Customer Reviews

Secret History of the Iraq War

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

If you've read Yossef Bodansky before than you probably know what to expect. Mr. Bodansky wrote about Islamists training to use hijacked airliners in suicide operations against American and Western targets in 1992 when barely anyone was talking about Islamist terrorism in general, much less specifically forecasting "spectacular" attacks using the techniques the world witnessed on Sept. 11th. Mr. Bodansky is easy to ignore because the subject material is so difficult to understand. This book, like his previous ones, is not a primer on the subject of the Middle East and Islamist terror--what is is deeply incisive, unique in its analysis and conclusions, and, thanks to the author's wide range of sources (often unnamed by necessity) it produces a number of genuine "exclusives" that you won't read anywhere else. As one reviewer critiqued, major claims, though sourced, are not necessarily footnoted. If this is an excuse to ignore his work, go ahead, but do so at your own peril--not enough people took note, after all, from Bodansky's 1993 clarion call about suicide plane hijackings or the burgeoning Islamist terror threat to the West. As opinionated as the tome may be, it is also strikingly apolitical--it bears out key rationales of the Bush Adm. for going to war, but aggressively shreds high-level decision-making by Washington and the intelligence community, at the same time.

Did you know that US Marines turned up unnaturally high levels of cyanide and mustard agent in the Euphrates? Have you read Russian military intelligence (GRU) analysis of the American experience in Iraq? Do you know what captured Arab Liberation Front (ALF) operatives revealed to Israeli interrogators about Iraqi-al Qaida cooperation, subsequently confirmed by Turkish and British intelligence?

Read the book.

This book is a must read for anyone that is trying to comprehend the complex dynamic of Middle Eastern affairs. Mr. Bodansky writes as someone with an intimate knowledge of the Middle East, terrorism and the political games played by participants around the world.

If you are not one for detailed analysis, then don't read this book. If you are someone who wants to get the big picture PLUS countless pieces of specific information, then this is the book for you.

In order to begin to understand the complexity of the current situation (including US involvement) in the Middle East, all you have to do is read the first few pages of Chapter 1 - dealing with the assassination of Abu Nidal. An event that appeared so straightforward is - in fact - much more complex than you would expect!

A great, captivating, and detailed analysis.

Bodansky did it again. And since he foresaw the rise o bin Laden and the attacks on America so accurately in the past, his revelations of the US intelligence failures before and during the Iraqi war and his conclusions should signal a wake- up call to us all. He closes not only the wide gap left by the 9/11 Commission's report regarding the Saddam- al Qaeda's connection, but also helps us understand why and how the US ended unnecessarily in a weaker position after the war in Iraq.

In The Secret History of the Iraq War, Bodansky lays out in a meticulously researched and frightening page-turner, the details of the US intelligence failure in providing accurate information and analysis to the White House, the US defense forces and Congress. Every American should read this convincing book to fully understand the danger the US is facing today because of the failure of our intelligence services. Their dreadful performance put not only Americans in danger but also the people of the Middle East and beyond. His clear message, similar to the 9/11 Committee's conclusion is that unless we manage to revamp our intelligence services the US' future is rather bleak. The Secret History of the Iraqi War is a must read for anyone concern with US national security.

Rachel Ehrennfeld, author of Funding Evil, How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. Bonus Books, 2003.

At 570 pages, The Secret History of the Iraq War weighs in as one of the larger works published to date on this subject. Yossef Bodansky apparently finished writing in the first half of 2004, so this book is able to offer commentary on the year of fighting that had passed since President Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1, 2003.

To his credit, Bodansky has provided a generous index (very helpful when dealing with places and people that are largely unfamiliar to most Americans), and has consulted a huge number of sources. Unfortunately, he fails to provide footnotes, and (even though many of his quotes are from the press and other publicly available sources) explains his failure as necessary to protect the lives of his (anonymous) sources. This makes it very difficult assess the validity of some of Bodansky's more controversial claims -- such as that the Iraqis sent a huge convoy of weapons and personnel to Syria during the course of the main fighting in 2003.

The "Race to Baghdad" chapters provide a detailed, and gripping account of the invasion from Kuwait, and show that this campaign was much harder fought (and its outcome much less certain) than is generally believed. On the other hand, a major source of Bodansky's more pessimistic pronouncements on this phase of the war appear to be based on Russian GRU (Russian military intelligence organization, which maintains a public web site) reports, which generally cast the performance of the American forces in the worst possible light, while praising the Iraqis.

Much has gone wrong since May 1, 2003, and in Bodansky's view, the Americans are incapable of doing almost anything right, the CIA continues to provide inadequate intelligence. According to Bodansky, American successes come mostly from following Israeli intelligence, weapons, and tactics. If Bodansky is right, it's small wonder that the Islamic world considers the Americans and the Israelis to be its enemies.

I find convincing Bodansky's assertions of Syrian/Iranian complicity in attempting to make the American occupation of Iraq as difficult as possible. It's hardly surprising that these two countries, which feel surrounded by American forces, would engage in what can be regarded as defensive strategies to decrease the chances of success by their enemies. It seems likely that much of the Islamic world sees Iraq as an opportunity to inflict the sort of humbling defeat on the Americans in Iraq that was inflicted on the Russians in Afghanistan 20 years ago.

There is a wealth of information in The Secret History of the Iraq War, but without footnotes, it's difficult to separate fact from fiction. I suspect this book includes large amounts of both -- and the reader will need to weigh Bodansky's claims carefully against what is known from other sources, such as Anthony Cordesman's Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons.

I would say that this is a good book. It has a lot of fascinating information that I wish our nation's leaders would make our citizens fully aware of. Most specifically, the role of Iran and Syria in all of this. I would recommend this book, but I must take some exceptions to the book:

1) Bodansky thinks that the US has done a horrible job in Iraq, and will continue to. He even thinks that a Russian-supported coup would have been better, which I strongly disagree with.

Look, the US has made mistakes in the war, no doubt about it. But the author consistently blasts the US throughout the book. The war and reconstruction weren't executed perfectly, yes, I agree - but I think he went over the top. Sir, you don't have to say it every four pages - we get the point.

The author is quite pessimistic in another way. Not only has the US made "colossal" blunders and made a mess of things, he says, but also that almost the whole country hates us. If I was blinded to the outside world, I would think that most of Iraq's 25 million inhabitants were either terrorists or terrorist-supporters. Yet Iraqi polls and soldiers home from the war tell a story that is completely opposite.

The author was very pessimistic about whether the transfer of sovreignity would take place before July 1. It did, and it even went better than I expected. And no terrorist attacks when power was transferred.

Overall, I just think that the author is too overly pessimistic. If things are really as bad as he says, then I could accept that. But they're not. I mean, think about it - we're bringing democracy to a nation in the Middle East. I'm not sure democracy will take root in Iraq. The American Experiment is a smashing success. Yeah, Iraq is in downtown of the Islamic world. But they are also humans. More than 200 years ago, democracy itself was a radical idea. Perhaps it still is.

One last thing. This book is VERY long. I had to really push myself to finish the last 200 pages. And I've literally fallen asleep dozens of times trying to read it. The book is both fascinating and boring.

I recommend this book, but be aware the author doesn't stick solely with the facts, he mixes in his opinion. This book is great from a factual perspective. But you really need to commit yourself to read it through.

I spent 2004 in Iraq as an Army Intelligence Officer and much of Mr. Bodansky's theories about the war ring true. I saw nothing that directly contradicted them. Much of this book is like a lot of intelligence in the Middle East - not quite proveable, but every indication points that way. My sense when I read this book is that Mr. Bodansky is either a good guesser or he has a lot of connections in the Mossad who provided him information but declined to go on record. He does not prove his assertions, but they are logical and the evidence since has not contradicted them. Only Sadam and his close inner-circle could prove them.

The thesis of the book is that Sadam planned to regain his manhood and leadership role within the Arab world by leading a united front against Israel. To do so, he would have to mend fences with Syria -- something which the author claims he was close to accomplishing. The author claims that Sadam met with Assad on the border and basically they agreed to a plan to work together against Israel. Israeli and American agents discovered his plans -- then America and Britain stepped in to prevent Israel from nuking or bombing Baghdad.

This thesis begs the question: was the loss of American life worth the cost to protect Israel? Or, by protecting Israel, were we protecting The West and the rest of the world?

I don't know. I can say that some aspects of the invasion were botched and poorly planned. And that had we planned the aftermath or reconstruction better, the loss of life would have been much less.

I picked up Yossef Bodansky's "The Secret History of the Iraq War" to get a better feel for what happened than I'd been able to get from CNN and the newspaper headlines. He does do an excellent job of discussing the regional issues: Kurds and Turks, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. He discusses the complications with Israel - used as a focus of hatred by the fanatics and the sometimes contradictory actions of the U.S. toward Israel, acting on the one hand to do everything possible to forestall SCUD attacks and on the other restraining Israeli actions. He explains the view of the U.S. as the successors to the Mongol-Tarter invaders who occupied Baghdad in 1258.

Bodansky paints a bleak picture of the U.S. effort and lays the blame with the American intelligence community: "The war in Iraq is thus a story of interaction between a convinced, strong-willed administration and an emaciated, ignorant, but still arrogant intelligence community . . ." I have trouble accepting his arguments when he makes sweeping statements without giving supporting evidence. For example: "Before the ware, Washington was convinced that the Shiites would be largely grateful . . ." without any notes or attribution. He explains that he can't include notes for fear of endangering sources and then proceeds to make all knowing pronouncements.

I was surprised to find not a single map in the book, the detailed descriptions of regional issues would have benefited from including maps. Acronyms are rarely spelled out in the text nor in the index. Bodansky does include a detailed listing of periodical sources.

"Secret History" did show me how to view the conflict in broader terms than a Bush - Saddam confrontation but I will keep looking for a more robust treatment of the issues.

The more about Iraq that I read, the more I have to admit that I simply don't have any idea about what's really going on over there. In fact, in this book I find some major contradictions. On the one hand he discusses the American involvement as being fundamentally flawed by a failure to understand the overall situation. But he also says that America had a viable, urgent, imperative to go to war with Iraq when it did. He states that the Iraqi populace is willingly embracing traditionalist radical Islam as the sole power capable of shielding them against American encroachment. Yet, the divisions of Kurd, Shiite and Sunni seem so large as to prevent any legitimate use of the term "the Iraqi populace."

The author's bringing to the fore a litany of facts, most of which I've confirmed from various web sites, that are indeed "secrets" so far at our television media seem to cover the story, are worth the price of the book by themselves. But I would have liked to have seen a little more supporting evidence on these points.

It's certainly clear that winning the peace after the war is proving more difficult than planned. (Or was it planned at all?) But it isn't clear just why. In talking to some recent Iraqi visitors to this country, they are asking only why it took the US so long to come in and wipe out Saddam. They say that the troubles are only being caused by a handful of fringe groups who are afraid of losing power themselves.

This is a book you can't afford to miss, yet don't make this the only book you read.

For those whose sole source for news and analysis is from the media -- don?t read this book -- as it extensively relies on human intelligence, private sources, and many years of proven experience in reliably predicting events of existential import for the U.S. and its allies.
Bodansky?s prescience accurately forecast the Bin Laden attack on the U.S. two years prior to September 11 and even then we found some rather dense people scoffing at the absurd thought of a Bin Laden attack on the U.S.

Bodansky?s information is for the most part confirmed by the July 7, report of the Senate?s Select Committee on Intelligence or not addressed at all due to admitted inadequate intelligence. This highlights, by the current and past U.S. administrations, the salient question of unsatisfactory attention to details, perhaps subordinated to perceived political necessities.
Bodansky elucidates the specter of an imperial Iran engaged in combat with the U.S. for control of the Levant and ultimately the energy producing Gulf countries. He clarifies the trap that the U.S. has entered and the predictable coalescing of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq into a Shiite force reminiscent of ancient Persia.
Reacting to Bodansky, the ultimate word smith, is not to emulate an ostrich but to understand the jeopardy facing the U.S. and act, not politically nor subject to election campaign pressure, but with pragmatic solutions that offer hope to this catastrophe in which we are engaged.

Im a little concerned about the review by the "Defense Editor" in Germany. Having only the basic tool of the internet I was able to find that his primary reason for dis-counting the quality of the factual evidence in this book was wrong. He claimed that US and other experts have found no evidence of WMDs, program or otherwise. This is a false claim. David Kay (a former UN weapons inspector) said that he found evidence of a strong dual use chemical program less than a year ago. US troops were attacked earlier this summer (May) with a sarin (nerve agent) shell and one month before that a shell containing mustard gas (a blister agent) was discovered. In June, Polish troops recovered multiple chemical weapons containing cyclo-sarin (a more modern and deadly version of sarin nerve agent) in Iraq. You dont need secret sources to know that Iraq had WMDs at the time of the invasion or that these weapons still pose a threat to US and coalition forces. MR. Charles Thibo "The Cat" can browse the anti-war US media for the facts about WMDs if he likes. That is where I found all the cases I stated above. These cases are also why I am inclined to believe the assertions in this book.