Most Helpful Customer Reviews
45 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
End Game: Diplomatic Engagement, March 31, 1999
By A Customer
I am at pains to try and figure out which Scott Ritter book Mr. Barron actually read: the real one, or the one seen through Mr. Barron's myopic view of the world. Indeed, even a cursory examination reveals that Ritter's proposed solution to the Iraq problem is the exact opposite of what Mr. Barron contends: Ritter advocates -- in light of certain moral, political, and strategic realities -- a route of diplomatic engagement with Saddam Hussein's regime, a stance which once again has made him the target of various segments of the foreign policy elite. As for the book itself, readers will be surprised to learn that this is not a "kiss and tell" book consumed with CIA manipulations, insider accounts of derring-do and so forth. True, a good part of that story is here -- in particular, a well-written account of a dangerous attempt to inspect Iraq's Special Security Organization. More importantly, however, Ritter provides a much needed and incisive chronicle of how Iraq really works, from tribal feuds to nearly unspeakable violence, doing so with a scholar's attention to detail and decisive moments. Agree with his conclusions or not, he paints a sophisticated picture of Iraq and how, perhaps, we might bring the country and its people back into the family of nations. Regional experts, military professionals and even those with a passing interest in today's headlines should read this book (and believe me, you'll wind up saying, "This Marine can really write!"). Scott Ritter has once again done something that is so lacking in today's society: he has told it as he saw it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
34 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
...from one who knows the score, October 1, 2001
It isn't often that we get a "I was there" book which truly focuses on what happened "there" more than on the conflicts between the author and others - if someone thinks that the press gave him or her short shrift during a war or other intense, highly publicized endeavor, a book usually results. But Scott Ritter troubles to walk us through the labyrinthine maze of Iraqi power politics, with special attention to how Saddam Hussein got to be sole ruler of Iraq, and how Saddam managed to stay astride that tiger until he lost his final war in 2003. Most of "Endgame" is an extremely erudite discussion of Saddam Hussein's rise to power up to and during the UNSCOM weapons inspections of which Ritter was a part.
And Ritter succeeds in making his case, that decision makers in Washington and New York (the UN) were simply dropping the ball, failing to act resolutely when it was needed and only applying pressure when it would have a minimal effect on Iraqi leadership.
I'm more than a little puzzled at the sniping at Ritter from other Amazon.com reviewers - certainly if Ritter was pursuing a self-serving agenda while at UNSCOM, the thing for him to do would be to not rock the Clinton administration's boat on Iraqi policy, to play the game along with everyone else in hopes of getting Richard Butler's job down the line. Simply nodding stupidly and not pushing the Iraqis into allowing real inspections would have been easier than what Ritter actually did, as would relying on inadequate intelligence instead of working out deals with the Israelis for better overheads and human source intel (one of the major criticisms leveled at Ritter was that he was too "cozy" with the Israelis and did not clear his contacts with them with Washington - here, the critics conveniently forget that Scott Ritter was NOT an American officer but an employee of the United Nations. Also, the evidence, not just in Ritter's book but in other well-researched accounts of the UNSCOM work, indicates that Ritter acted well within his duties).
Ritter, in my opinion, not only vindicated himself but in his book did so in a way that allows the reader to judge intelligently whether or not to agree with Ritter and leaves the reader much better informed about the entire issue of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction than if the reader relied on reports from television or the popular news magazines.
I have some problems with Ritter's final chapter, specifically with the course of action he recommends that we take to deal with Saddam - but I certainly agree with him that the sanctions do nothing but starve and kill children and cement Saddam's status with his people, and should be stopped as soon as possible.
I recommend Ritter's book as essential to a complete understanding of UNSCOM - together, of course, with other readings such as Andrew and Patrick Cockburn's "From the Ashes," an unsparingly critical but intensively detailed look at Saddam's survival of what should have been an ignimonious and crushing defeat in 1991, and all that has passed since then in that part of the world.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
25 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A guide for the new republican president, August 21, 2000
By A Customer
I have lived in Iraq for ten years (1980-1990). During that period I formed some kind of an idea about Iraq. So, I found Mr. Ritter's account of Iraqi problems very realistic. Finally an American who seems to understand power structures of a non-western country. It seems that American government is still largely guided by the racial hierarchy- thinking, which Michael Hunt argued to be U.S. foreign policy ideology. I.e. there is no point in trying to understand how savage people behave - civilized nations (i.e. anglo-saxons) should guide sub-humans. People in Finland - where I come from - are racially more white than Americans, but for us it is a sign of intellect to understand other cultures. Perhaps our location as Russian neighbours has taught us some realism. That's why it is painful to read, for example, how American mission to Moscow intepreted Russians in the 1930's. The first American ambassador thaught that Litvinov was a bad guy, who should be removed - as if that would change something etc. Endgame is filled with insights of Iraqi reality. Scott Ritter understands clearly how all the major problems in Iraq are not created by Saddam - i.e. border disputes with Iran and Kuwait and the kurdish question. So removing Saddam will not solve much. Saddam is defeated and humiliated many times. So it is not a sign of submission to Baghdad if Americans now take leadership position and try to control Iraq by giving them something. At least for the sake of Iraqi population and American image. I have the feeling that Iraqis have never serously thaught of themselves as a world scale super power. Instead they have been struggling with some kinds of national trauma and pride issues. Saddam got away with nationalizing oil in the early 1970's. So taking Kuwait was seen as third phase of nationalizing "Iraq's" oil. I think Saddam's regime understands now that they were in totally different position when Americans were losing the Vietnam war. Also nationalizing raw materials within a certain country has been "more acceptable" than claiming old territories. Scott Ritter has given very good analysis on the weapons of mass destruction issue. According to Ritter Iraq can not threaten its neighbours with her present army or use chemical weapons or she will face very bad consequences. As long as Iraq is saying that they haven't got any chemical weapons, it is senseless for the iraqis to use them against any minorities in their own country either. Ritter has also very realistic picture as to what Americans can do. Iraqi government is experienced in crushing down revolts. The regime cannot be weakened with inspections or other means to the point that some uprising could succeed. American direct intervention might succeed according to Ritter, but is it a great cause enough to lose American lives? So, if American government is not ready to provide leadership to the rest of the world and knock Iraqi government out, they should pay heed to what Mr. Ritter says. Otherwise the picture of America as a moral and sincere nation will shatter. Some decisions are expected after the presidential elections. A good book for anyone interested in the subject!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
