REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace (Hardcover)

by Leonard C. Lewin (Author), Victor Navasky (Introduction)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
From 1963 to 1966 the U.S. government assembled a team of prominent thinkers from all walks of life to determine what would happen if "peace broke out." The group, surprisingly but with unassailable logic, determined that war was necessary and desirable and that the government should do all it could to maintain the status quo. If peace became inevitable, the report suggested everything from creating an outer-space menace to setting up some new, socially acceptable form of slavery. The report was leaked in 1967 by a conference member harboring a guilty conscience, and it scandalized Washington.

Not.

The ultimate compliment for any form of political satire is to be taken seriously by the people it is skewering. On that scale Report from Iron Mountain, which has been a lightning rod for both Right and Left since its appearance, could hardly be more successful. The hoax, written in perfect think-tankese, captures the mix of Olympian detachment and awesome cynicism that has flowed out of Washington for much of the American Century. Lewin's book (and he really did write it) exposes the mindset that we can thank for Vietnam and so much else.

Report from Iron Mountain was bolstered, if not trumped, by reality--the Pentagon Papers and the Pax Americana, a Defense Department plan to take over Latin America, emerged soon after. But the book's enduring popularity, particularly among those who never got the joke (apparently Lewin had to sue to get right-wing groups convinced of the book's authenticity to stop printing and selling copies) suggests that the governmental worldview that Report from Iron Mountain lampoons--as well as the paranoia that that immorality unleashes in the citizenry--is very much with us. --Michael Gerber

From Kirkus Reviews
When this was first published in 1967, Kirkus's reviewer wrote, ``If it is a fraud, it is a clever one . . . if not, it is a chilling case for the necessity of war as policymakers see it . . . and will provide magnificent fodder for radicals et al.'' Well, this controversial volume did turn out to be a fraud (Lewin's fellow hoaxster Victor Navasky, in his introduction, prefers to call it a satire), and it did provide fodder for radicals--not radicals of the left, as expected, but radicals of the right. This supposedly censored government report, to the effect that the US economy is geared to war and thus peace would be disastrous, seems to feed the loony paranoia that infects the Liberty Lobby, the Michigan Militia, and their cohorts. So why is the Free Press reissuing it? Is it to keep the right-wingers from continuing their unlicensed reproduction of the text and earn royalties for those who deserve them? Is it an indulgent remembrance of youthful journalistic escapades past? (Navasky makes it clear he hasn't lost his puerile glee in putting one over on the New York Times). It's hard to know who will have the last laugh with this one. -- Copyright ©1996, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 176 pages
• Publisher: Free Press (May 6, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 068482390X
• ISBN-13: 978-0684823904
• Product Dimensions: 7.6 x 5.3 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #614,700 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

36 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars it was LEAKED: LATER the later spin was that it was a "hoax", November 10, 2004

By	Mark D. Whitaker (Madison, WI) - See all my reviews

It's very real.

The foreword is only by Leonard Lewin. He is not the author. It was first published by the Dial Press, NY.

It is not a novel, but rather a report written by the members of a 15-man "Special Study Group" commissioned, they believe, by some governmental entity which wished to remain unknown. The report is addressed to that unknown requestor, the work of the group having been com­pleted after about two and a half years of labor. The members of the group knew that they had been care­fully screened and selected for the task, that they represented the highest levels of scholarship, experi­ence, and expertise in a wide range of the physical and social sciences, that they possessed years of service in business, government, and academe, and that among them they had access to a vast proportion of the country's resources in the social and physical science fields. The Special Study Group was clearly possessed of outstanding establishmentarian credentials.

The book comes to us because one of the members of the group, identified only as John Doe, approached Mr. Lewin several months after the com­pleted report had been submitted, and sought his help in getting the report commercially published, since he ("Doe") felt that the public had a right to be apprised of its existence, even though the group had previously agreed to keep it secret. Mr. Lewin, having agreed to serve in that capacity, wrote a foreword spelling out these circumstances and passing on what little he learned from "Doe" concerning the study's origin and its participants.

He further revealed his personal reaction to the conclusions of the report, conclusions which he said he does not share.

In Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island, he makes reference to The Report From Iron Moun­tain. I encourage you to read and absorb his inter­pretation, which has an emphasis somewhat different than this review. Griffin supplies evidence of the authenti­city of the Report by quoting the written assertion to that effect by Harvard's establishmentarian professor John Kenneth Galbraith, who admitted to participating in the study in at least a consultative capacity.

I would also like to borrow from Griffin's conclusions concerning the study's importance. He asks why this study differs from any other think tank effort, and then writes (p. 525): "The answer is that this one was commissioned and executed, not by ivory tower dreamers and theore­ticians, but by people who are in charge. It is the brainchild of the CFR....So many things that otherwise are incomprehensible suddenly become perfectly clear: foreign aid, wasteful spending, the destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, world bank, a world money, the surrender of national independence through treaties,..."

11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Deviant but brilliant !!, April 1, 2006

By	Rev4u "Rev" (PV, Ca United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace (Paperback)

Hoax or reality, this report sheds a clear light on the process of elitist thinking and planning. It did not only predict but planned our future. The present situation in the world is the greatest proof of the authenticity of this report.
It's a book worth reading. If you find it buy it...

11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A nightmare for paranoids (is it REALLY fiction?)., August 21, 2000

By	J T Kelly (Southern California) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace (Paperback)

I originally encountered this book over 25 years ago (maybe earlier). I have continually referred it to particular friends over the interevening years. I just recently told a political affairs "junkie" about it. This report fascinated me way back then and has stayed with me through the years. I was rapt from start to finish and defy anyone to willingly abandon it in the middle. The answer to the question: "Is peace desirable?" would seem obvious. If there were any answer other than yes, what would be the justification? The end(?) of the cold war did not bring a breakout of peace. This exposition anticipated that peace could conceivably bring as many or more problems than war. Sound bizaare? The report makes it VERY plausible. Sweet dreams!