Customer Reviews

The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II

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

 

 

Political leaders who spin webs of deceit in order to whip up a war fever is not a new phenomena nor is it unique to the United States. Nor is the gullibility of citizens and media anything new. It did not begin with the post World War II era nor did it begin with democracy. Mr. Quigley does a fine job of exposing how the cause celebre for war is seldom the only cause. Mixed motivations and rationalizing reasons are a sickness of the human condition in all of us - politicians as well as other citizens. Had Mr. Quigley began with the ancient wars as his starting point, he might have filled volume upon volume of this pattern of deceit and gullibility.

So there is really nothing new in these pages. Instead, Mr. Quigley gives us some examples of how often we went to war in the second half of the 20th century with questionable motivation. He begins with the Korean war and takes us through the intervention in Liberia to provide examples. Despite the undertones of anti-Americanism that one might sense in his style, the facts themselves should give us pause to reflect. If it makes us less gullible the next time politicians begin to spin their web of war fever, it will be of great value. Sadly, too many will react with the nationalistic knee-jerk that refuses to accept any criticism. It is doubtful, therefore, to have much of an impact except with the handful of true liberterians and left-leaning faithful to the message.

Mr. Quigley is an effective communicator. He does, at times, irritate the patriot in us that wishes not to think ill of their leaders. But once in a while a little iodine on the wound is the only thing that will induce healing. It is preferable to be an open-eyed patriot than a blind nationalist.

I have only read parts of this book; however, it does not surprise me that Professor Quigley is the author.

He is hardly an objective observer/academic when it comes to his feelings about the foreign policies of Western Democracies. Throughout his academic career, he has promoted the hardcore pro-Soviet, pro-Third World viewpoint for every topic he has addressed. He is known as a virulently anti-West, anti-Israel, anti-U.S. Gov't academic. I am not saying that his work is automatically disqualified for this reason; any work deserves an independent assessment. However, the facts he presents and conclusions he draws should be read with a critical eye given his past record.