What do you think?
Rate this book
Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charlie Savage's penetrating investigation of the Obama presidency and the national security state. Barack Obama campaigned on changing George W. Bush's "global war on terror" but ended up entrenching extraordinary executive powers, from warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention to military commissions and targeted killings. Then Obama found himself bequeathing those authorities to Donald Trump. How did the United States get here? In Power Wars, Charlie Savage reveals high-level national security legal and policy deliberations in a way no one has done before. He tells inside stories of how Obama came to order the drone killing of an American citizen, preside over an unprecendented crackdown on leaks, and keep a then-secret program that logged every American's phone calls. Encompassing the first comprehensive history of NSA surveillance over the past forty years as well as new information about the Osama bin Laden raid, Power Wars equips readers to understand the legacy of Bush's and Obama's post-9/11 presidencies in the Trump era.
785 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 3, 2015
90 people are currently reading
951 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 - 25 of 25 reviews
December 4, 2015
When Barrack Obama was elected president and assumed office in 2009 most people expected that there would be vast changes to America’s pursuit of the war on terror. If one followed Obama’s rhetoric while serving in the state Senate in Illinois, the United States Senate, and during the 2008 presidential campaign one would probably have drawn the conclusion that once in office the Bush-Cheney policies following 9/11 would be in for drastic change, but according to New York Times reporter Charlie Savage’s new book POWER WARS: INSIDE OBAMA’S POST-9/11 PRESIDENCY that was not the case. As Savage writes, “having promised change, the new president seemed to be delivering something more like a mere adjustment – a ‘right-sizing’ of America’s war on terror.” Savage has done an incredible job using his sources inside the Bush and Obama administrations, along with his access to legal scholars throughout the United States in producing an extremely detailed account of how members of the Obama administration went about determining the legalities of its policies in dealing with the war on terror. The result is a text that is a bit over 700 pages that is at times extremely dense and difficult to stay with. However, if one does pursue the task of getting through the myriad of legal arguments that are presented you will become well informed about how the American legal system, and to a lesser extent international law, deals with the nuances of trying to create and justify a lawful approach in dealing with numerous aspects of defending our country against terrorism, but at the same time protecting civil liberties, and abiding by its commitment to the rule of law, the right process, and not being a carbon copy of the Bush administration. The result is a book that is as lawyerly as its subject matter, and not designed for the general reader.
The question must be asked, was Obama a legal hypocrite? Before he took office Obama produced many flowery phrases in criticizing the methods employed by Bush and Cheney. He spoke of the use of torture, the violation of the privacy of American citizens, and the illegalities of data and intelligence collection, but once in the White House he engaged in many of the same practices. Extraordinary rendition, NSA surveillance, CIA drone strikes, and the lack of transparency were among the policy choices that Obama engaged in-this wasn’t even “Bush light,” it was more like something close to his evil twin, but with an intellectual justification for everything they did.
The comparison with the Bush administration is well presented as Savage reviews the evolution of Cheney’s unitary view of presidential power going back to the 1970s and Watergate which produced a resurgence of congressional power. Savage also traces the convoluted legal arguments that Bush-Cheney concocted to implement its national security agenda. The key person was John Yoo, an important Justice Department official after 9/11 who argued in numerous secret memorandums that the “president, as commander-in-chief, had the constitutional authority to lawfully take actions that were seemingly prohibited by federal statues and treaties.” The Bush administration was in the business of creating executive-power precedents i.e., wiretapping without warrants, withdrawing the United States from the ABM treaty with Russia unilaterally, setting aside the Geneva Convention in dealing with POWs in Afghanistan, and not seeking congressional approval for these actions even though Congress had ratified these treaties. The Bush administration established military commissions to prosecute terrorist suspects outside the civilian court system and created theories, set precedents based on these theories, and acted on them defying statutory constraint. Obama’s critiques against these policies were based on violations of civil liberties and the rule of law, since there was no legal process to support what they were doing. The Bush administration, with Vice-President Cheney leading the way sought to limit Congress and the courts, increase government secrecy, and concentrate as much unchecked power in the upper levels of the executive branch as they could. Many Obama supporters and administration members argued that some of Bush’s policies were in fact correct, but they needed legislative approval before they could be implemented.
For Obama and his core of liberal legal appointees the failed “underwear bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger plane end route to Detroit Christmas day, 2009 dramatically altered their approach to the war on terror. For the president he realized that a successful terror attack on American soil could destroy his entire domestic agenda, be it health care or the many programs Obama hoped to implement. All of a sudden he had to live with the day by day security needs of the United States and keep its citizens safe. This did not mean he would drop his lawyerly, overly cautious approach to policies, but in the end terrorism and the threat to the homeland was real, not a theoretical concern. As Savage writes, Obama threatened to fire people if the missteps surrounding the incident were repeated. “It’s strict liability now, he said, echoing George Bush’s “don’t ever let that happen again directive to Attorney General John Ashcroft soon after 9/11.” As Jack Goldsmith writes in The New Rambler, Savage’s account of Obama’s continuity with Bush “breaks less new ground than does his reconstruction of the many ways in which it expanded the President’s war powers from the Bush baseline.” For example, the drone strike program was expanded dramatically, in part because of the improved technology that did not exist under Bush, and its use in targeting four American citizens in Yemen, chief among them was the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen. Savage does a nice job exploring al-Awlaki’s relationship to the “underwear bomber” as well as the legal debates within the administration to determine whether the US was justified in killing one of its own citizens without due process. The lawyerly approach reached the conclusion it was legal if the target was an imminent threat to the United States. Scott Shane’s recent book, Objective Troy does an excellent job detailing this aspect of Savage’s work.
After the near miss on Christmas day Obama was faced with a great deal of Republican criticism. Buoyed by the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts who won a special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat employing national security as his core message, Republicans in congress called for terrorism captives to be handled exclusively by the military. According to Savage, all of a sudden Obama was attentive and deeply involved as he realized that terrorism could shape his presidency. What follows is a series of detailed arguments within the Obama administration dealing with all aspects of terrorism policy from 2010 through 2014. It seems that Savage does not miss any subject as it related to the war on terror. The closing of Guantanamo comes up repeatedly, whether dealing with freeing inmates, closing the prison, adding new detainees etc. The legalities of surveillance policy and the use of F.I.S.A. courts encompasses a significant amount of the text. The debate as to whether captured detainees should be tried by military commissions as opposed to civilian courts is dealt with from the legal perspective as well as that of political partisanship. The debate as to whether al-Shabaab, the Somalian Islamic terrorist organization was an associated force of al-Qaeda to justify targeting its members with drone strikes is fascinating. The Snowden leaks makes for interesting reading as well as the Obama administration’s responses to them. In reality Obama was less successful in reducing presidential power than he anticipated, and he often supported his own novel expansions of presidential powers. When he needed to expand executive powers like going after ISIS with drone strikes in Libya, he did not feel constrained.
As a result Savage decides that Obama was less a transformative president after 9/11, but more so a transitional one. As James Mann writes in the New York Times, Obama created a “lawyerly” administration that added “an additional layer of rules standards, and procedures to the unsettling premise that the United States was still at war and would, of necessity, remain so with no end in sight.” I agree with Mann that this is the major theme that the reader should extract from all the legal theories and lawyerly language that Savage presents, if one can get plough through the tremendous amount of material that is reviewed and analyzed.
The question must be asked, was Obama a legal hypocrite? Before he took office Obama produced many flowery phrases in criticizing the methods employed by Bush and Cheney. He spoke of the use of torture, the violation of the privacy of American citizens, and the illegalities of data and intelligence collection, but once in the White House he engaged in many of the same practices. Extraordinary rendition, NSA surveillance, CIA drone strikes, and the lack of transparency were among the policy choices that Obama engaged in-this wasn’t even “Bush light,” it was more like something close to his evil twin, but with an intellectual justification for everything they did.
The comparison with the Bush administration is well presented as Savage reviews the evolution of Cheney’s unitary view of presidential power going back to the 1970s and Watergate which produced a resurgence of congressional power. Savage also traces the convoluted legal arguments that Bush-Cheney concocted to implement its national security agenda. The key person was John Yoo, an important Justice Department official after 9/11 who argued in numerous secret memorandums that the “president, as commander-in-chief, had the constitutional authority to lawfully take actions that were seemingly prohibited by federal statues and treaties.” The Bush administration was in the business of creating executive-power precedents i.e., wiretapping without warrants, withdrawing the United States from the ABM treaty with Russia unilaterally, setting aside the Geneva Convention in dealing with POWs in Afghanistan, and not seeking congressional approval for these actions even though Congress had ratified these treaties. The Bush administration established military commissions to prosecute terrorist suspects outside the civilian court system and created theories, set precedents based on these theories, and acted on them defying statutory constraint. Obama’s critiques against these policies were based on violations of civil liberties and the rule of law, since there was no legal process to support what they were doing. The Bush administration, with Vice-President Cheney leading the way sought to limit Congress and the courts, increase government secrecy, and concentrate as much unchecked power in the upper levels of the executive branch as they could. Many Obama supporters and administration members argued that some of Bush’s policies were in fact correct, but they needed legislative approval before they could be implemented.
For Obama and his core of liberal legal appointees the failed “underwear bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger plane end route to Detroit Christmas day, 2009 dramatically altered their approach to the war on terror. For the president he realized that a successful terror attack on American soil could destroy his entire domestic agenda, be it health care or the many programs Obama hoped to implement. All of a sudden he had to live with the day by day security needs of the United States and keep its citizens safe. This did not mean he would drop his lawyerly, overly cautious approach to policies, but in the end terrorism and the threat to the homeland was real, not a theoretical concern. As Savage writes, Obama threatened to fire people if the missteps surrounding the incident were repeated. “It’s strict liability now, he said, echoing George Bush’s “don’t ever let that happen again directive to Attorney General John Ashcroft soon after 9/11.” As Jack Goldsmith writes in The New Rambler, Savage’s account of Obama’s continuity with Bush “breaks less new ground than does his reconstruction of the many ways in which it expanded the President’s war powers from the Bush baseline.” For example, the drone strike program was expanded dramatically, in part because of the improved technology that did not exist under Bush, and its use in targeting four American citizens in Yemen, chief among them was the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an American citizen. Savage does a nice job exploring al-Awlaki’s relationship to the “underwear bomber” as well as the legal debates within the administration to determine whether the US was justified in killing one of its own citizens without due process. The lawyerly approach reached the conclusion it was legal if the target was an imminent threat to the United States. Scott Shane’s recent book, Objective Troy does an excellent job detailing this aspect of Savage’s work.
After the near miss on Christmas day Obama was faced with a great deal of Republican criticism. Buoyed by the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts who won a special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat employing national security as his core message, Republicans in congress called for terrorism captives to be handled exclusively by the military. According to Savage, all of a sudden Obama was attentive and deeply involved as he realized that terrorism could shape his presidency. What follows is a series of detailed arguments within the Obama administration dealing with all aspects of terrorism policy from 2010 through 2014. It seems that Savage does not miss any subject as it related to the war on terror. The closing of Guantanamo comes up repeatedly, whether dealing with freeing inmates, closing the prison, adding new detainees etc. The legalities of surveillance policy and the use of F.I.S.A. courts encompasses a significant amount of the text. The debate as to whether captured detainees should be tried by military commissions as opposed to civilian courts is dealt with from the legal perspective as well as that of political partisanship. The debate as to whether al-Shabaab, the Somalian Islamic terrorist organization was an associated force of al-Qaeda to justify targeting its members with drone strikes is fascinating. The Snowden leaks makes for interesting reading as well as the Obama administration’s responses to them. In reality Obama was less successful in reducing presidential power than he anticipated, and he often supported his own novel expansions of presidential powers. When he needed to expand executive powers like going after ISIS with drone strikes in Libya, he did not feel constrained.
As a result Savage decides that Obama was less a transformative president after 9/11, but more so a transitional one. As James Mann writes in the New York Times, Obama created a “lawyerly” administration that added “an additional layer of rules standards, and procedures to the unsettling premise that the United States was still at war and would, of necessity, remain so with no end in sight.” I agree with Mann that this is the major theme that the reader should extract from all the legal theories and lawyerly language that Savage presents, if one can get plough through the tremendous amount of material that is reviewed and analyzed.
September 26, 2019
A well-written and compelling work. Savage covers such issues as drone warfare, detention, the wars in Libya, Iraq and Syria, surveillance, state secrets, the executive branch’s desire to “look forward” rather than investigate Bush-era programs, and the White House’s attempts against whistleblowers.
Savage’s main question is how much difference there really is between the counterterrorism policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. Savage’s answer is nuanced, and he describes how Obama criticized Bush-era policies, then worked to modify them once in office in an attempt to clear up the legal questions and controversies, rather than discontinue them. Savage portrays Obama as a realist rather than a dove, and covers how the administration both promoted and hindered transparency, as well as the difference between a civil liberties and the rule of law (for example, closing Guantanamo but moving the inmates to a correctional center, which would literally close one detention center while having no actual effect on the detainees’ civil liberties). Particularly interesting is Savage’s coverage of post-9/11 surveillance, and he provides as full a picture as possible of programs like STELLAR WIND and PRISM, as well as the problems surrounding prosecution of whistleblowers like Thomas Drake.
Savage’s work is comprehensive and he does a great job describing the policies, theories and internal debates of the administration. He describes the administration’s pushback against EITs but its willingness to continue warrantless surveillance, renditions, indefinite detention, and targeted killings, as well as the administration’s attempts to bring all of these into the confines of “rules, standards and procedures.” Savage describes the role played by Congress and the public, which had a considerable impact on such issues as Guantanamo and military commissions. He also brings up the point that Bush was more successful than Obama in getting Congress on board with his policies.
The narrative, however, is not always readable; often it seems plodding and all over the place. Savage covers all sorts of debates and reasoning, but these don’t always seem organized into a coherent whole. Savage often asserts that Obama’s policy process was very “lawyerly” and “government by lawyer” and at the same time makes statements along the lines of “the lawyers didn’t matter” while also writing that legal minutiae seemed to trump strategy at times. The legal analysis often seems rather superficial. He also concludes that the Obama administration was “transitional” in the sense that it served as “the bridge to a national security destination that would be determined by his successor, future Congresses, and the world as it is rather than as one might want it to be.” Unfortunately, it seems that this is all Savage has to say about it.
Savage ultimately argues that the story of the administration's counterterrorism policies is complex and defies simple judgements or bumper-sticker slogans, and describes how both leftists and conservatives have been disappointed by various policy steps.
An impressive, comprehensive work.
Savage’s main question is how much difference there really is between the counterterrorism policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. Savage’s answer is nuanced, and he describes how Obama criticized Bush-era policies, then worked to modify them once in office in an attempt to clear up the legal questions and controversies, rather than discontinue them. Savage portrays Obama as a realist rather than a dove, and covers how the administration both promoted and hindered transparency, as well as the difference between a civil liberties and the rule of law (for example, closing Guantanamo but moving the inmates to a correctional center, which would literally close one detention center while having no actual effect on the detainees’ civil liberties). Particularly interesting is Savage’s coverage of post-9/11 surveillance, and he provides as full a picture as possible of programs like STELLAR WIND and PRISM, as well as the problems surrounding prosecution of whistleblowers like Thomas Drake.
Savage’s work is comprehensive and he does a great job describing the policies, theories and internal debates of the administration. He describes the administration’s pushback against EITs but its willingness to continue warrantless surveillance, renditions, indefinite detention, and targeted killings, as well as the administration’s attempts to bring all of these into the confines of “rules, standards and procedures.” Savage describes the role played by Congress and the public, which had a considerable impact on such issues as Guantanamo and military commissions. He also brings up the point that Bush was more successful than Obama in getting Congress on board with his policies.
The narrative, however, is not always readable; often it seems plodding and all over the place. Savage covers all sorts of debates and reasoning, but these don’t always seem organized into a coherent whole. Savage often asserts that Obama’s policy process was very “lawyerly” and “government by lawyer” and at the same time makes statements along the lines of “the lawyers didn’t matter” while also writing that legal minutiae seemed to trump strategy at times. The legal analysis often seems rather superficial. He also concludes that the Obama administration was “transitional” in the sense that it served as “the bridge to a national security destination that would be determined by his successor, future Congresses, and the world as it is rather than as one might want it to be.” Unfortunately, it seems that this is all Savage has to say about it.
Savage ultimately argues that the story of the administration's counterterrorism policies is complex and defies simple judgements or bumper-sticker slogans, and describes how both leftists and conservatives have been disappointed by various policy steps.
An impressive, comprehensive work.
May 18, 2016
In this clearly written book, Savage takes on how the Obama Administration has handled contentious legal issues around targeted killing, detention of terror suspects, surveillance, and war powers. The result is a nuanced and fair-minded take on some of the ways in which Obama has expanded some of the powers Bush claimed for himself as commander-in-chief, as well as some of the ways he has set up new checks and balances.
The main characters are the NSC's interagency team of lawyers, who hashed out in debates (the evidence of which Savage is only just bringing to light) the legality and Constitutionally of many of the most important tactics in the War on Terror. While civil libertarians have been upset the Obama has not been as aggressive as perhaps advertised in reversing the Bush Administration, Savage cogently makes the case that he has at least succeeded on some rule of law measures to make sure there is more oversight on subjects like NSA surveillance. This is likely to become one of the definitive accounts of Obama's thinking on the national security powers of the Presidency.
The main characters are the NSC's interagency team of lawyers, who hashed out in debates (the evidence of which Savage is only just bringing to light) the legality and Constitutionally of many of the most important tactics in the War on Terror. While civil libertarians have been upset the Obama has not been as aggressive as perhaps advertised in reversing the Bush Administration, Savage cogently makes the case that he has at least succeeded on some rule of law measures to make sure there is more oversight on subjects like NSA surveillance. This is likely to become one of the definitive accounts of Obama's thinking on the national security powers of the Presidency.
April 24, 2016
As a non-lawyer I have to say a lot of this was over my head.
Still found it a useful and interesting contrast to the previous administration with an clear focus on rule of law (and a lawyer like decision making process) more than civil liberties.
Also interesting to observe the shift over the course of the Obama presidency where early on he was pragmatic (balancing rule of law and getting shit done, balancing civil liberties with defending the country etc) but still trying to work with congress, to later on he decided he really needed to get shit done with congress paralyzed.
Still found it a useful and interesting contrast to the previous administration with an clear focus on rule of law (and a lawyer like decision making process) more than civil liberties.
Also interesting to observe the shift over the course of the Obama presidency where early on he was pragmatic (balancing rule of law and getting shit done, balancing civil liberties with defending the country etc) but still trying to work with congress, to later on he decided he really needed to get shit done with congress paralyzed.
September 16, 2021
A largely arms-length look at Obama’s executive powers and the national security state. Tons of great detail here excavating out happenings that were only reported years later, and a good overall look at national security law over the course of his presidency. Only downside is the commentary isn’t as pointed and skeptical as I’d like, and doesn’t have much analysis tying it to the larger material forces at work.
Still, pretty unparalleled on the subject and a relatively quick and coherent read for being 700 pages. Makes me wanna read Ackerman’s new book Reign of Terror!
Still, pretty unparalleled on the subject and a relatively quick and coherent read for being 700 pages. Makes me wanna read Ackerman’s new book Reign of Terror!
November 29, 2015
Much like how the Obama administration is often regarded as a continuation of the Bush-Cheney administration this book is a continuation of the author's previous work,
Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency & the Subversion of American Democracy
.
The Bush-Cheney administration was successful in greatly increasing the power of the executive branch of the government. Rather than correcting that trend the Obama administration has worked to put that new power base on firmer legal ground.
The book shows and explains how this was done. One discouraging aspect though is that the book does not seem to be focused. The author alludes to this problem on page 476 where he writes "the world and the government are so complicated that a single person cannot pay attention to all of it." The book puts the reader in the leader's chair (Bush-Cheney and then Obama) needing to digest and understand tons of information in real time while knowing that if there's the slightest fault or flaw in your response that it will be exposed.
The net result for American citizens is the loss of privacy and the loss of due process which we had via the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
Something that seems to be missing from the book is it does not explain why the legislature and judicial branches of the U.S. government have not not pushed back harder at both the Bush-Cheney and Obama administrations. The executive branch lawyers seem to have managed to frame the debate brilliantly.
The Bush-Cheney administration was successful in greatly increasing the power of the executive branch of the government. Rather than correcting that trend the Obama administration has worked to put that new power base on firmer legal ground.
The book shows and explains how this was done. One discouraging aspect though is that the book does not seem to be focused. The author alludes to this problem on page 476 where he writes "the world and the government are so complicated that a single person cannot pay attention to all of it." The book puts the reader in the leader's chair (Bush-Cheney and then Obama) needing to digest and understand tons of information in real time while knowing that if there's the slightest fault or flaw in your response that it will be exposed.
The net result for American citizens is the loss of privacy and the loss of due process which we had via the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
Something that seems to be missing from the book is it does not explain why the legislature and judicial branches of the U.S. government have not not pushed back harder at both the Bush-Cheney and Obama administrations. The executive branch lawyers seem to have managed to frame the debate brilliantly.
February 26, 2016
A solid journalistic account of the way the Obama administration has addressed the issues of Guantanamo and NSA/CIA/FBI surveillance and privacy. While the book does make clear the distinction between the legalistic approach and the moral approach to human rights, it often veers into long explanations of legal precedents and arguments between lawyers to the point where you lose site of the basic human rights issues at stake. What are the human consequences of not closing Guantanamo in the first week in office? We know the political consequences and the legal consequences, but what about the world impact? So, I'd treat this as a kind of supplementary text on the legal aspects of the Obama administration. I have no idea where the title came from: power is in short supply. Perhaps a couple of solar cells would help.
December 22, 2015
Interesting but extremely long although thorough. You don't have to be a lawyer to keep up as Savage is a very good writer, but the attempt to make the Christmas 2009 bombing a turning point in Obama administration policy gets undercut by subsequently covering SO much history (the surveillance background chapter doesn't actually go back to 1928 as advertised; just to 1978 FISA foundation). This book is less a follow-on to the Bush-Cheney predecessor Savage wrote than an expanded version of it, adding on Obama administration policy. Really comprehensive but you have to be motivated to get through it.
September 14, 2016
Six months is the longest I have ever taken to read a book other than the Bible which took me two years to read.
Charlie Savage's Power Wars is a vividly engaging, detailed, thoroughly investigative.
It thoroughly explains the conversations, power struggles in the background and forefront of the post 9/11 National Security State in the Obama era.
Charlie Savage does a superb job equipping the reader to understand how national security decisions and major policies have been made in the Obama administration.
A great but very detailed reading, which needs time to process.
Charlie Savage's Power Wars is a vividly engaging, detailed, thoroughly investigative.
It thoroughly explains the conversations, power struggles in the background and forefront of the post 9/11 National Security State in the Obama era.
Charlie Savage does a superb job equipping the reader to understand how national security decisions and major policies have been made in the Obama administration.
A great but very detailed reading, which needs time to process.
September 24, 2016
Mandatory for those seeking a coherent account
My daily attempts to follow the issues of national security, intelligence activity, accountability and government secrecy do not produce the narrative to see the whole picture. This fine book, detailed but not boring, brings the field together. I commend it to everyone, from whatever perspective on the issues involved. I only wish I had read it earlier.
My daily attempts to follow the issues of national security, intelligence activity, accountability and government secrecy do not produce the narrative to see the whole picture. This fine book, detailed but not boring, brings the field together. I commend it to everyone, from whatever perspective on the issues involved. I only wish I had read it earlier.
December 16, 2015
This is an unbelievably well-written account of executive power in the Obama administration. Completely accessible and yet so well researched and scholarly. I was going to assign parts of the book to my class but I can't choose which parts, so they are reading the whole thing.
September 4, 2024
Power Wars: Inside Obama's Post-9/11 Presidency by Charlie Savage is an interesting examination, and potential indictment, of Obama's approach to national security surveillance, counterterrorism, and legal gamesmanship. The book opens with some remarks about how President Obama wanted to reverse a large number of Bush II's ways of doing things in the global war on terror. However, as time progressed, much of what Obama did was discontinue the most controversial and least effective of Bush's practices, while maintaining most of the rest on firmer, more legal footing. By doing so, the Obama administration engaged in some legal rulesmanshipping, pushing the frontier of what was acceptable and giving it a legal stamp of approval. There is an overall idea that Obama did what he thought worked from a pragmatic standpoint, while also doing things that he felt were right. In the process of doing so, however, one's understanding and appreciation for the legacy of the former president will rely on whether you stand more with the civil libertarian or with the security an policing crowds.
I will say that I was partially duped into buying this book though. I thought it would be more expansive and cover Obama's role outside of the US as well - such as the use of drones or the larger fight against AQ and ISIL. Nope, those are threated as an external consequence. This book is a serious exploration of the presidency, various disputes within it, and its dedication to process. In that regard, this book is firmly one that studies the conduct and use of political power, rather than its broader consequences outside of precedent and internal legacy.
I will say that I was partially duped into buying this book though. I thought it would be more expansive and cover Obama's role outside of the US as well - such as the use of drones or the larger fight against AQ and ISIL. Nope, those are threated as an external consequence. This book is a serious exploration of the presidency, various disputes within it, and its dedication to process. In that regard, this book is firmly one that studies the conduct and use of political power, rather than its broader consequences outside of precedent and internal legacy.
June 19, 2022
Good dive into how the Obama administration picked up the W Bush national security state. Savage sets out a key tension early in the book between the "civil libertarian" critique and the "rule of law" critique of the W admin's counterterrorism/natsec actions and made pretty clear that Obama and his team came down pretty heavily on the "rule of law" side, i.e., that actions like mass surveillance and indefinite detention are not inherently inexcusable impingements on civil liberties, but that W et al merely didn't follow the proper legal processes. The result is Obama retaining and continuing many of these policy tools, but adding a layer of lawyerly packaging. Savage is detailed and even-handed: he typically takes the justifications and arguments on their own merits and attempts to measure Obama admin actions by those standards.
The book was published in 2015, so it's an interesting throwback to the pre-Trump era. Now, not only are we post-Trump, we're also living in the Biden era, and the era where the U.S. national security state has largely shifted from counterterrorism to "great power competition." Many familiar faces from the Biden team crop up, but it's not clear where many of them come down on key issues. For instance, the book makes clear that Lisa Monaco was deeply involved in these policy debates, but the book does not shed any light on where the current Deputy Attorney General came down (a sign, in my view that Monaco, like Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, was a key on-background source).
The book was published in 2015, so it's an interesting throwback to the pre-Trump era. Now, not only are we post-Trump, we're also living in the Biden era, and the era where the U.S. national security state has largely shifted from counterterrorism to "great power competition." Many familiar faces from the Biden team crop up, but it's not clear where many of them come down on key issues. For instance, the book makes clear that Lisa Monaco was deeply involved in these policy debates, but the book does not shed any light on where the current Deputy Attorney General came down (a sign, in my view that Monaco, like Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, was a key on-background source).
January 30, 2023
Power Wars
Number 5 of the year. In which my fellow Hoosier, Charlie Savage, injects himself a little too much (and without the levity of Ronan Farrow) into the development of national security law in the first 2 decades of the century. One thing stands out: gridlock in congress both compels presidents to expand the executive function, and limits the primary check on such expansion.
Also, this is a brick, and proof I should really check the page count before buying something that looks interesting. Regardless, it’s a thorough (again, maybe too much so) review of the internal policy deliberations that broke open on 9/11 and went through the Obama administration - surveillance, torture, overseas detention, etc. It does a good job of exploring the rationales and context of the policy debates, and the reader genuinely feels the frustrations of well-intentioned policymakers dealing with some of the most complex issues (balancing civil liberties against protecting the nation from attacks). From the book: “One way of looking at this is that Obama entrenched the Forever War. Another is that the Forever War ensnared him.”
The fact that most of these issues are still prevalent in the debate shows just how thorny they are, more than 2 decades after they begun.
The book also highlights how privacy and security issues don’t carve neatly along party lines and suggests bipartisanship isn’t totally dead. Maybe there’s hope in that.
Number 5 of the year. In which my fellow Hoosier, Charlie Savage, injects himself a little too much (and without the levity of Ronan Farrow) into the development of national security law in the first 2 decades of the century. One thing stands out: gridlock in congress both compels presidents to expand the executive function, and limits the primary check on such expansion.
Also, this is a brick, and proof I should really check the page count before buying something that looks interesting. Regardless, it’s a thorough (again, maybe too much so) review of the internal policy deliberations that broke open on 9/11 and went through the Obama administration - surveillance, torture, overseas detention, etc. It does a good job of exploring the rationales and context of the policy debates, and the reader genuinely feels the frustrations of well-intentioned policymakers dealing with some of the most complex issues (balancing civil liberties against protecting the nation from attacks). From the book: “One way of looking at this is that Obama entrenched the Forever War. Another is that the Forever War ensnared him.”
The fact that most of these issues are still prevalent in the debate shows just how thorny they are, more than 2 decades after they begun.
The book also highlights how privacy and security issues don’t carve neatly along party lines and suggests bipartisanship isn’t totally dead. Maybe there’s hope in that.
May 2, 2019
I wasn't as tuned into the Obama Administration's national security policy as I should have been but thankfully Savage's Power Wars is a great and comprehensive look at the events and implications of Obama's presidency. The overarching theme is that Obama was a transitional not a transformative president, continuing the expansion of executive power that started before him. I wish the book had gone through more editing and cutting though. 700 pages is way too long!
July 11, 2018
An exhaustive and frequently illuminating tome that could have been improved by a ruthless editor and some analysis of the overall military and security effectiveness of Obama's legalistic approach to the War on Terror.
December 31, 2018
Interesting look at Obamas Presidency post 9/11 and the comparison between him and Presidents before him. Is long and I found it a bit hard to read at stages but if you are interested in U.S politics you'll probably enjoy it.
April 6, 2016
Worth the read especially in light of the upcoming presidential election.
This in depth analysis of 'Lawyer' President Obama spares no one and leaves no victories or defeats uncovered. Contrasting Obama's rule of law presidency with cowboy Bush's shoot from the hip administration highlights the weaknesses and strengths of both. More importantly it shows the complexity of the post 9/11 world requires something more than either had to offer.
Lest it be overlooked the insidious complicity of a 'do nothing' Congress in fostering an imperial presidency is cast in stark relief. Initiated to neuter the president the practice in fact empowered the executive branch to usurp congressional powers. The Congress fractured against itself is impotent to stop a President induced by Congressional gridlock and empowered by ineptitude.
Mr. Savage does a much better and infinitely more thorough job showing how the failures of our post 9/11 government to lead is eroding our liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Slogans or political dogma experience will not carry the water! No matter how many grains of sand glow, walls go up between people or legal boundaries stretch we will not alter course or stem the tide coming at us. Only adaptive principled leaders grounded in the reality of a complex world can ride the emerging waves of our constantly reinvented world.
Vote accordingly.
This in depth analysis of 'Lawyer' President Obama spares no one and leaves no victories or defeats uncovered. Contrasting Obama's rule of law presidency with cowboy Bush's shoot from the hip administration highlights the weaknesses and strengths of both. More importantly it shows the complexity of the post 9/11 world requires something more than either had to offer.
Lest it be overlooked the insidious complicity of a 'do nothing' Congress in fostering an imperial presidency is cast in stark relief. Initiated to neuter the president the practice in fact empowered the executive branch to usurp congressional powers. The Congress fractured against itself is impotent to stop a President induced by Congressional gridlock and empowered by ineptitude.
Mr. Savage does a much better and infinitely more thorough job showing how the failures of our post 9/11 government to lead is eroding our liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Slogans or political dogma experience will not carry the water! No matter how many grains of sand glow, walls go up between people or legal boundaries stretch we will not alter course or stem the tide coming at us. Only adaptive principled leaders grounded in the reality of a complex world can ride the emerging waves of our constantly reinvented world.
Vote accordingly.
February 18, 2016
A fascinating history of all of the legal decisions that underpin the Obama administration's national security policies. For anyone interested in national security law, and how much national security apparatus has changed because of and since 9/11, this is a great book. Many of the insights and details shared are being reported for the first time, which add great color to stories that have already been reported over the course of the two Obama terms.
My only criticism of this book is that the author sometimes has a tendency to insert himself into the narrative too forcefully whenever he recounts episodes with which he was previously researching or reporting on. It's hard to read an "objective history" of any subject when the author talks in the first person about different connections he has to that history. In fairness, the book doesn't proclaim to be an objective history, but it has such great reporting and narrative detail, that it very well could be.
Overall, a great book and a great history.
My only criticism of this book is that the author sometimes has a tendency to insert himself into the narrative too forcefully whenever he recounts episodes with which he was previously researching or reporting on. It's hard to read an "objective history" of any subject when the author talks in the first person about different connections he has to that history. In fairness, the book doesn't proclaim to be an objective history, but it has such great reporting and narrative detail, that it very well could be.
Overall, a great book and a great history.
June 21, 2023
I can see why this book would have been so popular when it was released. The Obama administration's handling of U.S. national security was became one in a series of political tools to make the president seem accommodating to his partisan opponents. Charlie Savage analyzes many of the specifics of the legal battles in his national security policy. Admittedly I read this during a several month obsession exploring the basics of national security law and I have less enthusiasm for it now, but it's nonetheless a well-written book. It's shocking to recognize names within the national security blob that were complicit on 2014 federal mismanagement now deeply integrated into the Biden administration's national security strategy.
February 4, 2016
INCREDIBLY thorough, which was the point. I learned a bunch, but it wasn't the compelling narrative that had me turning the page quickly like I had hoped. Maybe my expectations were off...or maybe Obama's lawyerly approach is in itself, cumbersome and tedious, thus this book may have simply followed suit.
January 4, 2016
Didn't care much for this. Seemed like a lot of attention to legalistic detail and background info about how we find ourselves with an enormous state bureaucracy devoted to secrecy and security, fewer real civil liberties, ongoing and evidently endless and increasingly secret wars. Would have much preferred less "balance" and bit more outrage from the author.
June 10, 2016
Exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) survey of Obama's war on terror. I appreciated the level of detail Savage goes into regarding tensions under current law, although I wonder whether the book's size and level of detail may be offputting for some.
September 3, 2016
Drone strikes, surveillance, and the evolving role of the President.
November 5, 2016
I am giving this a higher rating than just a rating of my liking it would give it because it is a very informative book. There's just a lot there. It's not light reading.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews