Scan barcode
reidob's review
4.0
Ronan Farrow is a natural. He has the skill to take on this complex and difficult subject and give it the treatment it deserves. And he does so with such ease and in a conversational tone that I never felt as if I was slogging through something I really should read.
The essential premise here is that America and the world are better off when there is a balance between military might and diplomatic maneuvering. Farrow's premise (which he backs up not only with excellent journalism but personal experience) is that in this balance has fallen heavily on the side of military intervention and that this tendency accelerated exponentially after September 11, 2001. But the emphasis on militarism has not made this country or the world more secure and has rather served to achieve the opposite.
Farrow is not naive enough to believe that diplomacy alone can achieve the kind of peace all people of this world deserve. For better or for worse, one must have a strong military presence to bring others to the negotiating table. But he makes a strong case for the idea that long-term security can only be achieved through a strong State Department and their ability to reach out to their counterparts in other countries. No matter how seemingly depraved or combative, nearly all people want peace in their lives and their countries and are often willing to compromise to achieve that goal.
But he also argues quite persuasively that the problem is not just that the State Department and embassies are decimated, but that in the current environment young people see no future in the Foreign Service, so fewer and fewer are using their education and energy to enter into that service. Which means that even if the desire to reverse the imbalance were to arise in our society, it would take a generation or more to restore diplomacy to its former glory.
I also thought Farrow's portrayal of his mentor, Richard Holbrooke, was moving and amusing, even-handed and affectionate without being cloying. This relationship and the singlemindedness Holbrooke brought to all his dealings lend a personal, fascinating tone to the first half of the book.
I found very little to criticize in War on Peace, but did find a few of the more personal observations a bit off-putting and even a touch catty. How people dress is not usually very relevant, and I'm not sure I see the point of letting us know about the heavy fall of dandruff on the shoulders of one of the people he is interviewing. But these are truly minor failings in what I consider to be a major contribution to our understanding of foreign affairs in this country and around the world.
The essential premise here is that America and the world are better off when there is a balance between military might and diplomatic maneuvering. Farrow's premise (which he backs up not only with excellent journalism but personal experience) is that in this balance has fallen heavily on the side of military intervention and that this tendency accelerated exponentially after September 11, 2001. But the emphasis on militarism has not made this country or the world more secure and has rather served to achieve the opposite.
Farrow is not naive enough to believe that diplomacy alone can achieve the kind of peace all people of this world deserve. For better or for worse, one must have a strong military presence to bring others to the negotiating table. But he makes a strong case for the idea that long-term security can only be achieved through a strong State Department and their ability to reach out to their counterparts in other countries. No matter how seemingly depraved or combative, nearly all people want peace in their lives and their countries and are often willing to compromise to achieve that goal.
But he also argues quite persuasively that the problem is not just that the State Department and embassies are decimated, but that in the current environment young people see no future in the Foreign Service, so fewer and fewer are using their education and energy to enter into that service. Which means that even if the desire to reverse the imbalance were to arise in our society, it would take a generation or more to restore diplomacy to its former glory.
I also thought Farrow's portrayal of his mentor, Richard Holbrooke, was moving and amusing, even-handed and affectionate without being cloying. This relationship and the singlemindedness Holbrooke brought to all his dealings lend a personal, fascinating tone to the first half of the book.
I found very little to criticize in War on Peace, but did find a few of the more personal observations a bit off-putting and even a touch catty. How people dress is not usually very relevant, and I'm not sure I see the point of letting us know about the heavy fall of dandruff on the shoulders of one of the people he is interviewing. But these are truly minor failings in what I consider to be a major contribution to our understanding of foreign affairs in this country and around the world.
thaddeus's review
4.0
Well written modern history of the costs associated with the Pentagon making decisions without input from the State Department. “Tactics without strategy,” as Farrow quotes.
Also touched upon is our policy of proxy wars, the steady uptick of US arms sales to countries and conflict zones, and the continued failure of U.S. military testing COIN.
I’ll definitely be reading Farrow’s updated version of this story. He’s a fantastic writer.
Also touched upon is our policy of proxy wars, the steady uptick of US arms sales to countries and conflict zones, and the continued failure of U.S. military testing COIN.
I’ll definitely be reading Farrow’s updated version of this story. He’s a fantastic writer.
aibautista21's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
4.25
lindzlovesreading's review against another edition
4.0
First off, I tend to read any kind of political non fiction as 30% bullshit. Not that I think fake news is an actually thing, it's more that I have never believed objectivity is something that is pure. Even in the days of Walter Cronkite, decisions on what the public needed to know as news still had to be decided. Do I think the free for all is better, not really, but objectivity has never been completely pure.
Now do I think that Ronan Farrow is a great reporter. Yes. He is to good at sourcing and researching for him not to be. So, I am going to say this book is 30% bullshit. And I really liked the book, like a lot a lot, it put a lot of big picture issues into focus. But he calls Richard Holbrook the Father he never had, so that is where he is coming from. And I cannot shake the feeling that Farrow will run for President one day. And I say this as the type of person who would vote for him.
The book is incredibly interesting, even if I am looking for hidden motives every where. As a global community have slid back into a 19th Century style diplomacy since 9/11. This by it's nature is very militaristic, and very much about the other. The more Conservative may deride Identity Politics of the Left, but they double down on it just as much but more in terms of what they think they are not. Which leads to Trumps dehumanizing language ... and I have gotten completely off point. Anyway, yes I agree that America is relying on it's military and the CIA for it's foreign policy. And War begets more War, because there has to be an extreme other, and enemy to fight. Even if they have to go and create it. And this is not just the present administration, it's just building on what has been developing previously.
Anyway, read the book. Farrow wears his bias on his sleave so you know where he is coming from. He has worked in the State department, he knows where to highlight objectivity and pure perspective. It's a smart book and even with the 30% bullshit one of the most even handed we will get in our interesting times.
Now do I think that Ronan Farrow is a great reporter. Yes. He is to good at sourcing and researching for him not to be. So, I am going to say this book is 30% bullshit. And I really liked the book, like a lot a lot, it put a lot of big picture issues into focus. But he calls Richard Holbrook the Father he never had, so that is where he is coming from. And I cannot shake the feeling that Farrow will run for President one day. And I say this as the type of person who would vote for him.
The book is incredibly interesting, even if I am looking for hidden motives every where. As a global community have slid back into a 19th Century style diplomacy since 9/11. This by it's nature is very militaristic, and very much about the other. The more Conservative may deride Identity Politics of the Left, but they double down on it just as much but more in terms of what they think they are not. Which leads to Trumps dehumanizing language ... and I have gotten completely off point. Anyway, yes I agree that America is relying on it's military and the CIA for it's foreign policy. And War begets more War, because there has to be an extreme other, and enemy to fight. Even if they have to go and create it. And this is not just the present administration, it's just building on what has been developing previously.
Anyway, read the book. Farrow wears his bias on his sleave so you know where he is coming from. He has worked in the State department, he knows where to highlight objectivity and pure perspective. It's a smart book and even with the 30% bullshit one of the most even handed we will get in our interesting times.
leas_bookworld_'s review against another edition
4.0
Ich würde behaupten, dass das, was dieses Buch so aufschlussreich und relevant macht, die Art und Weise ist, wie Farrow seine Leser in die politischen, militärischen und diplomatischen Verstrickungen einiger der komplexesten internationalen Konflikte mitnimmt und zeigt, wie die Handlungen einzelner Menschen, das Funktionieren größerer Strukturen und eine Vielzahl gegensätzlicher Interessen uns dorthin gebracht haben, wo wir heute stehen.
Farrows Fachwissen zeigt sich: Fast jeder Satz enthält irgendeine Art von Sachinformation, und die Art und Weise, wie er die Fäden verknüpft, ist mehr als überzeugend. Von Petraeus' Haltung zur amerikanischen Aufstandsbekämpfung und anderen Auswirkungen des Vietnamkriegs auf spätere Militäroffensiven bis hin zur Bedeutung Pakistans für die Stabilität der gesamten Region (und wie die Beziehungen zu Pakistan ruiniert wurden). Von der Art und Weise, wie die USA mit Warlords und bewaffneten Parteien kooperierten, die sie später mit ihren eigenen Waffen bekämpften, bis hin zu den Kriegen in Afghanistan und Syrien sowie der Situation in Somalia und im Iran - es ist faszinierend, all diese Hintergrundinformationen zu lesen.
Die Kernaussage des Buches lässt sich schnell zusammenfassen. Sie besagt, dass seit dem 11. September 2001 eine Verschiebung innerhalb der amerikanischen Außenpolitik stattgefunden hat. Und zwar weg vom Einfluss der klassischen, in strategischen Dimensionen operierenden Diplomatie, hin zu einem vordergründig von taktischen Erwägungen geprägten Einfluss des Militärs. So hat das Wort des Außenministeriums zunehmend an Bedeutung verloren, während gleichzeitig der Rat aus dem Pentagon dem Weißen Haus viel wichtiger wurde.
Farrow belegt diese These in einigen Beispielen. Das eigentlich interessante an dem Buch ist die Darstellung einer geraden Linie der kritisierten Entwicklung von Bush über Obama zu Trump. Trump als Steigerung anti-diplomatischen Denkens, hatte in Obama einen Vorläufer, der die Vorherrschaft militärischer Konzeptionen in der amerikanischen Außenpolitik nicht durchbrochen hat. Das ist ein neuer Aspekt in der Darstellung aus dem System selbst heraus.
Farrow versäumt es natürlich nicht, die Geschehnisse so darzustellen, als dass Hillary Clinton als Außenministerin unter Präsident Obama die einzige gewesen ist, die eine andere Meinung vertrat und die gerne mehr auf Diplomatie als auf das Militär gesetzt hätte. Diese Aussage kling aber für mich ein wenig befremdlich, wenn man sich an ihre Statements in Bezug auf beispielsweise Libyen ansieht.
Dennoch ist das ein sehr aufschlussreiches, akribisch recherchiertes Buch über Außenpolitik und damit äußerst empfehlenswert.
Farrows Fachwissen zeigt sich: Fast jeder Satz enthält irgendeine Art von Sachinformation, und die Art und Weise, wie er die Fäden verknüpft, ist mehr als überzeugend. Von Petraeus' Haltung zur amerikanischen Aufstandsbekämpfung und anderen Auswirkungen des Vietnamkriegs auf spätere Militäroffensiven bis hin zur Bedeutung Pakistans für die Stabilität der gesamten Region (und wie die Beziehungen zu Pakistan ruiniert wurden). Von der Art und Weise, wie die USA mit Warlords und bewaffneten Parteien kooperierten, die sie später mit ihren eigenen Waffen bekämpften, bis hin zu den Kriegen in Afghanistan und Syrien sowie der Situation in Somalia und im Iran - es ist faszinierend, all diese Hintergrundinformationen zu lesen.
Die Kernaussage des Buches lässt sich schnell zusammenfassen. Sie besagt, dass seit dem 11. September 2001 eine Verschiebung innerhalb der amerikanischen Außenpolitik stattgefunden hat. Und zwar weg vom Einfluss der klassischen, in strategischen Dimensionen operierenden Diplomatie, hin zu einem vordergründig von taktischen Erwägungen geprägten Einfluss des Militärs. So hat das Wort des Außenministeriums zunehmend an Bedeutung verloren, während gleichzeitig der Rat aus dem Pentagon dem Weißen Haus viel wichtiger wurde.
Farrow belegt diese These in einigen Beispielen. Das eigentlich interessante an dem Buch ist die Darstellung einer geraden Linie der kritisierten Entwicklung von Bush über Obama zu Trump. Trump als Steigerung anti-diplomatischen Denkens, hatte in Obama einen Vorläufer, der die Vorherrschaft militärischer Konzeptionen in der amerikanischen Außenpolitik nicht durchbrochen hat. Das ist ein neuer Aspekt in der Darstellung aus dem System selbst heraus.
Farrow versäumt es natürlich nicht, die Geschehnisse so darzustellen, als dass Hillary Clinton als Außenministerin unter Präsident Obama die einzige gewesen ist, die eine andere Meinung vertrat und die gerne mehr auf Diplomatie als auf das Militär gesetzt hätte. Diese Aussage kling aber für mich ein wenig befremdlich, wenn man sich an ihre Statements in Bezug auf beispielsweise Libyen ansieht.
Dennoch ist das ein sehr aufschlussreiches, akribisch recherchiertes Buch über Außenpolitik und damit äußerst empfehlenswert.