What do you think?
Rate this book
The Spoils of War: Greed, Power, and the Conflicts That Made Our Greatest Presidents
Two eminent political scientists show that America's great conflicts, from the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror, were fought not for ideals, or even geopolitical strategy, but for the individual gain of the presidents who waged them. It's striking how many of the presidents Americans venerate-Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, to name a few-oversaw some of the republic's bloodiest years. Perhaps they were driven by the needs of the American people and the nation. Or maybe they were just looking out for themselves. This revealing and entertaining book puts some of America's greatest leaders under the microscope, showing how their calls for war, usually remembered as brave and noble, were in fact selfish and convenient. In each case, our presidents chose personal gain over national interest while loudly evoking justice and freedom. The result is an eye-opening retelling of American history, and a call for reforms that may make the future better. Bueno de Mesquita and Smith demonstrate in compelling fashion that wars, even bloody and noble ones, are not primarily motivated by democracy or freedom or the sanctity of human life. When our presidents risk the lives of brave young soldiers, they do it for themselves.
311 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 27, 2016
13 people are currently reading
362 people want to read
About the author
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
39 books275 followersBruce Bueno de Mesquita is a political scientist, professor at New York University, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He specializes in international relations, foreign policy, and nation building. He is also one of the authors of the selectorate theory.
He has founded a company, Mesquita & Roundell, that specializes in making political and foreign-policy forecasts using a computer model based on game theory and rational choice theory. He is also the director of New York University's Alexander Hamilton Center for Political Economy.
He was featured as the primary subject in the documentary on the History Channel in December 2008. The show, titled Next Nostradamus, details how the scientist is using computer algorithms to predict future world events.
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
He has founded a company, Mesquita & Roundell, that specializes in making political and foreign-policy forecasts using a computer model based on game theory and rational choice theory. He is also the director of New York University's Alexander Hamilton Center for Political Economy.
He was featured as the primary subject in the documentary on the History Channel in December 2008. The show, titled Next Nostradamus, details how the scientist is using computer algorithms to predict future world events.
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 1, 2018
BBDM is a complicated thinker and is not afraid to take on difficult subjects. I don't agree with all his analysis and he simplifies everywhere. But he makes a good case that presidential power is often put to the purpose of achieving personal goals that have little to do with helping the average citizen. The analysis is simplistic but remarkable in how well it matches to actions taken by some of our greatest leaders. He challenged some deeply held assumptions about our country and its given me lots to think about.
March 28, 2021
controversial book reviews
The Declaration of Independence was basically a load of crap
I did not get past the first part of the book, which asserted that George Washington was scoundrel and a crook, that his greed for western land caused the American Revolution, and that the Declaration of Independence was basically a load of crap. John Adams and Tom Paine would have found these assertions surprising. They thought some other causes than Washington’s alleged greed were involved in the demand for liberty and independence. The authors’ revisionist theory also fails to account for Lexington and Concord or Bunker Hill, George III’s haughty rejection of the “olive branch petition,” or many, many other factors and events.
The authors accuse Washington of cheating his soldiers with respect to a 1754 land grant, that was finally realized in 1772 as a result of Washington’s strenuous efforts to include all of the soldiers in the grants, merely favoring those willing to pay the survey costs. Contrary to the authors’ assertions, Washington was extremely scrupulous in allocating the land, getting the Virginia Council to approve it twice, and a committee of officers to approve it twice. Then Washington formally offered to reallocate the land if anyone complained of unfairness. This offer remained open for a year and a half. But for Washington’s efforts, no one would have received anything.
Although the authors cite George III’s Declaration of 1763, forbidding settlement west of the Allegheny Mountains, as a casus belli, that Declaration was largely superseded by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 with the Iroquois and the Treaty of Lochaber in 1770 with the Cherokees.
Men were willing to die for Washington, and he was entrusted with the fate of the nation, twice receiving the unanimous vote of the Electoral College. The persons who actually knew Washington thought he was a great man. I would favor the opinion of Washington’s contemporaries over that of a couple of wise guys from NYU whom I would not trust with my lunch money.
Ambrose Richardson
---
The Declaration of Independence was basically a load of crap
I did not get past the first part of the book, which asserted that George Washington was scoundrel and a crook, that his greed for western land caused the American Revolution, and that the Declaration of Independence was basically a load of crap. John Adams and Tom Paine would have found these assertions surprising. They thought some other causes than Washington’s alleged greed were involved in the demand for liberty and independence. The authors’ revisionist theory also fails to account for Lexington and Concord or Bunker Hill, George III’s haughty rejection of the “olive branch petition,” or many, many other factors and events.
The authors accuse Washington of cheating his soldiers with respect to a 1754 land grant, that was finally realized in 1772 as a result of Washington’s strenuous efforts to include all of the soldiers in the grants, merely favoring those willing to pay the survey costs. Contrary to the authors’ assertions, Washington was extremely scrupulous in allocating the land, getting the Virginia Council to approve it twice, and a committee of officers to approve it twice. Then Washington formally offered to reallocate the land if anyone complained of unfairness. This offer remained open for a year and a half. But for Washington’s efforts, no one would have received anything.
Although the authors cite George III’s Declaration of 1763, forbidding settlement west of the Allegheny Mountains, as a casus belli, that Declaration was largely superseded by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 with the Iroquois and the Treaty of Lochaber in 1770 with the Cherokees.
Men were willing to die for Washington, and he was entrusted with the fate of the nation, twice receiving the unanimous vote of the Electoral College. The persons who actually knew Washington thought he was a great man. I would favor the opinion of Washington’s contemporaries over that of a couple of wise guys from NYU whom I would not trust with my lunch money.
Ambrose Richardson
---
March 14, 2017
George Washington reconsidered as a sleazy real estate speculator. Who can't love that? Or, how to reevaluate all the iconic presidents of American history as warm-up acts for the current imperial kleptocracy aborning.
December 8, 2016
This was a decent read with some interesting parts.
March 7, 2019
Excellent relook at how our presidents make the consequential decision to go to war. Very important reading.
October 3, 2020
De eerste paar hoofdstukken vond ik goed geschreven en de argumentatie was sterk en een stuk genuanceerder dan latere hoofdstukken. De laatste hoofdstukken kwam ik simpelweg niet door. De auteur verwijt veel andere schrijvers van the wisdom of hindsight. Maar verwijt vervolgens Roosevelt dat hij niet sneller reageerde op evil Duitsland. Dat zou eigen belang zijn geweest. De tegenargumenten dat het leger van de VS in slechte staat was en dat het veel Amerikaanse levens plus geld zou kosten wordt onvoldoende verkent. Achteraf is het makkelijk een gewonnen oorlog eerder beginnen. Net zo makkelijk als achteraf niet Irak binnen vallen op basis van slechte argumenten. Maar deed Bush dit echt alleen maar om herkozen te worden? Ik vind dat moeilijk te geloven en een simplistische stelling die niet wordt genuanceerd.
Drie sterren omdat de eerste twee hoofdstukken heel plezierig waren om te lezen. Geen vijf omdat ik de laatste hoofdstukken niet door kon komen.
Drie sterren omdat de eerste twee hoofdstukken heel plezierig waren om te lezen. Geen vijf omdat ik de laatste hoofdstukken niet door kon komen.
August 8, 2022
After having read The Dictator's Handbook (TDH) and a description of this book, I had high expectations. As in TDH, the authors accurately show how personal rather than national interests drive leaders' decisions, including US presidents' decisions on wars. This message is, however, brought in a rather lengthy & repetitive manner (1/2 the pages would have sufficed to convey the information). Further, it is clearly written for an American audience, so the authors have to walk on eggshells when discussing practically deified presidents as Lincoln & Washington. This prevents the cold, factual & sarcastic descriptions that made me thoroughly enjoy TDH.
I find is a good book with an eye-opening message. Because of the narrow topic (American presidents & war) and the restrictions that brings, I did not enjoy it nearly as much as TDH.
I find is a good book with an eye-opening message. Because of the narrow topic (American presidents & war) and the restrictions that brings, I did not enjoy it nearly as much as TDH.
September 30, 2021
I think it is my aversion to modern history that makes this book so difficult for me to read. I wish that the authors would have spent more time on our founding fathers, because the best chapter BY FAR was on Washington. I also think they were too soon to write this with Obama…there was so much more they could have dissected (hello, economic crash of 2008).
November 18, 2021
Good book to remind yourself to never really idolize a historical or political figure
April 7, 2025
It was fine. Kind of interesting but so many hypothetical scenarios that had a lot of bias in them, I felt
July 27, 2017
Whenever the Catholic Church considers sainthood for someone, they first appoint a Devil's Advocate to see whether they can successfully tear down the canonization. In this highly flawed book, the authors try their best to do the same thing to US Presidents. Their "cynicism-explains-everything" approach to political science may have made sense for understanding how authoritarian regimes operate, but is a completely naive and myopic way to explain policy choices in a democracy. To me their criticisms could only come off as plausible to someone who has never read a biography about the President or an American history book explaining the period in which they lived. The FDR chapter was particularly laughable after having just finished a biography about him the day before.
For those still interested in reading about Presidential leadership or the hows and whys of Presidential rankings by professional historians (which these authors certainly are not), I'd recommend The Strategic President and Where They Stand instead.
For those still interested in reading about Presidential leadership or the hows and whys of Presidential rankings by professional historians (which these authors certainly are not), I'd recommend The Strategic President and Where They Stand instead.
Read
December 4, 2017355.00973 B9286 2016
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews