No comments about The Mind of Jihad.

5 comments about Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters.

1. It seems that the only books that the Bush administration and the neocons read were "Brave New World", "1984" and Marvel Comics "Judge Dread". The results appear here as a garbled account for the innocent abroad and judging by its ratings it's hit its intended target audience of drones squarely between the knees. Toilet paper is cheaper and will provide hours of endless scatalogical entertainment instead for all "ye good ole boys".



2. As an European, I should have read a book like this before. Mass medias around the world are pleased to say bad things about President Bush without giving him the real credit he deserves.
   President Bush is already one of the greatest president of the US history. His support of democracy in the Middle East and his fight against terror will protect us, Europeans and Americans as well, from the new totalitarism. The light of Reagan's legacy survives in Bush. Bill Sammon makes his work by counter-attacking the lefties Bush-haters. What Simmons shows is simply the real President Bush, his way of thinking, of reasoning, his view of the future. Anyone who really needs to understand his President - or the President of USA if you are foreigner - should read this book.
   Bush is making history and winning WWIV, it is time to realize that for many people around the world.



3. Bill Sammon, Senior White House Correspondent for the Washington Times and political analyst for the Fox News Channel, recounts the events that occurred while he followed George W. Bush through his first term and into his second. Given the context of the book, Sammon's journalism wavers between unapologetic partisanship and a guise of objective journalism. Sammon relates to the reader through real events but adds commentary and narration with dramatic effect, and while his sources are not meticulously noted, he cites dates and publications sporadically. Many citations are from the Washington Times.
   
   In some of Sammon's narrated dialogue one might wonder whether Sammon actually heard every word he quotes or if some of the narration is included for the sake of drama. For instance, the first Chapter, "Rise of the Bush Haters", tells the story of Bush's trip on August 22, 2002, to Portland, Oregon, for the purpose of attending a fundraiser for Oregon senator Gordon Smith. Bush's visit incited organized rioting from many of the Portland residents, and those who lined the streets to jeer at the President bravely ignored demands from local law enforcement and Secret Service personnel to stay back and/or disband. By Sammon's account, these protestors were viciously inhuman to not just the fundraiser attendees, but to anyone entering the Hilton where the fundraiser was held regardless of their political affiliation. Sammon describes a situation met by Donald Tykeson, an attendee of the fundraiser and a man diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, where a protestor blocked the man's motorized wheelchair as he tried to make his way into the Hilton's entrance. Sammon details the conversation between the protestor and Tykeson, but never indicates whether he was actually there or if he heard about the incident second-hand. Perhaps Sammon neglects this detail because it would take away from the feeling of the moment, as it is this feeling that Sammon wants to convey to the reader. Appealing to the reader's emotion is perhaps Sammon's best trick in this purported non-fiction publication, and therefore it is sometimes difficult to dig deeper into the facts, rather than getting lost in the descriptive (or possibly deceptive?) narrative.
   
   Sammon then steps away from dramatic reporting and offers a textbook summary of Saddam Hussein's reign as Iraqi dictator, though even in this case sources are few and far between. The entire second chapter is an in depth history of Saddam Hussein's rise to his eventual position as dictator of all Iraq. Sammon recalls events in history where Saddam ordered executions and assassinations, though here too he gets carried away in the emotion of the story and leaves citations scattered about the text for which the diligent reader must scramble to find. Perhaps Sammon is certain that any red-blooded American reader is already sold on the tales of Saddam's bloody reign, and therefore he sees no need to waste effort on validating the credibility of his sources for the reader. Sammon's book would be an unlikely candidate for a primary source in a formal research paper, and his lack of meticulous citation is his quiet acknowledgement of this fact. Through this descriptive history of the Iraqi dictator in the second chapter, Sammon outlines the reasons for the escalation of the Iran-Iraq war and the eventual Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. After the continued refusal of Iraqi officials to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and U.S. diplomats, Sammon states that "Saddam's emasculation of the Clinton Administration was complete." It is moments like these when Sammon's partisanship comes forward to remind the reader this is not a text to be used in a history class; it is instead a publication of the opinions and facts gathered by one man with a decidedly conservative view of American politics.
   
   Chapter 3, "A Milestone and a Mission", begins a year after September 11, 2001, at the site where Flight 93 crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Sammon provides adequate description of the surrounding field, the mood of the audience, and Bush's speech to the people. Then, Sammon jumps to Bush's speech at the ruins of the World Trade Center which occurred later that day. The inclusion of the speech is appropriate, as it reminds the reader about events that have clearly defined the agenda of the Bush Administration through its first and second terms. Sammon recounts the events that led to sources of conflict between the U.N. and the United States concerning Iraq, including Bush's eventual declaration to the U.N. that "...(T)he Security Council resolutions will be enforced, the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. ...(A)nd a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power." By late summer of 2002 it had become clear that the intention of the U.S. was to go to war with Iraq, though no official statements had yet been made. Sammon uses this chapter to build up to the events that eventually led to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
   
   At this point, Sammon has laid the groundwork for the meat of his story. The public attitude concerning the Bush administration has been established, the history leading to the current conflict in Iraq has been outlined, and the stance of the President has finally become clear. Up to this point, the book has maintained a delicate balance between opinion and fact through a thin veil of objectivity. Chapter 4, "Midterm Meltdown", upsets this balance somewhat as Sammon grumbles through the details concerning the 2002 Minnesota election between Coleman (R) and Wellstone (D). Things turned for the worst when Wellstone was killed in a plane crash. The results of the election would mean the difference between a Republican or Democrat majority in the senate, which is why the election received elevated publicity prior to the death of Wellstone. What started as a memorial gathering for Wellstone mutated into a poorly disguised Democratic rally. By Sammon's account, the Democratic Party used Wellstone's death to unfairly solicit viewers of broadcast television. Sammon concludes that this event damaged the credibility of the Democrats, and that Bush's political savvy and resulting campaign swung the election toward Coleman (the eventual winner), thus embarrassing Democrats and "the liberal media". While Sammon says that Bush did not gloat, Sammon does it for him. Even after outlining the importance of the global issues at hand, Sammon falls in to the same habits for which he criticizes the Democrats; he celebrates a victory for Republicans at all governmental levels, and his satisfaction with this accomplishment oozes from the book like oil from a broken gasket. Sammon is warming to his own theme by the end of this chapter, and therefore any remaining objectivity is certainly gone.
   
   By the way, Sammon likes the phrase "warming to his theme". He uses it a lot.
   
   Chapter 5, "The No-Gloat Zone", continues to warm to the theme, and Sammon gets a chance to gloat about his buddy-buddy relationship with George Bush and how, through his own body language during press conferences, he notifies the President that he has a question. The reader even learns here that the President has a nickname for the author: "Superstretch." Whenever Sammon writes about his relationship with the President, he adopts a humble, admiring posture, as if he yearns to gain approval from the man.
   Sammon recalls Helen Thomas' prying questions about Bush's plan for Iraq during the November 7, 20002 press conference following the midterm elections. Sammon has an obvious distaste for Thomas, and he gladly illustrates through his own transcript of the press conference that Bush easily silenced Thomas with firm answers concerning his policies toward Iraq and North Korea. Here, like many places through the book, one can see small, seemingly irrelevant discrepancies with Sammon's translation of Bush's public statements. If one simply goes to the Whitehouse.gov website and looks for press conferences, the transcripts are all there. A comparison of the Sammon transcript with the White House transcript reveals minor - though notable - differences. While this could be considered a minor quibble, it is interesting to see that Sammon takes editorial liberties when quoting the President, eliminating many of his redundant statements, his verbal stumbling, and the way that he often constructs sentences in staccato packets of English words. Sammon never removes or changes the general meaning of Bush's statements, but in Sammon's world, President Bush speaks succinctly and without a stumble, almost as if everything he says is very clear.
   
   In this chapter, Sammon even reveals that Condoleezza Rice told him that the administration had originally drafted three different resolutions concerning the Iraq problem for the UN; one on terrorism, one on human rights, and one on weapons of mass destruction. The decision to justify the Iraq war with the WMD argument, according to Sammon's conversation with Rice, was chosen because "...'the WMD was what people considered most pressing.'" What materialized was resolution 1441, which held Saddam in "material breach" of resolutions that had been passed before. Sammon goes on to explain conversations he had with Colin Powell that reveal how 1441 was written specifically to find Hussein in breach of U.N. sanctions, such that the final result would be his guilt. Sammon quotes Powell: "We built a lot of ambushes or traps into 1441 for Saddam Hussein... (T)he big one was the initial one, where we said, you're in material breach now. That took a couple of weeks to get that in there." Sammon ends the chapter with a quote from our President: "I don't spend a lot of time taking polls around the world to tell me what I think is the right way to act. I've just got to know how I feel. I feel strongly about freedom. I feel strongly about liberty. And I feel strongly about the obligation to make the world a more peaceful place. And I take those responsibilities really seriously."
   
   Chapter 6, "Whining Pool", is Sammon's account of a trip to Bush's ranch with a select few of the press corps. Again, when writing about the President, Sammon assumes a humble writing style in stark contrast to his typically haughty prose. Sammon portrays Bush as a confident, athletic, well-spoken man who takes pride in hard work. Bush shows the reporters the land surrounding his ranch in Texas, explains some of its geology, and even invites the reporters into his house for refreshments. Sammon describes George and Laura Bush's *4000* square foot home as "... a modest affair, almost unnoticeable amid the live oak trees." This chapter comes closest to revealing any charisma that the President may have, which is undoubtedly Sammon's goal.
   
   Chapter 7, "Hosed by the State of the Union!", provides more background for Colin Powell's increasingly tense deliberations with members of the U.N. concerning the upcoming conflict with Iraq. According to Condoleezza Rice, "There was a thought at one time that it would be one day of WMD, one day of terrorism, one day of [human rights abuses]." Instead, the case made to the U.N. hinged primarily on the WMD factor, with notable mention of the other issues at hand. Sammon takes his chance to jibe at the Democrats he doesn't like (all of them), including John Kerry. He criticizes Kerry for wavering on the Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a fact that came up repeatedly in Kerry's presidential campaign. And then Sammon applies generalist criticism to Germany, France, and Russia for their growing resistance to the war resolution, connecting France's contracts to build a nuclear power infrastructure in Iraq to their opposition to an American invasion. Sammon even throws this in: "Ever since the Cold War, Paris had grown increasingly resentful of America's status as the world's sole superpower." Colin Powell was resistant, as well, as Sammon admits "...much of the evidence against Saddam did not meet Powell's standards for an airtight case." Through candid conversations with Sammon, Powell admits his fears, worries, and concerns about the talks with the U.N.
   
   At the end of the chapter, Sammon declares that Powell had his turn to "electrify the world," and that his presentation "... painted a terrifying picture of Saddam's deadly arsenal." As one may recall, when Powell defended Operation Iraqi Freedom to the UN, the speech was accompanied by audio recordings and a PowerPoint presentation with excerpts from these recordings. In addition, satellite photos and computer-generated images of mobile weapons vehicles were used to illustrate Powell's point. While Sammon may think Powell "... painted a terrifying picture", the U.N. did not unanimously agree that the evidence was substantial enough to justify the invasion of Iraq.
   
   Sammon also uses the phrase "electrify the world" a lot, too.
   
   Sammon devotes all of chapter 8, "The Get", to a dramatic transcript of Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein. In the second chapter, Sammon criticized George Galloway for his adulating questions during an interview with Hussein, and in this chapter, Sammon does the same, even when he admits that many of Rather's questions to Saddam were pointed and direct. It seems that Sammon is unhappy with anyone who achieves personal audience with Hussein. Or perhaps Sammon is just unhappy that the interviewer is Dan Rather, as Sammon despises any self proclaimed liberal on principle.
   
   Sammon uses much of the rest of the book to illustrate how the press can distort the truth. He goes into depth about the loaded questions given to Donald Rumsfeld, Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and President Bush himself. In all cases, Sammon is disgusted with the way in which the press sensationalizes all things negative. Never really including himself as a member of the press, Sammon transcribes dialogue between the members of the Bush Administration and the Press Corps as if the politicians were the parents and the members of the press were the children. Sammon cites numerous conversations where Rumsfeld directly admonishes the press for slanted and inaccurate reporting. While the many members of the press were/are guilty of false reporting, Sammon never once criticizes Fox News or Sinclair, his own employer.
   
   Perhaps one of Sammon's biggest complaints about the press is the constant attempt by self-proclaimed liberals to compare the operations in Iraq to Viet Nam. The comparison is truly inaccurate, no doubt, as the number of deaths in Viet Nam climbed to tens of thousands very quickly. Sammon criticizes the common use of the word "quagmire" used by the press to describe Operation Iraqi Freedom. From Sammon's perspective, the press is a bunch of mindless goons who obviously do not see the genius in the Bush administration.
   
   Sammon is really impressed with President Bush. Bush can fly airplanes, as he proved during his flight to the USS Lincoln for his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Bush is in great shape for his age, and he is daring. Sammon was one of the lucky few who got to fly into Baghdad with Bush for Thanksgiving. As the story goes, Bush and a few members of the White House press corps were whisked away under the nose of the Secret Service, loaded onto Air Force One, and flown into the Iraqi capital to serve food to hungry American soldiers. Everyone was back within 48 hours. Sammon is tickled pink to admit that he was one of those lucky few.
   
   Sammon wears his conservatism like a badge of honor, as if he is a minority trapped in a sea of oppressive liberal idealism, as if his voice is the only source of rationalism in a crazy world. His book is no doubt highly entertaining to read, full of interesting information (most of which should be researched and compared to other sources), and represents a rare opportunity to see a different side of modern history. However, do not forget that this book has its own brand of sensationalism, written by a tall man with a boyish admiration for the current President of the United Sates. Between Fox and CNN, Sammon and Dan Rather, one might be able to piece together a picture of actual events. In either case, one should research their sources!
   
   The rating of the book will vary wildly, depending on which side of the fence the reviewer sits.



4. Read this book with some trepidation. Since the press tries to hold the ground on what they want the public to percieve of any given person, this was a refreshing read. Really shows how President Bush sticks to his principles and morals, despite the constant slamming of the media. His true power comes out in this book and how he has been able to fool over and over his detractors.
   It's a great read regardless of your party. Could be a window into how power really works when you stick to your plan.



5. Sammon does a great job of holding your interest. I read 'Strategery' and loved it. I just finished, 'Misunderestimated', and found it every bit as captivating as 'Strategery'. Both books written by Sammon about the Bush administration.
   
   I think we are living in one of the greatest moments in US history. The Bush administration fully understands this from the top down. Condi Rice is an incredible person who plays a key role in both books.
   
   People should read these books just to see how the Bush administration plays the left wing news media for the shallow imbeciles that they are.
   
   In the chapter titled, 'Whining Pool', a reporter asked Bush if he was concerned about what the media writes about him. Bush matter-of-factly responded, "People don't make up their mind based upon what you write."
   
   I know that's true for me. It felt great to read that Bush feels the same way and isn't afraid to say it out loud.

3 comments about American Foreign Policy in a New Era.

1. Robert Jervis contends that the world political system today is fundamentally different from anything that has come before it. His book describes the impact of three significant changes on world politics and the theory of deterrence. He also analyzes the Iraq war and the Bush Doctrine in light of this new paradigm. His purpose for writing this book is (1) to develop his theory of a new paradigm (2) evaluate its impact on world politics and the theory of deterrence and (3) argue against the sustainability of the Bush Doctrine.
   Argument:
   Jervis acknowledges that his book "explicates and explains more than evaluates and prescribes," (Jervis; 2005: 2). Nevertheless, after outlining his argument for a new paradigm in Chapters One and Two, he devotes the rest of the book to evaluating the Iraq war and deconstructing the Bush Doctrine. The following section will reconstruct the argument that Jervis develops in the first two chapters.
   A new paradigm: (Chapters One and Two)
   Jervis posits three fundamental changes to the current world political system. The most significant change is the existence of a Security Community comprised of the leading powers that are natural rivals to each other : "This is a change of spectacular proportions, perhaps the single most striking discontinuity that the history of international politics has anywhere provided," (Jervis; 2005: 13). For the first time in the history of the current nation-state system, the leading great powers no longer fear armed conflict with one another. In addition, Jervis notes two other major developments: (1) unchallenged American hegemony or unipolarity and (2) the rise of terrorism and the American response to it.
   Jervis maintains that the structural conditions for American hegemony were "produced by the size and vitality of the American economy, the lack of political unity within Europe, and the collapse of the Soviet Union," (Jervis; 2005: 58). Therefore, in many ways America has been acting like a normal state that has gained a position of dominance (Jervis; 2005: 92). However, Jervis argues extensively in Chapter Two that 9/11 has triggered assertive American hegemony. He qualifies this statement by emphasizing that due to structural factors, aggressive US hegemony was "an accident waiting to happen," (Jervis; 2005: 92). In addition, Jervis stresses the significance of critical decisions made by the current administration in response to the terrorist attacks. He notes that "it took both September 11 and the particular outlook of the Bush administration to put the United States on its current path," (Jervis; 2005: 58).
   Together, these three phenomena (the SC, American hegemony, and 9/11) have had a major impact on world politics and deterrence. Indeed, Jervis believes that "we are headed for a difficult world, one that is not likely to fit any of our ideologies or simple theories," (Jervis; 2005: 138). Nowhere is the impact more evident than the war in Iraq, which Jervis discusses in Chapter Three.
   Impact on World Politics and Deterrence: (Chapter Three)
   In Chapter Three Jervis discusses his second point: the impact of the new paradigm on world politics and the theory of deterrence. He focuses his discussion on the Iraq war within the context of deterrence, which he notes, "was the centerpiece of American policy and theorizing during the Cold War but now seems contradicted and denied," (Jervis: 2005: 59).
   Jervis contends that the Bush administration falsely assumed that deterrence would not be effective against a nuclear-armed Saddam. He attributes this disbelief to (1) a general skepticism among conservatives for deterrence and (2) the heightened sense of vulnerability created by 9/11. Jervis devotes most of Chapter Three to arguing against President Bush's claim that "after 9/11 the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water" (Jervis; 2005: 68). He also sets the stage for his final two chapters.
   After a thorough discussion of why deterrence would work, Jervis turns to possible alternatives to the policy. These include the spiral model, a quasi-constitutional order, and the option the Bush administration chose: preventative war. Jervis briefly notes that the concept of preventative war is a central component to the Bush Doctrine, which he examines more fully in Chapter Four.
   Deconstructing the Bush Doctrine: (Chapters Four and Five)
   Chapter Four is devoted to illuminating the links between 9/11, American hegemony and the Iraq war through an analysis of the Bush Doctrine. As noted, Jervis maintains that 9/11 created a heightened sense of vulnerability in America. The Bush administration reflected this sense of vulnerability in its disillusionment with the theory of deterrence. However, its response to 9/11 was a combination of structural factors (the SC and American hegemony) and the unique perspective of the Administration as manifested in the Bush Doctrine.
   Jervis argues the main thrust of the Bush Doctrine is a belief that a state's domestic regime drives its foreign affairs. Evil regimes make evil foreign policy; and since these threats cannot be deterred, the regimes must be changed. Assertive American hegemony is therefore required for both national security and international stability. In sum, Jervis argues that Bush has blended elements of Wilsonian liberalism and the democratic peace theory with realism's primacy of the use of force (Jervis; 2005: 80-83). However, Jervis argues in Chapter Five that the Bush Doctrine is not sustainable.
   Jervis begins Chapter Five by first reiterating the importance of the SC in allowing the US preemptive strike. He affirms: "I very much doubt whether the United States would have dared invade Iraq in an era of great-power rivalry," (Jervis; 2005: 104). Nevertheless, it does not follow that the Bush Doctrine can endure, even though no power could prevent the war in Iraq. Jervis maintains that ultimately the Doctrine will collapse of its own weight. His reasons include: (1) the Doctrine's internal contradictions (2) the nature of the American domestic system and (3) the inability of America to understand the actors it views as threats (Jervis; 2005: 104). Jervis concludes by stating that "Bush's policy has left the United States looking neither strong nor benign, and we may find that the only thing worse than a successful hegemon is a failed one," (Jervis; 2005: 138).
   Evidence:
   A new paradigm: (Chapters One and Two)
   Jervis does not provide much empirical evidence to support his claims of a Security Community other than to point out that these states have not gone to war in over fifty years, do not openly advocate war with each other, and do not actively engage in "war gaming" or planning for war with each other. However, he does analyze various theories for why the SC exists, including constructivism, liberalism and realism. He then puts forth his own "synthetic interactive explanation."
   The author's argument is comprised of four elements. First, a necessary condition for the SC is the belief that conquest is difficult and war is terribly costly (Jervis; 2005: 26). When the cost-benefit ratio favors conquest, aggression is encouraged. The security dilemma operates "with particular viciousness" in such an environment since even defensive states need to prepare for attack. However, Jervis contends that the expected benefits of war have declined among SC members--largely because they are satisfied with the status quo.
   Secondly, peace within the SC brings many gains, especially economic. Despite intense and sometimes nasty trade negotiations, "no one thinks that conquering others would bring more riches than trading with them," (Jervis; 2005: 26). In sum, SC members believe economic interdependence is more positive than negative.
   Thirdly, a change in values is central to the rise of the SC. For example, "war is no longer seen as good in itself," thus honor and glory are no longer paramount (Jervis; 2005: 27). Jervis also notes that the SC is "relatively homogeneous in that its members are all democracies and have values that are compatibly similar," (Jervis; 2005: 27). An historical impulse to war has been the desire to change the other country. This desire evaporates when two nations have a shared identity.
   Path-dependency is the final element Jervis attributes to the creation of the SC. Without the Cold War, the previously discussed elements would not have overcome the traditional rivalries of the member states. Jervis contends, "the conflict with the Soviet Union produced American security guarantees and an unprecedented sense of common purpose among the states that now form the Community," (Jervis; 2005: 29).
   Jervis does not provide any type of quantitative or empirical data to support his claim of a unipolar world either. Instead, he speaks of America's hegemony or unipolarity as if it were an accepted fact. He notes that "with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the failure of Europe to unite, no state is in a position to challenge the United States in terms of material power, widespread influence, ability to set the framework for debate, and the capability---although in many areas not a willingness-to provide public goods," (Jervis; 2005: 1).
   His discussion of the rise of terrorism is more thorough. Jervis acknowledges that terrorism is not new in itself, but 9/11 did differ in the form and scale of the attacks. He pays particular attention to the role fear has played in the Bush administration, which he illustrates through an analysis of senior official's language. He cites several quotes from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice using such terms as: America felt its vulnerability; the world has changed; every threat had to be reanalyzed; the prism of 9/11; the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud; and imagine September 11 with weapons of mass destruction, (Jervis; 2005: 55-58). Subsequently, Jervis leads his discussion of the effects of fear into his chapter on the Iraq war.
   Impact on World Politics and Deterrence: (Chapter Three)
   Jervis argues in Chapter Three that the new paradigm (the SC, American hegemony, and 9/11) has had a major impact on World Politics and Deterrence. He focuses his discussion on the war in Iraq and its implications for the theory of deterrence. Having already communicated the role 9/11 (fear) played in the Bush administration, Jervis uses the rhetoric of the administration to demonstrate its disillusionment with the theory of deterrence. Specifically, Jervis maintains that the Bush Administration was concerned with "extended deterrence," or the ability to prevent Saddam from disrupting the region. Drawing on Glenn Snyder's "stability-instability paradox ," Jervis asserts that Bush falsely assumed that America could not contain Saddam.
   He then reasons extensively throughout Chapter Three why deterrence would have been effective against Saddam. Jervis does this by first positing arguments against deterrence, and then pointing out their flaws. Arguments that Jervis refutes include: (1) American threats lacked credibility (2) Saddam is an "irrational actor" and (3) Saddam lacks good information, making him "accident-prone" (Jervis; 2005: 65-67). Jervis concludes that even if Saddam had gained nuclear weapons "it is hard to believe that the stability-instability paradox would have strongly inhibited the United States, but not Iraq," (Jervis; 2005: 67). Nevertheless, he acknowledges that what matters is that the Bush administration has rejected the theory of deterrence, opting instead for a policy (the Bush Doctrine) that blends American hegemony with preventative war. Jervis asserts that the Iraq war is the ultimate expression of this doctrine. He confronts this new political posture in the final two chapters.
   Deconstructing the Bush Doctrine: (Chapters Four and Five)
   Jervis divides Chapter Four into two sections. First, he deconstructs the Bush Doctrine by analyzing the Administration's rhetoric and official policy statements. He describes the Doctrine as having four essential components: (1) a strong belief in Waltz's second image (2) the belief that great threats can only be defeated by vigorous policies (preventative war) (3) a willingness to act unilaterally and (4) an overriding sense that American hegemony is required for international stability (Jervis; 2005: 79).
   Secondly, recalling his theory of a new paradigm, Jervis examines the structural factors that allowed for the Bush Doctrine. He does this by providing an historical account of the growth of American hegemony. Jervis does not include any empirical evidence to support his analysis of the structural factors, but instead bases his argument on the relevant principles of realism. These include: (1) power is most effectively checked by counterbalancing (2) a state's interests expand with its power (3) increased relative power brings with it new fears and (4) even states that find the status quo acceptable must worry about the future (Jervis; 2005: 93-95).
   In sum, Jervis stresses the mixture of structural factors, 9/11, and the Bush Doctrine to explain current US foreign policy. He relates that "the combination of power, fear, and perceived opportunity lead [the US] to seek to reshape world politics and the societies of many nations," (Jervis; 2005: 96). However, Jervis argues that ultimately the Bush Doctrine is not sustainable.
   In his last chapter, Jervis contends that the Bush Doctrine will ultimately collapse of its own weight. His reasons include: (1) the internal contradictions of the doctrine (2) nature of the domestic system (3) limits of the intelligence community and (4) America's inability to understand the actors it views as threats. The author's arguments flow from logical deductions and inference.
   For example, Jervis notes that Bush's Wilsonian liberalism requires the assistance and cooperation of other nations. However, the doctrine's assertion of aggressive American hegemony and preference for unilateralism thwarts such collaborative efforts. In addition, the goals of the doctrine are not only extremely ambitious , but the markers for progress are especially difficult to establish. The pluralistic character of the American polity will not permit an extended conflict without some evidence of material improvement (Jervis; 2005: 114). Furthermore, the primacy placed on preventative warfare rests squarely on the capabilities of the intelligence community. The conflict in Iraq demonstrates the infallibility of such a policy. Finally, Jervis relates that unless America can do a better job at comprehending those actors it perceives as threatening, it will have to wage preventative war continuously. Jervis notes that since the end of the Cold War, America's coercive policies have failed five times in moderating another actor's behavior: Panama, Gulf War, Haiti, Kosovo, and Iraq (Jervis; 2005: 127-129).



2. This would have been a three-star review, but as the #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction about global issues, I have decided to begin penalizing publishers for low-rent publications that are poorly presented on Amazon--for this book there is no description, no table of contents, no cover (low rent, no jacket hence no cover art, and small print to boot), and so on. This is essentially a 138 page essay with a lot of notes thrown over the transom.
   
   The greatest deficiency, for one who was waiting breathlessly for this great man's appreciation of "American Foreign Policy in a New Era," is that the book turned out to be poorly titled and narrowly focused. This book is essentially a very thoughtful discussion of why the Bush Administration has acted very unwisely in attacking Iraq and failing to pick up on the terrorism warnings from the Clinton Administration.
   
   Unfortunately, the book fails completely to address the *other* nine threats to global stability, within which terrorism falls ninth, just above organized crime. The other global threats that we must address, as identified by LtGen Dr. Brent Scowcroft and other members of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change (A more secure world: Our shared responsibility, United Nations, 2004). They focused, in this order of priority, on: Poverty; Infectious Disease; Environmental Degradation; Inter-State Conflict; Civil War; Genocide; Other Large-Scale Atrocities; Nuclear; radiological; chemical; biological weapons; and (after Terrorism); Transnational organized crime.
   
   Sadly, I was expecting a learned discussion of each of these threats, potential inter-agency and coalition approaches to each of these threats, and a proposed plan of attack such as J. F. Rischard provides in High Noon 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them
   
   I do not regret buying the book--anything by grand master Robert Jervis is important and worth reading--but he missed a larger opportunity here. Joe Nye's books Understanding International Conflicts (6th Edition) (Longman Classics in Political Science) and The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone (you can skip the more plebian Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics) are better. I also recommend the monograph, available at the Army War College Strategic Studies Institute web site, "Preventive War and Its Alternatives: The Lessons of History," by Dan Reiter, and the recent monograph by Collin Gray, "Irregular Enemies and the Essence of Strategy: Can the American Way of War Adapt?" Both are free, concise, and brilliant.



3. Clear convincing arguments for a change in US foreign policy regarding the future risks and threats.

No comments about Second Front: Inside Asia's Most Dangerous Terrorist Network.

5 comments about A Mind for Murder: The Education of the Unabomber and the Origins of Modern Terrorism.

1. This was a terribly disappointing book. Author Alston Chase's description of the psychological experiments which Kaczynski was subjected to at Harvard is disturbing, and he makes some interesting connections between the manipulation suffered by Kaczynski and his subsequent rage at 'systems of control'.

   But this potentially valuable insight gets lost in Chase's superficial and obsessive recounting of what he views as a social crisis bought on by 'value-free' education and philosphy. In the process, Chase condemns both academia and those who revolted against it, post-war society and those who pointed out it's failings, the US government and those who would try to move beyond a nation-state. By the end of the book, Chase has variously described Kaczynski as somehow representative of deep-ecologists, anti-globlization protestors, and even islamic fundamentalists (who, whatever their other problems, would not seem to be suffering from a 'value-free' education), all of whom (along with multiple other groups that the author doesn't like) are indiscriminately labelled 'terrorists'.




2. Though Chase does seem to suffer a need to attack what he views as the outcome of "value-free" education, I do not think the book suffers as much from this insistence as does the previous reviewer. In fact, there is much to be gained from such a study.

   Chase's book is an admirable study of both the Unabomber and the postwar currents that converged to contribute to the making of the Unabomber. Thankfully, Chase is wise enough not to offer excuses for Kaczynski's actions, but his research into what made Kaczynski "tick" provide a believable backdrop and a necessary antidote to the popular misconception of the Unabomber as a madman devoid of reason or motive.

   And rather than finding fault with Chase's attempt to tie the Unabomber's actions and theories to those of other "terrorist" groups, I found his arguments convincing, especially in regards to the pervasiveness of the positivistic, supremely rational curriculum of Western universities and the devaluing of the humanities.

   We need more thinkers and researchers like Chase who are willing to make us question our kneejerk reactions to men who make us as uncomfortable as Kaczynski.




3. Mind for Murder is an excellent book by Alston Chase. This book has two main components to it. The first component deals with the life and demise of Ted Kaczynski. The author gives us descriptions of Ted's early years as a child, his high school years, and spends a great deal of time expounding on Ted's time spent at Harvard.
   
   In the author's description of Ted's early years we our shown Ted grew to despise his parents pressuring him to excel academically. His resentment was especially strong toward his father who seemed to remain aloof and somewhat nihilistic till he committed suicide. Ted also resented his mother Wanda because he felt she intentionally subjected him to psychological abuses as a child. These feelings seemed to stay with Ted and even grow as Ted embarked on his college career.
   
   The second component of this book is a cultural analysis that centers around the time period Ted would have been at Harvard and proffers reasons why Ted and others in our modern times have felt the need to resort to terrorism. The author explains how Universities like Harvard used to place a strong emphasis on liberal arts education. Education that was paired with moral virtue. This way of thinking is found in the thoughts of the ancient Greeks who thought reason had to be bound with moral virtue. However, in the 1950s with World War II just having ended and the Cold War looming the universities seemed to adopt the stance of logical positivism. The idea that if something isn't scientifically verifiable it has no meaning. In other words, moral judgments are just the cultural attitudes of the time. Ted would have encountered this line of nihilistic thinking at Harvard. Is it any wonder in later years he would adopt and expound his personal philosophy to mean any ends justified the means? This is especially poignant considering moral judgments to Ted seemed to be just a bunch of efforts at psychological control by the system.
   
   Chase later gives us insightful details of how Ted was used at Harvard by Henry Murray for a psychological experiment. Ted and some other Harvard students at the time were participants in an experiment to submit these persons to dreadful psychological interrogation experiments. The Govt. at this time was very concerned with finding out how to treat or even coerce political prisoners into doing what they wanted. Even going so far as to study and try to learn how to keep the masses under control. Chase gives us historical insight into the Govt. intentionally trying out "new" drugs like LSD on college students, prison inmates, and anyone else it so fancied because surely the Russians had a secret "mind control" drug like this to coerce confessions out of POWs. Ted resented his being tested (even if he was being paid for it) and came to view the techno-industrial system as guilty of imposing unnecessary suffering on the masses. Mind control, feeling like a cog in the machine, depression, irritability, lack of leisure, pollution, were all some of the things Ted blamed on the techno-industrial system. The only way to stop these unjust grievances was to lash out against the system. Even killing if necessary which is just what Ted did.
   
   This is a sad book in some ways but it's a more important work in many other ways. It tells what happens when value gets subjugated below reason. It tells how the culture suffers when ideas like deconstructionism, logical positivism, and structuralism so permeate our culture that nothing has any meaning. Until academics and the culture in general start accepting the fact that reason is only half the puzzle; there is always yin with yang, objectivity with subjectivity, and mind with matter in any accurate depiction of reality. Until we understand these principles and adopt a more holistic approach to reality we are perhaps bound to repeat these same mistakes-the devaluing of society to utter meaninglessness. Worst of all, the suffering of innocents by acts of terrorism and the dependence on antidepressants will continue to be a prominent part of life.



4. A Mind for Murder is a compelling look into what contributed to the creation of the monster known as the Unabomber. It begins in the earlier years of Kaczynski and logs personal event and how these events contributed to his psyche as a murder when he grew. One of the most compelling insights in the book is how he is thought to be insane and a madman. Kaczynski Knew what he was doing and did not what to be declared as insane because his environmental/anti-technology cause would be thought a joke. He took a plea bargain in order to keep the defense from declaring him mentally unstable. I was a amazed at the book and the great insight and detail it portrayed. If you are interested in Domestic Terrorism this is a must read.



5. This book is useful as required reading for college students if the professor would like to help get the students past the trivial debates about whether Ted Kaczynski was a serial killer, ecoterrorist, or what. Far too often, attempts at criminological writing reduce to an essay on a "How crazy were they?" and this book helps correct that, making sense out of an episode in American history which frequently baffles explanation. For a taste of the author's writing, one should look for much of the same writing easily found on the web as a series of articles in The Atlantic.

No comments about Anti-terrorism And Criminal Enforcement (American Casebook Series).

4 comments about A General Speaks Out: The Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

1. Excellent book by a man who was there, and helped set up everything. Easy to complain and knock things down when you HAVEN'T been there and know all that is going on. The General is honest and forthcoming with success's and failures.



2. The writer of this book is a retired Naval Aviator, US Marine Corps Leutenant General who writes as he sees it. It is of his experiece as the number 2 officer in the US Central Command who kept the home fires burning during te 2003 invasion of Iraq. This revised and renamed editon serves a real purpose in that his view on events of major signifiance vary from other writers and remain unchallenged. It is an important writing because it shows that in any modern day military venture, there is much political, logistical and other work in the background during both the planning and the operational phases. Written in a simple style which adds to it value Well worth reading. The cost is right.



3. Mike DeLong is the former second in command at US Central Command. He is also among the most die-hard supporters of Don Rumsfeld. When six retired generals called for Rumsfeld to resign in the sprint of 2006 over the situation in Iraq, Mike DeLong took the other side and became the public defender of Rumsfeld and the "stay the course" strategy in Iraq.
   
   The book isn't very good. DeLong mostly just repeats Rumsfeld's ideas and tries to defend the Iraq war. He is all for transformation of the military along the lines Rumsfeld wanted. But he doesn't bother to think about the implications of how a small high-tech army can ever win an insurgency war like Iraq. In fact, for an ex-general, he doesn't give much thought to how to do things better in Iraq at all.
   
   On the lead-up to the Iraq war, he might as well be Rumsfeld or Cheney. He repeats all the disproved alligations of links between Bin Laden and Iraq. In interviews he also has claimed that Al Queida had its own chemical weapons plant in Kurdistan.
   
   As far as WMDs, he is convinced that everything said in the lead-up to the war was true. The only reason they didn't find the weapons is that they were taken to Syria. Along the same lines, the book gives the impression that the "solution" to Iraq that he sees is invasions of Syria and Iran. I would not doubt though that if such invasions occured that the WMDs would again not be found he would tell us that they are in Sudan or Lebannon. He basically doesn't retreat an inch from the worst of the disproved pre-war claims.
   
   If the pro-Rumsfeld politics of the book are the bad part, the good part of the book is when he talks about the actual mechanics of leading the war effort in Iraq from the perspective of his job (second in command). But even in that part, this is his second book and after "inside Centcom", there isn't all that much new to say.



4. Every now and then I'll read a book and wish that I could meet the author for dinner. A General Speaks Out was one of those books. General DeLong is a fascinating person. He comes across as a no nonsense type of guy but clearly has a sense of humor as well and this book is about his time in one of the hardest jobs on earth. Between dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld, General Franks-- a guy you would NOT want to get on the bad side of, and running a war it's a wonder he made it retirement without collapsing.
   
   The most interesting part of the book was the wild contrast between the stuff the media was printing and they way things actually were. If the media scandals of recent years didn't make you question everything you read in the newspaper then this book should.
   
   Finally, I was really moved by the dedication and calmness of our military. Thank you General DeLong for your service.

3 comments about Dirty Wars, Clean Hands: ETA, the GAL, and Spanish Democracy.

1. Being of Spanish origin, I had of course a special interest in Woodworth's book. His methodology is particularly well settled and easy to understand. Although he has the honesty of laying down right his position on terrorism, the rest, amazingly, seems at no point subjected to unilateral diatribe or personal interest. This book is an intelligent, user-friendly report on the whole story of ETA, Spanish democracy and personal tragedies. In the light of very recent events of ETA violence in Spain, the reader will find in this book all necessary material to further explain and describe the ETA terrorism actions. Very enlightning.



2. The Irish journalist Paddy Woodworth has written one of the most analytical, serious and well-documented books on State terrorism and its dreadful socio-political implications for a young and fragile Democracy as that of Spain. Implications which are still continuing to haunt the Spanish State since then. "Dirty War, Clean Hands: ETA, the GAL and Spanish Democracy" is an original and fascinating piece of journalism, providing profound and outstanding insights into one of the most complex issues confronted by a democratic State in Western Europe. With the precision and ability of a master surgeon, Woodworth analyses the implications and effects of the use of terrorist dead-squads (i.e., the so-called GAL, 'Anti-terrorist Liberation Groups') in the name of protecting Democracy by the Spanish State in its fight against ETA ('Basque Country and Freedom'). It is widely argued that these horrendous events resemble the worst years of Franco's dictatorship. Moreover, Woodworth assembles the pieces of an extremely complicated puzzle revealing a picture hidden in the 'shadow history' of Spain. A picture which reflects the following aspects of such episodes in history: 1. The disturbing, dramatic and terrifying events of the State death-squads execution of 27 innocents victims, while providing colourful insights into the social and political world of the Basque radical nationalist movement; 2. The investigation of those crimes by journalists and isolated judges in pursuit of truth, and 3. The detailed criminal trials of those involved with State terrorism and their intellectual instigators. These trials were surrounded by a net of thrilling conspiracies, newspapers intrigues and manipulations, cover-up manoeuvres and a highly polarised battle for power between the PSOE (i.e., 'Spanish Socialist Party') and the right-wing rival the PP ('Popular Party').
   In the collective memory of Spain and the Basque Country, the 1980's State's terrorist events are still much alive. These events shook the basic institutions of the Spanish Democracy,
   reinforced ETA's appalling violence and strengthened its political alliances. Nevertheless, has Democracy and its 'State of Law' been re-established under the governing Popular Party?; Is the war over?. These questions still remain unanswered.
   P. J. Oiarzabal Historian, BA, MA, MPhil, Reno, NV September 2001



3. I have always thought that being a socialist meant that one placed the State above all else, which the people described in this true account do. But I've also always believed that being a socialist meant that one abhorred militarism, had little or no regard for luxuries that are connected to capitalism, and protected human rights at all costs. STUPID ME!!
   Mr. Woodworth has very successfully shown that not only can a democratically elected government order people to commit horrible atrocities like what the GAL (Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberacion)did from 1983-87, but that they don't have to be right-wing, as most people associate state terrorism with right-wing governments.
   As I read this book, I had to constantly remind myself that the social and political terrorists of Felipe Gonzalez's administration were supposedly leftist, anti-militaristic, equality minded advocates of human rights. These people (Felipe Gonzalez, Rafael Vera, and Jose Amedo in particular) made a mockery of everything that democracy stands for. They ruthlessly ordered the murders of Spanish and French citizens. Yes, some of those that the GAL killed were ETA members or sympathizers. But the number of innocent people that the GAL killed is higher than the number of actual ETA members and sympathizers that were targeted and/or killed. This book is scary to me because it shows that even in a supposed democracy, people can do horrible things to their fellow human beings.
   Lastly, I'd like to make a point and pose a couple of questions. The fact that many of the members of the GAL were mercenaries (people who kill other people for money), other criminals, and POLICE OFFICERS shows how "socialist" the Spanish socialists really were. I'd like to ask why in the world Jose Amedo, who said he had wanted to kill every member of ETA, and Rafael Vera, were treated as well as they were during their trials? And what insane political excuse could prevent Felipe Gonzalez from being charged with anything? Even the prosecutor was helping the defense because he respected what the GAL did. Overall, this book is amazing and needed to be written.
   Mr. Woodworth, I'd like to show my appreciation in all of the ways that apply to this book:
   Gracias. Eskerrik asko. Thank you!

5 comments about Your Father's Voice: Letters for Emmy About Life with Jeremy--and Without Him After 9/11.

1. I was very anxious to read this book since I read an article on a Reader's Digest magazine about a year ago and so I requested my local library to buy it. I read it in a week, I am pretty sure I could've read it in two days if it wasn't because I have a lot of homework. All I can say is that I loved "Your Father's Voice". It is very well-written and moving.
   
   Lyz Glick carefully tells the story of her life with Jeremy and her life once Jeremy was gone. She walks us through every memory she kept. She shares with us the weakest moments of her life after her husband's death, but she also states the importance of her and Jeremy's daughter in her life.
   
   I have to applaud Liz Glick for managing to tackle such an enourmously emotional and personal subject with such grace. This book put thoughts in my head of what it would be like if I had to face the same reality she encountered, and I have to confess it brought me to tears often. What happened to her and to anyone whose loved ones were killed that horrible day is something you don't wish to anyone. Like I said I can't imagine enduring the things she went through.
   
   I was totally blown away by this book. I undoubtedly recommend it. It's the kind of book you should have on your coffee table. You will see it is very hard to put it down.
   
   vgxoxo@hotmail.com



2. This is a Wonderful Book.It has background of Lyz Glick and Her Late Husband Jeremy Meeting,falling in Love,Colledge,Marriage,the baby Emmy and the Hijacking leading to Jeremy's death.I highly recommend this book.



3. This is the best book that I have read in a really long time. I was moved by Lyz's honesty and heartfelt emotions about losing her husband on 9/11. Even though one could possibly not imagine what she felt on that day, it gives you a little insight to her story, her husband and her daughter. Her daughter will be so thankful that she made this memorial of her father. Lyz's daughter Emmy is so lucky to have such a strong role model in her life in both her father and mother. This book is a real example of true love, life and loss. Not only is her husband a hero but she is as well.



4. This is a must read for all judo players. It gives an inside account of how judoka Jeremy Glick faced with certain death made decisions to lay down his life to save many others. The story focuses on Jeremy's personal growth as a boy starting judo at age 6 and eventually winning the collegiate nationals. Jeremy was a real mench with a passion for living. He was a devoted husband, loving father, and successful sales executive with a terrific sense of humor. The ultimate goal of judo is to continually seek the perfection of one's character which Jeremy strived for.



5. I continue to be intensely interested in everything I can possible read about 9/11 and have found nothing that has matched the author's description of what the victim's families have experienced.
   
   If you are curious about how the site in PA was examined and the nature and extent of what the government revealed to the families, this is a great book to read.
   
   Kudos to the author for revealing her personal experiences because it is evident that she is a private person by nature.

5 comments about Bagpipe Brothers: The FDNY Band's True Story of Tragedy, Mourning, and Recovery.

1. Bagpipe Brothers: The FDNY Band's True Story Of Tragedy, Mourning, And Recovery is the true story New York City's Emerald Society Bagpipe Band, who used their instruments to mourn in the and show their respect at the funerals for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, including the 343 firefighters who died and those who were unearthed from the rubble at ground zero. The band itself lost one of its own from the attacks, as well as the brother of a member; Bagpipe Brothers recounts in vivid detail the emotions, experiences, terrible grief and striving to help any way one can in the wake of tragedy. A profound and powerful tribute to both the lost and the survivors struggling to cope.



2. This book is very powerful. I picked this book up and thought it would be an interesting read then I could not believe how moved I would become. It is well written and allows the reader to get close to the men and their families. The readers anxiety grows as the date of September 11 approaches. I had to put the book aside a few times and remind myself of the gratitude I feel toward the brave men who gave their lives to save others and inspiration from those who survived and went back to look for family members, friends and complete strangers in order for those who were murdered to be laid to rest properly. The unity and brotherhood of the elite group of bagpipe players is inspirational. Thank you to the author for allowing readers to gain a new perspective of the days following September 11 and what the FDNY suffered. I felt as though I knew these men personally.



3. From the first page, I was hooked. I felt like I was living that day all over again. This time, I wasn't sitting in my home in Seattle in shock and horror, I was in New York with an emotional connection to the families mentioned in the book and those not mentioned. I have a new found respect for all fire fighters. I already have a great deal of respect for those who put there lives on the line for any job but now it's impossible to put into words the level of respect I have for them.
   
   This book WILL take you on an amazing emotional journey.



4. This is a truly heart-wrenching story of the pipers and drummers pf the FDNY pipe band. Written in a strong journalistic style, the suthor really conveys the strength of these men and their close relationships.
   
   While she gets a few details of uniform (shawls for piper's plaids) and piping (puffing on their pipes) wrong, she's really captured the feelings of these men who face danger and death on a daily basis.



5. Ms. Sheridan really brought this book into my heart. She knew exactly how to make me feel for these brave men and after I was done reading I really wanted to know more because I truly felt connected with them. Excellent book and I do recommend anyone wanting to read a book about the FDNY to read this book first!!!!!