What do you think?
Rate this book
Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge
From October 2006 to December 2007, Daniel A. Sjursen―then a U.S. Army lieutenant―led a light scout platoon across Baghdad. The experiences of Ghost Rider platoon provide a soldier’s-eye view of the incredible complexities of warfare, peacekeeping, and counterinsurgency in one of the world’s most ancient cities. Sjursen reflects broadly and critically on the prevailing narrative of the surge as savior of America’s longest war, on the overall military strategy in Iraq, and on U.S. relations with ordinary Iraqis. At a time when just a handful of U.S. senators and representatives have a family member in combat, Sjursen also writes movingly on questions of America’s patterns of national service. Who now serves and why? What connection does America’s professional army have to the broader society and culture? What is the price we pay for abandoning the model of the citizen soldier? With the bloody emergence of ISIS in 2014, Iraq and its beleaguered, battle-scarred people are again much in the news. Unlike other books on the U.S. war in Iraq, Ghost Riders of Baghdad is part battlefield chronicle, part critique of American military strategy and policy, and part appreciation of Iraq and its people. At once a military memoir, history, and cultural commentary, Ghost Riders of Bahdad delivers a compelling story and a deep appreciation of both those who serve and the civilians they strive to protect. Sjursen provides a riveting addition to our understanding of modern warfare and its human costs.
290 pages, Hardcover
First published September 22, 2015
26 people are currently reading
339 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 - 12 of 12 reviews
January 9, 2018
I read an opinion piece by this author and liked it and discovered he had written this book about “The Surge” and his Iraq experience as a lieutenant. My son fought in Baghdad at the same time and his unit was the subject of a book- “The Good Soldiers” by David Finkel, a journalist for the Washington Post. I was curious as to how this account by a participant would pan out.
I wasn’t disappointed. Sjursen starts off by telling the reader what his book is not. It’s not a memoir. Well, it is. But a very different memoir. It’s a rant. It’s a leadership primer. It’s a history lesson. It’s a Clausewitzian geopolitical essay. It’s a paean to lost souls. He is simultaneously the naive, young officer and the know it all as he critiques both himself and his superiors up the chain of command.
This book is also an attempt to showcase the camaraderie of soldiers. The intimacy and love of these men is something that civilians would aspire to emulate. Sjursen wrote this eight years later. He has matured but not forgotten his men. Nor does he want America to forget them. But sadly the nation has which leads to a discussion on the national will not being mobilized, why no draft, and the meaningless “thank you for your service “ greeting.
Sjursen comes off wise beyond his years without being arrogant. He is dismissive of his West Point background- a singular accomplishment which he barely discusses. Nor does he talk about his Afghan tour as a captain. This book is about Iraq and his soldiers. How can he not forget them or the decisions that placed them there.
I wasn’t disappointed. Sjursen starts off by telling the reader what his book is not. It’s not a memoir. Well, it is. But a very different memoir. It’s a rant. It’s a leadership primer. It’s a history lesson. It’s a Clausewitzian geopolitical essay. It’s a paean to lost souls. He is simultaneously the naive, young officer and the know it all as he critiques both himself and his superiors up the chain of command.
This book is also an attempt to showcase the camaraderie of soldiers. The intimacy and love of these men is something that civilians would aspire to emulate. Sjursen wrote this eight years later. He has matured but not forgotten his men. Nor does he want America to forget them. But sadly the nation has which leads to a discussion on the national will not being mobilized, why no draft, and the meaningless “thank you for your service “ greeting.
Sjursen comes off wise beyond his years without being arrogant. He is dismissive of his West Point background- a singular accomplishment which he barely discusses. Nor does he talk about his Afghan tour as a captain. This book is about Iraq and his soldiers. How can he not forget them or the decisions that placed them there.
November 23, 2015
This is a very good book, albeit an often choppy one. There are two different things going on here interwoven throughout. First, you get the memories and experiences of Sjursen, a lieutenant who served in Iraq with his platoon during the Surge, and remains in the army now. Second, you get his thoughts on the war, the army, and American society/politics in general. Both are well done, but they can at times distract from the other.
He’ll go back and forth in chapters from his own experiences and the men he served with to chapters on his thoughts on the Big Picture. As a result, it’s often hard to remember exactly which soldier is which. He gives us a few pages on all the key players early on, but then it might be 30 pages more until we come into that guy again. (This wasn’t helped by me reading a chapter or so a day, and sometimes none – so I’d sometimes lose the thread of his point). The story of his own experience is a typical one – one previously soldiers have written about in Vietnam or similar conflicts, and we’ve seen in movies. It’s the story of disillusionment and friends dying. But, while it might be a typical story, that doesn’t make it any less emotional; especially not when someone he cares about dies.
The parts where he makes statements about the war and American society are interesting in part because they are often so pointed and barbed. He thinks that the break between our society and our army is a terrible thing. We as a society now say “they all volunteered for it” and shut our brains off to it. Even during the war it let people focus on celebrity reality TV show trash instead of serious questions about what we’re doing in Iraq. It becomes less a shared, national undertaking and instead something just for the military to do. At times his broader points and his personal experiences do intersect, as when he recounts how pissed everyone was at having their tours extended as part of the Surge. But more often the book moves along two separate tracks.
He thinks the Surge was balderdash. It’s credited with turning the tide, but he makes several counter-claims. People say Obama pulled the troops out too soon. It was 8 years and 8 months – about as long as US involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Civil War combined. The death toll declined before Petreaus came on board. In part, the decline was due to overall Iraqi war-weariness and increasing sectarian segregation. Our best allies in the Surge signed on before the Surge – Sunni Iraqis in Anbar province and the like – who decided al-Qaeda in Iraq was a bigger problem. (Many of these Sunnis later joined ISIS). Most importantly, the Mahdi Army (a Shia militia) called a unilateral cease fire in August 2007 due to its own internal strife and factionalism. For Iraqis, the war just brought chaos. At best you can say the Surge ended the worst of the wartime violence, but there was still plenty of violence going around. We broke it, we bought it. By 2007, 2.2 million fled to other countries.
The war will cost us $1 to $2 trillion. 4,486 Americans died and 32,223 were wounded. 797 had amputations. 10,000 had head wounds and/or brain trauma. 235 committed suicide in Iraq. Thousands more did upon return, including one from the author’s platoon. Since 2001, he notes that 2,700+ servicemen have committed suicide; which is more than died in combat in Afghanistan. 350 did in 2012 alone. There are 103,795 diagnosed cases of PTSD among post-9/11 veterans. That’s the low estimate. Another study had it at 310,746 PTSD. 1.8% of the war’s deaths were West Point graduates – only the Mexican-American War had a higher percentage. For Sjursen, the four key questions are: 1) Was this in the national interest, 2) Did 8 years occupation create a safer, more stable or tolerant atmosphere, 3) Did the US gain anything from it? 4) What are the moral implications for a democracy that relies on 1% of its citizens to fight a decade-long war?
The war reinvigorated Islamist movements and set back women’s rights. It hurt the already weak healthcare system. The war only looks successful if you use January 2007 as a starting point. Compare now to January 2003, and Iraq is clearly worse off. Our problem is we lack empathy. We see some problem and figure that they ought to be content for having anything.
Oh, and ISIS came out of this. He notes how the government of Iraq had no credibility among the Sunnis. But the Sunnis were the guys we trained in the Anbar Awakening. They didn’t like al-Qaeda, but they still didn’t like the government. So many drifted to ISIS, especially once refugees flooded in from Syria. ISIS stormed over the border and took most of northern and western Iraq.
The US veterans themselves are split. A poll showed that among post-9/11 veterans, only 44% felt somewhat or strongly that the war was worth fighting. Meanwhile, 50% were against the invasion, with 34% strongly feeling the war wasn’t worth it. In all 69% felt that most Americans didn’t understand veterans experiences in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is more impressive given that they typically come from small towns in the Midwest and South you’d expect to lean Republican. All bumper sticker talk of “support our troops” only goes so far. One point the author makes repeatedly: if you really want to support the troops, sign up and join the military. That’s what they really needed – more men. The civilians in Iraq stayed safely behind in the Green Zone, sticking all implimentation on the army. But they are designed for military stuff, not nation building.
He’ll go back and forth in chapters from his own experiences and the men he served with to chapters on his thoughts on the Big Picture. As a result, it’s often hard to remember exactly which soldier is which. He gives us a few pages on all the key players early on, but then it might be 30 pages more until we come into that guy again. (This wasn’t helped by me reading a chapter or so a day, and sometimes none – so I’d sometimes lose the thread of his point). The story of his own experience is a typical one – one previously soldiers have written about in Vietnam or similar conflicts, and we’ve seen in movies. It’s the story of disillusionment and friends dying. But, while it might be a typical story, that doesn’t make it any less emotional; especially not when someone he cares about dies.
The parts where he makes statements about the war and American society are interesting in part because they are often so pointed and barbed. He thinks that the break between our society and our army is a terrible thing. We as a society now say “they all volunteered for it” and shut our brains off to it. Even during the war it let people focus on celebrity reality TV show trash instead of serious questions about what we’re doing in Iraq. It becomes less a shared, national undertaking and instead something just for the military to do. At times his broader points and his personal experiences do intersect, as when he recounts how pissed everyone was at having their tours extended as part of the Surge. But more often the book moves along two separate tracks.
He thinks the Surge was balderdash. It’s credited with turning the tide, but he makes several counter-claims. People say Obama pulled the troops out too soon. It was 8 years and 8 months – about as long as US involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Civil War combined. The death toll declined before Petreaus came on board. In part, the decline was due to overall Iraqi war-weariness and increasing sectarian segregation. Our best allies in the Surge signed on before the Surge – Sunni Iraqis in Anbar province and the like – who decided al-Qaeda in Iraq was a bigger problem. (Many of these Sunnis later joined ISIS). Most importantly, the Mahdi Army (a Shia militia) called a unilateral cease fire in August 2007 due to its own internal strife and factionalism. For Iraqis, the war just brought chaos. At best you can say the Surge ended the worst of the wartime violence, but there was still plenty of violence going around. We broke it, we bought it. By 2007, 2.2 million fled to other countries.
The war will cost us $1 to $2 trillion. 4,486 Americans died and 32,223 were wounded. 797 had amputations. 10,000 had head wounds and/or brain trauma. 235 committed suicide in Iraq. Thousands more did upon return, including one from the author’s platoon. Since 2001, he notes that 2,700+ servicemen have committed suicide; which is more than died in combat in Afghanistan. 350 did in 2012 alone. There are 103,795 diagnosed cases of PTSD among post-9/11 veterans. That’s the low estimate. Another study had it at 310,746 PTSD. 1.8% of the war’s deaths were West Point graduates – only the Mexican-American War had a higher percentage. For Sjursen, the four key questions are: 1) Was this in the national interest, 2) Did 8 years occupation create a safer, more stable or tolerant atmosphere, 3) Did the US gain anything from it? 4) What are the moral implications for a democracy that relies on 1% of its citizens to fight a decade-long war?
The war reinvigorated Islamist movements and set back women’s rights. It hurt the already weak healthcare system. The war only looks successful if you use January 2007 as a starting point. Compare now to January 2003, and Iraq is clearly worse off. Our problem is we lack empathy. We see some problem and figure that they ought to be content for having anything.
Oh, and ISIS came out of this. He notes how the government of Iraq had no credibility among the Sunnis. But the Sunnis were the guys we trained in the Anbar Awakening. They didn’t like al-Qaeda, but they still didn’t like the government. So many drifted to ISIS, especially once refugees flooded in from Syria. ISIS stormed over the border and took most of northern and western Iraq.
The US veterans themselves are split. A poll showed that among post-9/11 veterans, only 44% felt somewhat or strongly that the war was worth fighting. Meanwhile, 50% were against the invasion, with 34% strongly feeling the war wasn’t worth it. In all 69% felt that most Americans didn’t understand veterans experiences in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is more impressive given that they typically come from small towns in the Midwest and South you’d expect to lean Republican. All bumper sticker talk of “support our troops” only goes so far. One point the author makes repeatedly: if you really want to support the troops, sign up and join the military. That’s what they really needed – more men. The civilians in Iraq stayed safely behind in the Green Zone, sticking all implimentation on the army. But they are designed for military stuff, not nation building.
January 13, 2016
I received this book though the Goodreads Giveaway program.
I enjoyed this book, as it was more than a historical account; it conveyed his thoughts and questions concerning our rationale of occupying Iraq, and the intentions and purposes of doing so. His direction was quite a bit different than I thought a graduate of West Point would have. The book also depicts the impact of war on our soldiers, particularly the stressors they experience,which leads to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,and their lives after the military. For these reasons alone, this is a book that everyone should be reading.
Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge
I enjoyed this book, as it was more than a historical account; it conveyed his thoughts and questions concerning our rationale of occupying Iraq, and the intentions and purposes of doing so. His direction was quite a bit different than I thought a graduate of West Point would have. The book also depicts the impact of war on our soldiers, particularly the stressors they experience,which leads to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,and their lives after the military. For these reasons alone, this is a book that everyone should be reading.
Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge
June 8, 2019
Well written and to the point. Support Our Troops. But first realize what that means.
Sjursen presents his story that is every story of a serviceman or woman in the "War Against Terror." It is tragic. The results are unwarranted and the cost is killing America. And those of us not on the front lines don't know and don't care about the sacrifices being made in our name.
The US military is not the world's police force. We should support out troops by keeping them out of harm's way unless absolutely necessary.
You can find the author's very readable history articles on Truthdig. Here is just one link: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/ame...
Sjursen presents his story that is every story of a serviceman or woman in the "War Against Terror." It is tragic. The results are unwarranted and the cost is killing America. And those of us not on the front lines don't know and don't care about the sacrifices being made in our name.
The US military is not the world's police force. We should support out troops by keeping them out of harm's way unless absolutely necessary.
You can find the author's very readable history articles on Truthdig. Here is just one link: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/ame...
March 9, 2021
Colonel Sjursen is the ultimate patriot. His book recounts his experiences leading men in the Iraq war and his journey to that point. He speaks plainly, but eloquently as to war’s devastating impact on the psyche and body. He led men in situations where he felt directly responsible for their deaths while dealing with the terror of self doubt. This is a man who was on a fast track to the top of the military and General’s stars a certainty. He spoke truth to power in the tradition of Colonel Jon Paul Vann, Smedley Butler, and MLK putting himself and his career at serious risk. Surprisingly he wasn’t silenced or demoted, but any promotion to a General’s rank was over.
Today Mr Sjursen is a civilian and is a full time advocate for a national policy of peace before war. He speaks tirelessly to students, military leaders, government officials, and anyone seeking his wisdom. He is an amazing speaker who brings all the skills of a top West Point graduate with the life experience documented in this amazing book. Coleen Rowley arranged fir him to speak at the University of Iowa and people still are talking about his presentation.
I believe this is a book that needs to be a part of history classes for our youth and military command schools for understanding how to deal with war and command. Colonel Sjursen is a man of humility, scholarship, and deep commitment to a better world. I only wish we had more people like him ( as well as Coleen Rowley) to carry forth their wisdom amd life experience for today’s and future generations.
Today Mr Sjursen is a civilian and is a full time advocate for a national policy of peace before war. He speaks tirelessly to students, military leaders, government officials, and anyone seeking his wisdom. He is an amazing speaker who brings all the skills of a top West Point graduate with the life experience documented in this amazing book. Coleen Rowley arranged fir him to speak at the University of Iowa and people still are talking about his presentation.
I believe this is a book that needs to be a part of history classes for our youth and military command schools for understanding how to deal with war and command. Colonel Sjursen is a man of humility, scholarship, and deep commitment to a better world. I only wish we had more people like him ( as well as Coleen Rowley) to carry forth their wisdom amd life experience for today’s and future generations.
August 16, 2019
If you are going to read a single book about first-hand American military experience in and out of Iraq in the first part of the 21st century read this. The author compares this book to his unwritten or unwritable thoughts on these same matters and he declares it to be (colorfully) wanting; but I beg to differ. Ironic that he mentions reading Robert Graves while in Iraq as Goodbye to All That is exactly what this book reminds me of. OK, not quite the same level of prose, but who is? It’s darn well written. From one cavalry lieutenant’s viewpoint it covers an awful lot of ground and seems to range far (history, policy, strategy, tactics) yet never strays from the personal. It’s one man’s, and his platoon’s story and should be listened to.
June 9, 2024
This book ages like a fine wine. The farther removed we get from the Iraq war the more this authorsauthor’s introspection and wholistic macro views stand out and need to be heard.
This book doesn’t spin. Doesn’t romanticize. It tells the reader what was happening and to whom. This should be info the American people already know but it certainly isn’t.
A must read imo if you want to have some straight sourced info on the Iraq war, the American soldiers experience. The Iraqi people’s experience. And the toll on both.
And if you don’t want to have some info on that, please do some soul searching
This book doesn’t spin. Doesn’t romanticize. It tells the reader what was happening and to whom. This should be info the American people already know but it certainly isn’t.
A must read imo if you want to have some straight sourced info on the Iraq war, the American soldiers experience. The Iraqi people’s experience. And the toll on both.
And if you don’t want to have some info on that, please do some soul searching
March 14, 2020
I really wanted this to be a good book. It wasn’t bad, but something was lacking. If I was more invested, I would try to figure out what that was. However, I am not, so I won’t. I do like the new TV series...69 WHISKEY.
Read
July 17, 2016Ghost Riders of Baghdad is a book of contradictions, and because of this, I have contradictory feelings about it. On one hand, Sjursen is an intelligent and articulate writer with unique insight regarding the Iraqi War and a proper understanding of middle-eastern history. On the other hand, Sjursen is a soldier who has a jaded perspective and ignores some of the facts. It's likely the author is still working through some of his feelings, still sorting through the emotions and the rationalizations, but this book captures that moment and still does a valid job of shining a spotlight on the US invasion of Iraq.
Sjursen knows history. He knows the players on the field and is able to label their sentiments and objectives in detail. He is articulate and well read (interestingly none of the authors he mentions are female). He is assertive. He is able to admit mistakes. And he is bold in his assertion that the war was full of corruption and lapses of judgment.
Despite attacking the war, Sjursen defends the army tooth and nail. Instead, he largely focuses his attack on the civilians at home. He complains about the passivity of the American populace and their ignorance of the war. And while some of his claims are certainly true, Sjursen overgeneralizes considerably, ignoring the protests that united a world against a war. While millions protested, Sjursen was an enlisted soldier. And perhaps those protests dwindled with time, but only because those who protested knew better. They knew there was no stopping the machine once the cogs began to turn—and Sjursen, despite his eventual position on the war, was one of those cogs.
The majority of the author's complaints are in response to “The Surge” and its ineffectuality. Sjursen argues that despite the assurance of government officials, the surge was a failure. He complains about how the soldiers were bullied, forced to extend their stay, because the numbers simply weren't there. He suggests that a draft should have been utilized. Here is a classic example of how confused the author seems to be about the facts. Despite his disagreement with the war, he proposes implementing a draft. Not only does this not make sense, but it ignores the fact that a draft would've worked counter to the goals of the American government. A draft would have taken the blinders off of the American populace. Concerned for the welfare of their non-combative child, the average citizen suddenly would know exactly what was going on in Iraq. Obviously, a draft would've been the quickest way to shut down the war. It would've been Vietnam Part II. That Sjursen, despite his impressive knowledge of Sunni and Shia relations and the history of Iraqi neighborhoods, does not realize the results of forced conscription on the war seems way off.
In my opinion, Sjursen is spot on when he is not ruled by his emotions. Justifiably, he is upset and angry about the results of his time in Iraq. But he's largely placing blame on the wrong people. We were in the streets. We were arguing against the war. We were making music and lifting our voices in protest. For what it's worth, we were here...
Sjursen knows history. He knows the players on the field and is able to label their sentiments and objectives in detail. He is articulate and well read (interestingly none of the authors he mentions are female). He is assertive. He is able to admit mistakes. And he is bold in his assertion that the war was full of corruption and lapses of judgment.
Despite attacking the war, Sjursen defends the army tooth and nail. Instead, he largely focuses his attack on the civilians at home. He complains about the passivity of the American populace and their ignorance of the war. And while some of his claims are certainly true, Sjursen overgeneralizes considerably, ignoring the protests that united a world against a war. While millions protested, Sjursen was an enlisted soldier. And perhaps those protests dwindled with time, but only because those who protested knew better. They knew there was no stopping the machine once the cogs began to turn—and Sjursen, despite his eventual position on the war, was one of those cogs.
The majority of the author's complaints are in response to “The Surge” and its ineffectuality. Sjursen argues that despite the assurance of government officials, the surge was a failure. He complains about how the soldiers were bullied, forced to extend their stay, because the numbers simply weren't there. He suggests that a draft should have been utilized. Here is a classic example of how confused the author seems to be about the facts. Despite his disagreement with the war, he proposes implementing a draft. Not only does this not make sense, but it ignores the fact that a draft would've worked counter to the goals of the American government. A draft would have taken the blinders off of the American populace. Concerned for the welfare of their non-combative child, the average citizen suddenly would know exactly what was going on in Iraq. Obviously, a draft would've been the quickest way to shut down the war. It would've been Vietnam Part II. That Sjursen, despite his impressive knowledge of Sunni and Shia relations and the history of Iraqi neighborhoods, does not realize the results of forced conscription on the war seems way off.
In my opinion, Sjursen is spot on when he is not ruled by his emotions. Justifiably, he is upset and angry about the results of his time in Iraq. But he's largely placing blame on the wrong people. We were in the streets. We were arguing against the war. We were making music and lifting our voices in protest. For what it's worth, we were here...
February 22, 2016
Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge by Daniel A. Sjursen is a non-fiction book about the author’s experience in Iraq. Mr. Sjursen served as an officer in the US Army during, what is now known, as “the surge” which has been credited by politicians as helping turn around the war.
Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge by Daniel A. Sjursen is the author’s account of his time in Iraq. The book really gives a good impression on what it’s like to be “boots on the ground” during the occupation.
Mr. Sjursen talks about doing the job, how it’s viewed from ground level and what is being sold to the American public. Leading his men, the author saw the problems that they all faced on the battlefield as well as their own private hell they faced when returning home.
Mr. Sjursen also shares his own personal views about the war, professional soldering, the ugly business of managing an occupation and the even uglier politics of inserting yourself in the middle of a sectarian civil war. The author obviously had much love and respect for the men he led and those he served with, he writes beautifully about each and every one of the, a testament to the his character as well as theirs.
I do agree with the author’s analysis that the majority of the American people have no stake in the war, either in blood or treasure, which is why there was never major opposition to them. While the issues are complex and staggering, the men on the ground sometimes feel, and rightly so, that the American public is not with them except meaningless faux patriotism gestures.
As well as the personal story, the author does an outstanding job explaining the long and complex feud between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. Anyone who, at least, would like to understand this issue and the affect it has on the US troops who are stuck in the middle of it would benefit from reading it.
Above all, this book is unblinking and intimate, while you might not agree with everything the author has to say it is certainly a worthwhile read.
Disclaimer: I got this book for free
For more reviews and bookish posts please visit: http://www.ManOfLaBook.com
Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge by Daniel A. Sjursen is the author’s account of his time in Iraq. The book really gives a good impression on what it’s like to be “boots on the ground” during the occupation.
Mr. Sjursen talks about doing the job, how it’s viewed from ground level and what is being sold to the American public. Leading his men, the author saw the problems that they all faced on the battlefield as well as their own private hell they faced when returning home.
Mr. Sjursen also shares his own personal views about the war, professional soldering, the ugly business of managing an occupation and the even uglier politics of inserting yourself in the middle of a sectarian civil war. The author obviously had much love and respect for the men he led and those he served with, he writes beautifully about each and every one of the, a testament to the his character as well as theirs.
I do agree with the author’s analysis that the majority of the American people have no stake in the war, either in blood or treasure, which is why there was never major opposition to them. While the issues are complex and staggering, the men on the ground sometimes feel, and rightly so, that the American public is not with them except meaningless faux patriotism gestures.
As well as the personal story, the author does an outstanding job explaining the long and complex feud between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. Anyone who, at least, would like to understand this issue and the affect it has on the US troops who are stuck in the middle of it would benefit from reading it.
Above all, this book is unblinking and intimate, while you might not agree with everything the author has to say it is certainly a worthwhile read.
Disclaimer: I got this book for free
For more reviews and bookish posts please visit: http://www.ManOfLaBook.com
January 30, 2016
I received this book from Goodreads First Reads in exchange for a honest review...
This was a very good book; it was interesting, compelling, and intriguing, for the most part. I enjoyed the "memoire" parts of the book, as the author described the experiences and challenges he faced. He did voice a lot of opinions and insight perspectives on politics, government, etc. Those areas I honestly wish he did less of. Though overall decent, it put this dampening dullness on the entire book. His political views can gain a lot of eye rolls, as would most books that are about politics, though he does make some very strong points. If he had stuck more along the lines of a memoire (which he explains in the beginning the book isn't one), it would've gotten a five-star rating from me.
This was a very good book; it was interesting, compelling, and intriguing, for the most part. I enjoyed the "memoire" parts of the book, as the author described the experiences and challenges he faced. He did voice a lot of opinions and insight perspectives on politics, government, etc. Those areas I honestly wish he did less of. Though overall decent, it put this dampening dullness on the entire book. His political views can gain a lot of eye rolls, as would most books that are about politics, though he does make some very strong points. If he had stuck more along the lines of a memoire (which he explains in the beginning the book isn't one), it would've gotten a five-star rating from me.
September 17, 2016
Excellent analysis of the Iraq War from a junior officer
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews