Customer Rating:  
Summary: An excellent account of Bush's recent Iraq Policy
Comment: Bob Woodward has provided another candid, incisive, and informative window into the personalities, key players, and power brokers who have helped shape and implement the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. He provides detailed accounts of candid, sometimes back room discussions among the key figures who have shaped American military policy in Iraq in the waning years of the Bush administration. This includes figures such as Bush's key advisor Stephen Hadley, Peter Pace, Stephen Petraeus as well as the obvious Bush officials Condi Rice and Dick Cheney.
Woodward's portrait is well-balanced and highlights both shortcomings, such as internal debates about Iraq policy (or lack thereof) among his senior aides; to the apparent success of measures like "the surge" and "Anbar Awakening." He then turns to providing some developing impressions about Bush's possible legacy, as well as what the next president (at the time of publication it was down to McCain and Obama), and what he will inherit.
Woodward, who has authored countless acclaimed books on presidential politics, including three previous books in the "Bush at War" series, was granted unprecedented access. He also provides clear, cogent analysis of the key players and factions in Iraq- from the dubious initial role of Chalabi, to the missteps of Bremer's transitional government, to the election of Maliki as the president of Iraq. He also interestingly observes how, among the three main factions in Iraq (Sunni, Shia and Kurds), the Shia, in addition to being the most numerous, also control the lion share of the vast, rich, oil fields of southern Iraq.
Overall an excellent book by an acclaimed, award-winning author and reporter, who as many may remember, broke the Watergate story way back when along with Bernstein.
My one critique of this book is that, while the access and detailed reporting are outstanding, I was hoping for more analysis and narrative commentary from Woodward. Then again- that is not really his "shtick." If you like Woodward's other books and his columns you will love this book, but be mindful that he leaves the reader to connect a lot of the dots and draw their own conclusions from his detailed accounts of this arguably dubious era in presidential history.
Highly recommended!
Customer Rating:
Summary: Like watching the movie "Groundhogs Day", only without the jokes
Comment: By Cameron Castle:
I just finished "The War Within: A Secret Whitehouse History 2006 to 2008." by Bob Woodward. It should have been titled, "Letting The Fox In The Henhouse." Woodward's first two surprisingly positive books about President Bush allowed him unbelievable access to the inner workings of the Bush White house. It was both fascinating and tedious at the same time. The point of story is the accurate retelling with regards to the ongoing war in Iraq, of the continual disagreement, secrecy, churning and manipulating of facts, and the unbearable snails pace toward making a decision. The delays in implementing any change in strategy, delays caused by worries of political fall-out, happened during a time when our U.S casualties in Iraq were rising. Reading it was like watching the movie "Groundhogs Day," only without the jokes.
Many disturbing revelations come out in the book. One particularly painful one was in describing the lack of communication between parts of the administration. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, one of only a few people with military experience in the administration, was not briefed on the war plans before the invasion. A copy had to be smuggled out of the Pentagon by someone under Secretary Rice, and given to him in secrecy, on the promise he would not reveal he had seen it.
The book opens up the discussion on so many topics, which before these revelations were speculations on speculations. Now they can be discussed more coherently. One that leaped off of page 357 and slapped me across the face was the childish mindset the President always had of wanting things both ways.
There was a point when the surge of troops in Iraq, that happened unforgivingly years too late, was starting to work. But a majority of the American public and the majority of those in Congress, including Republicans, were clamoring for the withdrawal of the troops. The situation of asking our troops to take more risks, while they are hearing the mission might be halted, put them in a more dangerous situation.
The situation was, that if the American people knew the facts they would potentially support the President, this time. But why would the public believe anything coming out of the White House enough to change their views when it had been years and years of secrecy, distortion, or just plain, flat out lies? There is example after example of detailed recounting of meetings in the White House, meetings that moments after they concluded a participant stepped in front of the microphone and told the exact opposite of what had transpired.
The President was so frustrated that he couldn't, every once and awhile, step up to the podium and say. "Hey, this time I am telling you the truth. Trust me on this one." and have the people buy it. He just did not get it. I try usually to not be directly insulting to George Bush, but after absorbing hundreds of pages of detailed accounts of the actual conversations that took place at the White House, the best analogy seems to be that our country has been run by a spoiled fifth-grader. One with absolutely no figure of authority to put him in his place.
Why I am so deeply furious that he was allowed to continue to rule our country in that fashion, unchecked for so long, is not only because of the endless list of hurtful decisions he made with regards to the environment, the economy, and society as a whole, but that the result of his style of leading, using misinformation as a tool, resulted in dead people. Lots and lots of dead people.
Customer Rating:
Summary: An Abject Failure of Leadership
Comment: CentCom commander Adm. Fox Fallon described the situation best. He told the NSC that the Administration was to blame. He said that they got the country into the mess, went to war without a plan, screwed up how to run it and now take no responsibility.
In this the fourth book of the Bush White House, Woodward shows the logical conclusion of anti-intellectual, anti-strategic foreign policy. The war based on George Bush's "gut feeling" of how to handle a complex world with known unknowns and then managed, or not managed, from the top down with a system of "pass the buck" could only end in abject failure. Rumsfeld attempted to guide the war through unsigned memos called snowflakes in order to have deniability. Bush and Cheney used a retired general as a back channel to the field commanders to evade the chain of command. Strategic decisions were never made. Tactical decisions were passed on to committee meetings. No one wanted to get blamed for the disaster so no one wanted to make a decision.
The Administration treated the Iraqi government apparatus as Peter the Great treated his. They tried to give it latitude to act on its own. But, once the Iraqis didn't do what the Administration wanted, they would step in to change it. On the other hand, when generals and ambassadors tried to get Maliki to do something he would decline saying he had the confidence of the President, who would then confirm that.
Alas, Obama and his new foreign policy team will find a failed state in the Middle East that by virtue of the failure of leadership and lack of intellectual rigor it owns. There are many who want to move forward and are trying to make this disastrous policy work; but a policy built on the sands of ignorance, the hubris of the Project for a New American Century and the gut instincts of an anti-intellectualist commander-in-chief is doomed to fail. Thanks, George.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Policy Evolution
Comment: This book is excellent. I think most people will enjoy this book no matter what your point of view is. The book is written really well, just as most of Woodward's books are. He makes you feel as you read it you are in the room with the principles watching events transpire.
The book serves two functions. The first thing the reader sees in the book is how policy evolves in Washington D.C. Rarely is it the decision of one person. This book shows that. Groups of people working in different agencies and Congress seems to come together from different angles. Of course events push these groups to come up with options. This book shows how that comes about better than anything else.
The second function is you see how things in Iraq policy work. A reader will see clearly how the mess in Iraq comes about. The over reliance on politics has clearly effected policy. The book shows that very clearly.
Through the story in the book you can see indirectly how Bush operates. I know everyone will have different opinions on that.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Woodward does it again!
Comment: Woodward's hatred of George W. goes beyound the normal, but I'm sure that is for book sales alone. He writes as if someone put him up to making all these accusations, but no facts to back them up.
Why waste your money, read the New York Times on a daily basis, it gives you just as much contrived information as this book!
|
