What do you think?
Rate this book
America's Needless Wars: Cautionary Tales of US Involvement in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Iraq
This eye-opening book takes a unique approach to the history of U.S. foreign policy by examining three unrelated conflicts, all of which ended tragically and resulted in the deaths of millions on both sides. By analyzing what went wrong in each case, the author uncovers a pattern of errors that should serve as a precaution for future decision makers contemplating a conflict abroad.
Why did President McKinley oppose Filipino independence forces if his motivation was truly to help Filipinos overthrow Spanish domination? Why did several U.S. presidents ignore the failures of the French in Vietnam and reject peace overtures from popular revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh to bring the conflict to an early end? And how could American leaders have been so wrong about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and then let Iraq devolve into chaos after overthrowing the dictator?
Historian David R. Contosta has sifted through official hearings, media investigations, public documents, memoirs of those for and against the conflicts, and numerous histories to uncover the answers to these questions. The common thread that links these wars from different centuries is that political leaders all too often have acted out of ignorance, arrogance, fear, and partisan gamesmanship. These lapses were compounded by the failure of the media to inform the public accurately and dispassionately. The sad result is that America has paid a high price in lost lives and tarnished national reputation.
As the author notes in conclusion, if American exceptionalism is to have any meaning, then we must honestly appraise our past foreign-policy blunders to ensure wiser political action in the future.
From the Hardcover edition.
Why did President McKinley oppose Filipino independence forces if his motivation was truly to help Filipinos overthrow Spanish domination? Why did several U.S. presidents ignore the failures of the French in Vietnam and reject peace overtures from popular revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh to bring the conflict to an early end? And how could American leaders have been so wrong about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and then let Iraq devolve into chaos after overthrowing the dictator?
Historian David R. Contosta has sifted through official hearings, media investigations, public documents, memoirs of those for and against the conflicts, and numerous histories to uncover the answers to these questions. The common thread that links these wars from different centuries is that political leaders all too often have acted out of ignorance, arrogance, fear, and partisan gamesmanship. These lapses were compounded by the failure of the media to inform the public accurately and dispassionately. The sad result is that America has paid a high price in lost lives and tarnished national reputation.
As the author notes in conclusion, if American exceptionalism is to have any meaning, then we must honestly appraise our past foreign-policy blunders to ensure wiser political action in the future.
From the Hardcover edition.
241 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 21, 2017
5 people are currently reading
26 people want to read
About the author
David R. Contosta
25 books4 followersDavid R. Contosta is professor of history at Chestnut Hill College. He earned his Ph.D. in history at Miami University of Ohio in 1973.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
October 7, 2020
Nathan McTague
Mr. Herman
Issues in Nonfiction
10/9/20
Honors Option GoodReads Book Review
I had great difficulty enjoying this book, however, I also have great difficulty giving it a bad review. I bought this book four years ago, a time when this book's views would have aligned almost perfectly with my own. I never got around to reading it until now, after I have experienced a massive political shift, in which I oppose nearly everything this book states. While this book does provide a great level of insight into past conflicts that the United States had been involved in, it is extremely one sided and presents the author’s (David R. Contosta’s) opinions as indisputable facts. However, much of everything he says, comes from a place of at least some level actual research, and has a great feeling of legitimacy.
While the author does present an incredibly one sided view that could easily be considered slander against many of our nation's leaders, many of his points are logical and are backed with evidence. While I do not agree with all of what the author says, it is difficult to argue with the authors twenty or so pages of well cited and documented evidence.
While it is clear that all of the author's points are deeply based in fact, much of the evidence used is often manipulated to prove the author's point. There are many occasions in which the author will present a quote, then out of quotation, add something to the sentence that was not said by the person or document quoted, and then finish the quote, so that it appears as though the person or thing quoted said something they did not. An example of this would be if I quoted the book by saying, “David R. Constonta,” is a rabid communist bent on ending democracy and is a founding member of, “...ISIS.” While both David R. Constonta, and ISIS, was said in the story, in the order the quotes are given, the author provides only the bare minimum amount of distinction between what the source said, and what his own opinions are. While this is not only the case, many of the quotes in this book are presented in such a way.
What this book lacks in untainted information, it makes up for in respect and honesty. During no point in reading this book did I ever get the feeling that the author lacked any measure of respect for those who served in the conflicts he is criticizing. Nor did I get the feeling that the author does not understand the difficulty of the decisions made by world leaders at the time, and the amount of intense thought put into the decisions of going into and remaining in, war. I also do not believe that the author has any intention of misleading the reader, simply that the book fails to distinguish between fact and opinion.
I disagree with much of what this book said and did not enjoy reading it. However, it is nonetheless a decent book and is worth a read. I’m giving this book three stars.
Mr. Herman
Issues in Nonfiction
10/9/20
Honors Option GoodReads Book Review
I had great difficulty enjoying this book, however, I also have great difficulty giving it a bad review. I bought this book four years ago, a time when this book's views would have aligned almost perfectly with my own. I never got around to reading it until now, after I have experienced a massive political shift, in which I oppose nearly everything this book states. While this book does provide a great level of insight into past conflicts that the United States had been involved in, it is extremely one sided and presents the author’s (David R. Contosta’s) opinions as indisputable facts. However, much of everything he says, comes from a place of at least some level actual research, and has a great feeling of legitimacy.
While the author does present an incredibly one sided view that could easily be considered slander against many of our nation's leaders, many of his points are logical and are backed with evidence. While I do not agree with all of what the author says, it is difficult to argue with the authors twenty or so pages of well cited and documented evidence.
While it is clear that all of the author's points are deeply based in fact, much of the evidence used is often manipulated to prove the author's point. There are many occasions in which the author will present a quote, then out of quotation, add something to the sentence that was not said by the person or document quoted, and then finish the quote, so that it appears as though the person or thing quoted said something they did not. An example of this would be if I quoted the book by saying, “David R. Constonta,” is a rabid communist bent on ending democracy and is a founding member of, “...ISIS.” While both David R. Constonta, and ISIS, was said in the story, in the order the quotes are given, the author provides only the bare minimum amount of distinction between what the source said, and what his own opinions are. While this is not only the case, many of the quotes in this book are presented in such a way.
What this book lacks in untainted information, it makes up for in respect and honesty. During no point in reading this book did I ever get the feeling that the author lacked any measure of respect for those who served in the conflicts he is criticizing. Nor did I get the feeling that the author does not understand the difficulty of the decisions made by world leaders at the time, and the amount of intense thought put into the decisions of going into and remaining in, war. I also do not believe that the author has any intention of misleading the reader, simply that the book fails to distinguish between fact and opinion.
I disagree with much of what this book said and did not enjoy reading it. However, it is nonetheless a decent book and is worth a read. I’m giving this book three stars.
February 10, 2018
The book is a great read for those who take history out of context and ignore the beliefs of the people who were there in favor of a revisionist view based on current social norms. Hindsight is used to in an attempt to show that the events leading to the wars were inherently flawed. The incidents of torture and massacre were terrible. The civilian losses were terrible. Without a doubt the My Lai massacre was a blot on the military record of the United States. However, this savagery is the nature of guerilla warfare and what makes it successful for the guerilla. The chapter on the Philippine Insurrection showed a particular lack of depth and understanding of the geopolitics of the time. The "unnecessary" posit is flawed because it is based on the idea that things would not have gone more badly than they did had no war been fought.
I cannot recommend this book for anyone.
I cannot recommend this book for anyone.
August 19, 2017
A very interesting book
It's an interesting look at War and how some wars (or needless) could have been prevented. Sometimes it's just one stone thrown, and it creates a large ripple effect. This book is a good read for those who have an interest in history especially military or war history. It gives a new perspective on war and was something that touches on controversial opinions based on facts of history.
It's an interesting look at War and how some wars (or needless) could have been prevented. Sometimes it's just one stone thrown, and it creates a large ripple effect. This book is a good read for those who have an interest in history especially military or war history. It gives a new perspective on war and was something that touches on controversial opinions based on facts of history.
November 18, 2017
I really enjoyed this book.
October 17, 2021
A very good summary of U.S. mistakes that led to disappointing results. However, the book was too one-sided and lacked balance. It is typical of Monday quarterbacking.
April 28, 2018
Superficial and faulty analysis
The author attempts to find a common thread in America's seizure of the Philippines, Viet Nam, and Iraq. In the process, he distorts the nature of all three conflicts and offers analyses riddled with dubious assumptions and omissions. For example, he offers -- unexamined -- the doubtful proposition that left unoccupied, the Filipinos would have formed a cohesive and democratic state. He gives short shrift to our perfectly legitimate fears of Communist expansion in Viet Nam, and -- incredibly -- he describes our decision to invade Iraq without once mentioning the role of the Neo-Cons and the Israel lobby.
The author attempts to find a common thread in America's seizure of the Philippines, Viet Nam, and Iraq. In the process, he distorts the nature of all three conflicts and offers analyses riddled with dubious assumptions and omissions. For example, he offers -- unexamined -- the doubtful proposition that left unoccupied, the Filipinos would have formed a cohesive and democratic state. He gives short shrift to our perfectly legitimate fears of Communist expansion in Viet Nam, and -- incredibly -- he describes our decision to invade Iraq without once mentioning the role of the Neo-Cons and the Israel lobby.
June 27, 2017
I founded this very compelling. A staggering insight into the ignorance and arrogance of American foreign policy.
July 14, 2017
Excellent!! Articulates the details well to make a solid case regarding US involvement in these wars. Interesting valuable reading for history scholars as well as those of us with more superficial knowledge of these events. Timely regarding current US foreign policy.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews