|
The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq | 
 enlarge | Author: George Packer
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Category: Book
List Price: $15.00
Buy Used: $2.52
You Save: $12.48 (83%)
New (44) Used (51) from $2.52
Rating:  121 reviews
Sales Rank: 50830
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1st
Pages: 512
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.6 x 1.4
ISBN: 0374530556
Dewey Decimal Number: 327
EAN: 9780374530556
ASIN: 0374530556
Publication Date: September 19, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Giving great service since 2004: Buy from the Best! 4,000,000 items shipped to delighted customers. We have 1,000,000 unique items ready to ship! Find your Great Buy today!
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
As the death toll mounts in the Iraq War, Americans are agonizing over how the mess started and what to do now. George Packer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, joins the debate with his thoughtful book The Assassins' Gate. Packer describes himself as an ambivalent pro-war liberal "who supported a war [in Iraq] by about the same margin that the voting public had supported Al Gore." He never believed the argument that Iraq should be invaded because of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he saw the war as a way to get rid of Saddam Hussein and build democracy in Iraq, in the vein of the U.S. interventions in Haiti and Bosnia. How did such lofty aims get so derailed? How did the U.S. get stuck in a quagmire in the Middle East? Packer traces the roots of the war back to a historic shift in U.S. policy that President Bush made immediately after 9/11. No longer would the U.S. be hamstrung by multilateralism or working through the UN. It would act unilaterally around the world--forging temporary coalitions with other nations where suitable--and defend its status as the sole superpower. But when it came to Iraq, even Bush administration officials were deeply divided. Packer takes readers inside the vicious bureaucratic warfare between the Pentagon and State Department that turned U.S. policy on Iraq into an incoherent mess. We see the consequences in the second half of The Assassins' Gate, which takes the reader to Iraq after the bombs have stopped dropping. Packer writes vividly about how the country deteriorated into chaos, with U.S. authorities in Iraq operating in crisis mode. The book fails to capture much of the debate about the war among Iraqis themselves--instead relying mostly on the views of one prominent Iraqi exile--but it is an insightful contribution to the debate about the decisions--and blunders--behind the war. --Alex Roslin
Product Description
Named one of the Best Books of 2005 by The New York Times, The Washington Post Book World, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle Book Review, The Los Angeles Times Book Review, The New York Times Book Review, USA Today, Time, and New York magazine. The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq recounts how the United States set about changing the history of the Middle East and became ensnared in a guerrilla war in Iraq. It brings to life the people and ideas that created the Bush administration’s war policy and led America to the Assassins’ Gate—the main point of entry into the American zone in Baghdad. The Assassins’ Gate also describes the place of the war in American life: the ideological battles in Washington that led to chaos in Iraq, the ordeal of a fallen soldier ’s family, and the political culture of a country too bitterly polarized to realize such a vast and morally complex undertaking. George Packer’s best-selling first-person narrative combines the scope of an epic history with the depth and intimacy of a novel, creating a masterful account of America’s most controversial foreign venture since Vietnam.
Book Description
THE ASSASSINS’ GATE: AMERICA IN IRAQ recounts how the United States set about changing the history of the Middle East and became ensnared in a guerilla war in Iraq. It brings to life the people and ideas that created the Bush administration’s war policy and led America to the Assassins’ Gate—the main point of entry into the American zone in Baghdad. The consequences of that policy are shown in the author’s brilliant reporting on the ground in Iraq, where he made four tours on assignment for The New Yorker. We see up close the struggles of American soldiers and civilians and Iraqis from all backgrounds, thrown together by a war that followed none of the preconceived scripts.
The Assassins' Gate also describes the place of the war in American life: the ideological battles in Washington that led to chaos in Iraq, the ordeal of a fallen soldier’s family, and the political culture of a country too bitterly polarized to realize such a vast and morally complex undertaking. George Packer’s first-person narrative combines the scope of an epic history with the depth and intimacy of a novel, creating a masterful account of America’s most controversial foreign venture since Vietnam.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 116 more reviews...
 Even the title carries a message December 13, 2005
Mark Shanks (Portland, OR)
74 out of 82 found this review helpful
The title itself refers to the main gateway into Baghdad's Green Zone, the heavily fortified compound area from which the Coaltion Provisional Authority "governed" Iraq in the months after the invasion. As it turns out, the Assassin's Gate doesn't get it's colorful 1,001 Nights-flavored name from any historical allusion, but simply from the Alpha Company unit that was stationed there. I would be hard-pressed to come up with a more appropriately ironic name.
What gives Mr. Packer considerable credibility in writing this book is that he supported the invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein. He has no ideological ax to grind, and lays out the history and philosophy of the key players in the government who pressed for this action dispassionately. Only the "true believers" could take exception to the facts as presented here, although I think he understates the objectives and influence of the "Project for the New American Century", or PNAC, political group. To the reviewer who claims that Packer's Iraqis all seem to be negative, I can only answer that he definitely gives equal time to those who have an optimistic outlook for their country.
But even attributing the most benevolent (if naive) motivations to all concerned in the rush to war, there is no covering up the antipathy (to put it mildly) of those same players to the concept of any sort of post-war planning. And therein lies the primary thesis of the book. In fact, the war itself really isn't covered except in passing. There simply WAS no plan. Iraq would be liberated, and that was what was important. Any thought given to contingencies was considered disloyal at best, and going public with any doubt or question inevitably resulted in early retirement, usually accompanied by character assassination. And that remains the tragedy - the old saw "failing to plan is planning to fail" could not be better illustrated, but there are hundreds of thousands of lives affected by this monumental hubris and distain.
One of the most interesting (to me) sections of the book dealt with the Kurds, and specifically with those in Kirkuk. After Hussein's "de-Kurdification" efforts there, how to deal with the grievances of those Kurds forcefull displaced from ancestral homes? And what of the Arabs who were native to this area? There are bound to be generations of claims and counter-claims, regardless of what sort of government(s) rise in the next few years.
I have only a few minor requests that I think would improve the book. A map is sorely missed, even one printed on the endpapers would be preferable to NO map. And would it be asking too much for some photos, especially of those PNAC behind-the-scene operatives?
I believe this will be the standard single-volume summary of political events in the US dealing with Iraq from 9/11 through the January 2005 elections. This is defintely NOT a military history of the war, but a sad reflection on what could have been done to prevent the chaos and suffering we have visited on Iraq.
Well written and valid, but is it fair? October 22, 2005
Bomojaz (South Central PA, USA)
47 out of 96 found this review helpful
Having read George Packer's reporting on Iraq in The New Yorker, I pretty much knew this was not going to be a shining endorsement of the Bush Administration and its decision to invade Iraq in order to replace the brutally dictatorial regime led by Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. I did wonder, however, just how fierce an attack Packer would make, and although he is somewhat slow to boil, by the end he is savage. But is he fair?
The book opens with an excellent chapter on roots: how the Gulf War was viewed as an unfinished war; how the neoconservatives, led by the likes of Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and especially Paul Wolfowitz, influenced Republican policy makers, particularly after the fall of Russian communism in 1989 (to wit: America, as the only world superpower, could and should impose its doctrines on nations in an effort to reduce tyranny, create democratic governments, and open trade agreements); and how the neocons thought that Clinton had a backward-looking view of American foreign policy. Then came 9/11. According to Kagan, as reported by Packer, it wasn't until that day that Bush began thinking like a neocon.
From here, Packer recounts the now-familiar story of how Bush made his case for attacking Iraq, especially his argument that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was ready to launch them who knew where. He recounts the day (April 9) when Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi official who had been advocating the overthrow of Saddam since 1991, sat in the White House and watched on TV the statue of Saddam being toppled and wept with joy. But, as Packer says, "After that, the trouble began."
And it's from this point that trouble begins with the book. It's also where Packer gets personally involved in his narrative as he describes his own encounters in the country during visits there. Every person he talks to seems to have a negative view: nothing is going right, everything is in chaos. It's a great way to reinforce a particular point of view; make it the only view you report. I don't doubt the validity of what Packer reports for a second, only its one-sidedness. For example, he tells how when the Iraqi leaders asked Jay Garner, head of ORHA, who was in charge of their politics, they were told that they, the Iraqis, were in charge. To the Iraqis this was almost incomprehensible, they had never been in charge of anything under Saddam. "They were losing faith in us by the second," an aide who was present is quoted as saying. True, I'm sure, at the time, but the thought is allowed to hang there so that its negativity lingers as if it might still be true. Iraqis are showing a willingness to "take charge" that in some regards, considering the continuing violence, is very surprising and hopeful. This kind of thing occurs over and over. It's like reading one police report after another how scissors were used as a murder weapon in various crimes - you soon begin to lose sight of the usefulness of scissors for cutting paper. As the book continues with chapters on insurgencies and possible civil war, the reporting gets more and more incriminating and bitter. By the last chapter Packer is almost frothing with invective at everything related to George Bush and his policies.
Of course, the jury is still out (although Packer doesn't seem to think so). No one can deny that mistakes were made, especially in not thinking through a worse-case scenario or an exit strategy. Again, I'm sure Packer's reporting is accurate (and I must say that I thought the book was very well written), but I'm not sure I can answer the question I posed in my opening paragraph with a yes.
 The Neocon Cabal for War November 4, 2005
A Reader, (Milpitas, CA, USA)
45 out of 131 found this review helpful
The author of this book asks the question "Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?" and pretends not to know the answer: "It still isn't possible to be sure ?"- This is a joke.
Has the author not read the 1996 report, penned by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser & Co, titled " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", in which it is said:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."
It is widely known that the high officials responsible for the hawkish foreign policy in the Bush-Cheney administration (Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Wurmser, Perle, Hannah, Adelman, Abrams , Bolton, Hadley,...etc.) have long advocated a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in order to secure "the realm" of Israel.
Now that they have succeeded, why the cover-up? This is disingenuous to the extreme.
 illuminating, but we are still in the dark November 15, 2005
M. Driscoll (Boston, MA)
33 out of 41 found this review helpful
George Packer has written as good a book as an American foreign correspondent could have written on contemporary Iraq. But this isn't enough for me, and it shouldn't be enough for most American readers. As Packer himself admits, as the strength of the insurgency grew, "foreigners were cut off from Iraqis... [I]f you were honest about it, you had to admit that you knew less and less about the thinking of Iraqis and the circumstances of their lives."
In his vignettes, Packer captures the lives of disaffected doctors, obsequious sheikhs, drivers, bodyguards, and translators that he is lucky enough to meet, who are brave enough to speak to him, and who (often) speak English well enough to impress upon him their stories.
If Packer's journalism is one-sided, it is not in his conclusions (as some reviews have claimed), it is his sources. The Iraqis he does get through to are but a small and biased set. But when he profiles Americans in Iraq, Packer is incisive and honest. Here we see Marine captain Prior, Paul Bremer's bureaucrats, and others grappling with the enormity of the goal of a stable, democratic Iraq -- against the backdrop of crippled infrastructure and deteriorating security on which that goal depends.
My regret after reading this book is that the fog that has settled over Iraq has not been lifted, only presented in greater detail. Perhaps Packer cannot see through this fog as well as I would have hoped. But what is unsettling is that he appears to see further and clearer than our American leadership, for whom a deep understanding of Iraqis is so much more critical.
 Bush's Neocon Lies for War December 16, 2005
J. M. C., (Washington, D.C. USA)
28 out of 42 found this review helpful
As I said it for another book ("The New American Empire"), Packer's book is also a great help to see through Bush's lies.
Now, George W. Bush says that he accepts responsibility for taking the U.S. to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence. -This is all wrong.
It was not the intelligence that was faulty; it was Bush's intentions to wage war against Iraq no matter what were the intelligence and the facts. He twisted the intelligence reports and invented lies around his already decided policy.
That's why he is guilty of having launched a war of aggression on lies and deception, and on having violated, in so doing, international law. He and his neocon advisors should pray that they will never be brought before an international court of justice.
|
|
|
|
| |
