Where to Invade Next

by Stephen Elliott

On February 27, 2007, during an interview with Amy Goodman, General Wesley Clark described a 2002 Pentagon conversation in which he was told that America was planning to invade Iraq. From the same source, he learned of a classified memorandum listing six other countries the United States intended to "take out" over the next five years. Most of us will never get to see this memo, but we know it exists.

Now, editor Stephen Elliott, authors Jason Roberts, Eric Martin, and Andrew Altschul, and a team of twenty researchers have re-created this document for the present day. Where to Invade Next contains seven essays, 100 percent factual, laying out in stark detail how the arguments for invasion could be made. A biting look at the role of propaganda in foreign policy, this book outlines exactly how our leaders might make the case for war.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, War

96 pages, Hardcover

First published February 28, 2008

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. This entry is for Stephen ^6 Elliott, editor.

Reviews

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

These are the sort of selective-fact essays the US government might concoct to justify the next war.

In light of a recent Esquire magazine article and Admiral William "Fox" Fallon's resignation from Central Command, perhaps the essay on Iran is not far from President Bush's mind.

From McSweeney's Website: Where to Invade Next was "inspired by actual Pentagon documents, which seeks to give a picture of just how our government could create a rationale for its next round of wars. Read them one at a time, or all at once, but know that this one’s got it all--whirlwind visions of the world of today, and dead-serious essays about which parts of it the United States might soon be confronting."

And more from McSweeney's March Newsletter:

"Now, editor Stephen Elliott, authors Jason Roberts, Eric Martin, and Andrew Altschul, and a team of twenty researchers have re-created this document for the present day. Where to Invade Next contains seven essays, 100 percent factual, laying out in stark detail how the arguments for invasion could be made. A biting look at the role of propaganda in foreign policy, this book outlines exactly how our leaders might make the case for war."

Yet I wonder if it's helpful to suggest -- even with unstated ascerbic wit -- assassinating a world leader, or a covert CIA operation to bring about "regime change," without a clear statement from the editors within the book itself that the purpose of the text is to avoid another march to war.

Perhaps having the name McSweeney's attached will be enough for some readers to clue in, but what about the readers who don't?

[Kerri · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm still trying to formulate my thoughts about this book. There's nothing to be said about its literary merits. It's a pure, dry abstract of countries that are a threat to the U.S. interests. It's meant to be a parody of sorts, but there's no humor to it, and it's composed of facts. It's informative, both in understanding some top level issues regarding the politics of these countries, and also seeing how easily the U.S. govt. could convince the American people of the necessity of aggression with any of these countries (we've seen how easy that is already...)

I'm just not sure how effective this book is. There's no hint of irony to it, and no reference to refuting ideas. I get it... sort of... but if someone like my dad were to read this book, he'd take it at face value, and really, there's no reason not to.

[Heeju · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a disconcerting book. When I read the title, I was expecting it to poke fun at the USA's military aggression (and with its dry narration, it sometimes is). On the other hand, its often one-sided retelling of the origins of conflict and the rationale for the country being a danger to the US is unsettling (not to mention its solutions, which include assassination). On the whole, it serves as an interesting starting point for more research into the topics and conflicts mentioned in the book; by no means should it serve as the only source of information for anyone who is looking to be wholly educated (or as much as possible) on these complex topics. Assuming the best of the editor, sources, and writers, it's a decent look into a utilitarian, militaristic point of view (which is implied to be the USA). Not really a leisure read, but interesting nonetheless.

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book reminds me of the books on countries that we used to use in elementary school to write reports. Essentially, it provides readers with an overview of the political situation in seven countries: Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea. Brief, informative, and well organized these synopses are fantastic. The recommended courses of action that follow, on the other hand, may make the title of the book seem reasonable. For instance, the editors believe strongly that Kim Jong-il needs to be assassinated and that we should probably shore up Musharraf. Personally, I am a much bigger fan of Madeline Albright's policy of rediscovering respect for sovereignty.

[Sonic · Rating 5 out of 5]

A terrifying look at what the fu(k-Nuts in the State Department are up to with all the unaccounted trillions of tax dollars spent on 'intelligence" and "defense."

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hard to rate since it's supposed to look like actual propaganda and millitary intel. A bit old by now but much of the rhetoric remains about pretty much all the countries featured.

Couldn't tell if 'bomb the shit out of them' was a running gag or just always an option for the actual U.S millitary. Was pretty funny that no matter the situation, bombs always work

[J.C.Kool · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars not only because the title is brilliant. It is a nice analysis, but a bit to short, and actually it deserves an update.

[Jurvis · Rating 4 out of 5]

With the Internet and its abundance of view points, it's so easy to put your blinders on, take a seat in the choir and listen to just the sermon you want to hear. If Fox News had published these reports, I wouldn't have known about it and if by some rare chance I had, I would have blown it off as "We slant, you're duped" reporting regardless of how many references they included. Yes, I am a knee-jerk liberal. McSweeney's has done all knee-jerks a favor by putting this out there to snap us out of our "Bush/neocons are always wrong about everything" mindset.

I've been in a few scuffles and played more than my fair share of Civ. I believe that war can't always be avoided. As I read more and more of these sobering reports, I found myself slipping into an even more aggressive mindset. I found myself succumbing to the dispassionate and resolute tone in which McSweeney's assesses the threat to us posed by each of these nations. "Why did we waste ourselves on Iraq when we could've had a slam dunk in Sudan (and had support from our allies while simultaneously blowing the minds of all hippies)?" "When are we going to assassinate Kim Jong-Il?" "Are we just going to let Iran get the bomb??! WTF!" I'm getting worked up just thinking about it again. (Don't worry, in a few hours I'll be an equal-opportunity armorer again who thinks everyone should have the bomb.) To cut to the chase, this book will help bust you out of your foreign policy rut and acquaint you with the people who hate our culture the most.

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Often McSweeney's titles suffer from assuming the reader is going to get the satire or irony; "Where to Invade Next" does, a bit, as it can all too easily be taken at face value (which is probably the point). In a library setting, it is hard for me to see the right patron picking it up and appreciating it in full.

That being said, this imagined version of a real government document is chilling, and all too convincing. This slim little book is a fascinating look into seven very insular countries, whose stated aims clearly do not fit with American government and culture, and an excellent example of how bias and slant can color any piece of information.

[Bill · Rating 1 out of 5]

Illuminating information with 100% factual "observations." Irresponsibly published by McSweeney's (everyone's favorite independent publishing house). I've enjoyed Stephen Elliot's other books, but as the editor of this "memo," he should have had the balls to include a disclaimer that the memo is fabricated, despite its probable existence. If someone stumbles upon this book and isn't a regular McSweeney's reader, they'll think its real, and its not, its hypothetical despite its basis in reality. Good read, bad form.

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

A bit of a dry read, I thought. A quick overview of countries that are dealing with turmoil and pose threats to other countries. They make valid points, however, they also made some suggestions for solving the problem that I think were off balance. They were broad overview suggestions, of course, and would require more detail, but some of their suggestions, I think, would not be safe alternatives.

[Jeffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

The world is a scary place, all around, and reading this book makes me wonder if we all won't be at war with each other forever. A brief read, but interesting, although its presentation as an actual government abstract confuses what it's saying - is it being ironic, and we shouldn't invade these countries? And if it's saying we shouldn't, why not spend some time offering ways to avoid conflict? How about a 'Where not to invade next'?

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is hard to swallow. Not fascinating or fun unless you are into this stuff, but an excellent book to keep for reference. These essays look like actual arguments from bush cabinet members on war justifactions for 7 countries. Furthermore, they are very convincing without a touch of irony.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this before going to sleep and sugarplum Rumsfeld danced about my head.