What do you think?
Rate this book
America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East
From the 9/11 attacks to waterboarding to drone strikes, relations between the United States and the Middle East seem caught in a downward spiral. And all too often, the Central Intelligence Agency has made the situation worse. But this crisis was not a historical inevitability—far from it. Indeed, the earliest generation of CIA operatives was actually the region’s staunchest western ally.
In America’s Great Game, celebrated intelligence historian Hugh Wilford reveals the surprising history of the CIA’s pro-Arab operations in the 1940s and 50s by tracing the work of the agency’s three most influential—and colorful—officers in the Middle East. Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt was the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and the first head of CIA covert action in the region; his cousin, Archie Roosevelt, was a Middle East scholar and chief of the Beirut station. The two Roosevelts joined combined forces with Miles Copeland, a maverick covert operations specialist who had joined the American intelligence establishment during World War II. With their deep knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs, the three men were heirs to an American missionary tradition that engaged Arabs and Muslims with respect and empathy. Yet they were also fascinated by imperial intrigue, and were eager to play a modern rematch of the "Great Game," the nineteenth-century struggle between Britain and Russia for control over central Asia. Despite their good intentions, these "Arabists" propped up authoritarian regimes, attempted secretly to sway public opinion in America against support for the new state of Israel, and staged coups that irrevocably destabilized the nations with which they empathized. Their efforts, and ultimate failure, would shape the course of U.S. Middle Eastern relations for decades to come.
Based on a vast array of declassified government records, private papers, and personal interviews, America’s Great Game tells the riveting story of the merry band of CIA officers whose spy games forever changed U.S. foreign policy.
In America’s Great Game, celebrated intelligence historian Hugh Wilford reveals the surprising history of the CIA’s pro-Arab operations in the 1940s and 50s by tracing the work of the agency’s three most influential—and colorful—officers in the Middle East. Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt was the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and the first head of CIA covert action in the region; his cousin, Archie Roosevelt, was a Middle East scholar and chief of the Beirut station. The two Roosevelts joined combined forces with Miles Copeland, a maverick covert operations specialist who had joined the American intelligence establishment during World War II. With their deep knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs, the three men were heirs to an American missionary tradition that engaged Arabs and Muslims with respect and empathy. Yet they were also fascinated by imperial intrigue, and were eager to play a modern rematch of the "Great Game," the nineteenth-century struggle between Britain and Russia for control over central Asia. Despite their good intentions, these "Arabists" propped up authoritarian regimes, attempted secretly to sway public opinion in America against support for the new state of Israel, and staged coups that irrevocably destabilized the nations with which they empathized. Their efforts, and ultimate failure, would shape the course of U.S. Middle Eastern relations for decades to come.
Based on a vast array of declassified government records, private papers, and personal interviews, America’s Great Game tells the riveting story of the merry band of CIA officers whose spy games forever changed U.S. foreign policy.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2012
38 people are currently reading
1184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
April 16, 2016
A little more than a week ago, I was watching CSPAN's BookTV, which featured the author Hugh Wilford speaking about this book. The subject matter --- which focused on the efforts of the CIA to shape and influence events in the Middle East from its inception in 1947 to the late 1950s --- I had, until then, knew nothing about. (The 1953 coup in Iran which deposed the popularly elected Mohammed Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power, I did know something about from years ago. But I didn't give it any further thought.) But I was so thoroughly impressed with Wilford's presentation that I bought the book the very next day.
The book begins by providing some background on the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, which goes back to the mid-1800s, when a number of Protestant groups travelled there to evangelize and establish cultural and educational institutions, such as the American University of Beirut, which was founded in 1866. Indeed, until the late 1930s, the full extent of American involvement in the Middle East was cultural and of a disinterested nature. Deep links had been established with the Arabs, who, during those years, constituted the majority population of the region.
The coming of the Second World War and - after November 1942 (when U.S. forces embarked upon Operation Torch and landed in North Africa to help defeat Italo-German forces there) - the growing U.S. military and diplomatic presence in the Middle East, inclusive of the CIA's predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), would fill a postwar vacuum in the region due to the decline of British and French imperial power there.
To illustrate the burgeoning U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic muscle in the Middle East during the 1940s, Wilford shares with the reader the personal histories of the 3 men who played key roles in the CIA in the region during the first decade of its existence. They were: Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt; Archibald "Archie" Roosevelt (both cousins and grandsons of former President Theodore Roosevelt); and Miles Copeland (a Southerner who arose from humble origins to become one of the most skilled and accomplished CIA operatives in the Middle East). Each man possessed unique talents (Archie Roosevelt was a scholar of Arab culture and spoke several languages) and occupied center stage in the efforts of the Eisenhower Administration to forge a secure American sphere of influence in the Middle East.
Considering the muddied state of affairs in the Middle East today, reading this book offered me a better understanding as to why things got that way over time. Both Roosevelts were Arabists, representative of a group of Americans who, prior to the Second World War, spent most of their lives in the Middle East, studying it, and fully immersing themselves in its culture.
In the early years of the CIA involvement in the Middle East, U.S. policy was directed more toward promoting Arab democratic aspirations and removing all vestiges of European colonial power and influence in the region. Yet, though this was the avowed aim, it was soon replaced under Cold War pressures by the overriding imperative of the Eisenhower Administration to keep the Soviet Union out of the Middle East. This resulted in policies supporting pro-Western conservative/reactionary governments in the region and a departure from an earlier policy, which was supportive of Arab nationalist movements, as represented by Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Indeed, the U.S. tried to make Nasser the key element in shaping a Middle East to their liking. But Nasser, who was genuinely interested in improving the welfare of his people, was unwilling to become compromised by Washington. At the same time, the book points out the growth and importance played during the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations by several CIA-fronted organizations in the U.S. (e.g., the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME)) that sought to promote pro-Arab sentiment among the general public as a way of creating more impartial Middle East policies from Washington. But, their effort ultimately proved futile for a host of reasons. In particular, the growing power of the Jewish (pro-Zionist) lobby, who did a much better job of promoting their interests than the Arabists.
In summing up this review, I like to cite the following remarks from this book, which further illustrate why the U.S. is not widely regarded as an honest broker in the Middle East today.
“A combination of adverse factors --- Arab resistance, British duplicity, and the contradictions inherent in the American strategy itself --- would frustrate not only the CIA’s plan for a coup in Syria but also the other objectives outlined in Francis Russell’s crucial paper of August 4, 1956: the forging of an Arab front against revolutionary Egypt and the elimination of Nasser as a force in Middle Eastern politics.” --- p. 252.
“There were several reasons why Washington objected so strongly to the Suez Crisis: its potentially calamitous consequences for the Western position in the Middle East and the rest of the Third World; the fact that it distracted international attention from the Soviets’ brutal suppression of the Hungarian uprising, which was unfolding at exactly the same time; and its no less unfortunate timing on the eve of a US presidential election. Perhaps the most deeply felt American grievance, though, was the element of deception involved. The British had been secretly planning this operation for weeks while talking to their American cousins about other measures for dealing with Nasser. So much, then, for the Special Relationship.” --- p. 259.
"Kim Roosevelt and his fellow Arabists had come to the Cold War Middle East hoping not only to prevent the Russians from taking it over but also to help the Arabs throw off the colonial domination of the French and British. The Suez crisis had seemed to mark a historic moment of opportunity for the Arabist vision, with the United States briefly emerging as the champion of Arab independence from European imperialism. It took less than a year, however, for that promise to be squandered. Thanks to a combination of [John] Foster Dulles' s [President Eisenhower's Secretary of State] rigid worldview and subtle pressure from both the British and conservative Arab leaders, the Eisenhower administration came down decisively on the side of the old imperial order --- and, ironically, the CIA became the main instrument of the new antinationalist policy. The Arabists did not even have the consolation of pulling off some spectacular coup, as they had in 1953.
Indeed, the main effect of repeated attempts at regime change in Syria was to drive that country further into the arms of the communists." --- p. 276.
For anyone wanting to have a better understanding of postwar Middle East history, he/she will do him/herself a great service by reading this book.
The book begins by providing some background on the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, which goes back to the mid-1800s, when a number of Protestant groups travelled there to evangelize and establish cultural and educational institutions, such as the American University of Beirut, which was founded in 1866. Indeed, until the late 1930s, the full extent of American involvement in the Middle East was cultural and of a disinterested nature. Deep links had been established with the Arabs, who, during those years, constituted the majority population of the region.
The coming of the Second World War and - after November 1942 (when U.S. forces embarked upon Operation Torch and landed in North Africa to help defeat Italo-German forces there) - the growing U.S. military and diplomatic presence in the Middle East, inclusive of the CIA's predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), would fill a postwar vacuum in the region due to the decline of British and French imperial power there.
To illustrate the burgeoning U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic muscle in the Middle East during the 1940s, Wilford shares with the reader the personal histories of the 3 men who played key roles in the CIA in the region during the first decade of its existence. They were: Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt; Archibald "Archie" Roosevelt (both cousins and grandsons of former President Theodore Roosevelt); and Miles Copeland (a Southerner who arose from humble origins to become one of the most skilled and accomplished CIA operatives in the Middle East). Each man possessed unique talents (Archie Roosevelt was a scholar of Arab culture and spoke several languages) and occupied center stage in the efforts of the Eisenhower Administration to forge a secure American sphere of influence in the Middle East.
Considering the muddied state of affairs in the Middle East today, reading this book offered me a better understanding as to why things got that way over time. Both Roosevelts were Arabists, representative of a group of Americans who, prior to the Second World War, spent most of their lives in the Middle East, studying it, and fully immersing themselves in its culture.
In the early years of the CIA involvement in the Middle East, U.S. policy was directed more toward promoting Arab democratic aspirations and removing all vestiges of European colonial power and influence in the region. Yet, though this was the avowed aim, it was soon replaced under Cold War pressures by the overriding imperative of the Eisenhower Administration to keep the Soviet Union out of the Middle East. This resulted in policies supporting pro-Western conservative/reactionary governments in the region and a departure from an earlier policy, which was supportive of Arab nationalist movements, as represented by Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Indeed, the U.S. tried to make Nasser the key element in shaping a Middle East to their liking. But Nasser, who was genuinely interested in improving the welfare of his people, was unwilling to become compromised by Washington. At the same time, the book points out the growth and importance played during the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations by several CIA-fronted organizations in the U.S. (e.g., the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME)) that sought to promote pro-Arab sentiment among the general public as a way of creating more impartial Middle East policies from Washington. But, their effort ultimately proved futile for a host of reasons. In particular, the growing power of the Jewish (pro-Zionist) lobby, who did a much better job of promoting their interests than the Arabists.
In summing up this review, I like to cite the following remarks from this book, which further illustrate why the U.S. is not widely regarded as an honest broker in the Middle East today.
“A combination of adverse factors --- Arab resistance, British duplicity, and the contradictions inherent in the American strategy itself --- would frustrate not only the CIA’s plan for a coup in Syria but also the other objectives outlined in Francis Russell’s crucial paper of August 4, 1956: the forging of an Arab front against revolutionary Egypt and the elimination of Nasser as a force in Middle Eastern politics.” --- p. 252.
“There were several reasons why Washington objected so strongly to the Suez Crisis: its potentially calamitous consequences for the Western position in the Middle East and the rest of the Third World; the fact that it distracted international attention from the Soviets’ brutal suppression of the Hungarian uprising, which was unfolding at exactly the same time; and its no less unfortunate timing on the eve of a US presidential election. Perhaps the most deeply felt American grievance, though, was the element of deception involved. The British had been secretly planning this operation for weeks while talking to their American cousins about other measures for dealing with Nasser. So much, then, for the Special Relationship.” --- p. 259.
"Kim Roosevelt and his fellow Arabists had come to the Cold War Middle East hoping not only to prevent the Russians from taking it over but also to help the Arabs throw off the colonial domination of the French and British. The Suez crisis had seemed to mark a historic moment of opportunity for the Arabist vision, with the United States briefly emerging as the champion of Arab independence from European imperialism. It took less than a year, however, for that promise to be squandered. Thanks to a combination of [John] Foster Dulles' s [President Eisenhower's Secretary of State] rigid worldview and subtle pressure from both the British and conservative Arab leaders, the Eisenhower administration came down decisively on the side of the old imperial order --- and, ironically, the CIA became the main instrument of the new antinationalist policy. The Arabists did not even have the consolation of pulling off some spectacular coup, as they had in 1953.
Indeed, the main effect of repeated attempts at regime change in Syria was to drive that country further into the arms of the communists." --- p. 276.
For anyone wanting to have a better understanding of postwar Middle East history, he/she will do him/herself a great service by reading this book.
February 7, 2014
Loved this book because it put my dad's work in the Middle East into much clearer context. Besides, how often does your father get quoted and acknowledged in a book?
It started out strong and seemed very well organized, but I wish he would have provided the kind of details about the sixties that he had for the fifties. Perhaps he's planning a sequel when more CIA documents get declassified.
It started out strong and seemed very well organized, but I wish he would have provided the kind of details about the sixties that he had for the fifties. Perhaps he's planning a sequel when more CIA documents get declassified.
March 14, 2014
This is a great book, an engrossing story that explains history of the mid 20th century through the people who lived it - in the case one of the fabled American patrician families of the time, the Oyster Bay Roosevelts. It is the tale of two grandsons of Teddy Roosevelt and their part in the Middle East disaster the unfolded after WWII.
If you always wondered exactly how the US got sucked into the tar pit of the Levant you can blame the British, and Eisenhower, and the Dulles brothers - who all feature in this sordid telling of a historical train wreck that still is happening today. The circus of Syria and Russia and America playing under the big top starts here, as does the Israel-Palestine swamp and the recent military coup in Egypt. Did you know that BP, British Petroleum, was originally the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC)? The show that never ends...
The author has put together many threads that were not connected before, and not just the usual retelling of other American history books over and over, as is the case for many tomes about Jefferson or Washington or the Civil War. This one is more like a movie put together from the grainy black & white films from family archives that were shot at the time and have been waiting to be found in dusty attics.
It is very much worth a read.
If you always wondered exactly how the US got sucked into the tar pit of the Levant you can blame the British, and Eisenhower, and the Dulles brothers - who all feature in this sordid telling of a historical train wreck that still is happening today. The circus of Syria and Russia and America playing under the big top starts here, as does the Israel-Palestine swamp and the recent military coup in Egypt. Did you know that BP, British Petroleum, was originally the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC)? The show that never ends...
The author has put together many threads that were not connected before, and not just the usual retelling of other American history books over and over, as is the case for many tomes about Jefferson or Washington or the Civil War. This one is more like a movie put together from the grainy black & white films from family archives that were shot at the time and have been waiting to be found in dusty attics.
It is very much worth a read.
February 7, 2015
Relatively little has been written about CIA operations in the 1940′s and 50′s. Hugh Wilford’s AMERICA’S GREAT GAME draws on personal interviews, papers, and recently declassified material of former operatives and their associates. The book is centered on the continuation by CIA of the 19th century’s joust by British and Russian agents for control of Central Asia. It delves into the intrigue of the loss of support for Arab nationalists like Nasser. In the book, there are rich anecdotes and the unbelievably larger-than-life three leading CIA pro-Arabists in search of Lawrence of Arabia styled romantic adventure, Miles Copeland, and the Roosevelt cousins Kermit “Kim” Jr and Archie – both grandsons of Theodore Roosevelt.
Kim Roosevelt was the first head of CIA covert action in the Middle East. He also masterminded the 1953 coup operation in Iran which toppled nationalist prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq which restored power to the Shah. Wilford described Kim as having had clouded judgment of Persian politics which encouraged his tendency to view Iran as a place for personal adventure and playing spy games. Such an attitude is attributed to his identity as “a Roosevelt man” and his comparisons of his work to his father and grandfathers’ writing on their hunting expeditions.
Kim’s cousin Archie was a Middle East scholar and the chief of CIA’s Istanbul station. The cousins are referred to as the Oyster Bay Roosevelts – a tight knit family with common interests, tates, and sense of humor. Archie worked at the Office of War Information headquarters in Washington, DC developing ideas for propaganda in the Arab world. His formative years provided him the opportunity to witness the odds between the Protestant New England missionaries of Beirut at odds with the Catholic Maronites of the French which led to the division of Greater Syria after WWI. In WWII North Africa, France’s reputation grew worse with Vichy officials being allowed to remain in office even after the Allied invasion.
Miles Copeland was a covert action expert who joined the intelligence establishement during WWII. Copeland is quoted as saying “Both leaders and doers in a given society play three games at the same time…the personal, the domestic, the international – and sometimes a fourth, the bureaucratic.”
John Foster Dulles is described by Miles as having resorted to Allen Dulles’ crypto-diplomacy through Miles and Kim Rossevelt (the chief crypto-diplomat): “When someone had to hop on an aeroplane and go to Iran, Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia to talk to the Shah, Nasser, King Hussein or King Saud, the Dulles brothers would think of either Kim or myself, sometimes together, sometimes singly, and sometimes in the company of some professional VIP”. Wilford explains that crypto-diplomacy allowed for non-public conversation leading to breakthroughs such as the Suez base agreement of 1954. Conversely, the book explains that the crypto-diplomacy bred suspicion in the minds of foreign heads of state which also undermined and embarrassed the effectiveness of individuals like Ambassador Henry Byroade.
The book expands on early 1950′s CIA’s manipulation of Middle Eastern governments and the inconsistency of American involvement and support for the then emerging Arab nationalist movement
Wilford’s book eventually demonstrates that it was American support for Israel which ultimately destroyed the Arabists’ influence both within CIA and America.
Hugh Wilford is a history professor at California State University Long Beach and author of four books which include The Mighty Wurlitzer. If you are interested in the development of the Levant, early American Middle East politics, or the emergence of American intelligence in Central Asia, this book will be hard to put down once you get started.
Kim Roosevelt was the first head of CIA covert action in the Middle East. He also masterminded the 1953 coup operation in Iran which toppled nationalist prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq which restored power to the Shah. Wilford described Kim as having had clouded judgment of Persian politics which encouraged his tendency to view Iran as a place for personal adventure and playing spy games. Such an attitude is attributed to his identity as “a Roosevelt man” and his comparisons of his work to his father and grandfathers’ writing on their hunting expeditions.
Kim’s cousin Archie was a Middle East scholar and the chief of CIA’s Istanbul station. The cousins are referred to as the Oyster Bay Roosevelts – a tight knit family with common interests, tates, and sense of humor. Archie worked at the Office of War Information headquarters in Washington, DC developing ideas for propaganda in the Arab world. His formative years provided him the opportunity to witness the odds between the Protestant New England missionaries of Beirut at odds with the Catholic Maronites of the French which led to the division of Greater Syria after WWI. In WWII North Africa, France’s reputation grew worse with Vichy officials being allowed to remain in office even after the Allied invasion.
Miles Copeland was a covert action expert who joined the intelligence establishement during WWII. Copeland is quoted as saying “Both leaders and doers in a given society play three games at the same time…the personal, the domestic, the international – and sometimes a fourth, the bureaucratic.”
John Foster Dulles is described by Miles as having resorted to Allen Dulles’ crypto-diplomacy through Miles and Kim Rossevelt (the chief crypto-diplomat): “When someone had to hop on an aeroplane and go to Iran, Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia to talk to the Shah, Nasser, King Hussein or King Saud, the Dulles brothers would think of either Kim or myself, sometimes together, sometimes singly, and sometimes in the company of some professional VIP”. Wilford explains that crypto-diplomacy allowed for non-public conversation leading to breakthroughs such as the Suez base agreement of 1954. Conversely, the book explains that the crypto-diplomacy bred suspicion in the minds of foreign heads of state which also undermined and embarrassed the effectiveness of individuals like Ambassador Henry Byroade.
The book expands on early 1950′s CIA’s manipulation of Middle Eastern governments and the inconsistency of American involvement and support for the then emerging Arab nationalist movement
Wilford’s book eventually demonstrates that it was American support for Israel which ultimately destroyed the Arabists’ influence both within CIA and America.
Hugh Wilford is a history professor at California State University Long Beach and author of four books which include The Mighty Wurlitzer. If you are interested in the development of the Levant, early American Middle East politics, or the emergence of American intelligence in Central Asia, this book will be hard to put down once you get started.
May 28, 2014
Gained some knowledge about how the CIA functions and the politics of the post WWII Middle East. The book was a little too "inside baseball" for me though. I would have preferred a higher level narrative.
December 30, 2017
An interesting, well-written and comprehensive work.
Wilford begins with the cultural and educational nature of America’s early Middle Eastern influence, and how it evolved after European power in the region declined after World War II, and how the OSS operated in the region during the war. As the CIA is formed, Wilford looks at the Agency’s activities there (up to the Kennedy era), mostly through officers Kermit Roosevelt (“the last person that you would expect to be up to the neck in dirty tricks,” according to Kim Philby), his cousin Archibald Roosevelt, and Miles Copeland, as well as their often romanticized and sentimental view of the situation.
Wilford also describes how US policy was initially based around promoting Arab democracy and nationalism and reducing Europe’s influence, then shifted to supporting pro-Western governments and anti-Communist movements. He also writes how it was in this era that Americans in the Middle East began to be viewed as “spies” rather than “missionaries, doctors and professors.” Wilford also describes the anti-Zionism of the CIA’s Arabists, how they promoted the Arab position, and how they were done in by an ultimately more effective pro-Zionist counter-movement.
The narrative is engaging and readable and the book doesn’t have many problems. It does, however, suggest that a straight line of causation can be drawn between the 1953 Iran coup and the 1979 Revolution. Many people have made this claim, but Wilford doesn’t make it any more convincing. Also, the story of the Mossadegh coups is mostly told through Roosevelt; there is little on other officers involved. There is little material on the Suez Crisis. Reading the book you often get the impression that CIA was making a lot of these decisions on their own authority, and there is not always sufficient discussion of the policies made in Washington. Wilford spends some time on “American Friends of the Middle East,” a domestic CIA front meant to counter Zionism and American sympathy for Israel, but this initiative did not have much impact, so it does seem like Wilford gives it a little too much attention at times. Also, most of Wilford’s research is based on US and British works, and Wilford was unfortunately, unable to get access to Agency files from the era.
A critical but balanced, well-researched and astute work.
Wilford begins with the cultural and educational nature of America’s early Middle Eastern influence, and how it evolved after European power in the region declined after World War II, and how the OSS operated in the region during the war. As the CIA is formed, Wilford looks at the Agency’s activities there (up to the Kennedy era), mostly through officers Kermit Roosevelt (“the last person that you would expect to be up to the neck in dirty tricks,” according to Kim Philby), his cousin Archibald Roosevelt, and Miles Copeland, as well as their often romanticized and sentimental view of the situation.
Wilford also describes how US policy was initially based around promoting Arab democracy and nationalism and reducing Europe’s influence, then shifted to supporting pro-Western governments and anti-Communist movements. He also writes how it was in this era that Americans in the Middle East began to be viewed as “spies” rather than “missionaries, doctors and professors.” Wilford also describes the anti-Zionism of the CIA’s Arabists, how they promoted the Arab position, and how they were done in by an ultimately more effective pro-Zionist counter-movement.
The narrative is engaging and readable and the book doesn’t have many problems. It does, however, suggest that a straight line of causation can be drawn between the 1953 Iran coup and the 1979 Revolution. Many people have made this claim, but Wilford doesn’t make it any more convincing. Also, the story of the Mossadegh coups is mostly told through Roosevelt; there is little on other officers involved. There is little material on the Suez Crisis. Reading the book you often get the impression that CIA was making a lot of these decisions on their own authority, and there is not always sufficient discussion of the policies made in Washington. Wilford spends some time on “American Friends of the Middle East,” a domestic CIA front meant to counter Zionism and American sympathy for Israel, but this initiative did not have much impact, so it does seem like Wilford gives it a little too much attention at times. Also, most of Wilford’s research is based on US and British works, and Wilford was unfortunately, unable to get access to Agency files from the era.
A critical but balanced, well-researched and astute work.
October 22, 2013
Interesting book about American Arabists who sought to make policy in the United States for Arab countries, Iran and Israel. Kim Roosevelt is the primary personage in this book. As a grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, he led a charmed life and as boy, was infatuated with the novel Kim by Rudyard Kipling. He always aspired to be an Orientalist and got a chance to work in the newly formed CIA after WWII. He grew up in the Republican wing of the Roosevelt family and mainly served under the Eisenhower administration. As a Arabist for the CIA, he tried to lead with others, a more moderate path to Arab policy and temper US support of Israel with pragmatism. He had clashes with Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who saw most of the world as a nation was either with the US or with the Soviet Union with muted success. Before the Americans had moved in, the British Empire controlled vast swaths of Arab and Iranian policy and the US ended up following Britain's lead and cooperating with its M17 spy agency. The US therefore copied many of British imperial policies. The crowning achievement was the overthrow of the Iranian government in the 50s and the installation of the Shah as the head. Later Kim would try to write a book about this wonderful achievement and try to publish it in 1979 when the Shah had no desire to be seen as a dupe for the US, the British were desperate not to get credit for their part, and a revolution in 1980 caused critics to point out that America's manipulation in Iranian politics had full circle into a crisis outside of American control. A very good book.
November 4, 2013
Per FTC regulations, I received this book via the GoodReads First Reads giveaway promotion.
It was hard to read this book and not come away disappointed and aggravated. Not because it isn't a good book, but because the United States' meddlesome nature in the service of being anti-communist is just ridiculous. Can you imagine the Middle East if we had just left well enough alone? Maybe it would be in better shape, maybe it wouldn't...but we'll never know. Hugh Wilford has taken on a huge challenge in writing about this period in history, not least of which because of the sheer number of interesting characters. Starting with two grandsons of Teddy Roosevelt and encompassing an ever-rotating collection of presidents, directors, prime ministers, and the like, the character list in this book is baffling. That's part of the reason it gets less stars. By the end of the book, you've forgotten who is who and what they're trying to accomplish. It's maddening. I suppose that's the point, but I'd much rather follow one or two individuals than try to know everybody and what their goals were. Still and all, a decent book, much better than Wilford's "The Mighty Wurlitzer" (that I never finished), in my opinion. And, if you're at all interested in this area of the world, and the historical background of the CIA in relation to this area, definitely a good read.
It was hard to read this book and not come away disappointed and aggravated. Not because it isn't a good book, but because the United States' meddlesome nature in the service of being anti-communist is just ridiculous. Can you imagine the Middle East if we had just left well enough alone? Maybe it would be in better shape, maybe it wouldn't...but we'll never know. Hugh Wilford has taken on a huge challenge in writing about this period in history, not least of which because of the sheer number of interesting characters. Starting with two grandsons of Teddy Roosevelt and encompassing an ever-rotating collection of presidents, directors, prime ministers, and the like, the character list in this book is baffling. That's part of the reason it gets less stars. By the end of the book, you've forgotten who is who and what they're trying to accomplish. It's maddening. I suppose that's the point, but I'd much rather follow one or two individuals than try to know everybody and what their goals were. Still and all, a decent book, much better than Wilford's "The Mighty Wurlitzer" (that I never finished), in my opinion. And, if you're at all interested in this area of the world, and the historical background of the CIA in relation to this area, definitely a good read.
February 13, 2018
Highly detailed, Wilford charts the course of several key individuals (e.g. the Roosevelt cousins, Archie and Kim) who were key players in the 1940s and 1950s, who attempted (and ultimately failed) to create a strong American presence in the Arab states of the Eastern Mediterranean, filling the "void" that had been the British and French colonial hegemony in the area.
The book has special meaning for me. I studied Arabic at Gergetown, Columbia, and U. Michigan, from the early 1960 into the 1970s. Many of the instructors and senior graduate students I encountered had had ties to the main characters mentioned by Wilford, and many of their attitudes and prejudices were carried forward.
The "basic story" was known to me as a result of my studies, but now I had access to footnoted (documented) facts, rather than half-baked reminiscences and hear-say.
It is a story, in the words of Miles Copeland, a major player, where "[t]here are neither winners nor losers - only survivors."
The book has special meaning for me. I studied Arabic at Gergetown, Columbia, and U. Michigan, from the early 1960 into the 1970s. Many of the instructors and senior graduate students I encountered had had ties to the main characters mentioned by Wilford, and many of their attitudes and prejudices were carried forward.
The "basic story" was known to me as a result of my studies, but now I had access to footnoted (documented) facts, rather than half-baked reminiscences and hear-say.
It is a story, in the words of Miles Copeland, a major player, where "[t]here are neither winners nor losers - only survivors."
May 12, 2015
I'm not sure what I make of the book. In some places I couldn't put it down; in others, I wasn't so sure I was going to finish. The author jumps around a lot - I think it would have been better told in a more story-like fashion (Scott Anderson's Lawrence in Arabia does a good job of this) versus "this happened, that happened" etc. Overall the book had a lot of interesting points and I did like it.
February 25, 2014
Packed with deep research and history, but lacking a strong narrative drive. Rich boys in the desert gets a bit boring when neither the rich boys nor the desert are rendered vividly.
October 13, 2014
This book was ok. It felt like a slog, even though it was actually fairly short. I felt like I got everything I needed from the prologue.
June 18, 2019
Captivating, especially toward the end. I found the portions on domestic affairs less intriguing than the international “game playing”. The book proved to a bit slow in certain sections but once I committed to the pages it picked up quite a bit.
June 21, 2014
I think this book should be required reading by anyone wishing to either comment on, participate in, or insist on U.S. participation in the ongoing revolutions/sectarian warfare/attempted exploitation of natural resources for our own selfish interests.
One of the best things I got out of it, after reading through to the 1960s, was this, about highly-decorated Marine veteran of WWI, WWII and the CIA, William "Bill" Eddy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...
'Significantly, though, the loudest local voice cautioning against military action belonged to the old Arabist William Eddy, who had moved from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon several years earlir to help run ARAMCO's TAPline and was now living out his retirement in his country of birth. "Armed intervention by the Western Allies in the civil strife in Lebanon would be a catastrophe to American interests," he told McClintock. As a Maronite Christian, Chamoun was not representative of Lebanon's population, Eddy explained; for that matter, he was not even representative of the Maronite community, whose patriarch was trying to live in peace with the Muslim majority 9this is an echo of Eddy's earlier interest in promoting Christian-Muslim dialogue). Military support for the president would, therefore, be tantamount to "an act of aggression against at least half of the population," invoke memories of earlier colonial depradations, and even invite comparison with the Soviet Union's treatment of "captive nations." Moreover, Eddy continued, it would place Western troops in unnecessary danger, as the experience of the British in Palestine and the French in Algeria showed that occupying armies "are powerless to stem a spreading wave of violence and hate for the invaders."
One of the best things I got out of it, after reading through to the 1960s, was this, about highly-decorated Marine veteran of WWI, WWII and the CIA, William "Bill" Eddy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...
'Significantly, though, the loudest local voice cautioning against military action belonged to the old Arabist William Eddy, who had moved from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon several years earlir to help run ARAMCO's TAPline and was now living out his retirement in his country of birth. "Armed intervention by the Western Allies in the civil strife in Lebanon would be a catastrophe to American interests," he told McClintock. As a Maronite Christian, Chamoun was not representative of Lebanon's population, Eddy explained; for that matter, he was not even representative of the Maronite community, whose patriarch was trying to live in peace with the Muslim majority 9this is an echo of Eddy's earlier interest in promoting Christian-Muslim dialogue). Military support for the president would, therefore, be tantamount to "an act of aggression against at least half of the population," invoke memories of earlier colonial depradations, and even invite comparison with the Soviet Union's treatment of "captive nations." Moreover, Eddy continued, it would place Western troops in unnecessary danger, as the experience of the British in Palestine and the French in Algeria showed that occupying armies "are powerless to stem a spreading wave of violence and hate for the invaders."
February 5, 2020
It's disappointing giving this piece such a low ratting. At times it completely captivates your attention as Wilford skillfully depicts America's clandestine activities in the Middle East during the Cod War.
Painstaking levels of analysis are present in dissecting minute details. While this is beneficial and even necessary in understanding who our arabists are, at times it causes the text to be painfully drawn out and over saturated. The text's momentum is continually slowed by its waste of valuable real-estate as it tries to iron out every bureaucratic interaction, diplomatic chain of command, and seemingly insignificant dinner party. This is useful at times but not when trying to connect the origins of CIA operations in the ME to their inevitable impact to today's environment.
The degree of thoroughness given to geo-political developments in the Middle East only allows for a focus on the late 1940's - early 1960's. This is tragic. So much time went into outlining the preconditions for the American mentality and strategy but there is minimal to no examination of how these events produced / catalyzed the modern ME. Despite serious foreshadowing for the "consequences" of the Arabist's actions, such as failed coups pushing Syria into the Soviet Orbit or how the Shah's empowerment imploded with the 1979 Revolution, the text focuses more on how it impacted the Arabist's personally than the region or global dynamic.
Just because the original CIA Arabists retired in the late 50's/ early 60's doesn't mean the Middle East was done being "shaped" as the title suggests is a point of focus.
Painstaking levels of analysis are present in dissecting minute details. While this is beneficial and even necessary in understanding who our arabists are, at times it causes the text to be painfully drawn out and over saturated. The text's momentum is continually slowed by its waste of valuable real-estate as it tries to iron out every bureaucratic interaction, diplomatic chain of command, and seemingly insignificant dinner party. This is useful at times but not when trying to connect the origins of CIA operations in the ME to their inevitable impact to today's environment.
The degree of thoroughness given to geo-political developments in the Middle East only allows for a focus on the late 1940's - early 1960's. This is tragic. So much time went into outlining the preconditions for the American mentality and strategy but there is minimal to no examination of how these events produced / catalyzed the modern ME. Despite serious foreshadowing for the "consequences" of the Arabist's actions, such as failed coups pushing Syria into the Soviet Orbit or how the Shah's empowerment imploded with the 1979 Revolution, the text focuses more on how it impacted the Arabist's personally than the region or global dynamic.
Just because the original CIA Arabists retired in the late 50's/ early 60's doesn't mean the Middle East was done being "shaped" as the title suggests is a point of focus.
November 6, 2016
As I finish this book today, forces backed by the United States have announced they are heading toward the erstwhile capital of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. At the same time forces from Russia, the former Soviet Union, are also engaged in attempting to take what was once the second largest city in Syria from the various rebel factions in the country and Turkey is poised to invaded even further into the Syria.
Across the Middle East turmoil still rages from what was once touted as the Arab Spring. A time that was supposed to relive the people living in the region from despotism and bring democracy and self rule to this expanse of the world. Instead, uncertainty remains in most, terror and war in many more countries. I find it fitting to finish a history of Americas first fumbling steps in the region after taking up the mantle of the most powerful country in the world and the beacon of the free world.
The parallels from what is happening now to what occurred following World War 2 is remarkable. Hugh Wilford does a fine job of explaining the protagonist and antagonist at the heart of Americas attempt to relieve the Arab world of the oppression of colonialism and the new Cold War era. The good intentions and the mistakes made in pursuit of noble goals faulty carried out. While not quite as eloquent as Ben McIntyre and his histories of the World War 2 era, Wilford's prose is strong and easy to read.
Across the Middle East turmoil still rages from what was once touted as the Arab Spring. A time that was supposed to relive the people living in the region from despotism and bring democracy and self rule to this expanse of the world. Instead, uncertainty remains in most, terror and war in many more countries. I find it fitting to finish a history of Americas first fumbling steps in the region after taking up the mantle of the most powerful country in the world and the beacon of the free world.
The parallels from what is happening now to what occurred following World War 2 is remarkable. Hugh Wilford does a fine job of explaining the protagonist and antagonist at the heart of Americas attempt to relieve the Arab world of the oppression of colonialism and the new Cold War era. The good intentions and the mistakes made in pursuit of noble goals faulty carried out. While not quite as eloquent as Ben McIntyre and his histories of the World War 2 era, Wilford's prose is strong and easy to read.
September 15, 2014
I am not going to have time to finish this book so I sent it back to the library. However, just want to note that with Ken Burns' new documentary about the Roosevelts starting on PBS this week, this book is a tie in, because it deals with two Roosevelt cousins: one from FDR's Hyde Park branch, and one from Eleanor's Oyster Bay side.
Every time I read a book about spies (or the roots of the OSS/CIA,) it always appears that these operatives spend their time drifting about, cultivating social connections in world trouble spots. Their job descriptions seem quite vague.
Nonetheless, this book is quite interesting, although of course, it is all about men. (The wives are left back in the US to run the home and raise the kids, and probably spend about one week a year, if lucky, with their spouses.
Every time I read a book about spies (or the roots of the OSS/CIA,) it always appears that these operatives spend their time drifting about, cultivating social connections in world trouble spots. Their job descriptions seem quite vague.
Nonetheless, this book is quite interesting, although of course, it is all about men. (The wives are left back in the US to run the home and raise the kids, and probably spend about one week a year, if lucky, with their spouses.
October 28, 2021
A decent and fairly easy read. Somewhat manageable in tracking the names and locations of players and places. If you've read 'Enough Already', you'll know how easy it is to get lost in the chaos of middle eastern affairs. This book should really be considered more of an exposé on Kim and Archie Roosevelt than America's Great Game. They are but two small players on a much bigger battlefield that is the game. It started long before them and rages on still today. There is no mention of how the game started, how players are selected (rather ordained as worthy), nor the key players responsible for perpetuating their sick and twisted visions on entire populations. To be fair, that would be more of a multi-volume encyclopedia than a book or two. Overall, worth checking out. Don't feel bad if you pass either though. You're not missing much.
August 25, 2015
I thoroughly enjoyed the contents of this book. Some of the Arab names and run-on sentences had me backtracking a little which broke my reading rhythm a bit. I should have prepared a map of the middle east to refer to while following along; prior to this book, I had limited knowledge of post-WWII middle eastern history, which forced me to remember names and places instead of being able to acknowledge them and move on. That being said, the author does a decent job of keeping a nice progressive pace throughout this entire work.
May 18, 2019
OK, So this is actually not the shaping of today's Middle East. This is about the account of CIA, US foreign policy makers and other third parties that directed the hegemony in the region during and shortly after Cold War, which became the foundation of today's political landscape in the region and in general, the US. There is no story about political schemes and covert actions during the 2000s though. Enjoyed many of the stories here, but sometimes they're so detailed they leave no room for other stories that tell the tale of Saddam Hussein or Al Qaeda, for instance.
February 18, 2014
perhaps i'm just not a fan of these types of books, where a few people are supposedly responsible for changing the world, but the only way to prove this point is to skew stories a bit in favor of the protagonists, give two paragraph summaries of monumental events, and lots and lots of pages on the antics of people who maybe we're that important after all.
May 15, 2014
I'm a fan of history, and enjoy suspense and thrillers. I'd like to think I have a global worldview. I'm well-traveled and well-read. If you're trying to understand the politics behind the Middle East, and aren't aware of how this region was shaped by Western powers, this book is a must-read.
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
January 5, 2014
An excellent account of the early years of the CIA's involvement in the Middle East, with the agency populated by a group of anti-Zionist Arabists. This included Kim Roosevelt (of the Iran coup fame), Miles Copeland and Archie Roosevelt, all of whom are the lead characters. This is a heavily-researched book, written in an engaging manner.
January 10, 2014
The writing and story telling probably merit four stars, but the novelty of the book (as the author points out in the introduction - the first surprise in writing the book was that it didn't already exist exist) bumps it up to five for this reader.
Interesting, stuffed with information and - best of all - entirely real.
Interesting, stuffed with information and - best of all - entirely real.
March 30, 2014
A rather complicated tale of competing intelligence service interests in the Middle East at a time when the power struggles that shape our current experience were just kicking off. The author spends considerable time on the battle between the pro- and anti-Zionist fronts in the US and the nasty games each side got up to in discrediting the other.
August 17, 2017
I enjoyed the book very much. It was my first glimpse of the Arabist. This book is a look at the first CIA operators in the Middle East. They made alliances and change the Middle East forever and in their short period of time. whether they did get or harm is not the point, the point is to try to understand why they did what they did, and why they chose the sides they did
October 12, 2015
The origins of America's current relationship with the Middle East.
August 26, 2018
The CIA's Boy's Club
A breezy exposé of US foreign policy and adventurism in the Middle East following the 2nd world war. Just as Sean McMeekin used John Buchan's novel Greenmantle as an emblematic example of German intrigue in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, Wilford uses the motif of Kipling's romantic and imperialistic Kim, a favourite novel of several of the group. The book centres around the CIA careers of Miles Copeland and two of T. R. Roosevelt's grandsons, Kim (née Kermit, the nickname adopted from the novel) and Archie along with an network of alumni from the elite Episcopalian Groton boarding school for boys in Massachusetts. Two other books that Wilford notably draws on are Kermit's Arabs,Arabs, Oil and History: The Story of the Middle East and Copeland's autobiography The Game Player: Confessions of the CIA's original political operative.
There are several driving themes in the book. One is a romantic deep sympathy for the Arab peoples, at least in abstract, and an overwhelming desire to be liked and appreciated by them in turn. So eager were they to curry favor that they helped the Saudi-American oil company ARAMCO set up a lobbying organization in Washington as well as funding and assist in the organization of anti-Zionist front groups such as the CJP in the 1940s and the AFME in the decade that followed.
A second theme, endemic to the times, at least for Americans, was a justifiable but overwrought fear of communist influence in the region, which lead to covert support against regional leadership that might even lean in that direction. That the Arabs themselves might be players in "the game" who would use these fears to advantage took them by surprise, and the desire to be popular with one group on the rise usually meant being unpopular with another which turned out to be bad a generally bad policy. The perceived need to be liked coupled with a fear of Soviet advantage was also noticed by both incumbent and potential Arab leadership as a potent lever to manipulate US actions in their favor.
Thirdly there was a friendly competition with their British intelligence counterparts, a snobbishly elite school boy sense that America could do a better job of mentoring, managing and manipulating events to the advantage of the West and the free world without the taint of European colonialism, a mistake, Wilford notes, that would also occur with the French when the Americans took over their role in Vietnam.
It's an interesting journey through the major Arab capitals of the Middle east the boys strike up friendships with autocrats and revolutionaries in their attempt to shape an world that would be friendlier to American interests. A strong point of the book was Wilford's multiple perspectives on the various coups and attempted coups that took place during these years. He notes, for example, that the perception of the American role in the 1953 countercoup in Iran in favour of the Shah and against Mossadeq might have a certain element of braggadocio in it, given that the Shah had the support of the military and the Ayatollahs including the Grand Ayatollah Boroujerdi who thought the leftist Prime Minister was dangerous to Islam. The group also followed a pattern of building personal relationships young revolutionary officers such as Nasser in Egypt, Bourguiba in Tunisia and several flash in the pan prospects in Syria which worked well with the author's choice of narrative style.
Recommended.
A breezy exposé of US foreign policy and adventurism in the Middle East following the 2nd world war. Just as Sean McMeekin used John Buchan's novel Greenmantle as an emblematic example of German intrigue in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, Wilford uses the motif of Kipling's romantic and imperialistic Kim, a favourite novel of several of the group. The book centres around the CIA careers of Miles Copeland and two of T. R. Roosevelt's grandsons, Kim (née Kermit, the nickname adopted from the novel) and Archie along with an network of alumni from the elite Episcopalian Groton boarding school for boys in Massachusetts. Two other books that Wilford notably draws on are Kermit's Arabs,Arabs, Oil and History: The Story of the Middle East and Copeland's autobiography The Game Player: Confessions of the CIA's original political operative.
There are several driving themes in the book. One is a romantic deep sympathy for the Arab peoples, at least in abstract, and an overwhelming desire to be liked and appreciated by them in turn. So eager were they to curry favor that they helped the Saudi-American oil company ARAMCO set up a lobbying organization in Washington as well as funding and assist in the organization of anti-Zionist front groups such as the CJP in the 1940s and the AFME in the decade that followed.
A second theme, endemic to the times, at least for Americans, was a justifiable but overwrought fear of communist influence in the region, which lead to covert support against regional leadership that might even lean in that direction. That the Arabs themselves might be players in "the game" who would use these fears to advantage took them by surprise, and the desire to be popular with one group on the rise usually meant being unpopular with another which turned out to be bad a generally bad policy. The perceived need to be liked coupled with a fear of Soviet advantage was also noticed by both incumbent and potential Arab leadership as a potent lever to manipulate US actions in their favor.
Thirdly there was a friendly competition with their British intelligence counterparts, a snobbishly elite school boy sense that America could do a better job of mentoring, managing and manipulating events to the advantage of the West and the free world without the taint of European colonialism, a mistake, Wilford notes, that would also occur with the French when the Americans took over their role in Vietnam.
It's an interesting journey through the major Arab capitals of the Middle east the boys strike up friendships with autocrats and revolutionaries in their attempt to shape an world that would be friendlier to American interests. A strong point of the book was Wilford's multiple perspectives on the various coups and attempted coups that took place during these years. He notes, for example, that the perception of the American role in the 1953 countercoup in Iran in favour of the Shah and against Mossadeq might have a certain element of braggadocio in it, given that the Shah had the support of the military and the Ayatollahs including the Grand Ayatollah Boroujerdi who thought the leftist Prime Minister was dangerous to Islam. The group also followed a pattern of building personal relationships young revolutionary officers such as Nasser in Egypt, Bourguiba in Tunisia and several flash in the pan prospects in Syria which worked well with the author's choice of narrative style.
Recommended.
March 23, 2020
This is one of the books that takes an active space in your mind throughout and after you read it. It does that by keeping you attached, through a hint in a passing reference, of the events that will unfold. This keeps you reading with an active mind all the way to the end.
Wilford shows his masterful story/history telling despite the information being extracted from very fragmented sources. Such as the Intelligence archive, descendants memories, memoirs, and others ... the flow though is unbelievably convincing!
The book followed the life of three Arabists (The Roosevelt cousins Archi and Kim, & Copeland the man behind "The Game of Nations"), from early childhood to the end of their career. How they shaped the CIA thinking, how they intervened in critical historic junctions, and how they finally failed in achieving what was at one point very achievable.
This book, ultimately shows the injustice made on the Arab nation, by a combination of colonialism, superpowers conflict, zionism & the American voting system. Wonder how? Read the book to the end, check who funded the American Friends of the Middle East and how they were leading an impossible cause against zionism, but were faced with the fear from communism which zionists used to their advantage & were ultimately more successful in using the voting system for their cause.
What we struggle with today as an Arab nation, has been planted way back in the 40s and early 50s. Understanding how we came where we are today is essential for building strategic responses for the future. Having a collective cause, like the one Jamal Nasser was calling for, is essential and probably has no alternative.
As much as I enjoyed the book, as much as it made me sad realizing how historic events unfold towards fragmenting the Arab world. We have a long way ahead, and deeply understanding and collectively realizing the turning points of history will make us wiser. This book, in my opinion, is a good start!
Wilford shows his masterful story/history telling despite the information being extracted from very fragmented sources. Such as the Intelligence archive, descendants memories, memoirs, and others ... the flow though is unbelievably convincing!
The book followed the life of three Arabists (The Roosevelt cousins Archi and Kim, & Copeland the man behind "The Game of Nations"), from early childhood to the end of their career. How they shaped the CIA thinking, how they intervened in critical historic junctions, and how they finally failed in achieving what was at one point very achievable.
This book, ultimately shows the injustice made on the Arab nation, by a combination of colonialism, superpowers conflict, zionism & the American voting system. Wonder how? Read the book to the end, check who funded the American Friends of the Middle East and how they were leading an impossible cause against zionism, but were faced with the fear from communism which zionists used to their advantage & were ultimately more successful in using the voting system for their cause.
What we struggle with today as an Arab nation, has been planted way back in the 40s and early 50s. Understanding how we came where we are today is essential for building strategic responses for the future. Having a collective cause, like the one Jamal Nasser was calling for, is essential and probably has no alternative.
As much as I enjoyed the book, as much as it made me sad realizing how historic events unfold towards fragmenting the Arab world. We have a long way ahead, and deeply understanding and collectively realizing the turning points of history will make us wiser. This book, in my opinion, is a good start!
September 2, 2021
the first half was interesting and gave the background of the players, the second half wa really tedious. It is an amazing picture of the CIA'a involvement and heady handedness in the MidEast. no wonder every one hard us...andit's a Lot loger time frame than just today's news
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews