- STAFF PICKS
- GIFTS + GIFT CARDS
- SELL BOOKS
- FIND A STORE
Ships in 1 to 3 days
Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemiesby Peter W Galbraith
Synopses & Reviews
Called by New York Times columnist David Brooks the "smartest and most devastating" critic of President George W. Bush's Iraq policies, Peter Galbraith was the earliest expert to describe Iraq's breakup into religious and ethnic entities, a reality 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,
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 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.
"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." Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)
About the Author
Peter W. Galbraith served as the first U.S. Ambassador to Croatia. He is currently the Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and a regular contributor to The New York Review of Books. He lives in Townshend, Vermont.
What Our Readers Are Saying
Other books you might like
History and Social Science » Middle East » Iraq
History and Social Science » Military » Iraq War (2003-)
History and Social Science » Politics » United States » Foreign Policy
History and Social Science » World History » General