What do you think?
Rate this book
America Entangled: The Persian Gulf Crisis and Its Consequences
Book by Carpenter, Ted Galen
117 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1991
9 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 5, 2010
Published just before the start of Desert Storm, the topics of discussion are no less prevelent today about what is going on in the Midleast and how we got here. Interesting to read how many of the predictions then have come true now.
August 12, 2022
Amazon review
Shooting down the excuses for the Gulf War
Ten years after its publication, this slim volume stands up to the test of time. The essays, all written prior to the beginning of the Gulf War, soberly examine the rationales and likely outcomes of the then unfought conflict. Then-president Bush's "New World Order", the use of threats to the oil market as a rationale for the war, and long term problems in the mid-east are all critically dissected and little justification is found for military intervention.
Possibly the most interesting part of the book is the essays on the oil supply. A pro-war administration and its pundit allies in the press predicted sky high prices if America didn't strike against "naked aggression." An excellent case is made in "A War for Oil?" that no such thing would have occurred and the fact that oil prices have continued to decline over the past ten years, even with the restricted output and other disruptions in the oil supply, helps put the lie to such wild claims.
This book is an essential addition to the library of anyone interested in critiques of America's foreign policy and especially to those who are concerned with the tendency of the U.S. to intervene militarily abroad.
Ross Nordeen
----
and one review by one of the big Neoconservatives
Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
Reading the papers from a Cato Institute conference on "America in the Gulf," held on January 8, 1991 (that is, just prior to the beginning of the air war), is not very edifying.
The editor lambastes President Bush for "leading a divided nation into war in pursuit of vaguely defined objectives that have little relevance to America's vital interests."
William A. Niskanen declares that "a war against Iraq this winter would be the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our government would make a tragic mistake in initiating that war."
Richard K. Thomas argues that "there is no purely economic justification for opposing Saddam's takeover even of Saudi Arabia, let alone Kuwait."
Gene R. La Rocque, a retired admiral, predicts: "If we attack, the only known result will be the ultimate defeat and possible occupation of Iraq at great cost to the United States."
Is it bravery or foolishness that prompts Cato to publish these and like statements three months after the successful conclusion of Operation Desert Storm?
The libertarian perspective has much to commend it; indeed, the free market approach to economic and political issues offers intellectual excitement for our era that parallels that of socialism a century back. But when it comes to foreign policy, too many libertarians purvey warmed-over leftist bromides.
Why so? Simple. Just as Leftists oppose U.S. foreign policy because they oppose what America stands for, libertarians oppose U.S. foreign policy because they oppose Washington and what it stands for.
Put differently, they see Washington messing things up with Nazi Germany and Iraq just as it does with New Hampshire and Virginia; and they mistakenly count on free markets to solve non-economic problems.
Daniel Pipes
Shooting down the excuses for the Gulf War
Ten years after its publication, this slim volume stands up to the test of time. The essays, all written prior to the beginning of the Gulf War, soberly examine the rationales and likely outcomes of the then unfought conflict. Then-president Bush's "New World Order", the use of threats to the oil market as a rationale for the war, and long term problems in the mid-east are all critically dissected and little justification is found for military intervention.
Possibly the most interesting part of the book is the essays on the oil supply. A pro-war administration and its pundit allies in the press predicted sky high prices if America didn't strike against "naked aggression." An excellent case is made in "A War for Oil?" that no such thing would have occurred and the fact that oil prices have continued to decline over the past ten years, even with the restricted output and other disruptions in the oil supply, helps put the lie to such wild claims.
This book is an essential addition to the library of anyone interested in critiques of America's foreign policy and especially to those who are concerned with the tendency of the U.S. to intervene militarily abroad.
Ross Nordeen
----
and one review by one of the big Neoconservatives
Reviewed by Daniel Pipes
Reading the papers from a Cato Institute conference on "America in the Gulf," held on January 8, 1991 (that is, just prior to the beginning of the air war), is not very edifying.
The editor lambastes President Bush for "leading a divided nation into war in pursuit of vaguely defined objectives that have little relevance to America's vital interests."
William A. Niskanen declares that "a war against Iraq this winter would be the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our government would make a tragic mistake in initiating that war."
Richard K. Thomas argues that "there is no purely economic justification for opposing Saddam's takeover even of Saudi Arabia, let alone Kuwait."
Gene R. La Rocque, a retired admiral, predicts: "If we attack, the only known result will be the ultimate defeat and possible occupation of Iraq at great cost to the United States."
Is it bravery or foolishness that prompts Cato to publish these and like statements three months after the successful conclusion of Operation Desert Storm?
The libertarian perspective has much to commend it; indeed, the free market approach to economic and political issues offers intellectual excitement for our era that parallels that of socialism a century back. But when it comes to foreign policy, too many libertarians purvey warmed-over leftist bromides.
Why so? Simple. Just as Leftists oppose U.S. foreign policy because they oppose what America stands for, libertarians oppose U.S. foreign policy because they oppose Washington and what it stands for.
Put differently, they see Washington messing things up with Nazi Germany and Iraq just as it does with New Hampshire and Virginia; and they mistakenly count on free markets to solve non-economic problems.
Daniel Pipes
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews