Talk:War and Decision

---

"Critical" Reception

A message I sent that has yet to be answered; I post it here before editing content: Usernamewikipediabackwards, I appreciate your contributions to this page. However your last two (inserting Maureen Dowd and Dana Milbank) don't seem to fit properly, though I wanted to address them before reverting your edits. Dowd's statements about Feith come from December 2007, 5 months before the book came out, so they are clearly not 'critical reception' of the book. They are about Feith, to be sure, but the purpose of this page is to present reviews and opinions on the book itself, not on Feith, or on Feith talking about his book. This brings us to Milbank, who seems to have heard Feith speak at CSIS but not read the book. Nothing in his article reflects that Milbank has read the book--that the article, in other words, qualifies as critical reception. Instead, it is a comment by Milbank on Feith speaking about his own book. This is of a completely different order than Kissinger, the Wall Street Journal, or Charles Taylor reading and reviewing the book. Certainly Taylor's critical remarks of Feith deserve to be on this page, and certainly more critical reviews will come as the book gets circulated. But in the meantime, we should limit the page to comments actually about the contents of the book, not just about Feith. This would mean removing Dowd and Milbank. Enyce2308 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Enyce2308 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Usernamewikipediabackwards, do you really not see the difference between proper reviews or speeches about the content of the book, and blog posts that are simply conjecture about the book (and related publicity events)? To assert that the book was 'nothing but fingerpointing' and then merely cite some cases (pretty light on quotations from the book, mind you) where Feith was critical of others in government is weak. By that measure, any book that makes any judgments about anything or anybody can be characterized as 'nothing but judgmental blamelaying' is quoted selectively enough. To reproduce shoddy blog work is certainly shoddy for a proper wiki entry. Meanwhile, see the information I've just added--a proper, and critical, review of Feith's book that was published by a known author in the Washington Times. This isn't about whitewashing, but it's about inserting reasonable information. Enyce2308 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Long list of quotations

I came here to mention an column by Christopher Hitchens in this article, only to find an already-bloated list of quotations, some completely inappropriate for this article. As the tag says, "This article or section contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry".

So I've WP:BOLDly removed 8 of the 12 (and edited 2 of the 4 I kept, to show GOP affiliations). But first I copied the entire list here, and added a comment after each quotation.

My edit is only a starting point for discussion and further improvements to the article. Please put any comments you have about an individual quote after the quote, prefixed with "::*". Remember that this article is about a specific book, not the wider debate about the issues raised by that book.

Hitchens makes the point that the MSM coverage of this book has been startlingly slight. (The NYT has three times declined to publish an article by James Risen about it!) In fact, AFAIK, Hitchen's essay is at present the most (or only?) prominent review the book has been given. I think the article should mention these things. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The 12 quotations

• Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, wrote that Feith's book is "The fullest and most thoughtful statement of the Pentagon thinking prior to and in the first stages of the Iraq war. Even those, as I, who take issue with some of its conclusions will gain a better perspective from reading this book."

• Don't see what this adds to article; Schlesinger quote makes same points in a more useful way. Removed for now. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Chris, I'm a touch concerned. What it adds to the article is that Henry Kissinger said it. A review by America's most famous secretary of state since George Marshall is not lightly removed. I'd be in favor of reinstating it ... since this would be a revert, I'm not going to be bold, and will wait a few days for comment. Ray Yang (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. Thanks for restoring that quote. CWC 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• James Schlesinger, former Director of Central Intelligence and Secretary of Defense, wrote that "For anyone seriously interested in the decisions prior to and during the Iraq war, War and Decision is a must-read book. It is the first from within the Department of Defense, and Feith provides careful documentation rather than just freewheeling opinions. He explodes many of the journalistic and political myths that have become widely accepted. He provides a spirited defense of the President’s decisions, though the subsequent discussion makes clear the failures in execution. His judgments are thoughtful—and, for a major player in the process, he is quite objective regarding what went wrong. War and Decision will be a treasure trove for the historians—when the current passions have finally cooled."

• All useful; should point out book's website is real "treasure trove". Retained. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Jean Edward Smith, historian and author, wrote that "Douglas Feith has written a model memoir: fair-minded, objective, and without rancor. The fact that the policy to which he contributed was flawed from the outset in no way diminishes the historical importance of this firsthand account."

• First sentence is a good example of a common observation about the book. Second provides some context, but arguably not enough. Retained for now. CWC

• Robert Gallucci, former Assistant Secretary of State and Dean of the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University, wrote that: "Douglas Feith has written what will be a controversial book. It will certainly anger many readers because it takes a different position than most other accounts on the wisdom of going to war in Iraq, on what mistakes were made, and on who made them. But Feith’s is a serious work, well documented, that presents the best defense to date of the defining policy of the Bush presidency. It is a readable account that deserves to be read and its argument debated."

• Overlaps with Schlesinger quote, but not as useful. Probably best used for much briefer quotations elsewhere in article. Retained for now. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• A month before the book's publication, the Washington Post ran a news story based on an unfinished manuscript of the book. Writers Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung described Feith's book as critical of Secretary of State Colin Powell, the CIA, and Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer. According to the Post: "The key mistake that the United States made in Iraq, Feith asserts, was 'the mishandling of the political transition.' The good that Bremer did, he concludes, 'was outweighed by the harm caused by the fact of occupation.'" "In summarizing his view of what went wrong in Iraq, Feith writes that it was a mistake for the administration to rely so heavily on intelligence reports of Hussein's alleged stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program, not only because they turned out to be wrong but also because secret information was not necessary to understand the threat Hussein posed. Hussein's history of aggression and disregard of U.N. resolutions, his past use of weapons of mass destruction and the fact that he was 'a bloodthirsty megalomaniac' were enough, Feith maintains."

• Completely off-topic for this article; might be relevant to our article on Feith. I've removed it, and would be surprised to see a convincing argument for restoring it. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Frank Gaffney, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, wrote of War and Decision that "In contrast to previous books and memoirs on the subject that have been published to date, Feith’s is not aimed at self-promotion or self-vindication. Neither is it an effort to settle scores with those who have, in some cases viciously, attacked the author in their own screeds."

• Largely overlaps Schlesinger quote. Removed for now. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens wrote that "Mr. Feith's book does not lack for criticism of how the administration handled itself or even, at times, of how he handled himself. But...most of the received wisdom about the dynamics of the first Bush term -- pitting "warmongering neocons" and democracy fantasists such as Mr. Feith against more sober-minded realists such as then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage -- is bunk, and demonstrably so."

• First sentence makes important point about book, rest is about wider debate not about book. Removed for now. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Charles Taylor, reviewing the book for Bloomberg News, described it as a "creepy polemic." Feith, he said "is arrogantly unwilling to question the wisdom of what the Bush administration has done. There's no action, no matter how disastrous the consequence, that he isn't prepared to defend."

• Completely unacceptable. Both quoted sentences are obviously false. If any Wikipedia editor wants to make Taylor look like a liar or fool, s/he should blog about this quote, not mar this article with it. Deleted. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• John Weisman, an author of spy novels, reviewed Feith's book critically, writing that Feith "repeatedly goes after CIA for its shoddy work, politicized leadership and flawed analysis. And he hits CIA for its inability to gather human-sourced intelligence. 'We knew the CIA's coverage of Iraq was spotty,' Mr. Feith writes, 'though it wasn't until after Saddam's ouster that we learned how pathetically scant its sources in Iraq were.' But even here Mr. Feith's puzzlement is troubling, because as far back as 2001, CIA alumni (including veteran Middle East Clandestine Service officer Robert Baer in his memoir 'See No Evil') had gone public about CIA's dearth of human sources in Iraq and the bloodshed and turmoil that would follow any regime change. Did no one in Mr. Feith's office — including Mr. Feith's trusted staffer Chris Straub — who had actually traveled to Northern Iraq with Mr. Baer in the 1990s — read any of these articles or books?"

• That's a criticism of Feith, not a review of his book. Removed. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ray Dubois, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a former government official, said that: "Were I to write my book of my Pentagon experiences, I would hope that I would be as even-handed and un-strident--I guess two words that are not often associated with Washington-- but I would hope to be as thorough as Doug has been. Not that we all agree with everything he said but one cannot disagree with the documentation, the thorough research, the rigorous scholarship, the documents that he cites that are printed, reprinted in his book. These and his contemporaneous notes clearly indicate a great deal of effort has gone into, as he will tell us, telling the truth."

• Too long, redundant. Removed for now. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Chris, this quote may also be relevant. It doesn't say so here, but Ray DuBois was a colleague of Feith's at the Pentagon, and thus may have special insight. Might we rewrite this quote to mention that fact? Ray Yang (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Another good point, and another good edit from Ray. Thanks again. CWC 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fred Ikle, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the 1980s, said of Feith's book that: "It’s easy to criticize mistakes from hindsight. It’s much harder to walk the reader through a labyrinth of decisionmaking in a divided government, especially a divided government presided over by an intermittently inattentive commander-in-chief. And it’s harder still to do this with a sense of loyalty and decency and respect toward the senior officials who invited you to serve in this government. Feith accomplished all of this with his book and much more."

• Tells readers quite a lot about the book. Retained. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Michael Scheuer, a former CIA counterterrorism official, wrote on antiwar.com that Feith's book "shows how delusional the Bush administration is in its day-to-day modus operandi." Scheuer ridicules the war in Iraq and its toppling of Saddam Hussein because "Hussein was the single most important ally of the United States against al-Qaeda and its allies." Scheuer adds that Feith is "blind to the fact that through his efforts and those of Rumsfeld's team and the Bush administration, U.S. national security is much weaker in 2008 than it was on 9/11."

• That's an attack on Feith and Bush, not relevant here. Removed. CWC 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry for not checking back here like I should have. I'm glad to see Ray Yang's comments and subsequent edits. I've now added Christopher Hitchen's Slate column to the list, and I invite other editors to improve my work some more. Cheers, CWC 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Protest section not suitable

I have reverted *yet again* the protest section. It'll be a cold day in hell before a prominent right-of-center political figure can show up at a campus without harassment by students. Other mentions in this section (such as his being disinvited from Georgetown) deserve to be mentioned only in the biography of Feith, and are not about his book. RayAYang (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)