Take a photo of a barcode or cover
10 reviews for:
Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East
Philip H. Gordon
3.71 AVERAGE
10 reviews for:
Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East
Philip H. Gordon
3.71 AVERAGE
Whew. This was a rough one to finish. Honestly, this entire book could have been a short (<1,000 words) essay with one key takeaway: Regime change in the Middle East not only doesn't work, it generally makes things worse, no matter how well-intentioned the interveners are.
I appreciate the author's deep knowledge and experience, and if I had no prior knowledge about any of these interventions, I probably would've gotten a lot out of this. As it was, listening to the audiobook unfailingly put me to sleep. Sorry, narrator-with-the-great-voice, but you're a great cure for insomnia.
I appreciate the author's deep knowledge and experience, and if I had no prior knowledge about any of these interventions, I probably would've gotten a lot out of this. As it was, listening to the audiobook unfailingly put me to sleep. Sorry, narrator-with-the-great-voice, but you're a great cure for insomnia.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
slow-paced
This book could've been an op-ed, and in fact I've read more than one op-ed in my life thats made these arguments more succinctly. 276 pages and I didn't learn a single new thing
What was the premise of this book? The author makes lot of criticisms without solutions or analysis of how a situation should have been handled. The author's criticisms aren't unfounded, but this book would have been more improved if he would have clarified the principles that could have been drawn from each situation. The conclusion briefly hints at some principles, but these weren't clear at all in the main part of the book.
Insofar as this books acts as a history of US intervention in the Middle East during the Bush and Obama years, it largely succeeds. But Gordon unnecessarily formats the books as an argument against regime change that is superfluous and unnecessary. Basically throwing his hands up in the air and admitting that all options are bad and perhaps we should do nothing, which he also admits is probably a poor choice, he embraces "containment" as the proscribed best alternative. But he never fully develops what containment means in his context. How does one contain Syria, which is allied with Iran and Russia? He also criticizes non-engagement, but what does a policy of government to government engagement attached to vigorous containment look like? One can only guess as he spends the entirety of his book explaining how everyone else is wrong without providing a roadmap or set of principles to fully develop his containment alternative. That is not to say he is necessarily wrong- he may be entirely correct. But this was his opportunity to provide a critical alternative approach and he failed to do so even though the fundamental purpose of the book is to persuade the reader that containment is preferable to the various forms of regime change oriented intervention during the Bush and Obama years.
Before reading this, I was worried it would be the “enlightened centrist” take on US interventionism. My fears were absolutely correct. “The case against regime change in the Middle East in this book is a practical, not a moral, one.” The author very clearly supports the lie of American Exceptionalism and cares more about utility than morality. He worked in the Obama Whitehouse so no shock there.
This book is a mildly more conservative successor to “Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq” (2006) by Stephen Kinzer. But it has a much narrower focus (just Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, & Syria). Of course we haven’t learned our lesson since 2006 so the latter 3 nations are a new edition not covered by “Overthrow”. For those interested in learning more about Iraq specifically, the podcast “Blowback” goes into much greater detail and I would strongly recomend it.
The author is a pragmatist and steeps the reader into the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” quandaries that presidents faced when deciding if overthrowing the ruler of a sovereign nation would be tactically wise. The history of the last 70 years is clear: don’t do it. The author has no moral code guiding him, merely a metaphorical spreadsheet and cost-benefit analysis. It’s pure coincidence that he and I agree on this specific subject. He is not opposed to US interventionism, military or otherwise. He’s just against regime change, specifically. This made the book extremely frustrating to read.
I would only recommend this book to those who’ve already read “Overthrow” and want to learn more about 3 recently added victims of US Imperialism, or if you’re a liberal/reactionary who thinks interventionism is effective and want to learn why you’re wrong but aren’t willing to entertain the possibility that US imperialism is fundamentally unethical.
This book is a mildly more conservative successor to “Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq” (2006) by Stephen Kinzer. But it has a much narrower focus (just Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, & Syria). Of course we haven’t learned our lesson since 2006 so the latter 3 nations are a new edition not covered by “Overthrow”. For those interested in learning more about Iraq specifically, the podcast “Blowback” goes into much greater detail and I would strongly recomend it.
The author is a pragmatist and steeps the reader into the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” quandaries that presidents faced when deciding if overthrowing the ruler of a sovereign nation would be tactically wise. The history of the last 70 years is clear: don’t do it. The author has no moral code guiding him, merely a metaphorical spreadsheet and cost-benefit analysis. It’s pure coincidence that he and I agree on this specific subject. He is not opposed to US interventionism, military or otherwise. He’s just against regime change, specifically. This made the book extremely frustrating to read.
I would only recommend this book to those who’ve already read “Overthrow” and want to learn more about 3 recently added victims of US Imperialism, or if you’re a liberal/reactionary who thinks interventionism is effective and want to learn why you’re wrong but aren’t willing to entertain the possibility that US imperialism is fundamentally unethical.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced