Customer Reviews

Bush At War

5 star:		(62)
4 star:		(64)
3 star:		(44)
2 star:		(27)
1 star:		(30)

 

 

I picked up Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" when I was looking for an objective telling of how Bush got into and approached the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are too many partisan accounts that say Bush is all right or all wrong and I was looking for less politics and more information. This book provides that in great and sometimes tedious detail.

This book is focused on the period from just before 9-11-01 to prior to the Bush administration's going to war in Iraq, but after the Congress gave the Bush administration the authority to unilaterally do what it felt was required there. The book ends with Bush awaiting UN enforcement of the many Iraq-related resolutions. This is 90% focused on Afghanistan, NOT IRAQ.

Richard Clarke's highly critical book on Bush and his alleged lack of attention to terrorism prior to 9/11 came out while I was reading this book Surprisingly enough, Clarke is not mentioned at all in the Bush at War book in spite of his being the head of the Counter-Terrorism office in the White House.

The first quarter of "Bush at War" did a nice job of taking me back to the emotional shock of the Trade Tower attacks and the virtually universal feeling in America of patriotism and joining together. The remainder of the story describes in repetitive detail the frequent meetings among the White House principals, (with and without Bush) regarding what kind of response was appropriate, what was achievable and when could it be done. Logistically they found it difficult to reopen old intelligence contacts in Afghanistan and get men and material over there. I was surprised out how difficult the logistics are in fighting a war all the way around the world. Woodward does not clear up the question of whether Bush was on point regarding terrorism prior to 9/11 but makes it clear that it was taken very seriously after, to the point where the subject honed Bush's vision of what he wants to accomplish with his Presidency.

Some key points from the book.

*Iraq is discussed in the White House early on after 9/11 but is not the main topic, Al-Quada is and the Taliban's support of them. The Taliban is not even the prime initial target for retaliation; in fact they are offered an out by turning over Bin Laden and the rest of the leadership.

*This book does not make it clear that an Iraq invasion was on the Bush agenda upon inauguration. However, Rumsfeld suggests possibly attacking Iraq or somewhere in the Far East to demonstrate the far reach of the US military and to scare the terrorists, especially when it becomes clear that the military had no initial plan or assets to exploit in Afghanistan. No one else went for that idea.

*Bush comes off as decisive, inclusive and even open-minded during the discussion phases. He is heavily involved in the "you are for us, or you are against us" position on terrorism that came out early after 9/11. He is involved in tactical discussions and keeps the team focused and confident.

*Cheney and Rumsfeld are the uber-hawks, pushing the ultimately prevailing position that the possibility of a devastating second terrorist attack against the US, either domestically or internationally, required the adoption of the declared preemption policy. They are the prime proponents behind the decision to eventually invade Iraq.

* Powell was not as much a part of the real inner circle as Cheney and Rumsfeld were (and are still). Powell is more independent and less trusted.

This is more similar to an in-depth newspaper piece than a novel in terms of readability. Woodward could have described the discussions leading to policy formulation and then used hindsight to report where they were right or wrong. I would have liked more conclusions rather than just fact reporting. Another difficulty was keeping track of the passage of time. A timeline running along the top of the pages would have been helpful in this type of account. As it was I frequently had to flip around to reconfirm where I was in the calendar of events.

Bottom line, "Bush at War" is a well researched book with good sources clearly evident, that is not pushing a political agenda. He needs to do another one focused on Bush in Iraq.

Bob Woodward, who was a major player in breaking the Nixon Watergate scandal and also wrote the book-made-into-movie, "All the Presidents Men," writes his account of President George W. Bush's presidency during the first 100 days after the attacks on the two World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. Conscientiously fair, Woodward has put together a quite comprehensive behind-the-scenes documentary-style book that reveals a full-disclosure look at the Bush war cabinet, their meetings and interactions with one another, interviews with the President and much more.

Of interest to those who seek authenticity, this book will make you feel like a fly on the wall. According to Woodward, Bush at War includes: "contemporaneous notes taken during more than 50 National Security Council and other meeting where the most important decisions were discussed and made." Additionally, Woodward states that he "interviewed more than 100 people involved in the decision making and execution of the war [in Afghanistan], including President Bush" (4 hours of interviews), "key war cabinet members, the White House staff, and officials serving at various levels of the Defense and State Departments and the CIA." Needless to say, a great deal of investigative effort was put into this book, which can be said of all Mr. Woodward's books.

I read Bush at War about a year-and-a-half ago, and after much time and reflection, I am amazed at the amount of access to the Administration that Woodward was given. I found this to be rather astonishing, as it was almost certainly an unprecedented move by a world leader in terms of permitting the scope and freedom that Woodward enjoyed. At the time this book was originally published, Bush at War contained a good deal of secret information from the war effort in Afghanistan. No doubt the reason for such trust in Woodward comes from his reputation for fair and impartial reporting, his unmatched investigative skills, and his astute journalistic credentials.

But enough about Woodward.

From the beginning, we are familiarized with the key players involved in post-9/11 war planning subsequent to the terrorist attacks. Woodward begins the story of that sunny Tuesday on 9/11 by going through the events of that morning through then CIA director George Tenet's perspective, leading to the urgently ominous, "Mr. Director, there's a serious problem." From there, the previously untold story of how Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Tenet dealt with the worst attack on America unfolds before your very eyes.

As I've alluded in my opening statements, this book reads like a documentary to me. I can visualize much of the book as if I were reading a transcript from a hypothetical movie that could've been named "100 Days After." But one of the most interesting and even intriguing things about this book is not just the details of the book itself, but the perspective with which people have read it and reviewed it. There is such a contrast in what people have gotten from it, and the opinions that have been formed after reading it. It is a perfect example for me that the term "what you find depends mostly on what you look for" has a resounding ring of truth; especially when the subject matter involves political figures. But it's really a testament to Bob Woodward in this instance, because it shows to me just how impartial the book really is. Most, if not all the information that those who've read the book were looking for is provided; and most importantly, we are judiciously left to make our own informed decisions and judgments on how we feel about what took place in the Bush White House subsequent to the 9/11 attacks.

For instance, there are conversations about Iraq that provide some insight into the President's feelings on the subject. These quotes are surprisingly candid and really provide more answers on his reasoning for deciding to liberate (or "liberate" for those who prefer the insinuation) Iraq. You will read just what Bush's vision for the world is, in his own words. What's priceless about it is that they're direct quotes that haven't been filtered by spinsters or the PC police. It's raw George W. Bush like you've never witnessed before; and that means that you will love him or hate him even more than you already do. For those that hate him, you will find more reasons to hate him. For those that love him, you will find more reasons to love him. It has plenty of "red meat" for everybody, regardless of political persuasion; and that's a good thing in my view. There's nothing worse than reporting that biased and intended to shape your opinions to the political right or left; because that's not really reporting, that's called propaganda. Bush at War is the real deal, un-salted and raw. It's up to you to spice it, cook it, chew it, digest it, and decide if it sits well with you or not.

For added entertainment, here are just a few notable quotes that stood out for me:

Bush on Iraq:

"Action was not for strategic purposes or defensive purposes, [Bush] said. ` You see...Condi didn't want me to talk about it (Iraq). We'll see whether this bears out, [but] clearly there will be a strategic implication to a regime change in Iraq, if we go forward. But there's something beneath that, as far as I'm concerned, and that is, there is immense suffering.' "

"As we think through Iraq, we may or may not attack. I have no idea yet. But it will be for the objective of making the world more peaceful."

Bush on North Korea's leader:

"...`I loathe Kim Jong Il!' Bush shouted, waving his finger in the air. `I've got a visceral reaction to this guy, because he is starving his people...' "

Bush on unilateralism: "I mean, you know, if you want to hear resentment, just listen to the word unilateralism. I mean, that's resentment. If somebody wants to try and to say something ugly about us, `Bush is a unilateralist, America is unilateral.' You know, which I find amusing. But I'm also-I've been to meetings where there a kind of `we must not act until we're all in agreement.' " He continues, "...well, we're never going to get people all in agreement about force and the use of force. But action--confident action that will yield positive results provides kind of a slipstream into which reluctant nations and leaders can get behind..."

Woodward on Cheney and Powell:

"Cheney and Powell went at each other in a blistering argument. It was Powell's internationalism versus Cheney's unilateralism."

Condi on Nukes:

"I've been in this business for a long time and people always underestimate the time, they rarely overestimate the time [it will take a country to become capable of building nuclear weapons]. If we're wrong and we had four or five or six years before he posed a nuclear threat, then we just went in early. If anyone willing to wait is wrong, then we wake up in two or three years, and Saddam has a nuclear weapon and is brandishing it in the most volatile region in the world. So which of these chances do you want to take? The lesson of September 11: Take care of threats early."

Bush on his role:

"I'm the commander--see, I don't need to explain--I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

Love him, hate him, voted for him, voted for Gore, didn't vote in 2000, none of that matters one spec. The fact of the matter is, this candid look at our President shows that he might have acted with more bravado and character than most of us-not all of us, but certainly most of us. I suggest reading this one. It's a good and honest perspective-from a liberal-that's semi-flattering to the compassionate conservative.

Who can chronicle a major event in world history better than Bob Woodward? Once again, Woodward is at the center of the storm, sharing minute details of the early stages of President Bush's War on Terror.

I was very pleased with Woodward's objective approach. He didn't take a knee-jerk liberal or conservative bent--he just told the story. Obviously, his view of Rumsfeld may be a bit skewed because of limited access and yet pays him the respect he is due.

I particularly enjoy Woodward's deep bios of the main characters. I learned information about each member of the cabinet and I feel better informed for having read the book.

The biggest surprise of this book: the role of Condi Rice. Bob made it obviously clear how large a role she plays in this administration. I left feeling that she could one day run the country and had a keen sense of responsibility, leadership, and faith.

The only flaw is the subtle insistence that Bush is in over his heels. I think every writer is tempted to buy into the conservatives-must-be-dumb theory. For the most part, he gives Bush enormous credit and lets the American people understand that he is a man on a mission.

This is an extremely enlightning book and gives a real insider's account. Buy it and put it on your nightstand.

This is a facinating look at how the President, his staff, and the CIA handled the response to the 9/11 tragedy. Hopefully, people will not politicize this, and will read the book and judge the current administration's response in an fair and unbiased way.
Personally, it gives me a great deal more confidence in the president; particularly in the way he handled the different opinions among his staff. He did not go off half-cocked in any direction, and he used his people to the utmost benefit to the country. At the same time, he was decisive and action oriented
in getting the job done quickly and right. Our enemies were made to pay for what they did. He did not "pound sand", as he puts it, by fruitlessly wasting our resources on meaningless use of war resources.
The cost of the war in Afganistan was amazingly small for everyone except the Taliban and al Qaida. All Americans should sleep a little better after reading this.

A detailed account of the decision making process that went into the preparation and ultimate victory of the war in Afghanistan. The book's primary focus revolves around the war planning and execution meetings for the invasion and overthrow of the Taliban.
Woodward provides a thorough, reputable, account that which largely focuses on Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet (CIA), Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

I don't recommend that political ideologues (right-wing conservatives or left-wing liberals) read this as it is too objective and does not pander to either ideology. Woodward has no axe to grind. As a political moderate, I felt the book revealed that Bush was more in tune to the decision making process than most press accounts give him credit for. It also shows a President who operates an efficient, executive style White House.

However, it also discloses his vulnerabilities. Most significant is his lack of ability to second guess himself-what he calls making all his decisions "without regrets" and based on his "gut". His lack of deep reflection, simplistic world view, and bouts of unsubstantiated confidence will trouble many.

The clandestine detail Woodward provides is impressive and the most revealed thus far. He details CIA involvement with the Northern Alliance and the "boots on the ground" efforts to wage a propaganda war using secret ops, food, and suitcases of money.

Woodward appears to have had much more traditional access to the Bush White House and as a result it hasn't rattled White House insiders like many of his other books (The Choice, The Agenda, All the President's Men).

While more extensive accounts will be written as history shakes out, this is a great initial work into the decision making process. It gives the reader insight into the personalities and styles of Bush and his "principals". I came away enlightened by the knowledge Woodward provided on the inner workings of the Bush White House.

Woodward is an international media legend. The cause of his world renown was, of course, unearthing the Watergate scandal, leading to the eventual resignation of a president. Because of his long tenure at the Washington Post and reputation as a `pure' reporter, we expect great things from this man; at least reporting the facts in a bipartisan fashion. In Bush at War, he focuses on the Bush administrations response to 9/11 in the form of the invasion of Afghanistan, as many have deemed the "forgotten war". Woodward reveals an administration, at times, hysterically grasping at a way to attain some kind of retribution for 9/11. A war cabinet at odds with each other, all seeming to have their own agendas, and in the end, after Afghanistan was supposedly won; only a few al Qaeda terrorists were captured, (16 of the top 22 leaders were still at large, and the arch enemy, bin Laden, well hidden and laughing at us from his secret hideaway) though the oppressive Taliban was disbanded, ironically and sadly, Afghanistan still remains a potential haven for al Qaeda terrorists.

One should not include this text as just another `Bush bashing' exercise, because the president is depicted as a passionate and determined leader, albeit inexperienced, hell-bent on bringing those responsible for 9'11 to justice. Woodward skilfully puts the reader in the shoes of the president, and we feel his anger, frustration and one-eyed goal for retribution. The president's cabinet, however, are depicted as mostly floundering during the crises, fighting with one another, vying for power, in the pursuit of their own particular goals. The vice president is a crafty fellow, a smiling political assassin, so to speak, while Rumsfield is depicted as your basic playground bully. There is a scene in the book where Rumsfield pokes his finger with force into Woodward's chest during an interview, pushing the reporter off balance - this action speaks worlds. As an administrator, Rumsfield is meticulous, arrogant and definitely not a team player, (my way or no way) and, to my mind, holds the majority of responsibility for the current mess in Afghanistan and the present "quagmire" situation we now have in Iraq. Technically, the buck stops with the president, though Rumsfield has a lot to answer for...

Although not emphatically stated, Bush at War begs the question: did Afghanistan accomplish anything in terms of combating terrorism? Is the world a safer place as a result of many lives lost and literarily millions of dollars spent on bribing the Afghani Northern Alliance? Well, the answer is in the results - and they speak for themselves.

Woodward's book is by no means a revelation about this administration. One has only to look out the window, turn on the television or open a newspaper, to see where this administration is leading us. However I recommend this text as a close as possible `true' historical record of the Afghanistan `incursion', and how the military machine operates in war conditions.

Love him or hate him, George Bush is running a unique White House. His team stays unnervingly tightly on message, fights their battles mostly in private (one gets the sneaking suspicion that public Powell- Rumsfeld disagreements are really Bush trial balloons), is far less susceptible to leaks, and effectively changes decision in the face of adversity.

If you don't like Bush, this book will appear to be glossing over his lack of intellectual curiosity, the macho bravado of his decision-making process, and the extent to which he is a creature of the political interests that backed him in his run for office. I short, if you're a liberal and not of the "inside baseball" political junkie type, your money is best spent elsewhere as this book will just disgust you.

If you do like Bush, you will see here our "Top Gun" president (though I thought the aircraft carrier photo op was more of a "Luke Skywalker at the end of the first Star Wars" production) making decisive decisions, backing his people fully, and creating day-by-day the conditions necessary for victory.

If you're a political professional, student of politics, or lover of a good group dynamics exegesis, you will greatly enjoy this work for its exploration of all the inside dirt, machinations, and organizational behavior quirks of the world's most powerful office politics.

Obviously there are limits to what even the most diligent of journalists can re-create. And this particular perception of events is surely wrong in its particulars in many places. But as a whole, it hangs together very well, and it seems to comport with the dozens of other stories about the functionings, foibles, and folks at the White House.

There is not much in this book for the anti-Bush crowd to like. Woodward, who can hardly be called a Republican stooge, does not portray a goose-stepping Bush taking orders from a shadowy secret cabal of oil industry plutocrats while blowing his nose alternately into the Bill of Rights, the French flag, and the UN Charter.

Woodward gets inside and gets the story. He shows Condoleeza Rice again and again playing intramural referee. He not only gets the basic Rumsfeld - Powell tensions, but also shows how each man, by virtue of his background, predilections, and character, *must* be who they are.

No, this is not grand biography on the sacle of a Chernow or a Caro, and the writing is easy, brisk, and clear. Given the subject matter, time to produce, salience, and access, though, Woodward has scored a real hit.

Woodward quite reasonably focuses on six principals: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet & Rice. This is a simplification and we are certainly missing the slightly broader backstory in which the two dozen closest aides to those six jockey, wiggle, horsetrade and backstab as they provide, deny and spin information to their superiors. But it is a necessary and reasonable simplification that shows us the broader truths. And Woodward provides enough glimpses of these backstage battles to feel real.

Other excellently handled vignettes include the lonely CIA operative in Afghanistan and the essential diplomacy pursued with Pakistan in the weeks after 9/11.

Again, this book is for the political junkie or the partisan Republican only, our friends on the other side of the aisle would be best off saving their money for something less vexing.
Anybody who has experience with small group dynamics will be fascinated by this account at that level alone. I'm certain that Woodward's skill could make a Nebraska state party convention seem just as riveting. The stakes involved amplify the importance, interest and our enjoyment, of the story.

Once again Bob Woodward has written an unbiased book which tells you what really happened. And you learn some fascinating details such as "The realities at the beginning of the 21st century were two: the possibility of another massive, surprise terrorist attack similar to September 11, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - biological, chemical or nuclear. Should the two converge in the hands of terrorists or a rogue state, the United States could be attacked and tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. In addition, the president and his team had found that protecting and sealing the U.S. homeland was basically impossible. Even with heightened security and the national terrorist alerts, the country was only marginally safer."

This one quote explains why we went to war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon other countries as well. As I write this, the administration is doing the initial steps in preparing for war with North Korea. (Repositioning our troops, building up alliances, etc.)

I greatly prefer this unbiased book over biased books such as "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush" by David Frum which is an obviously pro-Bush book.

Edit of 22 Dec 07 to add links. We now know that Dick Cheney has hijacked the Presidency and subverted Article 1 of the Constitution for eight years and all the way back to the Ford Administration. The question begs to be asked: why on earth are the Democratic contenders ignoring the need for both Electoral Reform, and impeachment of Dick Cheney?

-----

As America confronts the very real probability that the Administration manipulated and distorted and fabricated intelligence in order to go to war against Iraq, and as calls rise for the impeachment of the President and the Vice President (the one naive, the other conniving), this book takes on added value--Bob Woodward has done a superb job of documenting both the "keystone cops" nature of the Administration's "strategic deliberations", and the very specific manner in which Paul Wolfowitz (too controversial to be Secretary of Defense but a power in his own right) guided the Bush team toward a war on Iraq as a "solution" to problems they could not deal with directly, to wit, the war on terrorism.

There is an Alice in Wonderland quality to this book--or more properly stated, to the conversations that are quoted among the principals. Their wandering short-hand conversations, the degree to which the President is mis-led about our capabilities, the inability of the Secretary of Defense to answer a direct question, always having to go back to his office for an answer--the entire book is, as one reviewer suggests, practically a recount of a handful of recollections about scattered conversations, as if the center of the world were one room in the White House, and nothing outside those walls really mattered. It is also somewhat revisionist--as I recall from published news at the time, all of the principals wanted to delay the taking of Kabul until the spring, and it was President Putin of Russia, speaking directly to President Bush, who made the case, based on his superior intelligence sources on the ground, for how quickly Kabul would fall, leading to the US acceptance of rapid advances by the Afghan warlords. The absence of this essential and openly known fact casts doubt on the entire process of writing the book, and how information was researched and selected for inclusion.

There are, however, some major gems that make a careful reading of this book very worthwhile and I list them for consideration by other readers:

1) The Directorate of Intelligence does not appear as a listed player--CIA special operations rather than CIA analysis appears to have been the DCI's best card to play;

2) The clandestine service, as Dewey Claridge notes in concluding his "Spy for All Seasons," died in the 1990's, with only 12 case officers in one year's class--the book misrepresents the increase from 12 to 120 as stellar--it was actually a return to the norm before a series of mediocre leaders destroyed the Directorate of Operations;

3) The CIA had been "after" bin Laden for five years prior to 9-11, the DCI even "declaring war" on him, to zero effect. Worse, post 9-11 investigations determined that bin Laden had been planning the 9-11 attack for two years without any substantive hint being collected by U.S. intelligence--and at the end of the book, Rumsfeld reflects on how the three major surprises against the U.S. prior to 9-11 not only happened without U.S. intelligence detecting them, but we did not learn of them for five to thirteen years *after the fact* (page 320);

4) Presidential-level communications stink--the Secretary of State could not talk to the President when flying back for seven hours from Latin America, and the National Security Advisor could not get a reliable secure connection to the President from her car right in Washington, D.C.

5) The Secret Service idea of security for Presidential relatives in a time of crisis is to take them to the nearest Federal Center--the kind that got blown up in Oklahoma.

6) Throughout the discussions, it was clear to the principals that the U.S. military is designed to find and destroy fixed physical targets with obvious signatures; it cannot do--it is incompetent at--finding mobile targets, whether vehicles or individuals (cf. page 174)...and of course as General Clark documented in his book, and David Halberstam repeats in his most recent tome, and as the principals learned again vis a vis Afghanistan, the U.S. Army does not do mountains.

There are three remarkable aspects of this story, only one even remotely hinted at in the book: we failed to get bin Laden. The CIA went to Afghanistan with the right orders: "bin Laden dead or alive." They promptly forgot their orders and settled for spending $70M to play soldier. The two stories that are not told in this book, but are clearly apparent: 1) Russia saved the day, both for the CIA and for the Department of Defense; and 2) Saudi Arabia never came up as a serious problem that needed to be dealt with sooner than later.

Finally, and this only became clear to me after the early months of 2003 when the obsession of a few people in the Administration brought the world to a crisis over Iraq, the book provides really excellent documentation of how a tiny minority, led by Paul Wolfowitz, basically pushed the President to treat Iraq as an alternative to substantive action on global terrorists networks, and the book documents how the uniformed leadership of the Pentagon clearly opposed this line of thinking that is unsupported by intelligence, either on Iraq, or on the relative threat of Iraq (not imminent) in relation to many other threats that are both more imminent and more costly if not addressed now.

This is a useful book, worthy of reading, but the real story with all the details will not be known for some time. However, in the aftermath of the failed effort in Iraq, and the clear and compelling evidence that the American people and Congress were deceived about the Iraq threat, this book has an added luster, an added value, and become a "must read."

Other books (see also my lists, one on Evaluating Dick Cheney, the other on The Case for Impeachment).
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders
The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)
Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit
Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart
The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
A Power Governments Cannot Suppress
Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life
Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People