Fiasco by Thomas E. Ricks
This is a good book that could have been excellent if the author had waited five years more to write it.
The problem with this book is that it tackled the war in Iraq while its chief instigators are still in power. I'm sure there are documents and memos in classified form that would be available once a new Administration comes to power. The author focuses on the generals and lower level military people precisely because he did not have access to the higher level. That is what I think is missing from this book. I would like to know at what stage the top level decisionmakers made the choice to go to war and when. I'd be interested to know what factors led them to their fateful mistake. You do not get that information from Fiasco.
Ricks makes the statement that responsibility for the war lay with President Bush's incompetance and arrogance. I knew that Bush possessed these traits but I don't think Mr. Ricks does a good job of showing how Bush is responsible for bringing us to war. If anything, Bush is a peripheral figure in this book. Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are bigger players in this volume than the President. That is why I think this book was written too soon. We will not know Bush's role until he leaves office.
However, Fiasco is good at reinforcing what instinct and sketchy news reports have already told us.
It's clear from the numerous studies and expert opinions from before the war that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. and that the Administration manipulated the intelligence on the war. The book also debunks the idea that Bush's team was a victim of bad information.
Furthermore, it cleared any doubt from my mind that President Bush is a figurehead. It was Cheney in the summer of 2002 who set the policy to go to war, not Bush. The book makes it clear that Rumsfeld has been in charge of the day-to-day running of the war. Bush did not even pick the CPA administrators in Iraq, John Garner and Paul Bremer. Fiasco puts to rest any doubt that this is the Rove-Rumsfeld-Cheney Presidency.
The book also makes the reader understand that like most disasters, this one was entirely preventable. The authors made me comprehend the two cardinal rules of warfare, mass and unity of command. He also makes clear the requirements of counterinsurgency. He also shows how our invasion and occupation of Iraq violated these concepts and we are paying for it.
I felt that the book was rather repetitive. I think the author felt that if he made the same points continually, he would make the reader understand. I did but at times, the writing becomes tedious.
Furthermore, I feel that you don't get a strong sense of the characters in this book. Ricks writes about several of the generals and the soldiers. However, the reader does not become too engaged in these people. Ricks is better at illustrating the military aspect than at illustrating the cast of characters.
Nevertheless, Fiasco does a competent job of explaining what went wrong in Iraq and how. However, this is not the definitive work on the war.
The problem with this book is that it tackled the war in Iraq while its chief instigators are still in power. I'm sure there are documents and memos in classified form that would be available once a new Administration comes to power. The author focuses on the generals and lower level military people precisely because he did not have access to the higher level. That is what I think is missing from this book. I would like to know at what stage the top level decisionmakers made the choice to go to war and when. I'd be interested to know what factors led them to their fateful mistake. You do not get that information from Fiasco.
Ricks makes the statement that responsibility for the war lay with President Bush's incompetance and arrogance. I knew that Bush possessed these traits but I don't think Mr. Ricks does a good job of showing how Bush is responsible for bringing us to war. If anything, Bush is a peripheral figure in this book. Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are bigger players in this volume than the President. That is why I think this book was written too soon. We will not know Bush's role until he leaves office.
However, Fiasco is good at reinforcing what instinct and sketchy news reports have already told us.
It's clear from the numerous studies and expert opinions from before the war that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. and that the Administration manipulated the intelligence on the war. The book also debunks the idea that Bush's team was a victim of bad information.
Furthermore, it cleared any doubt from my mind that President Bush is a figurehead. It was Cheney in the summer of 2002 who set the policy to go to war, not Bush. The book makes it clear that Rumsfeld has been in charge of the day-to-day running of the war. Bush did not even pick the CPA administrators in Iraq, John Garner and Paul Bremer. Fiasco puts to rest any doubt that this is the Rove-Rumsfeld-Cheney Presidency.
The book also makes the reader understand that like most disasters, this one was entirely preventable. The authors made me comprehend the two cardinal rules of warfare, mass and unity of command. He also makes clear the requirements of counterinsurgency. He also shows how our invasion and occupation of Iraq violated these concepts and we are paying for it.
I felt that the book was rather repetitive. I think the author felt that if he made the same points continually, he would make the reader understand. I did but at times, the writing becomes tedious.
Furthermore, I feel that you don't get a strong sense of the characters in this book. Ricks writes about several of the generals and the soldiers. However, the reader does not become too engaged in these people. Ricks is better at illustrating the military aspect than at illustrating the cast of characters.
Nevertheless, Fiasco does a competent job of explaining what went wrong in Iraq and how. However, this is not the definitive work on the war.
posted by Naim Peress | 7:56:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home