The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril

by Eugene Jarecki

A historical assessment of the origins of American war-making and its implications for democracy contends that America's powerful world position has fostered dangerous inclinations toward militarism and imperialism while giving way to the war in Iraq and other conflicts. 100,000 first printing.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, War

324 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 2008

About the author

Eugene Jarecki (born October 5, 1969) is an American filmmaker and author. He is best known as a two-time winner of the Sundance Grand Jury Prize, as well as multiple Emmy and Peabody Awards, for his films Why We Fight, Reagan, and The House I Live In.

His other films include The Trials of Henry Kissinger, Freakonomics, The Opponent, and Quest of the Carib Canoe. His most recent feature, The King, was nominated for two Emmy's in 2020, including Best Documentary Feature, and a 2019 Grammy Award for Best Music Film of the Year.

Jarecki is also the author of The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril (Simon & Schuster).

Reviews

[Justin Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

For better or worse, it's obvious that this was written by a film-maker. For better, because he writes very clearly and has a good eye for anecdotes. For worse, because it's pretty disordered, sometimes overly polemical and other times overly credulous.

The best of all is the way he contextualizes the Bush administration's use of executive power in the prosecution of the Iraq war, picking out the most important changes in America's attitude towards its role in global matters (e.g., FDR, Truman, Ike) and showing how they come together in recent presidencies. The worst of all is his apparent belief that ethical standards can be found mainly in the wise words of Our American Forefathers, (particularly Madison and Eisenhower, neither of whom exactly qualify as robust moral exemplars) or, even more perversely, military strategists who more or less get their military strategy from the self-help books of the later twentieth century (John Boyd).

And you already know everything in the last two chapters: he goes through the Bush/Cheney/Perlites and their various turpitudes in an unenlightening, boring manner.

Jarecki admits at the end that his own understanding of some of his heroes was changed by his research, and that's all for the better. Now if only he could recognize that The Federalist Papers are no more divine than FDR, he'd really be on to something.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is about increase in American militarism and how this is dangerous in for American security. The most poignant parallel illustration of this fact is the Roman Republic and how its increase in militarization and imperial ambitions caused it to go from the Republic to an omnipotent empire that eroded the principles that the Republic was founded on. Remember that the Roman Republic was fine as a republic until it started to expand its border and thus its military. Once this happened, more resources were devoted to the military which required increasing centralization of leadership which eventually led to totalitarianism.

Chapter 1: Talks about the notion of neoconservative movement. Although I applaud the initial idealism that encompasses the neoconservative movement in spreading democracy across the world and the US being the beacon for that democracy, I fundamentally disagree with its overreliance on the military as a means to spread democracy. For true long-lasting liberal democracy to take hold in other countries, it needs to come from the bottom-up not a top-down way; to this end I support the role of US soft-power that is corporations in dispersing the positive effects of globalization thus increasing a viable middle class( cell phones&google in organizing democratic movements a la Egypt), American diplomacy to pressure regimes to liberalize their government and economies, and non-profits for educating and raising the natural consciousness of the citizens in that country. I think American military troops should be solely reserved for national security issues because that is where they are most effective and efficient. The military at its essence is for destroying the enemy and not for peacekeeping missions fighting nebulous enemies that cannot be taken down. Having said this, do I support the Afghanistan war? Yes I do because we entered the country so we have to finish the job however psychologically ill-equipped our military is to doing it.

I also think that America during times of peace should really concentrate on growing its economy and ensuring that American economy continues to dominate the world because from the American economy springs our military flexibility and might as well as international cultural influences. In my view, whomever has the best economy in the world will rule the world and thus should be the main focus of the neo-conservative movement.

The first chapter also states how the neoconservative movement is just the latest and most drastic trend on an already growing increase militarization and international commitments across the world. It also states how Iraqi regime change has been the stated policy of the neoconservative movement since day 1. The scary part of their stated policy view is that they were looking for 9/11 to enact their policies of preemption. Although Bush wanted Saddam Hussein out, it is scary how his advisors already had a world view in tact post 9/11 that included deposing Iraqi Saddam Hussein. But, Congress had gave the go ahead for the invasion of Iraq was partly to blame. Congress should have served to question the invasion because that was what the Founding Fathers intended. But, if the intelligence information was skewed to going to war then can Congress really decide based on the "facts"?

Chapter 2: This chapter deals with the "imperial presidency" and the consolidation of powers to the presidency starting from FDR to W. It also shows how industry is used by the presidency to further national interest. Since private industry does not have to show transparency like government, then R&D can go unimpeded whereas in government this is definitely not the case. The danger of such unimpeded imperial presidencies of course is the lack of oversight. Although I agree with the general principle of allowing the executive branch to hold sway in matters of execution national security, I think Congress still has the duty to make sure defense budget is money that is well spent and forwards our strategic interest.

This chapter does give me comfort because even though we are retracting our defense budget when time calls for it, given a strong vibrant economy, we can ramp up defense capabilities in a matter of a year. Also, we need to continue to fund R&D projects that will have implications later on down the road when we need it. The problem with creating a weapon before it is absolutely needed is that we might be forced to use it to justify its production in the first place. This was the exact temptation that Truman succumbed to in dropping the A-bomb. Although dropping the A-bomb was not needed in a Japanese surrender, he did it not only to get unconditional Japanese surrender but also as a deterrent against Soviet aggression. But, instead of serving as a deterrent against the Soviets, it served to create an arms race that produced the cold war.

Chapter 3: It was right that Eisenhower worry about the growing influence of military-industrial complex in creating empowered and bellicose executive branch at the expense of the other branches of government. It all apparently started with the Truman Doctrine of protecting all free people in the world against communist aggression. And with the doctrine the 1947 National Security Act that created the DoD, National Security Council and the CIA. What I do not understand and I think should be largely corrected is congressional failure in enacting a law that allows Congressional subcommittee's especially the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs subcommittee to be furnished the same level of raw intelligence that the executive branch has. I think if anything this will prevent a repeat of the heavily skewed intelligence that occurred during the Iraq war. The way it is written now, the President can make a case for war anytime he wants by cherry-picking intelligence that he deems necessary for the American public and Congress to support war (Iraq war #2). Although the decision to go to war should still lie with Congress (but with greater raw intelligence that will run through Congressional subcommittees), I think the planning and execution of the war should still remain with the President with a tight chain of command. Thus, I generally support the National Securities Act with the caveat of increase Congressional oversight that the Intelligence communities should provide Congressional subcommittees the same raw intelligence that the President receives.

As far as the military-industrial complex goes, if Republicans really want a decrease in bureaucracy it should look no further than the Defense department because it boast to be the largest corporation in the US. Being the largest corporation in the US means it boast the largest constituency base that makes sure it stays that way. That means special interest groups will makes sure the government will spend a lot of money on defense and thus favors an aggressive American foreign policy. Unlike the neocons that look to American world domination via strong defense, I favor the military as it was originally envision that is specifically defending American interest with ultimate goal of vanquishing our enemies ON THE BATTLEFIELD, not off it (aside from current military engagements this means no more occupation and nation-building exercises).

As for the role of the CIA, I do not understand why the Defense Department has its own intelligence apparatus. I think that intelligence apparatus within the defense department only favors a more bellicose America. Central Intelligence Agency was originally created to centralize intelligence so that means to me intelligence should be centralized within the CIA that shares its intelligence with President, NSC, DoD. Having said, I still believe that the CIA has responsibility of covert action but only to tip popular revolts toward US interest and not killing elected leaders no matter how bellicose they are the US. As we have seen in history, CIA meddling in countries in which popularly elected leaders are prominent has led to problem after problem that we have to fix after the fact. That is, present interventionist policies leads to further future interventions not less.

I also am for a reemergence of the State Department as a prime actor in foreign affairs policy that is using existing partnerships between diplomatic, corporations, and non-profit organizations to further the democratization, globalization in an effort to stabilize the world from radicalism/totalitarianism, that in its most recent reincarnation, is the face of radical fundamentalist Islam.

Chapter 4: I am continued to be amazed despite continuously reading it from other books how much the neoconservative movement actually stemmed from FDR/Truman doctrine of interventionist liberalism. No wonder Reagan was attracted to FDR because foreign policy wise they were actually had the same mind also they shared the same communication skills. This chapter deals with Eisenhower's balancing act in trying to get the US ready militarily via the "military-industrial complex" (trifecta of the military, academic, and industry) while at the same time making sure that the military spending actually is aligned with American strategic goals and not that of military industry or special interest groups, or specific congressional districts with vested interest in the military. For his efforts in trying to steer military spending toward strategic goals he was branded as soft on defense. I generally trust Generals to make decisions to go to war a la Eisenhower and Powell because they seem to be able to balance American strategic interest with the cost of human life the war demands. This is displayed in the quote "[Eisenhower] believed deeply in the necessity for WWII and felt that Nazism was a terrible tyranny...and he bought this conviction and drive to defeating Nazi Germany. But he never lost his understanding of the cost of war." Furthermore, "while the devastating horrors of the concentration camps underscored the need to fight for freedom, the gratuitous mass destruction of Hiroshima instilled in him an equal and opposite awareness that the fight for freedom conducted without reason and a steady moral compass, could itself lend to atrocities. From his postwar flirtation with America's power set, Eisenhower seems to have developed a simultaneous respect for the power of money and a healthy skepticism of it."

Even the reluctant interventionist Eisenhower used the CIA to help US and BP interest in overthrowing a democratically Iranian leader that later set up the middle east conflict that we now know and love. Reading this makes me even more adamant in the need to decouple our national interest from the middle east and oil companies as fast as we can. The American military should be used solely for national security issues that directly effect America and not for companies bottomline issues. The only time the American military should be used in these cases is when American ships and supply lines are directly attacked. In other words, America should steer clear of policies that forces us to use our military to protect business interests.

Chapter 5:

I think Rumsfeld "Shock and Awe" strategy was the right strategy for the new age unconventional war "counter-terrorist" as well as conventional war in terms of using technological air force advance combined with special ops but used in the wrong war, Iraq and Afghanistan. His mistake is not seeing that in overthrowing Saddam Hussein he was having to deal with an issue of regime change which by necessity needs nation building which needs a counter-insurgency strategy which means more "boots on the ground" not less because the goal of counter-insurgency strategy is the "hearts and minds" of the opposition which means population security and tangible results of the occupation. In a war in which the army should fight which is clear enemies with clear objectives and definable and achievable goal, Rumsfeld way of "Shock and Awe" is actually the way of the future.

I actually think while the Army should focus on war, I think the State department should focus on nation building aspects if we are to do this again in the future which means more people who are knowledgeable about specific culture we are going into. One should support the other instead of antagonizing the other.

There is one passage that I found reassuring and supports my notion of decrease defense spending during peace time and ramp it up only during a conflict. " Shortly after 9/11, Rumsfeld had called the DTRA to produce [Guided Bomb Unit-24) almost overnight. The speed with which the DTRA organized a quick response team of military, energy, and industry experts to meet this challenge and custom-tailored such a specialized precision weapon was transformation at work. In just a month, the new warhead was developed, tested, and commissioned for the Afghan campaign." This of coarse leaves in tact spending for defense R&D and building of prototypes.

The chapter also makes a warning for special interest defense contractor lobby. Although military innovation needs industry to innovate, American government must realize that what is good for the company or even specific branch of the armed forces might not be good for the American people who ultimately is who the government serves. Federal Government officials must be constantly aware of the undue influence of the defense lobby in influencing policy toward their specific company's interest.

Chapter 6:

I think this chapter is the best chapter yet in terms of the inherent deficiencies of even the best government system in the world. Jarecki description of "corruption of government" is just a negative byproduct of the general good system that we have. To me this just proves any man made system will have inherent flaws even to the enlightened founders who created the modern republic/capitalist system, they could not have fore seen the creation of the perfect system with inherent flaws. Jarecki describes a system of how the military/industrial/congressional complex essentially waste US tax payer money to fund some military projects that do not work.

He states the only reason projects still exist despite under-performance and overcosts because it inherently benefits all those involved in the project. He reasons that industry maneuvers in order to get what they want by front-loading the project (overpromise the results and undervalue the cost of the project) to sell it to the American government and political engineering the project by distributing the project to contractors and subcontractors to as many states as possible so if the project becomes too expensive or does not deliver the expected results it would be too politically difficult to kill the project.

In this way, I think the current political/economic environment of deficit reduction is a good thing because it forces the American federal government to look to what is truly worth spending on instead of succumbing to both political and economic district inertia. Hopefully after this environment of deficit reduction one will get a leaner and meaner government that works and is both more efficient and responsive to the American public.

The question is how do we keep the current system of democratic checks and balances and at the same time reform the system to be more efficient so if a project does not work it is not bogged down by political patronage system that may be good for a government bureaucracy, Congress, and industrial allies but not for the American people. I guess the key is to constantly reform the system while avoiding a revolutionary change, but how?

Perhaps, a good way to do this is to increase the number of competitive industrial bids per McCains suggestion to prevent collusion, maybe to prevent immediate hiring of personnel from industry to government and vice versa again to prevent collusion and conflict of interest, perhaps to limit states to 10-25% of states that get awarded industrial contracts to limit the political engineering capabilities of the companies of the projects in order to allow the federal government more flexibility to shift resources once we definitively know that the project is a waste of resources.

To Rumsfeld's credit, he did try to change the oversized bureaucracy that is the military to respond to the 21 century war but the mistake of the Bush administration is to use 21 century strategy of war in a 20 century war which eventually needed heavy reliance on conventional troops to meet its objective (counter-insurgency troop surge).

Chapter 7: The book culminates with the focus of W.'s administrations contempt of the other branches of federal government (Congress and Judiciary) in an attempt to balance the executive branches power. With the background of the never-ending war on terror, W. engaged in massive executive overreach by either galvanizing Congress to give him enourmous influence over both international and domestic policy, and circumventing laws both domestic and international that he did not like and thus lessening the influence of both Congress and the judiciary.

This chapter made me realize given the enormous power that the executive now has due to expanded powers that Bush gave it, it behooves to have an executive who thinks about the rule of law and naturally favors civil liberties over aggression a la Barack Obama. The problem with this is, the American public will have to look for characteristics of restraint from its chief executive in place of constitutional separation of powers that should be inherent in the rule of law. Basically, more and more we really rely on the Presidents particular personality to rule this country and his particular spin on the law instead of the rule of law, itself. This also underscores why it is good that the legislative and executive needs to be from different parties. One party rule leads to this kind of abuse with increasing power that accrues to the executive branch. It seems to me the best combination in terms of contracting the deficit is a Democratic Presidency and a Republican legislature and perhaps best in terms of keeping the balance of powers in check too a la Clinton administration.

Another interesting thing about this chapter, is the privatization of some government responsibility in the name of increased efficiency. I generally believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector because of competition. So, this means government contracts need to have biding competition instead of the rampant abuse that occurred in W administration between it and Halliburton. Also, the chapter underscores that one of the reason that government gives contracts to private companies is because it can "hide" behind those companies. I think a simple law that requires private companies that have contracted out the government can be held publicly accountable the same way public institution are will suffice.

Conclusion: His prescription for the issue of undue corporate influence is to have sustained public citzenry efforts of calling Congress in the hopes of real reform to the system.

He also wants a new National Security Act that shifts the balance of power from executive to the legislative branch in matters of foreign policy. While I agree with the need for Congress to rediscover its role in the declaration of war and to see how the war is financed, I still think the executive should be the one to execute the war because the executive has an inherent chain of command that the legislature by its nature lacks. He, like I, also would like to see the resurgence of the State Department in matters of foreign affairs and keep the Defense department in clearly defined missions with clear objectives.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

GW Bush is bad, but it's not his fault. Rather, W and his neocons are just the (inevitable?) consequence of the continually evolving and expanding Military-Industrial Complex, itself riding the ripples of the National Security Act. Entire chapters are practically single-sourced from interviews with ex-cogs in the machine or children of influential figures. In spite of these and other shortcomings, there are interesting observations here on the origin of the "missile gap", why our military has been almost continuously standing since WWII, and the increasing influence of active military or people with military backgrounds in our civilian government. I'm an Army brat myself, and I think this book rakes the muck a little too much, but I'm not sorry I read it.

[Christopher · Rating 2 out of 5]

The work of a passionate amateur. Quaint in hindsight.

This 2008 book that is ostensibly about the creeping militarism of American foreign policy and the inherent corruption of the military industrial complex comes across as both naïve and outdated. Filmmaker Jarecki writes well, but does so from a reliably left-wing perspective and while he STARTS with a general indictment of the American defense industry, the book is really a stalking horse for all the silly and overblown critiques and mini-scandals of the Bush administration.

Jarecki's book is disorganized at best and hack-ish at worst. The takeaways are generally: "Neocons bad! Colin Powell good!"

He decries the increased influence/budgets of the DoD vs the State Department but then simultaneously says the whole notion of a more powerful Executive branch is also superplusungood--seemingly forgetting that State is part of the Executive.

Again, it's a generally well-written, if disorganized and reliably leftwing critique of American militarism that devolves into in the last third to Jarecki basically repeating every NYT anti-Bush editorial from 2006-2008.

It's nothing if not quaint. Almost adorable.

[J.K. George · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the aftermath of the Iraq War, this book shows how the nation, by giving nearly unlimited power to the President, and bypassing Congressional debate and review, the US is moving its powerful war capability into ways that are not yielding the results we hoped to achieve. This is sobering critique, and history shows the author's concerns were well-founded.

[Miroku Nemeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." From President Eisenhower's Farewell Speech

I have shown Eugene Jarecki's award-winning documentary "Why We Fight" to hundreds of students over the years. Built around Eisenhower's incredibly prescient warning to his nation, Jarecki's documentary is one of the most important films I think anyone could ever see--exposing the waste and corruption that lies at the heart of the iron triangle of Congress, industry, and the military. Jarecki's book goes into even more depth than the documentary and adds much more as well. A very important read. It added much to my understanding of history and the reality of the unholy alliance of politicians, profit-driven business interests, and the military that I will never cease to teach about until the swords have indeed been turned into plowshares.

I would like to conclude this review with more of Eisenhower's powerful words:

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Writing a valuable and critical review of this work has proven incredibly difficult for me, as the choice of rating in stars, and here is why in an incredibly erratic and stream of thought methodology.

The source material appears to be appropriate, and I do not fault the sources Jarecki has chosen. However, the book is incomplete. As much of a student of the Eisenhower area as I have been, this books is too heavily weighted towards Eisenhower and Roosevelt, even while a history of the growth of executive power certainly has to cover those periods extensively.

Eisenhower's warnings of the military industrial university complex are well taken, and could be repeated frequently, as Jarecki does. I am not even sure I disagree with much of what he says, my primary problem is that it remains in complete.

While the work is topical certainly and relevant given the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the scapegoating after 9/11, it is lacking in perspective on the growth of executive power in general, and while using military or references even when unrelated to true "militaristic" topics.

What do I mean? Well, how about the wars on poverty, drugs,cancer and crime for starters? The executive branch has grown immeasurably with these more purely domestic or non conflict areas while using the terminology and methodology covered by Jarecki in his work. Failure to at least put the military portions in this perspective damages his assertions.

At the same time, and thus my conflicted review of this work, is that many of Jarecki's points are perhaps valid. The book is well written, and most importantly, it makes the reader think and question (or they should anyway) their perspectives. One comes away questioning one's world view and wanting to study more. This can only be a good thing for intellectual debate within the United States in general and military and governmental affairs specifically. Is he right? I do not know. At the same time, I am not convinced that he is wrong either. While perhaps a personal intellectual quandary, aren't the best books supposed to be that way?

Read it, think about it, and please let me know your comments. Whatever you do, do not ignore it.

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an insightful look into the history of what has become to be known as the Military Industrial Complex. From the same person that made the documentary "Why We Fight" (I strongly suggest you view) is a more detailed look at how different administrations such as the Lincoln, FDR/Truman, Eisenhower and Bush presidencies have in times of war or threat of war (such as the Cold War/War on Terrorism) reshaped the American government and tilted the constitutional 'balance of power' more and more steadily toward the executive branch. I give this book 5 stars because it is a very factual book that keeps from straying toward wild conclusions or what one would call 'conspiracy theories'. There is tons of historical stuff in this book, most of it formerly unavailable under classification laws, that goes well beyond what we learned in our American History/Government classes in school. I praise the author for his mention and descriptions of the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act and John Warner National Defense Authorization Acts which themselves make this book a must read for any citizen. These Acts have all passed in the previous 10 years and have literally reshaped and reinterpreted the constitution. So if your civil liberties and freedoms at all interest you and you actually want to have some idea of how and why they have been taken from you and no one has been legally held accountable, read this book. After all, a main premise of the Eisenhower Farewell Address that this book is largely based on is the warning call for a 'well informed citizenry'.

Favorite Quote: "The power of concentrated finance, the power of selfish pressure groups, the power of any class organized in opposition of the whole-any one of these, when allowed to dominate, is fully capable of destroying individual freedoms, as is excessive power concentrated in the political head of the state."

[Kathleen McRae · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eugene Jarecki describes how The US came to be where it is as a nation full of men who jockey for their spot at the controls of their country and anything else they can manipulate and control.It is not a pretty picture. Mr Jarecki is the filmmaker of Why We Fight...winner of the 2005 Sundance festivalGrand Jury prize and the 2006 Peabody award.It is a bit of a dry read bit but an excellent account of how the US reached the point of The Iraqi War and Bigger again how they have come to the place today where they consider it their right to kill people wherever they like with drones and no international court jurisdiction.I know there are many US citizens who do not agree with these policies and that is why it is important to single out the perpetrators. the USA would have to acknowledge their role in the many oppressive dictatorships worldwide over the last 60 years.There is much new history coming to light since the 1990's and declassification of many documents detailing the role various individuals have played in setting the tone for an entire country.

[Amber · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading this book. I've never fancied myself very interested in history, but I really appreciated the approach this book took to give context on the current political climate and wars through the lens of the 20th century. I don't think it was entirely neat and cohesive in scope, and there were parts that I found more challenging due to my interest waning, but all in all very glad I read it. I'm looking forward to reading more history now. Made me want to know about other presidents and get better context for my political beliefs.

My favorite quote was one from Eisenhower's "Chance for Peace" speech:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enlightening, detailed explanation of how America wages war and the path that we took to get here. While the main focal point of the book seems to be an attack on the Bush administration's policies, the author explains both how we got to this point and importantly, details much of the past over-stepping that has taken place in the executive branch.

The overall theme seems to be that of warning, the author repeatedly cites Eisenhower's famous final address where he warned of the military-industrial complex. Throughout the book examples are given of how this foreshadowing seems to have become, or is rapidly approaching reality.

A good read for people interested in American foreign policy and the events that have shaped it, from the revolutionary, to the civil, to world, to Iraq and the war on terror, the reader is delivered legislative and event driven causes and effects of our policies and how and why they are.

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise and strong overview of American war policy and strategy over the latter twentieth century. Some sections are simply among the best summaries currently available, especially those on the abuses of the Bush administration. Other sections (chapters 4,5) drag on a bit too long and unbalance the work as a whole. The author is a bit too easy on Eisenhower and James Madison, but that situates him as a calm, understated observer, slightly to the right of Eisenhower. This understatement makes him more readable for conservative readers. The strengths far outweigh the weaknesses as Jarecki lays out the infuriating and relentless logic of the military-industrial complex. Very important reading for understanding any military current events. The author is also the director of the even stronger documentary Why We Fight, one of the most powerful documentaries on the military-industrial complex and the War in Iraq. If you can't read the book, get his documentary.

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've heard it said many times over... "This is a book that every american should read."

Frankly, I think it is true in this case. Jarecki delivers, in plain language without political doublespeak, a history of the Military Industrial Complex and the growing strength of the executive branch of our government - particularly in warmaking and in the shutting down of individual liberties. Though you may know the exterior history if you follow politics, there is so very much taking place behind the scenes that will fascinate (and disgust) you.

It is a book that saddened me and made me angry and I think it would do the same to most who read it, regardless of what political party you cling to.

I have yet to see "Why We Fight," but it is definitely on my list now.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book, one of a very few for a popular audience that attempts to chart the rise of the military-industrial complex and the evolution of our current political imbalance among the three branches. The book often feels clunky and padded, unfortunately. Still, it is one of a very few books out there that attempts seriously to explain how the U.S., that is, us, became a militarist imperium. Worth reading for that alone, but the final chapters, where he discusses John Yoo's arguments in favor of extraordinary presidential power and suggests some starting points for reform, are also quite thought-provoking.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book on the take over of our governmental process by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (Yes, Military Industrial Complex is what you normally hear, but MICC was what Eisenhower originally planned to say - read the book). The major plot about how the Executive branch is steadily gaining in power over the Legislative and Judicial branches due to the nearly constant threat of war we have been under since WWII is very scary indeed. This reaches beyond Democrats and Republicans to show that both parties have been playing power games that threaten the concepts of Democracy and freedom in America. It was very eye opening.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers an in-depth look at the military-industrial complex, from World War II under FDR, through Eisenhower's warning, up until today. It's a revealing look at how the military-industrial power acquired and wields so much power and how that affects when and how we fight. It also considers the effect the military-industrial complex has had on the constitutional separation of powers.

In spite of the heavy subject, the book is a pretty light read. It's a worthwhile read for anyone who'd like some additional insight into our military policy.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an awesome book. It provides background for and context to the state of our government and how it has evolved , particularly since WWII. The executive branch now overpowers the other branches of our government leading to a predisposition for war. I can honestly say that this book gave me a ton of new insight into how the government is supposed to work and how it works in reality and the consequences of the current structure of our government. I have a much deeper appreciation for new events and the story that exists between the lines of print.

[Jim Stogdill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about war, but what it really makes you think about is the way war distorts the balance of power between our branches of government. Buy buying $500B worth of stuff every year, the Pentagon turns Congress into professional class of pleaders and empowers the executive. This book fills in the rest of the story behind Eisenhower's prescient "military industrial complex" speech by adding "congress."

[Stephanie LGW · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book has a decidedly left-ward political lean to it, but it was interesting to read the historical information about the Iraq war and the different ways the Bush administration consolidated their power. I did also have an interesting theory on why there was such a difference in response to Katrina in 2005 vs. the CA wildfires in 2007. Presidential powers changed in 2006 - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10...

[Jeffturney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly articulate, Eugene Jarecki's work details both the broad historical trends and the lives of some of the noteworthy figures within the larger historical perspective. Pulling from a variety of backgrounds, he explores how we got from the citizen soldiers of the revolution to the PATRIOT Act. I highly recommend it.

[Alan]

On Oct 20 on Democracy Now, at the end of his interview, he explained in about 80 brilliant words how the military industrial complex derailed american democracy. And his film was awesome. This is the book and I am going to read it.

[Andi]

I just couldn't get into it. He had some interesting points, but ultimately nothing compelling or that I hadn't already known. Also, maybe I'm an academic snob but I had a hard time understanding why a film director was credible discussing the military-industrial complex.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

so far, pretty interesting.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the interest of self-promotion I feel obligated to give this four stars. The writing itself does not rank that, the content and thesis absolutely does.

[Sean · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good companion book to the documentary "Why we Fight". I highly recommend the documentary

[Sheetal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting history of war and how scary the military industrial complex really is and was way before bush...

[Christopher Rex · Rating 3 out of 5]

How the Miitary-Industrial Complex came to dominate our lives and US policy-making. By the maker of the film "Why We Fight"

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

Superficial, but broad, this book is at its best when it traces the historical roots of current policies.

Includes great words like "jeremiandic" and "sclerotic".

[Surfing Moose · Rating 2 out of 5]

I guess I was expecting something different. I found it to be a bit disjointed and dry. Will try reading it later as the subject matter is quite interesting.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Would've liked more on US policies in the past, but what was there was very interesting (found the second half dragged on)