CRW111/obrien
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Intro to Regime Change: Careful Reading of reviews
Review #1
Tying the Threads Together, April 9, 2006 By Bart King This review is
from: Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (Hardcover)
OVERTHROW is a remarkably interesting book. It ties together 14 different instances of U.S.
"intervention" (read: regime change) by finding similarities between U.S. foreign policy in
places as geographically and culturally various as Chile and Iran.
Among Kinzer's conclusions is that it is impossible for the U.S. to EVER be successful in the
long term when we get caught in the temptations of implementing regime changes. This is
partially due to the fact that one can't install leaders in foreign countries who are both genuinely
popular with their compatriots AND who are looking out for American interests. The two are
nearly always mutually exclusive.
But it's one thing to sum up one of Kinzer's primary theses, and quite another to read
OVERTHROW's specific and fascinating examples. I consider myself well read and informed,
yet in each chapter, I found historical material that surprised me. Stephen Kinzer's work as a
foreign correspondent for the New York Times served him well for this volume: He is a master
at "explaining" the interesting stories and crucial background needed to understand his case
studies in this book. Brilliant work.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ISBF8E9NXTG8/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2ISBF8E9NXT
G8
8/2/2012
Review #2
Good on Exposition, Weak on Causality, October 16, 2010
By Yoda Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
This book is broken out into 14 chapters which cover various U.S. actions that lead to "regime
change" in a variety of nations (i.e., Hawaii, Cuba, Chile, etc.). These 14 chapters are further
broken out into 3 sections, the "Imperial Era" (actions before WWI), "Covert Action" (covering
the post-WWII period) and "Invasions" (covering outright military invasions from the First
World War onward).
The book does a fair job, despite its very short and succinct coverage of each action, of
discussing the actual events (as opposed to motivations) surrounding the actions (i.e., players
involved, etc.). Hence the reader obtains at least a rudimentary understanding of what actually
happened. Where the book is very weak, however, is in examining the underlying causality of
these events. He believes (and explicitly states numerous times) that the motivation behind these
actions was primarily economic. The US, in his opinion, engaged in these activities for the net
benefit of its economy. This is a major theme in his book. Considering the economic benefits to
be gained from many of these actions, however, it is difficult to believe that these were of more
than insignificant importance to the U.S. economy. It is difficult to believe, for example, that the
U.S. annexation of Hawaii and "regime change" in Guatemala really had any noticeable impact
on the U.S. economy. This is even when looking at any gross economic gains as opposed to net.
After all, many of these actions required significant costs (i.e., military, administrative costs,
1
CRW111/obrien
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Intro to Regime Change: Careful Reading of reviews
etc.). It is difficult to believe, for example, that U.S. de facto annexation of the Philippines really
brought a net economic gain to the U.S. after factoring out the military and administrative costs
involved with the occupation and associated guerilla conflicts. This is not to say that there were
elements in the U.S. that did gain quite a bit (i.e., United Fruit in Guatemala) but it is difficult to
believe that the net gain to the U.S. could have been very significantly positive relative to the
costs involved or, if they were, a more than trivial percentage of the U.S. GDP at the time.
It is also not to say that many of the political elite in the U.S., like many European
powers, did not believe that imperialism was important to a nation's economic well-being. This
belief was all the vogue during the 1800s and early 1900s. However, considering the significant
costs involved (i.e., direct military costs, administrative costs, costs of defending these territories,
costs associated with diplomatic and military tensions arising from these interventions with third
parties, etc.), it is difficult to believe that such direct forms of imperialism were truly worth the
resource expenditures. This view was held by the German statesman Bismarck and expounded
by him in opposing German overseas expansion in the late 1800s.
The economic justification for imperialism theme also ignores the fact that fear of the Soviet
Union (i.e., a non-economic reason) played a very important role, if not the primary role, in U.S.
these actions in the Post WWII era. The author admits that this reason was an important one but
still posits that the primary reason the U.S. actively intervened in these reasons during this era
was economic. Geopolitical reasons were only secondary.
A third weakness of the book involves Kinzer's hypothesis that a unique element of these U.S.
actions was the belief, in the U.S., that they were primarily "humanitarian" as opposed to being
primarily a form of economic theft. Kinzer (p. 316) writes "What distinguishes Americans from
citizens of past empires is their eagerness to persuade themselves that they are acting out of
humanitarian motives". Kinzer emphasizes this theme repeatedly in his book. But how does it
stand up to relative to the belief of citizens of "past empires"? With respect to comparisons to
Rome there can be little question it holds up. What about relative to the European powers (i.e.,
French, English, Dutch, etc.) of the last two centuries? Can the case not also be made that
citizens of these nations thought that their country's imperialist ventures were also primarily
"humanitarian" (or in the colloquialism of the time a "civilizing role")? Unfortunately Kinzer
makes no attempt to even answer this question despite his assertion that it was unique to only
citizens of the U.S.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1VPAHW8SOHJU7/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1VPAHW8SOHJU7
8/2/2012
Review #3
5.0 out of 5 stars Every American should see this documentary, July 6, 2006
By Richard E. Hourula (Berkeley, CA. United States) This review is from: Why We Fight
(DVD)
One of the few encouraging recent trends in American film is the growing popularity and
production of popular documentaries. Many have been inspired by disturbing events surrounding
our current government and its actions both domestically and around the world. Eugene Jarecki's
"Why We Fight" is one the of the very best in recent years. This grand jury prize winner at the
2005 Sundance Film Festival takes a close examination at why the US is at war in Iraq. It does so
2
CRW111/obrien
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
Intro to Regime Change: Careful Reading of reviews
while simultaneously relating President's Eisenhower's out going warning of a growing militaryindustrial complex.
Like many a good documentarian, Jarecki lets a variety of voices speak the truth of the tale, with
the camera and microphone subjective witnesses. We meet a retired New York City police
officer who lost a son as a consequence of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Like many Americans he was understandably angry and vengeful in the wake of the heinous
terrorists attacks, suffused with patriotism. But also like many Americans he has grown
disillusioned with his government for a war in Iraq that has been wasteful (in dollars and lives)
and sadly cynical.
Professor and former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson and others speak to the probable real
motives of the war and other US foreign policy ventures. Particularly powerful are the words of
retired Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatowski, who served at the Pentagon's Middle East desk.
She was an insider who became first disenchanted and ultimately disgusted as she saw the neo
cons create an unnecessary war.
"Why We Fight" explores the enormous profits made by war (the United States spends more on
defense than everything else in the federal budget combined and more that all its enemies
combined). It also reveals how the military industrial complex has come to also include the U.S.
Congress and think tanks.
Among the many prices paid are the hearts and souls, limbs and lives of ordinary Americans, the
deaths of tens thousands of Iraqis and the goodwill that pored to the US from all over the world
(including Iran) after 9/11.
The DVD includes an excellent special features packages. It is highlighted by a Jarecki Q&A
session, a closer look at some of the film's "characters" and extra scenes.
"Why We Fight" is the ideal antidote for people who wanted to like Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit
9-1-1" more but were put off by Moore or the hullabaloo that swirled around the well intended
documentary.
"Why We Fight" may help wake some Americans up to the insatiable appetite of the military
industry complex, the damage it has done and can yet do.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fight-Gore-Vidal/product
reviews/B000FBH3W2/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_link_2?ie=UTF8&pageNumber=2&showViewpoints=0
8/2/2012
Review #4
2.0 out of 5 stars Can We Be Proud That We Are American's For Once, October 26, 2006
By F. Giglio (Wallingford, Conn) This review is from: Why We Fight (DVD)
The film Why We Fight, I believe is nothing more than another movie that looks to criticize
America. I felt that the movie, only told one side of the argument, and that side was clearly not
pro-America. The film portrays the United States as a power hungry nation, which is looking to
3
CRW111/obrien
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
Intro to Regime Change: Careful Reading of reviews
create an empire and extend its influence around the world. The film constantly criticizes the
decisions of America leaders to engage into foreign combat. The film however, does not present
an alternative solution. It fails to take into consideration that America may be acting out of self
defense.
The film constantly criticizes America for engaging in combat throughout the world. What I
have to say to the director of this film is: Is it not alright to defend your nation, after terrorist
drive planes into two buildings, killing 3,000 people? Is it not alright to defend your nation
against religious zealots, who are looking to destroy your way of life? Is it wrong to attempt to
bring freedom and peace to the Middle East, by toppling a murderous dictator? When I see these
questions, I have to answer no to all of them. I feel that if America feels threatened, it should not
have to seek permission to defend itself. President Bush put it properly I feel when he stated
"After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal
papers," and "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."
This film can criticize America and label it as a bully nation, but these terrorist must be brought
to justice. President Eisenhower once said, "Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin." As
the most powerful nation in the world, it is our duty to spread freedom throughout the world. It is
our duty to allow the people of other countries the privilege of enjoying the same rights that we
as Americans, sometimes take for granted. Since when, has it become wrong to defend your
nation. Why must America be criticized for engaging in conflict, when it feels threatened? Is it
not the job of the President of the United States to defend the 300 million people he was elected
to represent? Does anybody think for a second that these people would hesitate to attack America
again, if they are given the chance? We can never let our guard down. Freedom does not come
free.
On September 11, 2001 we saw firsthand how evil, those who want to destroy us can be. You
can not negotiate with these types of people. The only way to solve this problem and protect
ourselves is to act decisively with force. On the morning of the September 11, 2001 attacks,
President Bush stated that "Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and
freedom will be defended." Indeed freedom was and is being defended, and I see nothing wrong
with that. Words are not enough to protect our nation. President Theodore Roosevelt said, "Great
thoughts speak only to the thoughtful mind, but great actions speak to all mankind," and our
great action, will be to defend this great nation. In the words of President Hoover, "Freedom is
the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity," and
it is America's job to ensure that the people of the world have the opportunity to live in freedom.
Remember: "Words without actions are the assassins of idealism." Herbert Hoover
http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Fight-Gore-Vidal/productreviews/B000FBH3W2/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_sr_2?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showView
points=0 8/2/2012
4