Scan barcode
theangrylawngnome's review
2.0
There were several very good things about this book. First, Carr gives a very concise, readable history of terror through the ages, the growth and ultimate descent into incompetence of the US intelligence establishment (the story of James Forrestal was a new one on me) and I could note no overt bias in terms of one political party or theory over any other...though I'm not so sure about Carr and American "Exceptionalism." Sometimes it seems like he believed it, other times not.
Now the bad thing: I submit that this work is not an attempt to impartially lay out all the historical facts, fall how they may, and then draw conclusions. I believe Carr started from the thesis that terrorism never worked in the long run and never will work as a tool of policy against civilians, and then ignored anything that didn't fit the thesis. Like the reigns of Stalin and Mao, both of whom slaughtered millions and died in bed. Or Pol Pot. Who was not overthrown due to any or all of his acts of terror (20% of the population was eliminated, supposedly), but was forcibly removed via invasion from Vietnam.
And quite frankly this procrustean approach to history left a sour taste in my mouth. This is polemic, this is revisionism. What it ain't is objective history.
Since the book is ten years old I don't fault him for his praise of Rumsfeld, but I'm not sure how a military doctrine like "shock and awe" is not going to (a) kill a lot of civilians and (b) leave a gigantic mess in its wake. However, Rumsfeld had received some positive press about bringing the armed forces into the "21st century," and anyone making noises about changing things at the Pentagon deserved at least a chance.
Now the bad thing: I submit that this work is not an attempt to impartially lay out all the historical facts, fall how they may, and then draw conclusions. I believe Carr started from the thesis that terrorism never worked in the long run and never will work as a tool of policy against civilians, and then ignored anything that didn't fit the thesis. Like the reigns of Stalin and Mao, both of whom slaughtered millions and died in bed. Or Pol Pot. Who was not overthrown due to any or all of his acts of terror (20% of the population was eliminated, supposedly), but was forcibly removed via invasion from Vietnam.
And quite frankly this procrustean approach to history left a sour taste in my mouth. This is polemic, this is revisionism. What it ain't is objective history.
Since the book is ten years old I don't fault him for his praise of Rumsfeld, but I'm not sure how a military doctrine like "shock and awe" is not going to (a) kill a lot of civilians and (b) leave a gigantic mess in its wake. However, Rumsfeld had received some positive press about bringing the armed forces into the "21st century," and anyone making noises about changing things at the Pentagon deserved at least a chance.
More...