Type of bind: Hardcover
Dewey Decimal Number: 956.70443
EAN num: 9781586482169
ISBN number: 1586482165
Label: PublicAffairs
Manufacturer: PublicAffairs
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 272
Printing Date: January 07, 2004
Publishing house: PublicAffairs
Release Date: January 06, 2004
Sale Popularity Level: 914359
Studio: PublicAffairs
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
The Cold War certainties that had seemed so fixed in the 20th Century were overturned by the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards were the battlefield victims of a brutally quick war of shock and awe. No less shocked and awed were some of America's former allies: 'old' Europe, large blocks of the UN, and half the G8 nations suddenly found themselves outside the chain of command and influence. Bush, Blair and their allies were driven by a new global vision. Their mission, expressed with great moral certainty, has been called imperialist. In fact, it was simply inevitable after 9/11: that terrible event ushered in a new era with new rules. Shawcross shows what the future will hold for Iraq, Israel, and the Middle East, how Western alliances will be changed for ever, and demonstrates that the war was the definitive proof that a new era of 21st Century international politics has begun.
Amazon.com Review:
William Shawcross very first came to prominence with Sideshow, a ringing condemnation of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon's actions in Cambodia. This time around, however, he heartily endorses the military actions of the American government as it invades Iraq and ousts the regime of Saddam Hussein. Preemptive war, says Shawcross, is not the anomalous tactic that some of George W. Bush's critics might suggest but rather a necessary strategy in dealing with dangerous despots. Shawcross treads lightly on the dispute over the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the unsettled landscape of post-Saddam Iraq while describing at length the human rights crimes committed by Saddam and his sons Uday and Qusay to make the point that that the war was justified. Germany and France are cast here as unappreciative opportunists for their opposition to Bush. Chirac, in particular, is on the receiving end of much enmity by Shawcross who never misses a chance to cite nicknames like 'Super Menteur' (Super Liar) or 'The Crook' to describe the French president. Oddly, given the book's title and cover photo of Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, there is little inside information on the relationship between the two men and the British and American decision makers that hasn't been well chronicled in mainstream news outlets' coverage of the war. This shallowness extends to the rest of Allies as well. One hopes for some innovative analysis or revolutionary research but Shawcross mostly just presents his opinion: that Saddam was dangerous, the Americans were right to remove him, and that the UN and much of Europe were wrong to object. Another problem with Allies is how fluid the situation in Iraq was as the book went to press. As a result, Shawcross's analysis runs the risk of being outdated and irrelevant within a comparatively short period of time. Allies is a quick read and Shawcross is a fine writer but one wishes that he could have provided more depth to such a complicated situation. --John Moe
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
This informative book is not a narrative of the Iraq war but a series of observations on how the international community confronted evil after 9/11 and an analysis of history since the end of the second world war. Shawcross explores the stresses and strains upon international co-operation and diplomacy since that atrocity and the much more dangerous world it ushered in, revealing inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the foreign policies of certain nations. He also asks how the international community can best deal with criminal states, tyrants and terrorists.
Chapter One looks at the global nature of the threat, the proliferation of dangerous weapons, failed states and the Arab World. That is a backward region without good governance, political rights, civil liberties or a free media. This section discusses Iraq under Saddam in brief, including the 1991 war, UNSCOM, the IAEA, Iraqi deception and propaganda, the later inspection regime UNMOVIC and Oil-for-Food. Sanctions were eroded and many countries co-operated with Saddam who rewarded the families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories with $25 000 for the murder of Israelis.
Chapter Two discusses President Bush and PM Blair, their religious views and their shared concepts of right and wrong. He considers Bush as being closer to Reagan than the very first President Bush. Here Shawcross also explains NeoConservatism, its prominent personalities, viewpoints and media like Commentary, the The Wall Street Journal opinion page and Weekly Standard. He dissects the Euro intelligentsia and their immature anti-Americanism and hysterical Bush Derangement Syndrome. Also see Anti-Americanism by Jean-Francois Revel in this regard. The concept of pre-emption is also considered in this chapter.
Europe has proved itself incapable of standing alone against totalitarianism in the 20th century, as discussed in Chapter Three which looks at the world since WW2, the formation of the EU and the role of France in particular. UN failures in Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in 1995 led to genocide. The USA was forced to intervene in Kosovo in 1999 and after 9/11, in Afghanistan. The EU has a collectivist outlook and its political elites have always aspired to make it a counterbalance to the USA. Shawcross points out Jacques Chirac's friendship and collaboration with Saddam and the role of Gerhard Schroeder in Germany. Both leaders fostered a climate of anti-Americanism. Good riddance to them.
The subsequent chapter charts the collapse of consensus in the build-up to the war in 2002, with discusion of UN Resolution 1441, the attitude of European elites (The "cicadas" as Oriana Fallaci called them), Old versus New Europe and the principled stand of some liberal intellectuals like Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik. Shawcross gives credit to Tony Blair for articulating the necessity for Saddam's removal very well.
In the subsequent chapter he shows how wrong the mass media were, especially in their doom-laded predictions of millions of refugees. The extent of Saddam's horrors was revealed but there were problems in the occupation and reconstruction efforts. Shawcross discusses the juvenile ranting of the anti-American literati and reveals the real attitude of the French Fop Dominique de Villepin who has now mercifully faded from the scene. Notable exceptions amongst the French intelligentsia include Bernard Kouchner, Andre Glucksmann and Bernard Henri Levy. Reconstruction in Iraq has proceeded with little help from Europe.
Chapter Six deals with the successes and failures after liberation, the proliferation of Islamic terrorism and the sinister nature of the hatred for America. He concludes that the liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do and that American sacrifice is essential to the world. Since publication, the situation in Europe has markedly improved with the election of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicholas Sarkozy in France. The book includes a bibliography and notes arranged by chapter, and concludes with an index. Allies is a concise and illuminating study of recent history that puts the dangerous world of the 21st century in clear perspective.
Deliver Us from Evil by William Shawcross
Hating America: A History by Barry Rubin
A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq by Christopher Hitchens
A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq edited by Thomas Cushman
World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism by Norman Podhoretz
Rated by buyers 
-
William Shawcross attempts to explain the American-European relationship after 9/11 and leading up to the Iraq war. He claims in his introduction that "the book isn't a narrative of the war in Iraq but a glance at one of the ways in which the international community, following 9/11, confronted evil." The book is indeed not a narrative of the war itself, but rather a narrative about how the war started.
The very first chapter is essentially an overview of Iraq since the early 80's up until before the war. This chapter is poor at best. Many of the important details from this time period aren't even mentioned. There's no discusion of the U.S. coup endeavor in the mid-90s, no discusion of how the U.S. was manipulating the weapons inspections process. The real reasons surrounding Desert Fox in 1998 are not discussed either. Shawcross lazily attributes it to Hussein's defiance, which is only half of the story. What happened in Iraq during the 90s was not merely the result of Hussein's actions. What the U.S. did mattered. It had an enormous effect, but Shawcross doesn't even begin to address it. He also appears to believe that the U.S. had no responsibility for the detrimental effects of the sanctions during the 90s. He attributes anyone's belief that the U.S. might bear some responsibility in this area to "Iraqi propaganda."
The subsequent chapter attempts to compare and contrast Bush and Blair as leaders and why they would come together on the Iraq issue even though their partnership seems counterintuitive. In this chapter Shawcross continues his poor handling of Iraq events from the 90s as he attributes the Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia to Bin Laden even though Iran and Hezbollah are known to be responsible for the attacks.
The rest of the book deals with the nature of the U.S.-European alliance and how it was strained as the U.S. prepared for war. He goes into great detial when explaining France and Germany's opposition to the war. Based on the rationale that Shawcross gives, it becomes easier to understand why there was so much opposition to the war. These chapters seem to give a fair treatment to the subject and Shawcross makes some, but not enough, progress in redeeming his poor coverage of Iraq.
Shawcross was a supporter of the war and believed that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. However, his understanding of the events inside Iraq are not correct or complete. It is possible to fully understand what happened in and to Iraq during the past 20 years and also support the idea of removing Hussein, but Shawcross is building his thoughts on a shaky foundation. He makes a strong moral argument in his conclusion, but when compared to his interpretaion of the sanctions and whether or not the U.S. was even partly to blame for their negative effects, really hurts his ability to make moral judgements. His coverage of the controversy leading up to the war seems complete when compared to other authors, but based on his very first chapter, everything else becomes suspect.
Rated by buyers -
This book makes an excellent argument for the war in Iraq, citing the numerous breaches of UN resolutions and international law and treaties. The insight into Bush and Blair's relationship is very insightful as well. Shawcross makes an argument that they find their common ground due to their religious convictions, something I'm not sure I entirely agree with, but I haven't really ever thought of that aspect of the alliance. Whether or not you agree with the politics of the book, it's still an entertaining read. I'd recommend it to any student of the political sciences, or just anyone interested in current affairs, as long as they keep in mind that it is not a completely unbiased biography, although it is fair.
Rated by buyers -
First of all, the cover of this book as well as its title are both misleading. This book isn't just about relations between Tony Blair and George Bush per se. It is broader than that, encompassing relations amongst the big 4 allies, actually: Germany, France, Britain & the USA---pretty much ignoring Italy, Turkey, and other NATO allies. A more accurate title of this book would have been entitled something like: "The Collapse of Consensus: Euro-American Relations & the War in Iraq." There's nothing new in this book, however, but it does provide a rather concise summary of how heretofore Allied consensus ran aground over the shoals of whether to employ force against Saddam Hussein or not. Most involved were of the opinion, after all, that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that he was bucking the authority of the United Nations. Some just refused to countenance the use of force to do anything about it. A little history: UN Resolution #678 was adopted in 1990 authorizing all member states "to use all necessary means" to enforce the removal of Saddam's army from Kuwait "and to restore international peace and security in the area." Once such was accomplished, Saddam formally accepted ceasefire terms---codified under UN Resolution #687 in 1991---that he unconditionally give up all his chemical & biological weapons capability/stocks/development. Quoting Mr. Shawcross: "In March 2003, not one of the fifteen members [of the UN Security Council] doubted that Iraq was still in breach of all the relevant, binding Council resolutions since 678." (Incidentially, the word "binding" herein refers to the fact that Security Council resolutions are enforceable, unlike General Assembly resolutions---against Israel, for instance---which are purely political & NOT binding. So the double standard some see herein is but a canard.) Back to the above, it is not just the author's opinion that everyone was in agreement. You have only to consult the unanimously adopted Resolution 1441 (November 9, 2002) which threatened "serious consequences" for Iraq if it did not utilize this one last chance. France & Germany both voted for this resolution & 4 months later both continued to caution against calling "time's up" for Iraq to fully comply. French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin argued that "Everyone is faced with the choice of disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully or by force." To which, said Jack Straw, his British counterpart: "Dominique, that's a false choice. The choice, Dominique, is not ours as to how this disarmament takes place. The choice is Saddam Hussein's." A little more time, and a little more time, and a little more time, of course, accounted for the fact that Saddam had strung out the UN over this for over a decade up to this point. Listen to this view: "If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." So said Bill Clinton in 1998. Unfortunately it took September 11th to bring this issue to a head---and not because Saddam hard a hand therein, but because such made it then too dangerous a gamble anymore to let Saddam's unrenounced desire to use and/or develope---or transfer---chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. September 11, you could consequently say, allowed the neoconservative view of pre-emption to gain traction; being expressed by the likes of Tony Blair, Jack Straw, & George Bush, as well by leaders in Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Holland, et al. Others, of course, preferrred the status quo, believing that September 10th thinking was still supportable in a post 9/11 world. Thanks for reading my review. Cheers!
Rated by buyers -
as an American living in Europe this book provides a condensed summary of the politics and events surrounding the Iraqi war. I recommend it as a balanced exposition that puts the decisions into historical context.
Find other books like this one:
