Nixon worked as an analyst for the CIA and was in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was captured. He was one of the people who interrogated him following his capture. One thing to note is that parts of this book have been redacted following a CIA review of the manuscript. In some instances it is a small redaction like the monetary value Hussein feels like the American soldiers who captured him stole and in other instances it is several lines. The redactions are fairly sparse and don’t detract from the story too much.
After working for the CIA, Nixon writes this book with a critical eye towards US foreign policy. He writes “our lack of understanding reflected a serious flaw in U.S. foreign policy that has plagued us since our founding. The United States usually reacts blindly to threats, whether communism or an Arab strongman, without pragmatically assessing the advantages of engagement and realpolitik.”
He also notes after the capture of Hussein “it occurred to me that our government had never prepared for capturing Saddam alive. U.S. officials took it as a foregone conclusion that Saddam would kill himself rather than be captured, or be killed as he tried to escape. When he was captured alive, no one knew what to do.”
The book contains some interesting exchanges between Nixon and Hussein including the men Saddam Hussein most admired. His answers were de Gaulle, Lenin, Mao, and George Washington.
As much as this book is about the interrogation of Saddam Hussein it is also a strong critic of American foreign policy. Nixon notes “ I thought President Clinton’s attention to foreign policy was similar to that of a child with attention deficit disorder.”
Nixon compared President Bush to Hussein writing “One of the great ironies of the Iraq War was that brutal dictator Saddam Hussein and freedom fighter George W. Bush were alike in many ways. Both had haughty, imperious demeanors. Both were fairly ignorant of the outside world and had rarely traveled abroad. Both tended to see things as black and white, good and bad, or for and against, and became uncomfortable when presented with multiple alternatives. Both surrounded themselves with compliant advisers and had little tolerance for dissent.”
Speaking of President Obama Nixon notes “Obama apparently did not see Iraq as his problem and apparently had no intention of investing the time, effort, and political capital needed to continue with a policy that he inherited from the Bush administration.”
I found the description of the meeting that Nixon had with President Bush informative. It provides a glimpse into the workings of the Bush executive branch. Nixon provides his opinion of many of the key players during the Iraq war.
Overall this was a quick interesting read. I rate it 4 out of 5 stars.
William Wilberforce has been called an agitator for his commitment to ending the slave trade. One of his well known speeches on the subject was given on May 12, 1789.
Cardinal Richelieu has been hailed as a great statesman and as a subversive authoritarian. Depending on who you talk to he was a man needed to strengthen the monarchy in France, or he was a tyrant seeking personal power. Next week I will have a book review that may shed more light on Cardinal Richelieu.
When Lenin was working on his major writing projects he would often pace across the room formulating the ideas that he would write down by saying them out loud. Once he had the idea for what he wanted to write he would often repeat the idea to Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would provide feedback. Once this process was complete he would then write the ideas down.
Here is an AI rendering of what that might have looked like when he was drafting What is to be Done.
This month this community will focus on political subversion. What is subversion? When is it justified? What is the interplay between subversion and agitation? These are some of the topics to be discussed this month.
“You get used to the despot’s shortcomings, when they are not great vices, and the change of an autocratic ruler leads to involuntary fear.”
Sergei Trubetskoi
