Douglas Feith's memoir includes the period in which he served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He covers discussions in which he was personally involved and clearly identifies information that he did not personally observe. As such, important pieces of the puzzle are left to the observations of the actual participants. One hopes that more books will provide additional first-hand information about the Iraq war and avoid the imaginative judgments of the uninformed. Michael Yon does well on the ground in Iraq, but all too many have built a big scaffold on which to hang President Bush and ignored their own limited perspective.
   
   Feith provides appendices in which he outlines the Washington decision apparatus, shows the memos that provided outlines of decision options, a series of charts used to brief the President on the Iraq transition, the implementation outline for the President's March 2003 policy for an Iraq Interim Authority, and a policy briefing on training the Iraqi opposition. All told good evidence for the decision process used.
   
   Feith explains that the chain of command goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the regional commander (Centcom's Tommy Franks handled the invasion of Iraq). The Centcom commander can (and regularly did) react negatively to any suggestions for change that did not come directly from the President or the Secretary of Defense.
   
   The Pentagon staff and the Joint Chiefs provide support and advice only, and are not in the chain of command. Thus Wolfowitz (the Deputy Secretary of Defense), Feith and General Myers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) in the Pentagon made suggestions to Rumsfeld and the President. These advisors supported the President's vision of the terrorist threat as a world-wide phenomena. They noted many separate organizations, but recognized their common goal of injuring America and their deadly danger to Americans. They shared the President's view and designed policies to reduce that threat, deter terrorism around the world, and did not narrow their vision to only Afghanistan, as many recommended.
   
   Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld appears as a very demanding boss who was trying to refocus this largest of American bureaucracies into a leaner more flexible force. When the secretary's vision collided with officials who disagreed with him, he met a great deal of foot dragging. Never-the-less, he did move the army's divisional structure farther along the path toward brigade organization.
   
   Mixed into the debate were multiple opinions about the force levels necessary in Iraq. In retrospect it is very clear that the force levels in Iraq were too small to permit a traditional occupation. Feith suggests the President's selected occupation policy might have made a large force less necessary, but it never had a chance. Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer III caused shock across the administration when, without consultation, he published an article in the 08 September 2003 Washington Post headlined "Iraq's Path to Sovereignty." The seven steps Bremer outlined effectively aborted the President's plan for early and piecewise transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. The planned Iraq Interim Authority was not to be.
   
   In retrospect it is easy to fault the President and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for not immediately replacing Bremer. They must have felt "the man on the ground" had better information and in any event the shockwave from replacement would have been too high.
   
   Bremer's dismantling of the Iraq Interim Authority had serious repercussions. Feith quotes Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in his chapter title "from liberation to occupation;" a very brief summation. Our support in Iraq dwindled. Our casualty figures soared to new records in November 2003, April 2004, and November 2004 before easing back and then running up again to May 2007.
   
   On the other hand Rumsfeld's continual insistence on careful written arguments for and against many policies should help produce a wonderful historic record of his thinking as Secretary of Defense. Would that the Secretary of State would create such a record. Many government departments try to impose their policies with leaks and innuendo. Right or wrong Rumsfeld was clearly working very hard to produce a policy that was in the country's best interest and not necessarily just his turf. He regularly suggested that State be given more budget to handle some to the work that had fallen to Defense by default.
   
   It appears that both the President and the Secretary of Defense over-reacted to the disastrous experience of a President and Secretary of Defense micromanaging the Vietnam War. Possibly because of this unfortunate history they were extremely reluctant to reverse decisions made at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and Regional Command (Centcom) level. They can be faulted for failing to push the Army to adopt a counterinsurgency strategy at an earlier date.
   
   Early mistakes in a war are a foregone conclusion since your enemy has studied your previous tactics and made adjustments to counter them. We usually bumble along, adjust and eventually get tactics that work inside the enemy's decision-response envelope.
   
   Adjusting strategy must be done more slowly, with much greater care, and requires careful communication to all levels. This takes time and can be seriously impeded by unclear or unrealistic goals. Rumsfeld did his best to generate clarity but some subordinates in Iraq were not able to operate at his level.
   
   Feith is to be commended for producing a very readable book that contains a great deal of important history of the Washington decision making for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was indeed refreshing to read an account of the Washington decision making by an actual participant that is not clouded by wild suppositions or accusations.
   
   Our present success in Iraq has built on the best efforts of a large number of men including the main characters of Feith's book. This success may not have been possible several years ago even if the troop surge had occurred then and General Petraeus had been the boss.
   
   This reviewer considers it unfortunate that the President's many critics do not share his vision of the war's scope, but it is a point on which reasonable men can fail to agree. To me the debate closely parallels the European debate in the mid 1930's, but this time Churchill was in power.



5. This book is not an attempt to revise history, but rather to set the record straight. It was written by an author who was in a unique position to observe the Pentagon decision making process leading to the war in Iraq. Feith's attention to a detailed timeline and the facts as then known at the time in question, and his extensive documentation references are most impressive. I predict this will become recognized as a historically important work. Those who believe in "Cowboy Bush" and "Bush Lied" will not like this book. Many strategic and tactical mistakes are documented, and should be lessons learned. The war on terrorism seems destined to go on for a long time, and knowledge about it's beginnings is important.