Customer Reviews

The Right War?: The Conservative Debate on Iraq

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

 

 

For quite a while there, it seemed was an apparent brick wall of unity in favor of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq among conservatives in America. It just wasn't conceivable that there were actually serious dissenting voices about the war on the right.

This was not a truly accurate picture as Gary Rosen so ably demonstrates in this collection of essays. This collection provides a wide diversity of conservative opinion regarding both the decision to go to war as well as the conduct of the war.

What becomes clear in very short order is that there were in fact serious people on the conservative side who had a wide array of objections to these wars, particularly the War in Iraq.

This book is bound to get a much more pervasive look now that time has passed and the monolithic support for the war amongst the general public has faded. One suspects that many of the authors of these pieces will, over time, begin to get much more exposure in the main stream media as the war drags on and more and more people begin to understand the validity and prescience of these pieces.

There are problems with the book. Rosen limits himself to pieces from a fairly circumscribed time period (2004 and 2005). Some of these are what one can only regard as watered down given their authors-the piece by Buchanan is a good example.

The main lesson of the book is to illustrate that serious voices on the right that should have been heard were not-to the eventual detriment of the country. Perhaps had some of these opinions been seriously considered earlier, we would have proceeded more carefully and successfully in iraq and Afghanistan.

An amazing diversity of views here, especially for anyone who thinks all conservatives are gung-ho Bushies. Who knew that so many right-wingers were critics of the war or at least of how it's been run?

As an ardent Commentary reader, I was anticipating the release of this edited collection. It was supposed to include many articles and essays on the debate in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is really an anthology that includes no new pieces, and rehashed old arguments from last year. One of the difficult problems in creating a book on public affairs is how quickly ideas enter and exit the mainstream. Unfortunately this book contained ideas that have already been relegated to the intellectual dustbin.

The quality of writers cannot be second-guessed, but the breadth of topics and subjects that their essays cover leaves something to be desired. There is very little diversity among the writers, and although there are prominent conservatives that question the war in the book, the essays presented are not the strongest to make this point. For instance, there are many more eloquent and well argued pieces than Patrick Buchanon's. In fact, he probably does not belong anywhere near this book. The other writers are intellects, policy wonks, and academics, but somehow Mr. Rosen uses Mr. Buchanon's essay as an example of conservatives against the war.

In all honesty, a google search on conservative views of the war will probably return the essays in the book if you search for more than an hour. Mr. Rosen's introductory essay puts some perspective on the purpose of his book, but there needs to be at least another essay or two to discuss the essays as a whole and compare them to each other.

I consider myself a moderate in many ways, and regardless of that I really enjoyed this book. Edited texts like these are often times the best kinds of books to buy because you'll have so many different viewpoints and sources represented. Even though I take serious issue with a lot of what was presented here, I still consider this book highly valuable for anyone concerned about Iraq.

The book's strongest point is that the entire gamut of conservative thought is presented. Realists, neocons, isolationists, and everything in between is in this book. However, some of the articles are far too short. I think the book would be stronger is longer pieces from some of the authors were included.

Concerning some of the individual pieces, the articles by Norman Podhoretz are worth mentioning. To begin, Podhoretz is one the most arrogant and conceited authors in this text. America can and has done no wrong in his eyes. Although he represents the views of many conservatives, I think he comes across as being blinded by ideology. Add to that the fact that his contributions make up 70 pages of a 243 page book and you'll have a whole lot of largely useless demagoguery. Other authors that fall into this arrogant "we can do no wrong" category would include Victor Davis Hanson, William Kristol, and Reuel Marc Gerecht.

The highlight of the book for me was being able to read the opposing views of Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer. In these two articles you will find the most helpful and important debate about not just Iraq, but post 9/11 American foreign policy in general. I'm very excited about reading more of Fukuyama's books; Krauthammer comes across as very smart (but also kind of a jerk, which is consistent with how he handles himself of television), but to my knowledge Krauthammer has no other books.

There have been a lot of books published about Iraq in the past few years and I have read quite a few of them. With that in mind, this book is definitely top five.

I am a liberal democrat, but I was pleasantly surprised by this anthology. In a time when the White House still believes that dissent against Bush's Iraq policy equals bad person, these conservatives openly have the gall to band together and publish this anthology.

Hats off to them for demonstrating what backbone really means!

I was particularly struck by Henry Kissinger's inclusion in the anthology. Having advised Nixon during the Vietnam war, Kissinger is apt to see many specific parallels between that past incident and today's fiasco. It's really telling that the Bush administration cannot be bothered to listen to an internationally renowned Republican PhD.

Listen, these conservatives, specifically Victor Hansen Davis, are nothing more than barbarians with large vocubaluraies. Not only did they never bother to learn or at minimum listen to opposing views on going to war, they systematically attempted to silence and shame those who urged restraint. Victor Hansen Davis to me represents the cravenous face of neo-conservative intelectual war-pigism. These neo-con war-pigs believe in war, believe in killing, believe in staying forever so as to never admit defeat, or even look at other non-war options. This special sort of "war first, foremost and always" approach has led to what we see in Iraq today.

Read the words written by the architects of Iraq war II (and their cheer-leaders such as V.H.D.). They are GUILTY, they wanted war and wanted you to want war. These neo-con war-pigs profitted from their propoganda, some of you bought the tripe. These same pigs have not been asked to sacrifice a thing, war still on the cheap. These same war-pigs are still prospering TODAY. Americans still listen to them and pay them to be cheer-leaders and advocates for permant and expansive war. I recommend Kristol's "The War Over Iraq" from 2003, these books are documents of the insane and detached reality of ideologues who live in intelegensia, have no soul or human contact with real war, just ideas of Empirial Domination. And some Americans listen and still agree with the neo-con utopianists.

To never leave is to never admit defeat, right Republicans?