Scan barcode
jasperburns's review
5.0
View my best reviews and a collection of mental models at jasperburns.blog.
hannahmartinez's review against another edition
4.5
I wanted to better understand the US-Middle East conflicts and this book delivered exactly what I wanted. Rarely would I consider a military history a page turner, but this is well written and engrossing. It’s a little opinionated, but the analysis is sound and makes the book more interesting. It is also refreshing that the author is a self-professed conservative who consistently criticizes the US military-industrial complex. I would recommend this to anyone born after Desert Storm who feels like they’re missing a lot of context in their opinions on US Middle Eastern foreign policy.
larryerick's review against another edition
4.0
This is very solid work, with an author who has many years in America's armed forces and as a university professor, and the reader can sense both influences in the presentation. The book is essentially a review -- a rather detailed one, considering its scope -- of America's involvement in the Middle East and the Muslim world, in particular. It begins with the failed Carter raid to rescue the hostages in Iran and ends with the current morass in Syria. (Trump is not covered, but nothing of great significance has changed.) While the author brings in narratives on lesser conflicts like Reagan's Lebanon, Clinton's Somalia, Obama's Libya, and even the Balkan states, he specifically details what he calls the four Gulf Wars: the Iraq-Iran war, the first Bush Iraq War, the second Bush Iraq War, and ISIS caliphate war. Afghanistan is most definitely covered, too, but doesn't fit cleanly into the other categories. With all this analysis, the author does not pull any punches in assessing political and military actions or lack there of, in all of these involvements. I guess I should emphasize that despite the word "war" in the title of the book and the frequent detailing of military actions, this is very much an analysis of America's foreign policies along the way, so political actions, both domestically and globally, are assessed every bit as deeply as the military ones. Any person intending to be well-grounded in where America should or should not move next in this area, will do well to read this book, if for no other reason than to sharpen focus on where we are now, how we got here, and where we should go next.
jsaw22's review against another edition
3.0
Started off as a very interesting book with American foreign policy linked to actual events, then it got bogged down in straight-up policy discussions later on that made it hard to stay awake while reading on a warm train. However, this book was long-listed for the National Book Award in Non-fiction, and it did provide a disciplined perspective on the struggles going on in the Middle East today.
jedwardsusc's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 stars. It's an interesting book that effectively summarizes the problems with US military involvement in the Middle East since the late 1970s. What's lacking is substantive engagement with the more difficult questions about the paths forward from where we are--leaving itself open to precisely the kind of simplistic, isolationist rhetoric that we've seen on display since 2016.
lakecake's review against another edition
4.0
I received this book as a Goodreads Giveaway for free.
Bacevich has done an impressive job of laying out America's conflicts over the past 40 years in what he calls the "Greater Middle East." The region is so titled here because it encompasses much more than what we traditionally think of as the Middle East, but the reason behind wars in those different areas all stem back to the same basic impetus. When the conflict originally started, the reason was oil. Americans in the 1970s were not willing to be without oil, and they were willing to fight, kill and be killed to make sure they had it. The initial push to product the Persian Gulf and its oil reserves failed miserably--Iran hostage crisis, anyone--but we didn't learn our lessons. America decided that military might equaled diplomatic right and by God we were going to win. And we're still there, trying to win, even though it's likely impossible and also no longer in our best interests. Try telling that to the military-industrial complex or any of your elected leaders, however. You'll be laughed out of town, even though THEY don't actually know how to get out of it or win, the whole system is now based upon the fact that America has military power and should use it no matter what. (Example: Syria). The truth of the matter, which Bacevich lays out systematically and with a surplus of context, is that the Middle East as a region would require far more nuance and historical understanding than we would ever be willing to put into finding a solution. Admitting that we do not hold any sort of moral high ground to be the world's policeman would involve way too much humility, and leaving entirely would be an abject admission of failure. So until WE as citizens come together and say "ENOUGH OF THIS," the United States and her various allies at different times will always be in this conflict.
Bacevich has done an impressive job of laying out America's conflicts over the past 40 years in what he calls the "Greater Middle East." The region is so titled here because it encompasses much more than what we traditionally think of as the Middle East, but the reason behind wars in those different areas all stem back to the same basic impetus. When the conflict originally started, the reason was oil. Americans in the 1970s were not willing to be without oil, and they were willing to fight, kill and be killed to make sure they had it. The initial push to product the Persian Gulf and its oil reserves failed miserably--Iran hostage crisis, anyone--but we didn't learn our lessons. America decided that military might equaled diplomatic right and by God we were going to win. And we're still there, trying to win, even though it's likely impossible and also no longer in our best interests. Try telling that to the military-industrial complex or any of your elected leaders, however. You'll be laughed out of town, even though THEY don't actually know how to get out of it or win, the whole system is now based upon the fact that America has military power and should use it no matter what. (Example: Syria). The truth of the matter, which Bacevich lays out systematically and with a surplus of context, is that the Middle East as a region would require far more nuance and historical understanding than we would ever be willing to put into finding a solution. Admitting that we do not hold any sort of moral high ground to be the world's policeman would involve way too much humility, and leaving entirely would be an abject admission of failure. So until WE as citizens come together and say "ENOUGH OF THIS," the United States and her various allies at different times will always be in this conflict.
sevanko's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting perspective. It is a very dense read that is full of facts and opinion. If you are looking a purely factual book without bias this is not it. THOUGH Bacevich's insight and viewpoints are worth listening to and examining. Though it does have bias, if you are engaging and being critical you'll learn a lot about the US's involvement in the Greater Middle East.
dropitlolo's review against another edition
5.0
Comprehensive history of America in the Middle East beginning in about 1980 and running up until 2016.
espressoreader's review against another edition
reflective
tense
3.0
He had many facts, but as a student of history and politics, I’m not certain all of his conclusions were accurate. What we agree upon is that the plans were often poorly implemented and that there were many false victories that have left us bleeding all over the Middle East. He failed to include enough information about the acts in Congress and the advice and stance of various departments in the actions taken, and largely appears to focus on the President as the predoment player in American military action. This is incorrect.
shawnwhy's review against another edition
5.0
a quite thoroughly described history of America's involvement in the middle east, The basic premise is that we wanted to secure a large amount of oil, so that transportation isnt a problem. and made some enemies such as Iran, and iraq, had to finish the job because Saddam tricked us... we tried to stablize the region through western ideals, the social climate didnt take, and through some screw ups, we lost the hearts and minds of the native people. so now the region is de-stablized, worse off than before the dictators were disposed of, and we are haivng trouble pulling out because, the area is a mess. The syrian president is no angel and neither are his enemies.. the portraits of Petreus and Colin Powel are really interesting too.