The problem with journalists writing large scale history is that they import so many journalistic tropes. Your story for the New York Times has to start with a half paragraph about how poor Abdul's shack is surrounded on all sides by desert and razor wire, and there are rockets whizzing overhead every fifteen minutes, and give us cod-insights into Abdul's character, and only *then* can you get to the point. So Tyler starts chapters with a couple of pages of guff about the landscape around [insert person's house here], often highly personalized ("I first met Abdul when I was in Iraq for the 1994 conference on flippant book reviewing...")... and only then gets to the point, which is an exhaustive discussion of American foreign policy and diplomacy towards the middle east (which includes Egypt, but not, for some reason, Afghanistan) between Eisenhower and Clinton, with a bit on Bush II and Obama tacked on at the end.

The other problem is that journalists write like they're private investigators, following up every lead. Whereas what people need to know can be summed up very easily, without long digressions into the character flaws of minor Israeli diplomats.

All of which is to say this book is very informative, and about 200 pages too long. The take-away, if you're after such a thing, is that the American government never does the right thing: always too much military response, or too little; too much leaning on middle eastern governments, or too little, etc etc... That obviously can't be true, but at least it's balanced. An interesting theme that he doesn't make explicit: many of the mis-steps and missed chances for peace might have been due to the soi disant democratic processes of the U.S. and Israel. If you worry more about getting re-elected than doing the best thing, you will most likely not do the best thing, and that became very clear throughout the course of this book.

Finally, the conclusion is hilarious. "Muslim youth yearns for the same personal fulfillment and opportunity as youth everywhere. They seek the same advancement in culture, science and technology that market capitalism can deliver to peoples who have been held back by dictators and the orthodoxies of the old world." A day or two after I read that I heard an analyst for Barclay's bank (I think; possibly some other bank, but definitely a bank) suggesting that the protests in Brazil are a cry from a people who has had it with restrictive government regulation. Yes. That is precisely it. Everyone wants more input from multinational corporations! Everyone! Only then can their culture advance! Nobody wants better and more government services! Not idea what made Tyler throw that idiocy at the end of an otherwise balanced and intelligent work. ( )