What do you think?
Rate this book
Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency
Is Barack Obama an idealist or a ruthless pragmatist? He vowed to close Guantánamo, put an end to coercive interrogation and military tribunals, and restore American principles of justice, yet in his first term he has backtracked on each of these promises, ramping up the secret war of drone strikes and covert operations. Behind the scenes, wrenching debates between hawks and doves—those who would kill versus those who would capture—have repeatedly tested the very core of the president’s identity.
Top investigative reporter Dan Klaidman has spoken to dozens of sources to piece together a riveting Washington story packed with revelations. As the president’s inner circle debated secret programs, new legal frontiers, and the disjuncture between principles and down-and-dirty politics, Obama vacillated, sometimes lashed out, and spoke in lofty tones while approving a mounting toll of assassinations and kinetic-war operations. Klaidman’s fly-on-the-wall reporting reveals who has his ear, how key national security decisions are really made, and whether or not President Obama has lived up to the promise of candidate Obama. Readers making up their minds about him during the 2012 election year will turn to Kill or Capture to decide.
Top investigative reporter Dan Klaidman has spoken to dozens of sources to piece together a riveting Washington story packed with revelations. As the president’s inner circle debated secret programs, new legal frontiers, and the disjuncture between principles and down-and-dirty politics, Obama vacillated, sometimes lashed out, and spoke in lofty tones while approving a mounting toll of assassinations and kinetic-war operations. Klaidman’s fly-on-the-wall reporting reveals who has his ear, how key national security decisions are really made, and whether or not President Obama has lived up to the promise of candidate Obama. Readers making up their minds about him during the 2012 election year will turn to Kill or Capture to decide.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
26 people are currently reading
416 people want to read
About the author
Daniel Klaidman
3 books3 followersDaniel Klaidman is a special correspondent for Newsweek, where he has worked since 1996, serving as investigative reporter, Middle East correspondent, Washington bureau chief, and managing editor, before his current position. After 9/11 he led Newsweek's award-winning coverage of the attacks and their aftermath. He is the author of numerous cover stories on terrorism and national security. Klaidman lives in Brooklyn with his wife and two daughters.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 11, 2013
A good, concise account of the natural conflict between ideals and reality that has shaped Obama’s decisionmaking when it comes to national security issues, and how Obama ultimately adopted a national security policy far different from the one most of his supporters expected.
Though “kinetic” counter-terrorism operations are always referred to as “kill-or-capture”, it seems that the “kill” option is preferential to the “capture” option. At its face, this appears to be the way it is because live captures are difficult, but as Klaidman reveals, it also is the way it is because a dead terrorist is much simpler to deal with than a captured terrorist. If he’s captured alive; he must be incarcerated and tried, but incarceration and tribunals for captured terrorists are thorny issues that the Obama administration (and likely any other administration that would potentially be in their place) would rather not deal with. Are kill operations so attractive because we just don’t know how to properly handle captured terrorists? Klaidman doesn’t really try to answer this question, nor does he explore drone warfare in particular detail.
Klaidman gives you a good sense sense of who said what to whom, who was in the room when a critical decision was made, and who was sidelined. Along the way, Klaidman also reveals himself to be sympathetic to the administration, though not completely uncritical. The book’s weakness is the paucity of any real discussion of the consequences of the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism program. But it also depicts well the tensions in the administration, particularly between Holder and Emmanuel. A great part of this book is how Klaidman shows the administrations policy emerging from sometimes bitter infighting among the president’s advisors. Obama chooses expediency, partly under this duress, partly because he himself has more than a streak of it, as Klaidman shows.
In all, an interesting book. See also Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power for more in-depth coverage.
Though “kinetic” counter-terrorism operations are always referred to as “kill-or-capture”, it seems that the “kill” option is preferential to the “capture” option. At its face, this appears to be the way it is because live captures are difficult, but as Klaidman reveals, it also is the way it is because a dead terrorist is much simpler to deal with than a captured terrorist. If he’s captured alive; he must be incarcerated and tried, but incarceration and tribunals for captured terrorists are thorny issues that the Obama administration (and likely any other administration that would potentially be in their place) would rather not deal with. Are kill operations so attractive because we just don’t know how to properly handle captured terrorists? Klaidman doesn’t really try to answer this question, nor does he explore drone warfare in particular detail.
Klaidman gives you a good sense sense of who said what to whom, who was in the room when a critical decision was made, and who was sidelined. Along the way, Klaidman also reveals himself to be sympathetic to the administration, though not completely uncritical. The book’s weakness is the paucity of any real discussion of the consequences of the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism program. But it also depicts well the tensions in the administration, particularly between Holder and Emmanuel. A great part of this book is how Klaidman shows the administrations policy emerging from sometimes bitter infighting among the president’s advisors. Obama chooses expediency, partly under this duress, partly because he himself has more than a streak of it, as Klaidman shows.
In all, an interesting book. See also Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power for more in-depth coverage.
December 30, 2018
Barack Obama’s emphasis on counterterrorism policies during his first presidential campaign was of fixing the levers of democracy which had been dislocated and rusted by the Bush’s ultra-pragmatic and unquestioned “War on Terror”. This declaration after 9/11, apart from invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, also yielded in creation of black sites, tortures which were euphemistically known as enhanced interrogation, and Guantanamo prison where those indicted on the charges of terrorism and caught in Iraq and Afghanistan were held indefinitely without any trial. Obama’s straightforward promises made to the Americans during his campaign was simply to put an end to these tortures, closing down the black sites and the Guantanamo prison. Apart from these “roll-backs”, another major aspect of counterterrorism which the administration eyed on was drone programme which had the potential to take out an enemy without any foot on the ground.
Once POTUS, he closed down black sites and brought an end to the coercive interrogation methods and it was all possible because he didn't meet much resistance from the partisan. But closing Guantanamo prison was fraught with partisan hostility and moreover, all hell broke loose when government and Justice department laid emphasis on conducting civilian trials for the Guantanamo inmates. This played right into the hands of Republicans and they had a leverage here as entitling terrorists who precipitated 9/11 with the rights those of a normal criminal would have left disconcerted the entire nation and was nothing but a chimera. This proved to be a very tough struggle at the White House and Justice Department and during the first term of Obama as POTUS they kept attempting to close Guantanamo Prison but failed and not least of which was the indecision over where to shift the inmates and whether to entitle them a civilian trial or leave them to the military commission, ironically Obama was also paranoid about the legality of military commissions itself. Coming to his proclivity for drone programme, the strikes carried out during his term vastly outnumbered those conducted during Bush's administration. It can be said that Obama was startled by the drone programme and while pondering over the legality of these killings which spread out to the regions where the US was not at war, he made decisions on the basis of facts and circumstances including civilian casualties of every single case, and considering legality of the strikes dependant on the profile of the targets. If there is a high-value target then the legality of the strike could be compromised with. Another major aspect of Obama's counterterrorism was a question whether to kill or capture. Obviously, because of the drone programme killing was an efficient option but capturing a target provided the departments with intelligence which were indispensable. But capturing brought another anathema which was the place where the new detainees could be penned in as Guantanamo was not an option anymore because the administration was resolute on closing it down. So during Obama's first term, counterterrorism policy was somewhat a tempestuous journey for the officials at White House, Justice Department, Pentagon, Langley, and State department; there was not a single clear way out when it came to closing Guantanamo and entitling the detainees with a civilian trial.
Daniel Klaidman's Kill or Capture is a well-written account of the Obama administration's struggle for the issues discussed above during his first term but the narrative could have been made even better were he to ‘simplify’ the stances of different officials as just mentioning them haphazardly leads to some confusion as not all the readers are well versed about Obama's bureaucratic arrangement and their respective views on all these matters. Obama's counterterrorism policy is nothing less than a chimera and rolling back all the harm Bush administration had done to the principles of democracy was a cumbersome job and the author has very persuasively delved into the very psychology of American leadership where the president cannot be either idealist or someone who tramples down all the basic attributes of democracy but someone who has to be pragmatic (as Obama once called himself an idealist without illusion) especially when it comes to the national security considering the emergence of non-traditional war tactics where the US is at war not just with some militant and extremist factions but with an ideology which is a faceless enemy.
Once POTUS, he closed down black sites and brought an end to the coercive interrogation methods and it was all possible because he didn't meet much resistance from the partisan. But closing Guantanamo prison was fraught with partisan hostility and moreover, all hell broke loose when government and Justice department laid emphasis on conducting civilian trials for the Guantanamo inmates. This played right into the hands of Republicans and they had a leverage here as entitling terrorists who precipitated 9/11 with the rights those of a normal criminal would have left disconcerted the entire nation and was nothing but a chimera. This proved to be a very tough struggle at the White House and Justice Department and during the first term of Obama as POTUS they kept attempting to close Guantanamo Prison but failed and not least of which was the indecision over where to shift the inmates and whether to entitle them a civilian trial or leave them to the military commission, ironically Obama was also paranoid about the legality of military commissions itself. Coming to his proclivity for drone programme, the strikes carried out during his term vastly outnumbered those conducted during Bush's administration. It can be said that Obama was startled by the drone programme and while pondering over the legality of these killings which spread out to the regions where the US was not at war, he made decisions on the basis of facts and circumstances including civilian casualties of every single case, and considering legality of the strikes dependant on the profile of the targets. If there is a high-value target then the legality of the strike could be compromised with. Another major aspect of Obama's counterterrorism was a question whether to kill or capture. Obviously, because of the drone programme killing was an efficient option but capturing a target provided the departments with intelligence which were indispensable. But capturing brought another anathema which was the place where the new detainees could be penned in as Guantanamo was not an option anymore because the administration was resolute on closing it down. So during Obama's first term, counterterrorism policy was somewhat a tempestuous journey for the officials at White House, Justice Department, Pentagon, Langley, and State department; there was not a single clear way out when it came to closing Guantanamo and entitling the detainees with a civilian trial.
Daniel Klaidman's Kill or Capture is a well-written account of the Obama administration's struggle for the issues discussed above during his first term but the narrative could have been made even better were he to ‘simplify’ the stances of different officials as just mentioning them haphazardly leads to some confusion as not all the readers are well versed about Obama's bureaucratic arrangement and their respective views on all these matters. Obama's counterterrorism policy is nothing less than a chimera and rolling back all the harm Bush administration had done to the principles of democracy was a cumbersome job and the author has very persuasively delved into the very psychology of American leadership where the president cannot be either idealist or someone who tramples down all the basic attributes of democracy but someone who has to be pragmatic (as Obama once called himself an idealist without illusion) especially when it comes to the national security considering the emergence of non-traditional war tactics where the US is at war not just with some militant and extremist factions but with an ideology which is a faceless enemy.
November 25, 2012
This book does a good job covering the difficulties the Obama administration has faced in developing detainee policies while having much more success in pursuing kill options.
February 1, 2014
This is a fascinating and relevant topic with no easy answers.
August 9, 2024
A good, hard look at Obama's counterterrorism record during his first term - a lot of which I did at the time and continue to take issue with. How anyone can hold this guy up as a shining beacon of liberal ideals and human rights I will never understand.
May 15, 2014
Whether to kill terrorists or to capture them and try them in US Courts - an ongoing debate within the Obama White House as various factions debate and fight and scratch at each other to formulate a policy. All while the President uses drones to neutralize the most dangerous terrorist threats in the world while playing the tormented and conflicted humanitarian. What this book really showed is what an increasing number of historical accounts covering the Obama foreign policy to date: internal conflict that is allowed to run out of control as the President worries about how he looks in the whole affair. One passage was particularly enlightening and disturbing. During one White House meeting on the issue, Attorney General Eric Holder hands the President a copy of a the sentencing statement by US Federal Judge William Jackson at the trial of the failed shoe bomber, Richard Reed. Obama picks it up and reads through it and then at the end - during a meeting on the POLICY the US should take on terrorists, this happens:
“Obama put down the speech and looked around the room. He didn’t fix his gaze on anyone in particular; he just stared for several moments. Then he spoke. “Why can’t I give that speech?” Without another word, he rose and walked out of the room.”
That takes some ego. And it takes a very good author to research and find these words, these moments for history to remember.
“Obama put down the speech and looked around the room. He didn’t fix his gaze on anyone in particular; he just stared for several moments. Then he spoke. “Why can’t I give that speech?” Without another word, he rose and walked out of the room.”
That takes some ego. And it takes a very good author to research and find these words, these moments for history to remember.
February 24, 2019
This book has left me profoundly appreciative of the author’s effort and skill. It has taken me inside the meeting rooms and the heads of the participants, deepening my understanding of the events and players of those early days of the Obama presidency. Most importantly, he has kept the main focus on the arguments of right vs. expedient within each of the major players, and not on the partisan political give and take.
Having followed events closely during that time, this book provided me valuable information to which we were not then privy. The author has then skillfully presented those details as they relate to the real questions then at hand. Klaidman’s thorough interviewing and cross-validation has produced a reliable and detailed record of the thoughts and feelings behind key decisions that may have set the overall direction of what we are becoming as a nation.
I can remember my hopes in 2008 that as a nation we could finally have a rational discussion on the just and humane ways of conducting a fight against terrorism. I can also recall being disappointed that that discussion was not happening because the media and public attention couldn’t seem to get beyond irrational fears of X-men-like terrorists and whatever other issues the Republicans could generate to keep Obama from accomplishing anything. This book made me realize that necessary discussion had been going on within the Obama administration, that it had resulted in some significant changes, but that it has essentially been tabled as a public issue.
Before concluding, I must say that at two years into the Trump presidency, it was refreshing to revisit a time when White House meetings were concerned with and juggling those basic concepts like constitutionality, justice, national honor, precedence, truth, etc., etc., etc.
Having followed events closely during that time, this book provided me valuable information to which we were not then privy. The author has then skillfully presented those details as they relate to the real questions then at hand. Klaidman’s thorough interviewing and cross-validation has produced a reliable and detailed record of the thoughts and feelings behind key decisions that may have set the overall direction of what we are becoming as a nation.
I can remember my hopes in 2008 that as a nation we could finally have a rational discussion on the just and humane ways of conducting a fight against terrorism. I can also recall being disappointed that that discussion was not happening because the media and public attention couldn’t seem to get beyond irrational fears of X-men-like terrorists and whatever other issues the Republicans could generate to keep Obama from accomplishing anything. This book made me realize that necessary discussion had been going on within the Obama administration, that it had resulted in some significant changes, but that it has essentially been tabled as a public issue.
Before concluding, I must say that at two years into the Trump presidency, it was refreshing to revisit a time when White House meetings were concerned with and juggling those basic concepts like constitutionality, justice, national honor, precedence, truth, etc., etc., etc.
January 30, 2022
At first, I was very skeptical about this book. Yes, I judged this book by its title. However, after I finish reading this book, I can conclude that;
1) The author used primary sources, reliable sources.
2) Reveals Obama's younger self's experiences that shaped his view on the Muslim community
3) A very brilliant separation of chapters
4) Reveals the important people in Obama's administration that influence his decisions (including their backgrounds).
5) Illustrates the dilemma that Obama faced in making the right/accurate decisions in a short period of time
6) Reveals the CIA atrocities on Guantanamo detainees—this surprised me a lot
7) Shows you how Obama's administration works internally
8) The flow of the story is excellent.
9) This book will show you a different side of Obama.
10) The author also expresses his own criticism based on facts.
11) This book failed to show VP, Joe Biden's influence on Obama's view and decision making.
My thought on Obama after reading this book?
He placed his homeland safety as his top priority. He had the spirit in integrating the western world and the Muslim world. But, that was only rhetoric. His mind was full of confusion and his drone war was despicable. The only sentence he always repeats is, "How could this have happened?" right after he gave approval. Very puzzling.
Would I recommend this book? Absolutely! Do read it.
1) The author used primary sources, reliable sources.
2) Reveals Obama's younger self's experiences that shaped his view on the Muslim community
3) A very brilliant separation of chapters
4) Reveals the important people in Obama's administration that influence his decisions (including their backgrounds).
5) Illustrates the dilemma that Obama faced in making the right/accurate decisions in a short period of time
6) Reveals the CIA atrocities on Guantanamo detainees—this surprised me a lot
7) Shows you how Obama's administration works internally
8) The flow of the story is excellent.
9) This book will show you a different side of Obama.
10) The author also expresses his own criticism based on facts.
11) This book failed to show VP, Joe Biden's influence on Obama's view and decision making.
My thought on Obama after reading this book?
He placed his homeland safety as his top priority. He had the spirit in integrating the western world and the Muslim world. But, that was only rhetoric. His mind was full of confusion and his drone war was despicable. The only sentence he always repeats is, "How could this have happened?" right after he gave approval. Very puzzling.
Would I recommend this book? Absolutely! Do read it.
November 28, 2021
A truly marvelous book
The books goes into the details of bureaucratic tug of war that are all to real and has life or death implications. The war on terror also generated a war of paper pushers. This books really details the moral dilemma, high minded ideology and the impulse for vengeance in a solid and easy to understand manner. Well done.
The books goes into the details of bureaucratic tug of war that are all to real and has life or death implications. The war on terror also generated a war of paper pushers. This books really details the moral dilemma, high minded ideology and the impulse for vengeance in a solid and easy to understand manner. Well done.
July 2, 2012
For the most part I enjoyed this book. The most interesting parts of the book are expositions of how idealistic academic lawyers, pragmatic military officials and "middle-of-the-road"-minded politicians approach national security issues. Klaidman does a good job of exposing just how much our laws and legal framework are at play in the war on terror. Can we detain someone outside of a "war zone"? What is a "war zone" in the war on terror? Should terrorists be tried in military or civilian courts? How can we bend and shape the idealistic government our founding fathers envisioned in the constitution to address the tricky issues that a global network of terrorists presents? These questions are at the core of this book. That, I enjoyed.
That being said, it is hard to feel fulfilled after reading this book if only because I am relatively unfamiliar with all the different players involved. The national security bureacracy is evidently huge and so it's hard to keep the characters straight. To some degree I think this is just because there are a ton of names to keep in line; however, at the same time I think Klaidman could have done a better job to develop the book as a narrative and not so much a collection of facts.
That being said, it is hard to feel fulfilled after reading this book if only because I am relatively unfamiliar with all the different players involved. The national security bureacracy is evidently huge and so it's hard to keep the characters straight. To some degree I think this is just because there are a ton of names to keep in line; however, at the same time I think Klaidman could have done a better job to develop the book as a narrative and not so much a collection of facts.
January 15, 2014
The book gave insight to the President's path of direction on different policies and for me made me understand more that I definitely don't want his job on making decisions. The book gave information on his political team and the decisions they make together. Overall a good book that made you feel part of the action in reading the book from start to finish. I rated it a three start out of five due to some dry parts in the book, but would recommend it for someone who wanted a better understanding of the President's policy on terror and government.
July 12, 2014
Thanks to the Radiolab episode on the AUMF (http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/) for pointing me toward this gem. This book is super straightforward, addressing the wild tension between Obama's civil libertarian ideals and the reality of the ongoing and metastasizing war on terror. National security is a beast.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews