Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire

First of all, this title is heavy. It is not 'dumbed down' for the reading ease of the majority population. Second, prepare to be amazed because General Wesley Clark seems almost a seer in his predictions of the Iraq offensive (initiated by the Bush Administration). He explains in detail the dynamics of the Middle East, and exactly what type of participation needs to be involved to achieve peace. His theories are nothing short of brilliant, and sensitive, as were his CNN commentaries and analysis. You would be hard pressed to find so thorough a volume, so accurate a volume, by any other military leader. General Wesley K. Clark, with this book, gives credibility to his vast knowledge of foreign policy, and demonstrates his superior critical thinking skills. He is a shining star on the political horizon, and, quite possibly, will be the brightest military strategist and diplomat to hold the office of President of the United States.

I was impressed by the comprehensiveness of "Winning Modern Wars", particularly with regards to General Clark's combined analysis of diplomacy and the use of force.Clark's well-rounded analysis of Iraq, terrorism, and current American interests informs the reader of how all of these factors are interconnected to the borader picture, the kind of political environment America faces, and more importantly why multilateralism is as important as it was in the past.If you support Clark, this book will reinforce your confidence in him. If you don't, you will at the minimum walk away being informed by the intellect of a credentialed ex-General.

Clark's book main topics include: the situation in Iraq, how to deal with terrorism, foreign policy, and the U.S. economy. He presents a smart rebuttal of the Bush administration policies. His ideas will resonate with the U.S. electorate. It will ensure our next President will be more of a Centrist. Clark was against the war in Iraq. This military venture has failed all intended political purposes. We have not found a Iraqi nuclear program. There are no links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The invasion of Iraq has not squelched terrorism, but instead exacerbated as thousands of terrorists throughout the Islamic World infiltrate Iraq and shoot U.S. soldiers as easy target. Installing a lasting democracy seems unlikely. The U.S. Administration post war planning was terrible. The Administration made utopic assumptions that the Iraqis would be ecstatic about being liberated by U.S. forces. The Administration underestimated the Baath party underground resistance, the degree of Shiite factionalism. It also disbanded the Iraqi Army adding 400,000 armed men to the rank of the unemployed. Many boosted the underground Baath party resistance. In attempting to retain full control of the Iraq post war situation, the Administration raised its costs and risks. This is instead of leveraging the UN and NATO peacekeeping forces. Per Clark, terrorism is supranational with no State allegiance. The Administration is attempting to fight it with an obsolete Cold War framework of State-vs-State conflicts. It is attempting to fight terrorism as it fought back Nazism in WWII, and Communism thereafter. The Administration has listed six other targeted countries for upcoming preemptive wars. These include: Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. This is a mistake that the U.S. can't afford. Taking over these countries will do nothing to fight terrorism.The U.S. is concerned about the wrong countries. The root causes of Islamic terrorism are: a) Saudi Arabia extreme Wahhabist ideology which dominates its schools; b) the impoverished, corrupt society of Pakistan and its madrassas schools which teach an equally extreme version of Islam; and c) the supercharged linkage with the Palestinians. But, the U.S. considers Saudi Arabia and Pakistan their allies. And, its Israeli bias further inflames the anti-Americanism throughout Islam. For Clark the solution to fight terrorism is to boost intelligence agencies effectiveness worldwide. U.S. funding should be redirected towards the CIA, FBI, and NSA. Cooperation with European and other intelligence agencies should be implemented. An international legal framework should be developed to reach uniform enforcement actions when dealing with terrorists worldwide. Regarding Islam, Clark accepts that achieving transformation of the region is a generation away. The concept that we can install democratic regimes that would take hold within these countries in a few years is utopic. These countries do

General Wesley Clark's new book on the invasion of Iraq and the fight against terrorism is an absolutely first rate analysis not merely of those conflicts, but on the historical context of the innovations in foreign policy undertaken by the Bush administration. It is of especial relevance now not merely because of the ongoing difficulties in Iraq, but because Clark has become a candidate for president. Since he has recently been accused of having flip-flopped on Iraq, this book should serve as his definitive statement of his views on the subject. He comes across as deeply insightful, cogent, and profoundly analytical. Roughly the first half of the book is a marvelous recounting and analysis of the invasion of Iraq, with little regard to the reasons why Iraq was invaded or the overall political context. It is fairly straightforward military history. As such, it is likely to stand as one of the primary sources for future accounts of the invasion. In writing of the invasion of Iraq, Clark writes like the former general he is. He never writes of any unit in general terms; he always refers specifically to the units involved. He writes not of U.S. soldiers and marines, but of the 3rd Infantry division or the 101st Airborne. They don't merely attack the Iraqi army, but the Republican Guards, the Medina, or the Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar Divisions. He writes of the American units as of old friends, dropping their names as if they are luminaries with whom he is proud to have associated in the past. His discussions of the tactics, the technologies, and the hardware used in the war are enormously insightful. I can't imagine many individuals, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, who wouldn't enjoy the first half of the book.The second half of the book delves more into foreign and domestic policy in general, and more specifically into the kind of vision the Bush administration has for America and the kind of future he would have us move towards. Although he has since writing most of the book decided to run for president, the book is in no way the kind of puff piece that many politicians write before embarking on campaigns. In fact, one can easily imagine him deciding to run for president while mulling over the ideas that form the second half of the book. Clark is extremely critical of the Bush approach to a variety of issues. Having overseen an international coalition in waging war in Kosovo as head of NATO forces, Clark is acutely aware of the advantages of international cooperation and coalitions. He deeply laments the Bush embrasure of unilateralism and the eschewal of coalitions working through international organizations like the UN or NATO. He is likewise upset that much foreign policy is being waged through the army, which he points out-and here his argument carries all the weight of four stars-is designed purely and simply to fight wars, not to serve as an occupying force, or act as police, or rebuild national

In his book, "Winning Modern Wars", Gen. Wesley K. Clark lays out his thoughts on war, diplomacy and the current state of our country. Although this book was written before he publicly announced his run for the Democratic nomination, it sounds like he has known for some time where his political affiliation lies.The firs couple chapters discuss the war in Iraq and it's successes and failures. Clark says that, while the military did their job very well, Bush and his administration failed when it came to planning for the post-war situation. Clark also takes the Bush Admin to task for failing, or not trying hard enough, to get broad international support for the war. While we could have easily won the war in Iraq by ourselves, Clark feels that the burdern of rebuilding Iraq is going to weigh on America for years to come.The next couple chapters discuss Clark's thoughts on the direction of America's foreign policy. He thinks we need to concentrate more on building alliances with countries, who will help in the war on terror. According to Clark, the Bush Administrations war on terror will fail because they are targeting "nation states". This will fail because the terrorists will just keep moving and spreading around. We need to develop and implement ways to end the recruitment of new terrorists while finding and capturing the current ones.The last chapter covers the current direction of America's domestic condition. Clark feels that the large Bush tax cuts were the wrong thing to do during a time of war and recession. He also is disappointed with the current political climate in which Republicans attack anyone who dissents or disagrees with the "war on terror" (quotes are mine). Clark's presidential campaign is calling for a "New American Patriotism" in which love of country and dissent are both welcomed.Highly Recommended!