Engaging and sad look at the current state of diplomacy. ( )

Works best when it is a valentine to Richard Holbrooke, as Farrow clearly had a lot of respect for the man and worked closely enough with him to have an understanding of him that is not hagiographic, exactly. Weirdly, this Holbrooke-centric nature means that the narrative skips, more or less from Vietnam straight to Clinton.

It goes without saying that the Trump State Department is known to be a diplomatic cataclysm, and so further reiteration of this is not needed. There is some light discussion of the hand that Tillerson was dealt in this, though he is somebody who does not need sympathy. But the book is a bit like a discussion of Antediluvian farming techniques. It isn't like farming tips aren't helpful, and won't be helpful again. But having the destruction of everything be the opening and concluding chapters makes the rest of the narrative feel a bit small beer.

The most interesting aspect for people not steeped in diplomatic history, likely, is how cyclical these disasters are: new administration thinks diplomacy is a waste of time, and by second term spends four years undoing the first term's mistakes. Obama comes in for this criticism as well, which is interesting for a foreign policy team who's mantra (not expressed here) was allegedly: "Don't fuck things up." But Carter and Reagan aren't covered at all, which leaves a massive lacuna in any such history, in my opinion.

If one has read recent histories like [b:The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government|24723229|The Devil's Chessboard Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government|David Talbot|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1439315922s/24723229.jpg|44215740], one will ruefully nod in recognition of how many American disasters are predicated on consequences that are either unintended or to which the participants were indifferent for political reasons, though Farrow rarely gets into specifics about the political reasons, and instead simply acknowledges their existence.

The weirdest aspect is Farrow's tendency to foreground himself in the narrative, discussing the memos he sent or discussions he had in which he was always on the right side of history, lo, this one whole decade later. He's already become la belle enfant of investigative journalism. He really has no need to pad his resume in book form. ( )

I never really read books about the government, wars or world politics as it tends to make depressed, small and insignificant. Fortunately, this book did not have that affect but not for lack of trying.

The militarisation of US diplomatic strategy (Basically, having military leaders in decision making positions instead of actual diplomats) has led to numerous avoidable wars (proxy or otherwise) which have left the countries involved worse off.

This is the underlying message throughout the book and is echoed in each analysis of major world events.
I don't really know enough about world politics to comment on the authenticity of what I read (It certainly seemed well researched), but I can say that the book is very engaging, well written and has a colourful cast of characters.

I definitely felt like learned a lot from this book (I did not know what a proxy war was) and probably should have taken notes to better remember all the various world events.

Solid read for the uninitiated. ( )

Farrow's thesis here is that U.S. foreign policy is leaning heavily toward military decision makers and, as a consequence, away from diplomats. While he offers quite a few examples of how U.S. foreign policy has failed to address the biggest, thorniest issues of the past decade (Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, North Korea), I'm not sure he makes the case that those failures are because of a tilt toward military decision making rather than, for example, overinvolvement of domestic political actors or a desire for 'easy' wins over longterm planning. After all, diplomats could potentially be just as susceptible to those flaws as military leaders. That said, there's a lot of food for thought in this book, and I suspect I'll be thinking about it for quite awhile. ( )

You need to be interested in politics in the USA, if you are, this book is essential reading to explain how the military complex has overtaken our diplomacy. The worst is that the military knows how to start war, but has no clue as to how to end them. That is were diplomacy comes in at its most essential. This book explains it all. ( )