5 comments about 1001 Nights in Iraq: The Shocking Story of an American Forced to Fight for Saddam Against the Country He Loves.

1. This story is an amazing tale of bravery under terrifying conditions during the first Persian Gulf War. Shant Kenderian, an Iraqi-born American, gets trapped in Iraq under Saddam Hussein and puts his life on the line to return home to his beloved America. It paints an interesting picture of that war and a sympathetic picture of Iraqi citizens under an unscrupulous tyrant who sent thousands of men and boys to their deaths. When Shant reaches the American POW camp, his story shows the great decency of our American troops and the camaraderie that developed between our troops and the many Iraqi POWs. This book will give you great insight into the lives of Iraqis and will also give you great pride in the behavior of our American soldiers.



2. I met Shant Kenderian in the Gulf War. He braved many dangers, and many hardships. I met him and his family again last July in LA, Calif. when I was coming home from a 27 day trip to Viet Nam and Thailand. He still is a wonderful man. God had blessed him. His faith in God pulled him through many hardships. It was a wonderful reunion after 15 years. He remembered things in his book that I had forgot.His book is an easy read. First hand stories of his trials and experiences. Again God has blessed him and also God blessed me for knowing him.



3. There's a popular saying that "truth is stranger than fiction." In the case of Shant Kenderian, the saying certainly applies. In his nonfiction book (once the most popular selling book on BookSurge before being picked up by publisher Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster), Kenderian recounts his own tale of being drafted to fight a war against his own country.
   
   Born in Iraq as an Armenian Christian (already an outsider in a country populated with Muslims), when his parents divorced, Kenderian went to live with his mother and siblings in Chicago. Like many children of divorce, he felt torn between his parents, and after two years of living in the United States, he decided to go to Iraq for a brief visit in 1980. His goal was to see his father and reconcile their acrimonious relationship (because of his parents' divorce) before returning to the US to complete his schooling. Days before he was due to return to the US, Saddam Hussein closed all the Iraqi borders, ordering all men of draft age (between 17-55) into service to fight for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. Under the threat of execution for refusing to serve, Kenderian did his time in the Iraqi Navy and returned to Baghdad, where he continued his studies in engineering while awaiting the issuance of his green card from the US Embassy.
   
   Two days before he was scheduled to depart Iraq, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, thus pulling Kenderian into yet another war (Desert Storm) before he could leave. Thus begins the saga that is recounted in "1001 Nights in Iraq." As an Iraqi-born US resident, Shant Kenderian was put in the unenviable position of being forced to fight against the country he loved and considered his own--the United States.
   
   Kenderian recounts with depressing detail his time as an engineer aboard a ship in the Iraqi Navy just off the coast of Kuwait. Forced to service the ship with only a wrench and screwdriver, Kenderian tells of the depravity faced by most soldiers on the Iraqi side of the conflict. Of his crew, only 2 Iraqis of 15 had guns of any sort; Kenderian himself had none. Food was scarce, as were any other sort of supplies. Every day was a nightmare in which the Iraqi soldiers expected death at any moment by the Americans.
   
   Clearly, Kenderian had to do something to change his fate, and so he devised a plan--to surrender to the Americans at the earliest opportunity. Kenderian thus hoped to plead his case as a US resident forced to participate in a war not of his own choosing on a side he would not have selected. Kenderian eventually did get captured by the Americans, but not before his ship struck a mine, killing several of his Iraqi crewmates. However, even his capture by US forces meant extreme hardship. As a prisoner of war (POW), again and again, he was interrogated, forced to live in difficult conditions, and plead his desperate case, to return to his family in the United States.
   
   Despite this unbelievable story, Kenderian never lost his sense of humor, his humanity for others (Iraqi or otherwise), or his faith in God that he would eventually be returned to the country he considered home. Only a man of real courage and compassion could have survived this ordeal to tell this story of resilience and hope. Through his book, Kenderian has opened the door into a world few Americans understand or have experienced. His story been featured on public radio's "This American Life," and truly it is a unique one.



4. I just finished reading Mr. Kenderian's book, and for me as an Iraqi (and Christian), it sheds light on many facts of Iraqis life under Saddam's rule. It is an interesting, must to read, story of a struggle of a man to reach his goals. What impressed me more is the strength of his faith that made him come through all these difficulties (the least his circumstances could be described with).
   However, Mr. Kenderian gave an impression that Armenian Iraqis were treated differently (less favorably) from other Iraqis. I see this as unfair description. Christians in Iraq were always been seen as harmless Iraqis, and I never witnessed or heard that there was any discrimination against them because of their religion or of being Armenians in particular.
   I enjoyed reading this book very much. Thank you Mr. Kenderian



5. This is by far one of the most inspiring books I have read in a while. I am amazed by Mr. Kenderian's strength of character despite all the opportunities and justifications there was to have been less than honorable. It made me realize how much I take living in this country for granted. Yes, we have our flaws but how many other countries to people make such an effort to get to? Please continue to write Mr Kenderian!

No comments about The Absence of Grand Strategy: The United States in the Persian Gulf, 1972--2005.

5 comments about The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict.

1. As Pres. Bush tries to talk everyone into supporting an attack on Iraq, this is a wonderful book for getting a little background on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It doesn't give too much detail over his chemical weapons program, except how the use of Nerve and Mustard gas on the front was the tool that gave Saddam the ability to push the Iranians out of Iraq(and influence Iran's ability to recruit for the frontlines). The book uses GDP and other economic indicators throughout the middle east repeatedly to tell how the war was affecting the populaces involved. A very interesting read.



2. Despite its small and squeezed font, the content is attractive as the book thoroughly covers the 8-year Iraq-Iran war.
   With a good amount of information, mostly from news reports, Hiro produces an account of the history of animosity between the two oil rich neigbors.
   Hiro extensively covers statements by Iraqi and Iranians officials and also includes statements by officials of foreign governments who were involced in the conflict.
   Hiro, however, fails to describe the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime and at times writes that the deposed Iraqi dictator enjoyed popular support. This is, by most other accounts, far from the truth.
   Despite its extensive coverage, the book sometimes quickly surveys important issues such as the Iraqi usage of WMDs.
   Hiro also reports, with minimum details, the tip of the balance in Iraqi favor. He does not provide enough information about the Iraqi military operations that reversed the course of the war.
   Overall, the book is one of a few that documents one of the longest wars in modern history.



3. "The Longest War" by Dilip Hiro provides a thorough political history of the Iran-Iraq conflict. Those with little to moderate exposure to the war will probably find it interesting, while more knowledgeable students of the era will most likely gain little insight, as it is largely based on press clippings.
   
   Readers of other military histories will be disappointed to find a lack of primary evidence into motives; however, it is important remember that such evidence was not available at the time of publication, as it is with, for example, a history of World War II.
   
   One interesting factor about this book is that it was (apparently) written prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991. This has positive and negative effects. For instance:
   
   (1) Hiro does not have the benefit of being able to use future events to improve his analysis. For example, given the later invasion of Kuwait, Sadaam Hussein's invasion of Iran seems much more like a megalomaniac stab at natural resources (and their commensurate power) than the establishment of a bulwark against Shi'ite Islamism.
   
   (2) Hiro's analysis does not suffer from bias created by later events. For example, American support of the Iraqi regime in the latter stages of the war is presented in the context of (a) Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, (b) protecting American interests in the gulf states from Iranian interference and (c) the political climate in America following the Iran-Contra affair. Today, it is common to see such support described as misguided or even hypocritical, given what happened in 1990-1 and in 2003. Hiro lays out reasons for American support to Iraq that were indeed very rational given what was known to American policymakers at the time.



4. Now that the U. S. led coalition has invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power, the current fashion is to demonize him as much as possible. However, there was a time when the United States was strongly allied with Iraq when it was at war with Iran. The Iraqi invasion of Iran was launched by Saddam Hussein at a time when Iran appeared weak. His goal was to achieve a quick victory and gain control over the Shatt al Arab waterway and perhaps even some of the Iranian oilfields. Therefore, there was no doubt that Iraq was the aggressor.
   However, this was a serious miscalculation on the part of Hussein, Iran did not fold and was able to counterattack and even occupy significant segments of Iraq. Once it appeared that Iran was militarily gaining the upper hand the United States weighed in heavily on the side of Iraq, even launching military attacks against Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf. In fact, it can be strongly argued that American support kept Iraq from being defeated. All throughout the war, U. S. spy satellites provided regular intelligence on Iranian troop movements, enabling the Iraqi forces to anticipate their attacks. The second reason why Iraq was able to fend off the Iranians is due to their extensive use of several types of poison gas in combat. Therefore, as is explained very well in this book, the United States was allied with a nation that launched an aggressive war against another nation and used poison gas, an explicit violation of several major international treaties. However, because an Iranian victory was considered contrary to U. S. interests, these actions were met with implicit approval.
   The Iran-Iraq war was the longest declared war of the twentieth century, lasting eight years and ending right where it started. The political machinations among all the nations in that area were extensive, and they were very complex. Hiro explains the background of the shifting and partial alliances among the Muslim nations, detailing why each nation adopted the policies that they did. Considering that Iraq has been involved in two wars since then, one where Iraq invaded Kuwait and was clearly the aggressor, the Iran-Iraq war has not received the attention that it should. Many nations were eager to engage in commercial relations with Iraq during the conflict, even against stated international embargoes. Those contacts continued after the first gulf war, when Iraq was hit with economic sanctions. Some of these violations are now coming to light, but the origins are clearly described by Hiro.
   With American troops now fighting in Iraq under the pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons and was willing to use them, it is forgotten that he received tacit approval when he used them against the Iranians. Given the dependence of Iraq on American assistance in the middle years of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq could not have ignored a strong statement of U. S. disapproval of their use of chemical weapons. The U. S. sided with Iraq because it considered strong Iranian influence in Iraq to be contrary to the national interest. Now, recent reports are that Iranian agents are exerting strong influence in Iraq and the Iraqi Shi'ites are poised to take power in Iraq. This may lead to a religious based government in Iraq with close ties to Iran. Therefore, the American invasion may accomplish an Iranian goal that eight years of war could not.



5. An interesting book on a subject that does not have a lot of coverage. It's chapter arrangement by actor is sometimes confusing but in the end I saw why the writer used that method rather than a strictly chronological narrative.
   
   One error in the book was that it talked about Reagan campaign staffers meeting with Iranians in Paris prior to November 1980 elections. This story has been debunked by many reliable sources.

5 comments about The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 (Essential Histories).

1. I bought this book when it first came out before the current occupation of Iraq. Not only does it help explain some of the current situations now faced in Iraq, but it is perhaps one of the best Essential Histories written. Explaining in depth in the reasons for the war, and up to the use of childern by Iran in suicide offensives, the author is able to keep the reader interested and informed without overwhelming one with information.
   
   Osprey shows that one of its many talents is covering obscure wars (in this case for those of us in the west) for those who want a deeper understanding of how such seemingly unheard of conflicts affect the modern world.



2. This is one of the few volumes to cover a sadly under-reported war. While it would be a good introduction to someone unfamiliar with the conflict, it is a bit shallow for those who already know a little. Karsh does a good job of analyzing the motives and thinking of both sides, without comment on the ethics of either. I found Dilip Hiro's book more informative. Even though Hiro is frankly trying to make a political point, there is a lot of hard data there if you are willing to sift it out.
   
   
   The coverage of particular battles was sketchy, and the typical short format of Osprey precludes a lot of analysis and documentation. The Iran-Iraq war has yet to be described or analyzed by someone of the stature of David Glanz. Therefore, this book gets more stars than I would normally award, simply because there are so few other book worth reading on the Iran-Iraq war.



3. The "Essential Histories" series from Osprey could easily be compared to the Cliff Notes series. They'll give you a nice introduction to a topic you are not familiar with, but no real depth. Most volumns are under 100 pages; therefore, don't expect many "man in the trenches" stories.
   
   This volumn is a nice introduction to a recent war, and presented a bit better than most in the series.



4. The essential histories series is supposed to provide brief, readable accounts of major wars. The inherent problem with this idea is that often times the wars being discussed are much too complex to be covered in substantially less than 100 pages. That doesn't mean the series is without value, but that it should only be used as a first step towards understanding a subject, not the only step. The biggest drawback in this particular installment is that the lack of background info really robs the reader of valuable context. Even though the amount of space devoted to the Iran-Iraq war in one of the general Iraqi history books like Tripp's or Marr's is considerably less, the coverage is ultimately better because of the back story of the 70s that created many of the necessary conditions for the war. Beyond that however, Karsh's book provides a limited and somewhat helpful overview of the military and political aspects that influenced the war.
   
   Karsh's book on the Iran-Iraq war not only suffers from only skimming the surface of a complex subject, but there is also a fairly obvious pro-Iraqi bias. If someone had absolutely no background in Middle Eastern history, they would come away with the impression that Iraq was completely blameless, when in fact Iraq initially began the war. When compared with the accounts of the war in other works on Iraqi and Iranian history, Karsh's version stands alone in its willingness to absolve Iraq of any wrongdoing. Considering that the series is supposed to provide an introduction to the conflict, this type of bias is really misplaced. The editors should have taken a serious pass at Karsh's finished version or had someone else write this particular installment.



5. The historical content and political analysis in the book is so much in line with the way the war was perceived by the media and general public in many countries in the Middle East.
   
   On the other hand, the analysis of the strategy and grand strategy of the war on page 84 is erroneous, and contradicts the basic principles of the theory of strategy. This part of the book shows lack of understanding of the theory of strategy. That is, the analysis is in favor of a general military operation, rather than a limited operation, which is strategically incorrect based on the conclusion that Iraq's limited military operation failed. What really makes the war analysis not convincing is the conclusion that a limited war failed and a general war might also have failed if Iraq pursued it. Added to that, the Iranian strategy was not discussed. The analysis also gives contradicting concepts about the reason behind the failure of Iraq's strategy. In one paragraph the reason is said to be Iraq was trying to "bite off more than it could chew", and in another paragraph the failure of Iraq's strategy was because Iraq "assigned to its military forces tasks which were too limited".
   
   In analyzing any offensive, the author criticized the army that failed to achieve its goals and the army that succeeded by saying it could have achieved more. This type of analysis is the theme of the strategic analysis in the book.

5 comments about No Higher Honor: Saving the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf.

1. I was there and this book captured the entire ordeal as well as it could be captured. Bradley did a wonderful and thorough job collecting data and memories. I now know far more about the whole incident than I knew when it happened. I'm grateful that our story got told, but more grateful that it was told so well.



2. I am very impressed by No Higher Honor. It is interesting, well written, and an engaging read. No Higher Honor is an overdue tribute to a group of heroes that deserves to be remembered.
   
   Anyone interested in naval history should read this book. I heartily recommend it.



3. The shopping experience was great with Amazon. The book that I ordered was shipped and had gotten delivered in the amount of time that I had expected and what I needed it for.



4. I am a librarian at a Navy library and a patron recommended this book for purchase as a management book. It is the most exciting, well written and gripping management book you will ever read. It is a tale of heroism, competence and pride.
   
   The first management lesson you will learn is that instilling pride in your workers will get you very far. Captain Paul Rinn worked on this from the day he learned the not yet built guided missile frigate was to be named the Samuel B. Roberts. He researched the first two ships with the same name and the sailor it was named after. He made sure the pre-commissioning crew knew all the history instilling pride in their ship as she was being built.
   
   The second is even non-glamorous jobs are important, sometimes the most important. I suspect that not too many people go into the Navy with the idea of being the best damage control officer in the service. Rinn knew the importance of damage control and had his men trained, drilled and equipped to the best of his and his officer's abilities. He wanted them to be good at all tasks on the ship and gave them the appropriate training and encouragement.
   
   Above being a book about leadership, it is also a gripping tale. The first lines of the book describing the initial spotting of the mines that were to damage the frigate are as gripping as any in any novel about the sea. It also brings into remembrance a dangerous time in our planet's history with Iran, Iraq and the US face to face in the Persian Gulf.
   
   The author's style is both journalistic and literary, making the book a good read.



5. My Brother-in-law was on the Roberts when she hit the mine. The story was well written and is a fascinating example of what men can do when properly trained, motivated and well led.
   
   I believe the author does a good job of relaying the type of atmosphere that persisted on this ship from it's construction through deployment. My only critical point would be he doesn't spend enough time with the common sailors' point of view.
   
   I also found it interesting that he covers Operation Praying Mantis. I was unaware that this was declassified.
   
   All in all, nicely done and an informative and gripping account of one of the forgotten chapters of our continued presence in the gulf.

5 comments about The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps.

1. Gift for the bride who says the account appears factual with interesting in-sights into the situation in the Middle East. The book subscribes to a solution that sending more working class kids into an invasion of Iran will enhance the ideals of Western democracy and prevent one group trying to dominate the other, removing the Great Satan and all that. Thanks George, it really wasn't really about the oil reserves.



2. So many typos in my edition that I'm not sure they were typos or just incorrectly stated facts. Very poorly written, almost like author tried to cut and paste individual sentences that didn't quite work together. I truly wonder if I somehow received a proof copy or some other pre market copy. Very odd. These points aside though, author has some ideas worth noting.



3. I was truly frightened at first when I read the review of this then ultimately saddened that so many people still buy into this culture of violence,war, death, hatred, racism in the name of religion. Sick. Try LOVE instead.



4. 2005-07, when it still seemed likely that George Bush would expand the war in Iraq to Iran, religion-based pundits, megachurch preachers and other asortments of Christian authors created a boom in apocalyptic, Bomb Iran Now books. "The Final Move Beyond Iraq" by Mike Evans probably didn't get the same amount of PR as the latest cash cow by John Hagee, but its vision is just as frightening. Evans is part of the religious right-wing club that makes excuses for imperialism by sounding the alarm off on phantom threats like Iran's "nukes" and despite the fact that the U.S. military is essentially "broken" according to Colin Powell, they are desperately pleading for yet ANOTHER war in the Middle East. Evans is a favorite on Fox News, which should tell you something about the accuracy in his work, but let's just judge his book for what it has to say. According to Evans, the current situation involving Iraq, Iran and the occupied territories in Israel are all part of some larger plan pushing us ever closer to the Apocalypse and Second Coming of Christ. Israel is of course considered by Evans and his ilk as "God's Chosen," and us, who use Israel as a client state in the region, are therefore destined to protect Israel no matter what, not for strategic purposes, but because it's God's will, this includes needing to bomb Iran and destabilize an already volatile region. Evans, like Hagee, ignores basic modern history, presents flimsy "evidence" and coded Bible talk and interpretations (how can anyone really know what a guy in a 2,000 year old world was seeing, he wouldn't even know how to describe a helicopter, so therefore his visions could mean anything) to promote a neocon agenda of military expansionism and colonialism. The main target of the book is of course Muslim anger towards the U.S. and Israel, with Evans fully ignoring Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank or the fact that it's been proven more than once that Iraq was invaded based on false information. Evans like his colleagues takes a few looks at ancient Persian history, never exploring Middle Eastern history from say, the 1950s or 1960s, when we actively overthrew democratic, progressive governments in Iran and Pakistan. Evans also fails to explain how close U.S. client states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will participate in the glorious coming war, in fact, Evans doesn't even mention if anything will even happen to the U.S. domestic population (we wouldn't want to see Hagee's or Kenneth Copeland's mansions get blown up right?). The evidence Evans presents for attacking Iran is based on mostly outdated sources or "Israeli intelligence" that has now been mostly disproven, unless Evans believes the NIE report is some sort of conspiracy against his glorious leader, George W. Bush, a pity the book was published before that crucial bit of intelligence was released. Look deep into "The Final Move Beyond Iraq" and you'll see the hidden agenda of the neocons wrapped in a religious flag: Israel is the only good guy in the Middle East, superficially because Jews are "God's Chosen," but in reality because they are a vital client state for U.S. interests, Iran needs to be stopped because of its nuclear program, eventhough Israel already has nukes as well as U.S.-ally, and hotbead of radical Islamists, Pakistan. This is important, crucial information Evans conveniently leaves out. This is the typical kind of hollow propaganda used to whip-up a frenzy among religious devotees desperately waiting for deliverance from this "liberalized" culture, it is also a useful tool to make lots of money off of people's current worries, but in the end, it's just bad writing, bad history, and not worth a dollar, much less $14 and up.



5. I like this book even though it is more chicken little extremism. I was initially interested in the book because I listened to the author on a talk radio show and found his points interesting. An assistant of his even answered some questions I had via email and offered to send me a free copy. Not long into reading the book I found some contradictions to his claims and tried emailing with questions. At first I got reasonable answers, but after a while I think the questions became to difficult and required thinking out of the paranoia box. In particular I asked the author about what he thought about the over throw of the democratically elected Iranian leadership in the 1950s and wondered if that might be a reason we've had such trouble with Iran. The question was brushed off.

5 comments about 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Fourth Edition.

1. I bought this book after meeting Tarpley in person and being completely intrigued by him. Let me say this first: I'm very much leaning towards believing that 911 was an inside job, but Tarpley's book, from a purely intellectual level, leaves a lot to be hoped for. His book is riddled with non-sequitors and false analogies. Don't get me wrong, I'm on his side. But not with a weak minded argument like the (might I add) cheap looking book he has here.



2. Great book - one of the best. I read this after "Crossing the Rubicon" by M.Ruppert.
   
   If you want the TRUTH that's not being told by Corporate controlled media, this is it!



3. A book that grabs you. Apart from the 9/11 myth, which he calls the key to see the way our "leaders" deceive us, the author gives a global view of many other examples of massive deception in history. He explains how our criminal tax-spenders lie and kill us to wage wars and kill around the world.



4. Webster Tarpley is the "Simon Cowell" of political critics: he minces no words, gets to the point, and tells it like it is. I loved the acerbic truth and the historical examples he used to prove his points. His views certainly dovetail all others on the subject and only reinforce their validity.



5. Where do I begin, since I am not gifted with the power of flowery speech. This book, among many other related books, is trying to warn us about a terrible situation which has over taken us with unspeakble evil intentions. In fact it is so evil to suggest that manny are offended that we even dare to think this could happen: These naysayers are so deeply brainwashed they're beyond the touch of reality. This is exactly what the evil, scheming oligarchy is betting on that you won't believe any of this could be true. Some of you are crticial of this author's presentation of his information. So let me warn those below a certain level of IQ intelect that this is not an easy to read book. The author of this book already presumes you're up to date with certain facts of history and names and roles of various actors in this plot. Was WW1 & WWII true? Was Nagasaki and Hiroshima true? Was the Holocaust true? Was WMD of Iraq true? is the WMD of Syria true? All of the preceding representation of the evil, plotting elites consolidating their gold and power at the expense of our lives. And you still say no it can't be true? Your children's future is at stake here folks...keep sleeping at at the risk of your own demise.

5 comments about The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

1. Sir,
   
   It was in November 12th 2007 when I made my purchase, and I received your response where the book was promised to come in December 26th 2007. Now, more than couple of weeks after the deadline, there are no signs of the book yet.
   
   What shall I do?
   
   Valde Mikkonen



2. I devoted at least 7 months of 2006 to reading this huge work. It is without doubt the most depressing book I have read. The unrelenting description of man's inhumanity to man does not make for happy reading. The subject matter almost dictated that this book needed to be read through to its conclusion, however, the bleak, nihilistic content did not make for happy bedtimes. It only gets 3 stars from me because Mr Fisk does not give alternatives to his description of these shocking events. I would hope things need not be so bleak, but Mr Fisk gives me no hope that the worst wont happen as a matter of course.



3. It took me a while to read this book, and whoever gets it better understand it's a daunting book to read. It's all worthwhile at the end, as you will get a history lesson from someone that lived threw most of the stories told in this book.



4. "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East" is journalist Robert Fisk's very personal treatise on how the present Middle East "situation" has come about.
   
   At a over 1300 pages this book is certainly exhaustive as Fisk covers just about every aspect of Middle East history over the last 100 years -and hammers home his points at length. Not surprisingly, the USA, UK, and Israel come in for his most ferocious criticism and one begins to feel a bit frustrated with Fisk as he criticises the UK and USA when they do act AND when they don't act - leaving one thinking: well what exactly are they supposed to do?
   
   The highlights of the book are his meetings with Osama Bin Laden, his experiences during the Iran-Iraq war, and his first-hand account of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These occur in the first half of the book but from then on it becomes rather heavy going - though still worthwhile.
   
   This book should be read by all students of the Middle East.



5. Normally it takes me maybe four or five hours to finish a whole book. With this one, I would read for four hours and discover I had read maybe 50 pages.
   
   There is a lot of information in here. Fisk often rambles on and on, and he could have seriously used an editor, but when he writes from his perspective about something interesting, it is really interesting. He doesn't bother being polite or diplomatic about something. He is equally as hard and fair on the Iraqis, Iranians, Americans, Israelis, Palestinians, Soviets and British as he is on every subject. And in a lot of cases it is really interesting to read the different perspectives of certain events.
   
   In any event this is a good read if you are interested in the Middle East. Robert Fisk is certainly opinionated. But anyone growing up post-911 has built up their own fair share of opinions and biases towards this part of the world. There is a certain kind of intrinsic value in reading books like this; books which provide different perspectives than the ones we hold.

5 comments about Inside the Danger Zone: The U.S. Military in the Persian Gulf, 1987-1988.

1. I am another reader who was very involved in these events. Excellent book which required an extensive amount of research into a little known period of recent history.



2. can write a book that clearly, succinctly, and engagingly tells the story in question. Lee managed to do that at every turn. I'm not a history buff. I routinely did poorly in history in part because the people that wrote the books knew a lot about their subject, but little if anything about how to tell a story. He knows how to do both.
   
   The best thing about this book is that it tells the story from the bottom up. He interviewed the people who were actually there. Men that fought and bled at the battles in question. The events are made more real by the anecdotes and bracketed where necessary by higher level political goings on. It gave great insight into how ships are run and decisions are made in the 20th century military.
   
   I highly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing what went on during the Tanker Wars and who might want a glimpse into the early days of our current involvement in this part of the world.



3. Having never been into reading military non-fiction, I was hesitant to start this book. However, it read like a Clive Cussler novel and was a true account taken from numerous sources who were in the Gulf during this time. The book gives tremendous insight into the geographic, political and military background of the region.
   
   Mr. Wise obviously did a great deal of painstaking research for the book. He managed to weave all the accounts into a story that flows as well as any book I have read lately. Particularly interesting to me was following the experiences and decisions of Hal Bernson, the great Admiral/Diplomat in the region at the time. I look for more great books to come from this author.



4. The book is good quality, though a little expensive. And much more interesting than I had anticipated.



5. I cannot put this book down. While I was in the Persian Gulf during this era (Actually my Ship, the USS Halsey CG-23 was just relieved and we were heading to the Mediterranean sea when the Stark was hit.) I am learning new things about what actually happened. I would really recommend this book to anyone who is interested in Naval history. The author actually asked for everyone's help that was actually in the Gulf during that time frame and it shows, because he has all the details in place.

5 comments about The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future.

1. This is an excellent book, summarizing the basis of the Shia religion and their differences with Sunni Islam. Tracing that conflict from the classical period of Islam to the modern one, Vali Nasr fills in the reader with a wealth of detail on what the Shia believe, and what their historical and political mindset is. Nasr also accurately predicts, I think, that the legacy of the U.S. Iraq occupation will largely be the balance of Sunni and Shia power in the region. Intentionally or not, that war and the war in Afghanistan clearly benefited Iran, eliminating threats to it in both countries. Vali Nasr's rhetoric does occasionally wax overly apologetic to Shia Islam, but on the whole I think he offers a penetrating and realistic insight to the situation in the Middle-East, especially regarding the conflicts of Shiism and Wahhabism. A commendable, and readable book.



2. If you want to understand the Sunnis and Al Qaeda, read Looming Tower. If you want to understand the Shias, read Shia Revival.
   
   I have read perhaps 30 books on the Middle East, those two books really capture why what's going on is going on in the Middle East.
   
   This book should be essential reading for anyone interested in current events.



3. One of the most accessable books on Shia tradition and their place in current world events. This is an eye-opening book which explains many of the fallacies that are in the American media about the Iraq war.



4. This is a complex rendition on the inner workings
   of Shia and Sunni belief systems. The Sunnis had
   Islam's Golden Age circa 632-661; wherein, 4 caliphs
   guided the belief systems with the authority of
   a Caesar or a Pope. These caliphs were Abu Bakr,
   Umar, Uthman Ali and Rashidun. The Sunnis
   believed that " better have a 60 year tyranny
   than a single day of civil strife". Islam had
   a continuous 1400 year struggle between the
   Shia and Sunnis.
   
   Shiism is popular in Persia, Azeris-Turks and the
   Azerbaijan near the Caspian Sea. The Shia imams
   are closer to the Iranians in the following areas:
   o spreading cultural diversity
   o gaining a foothold in Iran, N.Africa and Syria
   o the older Shia in Egypt are on the decline
   
   The Shia believe that the Prophet Mohammed had
   special qualities was without sin and He could
   divine religious teaching. The Sunnis were
   preoccupied with civil order. They believe that
   that religion helps the faithful to survive and
   thrive. The Sunnis believe that the successor
   of the Prophet is the principal leader of the
   Islamic community and not a G-d or prophetic
   calling.
   
   The Shia did well in Iraqi elections creating the
   first Shia state. They were real power brokers who
   expanded to Iran which is now considered the
   largest Shia country in the world. The Shia
   want the USA to commit to political reform
   across the region.
   
   The book could be extremely helpful in negotiating
   a peaceful conclusion to the hostilities in Iraq.
   The remaining problem is stumbling upon a fair
   methodology for accomplishing the political reform.
   The negotiating basis is that the Shia want
   political reforms and the Sunnis would like
   a civil order and a minimum of internal strife.
   These common needs may serve as the basis for a
   meaningful negotiation between the parties.



5. This is an excellent book which describes the fundamental
   differences between the Shia and Sunnis. Antagonisms
   existed between Shia and the Sunnis for over 1400 years.
   The Sunni Islam had a Golden Age. Under the Umayyads,
   the caliphs were both Caesar and a Pope delegating
   authority to professional religious scholars.
   
   Foes of Umayyads identify Ali (the Prophet's cousin)
   as the Prophet's successor. The Sunnis believe that
   the successor of the Prophet is the only leader of the
   Islamic Community and not a deity or a prophetic calling.
   
   Between 632 and 661, 4 caliphs ruled. They were Abu Bakr,
   Uthman Ali, Uman and Rashidun. The Sunnis believe
   "Better a 60 year tyranny than a single day of civil strife".
   
   Shia imams are closer to the Iranians. They believe in
   spreading cultural diversity and they've gained a foothold
   in Iran, North Africa and Syria. Shia did well in Iraq
   electing the first Shia state. The real power brokers
   migrated to Iran which is now the largest Shia country.
   
   There is a modern secular trend in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq
   and Pakistan. Shia have migrated through Persia,
   the Azeris-Turks and Azerbaijan in the Caspian Sea.
   
   The Shia believe that the Prophet had special qualities,
   He was without sin and could divine religious teachings.
   The Sunnis are preoccupied with order in the society
   at large. The Shia want the USA to commit to political
   reform across the region. The USA can assist in this
   process; however, the parties must cooperate fully in order
   to advance the political agenda. The work has considerable
   implications for mutual cooperation between the West and
   Islam.