Bush at War

The President and his advisers knew so little about the society and people/tribal relationships in Afghanistan. The Taliban was not "connected at the hip" with al Qaida as the Bush people assumed and insisted. Afghanistan's status as a sovereign state could have been respected. The Taliban had no pre-knowledge about the 9/11 attack on America. The Taliban could have been bought off much more cheaply than what we spent to buy off other factions within Afghanistan and surrounding states. Partnership with the Taliban to punish UBL and al Qaida inside Afghanistan was never contemplated. Details of this have been reported by western and Afghan writers residing inside the country at the time. The book also avoids detailing the many clues re. commercial airplane usage for committing terrorist acts -- clues that should have been noted during the months and days leading up to 9/11. Such lack of oversight and Bush's disastrous decisions and policies after the fact are both sad and maddening.

This book showed how brilliantly the CIA and the Special Forces, with the support of targeted bombing, managed to subdue and remove, to a large degree, the Al Quida from Afghanistan, and deplete the Taliban effort. The book shows that with seemingly minimal effort that an effective strategy was put into effect.

Bob Woodward could have just as easily ghost-written President Bush's memoirs of the 100 days post-Sept. 11.There are almost no critical questions asked in this book, no opposing viewpoints presented and very little context provided. These aren't bad qualities in somebody's memoirs--afterall, you want their perspective--but its a dangerous quality in something that purports to be a history of a key moment in the Bush Administration.At a few particularly disturbing points, Woodward verges on patriotic machismo: "There was a television antenna on top of a small hill in Kabul that had been a favorite target of the Soviets though they had never succeeded in hitting it. The Northern Alliance had also tried and failed. An American jet streaked in and, with one bomb, the antenna was gone. Word spread through the capital: The Americans are going to win, this is over." (p. 312). Wait a minute, am I reading Tom Clancy or an investigative reporter?Interesting book, but read between the lines & be sure to check out some of Noam Chomsky's or RAWA's writings on Sept. 11th, Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance for a point of view that actually questions the motives and actions of the United States.

This is the first of Bob Woodward's trilogy examining George W Bush and Co. at war and deals with the 100 days following 9/11.There is no doubt that the world's problems are complex. Possibly one of the main difficulties that stands in the way of our ability to resolve these problems is that many people, particularly many of those in power, do not see these problems as complex at all, but as black and white, right or wrong - as being simple to judge when viewed in the light of their own unshakable convictions. And that is perhaps the biggest problem: the certainties of powerful men; their inability to consider that there is another point of view; their inability to make major changes in belief - such certainties may one day finish our civilization.This is a very interesting account of dramatic times from a fine writer. It deals with the thought processes of a largely unelected group in the American executive to go to war. It is never dull and must leave all readers with a sinking feeling that the ship of state of the world's only superpower is in poor hands. I am surprised and impressed by the detail the book provides, and by how this could happen so close to the event.What I find most amazing is how much access in terms of interviews and actual visual sight of records, notes, diaries that Woodward was given by the chief players in the administration. Everybody except Cheney seems to have been interviewed in depth. President Bush was interviewed twice, on the record, for a total of about 4 hours, answering or responding to some 400 questions and comments from Woodward. Why would he, Bush, do this? Presumably because he wanted his version of events to be out there and presumably because he judged that his own words and explanations would paint him as a "fine leader and statesman". Instead of as a buffoon. Woodward is entirely non-judgmental. He makes very few comments at all. It is exaggerating only a little to say that this book reads like the official minutes of events as taken by a White House official.The squirmometre (the "squirm-in-embarrassment-and-total-disbelief" one) is activated more than once. For instance, we have things like : Woodward asks Bush did he ever feel it prudent to explain to Condeleza Rice or the other war cabinet members that he (Bush), when making some fairly extreme comments, was sometimes only testing his team's attitudes, or being provocative? And Bush answers - quote -"Of course not. I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things"""I'm the commander - see"" !! Unlikely to fall from the lips of Churchill or FDR.Or how about, again said by Bush to Woodward in a one-on-one interview, when there was no immediate audience bar Woodward to impress - the leader of the Free World says, in relation to Afghanistan and the general war on terror;"I will seize the opportunity to achieve big goals. There is nothing bigger than to achieve world peace".To borrow Del Boy's phrase - "What a plonker!"Highly recommended.

spot on and quick delivery