Hideous Dream: Special Operations, Racism, and Imperialism in the Haiti Invasion of 1994

Let's face it, the US government is probably every bit as evil as former US Army MSG Goff makes it out to be. He should certainly know, and I don't doubt that his comment about not wanting his experience in Haiti to be "another El Salvador" hides some dark secrets. Perhaps he will grace us with a book on that one day. But first, he must do us all a favor and regurgitate the idiocy that Leninism will save mankind. For by the end of his Haitian adventure (and conveniently just before he's put in his 20 years and qualified for a pension from the US Army), Mr. Goff is an avowed Leninist. His next book is not entitled "What I did in El Salvador", but rather will be some radical tract about "Women and War".So should you read this book? It's well written, though a bit too long (one feels that it's building up to some kind of dramatic climax that never really happens, unless you consider that to be Goff's inevitable arrest and removal from Haiti). The little bit of communist diatribe doesn't come until the end, unlike with his more recent book "Full Spectrum Disorder", where it leaps off almost every page. "Hideous Dream" is a good read, and will help you understand much better what happened "on the ground", so to speak, in 1994. And once again, you will be disheartened to learn of all the evil people in the world who thrive and rape and kill not despite of the US government, but BECAUSE of it. For it turns out that the mission is to restore all the brutal and murderous club and machete-wielding macoutes to power! Democracy, hell!It is no wonder that people all over the world hate us, because our government never practices what it preaches.Just don't forget that socialism has killed just as many people as facism. The problem is not facism vs. socialism, it's -ism! Mr. Goff's heart is in the right place, but his head isn't. He's made the same fatal mistake of so many millions of intellectuals in the last century, forsaking one evil for another. And when the system changes to their liking, they are always the first ones to go.

Stan has a unique perspective, and I can say as a former paratrooper myself that he has my ultimate respect. The time spent and units he served under are not to be taken lightly. Obviously to be chosen for these units you are at the very best at what you do. Brainwashing in the military, especially these unit's, is well documented. I can say from my experience, and the experience's of my father, a career Army enlisted man himself and Vietnam veteran - it is thorough. Stan obviously kept his sanity through all of this, and is doing our country a GREAT service by telling the truth. He has my absolute respect, unlike many of our political leaders who lie and grease the palms of eachother to achieve their selfish goals. American's would do themselves a great service by slowly sipping his words and opening their eyes. Thank you Stan.

First let me start by saying that many of those critical of Goff's observations drip with a need to discredit MSG Goff, and with that discredit all the insiders who openly speak out against the agenda's that have guided U.S. foreign policy for most of its history. The most tried and true tactic of those who support the foreign policy decisions of the U.S. government has always been to discredit the individual, hoping then that what they say will also be discredited. I wish to say that those motives stand out in the reviews, as does their lack of factual evidence to counter claims made by not only Goff, but by countless other former employees of Uncle Sam whom claim that the military is the muscle for the business interests of the wealthy elite, (pretty much an all white club) and ethics and morality are not what we fight for abroad. Of course, the more surprising the credentials of the disodence, the more low blows it takes in the desperate attempts to just make what they are saying go away so we'll never have to face that we have to get off our butts and actually think about how we'll make a difference in a situation that seems more and more hopeless every day. Goff is not the only insider who has come out and spoken about the contradictions they witnessed that took the innocence away from them. Others include (plesae look these folks up on your own) Marine Corps General and Medal of Honor receiver, Smedley Butler, former CIA operative Phillip Agee, and former U.S. attorney General Ramsey Clark. All support Goff's ascertations. Countless others do as well, but this is not about them, this is a review of MSG Stan Goff. The personal attacks to discredit Goff instead of standing up to his ascertations were not effectively masked at all. I agree with another reviewer that the comment made about Goff "becoming Black" is not a very effective way to critique Goff. Nor is another reviewer's comments about Goff breaking General Order one by drinking alcahol. In case you've not heard, once you cross into a brother hood that embraces killing and dying as a way of life, drinking and other destructive behavior (such as bar brawling) that is officialy against the rules is practically a rite of passage and to judge Goff for drinking with his men is to judge a huge population of the military. I would hope that their would be more straight forward and factual criticism for those whom disagree with MSG Goff. One reviewer claims that Goff distorts facts, please, tell us which ones he distorts if you are going to make those claims so readers can better examine the attack on Goff's credibility. One reviewer doubts Goff's membership to the elite Special Forces unit, "Delta Force." I would direct that reader to Eric Heney's recent book, Inside Delta Force, where Goff is clearly recognizable as one of the Delta Operators in one of Haney's pictures of B Squadrdron, 1982, Greneda. Of course, Goff is the only one pensively looking away from the camera

This is an excellent, detailed book by someone who isn't afraid to speak the truth about current conditions in the United States military.Notice that the reviewers below are unable to point out any factual problems with the book, but persist in ad hominem attacks against the author. This is merely sad, and indicative of the lengths military apologists will go to resist any criticism whatsoever.