5 comments about George Kennan: A Study of Character.

1. This remarkable book is both an act of filial piety and a reference point for future historians: Kennan must be taken seriously, must endure, and must be seen at least as one of the important ships in a small--and not growing-- flotilla of great American statesmen. Lukacs performs a service of recovery amidst the detritus of current American policies, in showing with great subtlety how men of wisdom once took a considered if not pure approach to diplomatic relations, and how the amorphous beast of public opinion, embodied in Congressional representatives more than ever subject to the vicissitudes of polls and "focus groups", influenced and continue to influence--and frustrate--statecraft.
   Kennan represented a rare strain in the American character, a man deeply immersed in European civilization, history, and languages, aware of America's profound European roots, who put the sum of his knowledge to use in addressing deep questions going to the heart of the American experience, teasing out the tensions inherent in the various strands of the American outlook. Remarkably, Kennan's greatest enduring influence came perhaps in the second fifty years of his life through his writings and lectures, a massive outpouring before which even a historian of Lukacs's extraordinary capabilities stands in awe.
   Kennan was remarkably consistent throughout his life in maintaining that America does not represent a Chosen Nation destined to lead mankind from darkness, that, in John Adams's words, "we are friends of liberty all over the world; but we do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy". If this saying has been too-oft quoted by opponents of the invasion of Iraq who, despite their unqualified support for JFK's abstract principles of intervention, which I have not heard repudiated by a single self-styled liberal, then we must understand it in the context of Kennan's views: he advocated firmness when called for, in responding to the North Korean incursion into South Korea, in providing detailed proposals to create demilitarized and denuclearized zones in Western Europe and to end the partition of Germany, not to say his firmness in standing up to "anti anticommunism" during the witch hunts of Senator McCarthy, while recognizing that communists and their sympathizers had indeed infiltrated the US government to a degree. In short, he did not hesitate to assert American interests nor shrink from recommending the judicious deployment of American military power. While his famous "X" article described a political strategy, he was also aware that the ability to apply force is a necessary, if not sufficient condition of any containment policy.
   As Lukacs makes clear, Kennan recognized the duality running through American politics, itself drawing at its source from the very New England qualities that Kennan professed to admire and of which he himself was partly a product. If his soul and intellect were haunted by an older, deeper Scots and European pessimism, he was also a product of the Middle West, and possessed very American traits, although a progressivist instinct may not have been among these despite his Wisconsin provenance. This grounding led him to be unafraid to criticize excessiveness or the "legalistic moralistic" character of much of American foreign policy. In the current atmosphere of conservative triumphalism where the history of the Cold War is interpreted through the lens of an American "victory", Kennan punctures these reprehensible pretentions by pointing out that, "The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous political upheaval, in another great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish" (all quotation are drawn from the Lukacs book).
   Amidst the theme and variations of post-war US policy toward the Soviet Union, apparently formed from reading Dr. Benjamin Spock on child-rearing, Kennan saw clearly and consistently that the Soviet Union was not a "fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for [the United States]", a pronouncement he made at the outset of WWII and which he repeated for many years after. Thus, détente, the "Evil Empire", and other variations of US policy had, despite the best efforts of neoconservative writers to lead us to believe otherwise, little impact on a Soviet Union that Kennan recognized early on had, by Stalin's time, fundamentally shifted course from Marxism-Leninism to despotism and lacked the resources or will to endure as a Communist state. Early evidence of this came in the post-war period as the USSR pulled back from Finland and Austria, and demonstrated its weakness through interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, among other actions.
   Kennan was equally sceptical of what is now called "global governance", including the formation of the United Nations; viewed the Yalta "Declaration of Liberated Europe" as "deplorable, [a] sham, and useless" (Lukacs's words) because Eastern Europe fell within Russia's sphere of influence; and was highly critical of the "American (and neo-Wilsonian) belief that a new international institution such as the United Nations was of paramount importance" (p. 65). He remained persuaded throughout his lifetime that "national and state interests were and would remain more powerful than any international organization dedicated to assure some kind of unchanging peace". Later, he opposed the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, referring to it as a disastrous mistake.
   At the same time, he saw a consistent thread running through the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, and Clinton, and continued in the current Bush presidency: a naive liberal interventionist mentality to secure questionable gains, usually at a high cost. It is useful to ponder Kennan's perspective when insisting too acutely on major differences in Democratic and Republican approaches to foreign policy, remembering that restraint, moderation, and measured analysis, all qualities that Kennan exemplified in his life as a practitioner and a historian, do not appear to be embedded in either party's approach to the world.
   As an undergraduate I read the first volume of Kennan's Memoirs in a summer course in diplomatic history, ably taught by Professor Clifford Egan at the University of Houston. Among hundreds of books read in college, the vividness of some of Kennan's prose continued to recur in my mind for years after, despite not having picked up the book since 1973. Lukacs insists throughout his study on Kennan's qualities as a writer as well as his brilliance as an historian and researcher, and Lukacs's own prose is the equal of Kennan's. His concentrated "character study" in fact points the way to further serious research for historians, though this research is not likely to be undertaken as waves of fads sweep through the profession, if not the practice of historical scholarship and writing, obviating the need to "do" history in favour of constructing frameworks and "theories" whose theoretical underpinnings are of the weakest sort.
   Kennan's life and work span the twentieth century, a remarkable life, yet leaving us with a legacy that must be accounted for and drawn upon if America is to achieve its promise. This is not likely to happen, of course, given the midgets who now propose to lead us. They possess the most detailed knowledge of the opinions of voters in each and every county across the country, now represented in a colouring book cartoon of America with red, purple, and blue, yet lack the slightest insight into foreign affairs, history, or the lives of other peoples far away, not to say any mastery of other languages or cultures. More distressingly, they are not unrepresentative of America at this moment in history, when many of the most civilized have put aside judgment in favour of passion, wisdom in favour of ideology. In so doing, our putative and potential leaders and their supporters have no claim upon our loyalties and deserve to be held to the high standard of accountability upon which Kennan insisted. As Kennan might have agreed, the foreign policy questions that are most vital and of most immediate moment are questions about America, not about our enemies and rivals.
   Even with Kennan's constant global travels, capacity for research (and his love of library culture, which he saw as one of America's distinctive contributions to civilization), and seemingly unlimited energy for writing, his lectures, speeches, and even a later role under Kennedy as ambassador to Yugoslavia, he maintained a small farm in Pennsylvania, and regularly sailed the Norwegian fjords around his family's summer home, indulging in his nostalgie du Nord, and his love of the Baltic area. Throughout his life he was accompanied and supported by his Norwegian wife, with whom he celebrated a 70th wedding anniversary before his own passing at the age of one hundred. Even in his 90s he continued to produce books, articles, and memoirs at an astounding rate, and received accolades and recognition that would not have been predicted upon his leaving government service in the 1950s. Yet neither Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, nor neoconservatives attempted to lay claim to him as one of their own, which speaks to the complexity of his intellect and the resistance of his thought to simplification.
   As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, "The good fortune of America and its power place it under the most grievous temptations to self-adulation". Kennan's work and the exemplary nature of his life both bear close study, but there is no evidence that American leadership is any more prepared now than previously to learn the lessons offered by this distinctive patriot who often acted as Cassandra during America's most self-congratulatory and misguided episodes. Perhaps there will arise among us another such man who will exercise more influence over wise leaders, but I'm not holding my breath.



2. Lukacs styles the book as a study of character but I must say I do not feel I really know much more about Kennan after reading the book. The book is really too short to be of value. I would have liked to see more reflection on matters like the Long Telegram or the X article, but in Luckas treatment it all just glides by. There are very few excerpts from Kennan's writing. Instead there are many grand, sweeping statements about 'magisterial' books and various digressions that seem more about Lukacs than Kennan. At the end of the day that is my main objection. It is almost impossible to get past the pomposity of the writing; you feel stuck in the presence of an insufferable windbag. At one point, Lukacs refers to "The Wise Men" by Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson as an "acceptable book". "Acceptable"? Doesn't that sound like your professor giving your essay a "B"? It is especially irritating when "The Wise Men" is so vastly superior to Lukacs' book in every way. A disapointment.



3. Lukacs' George Kennan is purpouted to be about the character of the man but rather serves as a very short biography of the man that ensured the defeat of the Soviet Union then any other American president. Many years after Keenan hammered out his containment philosophy, he remained convinced that the essential problem regarding Russia was not communism but instead was the paranoid nature of the Russian state. Look no farther then the so-called head of the Russian Republic now. Unlike, our current administration appointments, George Kennan was curious about the rest of the world and before he wrote anything down contemplated for every eventuality. That Lukacs knew Keenan is the ultimate flaw in the book, because there are several points where the author veers into untrammeled hagiography. But overall, a good introduction to Keenan and the tremendous impact he had on the world.



4. Lukacs views this as a study of a man's character, but it's really more of an overview of Kennan's life. It probably will have limited appeal to people who have read a lot of Kennan's work, particularly his books and collection. It is probably better for someone like me who is familiar with his famous work on "containment" and has read some of Kennan's more recent magazine pieces in the New Yorker and elsewhere. Kennan had a remarkable career that straddled academia and government and his mastery of Russian and German allowed him to get beyond the usual sources of information that fed Cold War debates. He was truly a man of the 20th century who was engaged in the world from the time shortly after WWI through the end of the Cold War.
   
   Lukacs provides the broad outlines of Kennan's life and what he felt to be Kennan's most important books. In that respect, he has written a biography that is likely to stimulate interest in Kennan's longer works, particular those from the middle Cold War era. Lukacs never really describes his relationship to Kennan, although it is clear that they were friends and collegial with respect to topics such as foreign affairs. It may be that this was written too close to Kennan's recent death to provide the distance necessary to fully consider another person's life.
   
   As a character study, the book falls somewhat short and misses obvious connections between experiences and points of view. There is a short description of Kennan's religious journey (from a Presbyterian upbringing to an vaguely described flirtation with Catholicisim and finally adoption of Episcopalianism) without recognizing the essential Calvinism in Kennan's lifelong world view. Kennan was clearly an enthusiast of bourgeois values, in the traditional sense and sympathetic to rather authoritarian, despotic government. He advocated a kind of government by "wise men" that certainly suggests a belief in "a predetermined elect". Ironically, he had the opportunity to see how policy by wise men could be undermined by broad political currents (the Truman years) or could bring about disastrous policies (the JFK years). Lukacs wonders how Kennan would have viewed this philosophy in light of our current government by "wise men" most of whom have come from the conservative "think tank" world, something that Kennan probably would have viewed as an a oxymoron. Kennan's view of the world comes off as lacking holism in important areas. While recognizing that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, even at a political/social level, Kennan seems to have minimized the dynamic nature of societies and the inevitable presence of internal and external forces which propel societies in new directions. Rather he is a humanist of the old school and conservative in the sense of being skeptical of "progress" and intervention. In many cases he proved prescient, as in Vietnam and the execution of the Cold War, but in others such as the rise of fascism, his cautious view of the world was inadequate.
   
   Kennan lived a remarkable life and was able to see a much of the world and play a part in US foreign policy at key points in our recent history. He was a true scholar and one unmoved by constraining or trendy paradigms. His status as an outsider and a public intellectual probably lessened his academic prestige, but his depth and insight make him someone worth revisiting and reading further. As a character study, this book has serious analytic shortcomings. As an affectionate brief biography, it works better and it should stimulate more interest in the life and work of this remarkable man.



5. I knew almost nothing about Kennan before I read this book, but Lukacs got me interested in learning more about Kennan and reading Kennan's books. This is by no means a balanced, objective, or scholarly work - Lukacs very obviously admires Kennan and makes no attempt to hide this. If you want a scholarly analysis of Kennan's life, work, or legacy, this book is not for you. But if you want to read a mostly well-written and interesting biography of a rather major American figure, I recommend it.

1 comments about Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship (Politics Study Guides).

1. Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship is a balanced must read for anyone interested in the vision, courage, passion, education and diplomatic skills required to compete and achieve in this age of globalization.
   
   Kitromilides does an excellent job of objectively detailing the pros and cons of Venizelos' political career and his continuing impact on Greece, as well as Europe and the Middle East.
   
   The academic approach to Venizelos' role in the liberation of the island of Crete from Turkish occupation and eventually, its reunification with Greece, is without, a doubt a roadmap to peace for the many conflicts existing today.

5 comments about Home and Exile.

1. Since the book is already well-summarized above, I'll just give my own reaction.
   
   I've read a number of Achebe's novels and one essay (the excellent critique of Heart of Darkness) and really enjoyed the "backstage" feeling of hearing the author's first person voice - an insightful and kindly voice. For me, the effect of Achebe's strong positions is heightened by the dignified presentation, and of course by the poignant and funny stories from his own life that he uses to illustrate those positions. As compared to one of my other favorite authors, James Baldwin, Achebe's writing includes less calls to action, and more explanation. For instance, even in his sharp critique of Vidiadhar Naipaul's novels, Achebe's first priority is to shine light on the processes that led to Naipul's failures of vision. I think people who have read Achebe's fiction or essays and liked it, or generally care about literature from an indigenous or "Third World" perspective will really enjoy this short text. Definitely worth the cost, and may be available from the library.



2. Long live the proud son of Africa and our respected statesman.
   Achebe the honest and truthful dispenser of both sides of the story. Colonial griots (to borrow Achebe's words) such as Elspeth Huxley and other apologists have for too long been left alone to justify the dispossession of precious lands and cultures. Until the proud son of Africa made them eat their own words and exposed them for what they are. Dishonest griots deftly laying the groundwork for self-enrichment at the expense of peace loving and decent Human Beings.
   Chinua Achebe as exemplified by his few but precious books writes not to make money but only when he must say something useful. Unlike modern day "authors" who are more about money than substance. I have no doubt Achebe can write profound and moving accounts of African and world issues at the rate of one book a day but he chose only to spend his time teaching.
   It is obvious why the Nobel Prize went to Wole Soyinka instead of Chinua Achebe. Achebe refuses to write for a "foreign" audience and does not take his marching orders from anybody. He is his own man. Africans and honest people all over the world have in their own ways given Achebe the best prize in the world.
   Continuous interest in his worthwhile classics such as Things Fall Apart,The Man of the People,No longer at Ease,Anthills of the Savannah, Morning Yet on Creation Day,Hopes and Impediments and many others.

   Home and Exile may be a small book but has enough three pence (from Achebes "somebody knock me down and have three pence!") to liberate nations and individuals from the grip and stench of colonial and racist apologia masquerading as literature.

   Long live Achebe, proud son of Africa and citizen of the world.
   To know Achebe (by reading his books) is to know how to be an unassuming and proud Human Being who quitely and calmly states his truth for the benefit of us all.




3. Achebe's work was informative, thought provocing, and at times amusing. His work is another example of how important it is for all people to tell their own story/history, especially people who were once disposessed. This little book inspired me to write a few ideas to prevent my experiences from being misinterpreted.



4. The physical brevity of Achebe's "autobiography" truly belies the intrisic wisdom he so effortlessly spews upon his listeners. Mr. Achebe sets out to deconstruct the manifold, post-colonial ills (endemic to the dispossessed of African diasopora) with the assistance of historical literature, creation fables, and his own personal memories. Indeed, a thought provoking manifesto for any fan of the great Achebe; one which will aid the reader to pursue further literature with a new sense of enlightenment.



5. Excellent! Achebe has done it again. This is a must read!

2 comments about Historia Viva (Living History).

1. Aunque ella ha perdido la elecccion de 2008 todavia es buena historia de su vida, especialmente 1992 - 2000 con su esposo, el presidente Bill Clinton.



2. De Hillary solo tenía las ideas preconcebidas que habilmente la prensa ha dejado filtrar; una mujer inteligente, pero fría y calculadora. Con esta autobiografía he podido comprobar que ella es mucho más que eso, es incluso una persona que ha realizado en su vida lo que varias. A pesar de ser una persona eminentemente política, es en el buen sentido de la palabra, el de trabajar para los demás, de tener metas y lograr cambios. Me enorgullece pertener a su mismo género.

3 comments about Sandinista: Carlos Fonseca and the Nicaraguan Revolution.

1. Having lived trought the early years of the revolution in Nicaragua, althouhg just a child I got a first hand view of some of the struggles and dangers of the revolution. Because I was only a child I was not able to fully grasp the grand scheme of things and now as an adult I decided to begin reading about the revolution in Nicaragua and stubled upon this book.

   The book gives a clear, no nonsense account of Carlos Fonseca. Who he was, how he was raised and what he stood for over the course of his life. A clear chronological order of events into his life is presented as well as the struggles the young rag tag band of rebels went trought.

   If want to read an unbiased account into the revolution in Nicaragua and the role Carlos Fonseca played as leader of the FSLN then read this book. For me it shed light on some of the missing pieces about the revolution, the struggle and the ultimate outcome of the FSLN after the death of Fonseca.

   Good reading.




2. This is the first book I read about Carlos Fonseca that has more accurate information about him, than any other book I have read.
   I know this because I am the son of Raul Fonseca, but grew up with Carlos example and support. Carlos was the only father figure I ever had.

   Quite a task Ms. Zimmermann. Congratulations.

   I just read a few pages, but when I finish I will write a more complete review.

   God bless you!




3. This book pulls off a difficult feat, providing a balanced, neutral account of a subject about which supporters and opponents usually speak in strident, propagandistic terms.

   Because of the absence of any preachy rhetoric, and the reliance on first-hand interviews and actual source documents, the author delivers a compelling portrait of a leader whose faithfulness to pure idealism in a struggle against a seemingly unstoppable evil system can be compared to that of Churchill, Gandhi, and King.

   The Sandinistas were not the only group that took to the hills to arouse the populace in Latin America after the successful Cuban revolution, but they were the only group which actually came to power. Dr. Zimmermann's book is the story of the man who was the driving force behind the ideas, organization, strategy and success of their revolution.

   She does not flinch from criticizing the Sandinistas for their initial ill-informed and patronizing attitudes toward the indigineous peoples of their country, nor for their slow acceptance of their female compatriots, nor for their many tactical errors and blunders.

   Instead, this telling of the story of Fonseca and the Sanidnistas allows the reader to sense the very human feelings which became the basis of their appeal and allowed their success, even after Fonseca's death.

5 comments about The Last Great Frenchman: A Life of General De Gaulle.

1. The politicians of today are often - I`m sorry to say it - vague and unreliable. But to read about Charles de Gaulle is refreshing - in this book, at least. The author describes vividly his development from soldier to politician, the dramas of war and peace, his special place in history.
   
   Among other fascinating things, the glimpses of the general`s private life and thoughts, his come-back in 1958, and the way he managed to influence France and the world, are not easy to forget!



2. An excellent biography on one of the most elusive leaders of Europe. The book can get bogged down in minute details of WWII policy, but nonetheless provides a well-rounded view of who de Gaulle was--family man, soldier, general, president. He clearly had his own vision for France and did not want to be beholden to Anglo-American interests. While one may not agree with some of his positions, one has to respect the man for desiring a France that could stand on her own feet.
   
   His story is also a sad one. The man who fought so hard for his country and was given a heroes welcome in 1945 is forced from office by the late 1960s.



3. De Gaulle was loved and hated by many people (oddly enough, the same people at different times) but whether you liked him or not you couldn't argue that he didn't love his country. And he loved his country so much he was unwillingly to see it subjected by the fascists and their collaborators during World War II. He chose resistance and ultimately the Resistance chose him.
   
   Charles Williams does an excellent job with this book. De Gualle moves beyond the stereotypes that we may have of him to make him out of the ordinary, but not larger than life. Abrasive, but a man who was so because he felt that was what was needed. A man who took the courage to explore uncharted territory when he established not a "government-in-exile" but an alternate regime to Vichy, which has sold itself to the Devil. They may not have sold ALL, but they sold enough to forever stain their honor.
   
   Well written and researched. I particularly liked the thumbnail sketches of many of the characters involved with De Gaulle, a device which provided info without detracting from the narrative.



4. Truly a great figure of the 20th century. As the author points out de Gaulle would have been a minor footnote in French history if he had died before 1940. At the age of 50 he stepped unto English soil after leaving France where he had been condemned to death for refusing to go along with the French government in signing the armistice with Germany. His strength and moral courage brought France out of the abyss of collaboration to (once again) a player on the world stage.
   De Gaulle is accurately portrayed by Williams as an uncompromising man - he skillfully out-maneuvered his rival, Giraud in Algeria during the war to place himself as the sole leader of Fighting France. De Gaulle was to share power with no man. The constant quarrels with Churchill would be humorous if there was not a war to be won. And as Williams states that war, for De Gaulle, was against Britain and the U.S. De Gaulle's single-minded vision was to return France to a position of power at the conclusion of the war. If that meant irritating Roosevelt and Churchill more than Hitler - so be it. Probably De Gaulle's biggest miscalculation, as Williams' points out was with Roosevelt. De Gaulle never comprehended the man or the nation. De Gaulle had a European view of the world and did not have Churchill's grasp of everything that the U.S. had to offer for the liberation of Europe. Roosevelt was reluctant to fight for the British empire and was therefore much less interested in preserving France's external holdings and viewed De Gaulle as a brash upstart with truthfully little to offer in terms of military strength.
   Ironically De Gaulle himself came to see that anti-colonial point of view in the early 60's when Algeria was granted autonomy with the blessing of European France.
   Williams' illustrates on several occasions how De Gaulle's sheer strength of personality and his ability to irritate most anyone on any occasion, including his fellow countrymen, makes for a great historical biography of an extraordinary individualist.



5. De Gaulle was, as this book points out, the last great frenchmen. Some will debate this raising the name of Mitterand, but De Gaulle looms over france like an albatross as the conscience of the nation.

   De Gaulle was influenced as a young man by the injustice of the Dreyfuss case. The hatred of inequality would later convince De Gaulle to fight to the death rather then submit to Nazi terror.

   The book details De Gaulle as the war hero in WWI. He went on to write about the new generation of tanks and how best to employ them(as the Germans would) in concentrations. During WWII De Gaulle found himself watching the government vascilate and finally give in to the hated Germans. To cap it off De Gaulles WWI hero Petain was the one to give in to the Nazis. De Gaulle fled to Britian to carry on the conflict and he was found guilty of treason by the Vichy french.

   De Gaulle carrried the honor of france abroad, helped to liberate hte colonies from the Vichy and finally leading the french back to Paris. De Gaulles later carerr found him helping to extricate the french from Algeria.

   A wonderful book, easy to read and enthralling.

5 comments about After Fidel, Updated Edition: Raul Castro and the Future of Cuba's Revolution.

1. The author is very astute and informed. This book will open your eyes to the total affect Castro had on the world. Includes a partial biogaphy explaining the personal side of Castro that many aren't aware of. Worth the read.



2. As a college professor, if not as a high ranking CIA, one expects an author to investigate what he writes and not be sloppy in his research. In the first page of his first chapter, the author attributes to José Martí a well known poem by Puerto Rican poet Lola Rodríguez de Tió. In English the first verses would be: Cuba and Puerto Rico are the two wings of a bird that receives flowers and bullets in the same heart.
   The problem with that first impression is that one can not help but ask, how credible this book really is.



3. I bought this book because its title caught my attention.What's gonna happen after Fidel? Mr Latell's account is very well researched and documented.His insight and instincts really gives the book a good "taste".I guess after many years watching a person you get an edge over a reporter or historian.His depiction and study of Raul Castro and his relation with Fidel is very accurate since i have heard basically the same opinions from people that used to live in Cuba.Good book and good work by the author.



4. After Fidel: The Inside Story of Castro's Regime and Cuba's Next Leader.(Book review): An article from: Military Review
   
   After reading the Spanish version, I decided to read the English version for comparison. There were many translations into Spanish that were not familiar to me.
   
   The author provides insides into the Castros' way of thinking of which probably very few are aware. The information provided makes it easier to
   discuss Castro with Cuban-American friends that hate his guts.
   
   The book concentrates on behavior and time-wise jumps around. To get a
   better understanding of events in an orderly time sequence, other readings are necessary.
   
   I recommend this book to anybody that is interesting in learning the inner feelings that make Fidel and Raul 'tick.' I never realized what an egomaniac 'gachupin' he was until reading this book.



5. This book is mostly about Fidel. There are only two chapters that hone in on Raul. Even Latell, who surely knows more than he could reveal in his own book, didn't reveal too much. He avoided the Bay of Pigs. He didn't say much about Cuba's interference in other Central and South American countries.
   
   Still, it's a good read for laymen wanting to know the basics about Castro and Cuba. Who will take over the island once Fidel dies? Even Latell could only speculate, mentioning a few top ministers from the brothers' group (Raulistas).
   
   Although I didn't gain much insight about Raul, I did learn interesting tidbits about Fidel: the entire clan were illigitimate. Fidel himself has his girlfriend (and their children) set aside. That both Fidel and Raul have a deep hidden side should be no surprise. After Fidel gave the reigns over to Raul in August 2006 there were rumors that Raul would be a ruthless dictator worse than his brother. That hasn't occurred.

5 comments about In the Line of Fire: A Memoir.

1. The Prime Minister of Pakistan speaks, and what a story he tells. Basically, Pervez tells the story of his life, the India/Pakistan conflict, and the post 9/11 world we live in. Al Queda hates this guy and has tried to kill him several times, but being a former commando and lifetime military guy, Pervez isn't easy to kill, or intimidate.
   
   One has to say that if there is any country on the planet that remains an enigma; it is Pakistan. Not really an Arab nation, but unique in its history and people, Pakistan is the critical mass for the war on terror. They have nukes, and lots of them. They have their own agenda, but with their proximity to the terror shop that Afghanistan became, there simply is no pulling the country out of the place it now finds itself.
   
   This book is full of interesting information that I wasn't aware of. I won't list it here but anyone interested in politics, al Queda, 9/11, or Pakistan will find the book very worth the time to read.



2. I highly recommend Pervez Musharraf's memoir In the Line of Fire. When reading someone's memoirs the reader has to keep in mind that those words are written from one person's perspective on events throughout that person's life. That is what President Pervez Musharraf's In the Line of Fire is - this individual's perception on the way he sees things and the events he participated in.
   
   For what it's worth I'm glad I now have a good understanding about why Western-styled democracy doesn't really work in Pakistan. If a nation is half illiterate (48%) and people cannot read or write, they won't be able to understand or debate the issues. For a nation that is still very feudalistic with tribal loyalties and clan loyalties and with an elaborate caste and sub-caste system as described by President Musharraf, then democracy won't work. When the Bhuttos claimed they were "democratizing" the nation, they didn't do it - they copied off the Soviets where they removed private ownership of all businesses and everything was under the control of the government. This is socialism.
   
   President Musharraf also stated that the movie Blackhawk Down featured only American troops in the battle in Somalia. Interesting how the movie producers neglected to mention that other countries had sent troops in, and that it was the Malaysians and the Pakistanis who helped rescue the trapped crew from the Blackhawk helicopter after it was shot down inside Mogadishu, not American forces, as we were all led to believe.
   
   Perhaps the President revealed too much about how they tracked down those who were involved in the suicide bombings in the assassination attempts on his life. Now perhaps the planners or plotters will think twice about trying any future assassinations because eventually they will get caught. But here is something for would-be assassins or terrorists to ponder if they ever have a chance to read this review: even if you do succeed in blowing up one another, using robots or technogical devices, and shattering infrastructure, evidence can be gathered at crime scenes and others who were involved will eventually be found.
   
   As far as President Musharraf removing A. Q. Khan from his position and placing him under house arrest, the Pakistani people may need to take a hard look at the countries he sold the technology to - countries that are considered by the West as rogue nations and are very dangerous. I understand that when Bhutto and A. Q. helped establish Pakistan's top-secret weapons program for the nation, it placed Pakistan on an even footing with its neighbor India and, more importantly, with Israel. It is one thing to develop a nuclear weapons program for your own country's use and protection - it's quite another to sell that technology to very dangerous countries such as Iran and North Korea. And A. Q. Khan should be thankful that the most punishment he got was house arrest because what he did was very treasonous behavior; in many countries treason carries a penalty of death.
   
   It was a good thing to read that Pakistan has taken steps to revamping their madrassas. I was glad to read that madrassas are required to register with the government of Pakistan and that all subjects are taught, not just religion. Those who comply with government standards in accordance with a syllabus provided by the government are the ones who receive funding. I would say those changes are long overdue.
   
   In the chapter called Manhunt it was fascinating to learn that many foreign fighters in Afghanistan fled the battlefield (not so brave, are you?) and crossed the mountains into Pakistan where they were eventually captured. When Pakistan offered to extradite them back to their home countries and if the country refused them (who wants a troublemaker on their soil anyway?) they were then handed over to the United States.
   
   President Musharraf stated that he has done what he can to help build tourism in his country - something else that has not been done before. Also establishing a cultural arts program for Pakistan may help the rest of us understand what Pakistan has to offer the world. And, yes, I'm glad that he defied his country's religious leaders by counter-arguing that music and dancing are not "un-Islamic".
   
   Since I am not a historian, nor a Pakistani, nor an Indian, nor a Muslim, nor am I familiar with all events in Pakistan or in Central Asia but instead a private citizen who is interested in various parts of the world, I have found President Pervez Musharraf's memoir to be of relevant value. I highly recommend this book to anyone who would like an inside look at one of the countries who aligned themselves with the U. S. in the global war on terrorism.



3. The problem with most dictators is that at some point of time they begin to believe the propaganda that they put out about themselves. For example, Musharraf, tells an anecdote about his uncle who wagered that he would slap the bald head of a stranger three times. This old joke has been doing the rounds of India and Pakistan for the last fifty years and I find it oddly disturbing that Musharraf can attribute it to his own family. Knowing that this is probably an untruth, I begin to question almost everything else in the book, including his own loyalty in the war on terror as well as his intentions towards India.



4. Disclaimer - I support no political organization and do not have an 'Indian' mindset. I was born in Pakistani middle class, educated family (just like Musharraf) and consider myself 'Pakistani' to the core.
   
   Review - This book is an interesting read but one should not expect a sitting head of state to publish a book that is 'honest'. For that matter, its naive to expect any politician to write a book that details facts honestly and analyzes them objectively.
   The book is a narrative of the 'great' things Musharraf is doing for Pakistan. Its a narrative of self-praise and vitriolic spite for enemies. I would take all facts stated with a pinch of salt.
   Finally, the timing of the book, when YOU are the sitting head of a country, is a way to make a quick buck with blatant disregard of the ruckus your self-eulogy will cause.
   
   The facts speak for themselves:
   1. Musharraf continues to remain a sole monarch where the Chief Justice, the guardian of law and order, is forced to resign by men in uniform.
   2. Poverty and inflation are rampant at the same time. The rich drive inflation high and the poor become more poor.
   3. Crime is rampant, people get mugged, shot at during daylight. Every urban family has experienced a car-jacking at gun point.
   4. Corruption has permeated every government and semi-goverment organization. Religious clerics have declared bribery justified because without it nothing gets done.
   
   This is the 7 year legacy Musharraf intends to leave behind, assuming that he intends to or forced to leave, ever. The same legacy left by Bhuttos' or Nawazs'



5. Chinua Achebe once said that ,"Until the lions write their own history, story of hunt will only glorify the hunter", and in the dense forest of Pakistani politics no one can say who is hunting whom or who deserves the glorification? . Reading the chapter Coup where Nawaz Sharif is the hunter and Musharraf the glorious lion who will came out victorious luckily and eventually was real fun. As I did not approach the book in search of some political truth so i did not get my heart swell or mind numb in an attempt to weigh the truth________ burning In The Line of Fire! However i felt like coining new words such as 'stubborn confidence', 'humble pride', and above all 'dictocracy'. Despite his secret prayers to serve the country as a President( to seek sole power) he remains innocent as to why God has chosen him for this difficult task of steering the nation aright. Little did he know that with pains men come to greater pains and this was exactly what he had come to. And one wonders why a man has to be a president to serve his nation why not serve any other way...or perhaps its the juicy seat after all!
   
   Worth appraisal are his views regarding education, economics , women's emancipation and tourism. No doubt they are well articulated but how you achieve them is as important as how you say it. Just hope he has wits enough to translate these ideas into practice rationally. I must quote :
   
   "To speak now of the true temper of empire, it is a thing rare and hard to keep; for both temper, and distemper, consist of contraries. But it is one thing, to mingle contraries, another to interchange them." (Bacon)
   
   I wish that a cultural unification is achieved through media and spirit of Nationalism is inculcated one that is in keeping with our ideologies. This is to say that Musharraf must take care in not interchanging national values and interest . Pakistan needs a mingling of contrary elements(such as secularism ,fundamentalism etc ) in order to produce a moderate decent state. After reading the book i could see that Musharraf wants to inculcate nationalism to project 'soft image' of Pakistan through the means of cultural unification and polarity. The thought is brilliant but on the other hand the wise man himself is seeing in to the vast breach between civilian politicians and Army and then again in the army itself!
   
   Kargil event is one example of the gulf between the politicians and the army . I cant see how in a country where everything is divided good will can multiply? This is not provocative cynicism but awake one to the need of unity. Anyhow Kargil heroes i believe deserved the glorious justification that has been given to them. Moving on words the chapters narrating his choice to help America in anti-terror war were not convincing. The lines in the review that he is doing "single most crucial job in the global war on terror',... were mostly likely written to attract the readers all over the world. The fact however is that Musharraf's ambivalence has baffled all__the reader ,the Nation and the World! This is what i think makes him a true politician.
   
   
   

No comments about An Incautious Man: The Life of Gouveneur Morris (Lives of the Founders).

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845 (Andrew Jackson).

1. Few Americans have won the mythical status enjoyed by Andrew Jackson. Often portrayed, in his day and since, as the champion of the common man, Jackson came to Washington as an outsider, the first President born outside the thirteen original states, indeed the first president born neither in Virginia nor Massachusetts. Throughout Jackson historiography, Jackson via his policy of `rotation' in office has been accused of instituting the spoils system in American politics. This criticism highlights how Whig myths have come to permeate the historical writing on this subject.
   
   Starting with James Parton in 1860, anti-Jackson historians have followed this criticism, blaming Jackson for replacing a supposed merit system with a partisanship that corrupted the civil service for generations. Despite further research since Jackson's time, many historians have uncritically repeated these accusations without examining the actual record of appointments during the presidency unhappily described by some as "The Reign of Andrew Jackson".
   
   There have been essentially four cycles of studies into the life and Presidency of Andrew Jackson. The first cycle began soon after the death of Jackson with the "liberal patrician" or "Whig" school, who were generally unfavourable towards the policy of rotation. Most familiar is James Parton's classic The "Life of Andrew Jackson". So critical of rotation was Parton that he stated "this single feature of his administration would suffice to render it deplorable rather than admirable." Other members of the "Whig" school include Sumner, Schouler and Von Holst, all very critical of Jackson's policy of rotation. Parton's biography was the standard source on the Jacksonian era, until the second cycle represented by the Progressive Historians, such as John Spencer Bassett's "The Life of Andrew Jackson (1911), which cast Jackson in somewhat of a different light. Bassett reduces the amount of blame put on Jackson for rotation by suggesting that his democratic views made him oblivious to unintentional dangers from partisan appointments. However, the Progressives shared with the Whigs the view that Jackson had brought a spoils system to national politics and that its effects were negative.
   
   Historians in the third cycle of Jacksonian studies, of which Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s "The Age of Jackson" (1945) served as a pivotal work, shifted attention away from Jackson himself towards larger forces in his era. Historians of the third cycle, such as Hofstadter and Hammond, debated the effects of class and culture in determining party differences while showing little interest in evaluating Jackson's rotation policy, though tending to criticise it briefly. No biographies of Jackson discussed the policy of rotation in depth during the next thirty years.
   
   The appearance of Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Jackson marked the start of the fourth cycle of interpretation. Based on modern scholarship, Remini covers all aspects of Jackson's life and career, demonstrating his contribution to the great developments of nineteenth century America, particularly empire, freedom and democracy. By returning to first hand sources, Remini shows that the policy of rotation in office has been exaggerated and misunderstood. However, having set himself the remarkable task of producing a thorough study of the life and Presidency of Jackson, Remini did not have the scope for a detailed re-interpretation and re-evaluation of rotation. Since Remini's work there have been many scholarly works on Jackson, but none offer an in-depth reassessment of rotation as touched upon by Remini.
   
   Remini states that Jackson has received a disproportionate share of the blame for the spoils system and that there is a need to disprove the Whig myths, which have come to permeate the historical writings of historians over the generations. Remini was not the first to stress the need for such a revision; in fact a similar plea was expressed by J.R. Poinsett in the "Oration on the life and character of Andrew Jackson, delivered July 4, 1845" when he stated about Jackson, "His instinctive love of justice... gave a high tone to his government and exalted the honor of his country. His hatred of corruption rendered his administration pure.... I will content myself with expressing my belief that in future time the impartial historian will justify both his motives and his conduct on this trying occasion.
   
   Remini offers the reader a great insight into the pioneering mind of one of America's greatest Presidents.
   
   
   [The above Review is taken in part from 'Andrew Jackson's policy of 'Rotation in Office' by Alexander Rayden. © Copyright 2005 Alexander Rayden, All Rights Reserved].



2. The final volume in Robert Remini's definitive biography of Andrew Jackson follows the life of the seventh president from the beginning of his second term through the end of his life. In it, we see many of the things that made Jackson one of our most important presidents despite his significant flaws.

   Prior to Jackson's presidency, the executive office was much weaker. The designers of the Constitution, with their fears of strong central figures, had intended Congress to be the most powerful of the supposedly co-equal branches. Jackson, however, viewed himself as the sole representative of the people - the only person elected by a nation, not a region - and through various measures such as an expansion of the use of the veto, was able to shift the balance of power. Although the following presidents would be weaker, the presidency as an office had been redefined.

   As the book begins, Jackson's second term was beginning and he needed to deal with South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis. Essentially successful with this problem, he also dealt with other issues, including his war with the Bank of the United States and bad relations with France. By many measures, his presidency was a success, but there were a number of negatives as well, in particular his treatment of Indians and his disregard of slavery issues. His appointment of Taney to Chief Justice would eventually lead to the Dred Scott decision. Remini finds more positives than negatives with Jackson, but he doesn't disregard the black marks.

   Probably only Washington was as universally adored in his time as Jackson was, and unlike Washington, Jackson was a true man of the people, a populist who courteously met with rich and poor alike. Even after his retirement, his popularity guaranteed his continued political clout, and few Democrats defied his wishes while he was alive.

   The three volumes in this biography are around 1300 pages (plus notes and indexes), but Remini is such a good writer that this is far from a burdensome read. There may be shorter biographies of Jackson, but there aren't better. Remini knows this era well (he also has written excellent biographies of Clay and Webster) and he brings it to life.




3. If you have read my reviews of the first two volumes in this biography you already know my opinion of Remini and of his subject. Suffice it to say that if you are serious about learning about American history these volumes are for you. Not only are they an excellent introduction to many of the political and social issues of the era but they also allow the reader to wrestle with our national proclivity toward uncritical hero worship. Our past leaders were every bit as complex, as flawed and as human as our current crop .... What follows is a small portion of what I have learned from Remini's hard and honest labors.
   Jackson's accomplishments were extraordinary by any standards and some of them are quite ironic. He very much believed in states rights yet he probably did more to strengthen and expand the executive part of the federal government than any President until Franklin Roosevelt. Consider the following (all discussed in Remini's volume):
   1. He was the first President to use the pocket veto. He was the first to use the veto power for nonconstitutional reasons. We are so used to our Presidents using the veto because of policy disagreements with legislation that we forget how much of a shift this was in the balance of power as envisioned by the original generation.
   2. He reformed every department of the federal government and greatly expanded the bureaucracy as a result. He eliminated much of the graft that was rampant at the time and (at least, gave the impression of) greatly democratizing the civil service by making it more of a meritocracy. All this inevitably led to more people working for the government. A lot more people.
   3. Jackson changed the relationship of the various Cabinet members to the President. He was the first to fire a Cabinet member because of a disagreement over policy. Up until then Cabinet officers and ambassadors, because their appointments had to be approved by the Senate, were regarded as being accountable more to Congress than to the President.
   This is only a partial list of the ways that Jackson's Presidency changed the stature of the Executive branch of the government.
   Jackson's ideology (as I see it) comes from him trying to work out the tensions between his state's rights philosophy with his military experience, which taught him the necessity of a clear uncontested chain of command with his love of and trust in the people. I will comment on only one portion of that dynamic. Like so many of our leaders, the tensions in Jackson's ideology led him into conspiracy theories. He believed in and trusted the American people to always make the right decisions (the ones he would have made) and almost always credited any electoral reverses to cabals acting to befuddle and delude the populace.
   As a result, he became one of ablest early advocates of putting a good spin on the issues. Early on in his first term he helped to establish a newspaper that served as the official organ of the administration. Altogether, Jackson was a fascinating and maddening character.
   I find myself greatly in the debt of Remini. Jackson has always repulsed me by his blatant racism and his paternalism. Remini has humanized Jackson quite a bit for me. I am more appreciative of Jackson's great accomplishments and I have learned quite a bit of the politics of the time. I will be reading Remini's book on Van Buren next along with Seller's biography of Polk. One of the ways that I evaluate the work of a historian is by how much they increase my interest in further reading on their subject and on the period in question. By this standard, Remini belongs to my first rank of American historians.



4. Robert Remini completes his biography of Andrew Jackson in an excellent third volume. This biography is very well written and a pleasure to read. Remini is so well versed on his subject and really makes Jackson come to life as one of the major figures in U.S. History. This is as honest account of an individual that I have ever read and have come away with a new found respect for Andrew Jackson.
   Remini does not shy away from Jacksons many faults nor does he make excuses for them and he also shows how tender and loyal Jackson can be to those that were family and friends. Remini makes the case that Jackson was the most influential person in shaping the Presidency and government to the modern democracy it is today and I am inclined to agree with him. Jackson had certain convictions on government and policy and would not bow under pressure and reshaped the role of the Presidency despite pressure from Congress. I would definitely recommend this biography to everyone interested in Andrew Jackson as well as those interest in the evolution of our government.



5. Excellent finish to an excellent 3-volume biography; the first volume took us from Jackson's birth through his tenure as governor of Florida; the second took us from there through the end of his first term as president and his successful bid for re-election. This volume takes us from the beginning of his second term to his death.

   As with both previous volumes, the marvellous thing about this book is that Remini provides the reader with sufficient information that it is possible, with nothing more than the information he provides, to disagree with his evaluation of his subject. Clearly, on balance he is much more taken with Andrew Jackson than I am, although there are a few instances in which I actually think that he is too harsh in his judgement. But the marvellous thing is, he gives me sufficient information to make that judgement, an invaluable characteristic in a biographer.

   Anyone interested in reading a detailed, in-depth biography of the first truly populist president (whether one considers that a good or a bad thing to say about the man says a lot about one's personality) and the president who appointed Roger Taney, the chief justice responsible for the Dred Scott Decision, to his post as Justice of the Supreme Court, needs to read all three volumes of this set.