alonovo.com (beta 2.0)

To be honest, I wasn't able to finish this book 2010-06-01

Reviewer: M. J. Walters

It's nothing to do with Jarecki's writing, but rather the subject matter. I am overwhelmed by the issues in this book, and honestly reached a point where further reading was impossible. I'm awarding four stars for the writing, and the willingness to tackle this subject matter, because no matter what Jarecki writes -- and I found him pretty even-handed -- someone is going to hate him for it, and call him names.

A book well worth reading, regardless of your point of view. 2010-02-09

Reviewer: J. Guild

The author presents a point of view that is held by many but by no means all.This point of view changes as world situations change.Those who read it will either agree or disagree with the overall conclusions;because overall the author is one sided in his examples and conclusions.He never discusses the other side of any issue,and that is okay;but the reader should keep that in mind.This book will find a compfortable place on the bookshelf alongside Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" or Gore's "Inconvenient Truth",and other left position books.If that is your position,then you will certainly agree with the author and believe he has presented fair and balanced analysis and conclusions. If you are of the opposing persasion ,you not agree with him.
What one should particularly remember in reading this book ,that if anything,there has always been different views on the part of liberals and conservatives whenever America has gone to war.As well,there has always been those who believe in appeasement as a way to deal with an enemy as opposed to those who are ready and willing to respond with action against an agressor.
The author goes into great detail in criticizing what he labels the MIC or Military Industrial Concept, and in fact portrays it as evil,self serving and in no way working in America's interest.However;he completely dismisses any thought that without it,the Nazi and Japanese quest for world domination in WWII,would have succeded.He ignores the whole idea that war in Europe and in the Pacific was in no way a quest for American empire building;by it took the will and strength of America to end it.He also overlooks the fact that over 60 million military and civilians were killed in WWII,and argues that Truman was wrong and had American self interests,for using the bomb to end it.
He also argues that the solutions to world conflicts would be better handled by European approaches and via organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations.There may be validity in this thinking;but history has yet to prove this as successful;but then again,this is a view opposed to the author.
While the author is highly critical to a strong military and industry that provides the weapons to defend the country as well as to take action when necessary,he overlooks the fact that it was by their availability that Kennedy could stand up against Russia and make them stand down when they attempted to instal missels in Cuba.It was the same strength that Reagan used to convince convince Russia that an arms race with America was pointless. It was also the fact that in the Gulf War,that America's superior forces and arms quelled Saddam's march on Kuwait.This invasion could have well grown into what WWII became, because Europe preferred to deal with Hitler's aggression with appeasement.
Once again;I believe this is a good book in presenting a political viewpoint,but from one side only.
Another suggestion I would make is to read the Conclusion first, to see where the author is really coming from.
The fact that America has been the force that fought for liberty and freedom throughout the 20th century and defeated Nazism,Facism,The Japanese Empire and Soviet Agression;one cannot even imagine what the world would be like today without America. Those who endlessly oppose and criticise America should be careful in what they wish for;they might just get it.

As General Douglas MacArthur so aptly put it;

"The inescapable price of liberty is an ability to preserve it from
destruction."

A must read 2009-09-24

Reviewer: A. Freechild

This book was fascinating, well cited and of interest to Americans of all political bents. I never thought I would find such an appreciation for military history This is a vital book for reviving our democracy and understanding the threats to it.

An important but rather distressing analysis of how American political culture has been corrupted 2009-06-30

Reviewer: Robert Moore

This is a very good book that goes well beyond the documentary film made by the author of this book. It explores how the American political system has increasingly become intertwined with military interests. As a result, the needs and desires of the military industry has come to drive American foreign policy to an unjustifiable degree.

The tragedy of this is that it undermines the founding principles upon which the nation was established. Virtually all of the founders, with the notable exception of Hamilton, envisioned a nation not ruled and controlled by military interests. Like in the Roman Republic that the Founders so admired (both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both highly esteemed them -- both admired Machiavelli, not for what is today his most famous work, THE PRINCE, but for his DISCOURSES, which dealt with the ideals of republicanism), they hoped for a nation built upon ideals of civic responsibility rather than the martial virtues. One of the many points of contention between the Republicans led by Jefferson (the Republican party later transformed into the modern Democratic party) and Hamilton's wing of the Federalist party was the role of the military in the national life. Hamilton envisioned a great standing army and the achievement of national ends through militaristic means. Jefferson, on the other hand, was opposed to the building of a navy, even when national needs dictated their its necessity.

Today, however, the danger that Eisenhower foresaw, the nation enthrall to a military industry that has taken on a life of its own, forcing government to structure foreign policy around its needs.

What breaks my heart is that by cutting dramatically on military spending -- and given the complete lack of state powers that act as enemies in the current alignment of nations there is no reason why we shouldn't -- we could easily afford health care and energy reform, put social security on firm footing, and even establish a national pension. Why can't we? Because Eisenhower's military-industrial complex dominates our thinking about our priorities as a nation.

Even with the election of Obama and the establishment in many ways of new national goals, this new set of national priorities that have been in place since World War II is likely to undermine national interests by forcing us to further our policies by militaristic means.

I'm not certain that we are ready as a nation to really embrace change in the role of "the military-industrial complex" in national life. But we need more voices like Jarecki's explaining how things have gone so wrong.

The Road to a Government Obsessed with war 2009-04-23

Reviewer: E. Byers

I wanted to read this book since hearing about it when the author was a guest on the daily show. However that tidbit might want to make you think this book is biased, although it really isn't. A lot of books of late have kind of jumped on the bandwagon of blaming the previous administrations failures, and getting information that the normal US Citizen would not see in their morning newspaper. This book does expose those same things, but builds it's case, showing America's path to the war machine has built over the years, and the responsibility behind it.

This book was great for me, it gives you a lot of background, insight, yet presents it as something that you don't want to put down. This is a good read.