War and Politics Books

This book is a good overview of the main events of the period. Dunn does a great job explaining each event.

This is the second book I've read in the Norton History of Modern Europe (the first was Eugene F. Rice, Jr.'s "The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559"), and I've been highly impressed with both of them.

They both cover the basic events fairly thoroughly and simply, presenting the background but not getting lost in details. Although focusing on political history, they both cover many other aspects of history--military strategy, economics, demographics, art and culture, philosophy--briefly at least.

Speaking as someone who occasionally has to teach the subject, in my opinion organization is the greatest challenge in presenting history, and one of the greatest compliments I can pay to any history book is to call it well-organized. Dunn's book is generally very well-organized; I have only a few minor quibbles, and I doubt that I could improve on his organization without introducing bigger problems.

Other quibbles are much less significant: I would have liked more detail regarding the War of the Spanish Succession, more information about changes in military strategy in this period (since firearms underwent constant improvement, and the nature of seige warfare changed dramatically--but how exactly did these change the strategy and nature of warfare?), more on the culture of Restoration England, maybe something on the culture of the Puritans (he tells us nothing of John Foxe, and almost nothing of John Milton or John Bunyan).

However, I am fairly familiar with the cultural history of Europe (by which I mean art, music, literature, philosophy and religion), so in reading these books my main concern is to fill in the political, military, and economic background, which I don't know very well. If your situation is similar to mine, I guarantee you will find these books very rewarding.

One other thing I find most gratifying is the well chosen illustrations: although printed in black and white, they are often obscure enough to be new to me, while perfectly commenting the text. For instance, the closing pages show a woodcut of Peter the Great cutting a Russian nobleman's beard, in which Peter (actually an impressively large man) is portrayed as a giggling, child-size pest to the large, dignified nobleman; the opposite page features a print from 1698 showing Peter's execution of the streltsy (his elite guard) rebels: row after row of hangings and beheadings on edifying display for the passing carriages. You didn't see it in your art history survey course, but it reveals the nature of Peter's Russia far more effectively than anything that you did.

The maps are also perfect, which enhances any history book.

If you are looking for a history of modern European culture, I do not recommend these books, however, as their focus lies elsewhere. For that purpose, I suggest starting with Jacques Barzun's opinionated but thorough "From Dawn to Decadence," supplemented with a good art history textbook such as Jansen's History of Art. If the religious issues that attended the religious wars are your concern, you should consider the 4th volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition," which is titled "Reformation of Church Dogma."

After this book, if your thirst for early modern European history has not been quenched, I recommend turning to Diarmaid MacCulloch's "The Reformation."

Reads like a story, instead of a series of "facts", like most history books. Highly readable. Very interesting.

When my son began the study of Modern European History in college I decided to reacquaint myself with the subject. "The Age of Religious Wars" is a good place to start. Covering the years, 1559-1715, this tome takes the reader from the End of the Reformation to the beginning of the era of the 18th century balance of power.

This book focuses on the big themes of history. It tells the stories of Kings and warriors, merchants and clerics, artists and philosophers, but very little about the common people of the era.

This book is very well organized. Beginning with the situation in Europe in 1559, the first chapter gives the religious lay of the land in the countries of Western Europe at the start of the era. Chapter 2 outlines the beginning political situation in Eastern Europe.

In Chapter 3 the author studies the economic theories and commercial forms which fueled the economies of the age.

Chapter 4 introduces the reader to the political ebb and flow between absolutism and rising constitutionalism. Although the dominant figure of the era was France's Sun King, Louis XIV, he was the architect of a system which would die in a sea of blood before the 18th Century was out. In his day, Louis XIV lead the superpower of the age, but, toward the end of his long reign, he overplayed his hand, losing much of the territorial gains which he had temporally enjoyed.

The political upheaval of the era which was a harbinger of things to come was England's Glorious Revolution of 1688. For perhaps the first time in history, a monarch's right to reign was made dependent on the support of his subjects. Protestants William of Orange and his wife, Queen Mary, daughter of the late King Charles II, were invited by the nobles to challenge Mary's brother, the Catholic King James II. The resulting overthrow of James, in clear contrast to Louis' absolutism, laid the groundwork for the concept of government by consent of the governed, which would receive expanding application during the succeeding centuries.

In Chapter 5 Prof. Dunn reflects on the Age of Genius which truly this era was. Emerging from the intellectually stagnant Middle Ages, Europe erupted into a creative age virtually unique in history. Science was advanced by the likes of Copernicas, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes and Newton. Renaissance art bust forth under the creative genius of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, Durer and El Greco, to be followed by Baroque masters such as Rubens, Van Dyck and Velazquez. Europe still glories in the architectural heritage of Bernini and Wren. Our philosophy and political science still draw inspiration from the writings of Montaigne, Pascal, Hobbes Sponoza and Locke. Theatres of the world still interpret the works of Shakespeare and Marlowe, Lope de Vega and Calderon, Corneile, Moliere and Racine.

The book concludes in its sixth chapter with an analysis of the new balance of power which would carry Europe into a new age. A series of wars, Sweden's moment in the international spotlight and giant personalities such as Peter the Great would all combine to make Europe the place it would be in the 18th century.

Overall, this book is a good survey of the Age of Religious Wars. I had not read a college text in a long time and I had more acclimated to learning history in biographies and books more focused on specific topics. I am glad that I read it and give it 4 stars.

Dunn is an excellent writer. He is not flowery like the Durants, but his prose is elegant and to the point. He covers a great deal in a fair amount of detail. His book is very well organised and full of well chosen illustrations. The book is an easy size to carry around and very competitively priced (this kind of book is often very expensive, this one is not). If you want an introduction to this period, I do not think you could do better than this book. I could not put it down (Dunn knows how to be entertaining) and since completing it have referred to it often.

This book is the first account of US foreign policy in the 1990s that treats the decade as genuine history. I mean that it does not simply offer a chronicle of the period, or a set of newspaper clippings and individual events - it offers a guiding historical interpretation that sets those years in relation to the Cold War before and 9/11 and beyond. It is very convincing that there is far more continuity today with the foreign policies of those years than many people, left or right, give credit for. It is a highly persuasive interpretation of the period and I believe will remain the standard account of its foreign policy for a long time to come.

This is a tremendously important book that explains what happened when the Berlin wall fell and America's foreign policy establishment was forced to confront a world that was no longer organized by the US/Soviet rivalry. As it becomes increasingly clear that the "war on terrorism" is only a part of the broader foreign policy needed to protect our nation in a complex and multi-polar world, this is the book to read if you want to understand how the next generation of policymakers will draw on the lessons of the recent past to set a new course. Chollet and Goldgeier know what they are talking about. They have done exhaustive research, and each of them has hands on experience in the foreign policy business. It's a bonus that the writing is lively and engaging. Don't miss this book.

An excellent read for someone who wants a non-partisan approach to history's impact on international relations and foreign policy. Additionally, Chollet and Goldgeier postulate how our current state of affairs will shape tomorrow's. This is a perfect book for someone who wants to understand where we were and where we are going.

America Between the Wars tells the story of 11/9 to 9/11 through informative, behind-the-scenes stories that illustrate the dynamic and contentious foreign policy debates from the fall of the Berlin wall to the fall of the twin towers. If you like the stories behind the history, you'll love America Between the Wars. And if you usually prefer novels, you may find Chollet and Goldgeier's narrative voice appealing. Rather than writing a wonky, boring foreign policy book as so many unfortunately do, the authors present a relevant and relatable book. Especially for those who lived through this period, America Between the Wars reveals critical elements of our past and our future.

I was in Jr. High and High School during the 90s and so wasn't very familiar with this period before reading this, and while interested and somewhat familiar with policy, am certainly no expert. After years of thinking I knew who neoconservatives were and what both parties "stood for", this book really put things into perspective and contextualized things for me. And though it's a "history", it draws extensively on interviews with leading policymakers & insiders during the period, so the text ends up reading more like a narrative (great for a novel-reader like myself).

In sum, this was really informative, interesting, and a quick read - perfect for anyone looking for a genuinely nonpartisan, nuanced look at how we got to where we are - both domestically and abroad. Definitely a must for your summer reading list.

During the Vietnam war the United States used its enormous military power to try to install in South Vietnam a minority government of U.S. choice, with its military operations based on the knowledge that the people there were the enemy. This country killed millions and left Vietnam (and the rest of Indochina) devastated. A Wall Street Journal report in 1997 estimated that perhaps 500,000 children in Vietnam suffer from serious birth defects resulting from the U.S. use of chemical weapons there. Seems fairly reasonable to protest against this, surely?... This was and is a groundbreaking book, and ....

American Power and the New Mandarins, first published in 1967, is a collection of essays by Noam Chomsky about the Vietnam War and related subjects. Originally famous for his contributions to linguistics, Chomsky began writing extensively about U.S. foreign policy during the Vietnam War, and this collection is the first of his many political books. While the subject matter is a bit dated, those who are interested in either the intellectual climate during the Vietnam era or the origins of Chomsky's career as a critic of U.S. policy will find plenty to interest them in this book.

Chomsky's primary goal in American Power and the New Mandarins is not to convince the reader that the Vietnam War was wrong. On this issue, he says that "Anyone who puts a fraction of his mind to the task can construct a case [against the war] that is overwhelming" (9). Rather, his goal is to illustrate the degree to which American intellectuals supported the war, or at least the assumptions behind it. Many people remember the Vietnam War as a time of widespread protest against U.S. policy, with intellectuals and the youth leading the way. Chomsky argues that the war's "opponents" were often not concerned with the moral issues related to the war, but rather with the fact that the war seemed to be unwinnable and was costing too many American lives. The implication is that these intellectuals would not be protesting if the U.S. had crushed the Vietnamese resistance without significant loss of American life (Vietnamese life being irrelevant).

The book is made up of eight essays of varying length, and an introduction and an epilogue.

- In "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship," Chomsky introduces the concept of the "new mandarins"--those who claim the authority to determine policy based on their allegedly "scientific" understanding of human nature and technology. These "new mandarins" believe that their knowledge gives them the right to restructure society in Vietnam and elsewhere, regardless of the wishes of the local population. In addition, Chomsky argues that many intellectuals tend to accept the status quo and support the basic assumptions of U.S. policy--that Western nations always know best, and force is justified to keep Third World countries from going down the "wrong" path. This essay is not very concise or organized; Chomsky has plenty of evidence to present but it flows out in no particular order. Chomsky devotes nearly 50 pages to criticizing a single historian's book about the Spanish Civil War--an excellent example, in Chomsky's opinion, of "the deep-seated bias of liberal historians," (93) but a cumbersome way to make his point. Still, whatever its organizational shortcomings, this essay presents plenty of evidence to illustrate the biases of liberal intellectuals in favor of American power.

- In "The Revolutionary Pacifism of A. J. Muste: On the Backgrounds of the Pacific War," Chomsky explains the parallels between the Vietnam War and Japanese expansion in China in the 1930's. In both cases, defenders of government policy appealed to "the high moral character of the intervention, the benefits it would bring to the suffering masses" (183). Both America and Japan tried to set up puppet governments to serve their interests, and responded to doubts about their actions by emphasizing the "Communist" threat (196).

- "The Logic of Withdrawal" discusses the political strength of the NLF (Vietcong) and the continuing resistance of the United States to any political settlement that might allow the Vietnamese a fair choice between the NLF and other alternatives. Chomsky ridicules the idea that an NLF political victory could pose any threat to America's survival, comparing this to the Nazis' claim that "a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy was threatening the survival of Germany" (249).

- "The Bitter Heritage" is Chomsky's review of Arthur Schlesinger's book of the same name. Schlesinger expresses the "liberal" view that the United States had made a tactical error by fighting a costly war, but that American motives were pure. Chomsky argues that this view represents the extreme limit of mainstream opposition to the war in the United States. The view that "the United States has no unilateral right to determine by force the course of development of the nations of the Third World" (297) is not considered to be "responsible criticism" (296).

- In "Some Thoughts on Intellectuals and the Schools" and "The Responsibility of Intellectuals," Chomsky continues his criticism of intellectuals who endorse the irresponsible use of American power.

- "On Resistance" and "Supplement to 'On Resistance'" are Chomsky's statements about how to protest the war. Chomsky argues that resistance should remain nonviolent, not only because of moral considerations, but also because violence "will surely fail, will simply frighten and alienate some who can be reached, and will further encourage the ideologists and administrators of repression" (374-5). Chomsky endorses the refusal to be drafted as an ideal means of resistance, since it directly impedes the government's ability to carry out its policies and can be used to make a visible statement as well.

If you are a Chomsky fan, you will probably enjoy this book; his writing style and basic outlook have remained consistent over the decades. He has written plenty of books and essays about more recent events, however, so if you are interested in American power in general rather than Vietnam in particular, you might want to check the newer ones out first.

Noam Chomsky's first political work is a first-rate collection of essays critiquing the U.S. war of aggression in Vietnam. Chomsky is more concerned here with the ideological defenses for the war than with the moral implications of the war itself, which are totally transparent at this late date. There are a wide variety of topics discussed in this broad volume, from the origins of the Pacific War to Arthur Schlesinger's liberal apologetics for U.S. imperialism. Chomsky's famous essay 'Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship' is a meandering account of the liberal intelligentsia's understanding of the Spanish Civil War. In it, Chomsky falls into the pitfalls of ultra-leftism, with low quality critiques of Bolshevism and Leninism. He relies on Rosa Luxemburg's fine criticisms of Lenin without examining Luxemburg's own political context in the German SDP, or her own explicit support for forming a revolutionary 'vanguard.' However, there are some fine passages in 'American Power and the New Mandarins,' such as 'The Logic of Withdrawal' or Chomsky's own personal reflections on the demonstrations at the Pentagon. This book will surely remain one of the better examinations of the criminal war in Vietnam for years to come.

Chomsky's first political book, _American Power_ is a devastating critique for the U.S. foray into Southeast Asia, which Chomsky considers to be little more than modified imperialism. The book starts somewhat slowly, first with an extended essay focusing largely on the Spanish Civil War, which though interesting, seems like a strange place to begin the discussion. The second essay focuses on the decision of drop nuclear weapons during World War II, and the absence of "war guilt" in the U.S. over that action. The second essay, like the first, is interesting, though not seemingly directly related to Chomsky's Vietnam critique. The remainder of work focuses quite squarely on Vietnam, and offers the sort of moral outrage that Chomsky contends was conspicuously lacking from the liberal academics of the time. The entire underpinning of Chomsky's premise has to do with the morality of U.S. action, rather than the pragmatism that he chides others for basing their positions on.

The book is quite powerful in many of its conclusions. A few criticisms: there is extensive use of irony throughout the work, occasionally to the point of excess; while Chomsky eviscerates a half dozen of the "liberal intelligensia", it's difficult for me, as someone who was not alive to witness the war, to know if these voices typify the liberal objections to the war, or if Chomsky has cherry-picked these individuals (obviously Schlesinger was a major voice, but I'm not familiar with the others); if you don't have some conception of the forces behind the Spanish Civil War, the first essay will be somewhat confusing. It was for me, anyway.

Altogether though, particularly in light the U.S. invasion of Iraq, many of Chomsky's ideas have taken on a new urgency. The comparision between Vietnam and Iraq will come very naturally as you read _American Power_. It is well worth our time to make this comparison. Chomsky's thesis is as valid now as it was in 1969.

I recently reread Chomsky's classic. It's very enlightening to see the parallels as well as the differences between the role America's "intelligencia" played during the Vietnam War and the role they are playing now with just another war "won".

This book is written with such energy and near-paranoid conviction that I'm convinced the author must have been shooting up while writing it. And I mean that as a compliment. Really. Tackling a subject as taboo (and as neglected) as the drug war takes chutzpah, and, I must say, the author does it with the fire of a crack-crazed prophet.

What surprised me most about the book, though, is its sardonic tone. It's got a wry sense of humor that really compliments the seedy subject matter. A great mix of comedy, tragedy, and ouright absurdity. It's refreshing to read a topical book with strong writing as well as research.

I must admit, I approached this book with extreme caution. And though I'm not sure I'm ready to have drugs completely legalized (I'm definitely a child of the "Just Say No" generation), Miller's case against the drug war is powerful and hard to dispute.

Highly recommended. Surprisingly entertaining as well as informative. All around, a very good trip (and I'm not just saying that because I want to smoke dope without fear of repercussions).

To put it succinctly, the war on drugs is a war against the American people. Over two-thirds of American adults born since 1955 have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives, most without any trace of subsequent harm. However, our gov't, through its Gestapo-like enforcement arm, the DEA (which has a vested interest in prosecuting the war to its maximum extent and keeping the war going as long as possible) continue to circumscribe the rights of the American people. Since the inception of the DEA the civil rights of Americans in regards to drugs have been increasingly ignored, and it's a rare politician who doesn't use the drug war as an opportunity to appear tough on crime. The DEA and many police forces actually rely on asset forfeiture to provide a substantial portion of their budgets, even though fewer than 5% of asset forfeiture cases involve any prosecution, let alone conviction. The DEA is then free to spend this confiscated wealth as it pleases. Orwell was prophetic.

Let's face facts: this is not a problem of supply, it's a problem of demand. But it need not be a problem at all. University sponsored and AMA and BMA endorsed research has consistently shown most "classic" drugs, such as weed, hash, heroin and morphine to be non-toxic. Coke is rarely dangerous, and then primarily to those with heart conditions. The prohibition of these drugs has caused the gov't to entirely surrender their ability to regulate a drug's content, which is far more detrimental to the health of any user of classic drugs in their unadulturated form. Medical studies have shown without fail that Alcohol is the most poisonous and detrimental of mood-altering substances.

Additionally, America's drug war has resulted in the wholesale destablization of producer and transshipment nations. The lawlessness seen in Colombia and along the Mexican border is entirely a result of America's campaign of zero tolerance-an unobtainable goal. Senator John Kerry perpetrated the prevaricative canard that criminal cartels were behind the drive for legalization. Nothing could be further from the truth: cartels always step into a vacuum, and they benefit from our draconian laws. One has to wonder where Senator Kerry gets his marching orders. Cartels would disappear if drugs were legalized, just as they did when alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933.

Prohibition also leads to police corruption: studies show that 30% of police have been unlawfully involved with illegal drugs. The supreme court recently overturned a previous 9-0 ruling regarding the knock-and-announce rule, stating that the cops need merely identify themselves before entering a residence-usually violently.

Enforcement of drug laws are also racially biased (I'm a white male). Most drug users are white and casual users of weed, coke or heroin. Yet most of those doing time for drug offenses are disproportionately black and hispanic. It's a case of a predatory DEA wolfpack picking off the most vulnerable members of a herd, rather than facing down a banker who can afford something better than a court-appointed defence. It's so unfair it pangs the conscience.

America has among the most restrictive drug laws in the world, and they have only made the situation worse. Canada recently considered a Senate recommendation to legalize pot. Holland has legalized pot without any negative consequences: the Dutch have the longest life-span in the world and a violent crime rate less than 1 sixth of the US. Injection programs for the most hard-core heroin addicts in Switzerland have caused aids to disappear among this vulnerable group, and employment among them stands at 70%. Other countries have come to grips with this problem through rationality and compassion. America has not-and it has utterly failed. Studies of American conditions and behavior prior to 1914, when these subsances were legal, show no correlation to poorer health or crime-Alcohol is the sole exception to this.

President McKinley used cocaine for 27 years until his death by an assasin's bullet. Grant used morphine to ease his discomfort after his presidency. 250,000 Civil War vets were morphine addicts.

The police chiefs of Kansas City, MO, San Jose and San Diego, CA, Seattle, WA and many smaller departments have called for the legalization of drugs. Former drug czar Barry McCaffrey has called the Federal prison system "America's drug Gulag" and has stated "We cannot incarcerate our way out of this problem." Former Secy of State George Schultz has called for an end to prohibition and consideration of decriminalization and legalization.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-William Pitt.

If there's one cliche that has been blatantly overused in the past few years, it's that our government is fighting a "war on drugs." Sure, the government is pretending to wage it, but we all know the war on drugs has been over for years, if it even ever existed in the first place. How exactly can we have a war on something so many people seem to want? Next thing you know, the government will start telling people they can't gamble, or pay for sex, or smoke in a privately-owned bar (whoops). Anyway, Joel Miller adds plenty of fuel to the raging debate over the drug war with Bad Trip. This short, direct, and intelligent volume should convince anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated up to their eyeballs in governmental propaganda that the war on drugs (like most wars) isn't worth fighting.

In one rather entertaining early segment, Miller takes the reader on a glimpse of the drug war's early days, illustrating the roots of the current mess in the first half of the 20th century. There's plenty of unintentional comedy to be found when Miller discusses some of the attitudes regarding drugs (including alcohol) that were commonly held back in the twenties and thirties. In one especially uproarious moment, in 1938 the Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics actually wrote, "an overdose of marijuana generates savage and sadistic traits likely to reach a climax in axe and ice-pick murders." And then of course, there was Reefer Madness, the classic 1936 movie where a little toking resulted in PERMANENT INSANITY. Now, having been around some pot smokers myself, I can say for sure that while marijuana use may result in giddiness, the telling of off-color jokes, and the consumption of junk food, it does not lead to violence or insanity. Sadly, though, the ridiculous beliefs outlined above continue to inform the drug laws even in these more "enlightened" times, and Miller does us all a favor by casting light upon them.

Of course, it's not drugs themselves that cause so much crime, it's the illegality of drugs. If people can't obtain drugs through legal means, they'll just get them elsewhere, very likely from violent gangs. Every halfway-informed person knows the same thing happened when alcohol was prohibited and gangsters took over the market, but apparently our politicians are slow learners (duh). Essentially, Miller writes, the drug war is bound to fail due in large part to simple economics. Drug dealers, he writes, are profiteers, while drug warriors are mere bureaucrats. Since the sale and use of drugs are prohibited, the government creates a black market in which any willing person with some brains can turn an easy profit. Therefore, the dealer trying to make a buck will always be ahead of the DEA agent who's getting paid anyway. As Miller details in the chapter on drug smuggling, the tighter the noose of prohibition gets, the more inventive dealers get in the quest for money.

Most tragically, though, since the drug trade is entirely voluntary and there are no victims to file complaints, governments have to resort to ever more proactive and draconian measures in order to catch dealers and users. Warrantless searches, no-knock military-style raids, blanket traffic stops, and utterly unjustified confiscations have made a mockery of everybody's Constitutional rights while doing little or nothing to stem the flow of drugs. Miller provides us with a laundry list of innocent people who have been robbed, terrorized, and even killed at the hands of overzealous (or outright corrupt) drug warriors. In many cases, governments have established a giant network of informants to fink on friends, customers, and even classmates, often going so far as to entrap people into breaking the law. Not to mention, the travesty of mandatory-sentencing laws has filled our jails with non-violent "criminals" who take up space that could be used for slightly more dangerous folks, like, say, muggers, burglars, and rapists.

Ultimately, Miller writes, the war on drugs amounts to nothing more than a war on freedom. There are plenty of other institutions in society, such as the family and the church, that can help prevent people from abusing drugs, but government prohibition merely creates a whole slew of new problems for all of us. Accepting the fact that other people are going to do things you don't like is a necessary part of living in a free society, one that mature people are going to have to get used to. After all, I don't think people should watch reality TV or listen to Celine Dion, but I manage to get over it. Miller finishes with a quote from Thomas Sowell that sums up the issue better than I ever could: "What do people get out of using drugs? I don't know...but there is all the difference in the world between deciding that you don't want to do something and trying to force other people to live your way." Amen.

This should scare the hell out of a lot of dirty law enforcement agencies! The War on drugs is OVER,and the drugs won. Illegal drugs cannot be stopped. It has created more dirty cops,and turned them into Nazi style storm troopers that bust into homes of the innocent in the wee hours of the morning. This book should be required reading for every American. Like the book? Please visit www.leap.cc/.
Leagalize the drugs and then you control them. President Bush, wake up and read this book.

Miller does a superb job of marshalling a number of philosophical, economic, legal and practical arguments against the war drugs. Although he states that he believes drug use is a bad choice, he also believes that life in a free society necessarily encumbers the fact that others will make choices that we personally oppose.

I wonder how Miller's argument would apply to the abortion debate?

In any event, I am a conservative Christian who happens to believe that the war on drugs is a misguided, miserable failure implemented by self-serving politicians who sought more votes in the 1970s.

The principle of states' rigths should apply to this question. Prohibition at the federal level is a failed policy that ought to be abandoned, and Miller gives us the ammuntion needed in this battle.

I dont think I would be priviliged enough to be in the same room as this superhero. No need for reviews as the others did a pretty good job. After you read this, you will never trust the government again.

He deserves 10 stars.

Note that this review is 4 years after publication... four years of silence.

A book that tears the mask off the fraudulent "War on Drugs". It exposes the growth of the war from two (highly mutually destructive) agencies in 1971 (Customs and DEA) to 55 and counting. It describes very extensive, high-volume CIA involvement in smuggling itself to obtain unaccountable funding.

It documents the cost of the fraudulent war. In dollars misspent, in innocent lives lost through raids gone amok and witnesses silenced, in the credibility of government agencies and the news media, and in the harm resulting from the 5-fold increase (his figures) in drug usage during the time $1 trillion has been wasted in the fight.

Recommend finding this book used or in a library, or reading Levine's chapter in "Into the Buzzsaw" by Kristina Borjesson.

The first sign of corruption in a society ... is that the end justifies the means. ~Georges Beranos, "Why Freedom?" (1955)

When you finish going through this book, you will gain a new perspective on the drugs war, and some of the root causes of the drugs problem in United States.

"Look Mike, our country has many diverse interests and you're one man in one little corner of the world. There are a lot of people a lot smarter than you and I involved in this business who might know a few things we don't. So just because an action might seem right doesn't mean it is; and even if it's the right thing to do, sometimes it's not the healthiest."

...

He was silent for a long moment. "Mike, don't ever forget a peanut butter sandwich."
"You're kidding."
"No, I'm not. I'm telling you this because I like you."

...

"Bario was one of the best and most committed undercover agents in DEA; he had done some of the agency's highest-level deep cover work. He was also a friend of mine. A year earlier he had been arrested for smuggling heroin from his post of duty in Mexico. While in jail in a Texas border town awaiting a removal hearing, he took a bite of a peanut butter sandwich and went into convulsions, and then a deep coma. He died a month later. He wife was told by the prison warden that strychnine had been found in his blood. The official autopsy report listed the cause of death as asphyxiation -- he choked on a peanut butter sandwich.
Many of Bario's fellow agents were aware that he was involved in cases that overlapped CIA interests. The rumor was that he "knew too much" about the CIA smuggling drugs into the United States to support its own interests and that he was killed by either members of DEA's Internal Security (who was in reality CIA) or by the CIA itself. I had always been one of those who had placed little credence in the rumor. Who could really believe that a branch of the U.S. government would assassinate its own people for any reason?"

I reserved all rights and permission under the
FAIR USE NOTICE. This website contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have an interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of personal worldview, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Mike Levine is a good writer. Add that to the fact that he was one of the best undercover agents in American history and you've got the equation for a great book. I had to stop myself a number of times to remember that this is NON-Fiction. The bumbling and deception that goes on at the higher levels of our Criminal Justice system would be laughable had this been a work of fiction. There is just too much detail here for it NOT to be true. This book, coupled with Levine's other book "Deep Cover" show you how the people in power manipulate the media to show the public the reality they want them to see. In light of the Iraq war "intelligence" misinformation, we can see that nothing has changed. In fact, the stakes have gotten higher.

I rank this book with "Dark Alliance" and "C.I.A.: Cocaine In America" as the most telling indictment of America's pseudo-war on drugs. Unlike most suthors who pontificate solutions from ivory towers and exhort stratagem with quill pens, Mr. Levine, not unlike Mr. VesBucci, for that matter, advises from hard-fought experience.

310 Blesionwest 5-8 Ouhatachou Nishinomiyashi Hyougoken 662-0836

310 Blesionwest 5-8 Ouhatachou Nishinomiyashi Hyougoken 662-0836

310 Bulesionwest 5-8 Ouhatachou Nishinomiyashi Hyougoken 662-0836

310 Bulesionwest 5-8 Ouhatachou Nishinomiyashi Hyougoken 662-0836

310 Bulesionwest 5-8 Ouhatachou Nishinomiyashi Hyougoken 662-0836

this book tells us about rfk,jfk and kenny o'donnel. it tells us about how they were, and it's very interessing. I suggest it to all people who are fan of the keenedys, like me. there are a few rares photos.

I used to work with the author's uncle, Cleo, who also plays a large part in this book. Over lunch and sometimes drinks after work, he used to tell us some of the wonderful stories of his and his brother's friendship with the Kennedy brothers. When I saw this book, I had to get it and it is bringing back wonderful memories of 25 years ago in Boston. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the author herself may have helped out in the office once or twice during school vacations. In any case, if you are a Kennedy fan, this is a touching, well-written book full of warmth and good stories about the Kennedys' and O'Donnells' as real people, written by someone who knew them. Don't miss it.

Kenny O'Donnell has done an outstanding job of providing insight to a man who figured largely in world history. He has drawn a very real, very strong portrait of a man who set and met many personal goals in his personal and professional life. Robert Kennedy was, in my opinion the most interesting of his brothers. Mr. O'Donnell does an excellent job of describing the aura of sincerity Robert Kennedy exuded. He helps bring a man into focus who has been dead for many years by describing the consistencies of his character. Robert Kennedy was clearly a very driven, very determined and very hard working man. He was also a very caring, very committed and very compassionate as well. He was a central figure in world history and I think the late Senator's works have certainly influenced the world for the better. This book is definitely worth reading.

A Common Good is an enjoyable, fast-paced read. It is a warm portrayl of Bobby, Jack and Kenny O'Donnel as people. There are laughs and poignant moments. It s a must for anyone interested in Robert Kennedy.

This is a very well written and, at times, touching book by (former JFK Chief of Staff) Kenny O'Donnell's daughter Helen (with a little help from former DNC advance man Jerry Bruno and her late father's audio tapes). There is great information about Kenny's relationship with RFK and, to a leser extent, JFK. As the elading civilian expert on the Secret Service, one word of caution, though: she misspells Secret Service agent Jerry Behn's name as "Bain" and she concludes that her father had a hand in planning JFK's Dallas motorcade route-he did not.
Vince Palamara
Secret service expert, History Channel, author of 2 books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.

Michael R. Beschloss' 1991 book, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khruschev 1960-1963, is a literary rarity: a history book about a complex and critical period in the 20th Century that is so well-written that it reads like a novel.

Beschloss describes the dramatic events of the period that began shortly before the Presidential election of 1960 and ended with the dreadful events of November 22, 1963, focusing on the interplay between President John F. Kennedy and Chairman Nikita S. Khruschev. These two men from vastly different worlds -- one the son of a self-made millionaire from Boston, the other the son of Russian peasants who had been semiliterate until his thirties -- held the fate of the world in their hands.

The Crisis Years discusses in great detail the most dramatic events of the Cold War, including JFK's first meeting with the Soviet leader in Vienna, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the building of the Berlin Wall (including a photo capturing the only time American tanks and Soviet tanks faced off), the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that marked the first thaw in the frosty relations between the superpowers.

This book is sadly out of print, but it's definitely a must-read for readers who want to know more about this critical period in world history.

This book rescued me from the recent Taubman biography of Khruschev. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy Taubman...up until the point that Kennedy was assassinated. Somehow, without Kennedy to reflect off of, or react off of, or bark at, or explode at, Khruschev became rather dull.

This book, winding as it does completely around the relationship between the leaders of the two superpowers, their mistrusts of each other, their odd affection for each other, their correspondence, and their dangerous, global risk-taking flare-ups, proves far more interesting. Beschloss creates characters full of life and vigor, sympathetic and sometimes frightening, as when Khruschev threatens war over Berlin, or when we learn the details of the narcotics the President required to manage his back pain.

The book also manages to set the stage for years and years of politics to come, in space policy, in cold war strategy, and in the Vietnam war.

Interesting to note that Castro came to the UN after the Cuban revolution in the hope of normalising relations with the US but was rebuffed. There then followed the Bay of Pigs. If cooler heads had prevailed and approachement made at that point, we may have been living in a totally different world today. A banal observation, admitedly. Certainly, US intransigence led to a more absolutist and repressive Castro.
Kennedy indeed felt that Khrushchev had outclassed him when it came to discussing political ideology on first meeting, but Kennedy did focus on the crux of the whole matter. The nation that could provide best materially for it's people would be the winner of the cold war. Krushchev ended up in a hut in the country somewhere, an 'expendable hero' as Harry Palmer once joked to an old Bolschevic in the film 'Funeral In Berlin'.

Michael Beschloss has done what every history writer should aspire to...make complex history telling "readable". Even though this book is very long, it flows very smoothly without missing any of the details of that "Crisis" era. I love books on the Cuban Missile Crisis and have found very few that would be characterized above the "textbook" level, but this one surely meets that tough standard. This book should be included in every "Crisis" historians library.

This is a massive (700 page), comprehensive, if not especially analytic, study of the United States' relationship with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, told from the perspectives of the superpowers' leaders, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. At the beginning of his administration, Kennedy may have had sincere desire to improve relations with the Soviets, but his famous inaugural address was interpreted by many as a committed cold warrior's call to arms, and, as Beschloss's title implies, a series of foreign policy crises followed. Often in minute detail, Beschloss discusses the disastrous invasion of Cuba by opponents of Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the Cuban missile crisis. For those who enjoy narrative history liberally sprinkled with portraits of colorful personalities, this is a fascinating book.

There is little in this book which is new, but much of it bears repeating, especially for readers too young to remember the early 1960s. However odious Castro's dictatorship was to become, the attempt to topple it in the spring of 1961 was destined to fail. According to Beschloss, one of Kennedy's advisers warned him that "he could not recall a single case in history when refugees returned and successfully overthrew a revolutionary regime." The Berlin crisis that summer did not escalate into a nuclear confrontation because, as Kennedy observed: "A wall is a hell of a lot better than a war." And Beschloss writes about the missile crisis that the 39 hours' warning of the naval quarantine that Kennedy gave Khrushchev "demonstrated the President's wisdom in starting his response not with an irreversible air strike but with milder pressures that gave Khrushchev time to ponder his move."

Some of Beschloss's observations about the leaders border on gossip. He lends credence to reports that Khrushchev could be a buffoon who occasionally drank too much and that Kennedy's enthusiastic womanizing continued while he was president. But personal traits and predilections often could not be separated from matters of substance. For instance, the author reports that Kennedy was regularly treated by a medical practitioner with "vitamin shots" which "also contained amphetamines, steroids, hormones, and animal organ cells." Beschloss proceeds to explain the importance of this revelation: "Even in small doses, amphetamines cause side effects such as nervousness, garrulousness, impaired judgment, overconfidence, and, when the drug wears off, depression." Beschloss implies that Kennedy may have been under the influence of amphetamines at his summit meeting with Khrushchev in the spring of 1961, when the Soviet leader, by Kennedy's own admission, "just beat hell out of me." Beschloss concludes that Kennedy "should have been vastly more careful in pursuing his medical experimentation than he had been as a Senator. The stakes now were not one political career but literally the fate of the world."

This book is not without its limitations. As I implied above, it is much stronger on narrative than analysis, and some passages give the impression that Beschloss was more interested in the personalities of Kennedy and Khrushchev than in the substance of the policies they devised and pursued. Beschloss's discussion of Kennedy's approach to the growing conflict in Vietnam is brief and generally superficial. The book's organization is quirky: The role of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in the development of Kennedy's national-security policy is barely mentioned until page 400. And the index is not entirely reliable. (For instance, the index's listing for Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, inexplicably omits reference to Beschloss's description of a critical briefing Lemnitzer gave to the President in September 1961 in which the "bottom line" was that "the United States enjoyed vast nuclear superiority.")

While I was preparing this review, I discovered that this book, which was published in 1991, is already out of print, and that surprised me a bit. Some aspects of it clearly have been superceded by more recent scholarship, such as Lawrence Freedman's Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, which I reviewed here shortly after it was published last November, but I believe that Beschloss's book continues to be of value. The magnificent 19th-century English historian Thomas Carlyle once wrote: "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." Few eras provide more validation for Carlyle's perspective than the crisis years of 1961 and 1962, dominated as they were by the intensely personal diplomacy of Kennedy and Khrushchev. Beschloss's coverage of that aspect of U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations during this period is superb.

This book is truly a work of art! Beautifully illustrated with wonderful copies of actual documents such as the Declaration of Independence. It's a hands-on learning experience. Every school library and home should have a copy of this patriotic masterpiece. Highly recommended read!

Although this is not an exhaustive academic study of the Declaration, this is a very useful and informative book. There are many illustrations and other props included that add to the literary content. When I bought this book the intent was to use it as a coffee table book that folks could pick up when they come to visit. It serves that purpose well, but I believe that it could also be an interesting book for an adolescent who is very interested in American history.

Museum in a book indeed! And it's not just for the youth either. The fact is our history is lost to most Americans, especially when it comes to the Colonial/Revolutionary War era of our nation. This book - The Declaration of Independence: The Story Behind America's Founding Document and the Men Who Created It - can change that. In my opinion, it should be in every American school, in every American library, and in every American home. It should be required reading for every public school child and immigrant. Of course, that would never happen - the ACLU wouldn't allow such a dastardly thing - imagine forcing school children and American-wannabe's to learn about what made this country great - and it IS great. The greatest, in fact, even with its faults.
What our fore-fathers did was something that one would never see today - people willing to give one's life, to possibly suffer in a torcherous prison - by signing a document to ensure a free and independent country where one would not have to be controlled by a tyrant. Where a peanut farmer, an actor, or a backwoods lawyer could become the President. And this book gives not only wonderful written descriptions on how that all came about, but allows the reader to experience, through replicas of original documents that one can actually hold and read as if grasping the original (including a draft of the Declaration) writings that made the formation of our great United States.
By the way, there is no political correctness in this book - just pure factual American history - so if your are looking for the anti-European revisionist history books mandated by the liberal left, this one isn't for you.

This book I just purchased a week ago and it has served me well. I am a graduate of 8th grade and I know that this book would be useful in so many branches of school work such as oral presentations and visual aids. This book describes in a lot more detail than I could ever have emagined. I'd recommend this book to history teachers any time and for 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th graders learning about this subject. GREAT BOOK!!!

Rod Gragg has done an excellent job of accurately portraying the events leading to the declaration of independence. Furthermore, he did an excellent job of remaining true to the actual historical events, rather than approaching the subject with a political agenda. I highly recommend this book to any person desiring a deeper understanding of America's founding fathers and the events that led to our independence. I can not wait to read more of Mr. Gragg's books.

This outstanding work of critical scholarship takes the Dred Scott case as a point of departure to examine several important issues in American history. These include both the nature and dynamics of the great sectional conflict over slavery, and the nature of juidicial power in our system of government. Fehrenbacher provides careful history and analysis of the Dred Scott case itself, it significance in its own time, and the possible role of this case in the history of Supreme Court power. Fehrenbacher's reconstruction of the case and the associated political events is remarkably erudite; informed by the highest level of critical intelligence. He dispells a number of myths related to the case and his analyses of contemporary politics and legal history are equally astute. This book is exceptionally well written. Even when exploring apparently obscure details of 19th century juidicial and political history, Fehrenbacher's writing is always lucid, and at times, elegant.

I read the abridged edition of 1981, titled Slavery, Law and Politics. I can only echo what the other reviwers have said. It's about a court opinion but it is anything but dry. You learn much about the law and politics of slavery, from the founding of the nation forward. You learn about the Dred Scott case itself, including the legal maneuverings in the lower courts. The author's analysis of Chief Justice Taney's opinion for the Court is one of the best single chapters I have read in a history book in a long time. The author is learned but the prose is engaging--elegant, even. You feel you are in the company of a wise teacher, who is not trying to impress you but simply to impart his considerable knowledge without ego on a topic that turns out to be an excellent prism through which to view an important swath of our history. Read it!

This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. It might seem that a 700 page book (600 pages of text; 100 pages of notes) on a 19th century court case might be the epitome of exceedingly dry material suited only for particularly motivated graduate students. But I found this book captivating. What came through in every paragraph was the work of a skilled and judicious historian sleuthing his way to an understanding of the background and ramifications of the enormously important Dred Scott decision. Not one page in this book read like the work of an uninspired academic sawing his way through a pile of research notes.

Fehrenbacher focuses on the political, legal and constitutional aspects of the Dred Scott case. He explores the background and developments, from the arrival of the first slaves in the colonies in 1619 through the bitter political battles of the 1850s. His discussion of legal developments is particularly interesting because this is one area where the reader encounters the concrete complications and conflicts between various state and federal laws affecting slaves and slave owners. He also shows how legal developments and constitutional theories were affected by the increasingly acrimonious political battles over the rights of slaveholders. His analysis of Chief Justice Taney's opinion was particularly impressive. Finally, his discussion of the immediate and longer term impact of the Dred Scott decision was fascinating. When I finished the book, I was disappointed that he hadn't carried the thoughts in the last chapter further (even though it was clear he had chosen a good stopping point for his analysis). I was also tempted to go back to the beginning and re-read the book immediately! It is so rich, and there's so much of importance to understand. (Instead, I started in on Fehrenbacher's more recent book, The Slaveholding Republic.)

One of the strengths of the book is Fehrenbacher's attention to the relevants facts and texts. His text never reads like a cut-and-paste compilation of other authors' conclusions. Throughout, Fehrenbacher was doing his own thinking - and he came through as quite skilled in asking good questions, identifying all the relevant facts, weighing the possible meanings and interpretations, and arriving at fair conclusions. (Whatever the topic, it's always a pleasure to read the work of someone who works as Fehrenbacher did in this book.)

I highly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in American legal or constitutional history, in the events that lead to the Civil War, or in race relations in America.

There is little that I can add to what has already been written. Fehrenbacher is clear, thoughtful, and comprehensive.

Dred Scott Case by Don Fehrenbacher proves to be a definitive account of this controversial Supreme Court case that had far reaching consequences then the fate of one black slave wishing to be free. The book is superbly researched, written and the author presented total clarity in his presentation. He clearly points out the total significance of this case in face of American history.

This case is often overlooked as part of 1850s pre-Civil War history but the author make it clear that long term effects of this case clearly helped initiate the American Civil War. It also helped Abraham Lincoln become President and ironically speaking, discredited Robert Taney, the chief author of the Dred Scott decision so badly that Taney was totally ineffective as the Supreme Court Chief Justice during the Civil War. His rulings against Lincoln and many of his civil rights violations during the war went totally ignored and although he was always treated well, he was a total non-entity as a factor. His death was viewed with relief.

The book gives a very insightful background on slavery and its impact on American history prior to the case. It doesn't get into Dred Scott himself until page 210 or so. It pretty obvious that the author has excellent command of his subject matter. His insight on what influence and repercussions of this decision after the Civil War proves to be quite interesting. I was bit surprised how Taney's reputation have survived so well despite of his decision that the author clearly shown to be crude, shallow and highly biased. The author have clearly shown that Taney did not behaved as a Supreme Court Chief Justice in this case but as a pro-southerner who wishes to nationalized slavery throughout the land as a mean to end this debate once and for all.

I would regard this to be one of the mandatory reading material that any reader must tackled if he or she wants to advance their knowledge of the Civil War and its issues.