Ever since I read Ghost Wars I have enjoyed reading Steve Coll books. When I saw that he wrote a book about the lead up to the Iraqi War I knew I would read it as soon as I could.
Coll wanted to address how America could have been so wrong about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. When discussing Saddam Hussein Coll notes:
“Successive American presidents misjudged him. They often dismissed him as a cartoon autocrat.”
From the time this book begins in 1979 until its close in 2003 Coll notes:
“One recurring theme is the trouble American decision makers had in assessing Saddam’s resentments and managing his inconsistencies.”
When addressing why Saddam acted the way he did in the building up to the war Coll notes:
“Saddam thought of the CIA as all knowing. This contributed to his own misunderstandings of America which were at least as profound as America’s misunderstandings of him. For instance after 1991 Saddam assumed that the CIA knew that he had no WMD; and so he interpreted American and British accusations about his supposed arsenal of nukes and germ bombs as merely propaganda lines in a long running conspiracy to get rid of him.”
The book does an excellent job of outlining the events that precluded the US invasion in 2003. The major events include the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, the war with Kuwait and the American response, and the Iraqi weapons development program.
There is a lot of information in this book and many interesting facts that will expose the reader to a greater understanding of the relationship between the US and Iraq and of Saddam Hussein. For example he spent his latter years writing novels.
Another interesting fact I learned in this book revolves around the role Vladimir Putin played in trying to avoid the war. Coll writes:
“Early in March Vladimir Putin wrote a letter to Saddam proposing that he step down as president of Iraq and become chairman of the Ba’ath Party. The formulation was clever Putin offered Saddam a face saving outcome that did not require the Iraqi leader to depart his homeland in humiliation.”
Overall I really enjoyed this book and rate it 5 out of 5 stars.
Great literature should do more than entertain us. It should provide a roadmap to improving our lives.
In A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens introduced readers to Sydney Carton, one of literature's most compelling and deeply flawed characters. Dickens also gives him an unusual title: the Jackal.
His struggles raise questions that remain relevant today.
Are we defined by our past mistakes? Can we overcome our weaknesses? What separates the people we are from the people we could become?
Lessons From the Jackal is a 25-day character study exploring these questions through Sydney Carton’s life, decisions, relationships, and personal development.
This is not a traditional course on A Tale of Two Cities. Our reading assignments will focus specifically on Carton, with sufficient background provided to understand his story. No previous knowledge of the novel is necessary.
Each day will feature selected readings, historical comparisons, reflection questions, discussions, and practical challenges ...
“I arrived at Mr. Lorry’s, to his surprise, yesterday evening; we agreed that I would not present myself elsewhere until all was well or unless I could be useful.”
Charles Darnay has spent fifteen months imprisoned in France. During that time, Lucie has remained in Paris, hoping that her husband might eventually regain his freedom. Doctor Manette has used his influence among the revolutionaries in an effort to secure Darnay's release, while Mr. Lorry has continued providing assistance to the family. Their efforts have required great patience and perseverance.
Now Sydney Carton has arrived in Paris.
Carton's decision to travel to France is remarkable because he has no formal responsibility for Darnay's predicament. He has not been involved in the family's prolonged struggle to obtain his release. He has no apparent reason to believe that his arrival will resolve the difficulties they have encountered. Yet he has come. Perhaps the more interesting question is why he did not come sooner.
For fifteen ...
During the eighteenth century, travel between England and France was relatively common among merchants, diplomats, aristocrats, and other individuals with the financial means to make the journey. The English Channel separated the two countries, but established maritime routes connected English ports with French destinations such as Calais.
The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 dramatically changed the political environment confronting travelers. By 1793, France was at war with Great Britain. The conflict made travel between the two countries considerably more complicated and dangerous. Foreign travelers could attract suspicion, particularly when revolutionary authorities feared that foreign governments were attempting to undermine the Republic.
Individuals entering France might encounter passport requirements, identity examinations, and restrictions on movement. Political circumstances could change rapidly, and a person who entered the country legally might subsequently find it ...
