I bought this book because I've known Zinni by name for a while. He is the only military commander outside of politics and war (think Powell and Schwarzkopf) that I've known. The main reason why even that happened is that I caught some testimony by him around the time my brother joined the Marines and paid attention because of that connection. I don't remember the topic or substance of his Congressional testimony at that time but do remember that I was impressed that he wasn't a blowhard hawk like the Chiefs of Staff in the movie 13 Days. I was furthermore interested in Zinni when he was sent to the Middle East following his retirement as a peace envoy. Other than these incidents, I didn't know much about him but maintained a passing respectful interest.
I then heard that he and Tom Clancy had written a book that criticized President Bush and the war in Iraq. I knew that a number of military leaders had spoken out against the proposals to go to war and was interested in what Zinni said. Even Tom Clancy has been interviewed and expressed his deep dissatisfaction with the President on this issue. So I bought the book and finished it today.
It's mostly written by Zinni. The earlier chapters have some historical background provided by Clancy but the later chapters are almost entirely Zinni. The book is a professional biography (as in biography of a professional) that looks at Zinni's military career. It begins in Vietnam and ends during Zinni's post-retirement diplomatic career, which appears to be dead, at least for now, following his critique of the administration's plans.
It's all about Zinni and predictably talks only in the most glowing terms. Zinni himself comes off as humble but Clancy pumps him up almost laughably in places. The book has a few main themes: Zinni's career, his philosophy and the events that contributed to it, and an insider's look at a number of major events and operations.
It was interesting and enjoyable but disappointingly didn't really take on the Bush administration at all. He mentions that he was sidelined because of his opposition and talks about how certain expectations he has for leadership are not being met, but these don't come to center stage at any point in the book. It is clear that Zinni would not have executed the war the way he did, but he doesn't take time to delve into why or what he would have done differently. So in that respect the book was unfulfilling.
Zinni's was an advisor in Vietnam and rode shotgun with Vietnamese soldiers. It seems that we tend to forget that Americans weren't the only soldiers fighting that war and the the South Vietnamese had an indigenous army that was really the main protagonist. Zinni's stories about working as a rookie advisor and his development trajectory are insightful and interesting. He gets REALLY sick towards the end of his first tour and then gets his back blown off by short-range small arms fire in his second.
His career moves on up and he talks about challenges he faced as commander of larger and larger units in the US Marine Corps. His experiences in dealing with racial conflict on his base, refugees following the Gulf War, and Mogadishu, Somalia, were of special interest. We see the duties and expectations of Majors and Generals in action and are provided with a birdseye view of what happened. I found Zinni's perspective of the Somalia incident to be of particular interest if for no other reason than his balanced opinion of the demonized enemy Aideed.
He closes the book with a general discussion of some of the influences on his philosophy (Catholic school and a big Italian family, mainly) and then goes on to talk about the need for military men and women to be principled and put those principles beyond their careers. He highlights how politics interferes with military matters. He impressed me with his realizations of the changes happening and the need for the military to respond to them. It is reassuring to know that people like Zinni are in charge of our military and I hope that more people like him continue to be promoted. I wish that more politicians and planners would listen to his pleas for help in reorganizing the purpose and function of the military as well.
The final theme that he closes the book with is that the days of classic warfare are essentially over or are minimally drastically reduced. The US military has perfected battlefield execution (no pun intended) but has failed to develop peripheral aspects taht typify modern conflict. Development and prevention are the tools that are most useful in securing our feature, he claims, yet the military is not well equipped in that regard. Winning the peace should become a more important if not the most important focus in the aims of the armed forces. He challenges our leadership to develop and implement a vision that gives the military a prominent role in developing security outside of the battlefield. Whether that will happen or not remains to be seen.
Comments on this book or review are welcome.
House of Bush, House of Saud.
Craig Unger's book has gotten more airplay since the tidal wave of media attention sparked by Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie. It is usually mentioned as a book that explores Bush's close relationship with the Saudi Royal family and is represented as almost a smear attempt. I've vacillated on whether to buy it or not and finally picked up last week as part of a big batch of books I bought.
I finished it yesterday and was very impressed. It is fairly non-partisan throughout, although there are a few places where the author does stretch a little bit (calling Bush the "Arabian Candidate" following his relations with American Muslims in the 2000 relationship was a bit much, I thought). These are few and far between though and do not represent the overall tone of the book.
The whole "House Of Bush/Saud" notion is a bit forced and contrived and actually a bit off target for the scope of the book. It is actually more about the Saudis and their attempts to create contacts in power in American government. Their course takes them through Texas beginning in the 1970s and they do connect up with George H. W. Bush early on. Undoubtedly the relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been enhanced by the relationship between GHWB and particular Saudi family/ gov't (they are the same) members but it is less about Houses and more a history of what happened over the last 30 years.
It's an interesting story of how influential relationships are forged and maintained and there are plenty of nuggets of information that will surprise people. The book isn't intended to be a non-critical history but it does play fair. Part of the fairness comes from Unger's clear representation of his dissatisfaction with the current President's behavior and Unger's belief that the history of relations between Saudi Arabia and powerful people in US government who are also close to the Bush family has affected Bush's behavior following 9/11, which was an attack by Saudi Arabians more than anyone else.
Unger's book is detailed in exploring the relationships between Saudi Arabia and American government. Leaving George W. Bush out of it (he actually doesn't even come into it until the end anyway), the book deserves to be read just so people can see how our government (and Saudi Arabia's) work. Amazing, really.
Unger presents a balanced view to his general arguments. There are many immediate footnotes (at the bottom of the page, not hidden at the end of the book, so you can read them right away) that provide qualifications and counterpoints. If the FBI disputes reported facts, he mentions it. One particularly damning relationship for GWB was with a Florida Muslim leader who helped GWB win 88% of the Floridian Muslim vote but ended up being arrested for his leadership and fundraising ties to pro-Palestinian terrorists groups. This man is also on record at Muslim rallies calling on the death of Jews (he once said something akin to he'd kill a Jew for $500). Unger grants a footnote to this guy's lawyer who reports that the man regrets saying things that feel good in the heat of the moment at a rally but in retrospect aren't such good things to say. Other times Unger notes that allegations and trials have not been confirmed or convicted. He doesn't just talk about the information that helps his theme. It comes across very balanced in spite of the few exceptions I mentioned early on.
It is an easy to read book. There are a lot of Arab names but Unger does a good job of reminding us who was who throughout the story. There is a lot of good information provided and most of it is historical and unrelated (directly at least) to the sitting president. Even ardent conservatives and enemies of the left who think this is just a muckraking book of lies ought to give it a gander. They won't agree with everything but the overall trend presented is rather disturbing even outside of current events. It is about 270 pages but it reads easily.
Feel free to comment on this post.
I bought this book after reading a NYTimes article about it and the author. Evan Wright is a Rolling Stone journalist who was embedded with the Marine's First Reconnaissance Battalion in the invasion of Iraq. He wrote a highly regarded series in Rolling Stone following the invasion and then made this book.
I was impressed. The book is great on two points. First, it provides a fascinating account of the invasion as it follows First Recon from Camp Mathilda in Kuwait, into Iraq in a massive feint move that drew Republican Guards away from Baghdad, and then on into Baghdad proper. During most of the invasion, the battalion he rode with was the deepest advance unit in the war and the platoon he spent most of his time with ended up getting some of the highest honors awarded to combat troops.
This tale of the invasion isn't a god's eye view either. He presents the invasion as it unfolds and includes the constantly changing orders received by commanders and conveys the lack of understanding and awareness that played out in real time. It is a interesting story of warfare and military operation.
Then of course is the human tale. There are a dozen or so Marines that constitute the bulk of the tale. We learn how they think and act and get a deep view of life as a Recon Marine. We see them struggle with civilian killing and contemplate differences and similarities between Iraqis and themselves. They discuss the meaning and intent of the war and offer their opinions about the usefulness or futility of any particular action.
There are a few tragicomic commanders throughout that mystified me as to their continued existence as commanders. Undoubtedly Wright's perspective was colored by the opinions of the men but there are clear examples of major fuckups by Captain America and Casey Kasem, such as EPW (enemy prisoners of war) abuse and the time the failure to question (as in confirm) orders ended up maiming a landmine specialist after they were sent on a minefield mission after dark. Sad stories of personal tragedy throughout.
I've often thought about how the college years of a person's life are so amazing. I went through such a transformation in between age 18 and 23 from my experiences in college. I realize that it isn't college per se as much a it is the learning curve from transitioning from high school to the real world that follows. The experiences of some of these Marines provide the same sorts of experiences on a visceral level unimaginable on a college campus. It was fascinating to watch their transformation over the 2 months or so the book covers.
This book isn't an indictment of or platitude about war. It's more the story of warriors and soldiers with Iraq as a backdrop. The politics of the war aren't covered at all. It's all about the young men as they are used as bait, in the larger strategic as well as tactical sense (they are ordered to stop their convoys (often in doorless and roofless unarmored Humvees) in ambush kill zones specifically to draw enemy fire). They make mistakes and shit happens, with civilians paying the price. The book is graphic at times (I had a hard time with the story of the 4 year girl who's brains fell out) but it was powerful. It wasn't sensational or polemic. It was very very good.