Customer Reviews

Why Are We at War?

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

In a sharp examination of American mood and motive in the post 9/11 world, Mailer uncovers the alarming drift in the Bush Administration's global response to terrorist dangers. With the failure to either kill or capture bin Ladin, he argues, the White House has expanded the perimeters of its moral imperative without clear or credible reasoning.These are the folks Mailer refers to as "flag conservatives, neoconservatives by another name, for whom the achieving of an intractable agenda by any method of deceit, duplicity or force is acceptable, even at the sacrifice of rights and the destruction of democratic processes.

Mailer sees empire building as the be-all in an undisclosed agenda behind the Iraqi war. The erosion of our cherished democracy and rights is the biggest risk of our current crisis. Mailer writes surely and without a wasted word or metaphor, inspecting the roots of American need to have a Great Struggle of any kind in order to have some measure of surety and direction in an era that's become improbably complex, and punctures the sentimentalized ideas that we can establish democratic institutions in a region and amongst a culture that resists such fantasies. This is the Mailer we expect: provocative, original, morally rigorous.

This slim volume, consisting mainly of some of Mailer's conversations and speeches after 9-11 and prior to the second Gulf War, gives us a disturbing answer to the cover's question that more than rings of truth.

You will have to read the book to understand why Mailer answers as he does. But as you might suspect, Mailer's answer is simply that our war on Iraq is motivated by a desire by many in the Bush administration to extend American influence directly, through military action, all across the globe. In the absence of another super-power to keep us at bay, as the Soviets did through the eighties, many now in power feel that there is no reason that America shouldn't spread its influence across the globe, that in fact it is our right, our duty, our God-given purpose, to do so.

The implication that America is edging closer to empire, similar to Rome, is not unique or necessarily original to Mailer. What Mailer does, however, is shed a great deal of light on why that theory makes sense, and why such a direction for America is a dangerous and potentially fatal path.

This book appeared in print just prior to the actual declaration of war against Iraq, and I doubt that many Americans gave it much credence. In light of the new revelations, being made by our own Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz no less, of what really motivated our war in Iraq, I highly recommend that Americans read this book now and take the time to ask the current question, "Why Were We At War?"

I mean not to trivialize this inciteful book in any way by this title, rather I want to express my surprise and profound admiration for an author far more widely known for his novels than his political commentary for producing a book that has assembled the dispirit facts surrounding America's ridiculous attack on Iraq.

On pages 51,52 and 53 Mailer illuminates clearly the core reason for this attack: he writes that at root, America wants
fundamentaly to turn the clock back-to return America to a morally absolute, Christian society and the current government believes by making America into a new Roman Empire these ideals will come to fruition.

As an old American who spent too long in the beast's belly, I completely agree with Mailer. His eblucidation of America's reasons for its current foreign policy fit perfectly with all I remember from an even more innocent America many years ago-how much more true his insights are now on the footsteps of the new millennium. He writes on page 52, "Once we become a twenty first-century embodiment of the old Roman Empire, moral reform can stride right back into the picture".

There have been mumerous reasons put forward for this terrible Iraqi attack: oil, Israel, vengence, domestic politics but I feel that Mailer's insightful analysis is the best. He readily admits that he believes that the players at the top of Bush's government don't fully realize why they are doing what they're doing-they are unthinkingly pushing a religiously conservative barrel but not fully understanding why.

A hugely thoughtful book-read it and decide for yourself.

Norman Mailer has been a very public intellectual since "The Naked and the Dead", the best novel to come out of WWII, was published when he was twenty-five. He has spent a lifetime on the national stage, so there is some validity to the charge that his ego is immense. He also has a lot to say and what he says is worth listening to. "Why Are We at War?", thinner than most Mailer, shows all the Mailerian verbal pyrotechnics and adds to the debate that still rages a year after the United States invaded Iraq.

Mr. Mailer is, beyond anything, an artist. "The Naked and the Dead" may be a flawed masterpiece, but a masterpiece it is. There have been fictional failures, like "Barbary Shore", and "The Gospel According to the Son", but Mailer's fiction has captured his times and has secured his position in American literature. Mailer is also a gifted essayist and journalist. He is, whether he likes the label or not, one of the original "New Journalists", a writer like Tom Wolfe, Hunter Thompson, John Sack (and an endless parade of vaguely talented imitators) who makes himself a part of the story. "The Executioner's Song", about the first execution in the United States after the Supreme Court resurrected capital punishment in the 1970's after its brief legal demise, and "The Armies of the Night", about the anti-war march on the Pentagon in 1967, are as good as that genre gets. "Why Are We at War?" is only a welterweight contender next to that pair of heavyweight champions but the writing is the same. There are also similarities to Mailer's brilliant and unique novel "Why Are We in Vietnam?".

"Malignant and bristling with dots" is how Mailer once described TV. Mailer has been railing for years about the vapidity and soul-stultifying nature of the tube, how it destroys creativity, limits attention spans and inures viewers to all mannner of violence. But Mailer concedes that TV can't sanitize all violence; some televised violence is transcendent. Like Ruby shooting Oswald. Like a handcuffed Viet Cong being hauled into a Saigon street and shot in the head. And like the second plane hitting the second tower on 9/11. An existential moment-Mailer watching the second strike on TV from his house in Provincetown while speaking on the phone to his daughter in Brooklyn; she was watching the same thing live through a plate-glass window. Mailer maintains that 9/11 provided the Bush people-Cheney, Wolfowitz, the whole recycled lot of them-the jingoistic cover they needed to do what they had wanted since the fall of the Soviet Union, namely expand the American Empire. The main reason the conservatives hated Clinton so much was less about the creative placement of cigars than the notion that he was frustrating their dream, their lust, for world takeover.

No words are minced, no punches pulled in "Why Are We at War?". Former infantryman Mailer takes on "flag conservatives" and "promiscuous patriots", warns that President Bush will need a good "...karmic defense attorney" and wonders if we can export democracy the same way we export Big Macs and Coca Cola. Norman Mailer. The One and Only.

I am not necessarily a fan of Norman Mailer. I recall Dick Cavett once saying that when Norman Mailer sits down, he needs two chairs, one for him, and one for his ego. That said, I thought this book, which should be more rightly seen as a pamphlet, had enough thought provoking, and rationally based arguments to enlighten the average citizen on why the U.S. is in Iraq. Unlike some other talking heads, the author makes it clear that these are his opinions and not based on unstated facts.

The author notes the influence of radical conservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and others in the government who subscribe to the concept of an American empire, which is, he believes, the reason for war. This decision to extend the American authority is either due to perverse greed, or an honest belief that America must save the world. Mailer also postulates that even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, President Bush seems to have reasoned that,
If terrorism is evil and must be destroyed, and
Saddam Hussein is evil, then
Saddam Hussein must be destroyed. Ergo, we fight in Iraq because of 9/11.

Frankly, the belief that this may be the operative syllogism (despite the obvious logical flaws and policy inconsistencies with other state leaders) makes more sense then any other reason for why Mr. Bush believes we should be in Iraq (it's the same theme of a popular country song and to many letters to the editor favoring the war). That Bush continually changes stories on his stated reasons for entering war, and other evidence to support him does not appear to exist, gives credence to Mailer's conclusions.

Mailer's point on American's anger toward immigration was under developed. To the question of why others in the world hate us so, consider how offensive are some long time Americans to immigrants, whom they fear will change the nature of this country. English only laws are one symptom of this hysteria. Also remember the anger expressed towards Japan when some thought that country seemed intent on buying what they did not win in war. This is similar (right or wrong) to what other cultures feel toward the infiltration of American culture in their land. Now multiply this fear several times because the U.S. also has the military and economic might to force an influence where it may not be fully desired.

Mailer does fill the rest of his book with random thoughts on various issues, some relevant, others less so, but it's a quick read and does not do damage to his central thesis. And despite what one may think about Mailer, he gives every indication that his arguments are based on a sincere desire to help Americans think straight about what is happening around us and to preserve freedom.

A favorite "bad boy" of American belles lettres, Norman Mailer has kept his finger on the pulse of America since 1948, with the publication of "The Naked and the Dead." He's always had an attraction to our perversities and anxieties, and over the decades has been captivated by the question, "Why?" Why are we in Vietnam? Why are we obsessed with violence? Why is democracy so fragile? Never one to shrink from, or even start a fight, he does have a strong sense of justice and social rightness that is perhaps reflected in his (I think) philosophical neologism, Left-Conservatism. In "Why Are We at War?" he makes the case for the roles of paradigm shifts, existential hemorrhage, and national hubris behind our reactions to 9-11, Iraq, and American destiny.

Paradigm shift and existential hemorrhage: The book begins and ends with a partial transcript of a discussion between Mailer and Dotson Rader about the events of 9-11. Some politicians said, in the immediate aftermath of the World Trade Center bombing and immediately before the invasion of Iraq that we need to examine why we, as a country are so hated. We all agree that our first reaction is bafflement. That it is inconceivable to us that any country or people could doubt our nobility of purpose or purity of motive. That the granting of democracy to other people is the manifestation of God's work in the universe. And that to question any of these notions is heretical AND unpatriotic. But by posing the questions, we become agitated and distressed to glimpse the issues from a non-American center and perspective. When we come to view a tiny corner of the terrorists perspective, what happens is NOT a state of sympathy, but rather an appreciation of the possible endlessness of combat with true believers who are bent on destruction and murder as a tactical approach to cultural war. Where, from Mailer's viewpoint, does this get us?

Well, one the one hand, if we accept that we are up against a philosophy at complete odds with ours, where almost a billion people have sympathy to some degree with that philosophy, and where there is some justification for anti-Western and anti-corporate sentiment, then we have a lot of bridge-building to do. To foster basic social economic, and legal justice. To stop supporting corrupt, tyranical governments which use our conflicts as screens to deflect attention from their own severe shortcomings. To support more moderate, mainstream Muslims who have philosophies very different from the more extreme clerics and terrorist theorists.

Hubris: On the other hand, we can take the current set of conflicts as signs of a few evil (an important buzz-word in this book) individuals' taking arms against God's people. Mailer examines the evolution of neo-conservative political philosophy and his vision sounds like an unholy melding of the worst Manifest Destiny with Christian Triumphalism and the British Raj. Endless conflict supporting American imperial destiny and a vision of world dominance for the betterment of mankind. Mailer's attitude toward George W. is curious and very interesting: "I would guess that George W. Bush can tell when one of his experts knows what he's talking about and when he's only pretending he knows. . . . Clinton. . . was always the brightest guy in his circle. Whereas Bush is smart enough to know that he couldn't possibly do the same or the country would be run by morons." While Mailer believes that Bush is driven by true idealism, he tempers the notion with caveats. That corporate-driven greed corrupts the philosophy. That plutocracy diminishes the quality of democracy and brings into greater question the motives of its rulers. That the administration may be trying in good faith to save the world. But, paraphrasing Kierkegard, "When we think we are nearest to God, we could be assisting the Devil." In the words of Robert Byrd, "I must truly question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country.'"

Ultimately, neither the neo-cons nor the terrorists, to Mailer, have God's ear. When the "American Conservative" interviewer asks him, "If ours is indeed a post-Christian society in which materialism is the highest good and it takes a faith to fight a faith, are they not better suited to combat us?", he replies, "No, . . . this war is so unbalanced in so many ways, so much power on one side, so much true hatred on the other, so much technology for us, so much potential terrorism on the other, that the damages cannot be estimated." What is terribly on the line here is democratic process itslef, the slow trade of personal liberties for shrinking notions of individual security. Never expect an organization established to collect intelligence and provide security to simultaneously safeguard free expression and free movement.

This is a rich little book that will, I hope, inspire many to further question the motives and tactics of of our society, motivated by love for the society and its institutions, and believeing that we are a beacon for hope and freedom in the world.

I read the booklet again some four years after I bought it. Mind you: it was written after 9/11 but BEFORE the US attack on Iraq. What struck me is the sober analysis of the background including the split in the Republican party between traditional conservatives (like me!) who were opposed and the neoconservative hubris of US empire. Mailer accurately predicted the disaster that we eventually faced. He names, the people who were responsible, those who opposed them and the large number who "just went along" (Congress). I am buying several copies for friends on both sides of the issue.

Being a person who attempts to validate the merit of conservative positions as well as liberal, I decided to give this book a try for myself after reading several positive and negative reviews posted here. Among the negative reviews there are several that make Mailer out to be a bitter, ranting old fool, someone filled more with spite than insight. After reading the book for myself I can honestly say this could not be further from the truth. Critical assessment is anti-patriotic only to the truly blind, or dull minded. Mailer does not hate America anymore than Kierkegaard hated his fellow Dane's or Nietzsche the Germans (the subjects from whom they drew their often harsh observations of culture and values). Some of the negative reviews also allude to Mailers issues with his wife as if this some how invalidates the argument's he makes. Believe me, do a bit of digging and you will find there are plenty of vigorous flag waivers who are not to shy to throw a punch - We'd be wise to stick to the merits of the argument, not chase after the messenger!
Mailer makes the valid argument that although democracies are probably the best system, they are volatile and should not be taken for granted. A strong democracy should be receptive to self-assessment and scrutiny. This is the bread and butter of democracy; something sorely lacking in the days leading up to Iraq, which might have spared us a lot of pain.
Why are we at war, published before things in Iraq started to degenerate to the point of sectarian bloodletting, and civil war it is now at, offers insight and foresight that our leaders would have been wise to consider. Chief amongst these considerations is the notion that democracy can be exported and imposed anywhere, wholesale, with little consideration of local history. Both the Romans and the British believed, without reservation, that their superior systems could be imposed, but need the vast distinction between Rome, monarchies, and democracies be made?
If you can recall the Neo Con's also made frequent comparisons between Iraq and Post World War II. This book offers significant insight into to the flaws in such general, simplistic, thinking.
In recalling president George Bush standing on deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln -Mission accomplished - in a show of military might and bravado, basically declaring that Iraq was as good as done, Mailers view of Neo Con `dreams of empire' seem eerily prophetic.

Norman Mailer, although an extremely opinionated writer, did an excellent job with the subject of the war in Iraq. He explained how the reasons behind this war were illegitimate, it was all for Bush to gain an empire. Bush believes that America represents good and every other country is evil. He figures that we are the only ones to solve problems. He then gets the United States involved in other countries affairs which he has no business doing. Mailer mentions how the "American administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary." He says that Bush is a "flag conservative" and uses the word evil like a way to increase his power. I agree that Bush is power hungry and seems to think that America is the greatest nation in which we are allowed to do as we please. Norman says that the United States is a hyperpower in which our military expenses are going to equal the top fifteen most powerful states together. Bush is trying to force a democracy on another nation, that was actually never a true nation. It was put together by the British after WWI. Mailer says that "Democracy is never there in us to create in another country by the force of our will. Real democracy comes out of many subtle individual human battles that are fought over decades and finally centuries, battles that succeed in building traditions." For us to go over and show them how to run a democracy, like we have, shows how arrogant we are.
Basically the entire book is like this and shows just how George W. Bush is power hungry and does not know how to run our country. I agree with all Norman's views in here and am inspired by his work, since I am anti-Bush and believe our government is corrupt.

This book has all you will ever need to understand America's involvement in Afgansitan/Iraq. Norman Mailer hits a robust warning to America in this book of future events which have transpired since its writing. It takes an Old Soldier (me) into the mindwork of the Bush Adminstration and exposes all of its seething secrets. You will find more enlightenment in the passages of this book,maybe more than you may be prepared to accept. I am a conservative,a previous fighting soldier from the Nam era. I also voted for the Bush campaign. I also admit I was wrong (but had no choice of something better from the Dems)in letting this get to where Norman said it was going. Can you say the same. Get this book and give it a read, then, pass it on to someone you care about and help us get out of the mess we are in with a vote and the power of the pen.