Customer Reviews

The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The travails of us policy and military engagement in Iraq have been dominating the news for the better part of five years since the invasion in 2003 until some time in 2008. The reason is quite obvious: what was supposed to be a very quick and decisive military operation that would turn Iraq into a free and peaceful society turned out to be a military and political disaster. And yet the news from Iraq stopped dominating the headlines some time in 2008. The reason for this dramatic turnaround is quite clear: it is the new US strategy that was designed to increase the number of US troops on the ground and engage with the Iraqi society on a much more direct basis. This strategy and the way that it came about is the theme of this book. Unlike many other books that have come out in recent years, this one is largely written from the military's point of view. If there is a single name that come to symbolize "The Surge" that would be the name of general Petraeus. Unjustifiably maligned by some war opponents early on in his new assignment of turning the situation in Iraq around, he has become a stellar example of professionalism and success with one of the most difficult military assignments ever. But Petraeus was not the only one in the military who contributed to the development of the new strategy. There are many others, either on active duty or as civilian advisers, who have helped shape and develop the new strategy. This book does a very good job of describing those contributions and giving credit to people who have largely labored behind the scenes. It features many combat commanders and their troops, and it gives many examples from the frontlines that help illustrate and affirm the main points.

What makes this book particularly interesting and valuable is the sheer amount of first-hand interview material. Almost all of the main military protagonists are featured, and many of their most important experiences recoded and presented in an easy journalistic style. The approach to policy that the book adopts is pragmatic rather than ideological. It gives as sober of an assessment of what happened during the war as one can find these days. It concludes with a sobering prediction of where the military engagement is headed, and a prediction that a substantial US presence is likely to remain in Iraq for many more years, if not decades.

The only issue that I have with the book is that it may contain too much information: some of the points could have been made with far less material. But otherwise this is an excellent read and a must for anyone who is interested in what has really been happening with The Surge and why it worked in the end.

One can view "The Gamble" as the necessary sequel to "Fiasco" which was Thomas Ricks first book about the American military adventure in Iraq beginning in 2003. To truly appreciate "The Gamble" I do think readers should read "Fiasco" first, so as to fully absorb the missteps which led to the great turn in 2007.

Again, if you liked "Fiasco", then you'll like "The Gamble". Ricks writes in his familiar chronological style highlighting the most relevant details along the way. Most valuable are the actual quotes from several high-ranking officials used throughout the book.Although Ricks predicts the war in Iraq will last another 5 to 10 years, since Obama has announced the complete withdrawal of US forces by 2011, one wonders if the war will continue without the US.

Overall, a fine book by a fine writer. When all is said and done 30 years from now, both "Fiasco" and "The Gamble" will serve as the definitive accounts of the Iraq war.

This book is a great work on the surge and the magnificent job done by the US military in Iraq from late 2006 to late 2008 as this book came out. I admit I am not a fan of Rick's way of thinking on matters of foreign policy and especially I dont like his liberal bias. Why would one ruin a good book by showing his liberal bias? Mocking the president or vice president? why? Can't you just report what has happened without commentary of your own? There are dozens of this bias through out the book but I just want to point to two of them as examples and how he is wrong: 1- on pg 76, he claims the fall of Saigon in south Vietnam did not make the domino effect happen. Only to contradict himself a paragraph down the page saying "except for those in re-education camps in Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam. So he admits to domino effect being taken place. 2- On page 102, he mocks Pres Bush in "hit a new low" statement he makes. Hit a new low in whose eyes? a liberal like Ricks or me and other Bush supporters? Of course, Bush was never high in the eyes of people like Mr. Ricks. Again, I am saying this is a good book and worth reading but the liberal bias in it is overbearing and makes the book appear as a work of a partisan hack. All those praise for Sen. Webb for what? How is he related to the surge and Iraq reporting? When he praises Bob Gates and scold Bush and Cheney for their disdain of the government, he is misguided. Bush and Cheney are not disdainful of the outstanding careerists like Secretary of Defense Gates but I assume they are disdainful of the reach of a big government. I think the author has his own priorities wrong in this book. It is one thing to hate Bush and another to insert bias in a work of journalistic nature.