Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies [Hardcover]

Peter W. Galbraith (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 30, 2008

Called by New York Times columnist David Brooks the "smartest and most devastating" critic of President George W. Bush's Iraq policies, Peter W. Galbraith was the earliest expert to describe Iraq's breakup into religious and ethnic entities, a reality that is now commonly accepted.The Iraq war was intended to make the United States more secure, bring democracy to the Middle East, intimidate Iran and Syria, help win the war on terror, consolidate American world leadership, and entrench the Republican Party for decades. Instead,-Bush handed Iran its greatest strategic triumph in four centuries.-U.S. troops now fight to support an Iraqi government led by religious parties intent on creating an Iranian-style Islamic republic.-As part of the surge, the United States created a Sunni militia led by the same Baathists the United States invaded Iraq to overthrow.-Obsessed with Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration gave Iran and North Korea a free pass to advance their nuclear programs.-Turkey, a key NANATO ally long considered a model pro-Western Muslim democracy, became one of the most anti-American countries in the world.-U.S. prestige around the world reached an all-time low.Iraq: Galbraith challenges the assertion that the surge will lead to victory. By creating a Sunni army, the surge has, in fact, contributed to Iraq's breakup and set the stage for an intensified civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. If the United States wishes to escape the Iraq quagmire, it must face up to the reality that the country has broken up and cannot be put back together.Iran: Having helped Iran's allies take control in Baghdad, the Bush administration no longer has a viable military option to stop Iran's nuclear program. Galbraith discusses how a president more pragmatic than Bush might get Iran to freeze its nuclear program as part of a package deal to upgrade relations between two countries equally threatened by Sunni extremism.Turkey, Syria, and Israel: A war intended to make Israel more secure, undermine Syria's Assad regime, and strengthen ties with Turkey has had the opposite result.Nationalism: In the coming decades, other countries may follow Iraq's example in fragmenting along ethnic and religious lines. Galbraith draws on his considerable experience in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia to predict where this might happen and what the United States might do about it.The United States: George W. Bush substituted wishful thinking for strategy and, as a result, made America weaker. Galbraith provides some rules for a national strategy that will appeal equally to conservatives and liberals-indeed, to anyone who believes the United States needs an effective national security strategy.

--This text refers to the Audio CD edition.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Galbraith (The End of Iraq) surveys the occupation in its fifthyear with a withering eye and strong words for optimists who regard the surge as a road to victory (Less violence is not the same as winning). The author efficiently retraces the strategic failures and what he views as the perilous arrogance of the Bush administration, arguing that the war has achieved the opposite of many of its stated objectives: Israel is not safer and Middle Eastern regimes seem still to be moving in an antidemocratic direction. Galbraith admits that his mind has been changed on one or two tactical points—he previously advocated for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops; now, given the change in circumstances on the ground, Baghdad is one of the last places from which the U.S. should withdraw. The author flexes his intellectual muscle in a provocative discussion of a possible Iraqi three-state-solution, whereby the country would be divided by ethnic group—an extreme measure that he believes might stabilize the region. (Oct.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review

"In this angry and passionate book, Peter Galbraith lays out the disastrous consequence of the Bush years. The next president will inherit the mess; let's hope he absorbs the lessons of Galbraith's work, and acts on them." -- Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 224 pages
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster (September 30, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1416562257
• ISBN-13: 978-1416562252
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,133,745 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars What Happens When A Dumb War is Fought Dumbly, October 18, 2008

By 

Herbert L Calhoun "paulocal" (Falls Church, VA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies (Hardcover)

Peter Galbraith, a State Department professional and insider (who just coincidentally happens to also be the son of the famous Harvard economist), claims in this critique of the Iraq war that "Bush's folly," is the classic case of what can go wrong when a nation embarks on an ill-conceived "one-part plan" whose execution requires "several other missing parts."

The book makes clear that it is one thing to sketch out on the war room drawing board an idealized scenario of a war that theoretically has winnable objectives, and quite another to proceed to the battlefield before "filling in" the minimum required implementing details. Usually even if the stated reasons for going to war, appear to be sound on the surface, as was the case in Iraq II -- that is to say, to strengthen democracy in a troubled region, to rid Iraq of WMD, to change the regime of a brutal dictator, to serve as a warning and to undermine emerging nuclear states and undemocratic despots in the region, to support our only democratic ally in the region, to wrest control of the oil pipelines from anti-U.S. and anti-Western forces, and to enhance U.S. military presence and influence in the region -- having only idealized goals without clearly thinking through the implementing details is what might best be described as "how to fight a dumb war, dumbly."

Galbraith's main point here in this cleanly written "no-holds barred" critique is that "fighting a dumb war" only can have the worse of unintended consequences, and did exactly that in Iraq II. He gives a laundry list of the unintended consequences of the Bush Folly into Iraq.

The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld War fought dumbly resulted in the following unintended consequences:

--It handed Iran its greatest strategic triumph in four centuries by facilitating the construction of a Persian run Shiite Super-state in a country that for the past four centuries had been dominated by the Ottoman installed Sunni Muslims. U.S. troops now fight to support an Iraqi government led by religious parties intent on creating an Iranian-style Islamic Republic.

--As part of the surge, the United States created a Sunni militia led by the same Baathists the U.S. invaded Iraq to overthrow. Their return would cancel out the only collateral objective accomplished, regime change and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

--It caused Iraq to be divided, de facto, into three informal partitions: with the Iran backed Shiite majority controlling most of the country, but also with the much feared Baathist Sunnis controlling the Center of the oil wealth, and the Kurds maintaining a semi-autonomous region in the North (just as Democratic Senator from Delaware Biden had predicted would happen);

-- It greatly weaken the U.S. military, draining the U.S. of valuable resources needed at home, including its treasure of men and women, which so far as resulted in the deaths of 4, 000 plus U.S. soldiers and 30,000 plus injured, as well as nearly a million Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed and injured. The U.S. voluntary army is stretched so thin that the U.S. cannot meet its normally stated military commitments, and our enemies are well aware of this weakness.

--It resulted in the discovery (and to great embarrassment to the USG) that the UN inspectors had been right all along: there were no WMD;

--It enhanced al Qaeda's recruitment and helped spread terrorism from Iraq to Afghanistan, as well as to many other regions of the world.

--It has not resulted in a democratic Iraq, or a more stable Middle East, but rather a corrupt and dependent run Iraq, one ripe for either a return Baathist take over, or for sustain and long-term Iranian control, neither of which is in U.S. long-term interest.

--It enabled the spread of WMD to rogue states via Pakistan, and the DPRK, to Iran, Libya, and Syria. The Bush administration gave Iran and North Korea a free pass to advance their nuclear programs, and both did so.

--It changed Turkey, a key NATO ally, long considered a model pro-Western Muslim democracy, into one of the most anti-American countries in the world.

--It undermined, rather than enhanced U.S. influence and prestige around the world, to the point that today it has reached an all-time low.


Clear, concise, to the point, without rancor or ideological undercurrents: Easily five stars

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars What a Mess!, January 1, 2009

By 

Loyd E. Eskildson "Pragmatist" (Phoenix, AZ.) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies (Hardcover)

The war to eliminate the threat of Iraq's nonexistent WMD ended up with Iran and North Korea much closer to deployable nuclear weapons, given Iran a role in Iraq it has not had in four centuries, helped the terrorists, made Turkey among the most anti-American countries in the world (from 60% favorable opinion in 2000 to 7% in 2007), and cost the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008.

Further, the surge was fortuitously timed - Al Qaeda had overplayed its hand by assassinating local Sunni chieftains and forcing marriages between their daughters and Al Qaeda fighters. The chieftains went to General Petreaus for help and received funding for their militia and subsidies for their leaders. This also limited Al Qaeda's ability to foment sectarian violence. The Mahdi army stood down during the surge (the U.S. would be leaving soon anyway); there is every reason to suppose that once the U.S. forces leave the Shiites will resume their terror campaign to drive all Sunnis from Baghdad, as well as their internal civil war. Meanwhile, the Kurds' status vs. Iraq has not been settled (they do have their own army and police), the Baathists have not been reintegrated, and the Iraqi army is still segregated by sect and strongly biased against adding Sunnis. Bush's "solution" is to push the problem into 2009 and blame the next president.

The Iraq War is already lost. Actually, it was lost at the beginning - after six weeks of unchecked looting left facilities unable to support resumption of services, and installing an incompetent U.S. government (Bremer et al) instead of Iraqis. During this time period Bush totally abdicated his responsibility as "the Decider."

The U.S. is now hamstrung vs. Iran because we need its cooperation in Iraq, and our international credibility was blown in the Iraq pre-war hysteria. Making matters worse, the U.S. is supporting the shah's son and an Iranian terrorist group in its efforts to achieve regime change. Iran, together with Iraq, could also wreak havoc on the world's oil economy.

Public diplomacy (Voice of America, international tours and exchanges) is a waste - the world understands too well our actions vs. Iraq and Israel. The less said about our freedom agenda the better - Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the 2000 elections, etc. speak louder.

Galbraith also points out that the U.S. dismissed Iran's 2003 willingness to give up nuclear enrichment and help in Iraq - if we assisted it in efforts against its internal MEK terrorist problem.

Galbraith's words have added credibility from his involvement in the area.

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Can we learn a lesson?, November 7, 2008

By 

barbara kafka - See all my reviews

This review is from: Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies (Hardcover)

I hope that the newly elected President has read and will re-read this book that ought to have been a primer for the last President. It teaches us not only about the war in Iraq and its bad pursuit. More importantly, it can teach us how to think about foreign policy and how to avoid mistakes like the hideous ones we made. Perhaps, it can even help to guide the path to more intelligent and useful planning and action. The author shares a great deal. It is up to us to profit from it.