Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction FiascoBasic Books, 28 апр. 2009 г. - Всего страниц: 304 According to conventional wisdom, Iraq has suffered because the Bush administration had no plan for reconstruction. That's not the case; the State Department's Future of Iraq group planned out the situation carefully and extensively, and Middle East expert David Phillips was part of this group. White House ideologues and imprudent Pentagon officials decided simply to ignore those plans. The administration only listened to what it wanted to hear. Losing Iraq doesn't't just criticize the policies of unilateralism, preemption, and possible deception that launched the war; it documents the process of returning sovereignty to an occupied Iraq. Unique, as well, are Phillips's personal accounts of dissension within the administration. The problems encountered in Iraq are troubling not only in themselves but also because they bode ill for other nation-building efforts in which the U.S. may become mired through this administration's doctrine of unilateral, preemptive war. Losing Iraq looks into the future of America's foreign policy with a clear-eyed critique of the problems that loom ahead. |
Результаты поиска по книге
Результаты 1 – 5 из 31
Стр. 7
... Powell in agreeing to give diplomacy a last chance. When Bush addressed the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002, he invoked the memory of terror attacks against the United States and challenged the world body to enforce its ...
... Powell in agreeing to give diplomacy a last chance. When Bush addressed the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002, he invoked the memory of terror attacks against the United States and challenged the world body to enforce its ...
Стр. 15
... Powell stated, “We have kept [Saddam] contained, kept him in his box.”7 Though Bush's national security team focused on traditional threats and big power politics, Bush bore a personal grudge against Saddam. Indeed, Bush came into ...
... Powell stated, “We have kept [Saddam] contained, kept him in his box.”7 Though Bush's national security team focused on traditional threats and big power politics, Bush bore a personal grudge against Saddam. Indeed, Bush came into ...
Стр. 19
... Powell accepted the inevitability of a confrontation with Saddam. He testified to the Senate: “It has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the ...
... Powell accepted the inevitability of a confrontation with Saddam. He testified to the Senate: “It has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the ...
Стр. 23
... Powell, the legislation never made it out of committee. The Anfal campaign's scorched-earth policy had destroyed half of Iraq's farmland. Washington responded by expanding food assistance to Iraq through the U.S. Agricultural ...
... Powell, the legislation never made it out of committee. The Anfal campaign's scorched-earth policy had destroyed half of Iraq's farmland. Washington responded by expanding food assistance to Iraq through the U.S. Agricultural ...
Стр. 29
... Powell insisted that if Saddam launched a preemptive strike against Iraqi Kurdistan, the United States would respond at a time and place of its choosing. But the Kurds wanted a guarantee that the United States would defend them, 29 ...
... Powell insisted that if Saddam launched a preemptive strike against Iraqi Kurdistan, the United States would respond at a time and place of its choosing. But the Kurds wanted a guarantee that the United States would defend them, 29 ...
Содержание
1 | |
13 | |
21 | |
The Future of Iraq Project | 35 |
Interagency Relations | 41 |
Breaking the Ice | 45 |
The Principals Committee | 55 |
Ahmad Chalabi | 67 |
The Enemy of My Enemy | 103 |
A War Within a War | 111 |
Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance | 121 |
Basic Nihilistic Impulse | 133 |
DeBaathification | 143 |
Occupation | 155 |
Epilogue | 205 |
Appendix | 239 |
Другие издания - Просмотреть все
Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco David L. Phillips Недоступно для просмотра - 2006 |
Часто встречающиеся слова и выражения
action Affairs agencies agreed American Arab armed army asked assistance attack authority Ba’ath Baghdad believed border Bremer Bush administration called Chalabi Cheney claimed coalition command committed committee concerned conference constitution coordinating Council decision Defense democracy Democratic Department develop discuss efforts elections establish February federal forces Foreign former Garner George going Group humanitarian Hussein insisted intelligence interests Iran Iranian Iraq Iraq’s Iraqi Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic issues Khalilzad Kurdish Kurds leaders liberation Mahdi Army March meeting military minister National Security officials operations organizations participants Party Pentagon persons political positions Powell President Principles Project reconstruction regime region Relations representative response role Rumsfeld Saddam Secretary Security Council Senator Shi’a Sunni terror tion transition troops Turkey Turkish Turkmen U.S. officials United Nations wanted weapons York
Популярные отрывки
Стр. 103 - States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
Стр. 16 - We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.
Стр. 16 - Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Стр. 19 - Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.
Стр. 15 - President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Стр. 103 - We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
Стр. 20 - America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof— the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Стр. 58 - ... challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; * we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; <> we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Стр. 19 - Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.
Стр. 55 - Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or 1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/200209 1 2- 1 .html. cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?