An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror Mass Market Paperback – October 26, 2004

This is an important book whether you are for or against its major narrative. This is the sort of book that talks in a language that subsumes many small arguments in a few big ones. We may critique this technique and say that none of the arguments are demonstrable. There is no "QED" at the end of this book. This book will have more impact on a public that reads these kinds of books and not on a few that read more technical pieces. So it is clear the importance of it is not in the arguments' success. It is instead important in understanding what sort of narrative can achieve prominence despite the tragic implications believing the narrative may have. While those may think I mean the narrative of the book itself, I suggest the same can be said for the main narrative the book considers the evil in the title - violent fundamentalist Islam. A great thought: the main challenge to fundamental Islamic thought could possibly come from liberal Islamic thought - perhaps even fostered in the US. The problem with this is that the real issue between fundamentalism and a more liberal perspective is a matter of education. The more education a person has, excluding inculcation of the fundamentalist dogma, the less fundamentalist the person will be. This is precisely the case in other countries, including the US, as well. Perhaps every teacher who has attempted to inculcate more critical thinking skills is aware of how difficult it is to succeed in this and has concluded that most people can not manage it. The idea is as old as Platonic psychology that most people aspire to a life of the satisfaction of lower appetites, fewer aspire to social responsibility, and still fewer aspire to wisdom. What Frum and Perle are suggesting is that there will be fewer evils in the world if more people were wiser. I would certainly agree, but making more people wiser is a universal problem, not simply one in the Islamic community.

A blatant parochialism is evident in the suggestions in chapter 5: "The War Abroad". Concerning Iran (and other Islamic nations get the same sort of treatment) the suggestion is that governments are not legitimate if they are not democratic. For support of this thesis F&P use an ad populum - the American popular opinion. While they offer no support for their feeling that most Americans feel this way, this is a typical misappropriation of the social contract theory to those outside the scope of such social contracts - that may very well be a general feeling among relatively uneducated Americans. Apart from UN attempts to legitimize democracy as universal in scope to even those countries that are non-member states - or even member states that interpret the social contract differently, like China, there is certainly no coherent legitimating narrative supporting the argument that all people have rights as granted by our social contract when they do not belong to our nation state. Children in some foreign countries, like Sudan, can be legitimately sold as slaves, even by their parents, regardless of how abhorrent the practice is to Americans. Using this argument to support the overthrow of the legitimate government of Iran is no different than the Imams arguing that it would be right to overthrow our government because it does not follow Islamic Law. The real argument here, as they most closely follow through the book, is the point that we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism, Iran is a country ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, and so we ought to destroy the Islamic state - or any Islamic fundamentalist state. I would imagine it would also be right, to be coherent, for us to destroy any fundamentalist state regardless of their religion. Since that is not part of the narrative it looks very much like the view that it is us against them despite the suggestion that it is acceptable to use power to liberate them.

This is a very fascinating Neo-Con policy book, outlining how the war on terror would evolve further and further from the Bush years. The delivery was very quick and had a very bent spine but that was to be expected and was declared to be possible. I suggest people read this as it almost is a prophecy of where us foreign policy is going (for proof of how this book was in some ways prophetic I suggest reading The Changing Face of Empire by Nick Turse). Everyone should read this.

A recipe for remaking the world to conform with the authors' wishes. If only everyone could be more like them (a speechwriter & poly scientist/insider/entrepreneur) - the world would be perfect (And all who disagree dead).

Since this epistle was published, Mr. Perle (leading Iraq war advocate 1996-2003) has avoided a definitive response to former SEC chairman Richard Breeden's committee allegations that his role as a key director enabled Lord Black to loot Hollinger (of $300 million). This was only the latest controversy in a resume that includes alleged self serving advocacy for Global Crossing, Loral, Boeing, and several others. All admirably preemptively defended by his Canadian co-author in the press (unmentioned in the book).

Mr. Perle resigned as Chair of the Defense Policy Board, then from the DPB altogether. One wonders if it was to deflect scrutiny over past comments ("In Iraq itself, his - Saddam's - downfall would be met with dancing in the streets" -- NYTimes 28 Dec 2001; "If we had to finance it ourselves, I think we would be better off doing that than inviting in those who were opposed to this war of liberation...But we won't have to finance it ourselves because happily, Iraq has very substantial indigenous resources that can be put to the service of rebuilding Iraq, and let me just observe in that connection, that there was very little damage from this war." -- AEI Coffee, 15 April 2003).

This book is well worth reading. It's lucid and well written. Mr. Frum is a talented advocate. In the end, it's value is as testimony to a failed (if not criminal) proposition.

Google the authors' contemporary public source comments over the years, compare them with current reality, and decide for yourself.

I wouldn't hire this pair to fix a toilet, let alone the world

This book is disturbing because it takes the threat of militant Islam as seriously as we ought to take after 3000 body bags were filled on 9/11. If you already think the threat is over-blown and doesn't require a forceful response, don't read the book. It'll just raise your blood pressure and provoke the sort of invectives appearing in some of the other reviews. If you're uncertain what's at stake, read it with an open mind, and you'll be disturbed. If you're already convinced that the threat is serious (like I was an am), be prepared for the full, chilling effect of this book. In pre-WWI, Churchill made similar pronouncements, in scope, about National Socialism and was, similarily, ridiculed.