Best iraq war history books according to redditors

Yes.

The best source I've read is British professor Christopher Davidson's new book Shadow Wars. His area of expertise is on the Gulf monarchies and he has several previous books on them. Would advise reading that for an exhaustive look at the financing of ISIS and Nusra.

Behind closed doors its certainly the view of many leaders in DC.

Hillary Clinton's email leak was overshadowed by the election, but on foreign policy, she spoke about Saudi financing of ISIS in an email to Podesta.

> we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Joe Biden speaking at Harvard's JFK School of Government was forced to apologise after saying he spoke with Erdogan privately about Turkey and "other allies" funding Nusra and ISIS.

> The vice president apologized for any implication that Turkey or other allies and partners in the region had intentionally supplied or facilitated the growth of ISIL or other violent extremists in Syria,

Steve Clemons, a great journalist reported that Bandar Bin Sultan, was fired in 2014 from the Syrian portfolio for being responsible for the rise of ISIS.

He also includes an interesting quote from a Qatari official who said:

> Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”

But all this goes way further back. During the US occupation of Iraq and the Iraq insugency, Nir Rosen in his book Aftermath wrote that the Iraq insurgency was largely paid for by the Saudi Association of Muslim Scholars from a large mosque outside Baghdad.

Also of course in New York the current 9/11 lawsuit seems to have complied enough evidence to bring a lawsuit against the Saudi government directly. We wait to see what that reveals.

Look, you don't have to fling out these half-baked conspiracy links if you want to make the case here. None of these are serious links.

If you want a solid, non-partisan and fact-driven account of the run up to the Iraq War in 2003, there' a couple of places you can go.

[David Frum, one of Bush's old speechwriters, gives the inside account of how they sold the war to the public here.] (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/03/18/the-speechwriter-inside-the-bush-administration-during-the-iraq-war.html)

[Here's a former CIA employee writing about how she tried and failed to make the Iraq Intelligence more reliable.] (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/iraq-intelligence/)

And if you really must take a partisan look at the run up to the war (don't know why you would), [David Corn at Mother Jones wrote Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War] (http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/B0085SG90Y)

If you want to believe this goofy, speciously sourced stuff that captures imaginations but not evidence, I don't know what else to say.

God, these people are such fucking dipshits. Even Francis Fukuyama, the father of current neoconservative thought had to write an entire book about how destructive and toxic neoconservatism was.

Ho-hum... at the danger of 'slaughtering a few sacred cows' here:

Pollack is entirely wrong in regards of what 'Saddam did' - and when - which is little surprising considering all of his sources of reference were either Israeli or Western, and as such without any kind of serious insights into what was actually going on in Baghdad at what point in time during the Iran-Iraq War.

My memory might not be the best, and it's sure Saddam did sack quite a few of officers during the war with Iran. However, I do not recall him actually 'executing' (or ordering the execution) of more than 1-2 officers - and then for obvious and undisputable cowardice in front of the enemy, only.

I.e. the mass of such stories are the wildest sort of exaggerations and urban legends.

Actually, Saddam was so incompetent, that most of the time he wouldn't even know whom to sack.

Thus, instead of still hanging on, meanwhile, hopelessly obsolete Pollack (who's also wrong in regards of mass of other, similar, 'historical moments' in the history of other modern-day Arab militaries), my plea is: please people, start searching for some more up-to-date lecture to topics of this kind. I do not demand everybody to turn into a professional military history researcher, track down and interview all the possible Iraqi generals that are still around etc. And, surely enough, there's no new, up-to-date, serious and as comprehensive work on contemporary Arab military history as that by Pollack.

But at least getting copies of such stuff like Saddam's Generals or The Mother of all Battles shouldn't be that hard.

This is even more valid should you have serious intentions in regards of trying to find out who lost or won that war (Iran-Iraq). In that case, Pollack entirely failed to recognize that in 1988 - partially by design, partially by accident - the Iraqi generals actually caught the incompetent and corrupt IRGC off balance. When this moved its mass of offensive units to the northern front (which took it months because of hopelessly underdeveloped traffic system of Iran), the Iraqis delivered a series of devastating blows in the south. Yes, they used lots of CWs, and yes, they did suffer heavy casualties too, but their losses made sense: those of the Iranians not any more (and then at least since Karbala-4/5). Foremost: by the time the IRGC recognized what's going on in the south, and started moving its troops back in that direction, the war was lost simply because there were very few left in Iran still curious to keep on fighting (and, indeed, the mass of the IRGC was still not back to the southern front even by the time Khomeyni finally accepted a cease-fire, several months later).

BTW, Pollack also entirely failed to study the influence of the devastating IrAF aerial offensive upon the economy in western Iran. But hey: why expect any US researcher to consider some 'Arab' air force a professional military service… :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to the topic: be sure that 'finding and sacking incompetent officers' is far easier said than done, and anything else than easy. Indeed, it often results in sacking competent - but, for example, 'unpopular' - officers, too. Perhaps one of best recent examples of that kind happened in Algeria just today, where the commander of the air force was literally sacked - and nobody can say why.

Hitchens never moved to the right, at least not in his professional life (he did spend some time in a Cuban work commune during his Oxford days, after all). Same with Sam. Their positions are almost entirely consistent with classical liberalism.

Don't confuse today's Left (capital 'L') with traditional leftism.

The use of the term 'neo conservative' has become a pejorative on the Left for anyone who does not take an absolutist view on the illegitimacy of US military operations globally. It is a use 'neo conservative' that is almost entirely divorced from the political philosophy of neo conservatism (which is outlined in a fascinating book by Francis Fukuyama).

Hitch in his own words 1

Hitch in his own words 2

I like this Hitch quote in particular (From the second video), on the rise of jihadism:

>"You couldn't really have a more clear confrontation between let's at least say left liberalism and the right. And the Left says, 'well, I don't know... what about East Timor?'... This is disgraceful. To try and evade, to try and sit out a moment like that really invites historical condemnation."

(I believe the East Timor bit was a jab at the whataboutism of Chomsky and his faction of the Left).

Violence of Action: The Untold Stories of the 75th Ranger Regiment in the War on Terror

Back in the Fight: The Explosive Memoir of a Special Operator Who Never Gave Up

A Night in the Pech Valley: A memoir of a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment in the Global War on Terrorism

Lest We Forget: An Army Ranger Medic's journey

Also in the "conspiracy theory" category:
Ghost Wars, an enthralling piece of investigave journalism done by the Washington Post's Steve Coll about the rise of bin Laden: http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/0143034669/ref=pd_ts_b_6?ie=UTF8&s=books
Hubris, another excellent investigative book about how the Bush Administration sold the Iraq War:
http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/030734682X/ref=pd_ts_b_22?ie=UTF8&s=books
Conspiracy of Fools, a book about how Enron collapsed. I guess it's not really a "conspiracy theory" book in that it describes a conspiracy that actually took place and for which people were convicted.

>The jailed architect of 9/11 revealed that al Qaeda's plan to kill the United States was not through military attacks but immigration and "outbreeding nonmuslims" who would use the legal system to install Sharia law, according to a blockbuster new book.

>He said the terror attacks were good, but the "practical" way to defeat America was through immigration and by outbreeding non-Muslims. He said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States, taking advantage of the welfare system to support themselves while they spread their jihadi message. They will wrap themselves in America's rights and laws for protection, ratchet up acceptance of Sharia law, and then, only when they were strong enough, rise up and violently impose Sharia from within. He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people eventually would become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end.

From https://www.amazon.com/Enhanced-Interrogation-Motives-Islamic-Terrorists/dp/1101906847/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1479937817&sr=1-1&keywords=enhanced+interrogation

So I looked it up and found the book just in case anyone is interested. I just ordered the kindle version and will post updates on what I think about it. Got nothing to do and definitely not falling asleep for awhile.

http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Action-Untold-Stories-Regiment-ebook/dp/B00NUZXDYM/ref=zg_bs_3568213011_1

Fallujah With Honor

We Were One

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War#Colin_Powell's_presentation

https://www.amazon.com/History-World-Since-Deception-Destruction/dp/1608192709

In short, no, at least going off of the definition of terrorism you wish to be used. This isn't, however, to say that terrorist groups do not effect change in the domestic or international scene. There are really two levels of objectives for terrorist groups: short-term and long-term. Short term objectives would be things like raising money by ransoming hostages or robbing banks, gaining media coverage, and recruiting members. This is really the meat and potatoes aspect of any terrorist group. Longer term goals are probably what you're looking for, and they are normally much more significant: regime change, the complete reversal of a government's policy, etc. Terrorist groups are much more successful with the former rather than the latter. Short-term victories are pretty common, with an example being the early 1980s bombings of the US embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon, which eventually led to the US pulling out of the country. But I honestly can't think of one terrorist group that achieved it's goals strictly through terrorism. Exceptions to this rule would be when terrorism becomes part of a broader military strategy, often guerrilla warfare.

Furthermore, we have to recognize that, despite popular claims that terrorists are radical and uncompromising, their attitudes and objectives do change and their views have the potential to become moderated. The Muslim Brotherhood is a good example of this. The decision for moderation, or even the group's renunciation of terrorism, arises because, just like politicians, terrorist groups have their own constituencies. Of course, this discounts terrorist groups who see themselves as a revolutionary vanguard that will spring the masses to action, a la the RAF. In those cases, the terrorists group's views are often so far apart from any mainstream view that they never gain much in the way of any wider following, often because their nihilism alienates the ones they're trying to call to action. But going back to terrorist groups who actively work to form greater constituencies within a society, these groups often have to moderate their views out of necessity if they wish to have any type of political relevance. Sometimes, their constituents may accept that violence is a legitimate course of action, although there are certainly limits. For example, through the 1970s to the 1990s, the IRA and Sinn Fein heeded their constituency's demands by mainly attacking British security personnel rather than Protestant civilians. To have engaged in a wider program of civilian terror would have risked the group losing their legitimacy in the eyes of their constituency. (As a side-note this is not to diminish or marginalize IRA terrorist attacks against civilians, which still constituted roughly 20% of the group's terrorist actions).

Lastly, in some cases, a terrorist groups stated strategic objectives may not necessarily be the primary reason why they are committing acts of terrorism. The Weather Underground is a good example of this type of terrorist group. For the Weather Underground terrorism was an end in itself, an action that was a moral necessity against a corrupt and repressive government, no matter the tactic's efficacy. In these cases, the terrorist group's objectives are less important than the individual member's psychological catharsis through terrorism.

So, the objectives or goals of terrorist groups are multi-layered and constantly changing. Rarely, if ever, do their most radical objectives come anywhere near reaching fruition. When a terrorist group fails to moderate their views there are a few paths through which the group may follow, almost inevitably, to collapse. The group will be dismantled by the state (or a multi-state institution), which can occur through either violent or non-violent means (the Italian Red Brigades are a good example of this). The group dissolves through internal conflict, often arising over a debate as to whether terrorist violence should continue or if the group should moderate its views (the Weather Underground suits this path). The last is for the group simply to slip into irrelevance, fighting for a cause that no one cares about anymore. This final case tends to occur when terrorist groups refuse to adapt to a changing domestic/international scene, for example the RAF in post-unification Germany.

Edit: Wording.

Edit: I forgot to list some relevant sources for further reading if you'd wish to do so. For general histories of terrorism the best single volume is Gerard Chaliand and Arnaud Blin's The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to al Qaeda. Bruce Hoffman's Inside Terrorism is also a must read. For an excellent look at the ideological motivations of the Weather Underground and RAF you can check out Jeremy Varon's Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies . Lastly, you may be interested to learn how exactly terrorist groups end. For that, two good books are Audrey Kurth Cronin's How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns or Seth Jones's and Martin Libicki's How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida

Here are some more reads that people may be interested in:

• https://www.amazon.com/Antiwar-Soldier-Dissent-Within-Military/dp/1568583788
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/War-Anti-War-Making-Todays-Global/dp/0446602590
  
  
• https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spectacle-Reality-Resistance-Confronting-Militarism/dp/099309550X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=spectacle+reality+resistance&qid=1562525757&s=gateway&sr=8-1
  
  
• https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/anti-war

Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AES52NC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_fjG-AbSR7A0KH

Interesting read.

Five Years to Freedom - Nick Rowe, he started SERE school after being a POW.

Inside Delta Force - Eric Haney, h was in their first unit and ended up being their Command SGT Major.

Delta Force - Charles Beckwith - SF Officer who trained with the SAS and was the founder of them.

All the Marine Sniper books on Carlos Hathcock by Charles Henderson are great.

All these books are easy reads.

Edit: these are mostly Army SF books so here's one from one of my hardcore SNCOs: (I never read it, but he used to be in Force Recon before AMLC SNOIC)

I Am My Brother's Keeper, Journal of a Gunny in Iraq https://www.amazon.com/dp/1928724051/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_awd_544-wbPT38VNW

Here you go.

True.

I've done a bit of reading on terrorism and the most commonly accepted definitions of terrorism actually seem to lack terror. Terrorism is an act of small military value with the intent to cause a greater political effect, mostly through fear or inspiration ("calls to action"). These Islamists are a new breed and certainly not the standard-bearer for terrorists. I liked these books, 1 and [2] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520247094/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

Have you ever met Ahmed Mansour? I recently read his book Inside Fallujah. He and the others with him reporting from Fallujah are major heroes in my humble opinion. It was an amazing read. If you have met him please thank him for me for having his book translated to English.

Well one source about the Iran-Iraq war from the perspective of Iraq is "Saddam's Generals" by Woods
https://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Generals-Perspectives-Iran-Iraq-War/dp/0160896134/


Books on the Second Kurdish-Iraqi war too: In mid-1970s Iran (with US and Israeli backing) was promoting Kurdish rebellions in Iraq and bombing Iraqi pipelines, and then the Shah abandoned the Kurds once Iraq and Iran agreed to share the Arvand Rud waterway (aka Shatt-al Arab) -- Kissinger famously justified that by stating: "Foreign policy should not he confused with missionary work."

PS the proper way to do research is to to your library and start with annotated bibliographic databases such as Oxford Bibiographies http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com so you get a sense of "what's out there" and what the most relevant sources are. Then you have to read them and judge their accuracy. There is no such thing as a totally unbiased and reliable source. For example you'll still run into source that claim that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons even though by now it should be clear that was not the case https://web.archive.org/web/20030102224708/http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/programs/dc/briefs/030701.htm


Khomeini certainly was no fan of Saddam and wanted him gone but at the time Iran was not much of a threat to Saddam except with propaganda and rhetoric since Iran had no military and was caught up in the chaos of the Islamic revolution.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.com

amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

Ah, then Baghdad burning is solid. I recommend (fiction) Blasim's work as it's pretty solid (and IMHO all fiction relates in some way to non fiction). This book though written by a reporter, helps to show some aspect of the Iraqi civilian side of things. My book is fiction but helps shine some light on the Iraq war.

Maybe because in the years following the invasion, no evidence was found to support the administration's main justifications for the war: namely, Iraq was engaging in large-scale manufacture of biological/nuclear WMDs and Saddam Hussein had ties to Osama bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks?

Or maybe because of the numerous revelations in the years since that indicate Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and was seeking an excuse to justify it?

This happened pretty recently - it was in all the papers. Maybe read a book or two and educate yourself?

I used excepts from this book when I taught an international relations survey course.

There's an amazing book on this, Hubris.

so you don't like informationclearinghouse.info

try Amazon's review

https://www.amazon.com/Enhanced-Interrogation-Motives-Islamic-Terrorists/dp/1101906847/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1494467790&sr=8-1

This is false.

I recommend you read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Fallujah-Unembedded-Ahmed-Mansour/dp/1566567785

https://www.amazon.com/Enhanced-Interrogation-Motives-Islamic-Terrorists/dp/1101906847

Here, learn from the guy who designed the system. Sorry I don’t have a 200 word article with all the info in the headline for you because real useful information has never been conveyed through those anyways. Also since trump said torture works not too long ago the media is cluttered with shallow low effort article that are just meant to just disagree with him

You need to read [Enhanced Interrogation] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01AES52NC/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510552846&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=enhanced+interrogation) by James E Mitchell.

Pretty much, yes.

Read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Fallujah-Unembedded-Ahmed-Mansour/dp/1566567785?ie=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0