Buy new:
-26% $18.57$18.57
Delivery Monday, February 3
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: MFGBOOKS
Save with Used - Good
$7.95$7.95
Delivery Monday, February 3
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: WorthWhile Reads
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (American Empire Project) Hardcover – September 27, 2011
Purchase options and add-ons
Charged with rebuilding Iraq, would you spend taxpayer money on a sports mural in Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhood to promote reconciliation through art? How about an isolated milk factory that cannot get its milk to market? Or a pastry class training women to open cafés on bombed-out streets without water or electricity?
According to Peter Van Buren, we bought all these projects and more in the most expensive hearts-and-minds campaign since the Marshall Plan. We Meant Well is his eyewitness account of the civilian side of the surge--that surreal and bollixed attempt to defeat terrorism and win over Iraqis by reconstructing the world we had just destroyed. Leading a State Department Provincial Reconstruction Team on its quixotic mission, Van Buren details, with laser-like irony, his yearlong encounter with pointless projects, bureaucratic fumbling, overwhelmed soldiers, and oblivious administrators secluded in the world's largest embassy, who fail to realize that you can't rebuild a country without first picking up the trash.
Darkly funny while deadly serious, We Meant Well is a tragicomic voyage of ineptitude and corruption that leaves its writer--and readers--appalled and disillusioned but wiser.
- Print length288 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherMetropolitan Books
- Publication dateSeptember 27, 2011
- Dimensions5.88 x 1.09 x 8.53 inches
- ISBN-100805094369
- ISBN-13978-0805094367
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together

Similar items that ship from close to you
Editorial Reviews
Review
From the Author
From the Back Cover
About the Author
Peter Van Buren has served with the Foreign Service for over 23 years. He received a Meritorious Honor Award for assistance to Americans following the Hanshin earthquake in Kobe, a Superior Honor Award for helping an American rape victim in Japan, and another award for work in the tsunami relief efforts in Thailand. Previous assignments include Taiwan, Japan, Korea, the UK and Hong Kong. He volunteered for Iraq service and was assigned to ePRT duty 2009-10. His tour extended past the withdrawal of the last combat troops.
Van Buren worked extensively with the military while overseeing evacuation planning in Japan and Korea. This experience included multiple field exercises, plus civil-military work in Seoul, Tokyo, Hawaii, and Sydney with allies from the UK, Australia, and elsewhere. The Marine Corps selected Van Buren to travel to Camp Lejeune in 2006 to participate in a field exercise that included simulated Iraqi conditions. Van Buren spent a year on the Hill in the Department of State’s Congressional Liaison Office.
Van Buren speaks Japanese, Chinese Mandarin, and some Korean. Born in New York City, he lives in Virginia with his spouse, two daughters, and a docile Rottweiler. This is his first book.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Help Wanted, No Experience Necessary
The reconstruction of Iraq was the largest nation-building program in history, dwarfing in cost, size, and complexity even those undertaken after World War II to rebuild Germany and Japan. At a cost to the US taxpayer of over $63 billion and counting, the plan was lavishly funded, yet, as government inspectors found, the efforts were characterized from the beginning by pervasive waste and inefficiency, mistaken judgments, flawed policies, and structural weaknesses. Of those thousands of acts of waste and hundreds of mistaken judgments, some portion was made by me and the two reconstruction teams I led in Iraq, along with my goodwilled but overwhelmed and unprepared colleagues in the State Department, the military, and dozens of other US government agencies. We were the ones who famously helped paste together feathers year after year, hoping for a duck. The scholarly history someone will one day write about Iraq and reconstruction will need the raw material of failure, and so this war story will try to explain how it all went so wrong.
As a longtime Foreign Service Officer (FSO), I was sent by the Department of State to Iraq for one year in 2009 as part of the civilian Surge deployed to backstop the manlier military one. Along with a half dozen contractors as teammates, I was assigned to rebuild Iraq's essential services, to supply water and sewer access as part of a counterinsurgency struggle to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. It was Vietnam, only better this time around, more T. E. Lawrence than Alden Pyle. I was to create projects that would lift the local economy and lure young men away from the dead-end opportunities of al Qaeda. I was also to empower women, turning them into entrepreneurs and handing them a future instead of a suicide vest. A robust consumer society would do the trick, shopping bags of affirmation leading to democracy.
Executing all this happiness required me to live with the Army as part of an embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team (ePRT) on a Forward Operating Base (FOB, rhymes with "cob"). I spent the first six months on FOB Hammer in the desert halfway between Baghdad and Iran before moving to FOB Falcon just south of Baghdad for another half a year. In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the United States established massive military bases throughout Iraq. Some, like the grows-like-crabgrass Victory Base (the military has little sense of irony), were as big as cities, with thousands of personnel, a Burger King, samba clubs, Turkish hookah bars, and swimming pools. Some were much smaller, such as FOBs Hammer and Falcon, with a couple of hundred soldiers each, Army food, and portable latrines.
My work with the ePRTs involved traveling off the FOBs to commute to the war. Unlike so-called fobbits, who spent most of their tour on base, I spent a lot of time outside the wire. I was to meet with Iraqis, hand them money for the projects we hoped would spring up, and then assess the results of our spending. Despite endless applications of money and violence prior to my arrival, the United States had failed to pacify Iraq, undertaking projects and holding elections in an endless loop of turning points and imagined progress. "Fuck 'em and feed 'em" was the cynical way it was referred to in Vietnam, dropping bombs at night on an area where we dropped food during the daylight hours, destroying history after dark and reconstructing it by day. In Iraq my predecessors evolved nicer ways of describing what we were trying to do, such as "counterinsurgency" or "civil capacity building." Regardless of the label, the one constant was that I could travel nowhere without an armored vehicle and armed soldiers for protection. Some of the soldiers on the FOB drove us around and pulled security for my team and me. The soldiers didn't seem to mind the task, as it was easy duty, albeit a bit boring, the day-to-day of imperial policing. We spent hours stuck in armored vehicles, a tedium that made golf seem like a contact sport, shared the futility of reconstructing things while they were still falling apart, and became close to one another in the intense but temporary way of relationships formed in war, like twelve months of one-night stands.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. This story really began in the early 1990s, as I sat ignorant in Taiwan processing tourist visas as a brand-new Foreign Service Officer while Saddam invaded Kuwait. Iraq had since then been continuously under siege by the United States. During Desert Storm we destroyed large portions of its infrastructure. We had gone out of our way to make a mess, using clever tools such as cruise missiles that spat metallic fibers to short out entire electrical systems we would have to reconstruct. In the years that followed Desert Storm, three US Presidents bombed and rocketed Iraq, running up the bill we would later have to pay. Sanctions meanwhile kept Saddam fat and happy on black-market oil profits while chiseling away Baghdad's cosmopolitan First World veneer and plunging most of Iraq's population into poverty. Events in Iraq ebbed and flowed through the US media over the years but the storm never ended for most Iraqis. It was a seamless epic as the war of 1990–91 continued through the no-fly zones and the sanctions of the nineties, to be capped off by the 2003 invasion and the ensuing years of occupation.
The script for the 2003 invasion did not include an extended reconstruction effort. It instead imagined Americans being greeted as liberators like in post-D-day France, with cheerful natives rushing out to offer our spunky troops bottles of wine and frisky daughters. The Bush administration ignored the somber prewar predictions of the State Department, cut it out of the immediate postwar process, and instead whipped together a blended family of loyal interns, contractors, and soldiers to witness the complete implosion of Iraqi civil society. Things got steadily worse in Iraq as the early Coalition Provisional Authority and military efforts at reconstruction failed, the UN was bypassed, and the security situation discouraged even the hardiest NGOs. By about 2005, the White House saw the need to kick the war into higher gear, sending in the increased deployment of troops known as the Surge, while the Pentagon dusted off the old books from Vietnam for tips on counterinsurgency philosophy. There was originally in the military about as much enthusiasm for reviving counterinsurgency as there might have been for reinstating horse-borne cavalry charges and cutlasses. We were back in a Vietnam kind of war. It wasn't enough just to kill people and destroy villages. We had to win over the ones still alive, get them to adopt a democratic system and become our allies. Victory would be ours not when we pacified Iraq militarily but when the country was stable enough to stand on its own. This was counterinsurgency, hearts and minds, soft power, whatever you wanted to call it. In the improvisational spirit of the whole war, it was decided that the State Department had better get involved in a big way. State would rebuild and reconstruct Iraq, win over the people with democracy, and then we could all pack up for home.
The vehicle for these accomplishments would be State Department–led Provincial Reconstruction Teams like the ones I served on. PRTs harkened back to the failed Civil Operations and Rural Development Support (CORDS) program in Vietnam, in which State, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and military personnel theoretically worked together to improve the lives of local people and so distance them from the insurgents. In practical terms, PRTs were locally located State Department outposts, usually in or near big cities like Baghdad, Mosul, and Erbil. The first PRT popped up in Baghdad in the spring of 2006. The Secretary of State herself flew in for one of the grand openings in Mosul. At the peak in 2007, there were thirty-one PRTs and thirteen ePRTs in Iraq, a few run by stalwart allies like South Korea and the British.2 (Unlike an ePRT, which lived tightly enmeshed with the military, a regular PRT stood apart from the military, with its own contracted mercenary security.) By 2009, the Provincial Reconstruction Teams had shrunk in number to sixteen and were All-American, though a former Italian journalist still headed the one in Dhi Qar, where they had a wood-burning pizza oven and enjoyed red wine with dinner, no doubt easing the strain of war. The teams would leave Iraq after the soldiers did, this time the mission truly accomplished.
* * *
The Department of State wanted a lot from its reconstruction teams, as expressed in its vision statement.3 The teams were "aligned with" the key US priority of:
...promoting stability and development at the provincial level to support a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq that is integrated into the global economy. By assisting Iraqis in strengthening the capacity of their government institutions and civil society, the PRTs deepen cooperation at the local level, build stronger relationships, encourage economic diversification and foreign investment, foster the development of transparent and accountable governance, promote rule of law, confront corruption, deliver essential public services, improve public health and promote stability and community development.
But saying so couldn't make it true. The whole of reconstruction was plagued by problems from the start.
For the first years of the war, the military had run reconstruction on its own, albeit haphazardly. The Army conceptualized the work as doing a few favors for the locals, such as vaccinating farm animals or handing out candy, enough to tame the wilderness. State had a much bigger mandate, nothing less than raising up an economically sound, democratic Iraq. The differences in mission and approach would dog the PRT program for its entire sad life.
Complicating matters was that the reconstruction effort was fragmented and understaffed. By July 2007, sixty-two US government agencies were involved in the project. When General David Petraeus took over the war in Iraq, his advisers identified eight major coordination bodies at the Embassy in Baghdad. "We have an underdeveloped Iraqi bureaucracy and an overdeveloped US bureaucracy," one Petraeus adviser observed. On the ground we were spread far too thin for so daunting a mission. The East Rasheed ePRT, for example, had to serve a population the size of Detroit with a staff of six. The ePRT in southern Baghdad had eight people from State embedded with 3,700 soldiers tending to one million Iraqis.
Raw number of personnel aside, properly staffing the PRTs and ePRTs with the right mix of people proved to be the greatest challenge of all. The Department of State struggled to field adequate numbers of qualified employees from among its own ranks, forcing the creation of an army of contractors, called 3161s after the name of the legislation in 5 USC 3161 that created their hiring program. They were supposed to be SMEs (pronounced smee, not s-m-e), subject matter experts, a term that became a part of the war's large lexicon of ironic phrases. "Iraq is not for amateurs," said Ambassador Chris Hill in Baghdad, though it was mostly amateurs whom the State Department found.4 The main criterion for hiring seemed to be an interest in living in Iraq for a year with a $250,000 salary and three paid vacations, and so that took a front seat to any actual skills. In the enthusiasm to staff up, most of these people were hired without interviews, directly off their often wobbly résumés. Though some of the 3161s turned out to be talented, it was more by luck, personal pluck, or accident than by design. State assigned people roles based on merit badges earned: a former local council member became a senior governance adviser, while a female gym teacher from the Midwest morphed into a women's empowerment programmer. Imagine the old Andy Hardy movies, where the kids' enthusiasm was supposed to make up for the lack of costumes and props.
The need for 3161s to live on a military base also skewed hiring toward former military, nearly self-defeating the idea of providing a civilian side to the reconstruction. The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) in its review of the PRTs' first year of operation found an Army veterinarian developing agriculture programs, an aviation maintenance manager as a PRT coleader, and advisers to Iraqi provincial governors who included a former Navy submariner, an ultrasound technician, and a Drill Sergeant. PRTs were short of personnel who could best assist Iraqis in developing the capacity to administer the economy, establish the rule of law, and foster good governance, often because the 3161s didn't know how to do these things either. Language was also a problem, as almost none of the 3161s spoke any Arabic. As the State Department did not provide language training, the grand total of Arabic speakers among the 610 PRT personnel deployed in mid-2007 was 29.
Added to the mix were a few genuine State Department FSOs. The first wave was a rare bunch, folks interested in adventure, danger junkies, a few serious Arabists eager to try out their skills. However, with only several thousand FSOs worldwide (even today there are more military band members than FSOs) and embassies and consulates to staff all around the world, State quickly ran out of the relatively small pool of happy few volunteers. What to do?
The Vietnam CORDS program was the last time the Department of State "directed" Foreign Service Officers into positions abroad that they did not want to take. The program's name was invoked in whispered conversations all over Foggy Bottom as the Department tried to drum up the next wave of volunteers for Iraq. A small minority of FSOs objected politically to doing anything to support the Bush wars of choice, but really, most of us were just unsure of our role, untrained in how to survive in war, and unclear what the point was anyway. FSOs thus initially stayed away. For political reasons, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was loath to ask Congress for additional, new Foreign Service Officer positions. With the volunteer pool empty and no new FSOs forthcoming that could be tasked to Iraq, all that was left was option number three, to deploy a carrot and stick against existing personnel. This is where I came in.
My side of State was removed from the high-level WikiLeaky things ambassadors did and changed very little between administrations. We worked with Americans who were victims of crime abroad, helping them get home. We took care of folks who got arrested and evacuated people caught up in earthquakes and coups. This was the benign side of empire, the ability to care for our citizens pretty much anywhere in the world. Despite the enthusiasm for the new PRT idea at the higher levels, the rank and file of the State Department like me were unsure if this was right for us. We were ready to hop in after the shooting was over but would do what we could to avoid a fight. Yes, 9/11 had changed everything, we'd heard that, but the concept of inserting us into the middle of a war did not sit well.
Things got serious after State changed personnel rules to make it nearly impossible to get promoted without an Iraq (or Afghanistan, now also Pakistan) tour and added some financial incentives such as special danger pay. With these carrots and sticks, discord was tamped down, the conservative pundits were put back in their cages (Michelle Malkin in particular suggested someone should slap the "weenie and whiner FSOs" who refused to serve in Iraq), and the FSOs were lined up for the surging PRT program without anyone's having to be forced to go, sort of.5
I had never served in the Middle East and knew nothing about rebuilding past the Home Depot guides, but people like me were what the Department had been dealt to play this game. The new rules boxed me into serving or seeing my career flatline. Less cynically, despite my reservations about the war, I still believed in the idea of service (love the warrior, hate the war) and wanted to test myself. I also needed the money, and so the nexus of duty, honor, terrorism, and my oldest daughter's college tuition (hopefully there'll be another war when my youngest is college age) led another FSO into semivoluntarily joining The Cause. Between war and peace lies reconstruction and I would try to do my part.
* * *
But first, training, or so I thought. Despite the enormity of our task and the stated importance to the interests of the United States, preparation for PRT duty was amazingly brief, all of three weeks. Week One was five days of what we called Islam for Dummies, a quick overview of the religion with some pointers on "Arab" culture (dudes kiss, no serving bacon, no joking about God). Some mention of Sunnis and Shias was made but the conflict came off more like a sports rivalry than open warfare. The instructor was former military and sounded a lot like Dr. Phil, which was very comforting. It felt like we would be holding an intervention for the war, forcing it to confront its shortcomings—"Tell him, tell him to his face, you are a bad war. You disappointed me, war." Dr. Phil also gave us our only Arabic language training, ninety minutes of handy phrases and greetings.
Week Two was an overview of the simple spreadsheets and database we'd use to track millions of dollars of project grants, plus a negotiating session where a local Iraqi American was called in to pretend to be a town mayor. He asked for a bribe and then gave me permission to build a dam (in Iraq I never built any dams and there were no mayors in the small towns I visited). Since the class included both longtime State employees and our new contractor colleagues, we all sat politely through a dreary session on how an embassy works. Since there was nothing Middle Eastern in the neighborhood, the class went out as a group to lunch at a Chinese restaurant. Really good pork buns.
Week Three took place at an undisclosed location in West Virginia where we learned defensive driving skills (none of us ever drove on the streets of Iraq) and had a weapons familiarization course (all FSOs in Iraq were unarmed). The last time I punched someone was in junior high school. I was never in the military. I had at that moment never fired a weapon. A Real Man with a biker beard, angry tats, an NYPD baseball cap, and serious sunglasses loaded a weapon (I called them guns then) and carefully placed it in my hands. He kept his own veined, masculine paws on the cold steel, helped me aim it at a very nearby target, and then told me to pull the trigger. He did this for our group of about twenty-five State Department employees. After each shot, without looking at the target or the shooter, the Man said, "Hit, good shot," and took the weapon back to prepare for the next person.
After only fifteen school days I was fully trained to lead an ePRT in the midst of a shooting war. Missing from the training was any history of the war and our policy, any review of past or current reconstruction projects, any information on military organization, acronyms, and rank structure, any lessons learned from the previous years' work, or any idea of what the hell a PRT was and what our job was going to be. They never told us anything about what we were supposed to do once we got there. What we did get was a firm handshake from Dr. Phil and a ride to the airport. I was off to Iraq.
Copyright © 2011 by Peter Van Buren
Product details
- Publisher : Metropolitan Books; First Edition (September 27, 2011)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 288 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0805094369
- ISBN-13 : 978-0805094367
- Item Weight : 14.4 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.88 x 1.09 x 8.53 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,485,876 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #403 in Iraq History (Books)
- #1,137 in Iraq War History (Books)
- #1,147 in International Diplomacy (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Peter Van Buren returns with a deeply-researched anti-war novel, Hooper's War. Set in WWII Japan, Lieutenant Nate Hooper isn't sure he'll survive his war. And if he does make it home, he isn't sure he can survive the peace. He's done a terrible thing, and struggles to resolve the mistake he made alongside a Japanese soldier, and a Japanese woman who failed to save both men. At stake in this story of moral injury? Souls.
With allegorical connections to America's current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reverse chronology telling of Hooper's War ("Fighting over the covers is better than remembering the empty side of the bed," Hooper says) turns a loss-of-innocence narrative into a complex tale of why that loss is inevitable in societies that go to war. Think Matterhorn and The Things They Carried, crossed with Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse Five.
A United States Foreign Service Officer (ret.), Peter Van Buren spent a year in Iraq. Following his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, the Department of State began legal proceedings against him, falsely claiming the book revealed classified material. Through the efforts of the ACLU, Van Buren instead retired from the State Department with his First Amendment rights intact.
His second book, Ghosts of Tom Joad, A Story of the #99Percent is a novel about the social and economic changes in America after WWII and the decline of the blue collar middle class in the 1980s. The book anticipated the conditions that led many in America's Rust Belt to help elect Donald Trump.
Peter’s commentary has been featured in The New York Times, Reuters, Salon, NPR, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, The Nation, TomDispatch, Antiwar.com, American Conservative Magazine, Mother Jones, Michael Moore.com, Le Monde, Japan Times, Asia Times, The Guardian (UK), Daily Kos, Middle East Online, Guernica and others. He has appeared on the BBC World Service, NPR's All Things Considered and Fresh Air, HuffPo Live, RT, ITV, Britain's Channel 4 Viewpoint, Dutch Television, CCTV, Voice of America, and more.
Learn more at http://www.wemeantwell.com and on Twitter at @wemeantwell
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book humorous and witty, with an insightful perspective. They describe it as an enjoyable and informative read, filled with first-hand observations that resonate with them. Readers praise the writing quality as well-written, journalistic, and personal. However, some find the pacing frustrating and unengaging, while others consider it compelling and engaging. There are mixed opinions on the narrative quality - some find it accurate and realistic, while others feel it's inaccurate and unrealistic.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book humorous and insightful. They praise the witty, honest writing style with insights into bureaucracy. The book is described as tragic yet funny in the vein of great American satirists. The writing style shows wit, cleverness, and no-nonsense reporting.
"...well-written book, full of facts, wry humor and thoroughly depressing anecdotes about Van Buren's year in Iraq as a State Department Foreign Service..." Read more
"...While this particular book is a good, and sometimes hilarious, account of what was seen and done in the presence of the author, it suffers from a..." Read more
"...Van Buren's book is humorous, and easy reading...." Read more
"...well written, incisively accurate, wildly entertaining and witty, and full of first hand observations that brought back a lot of memories for me,..." Read more
Customers find the book informative and engaging. They appreciate the first-hand observations and stories that resonate with them. The style makes it an easy read for all audiences, providing a great overview and honest explanation of what we are doing in Iraq.
"This is a marvelously well-written book, full of facts, wry humor and thoroughly depressing anecdotes about Van Buren's year in Iraq as a State..." Read more
"...a little more compassion, this book could have been both an excellent source of wisdom as well as a good read." Read more
"...I liked the book and it told an honest story, but it's one of the few books I regret that the author made some money off of me." Read more
"...The book is easy reading, but filled with information about what has been happening in Iraq in our name." Read more
Customers find the book easy to read and engaging. They say it's an interesting look at the US diplomacy efforts in Iraq. The book is described as entertaining, witty, and well-written. Readers appreciate the chicken factory chapter and the author's humor.
"...While this particular book is a good, and sometimes hilarious, account of what was seen and done in the presence of the author, it suffers from a..." Read more
"...In short, this is a book that is both entertaining and disturbing." Read more
"...I liked the book and it told an honest story, but it's one of the few books I regret that the author made some money off of me." Read more
"...'s book is exceptionally well written, incisively accurate, wildly entertaining and witty, and full of first hand observations that brought back a..." Read more
Customers find the book well-written, informative, and easy to read. They appreciate the journalistic style and author's candor. The descriptions are accurate, and the book is straightforward without simplistic sloganeering or pompous predictions.
"This is a marvelously well-written book, full of facts, wry humor and thoroughly depressing anecdotes about Van Buren's year in Iraq as a State..." Read more
"...Van Buren's book is humorous, and easy reading...." Read more
"...The book is easy reading, but filled with information about what has been happening in Iraq in our name." Read more
"...I do recommend the book. Well-written and easy to read. You just have to suspend disbelief and scorn for the way things were run...." Read more
Customers have different views on the narrative quality. Some find it an accurate account of mismanagement and its effects on a country. They appreciate the great story tone and brief chapters that recount specific incidents. Others feel the narrative lacks creativity and is not creative nonfiction, describing it as boring and sad.
"...It simply opened the door to fraud and corruption. Pointless projects, overwhelmed US soldiers, bureaucratic fumbling---it's all there...." Read more
"I do recommend this book, imperfect as it is, as a good first-person history of what I cannot help think will be seen as a tragic time in American..." Read more
"...Underneath, there is a level of tragedy and sadness, as clearly the author was affected by the amorality and immorality of wanting U.S. efforts to..." Read more
"...The story is told in brief chapters, each recounting a specific incident or aspect of life in Iraq...." Read more
Customers find the book's pacing frustrating and engaging. They describe it as an eye-opening, sobering collection of cathartic blog posts. While imperfect, they recommend the book as a good first-person history, despite corruption, ignorance, and incompetence.
"I do recommend this book, imperfect as it is, as a good first-person history of what I cannot help think will be seen as a tragic time in American..." Read more
"...Sickening tales of lack of strategy combined with fraud, corruption and mismanagement...." Read more
"...At times the book feels like a collection of ranting, cathartic blog posts...." Read more
"...There are tales aplenty about graft, corruption, ignorance, and most of all incompetence in the ridiculous pursuit of transforming Iraq into a New..." Read more
Reviews with images
Iraq...The Legacy
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on September 27, 2017I first became acquainted with the work of Peter van Buren when I read Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent about six months ago. It is a devastating portrait of the impact of globalization and deindustrialization on one small town in the Ohio River valley. I gave the book my special “6-star, plus” rating, only the third one of some 1500 reviews. I also immediately ordered this book, on Van Buren’s year in Iraq, feeling he would also have something incisive to say, and he does. Overall, I’ve read several other books on America’s involvement in Iraq, from Thomas Rick’s aptly named Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003 to 2005 to Rajiv Chandrasekran’s Imperial Life in The Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. Van Buren’s work is set several years later than these other works, covering his one year in Iraq, in 2009. Things have gotten no better. Self-delusion has become even more finally honed.
Van Buren was a Foreign Service Officer (FSO), with the State Department, with an emphasis on the past tense, since as the Boston globe noted, this is a “burn-his-bridges” book. The author notes that there are more people in American military bands than FSOs. Motivated by both the carrot and the stick, he went to Iraq, purported to “win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people” as the sub-title states, with all the doomed implications that phrase conveys from the Vietnam War. He would spend the year as part of an “embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team” (ePRT) at two FOBs (Forward Operating Basis), Hammer and Falcon. It was (sorta) “life in the field,” without the glitz, glamor, or flush toilets that were in the Emerald City. Ah, but they brought in the “Third World Nationals” to do the dirty work.
How could the United States spend $63 billion on “nation building,” far more than was spent on the Marshall Plan (on an inflation adjusted basis) to get war-devastated Germany and Japan back on their feet, with so little to show for it? Van Buren explains. There seemed to be a willful effort to “forget about the basics,” that is, ensuring that the Iraqi people had safe drinking water, functioning 24-hour a day electricity, proper sewage and garbage removal, and day-to-day security. Instead, a library of American classics was provided, in Arabic translation, and was promptly dumped behind a school. Schemes to improve milk production, keep bees, and hold art shows were conducted. All good ideas, in isolation, and might work if the basics were in place, but they never were. A women’s health clinic was started, certainly a great idea, but then it closed down after six months as the “hot idea of the day” in the Emerald City moved on to something else, and follow-up funding was not provided.
The chapter that received my most marks of emphasis in the margins is “Economic Conference Blues.” Van Buren leaves the relative sanity of his FOB for the never-never land of unreality in the Emerald City were the Embassy’s “grass is always greener.” I see him sitting in the back of the room, trying not to scream, and jotting down “sanity-preserving” observations: “…people who incestuously briefed one another- all of the facts, none of the understanding, the big picture, our ‘legacy.’ The new adjective of choice was ‘robust.’” “Will plan webinars and roundtable discussions, maybe a blog, oh yes, a blog is modern, get an intern on it, they know this online stuff.” “Task one: Suspend disbelief, rewire your brain, accept that people at the Embassy who never stray outside the Green Zone tell you about Iraq, the place you live 24/7.” Van Buren describes how a new briefer, just in from Washington, commits (career) suicide on stage by telling the truth about what is really occurring, providing a handy formula: “Corruption= Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability.” Ain’t that the truth?
I am currently watching Ken Burn’s new series on the The Vietnam War: A Film By Ken Burns and Lynn Novick Season 1, and I believe it is an essential accompaniment for this book, with the core takeaway being one that Karl Marx, of all people, first proposed, concerning Louis Napoleon: “Hegel says somewhere that that great historical facts and personages recur twice. He forgot to add: ‘Once as tragedy, and again as farce.’” So, so many mistakes that America made in Southeast Asia were repeated, two generations later, in Southwest Asia, “as farce”. Not exactly the way to get over “the Vietnam syndrome,” as Bush 41 proclaimed we had done.
I had a problem with Van Buren’s title. No doubt, a few did try, and try hard, but most merely ignored and even suppressed the reality in front of them, in order to successfully have their “career card” stamped: “a good player.” And I definitely have a problem with Van Buren’s assessment that Michael Herr’s Dispatches: “remains the best book ever written about the personal experience of being at war.”
Despite the above reservations, I still consider Van Buren’s account an essential 5-star, plus read.
- Reviewed in the United States on November 4, 2019This is a marvelously well-written book, full of facts, wry humor and thoroughly depressing anecdotes about Van Buren's year in Iraq as a State Department Foreign Service Officer in charge of some reconstruction projects in that war-torn country.
Van Buren starts us right out with one absurdity from the Bush years. US tax payers spent $88,000 to get certain classics ("Huckleberry Finn, Moby Dick," etc). translated into Arabic to encourage Iraqi children to attain literacy skills. The truckload of books arrived, but no third party vendor could be found, so the books were just dumped outside behind some school. And that was that.
Van Buren's book was published in 2011, and up to that time, the US taxpayer had forked over 63 billion dollars for rebuilding the war torn country that we had just destroyed and were still destroying while the supposed rebuilding was going on.
Thousands of dollars were spent to bring independence to women, something that most of them didn't even want. One group was taught to make pastries, so that they could set up little shops. Unfortunately, after their training, there was no water and electiricity in their area, so they could never get their businesses going. This was one of what the US called "Empowering Women" projects.
Projects were evaluated by one criteria only--how much money was spent on it. The more you spent, the better your project. Van Buren was chastized for trying to save money. Of course, this did not make for better projects. It simply opened the door to fraud and corruption.
Pointless projects, overwhelmed US soldiers, bureaucratic fumbling---it's all there.The obscene amount of money paid to contractors (50,000 of them inflitrating the country like a warm of locusts, was shocking beyond belief.
The US Embassy in Iraq is larger than the Vatican, with 104 acres, 22 buildings, a 4 story atrium, built around 2003, after Bush's invasion. The Ambassador at the time didn't like the desert ambience, so gardeners were hired and grass planted to turn the lawn around the main Embassy building green .When that didn't work, sod was flown in from Kuwait, at an estimated cost of between two and five million dollars.Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water had to be used to keep the lawn hydrated. Palm trees were trucked in and planted as well. Van Buren writes, "We made things in Iraq look the way we wanted then to look, water shortages throughout the rest of the country be damned. The grass was the perfect allegory for the whole war."
Meanwhile, the average Iraqi had no consistent water or elecrtricity. Most claimed that the quality of life under Saddam Hussein was far better than life under the America.
.I wonder how much longer the US is going to keep repeating this nation-destroying, nation-rebuilding insanity.
Top reviews from other countries
-
BenderstyleReviewed in Germany on November 5, 20185.0 out of 5 stars Smile and wave
Dieses Buch ist geeignet, auch den festesten Glauben an die Vernunft zu erschüttern. Eine niederschmetternde, witzige, einfühlsame und vor allem von der ersten bis zur letzten Seite spannende Abrechnung mit der "Reconstruction" nach Bushs Irak-Abenteuer. Selbst, wenn nur ein Drittel der geschilderten Ereignisse der Wahrheit entspricht, bleibt noch immer eine haarsträubende Irrfahrt durch eine Nachkriegspolitik, die von schnelllebigen Business-Zyklen und Desinteresse bestimmt ist (und an der mittel- oder gar langfristigen Realität zwangsläufig scheitern muss). Und doch schafft Van Buren den Spagat, mehr zu sein als Chronist einer zynisch-ironischen Posse. Er fühlt mit, er bereut, er übernimmt Verantwortung, und manchmal, manchmal sieht er sogar ein wenig Hoffnung. Unbedingt lesen.
Amazon CustomerReviewed in the United Kingdom on February 1, 20175.0 out of 5 stars Amusing yet scary
From a textual perspective this is a well paced, articulately written book. The author is clearly a accomplished writer.
From a content point of view it was rather worrying how do much at stake in the sense of a country was broken into metrics and data which had no meaning to reality.
This may be because the although the effort is there the right intentions are not.
Greg HunterReviewed in Canada on May 9, 20135.0 out of 5 stars Funniest non fiction book about a holocaust I have ever read.
As funny as "The Good Soldier Schweck" - only this story is non fiction (well except for the title).
You won't be able to put it down - and damn where were we when we could have got on the gravy train of reconstruction in Iraq - anyone got any connections with the US government ? - I have a great idea for a chicken processing plant in Syria (or could be adapted for North Korea or Iran or Chad or anywhere we invade to bring prosperity to the people).
One person found this helpfulReport
Bob smithReviewed in the United Kingdom on September 20, 20155.0 out of 5 stars When you suppress a people and their not happy about it!!
Someone in the pentagon has an idea!
This is what happens on the ground.
Edward J TowseReviewed in the United Kingdom on March 17, 20144.0 out of 5 stars Should be read by a large number of people.
This book explains the great difficulty that an occupying power has when trying to relate to a population of overrun people.




