Customer Reviews

Allies: The U.S., Britain, and Europe in the Aftermath of the Iraq War (Publicaffairs Reports)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I bought the book in order to read 'the other view' because I was very much opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It's not often that 'the other view' can change my mind on an issue of which I am very certain but this book managed to make me rethink quite a few of my objections to the war in Iraq. I particularly enjoyed the author's dissection of the motives and machinations of France and Germany, especially in light of their having been the beneficiaries of the Marshall Plan - and its resultant prosperity.

They came across as very selfish, self-serving ingrates - a point of view I hadn't considered before reading the book. As well, the clearly anti-American stance of both countries and their obstructionist politics are revealed in all their damaging and self-serving glory, along with the author's analysis why, no matter the reasons, it is fatal to the world community future.

The book is easily readable and short but contains a balanced perspective on the mistakes the US has made along the way coupled with the long history of Iraq's brutal dictatorship. The book makes the case that, in spite of the lack of found WMD, the war in Iraq was not only necessary but humane. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the author's view - though I am neither a Republican nor any fan of the Bush administration.

I gave the book 5 stars because of its readability, balanced view and the author's list of consulted resources and in spite of the many typos the book contains. Was the editor sleeping on the job or was this a 'rush to print'?

At any rate, I highly recommend this book for two reasons:
1. Read by the people who already agree with the invasion of Iraq, it will give them cogent material to support their view and,
2. Read by the people who disagree with the invasion of Iraq, it'll give a more balanced perspective and just might change a mind or two.

Finally, the book makes clear a fundamental truth that no matter what the reasons for the invasion, it is clearly the moral and ethical responsibility for the world community to support successful reconstruction of Iraq and ensure a free future for all of its citizens.

William Shawcross is a man of the left who made his reputation with the book Sideshow, which was about Kissinger, Nixon and their campaign in Cambodia. Unlike many on the left, in this slim, provocative volume he supports the Anglo-american alliance in Iraq and the Bush-Blair campaign to oust Saddam Hussein and attempt build a more liberal Arab society in Iraq. Shawcross was appalled by the death of his friend Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN diplomat who was killed by the truck bombing of the UN compound in Iraq. He sees Islamic terrorists as the forces of darkness who are opposed to the civil society and feels that leftists who express sympathy with them are terribly misguided. Shawcross is very critical of French policy, which he feels has not been driven by idealism but by cynicsm, craven self-interest and myopic anti-Americanism.

First of all, the cover of this book as well as its title are both misleading. This book isn't just about relations between Tony Blair and George Bush per se. It is broader than that, encompassing relations amongst the big 4 allies, actually: Germany, France, Britain & the USA---pretty much ignoring Italy, Turkey, and other NATO allies. A more accurate title of this book would have been entitled something like: "The Collapse of Consensus: Euro-American Relations & the War in Iraq." There's nothing new in this book, however, but it does provide a rather concise summary of how heretofore Allied consensus ran aground over the shoals of whether to employ force against Saddam Hussein or not. Most involved were of the opinion, after all, that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that he was bucking the authority of the United Nations. Some just refused to countenance the use of force to do anything about it. A little history: UN Resolution #678 was adopted in 1990 authorizing all member states "to use all necessary means" to enforce the removal of Saddam's army from Kuwait "and to restore international peace and security in the area." Once such was accomplished, Saddam formally accepted ceasefire terms---codified under UN Resolution #687 in 1991---that he unconditionally give up all his chemical & biological weapons capability/stocks/development. Quoting Mr. Shawcross: "In March 2003, not one of the fifteen members [of the UN Security Council] doubted that Iraq was still in breach of all the relevant, binding Council resolutions since 678." (Incidentially, the word "binding" herein refers to the fact that Security Council resolutions are enforceable, unlike General Assembly resolutions---against Israel, for instance---which are purely political & NOT binding. So the double standard some see herein is but a canard.) Back to the above, it is not just the author's opinion that everyone was in agreement. You have only to consult the unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 (November 9, 2002) which threatened "serious consequences" for Iraq if it did not utilize this one last chance. France & Germany both voted for this resolution & 4 months later both continued to caution against calling "time's up" for Iraq to fully comply. French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin argued that "Everyone is faced with the choice of disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully or by force." To which, said Jack Straw, his British counterpart: "Dominique, that's a false choice. The choice, Dominique, is not ours as to how this disarmament takes place. The choice is Saddam Hussein's." A little more time, and a little more time, and a little more time, of course, accounted for the fact that Saddam had strung out the UN over this for over a decade up to this point. Listen to this view: "If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." So said Bill Clinton in 1998. Unfortunately it took September 11th to bring this issue to a head---and not because Saddam hard a hand therein, but because such made it then too dangerous a gamble anymore to let Saddam's unrenounced desire to use and/or develope---or transfer---chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. September 11, you could consequently say, allowed the neoconservative view of pre-emption to gain traction; being expressed by the likes of Tony Blair, Jack Straw, & George Bush, as well by leaders in Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Holland, et al. Others, of course, preferrred the status quo, believing that September 10th thinking was still supportable in a post 9/11 world. Thanks for reading my review. Cheers!

Like a previous reviewer, I read this book to learn about the reasoning behind going to war in Iraq. Although I am still opposed to the war, I understand the opposing viewpoint much better because of this book. Shawcross brings up numerous important points such as:

1) Iraq's repeated violations of UN resolutions for over a decade with respect to weapons development
2) Saddam Hussein's continued brutal oppression of the Kurds and Shiite majority
3) The considerable evidence that Hussein tried desperately to obtain the materials to manufacture WMD
4) And perhaps the most important point being that the opposition to the war from France and Germany appear to be driven by economic and political goals rather than an objective assessment of the need to go to war

Shawcross does a good job in making the case for war. However, a few issues he minimizes include:

1) Faulty and fabricated intelligence
2) The unproven link between Iraq and al-Qaeda
3) The accusation that many officials in the Bush administration including the president himself seemed to have wanted this war from the very beginning and used the war on terror as an excuse

Everyone has an opinion on the war in Iraq, and as one who opposes it, I still gained a much greater understanding of the opposing viewpoint from this book.

This illuminating book is not a narrative of the Iraq war but a series of observations on how the international community confronted evil after 9/11 and an analysis of history since the end of the second world war. Shawcross explores the stresses and strains upon international co-operation and diplomacy since that atrocity and the much more dangerous world it ushered in, revealing inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the foreign policies of certain nations. He also asks how the international community can best deal with criminal states, tyrants and terrorists.

Chapter One looks at the global nature of the threat, the proliferation of dangerous weapons, failed states and the Arab World. That is a backward region without good governance, political rights, civil liberties or a free media. This section discusses Iraq under Saddam in brief, including the 1991 war, UNSCOM, the IAEA, Iraqi deception and propaganda, the later inspection regime UNMOVIC and Oil-for-Food. Sanctions were eroded and many countries co-operated with Saddam who rewarded the families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories with $25 000 for the murder of Israelis.

Chapter Two discusses President Bush and PM Blair, their religious views and their shared concepts of right and wrong. He considers Bush as being closer to Reagan than the first President Bush. Here Shawcross also explains NeoConservatism, its prominent personalities, viewpoints and media like Commentary, The Wall Street Journal opinion page and Weekly Standard. He dissects the Euro intelligentsia and their immature anti-Americanism and hysterical Bush Derangement Syndrome. Also see Anti-Americanism by Jean-Francois Revel in this regard. The concept of pre-emption is also considered in this chapter.

Europe has proved itself incapable of standing alone against totalitarianism in the 20th century, as discussed in Chapter Three which looks at the world since WW2, the formation of the EU and the role of France in particular. UN failures in Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in 1995 led to genocide. The USA was forced to intervene in Kosovo in 1999 and after 9/11, in Afghanistan. The EU has a collectivist outlook and its political elites have always aspired to make it a counterbalance to the USA. Shawcross points out Jacques Chirac's friendship and collaboration with Saddam and the role of Gerhard Schroeder in Germany. Both leaders fostered a climate of anti-Americanism. Good riddance to them.

The next chapter charts the collapse of consensus in the build-up to the war in 2002, with discussion of UN Resolution 1441, the attitude of European elites (The "cicadas" as Oriana Fallaci called them), Old versus New Europe and the principled stand of some liberal intellectuals like Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik. Shawcross gives credit to Tony Blair for articulating the necessity for Saddam's removal very well.

In the next chapter he shows how wrong the mass media were, especially in their doom-laded predictions of millions of refugees. The extent of Saddam's horrors was revealed but there were problems in the occupation and reconstruction efforts. Shawcross discusses the juvenile ranting of the anti-American literati and reveals the real attitude of the French Fop Dominique de Villepin who has now mercifully faded from the scene. Notable exceptions amongst the French intelligentsia include Bernard Kouchner, Andre Glucksmann and Bernard Henri Levy. Reconstruction in Iraq has proceeded with little help from Europe.

Chapter Six deals with the successes and failures after liberation, the proliferation of Islamic terrorism and the sinister nature of the hatred for America. He concludes that the liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do and that American sacrifice is essential to the world. Since publication, the situation in Europe has markedly improved with the election of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicholas Sarkozy in France. The book includes a bibliography and notes arranged by chapter, and concludes with an index. Allies is a concise and illuminating study of recent history that puts the dangerous world of the 21st century in clear perspective.

A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq by Christopher Hitchens

A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq edited by Thomas Cushman

World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism by Norman Podhoretz

This informative book is not a narrative of the Iraq war but a series of observations on how the international community confronted evil after 9/11 and an analysis of history since the end of the second world war. Shawcross explores the stresses and strains upon international co-operation and diplomacy since that atrocity and the much more dangerous world it ushered in, revealing inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the foreign policies of certain nations. He also asks how the international community can best deal with criminal states, tyrants and terrorists.

Chapter One looks at the global nature of the threat, the proliferation of dangerous weapons, failed states and the Arab World. That is a backward region without good governance, political rights, civil liberties or a free media. This section discusses Iraq under Saddam in brief, including the 1991 war, UNSCOM, the IAEA, Iraqi deception and propaganda, the later inspection regime UNMOVIC and Oil-for-Food. Sanctions were eroded and many countries co-operated with Saddam who rewarded the families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories with $25 000 for the murder of Israelis.

Chapter Two discusses President Bush and PM Blair, their religious views and their shared concepts of right and wrong. He considers Bush as being closer to Reagan than the first President Bush. Here Shawcross also explains NeoConservatism, its prominent personalities, viewpoints and media like Commentary, the The Wall Street Journal opinion page and Weekly Standard. He dissects the Euro intelligentsia and their immature anti-Americanism and hysterical Bush Derangement Syndrome. Also see Anti-Americanism by Jean-Francois Revel in this regard. The concept of pre-emption is also considered in this chapter.

Europe has proved itself incapable of standing alone against totalitarianism in the 20th century, as discussed in Chapter Three which looks at the world since WW2, the formation of the EU and the role of France in particular. UN failures in Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in 1995 led to genocide. The USA was forced to intervene in Kosovo in 1999 and after 9/11, in Afghanistan. The EU has a collectivist outlook and its political elites have always aspired to make it a counterbalance to the USA. Shawcross points out Jacques Chirac's friendship and collaboration with Saddam and the role of Gerhard Schroeder in Germany. Both leaders fostered a climate of anti-Americanism. Good riddance to them.

The next chapter charts the collapse of consensus in the build-up to the war in 2002, with discussion of UN Resolution 1441, the attitude of European elites (The "cicadas" as Oriana Fallaci called them), Old versus New Europe and the principled stand of some liberal intellectuals like Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik. Shawcross gives credit to Tony Blair for articulating the necessity for Saddam's removal very well.

In the next chapter he shows how wrong the mass media were, especially in their doom-laded predictions of millions of refugees. The extent of Saddam's horrors was revealed but there were problems in the occupation and reconstruction efforts. Shawcross discusses the juvenile ranting of the anti-American literati and reveals the real attitude of the French Fop Dominique de Villepin who has now mercifully faded from the scene. Notable exceptions amongst the French intelligentsia include Bernard Kouchner, Andre Glucksmann and Bernard Henri Levy. Reconstruction in Iraq has proceeded with little help from Europe.

Chapter Six deals with the successes and failures after liberation, the proliferation of Islamic terrorism and the sinister nature of the hatred for America. He concludes that the liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do and that American sacrifice is essential to the world. Since publication, the situation in Europe has markedly improved with the election of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicholas Sarkozy in France. The book includes a bibliography and notes arranged by chapter, and concludes with an index. Allies is a concise and illuminating study of recent history that puts the dangerous world of the 21st century in clear perspective.

Deliver Us from Evil by William Shawcross

Hating America: A History by Barry Rubin

A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq by Christopher Hitchens

A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq edited by Thomas Cushman

World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism by Norman Podhoretz

William Shawcross attempts to explain the American-European relationship after 9/11 and leading up to the Iraq war. He claims in his introduction that "the book isn't a narrative of the war in Iraq but a glance at one of the ways in which the international community, following 9/11, confronted evil." The book is indeed not a narrative of the war itself, but rather a narrative about how the war started.

The first chapter is essentially an overview of Iraq since the early 80's up until before the war. This chapter is poor at best. Many of the important details from this time period aren't even mentioned. There's no discussion of the U.S. coup attempt in the mid-90s, no discussion of how the U.S. was manipulating the weapons inspections process. The real reasons surrounding Desert Fox in 1998 are not discussed either. Shawcross lazily attributes it to Hussein's defiance, which is only half of the story. What happened in Iraq during the 90s was not merely the result of Hussein's actions. What the U.S. did mattered. It had an enormous effect, but Shawcross doesn't even begin to address it. He also appears to believe that the U.S. had no responsibility for the detrimental effects of the sanctions during the 90s. He attributes anyone's belief that the U.S. might bear some responsibility in this area to "Iraqi propaganda."

The next chapter attempts to compare and contrast Bush and Blair as leaders and why they would come together on the Iraq issue even though their partnership seems counterintuitive. In this chapter Shawcross continues his poor handling of Iraq events from the 90s as he attributes the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia to Bin Laden even though Iran and Hezbollah are known to be responsible for the attacks.

The rest of the book deals with the nature of the U.S.-European alliance and how it was strained as the U.S. prepared for war. He goes into great detial when explaining France and Germany's opposition to the war. Based on the rationale that Shawcross gives, it becomes easier to understand why there was so much opposition to the war. These chapters seem to give a fair treatment to the subject and Shawcross makes some, but not enough, progress in redeeming his poor coverage of Iraq.

Shawcross was a supporter of the war and believed that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. However, his understanding of the events inside Iraq are not correct or complete. It is possible to fully understand what happened in and to Iraq during the past 20 years and also support the idea of removing Hussein, but Shawcross is building his thoughts on a shaky foundation. He makes a strong moral argument in his conclusion, but when compared to his interpretaion of the sanctions and whether or not the U.S. was even partly to blame for their negative effects, really hurts his ability to make moral judgements. His coverage of the controversy leading up to the war seems complete when compared to other authors, but based on his first chapter, everything else becomes suspect.

This book makes an excellent argument for the war in Iraq, citing the numerous breaches of UN resolutions and international law and treaties. The insight into Bush and Blair's relationship is very insightful as well. Shawcross makes an argument that they find their common ground due to their religious convictions, something I'm not sure I entirely agree with, but I haven't really ever thought of that aspect of the alliance. Whether or not you agree with the politics of the book, it's still an entertaining read. I'd recommend it to any student of the political sciences, or just anyone interested in current affairs, as long as they keep in mind that it is not a completely unbiased biography, although it is fair.

Once upon a time, during the US war in Vietnam, Shawcross scooped the world media by reporting on the bombing of
Cambodia under the secret orders of President Richard Nixon.

Naturally, Nixon was furious. Until then, no one knew about the bombing except the Cambodian people, the Pathet Lao, the
Viet Cong and most everyone else in the region. Shawcross told the American people. The truth infuriated Nixon.

Well, he's done it again. Conservatives will hate this book, because Shawcross deftly points out the long litany of US stupidity
that put Saddam Hussein in power, armed him and built up his regime. Maybe they can impeach him. Liberals will hate this
book, because he uses devastating details to justify the military destruction of the Hussein regime. Maybe they can impeach
him. Intelligent readers will love his writing.

Similar to his stories about the secret bombing Cambodia, Shawcross has a fondness for facts. It makes for grim reading, then
and now. But, life is never perfect. We can't get perfect omelettes every meal; sometimes we have to settle for scrambled
eggs. The underlying theme is basic, simple and utterly relevant to this year's US elections, "The responsibility on America and
its allies is immense. The only certainty is that they must succeed. The alternatives are too terrible to contemplate."

In simplest terms, Shawcross amply demonstrates how all Iraqis lived in terror from the threat that weapons of mass
destruction might be used against any region courageous enough to rebel. Hussein had a choice; to comply fully with UN
inspection demands and reveal himself as a bully without weapons, or stall the UN and hope it would go away and the Iraqis
would be left living in fear of his savagery.

One of his most troubling assertion is that "US President George W. Bush polarizes. Richard Nixon did the same through his
career, as did Margaret Thatcher. It is a matter of style and substance. The Bush presidency has created almost
unprecedented tensions between Europe and the United States." True enough. Only a fool would argue otherwise. It's a sound
argument for not re-electing Bush -- provided a "really nice guy" with a "great big smile" can be found to faithfully implement
Bush's policies.

His most troubling example is a quote from a February 1998 speech by President Clinton who asserted, "If we fail to respond
today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they
can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a
weapons of mass destruction program."

Clinton couldn't act. The sheer hatred of him by Republicans in Congress, and many of those now in the Bush administration,
focussed on a little Jewish girl with kneepads rather than an Iraqi dictator with ambitions to terrorize the MidEast. The past is
done. The issue now is whether the current hatred of Bush will derail what Clinton could have done in 1998, or whether
greater wisdom will prevail.

Shawcross states, "I repeat, America and the West have made serious mistakes in Iraq." He's neither apologist nor opponent;
he remains optimistic, "I believe the bottom line is this: For all its faults, Americqan commitment and American sacrifice are
essential to the world. As in the twentieth century, so in the twenty-first, only America has both the power and the optimism to
defend the international community against what really are the forces of darkness."

American voters will decide in November, just as Iraqi voters will soon get their opportunity to decide their future in free and
open elections.

as an American living in Europe this book provides a condensed summary of the politics and events surrounding the Iraqi war. I recommend it as a balanced exposition that puts the decisions into historical context.