The Real War

by Richard M. Nixon

Book by Nixon, Richard

Genres: History, Politics, Presidents, Nonfiction

Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1980

About the author

Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States from 1969 to 1974. During the Second World War, he served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific, before being elected to the Congress, and then serving as the 36th Vice President of the United States in the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961. After an unsuccessful presidential run in 1960, Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected to a second term in 1972. Under President Nixon, the United States followed a foreign policy marked by détente with the Soviet Union and by the opening of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Nixon successfully negotiated a ceasefire with North Vietnam, effectively ending the longest war in American history. Domestically, his administration faced resistance to the Vietnam War. In the face of likely impeachment by the United States House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have committed while in office. Nixon is the only person to be elected twice to the office of the presidency and the vice presidency, and is the only president to have resigned the office.

Nixon suffered a stroke on April 18, 1994 and died four days later at the age of 81. ' to 'Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States from 1969 to 1974. During the Second World War, he served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific, before being elected to the Congress, and then serving as the 36th Vice President of the United States in the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961.

After an unsuccessful presidential run in 1960, Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected to a second term in 1972. Under President Nixon, the United States followed a foreign policy marked by détente with the Soviet Union and by the opening of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Nixon successfully negotiated a ceasefire with North Vietnam, effectively ending the longest war in American history.

Domestically, his administration faced resistance to the Vietnam War. In the face of likely impeachment by the United States House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have committed while in office. Nixon is the only person to be elected twice to the office of the presidency and the vice presidency, and is the only president to have resigned the office. Nixon suffered a stroke on April 18, 1994 and died four days later at the age of 81.

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 4 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، در این کتاب «ریچارد نیکسون» سی و هفتمین رئیس جمهورِ ایالتِ متحدۀ آمریکا، سخنانِ تأمل برانگیزی را بیان نموده است که در زیر به برخی از آنها اشاره میکنم تا شما دوستانِ اهلِ کتاب، کمی در این نوشته ها اندیشه کنید
---------------------------------------------
‎یکی از امتیازاتِ ویژهٔ روشنفکران این است که میتوانند خرد را در حدی باورنکردنی، غیرِ منطقی نشان دهند، بی آنکه از این بابت لطمه ای به خوبرویی و چهرهٔ روشنفکرانۀ آنها وارد آید... اینان به خود حق میدهند دربارۀ همۀ مسائلِ ممکن اظهار نظر کنند و در تمامِ این موارد کسانی هستند که با فروتنیِ بسیار به این اظهار نظرها گوش کنند و از عمق وسعتشان به شگفت آمده و متعجب گردند
********************************
‎این روشنفکرها همیشه عقیدۀ حاضر و آماده ای برای هر خبرنگار یا گزارشگری که میکروفن را به سمتِ آنها بگیرد، در آستین دارند. و این اظهارِ نظرها با سر و صدا برایِ خوانندگان و شنوندگان بازگو میشود.. نه برایِ آنکه گویایِ حقیقتِ مسلمی باشد، بلکه از این جهت که آدمِ روشنفکری آنها را گفته است... معمولاً اندیشه ها و استدلال هایِ این به اصطلاح روشنفکران در برخورد با واقعیت ها، حالتِ پوسته و لایهٔ عایقی را دارد که چیزی به پشتِ آن راه نمی یابد... بسیاری هستند که این را ناشی از توطئه میدانند، ولی مسئلۀ واقعی توطئه نیست، بلکه مسئله خودنمایی میباشد. و اتفاقاً اگر توطئه بود، حل نمودنِ آن آسانتر میشد... در اینجا پایِ هنرپیشگانی در کار است که کاری به ماهیتِ آنچه میگویند ندارند، فقط اصرار به جلبِ توجه دارند و آنچه واقعاً میخواهند این است که در صفِ مقدمِ آنهایی باشند که "کف زدن ها" و "براوو ها" را میشنوند. اگر اینها غالباً خودشان را <لیبرال> مینامند، برای این است که باد بیشتر در بادبان <لیبرالیسم> میوزد
********************************
‎در فاجعۀ ایران، نحوۀ رفتارِ بسیاری از رهبرانِ کشورهایِ دوست و متحدِ شاه ایران (محمدرضا شاه پهلوی) در مورد او به همان اندازه پست و ناجوانمردانه بود که روشِ شاهِ ایران در موردِ آنها در هنگامِ قدرتش مردانه و بزرگ منشانه بود
********************************
‎آنچه خنده دار و ابلهانه بود، این است که بسیاری از این روشنفکرها که با بورس هایِ تحصیلیِ حکومتِ شاه ایران، در خارج از ایران درس خوانده بودند و بسیاری از زنانی که بدستِ پادشاهِ ایران از چادر و چاقچورِ مادربزرگ هایِ خودشان بیرون آمده (نجات یافته) بودند، با این نوع جبهه بندی ها، با آخوندها و بازاریان همکار شدند و ناخودآگاه بصورتِ ابزارِ موفقیت برایِ ملّاهایِ قدرت طلب درآمدند... بسیاری از این موجوداتِ نادان و آلتِ دستِ آخوند، ساده لوحانه گمان میکردند که با پیوستن به انقلابِ ملّاها و آخوندها، آزادی هایِ بیشتری برایِ خویش و برایِ اجتماعِ ایران بدست خواهند آورد، ولی وقتیکه چشم گشودند، دریافتند که فقط دیگ بخارِ قطارِ آخوندها را در راهِ بازگرداندنِ سرزمینشان به "قرون وسطی" به جوش آورده اند
********************************
‎در طولِ سالهای پیاپی، برایِ من فرصت هایِ متعددی پیش آمد که با شاهِ ایران گفتگو کنم.. و باید صادقانه بگویم که در هریک از این تبادلِ نظرها، وی را از نظرِ درک و تحلیلِ تحولاتِ امورِ بین المللی و جهت گیری هایِ آن، از برجسته ترین زمامدارانی یافتم که در همۀ زندگانیِ سیاسیِ خویش، با آنها دیدار کرده بودم
********************************
‎با توجه بدانچه به دستِ ما برایِ پادشاهِ ایران روی داد، رهبرانِ کشورهایِ دیگری که دوستی با آنها از نظرِ مصالحِ کشورِ ما اهمیت بسیار دارد، امروز به حق از خود میپرسند که آیا در صورتیکه آنها نیز در وضعِ مشابهی قرار گیرند، یعنی موردِ حملهٔ انقلابی واقع شوند که «از خارج پشتیبانی میشود»، سرنوشتِ مشابهی از جانب ما در انتظارشان نخواهد بود؟
********************************
‎ما آمریکایی ها، واقعیت هایی را که با خیالبافیهایِ ساده لوحانۀ خویش در موردِ آزادی و عدالت تطبیق نمیکند، خیلی زود به صندوق "ناخودآگاهی" ملی میسپاریم و فراموششان میکنیم. کشتارِ بیرحمانهٔ سرخ پوستان و استثمارِ ظالمانۀ سیاهان که به نامِ مصالحِ ملی صورت گرفت و نه با توافقِ خودشان، نمونه هایی از این واقعیت ها میباشد.. آنهم مسئولیت هایی که ما در این مورد بر عهده داریم، معیارهایِ اصولیِ جامعه ای را که باید برایِ تمامِ جهانیان پیام آورِ رستگاری باشد، به خطر می افکند
‎هرکس با کمترین آگاهی از تاریخِ معاصر، به خوبی میتواند از پیامدهایِ غیرقابلِ پیش بینی و از قدرتِ تخریبیِ فراوانی که یک انتقالِ سریع و ظاهراً مترقیانه برایِ هر جامعه ای به همراه می آورد، با خبر گردد
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برای شما دوستانِ خردگرا و اهلِ اندیشه، مفید بوده باشه
‎«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Heather Denigan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, insightful, passionate, and fascinating. As a friend said to me (who has read The Real War and served in Vietnam), "Nixon was a much better at writer than president." Perhaps Nixon's grasp of history, appreciation of cultural subtleties, and loyalty to freedom would have been better employed as an ambassador or secretary of state. I gained a greater appreciation for Russian and Chinese history. The section on Summitry is particularly good. And Nixon fills the manuscript with really great relevant, very targeted quotes that fit into his argumentation--he never just throws things in just because they're related.
Also, all those taped History Channel features on American military aircraft and technology that my brother watched--the bits and pieces I overheard while baking in the next room all proved very handy. I kind of wish I had sat down and watched them with him. It would have paid off even more.

[René · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mr. Nixon, better known for the Watergate scandal, writing this book following his downfall from the Presidency, tries to make the case that the US (everything anyone could dream of) is at war with the Soviet Union (everything that the devil could dream of). Among his positions : the US must support any human right abuser regime if that regime does not like the Soviets; any funds spent on social programs in the US must be re-allocated to defense; and he tries to argue for a new "Nixon Doctrine"... Scary, but such extreme right-wing book is likely one of the few other Presidents such as Reagan and Trump must have read...

[Coleman Cain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved this book! A realistic view of the US and our place in the world! Of course, it's a bit outdated (The Soviet Union is no longer our greatest rival), but chapters on National Will and our relationship with China are spot on!

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this was originally published in 1980, much of it is quite relevant to our current geopolitical situation. Nixon made many prescient points in this book that we ignore at our own peril. Unfortunately, he was tainted by the ridiculousness of Watergate and not fully heeded as the wise elder statesman he eventually became after his time in office. Nixon was a very underrated writer. His insights and conciseness are refreshing in our modern world full of loud uninformed “influencers” and vapid celebrity sound bites. Heaven help us!

[Ron Housley]

The Real War
by Richard Nixon
© 1980

A short Book Report by Ron Housley (Oct 3, 2016)

If only today’s political leaders had half the intellect and
insight as Richard Nixon, we’d be entering a new Renaissance
rather than teetering on the brink of an irrevocable plunge into
statism.

I used to lament that I had to launch my own voting career
with two successive votes for Nixon. Just after my second
vote, the entire narrative became that Nixon was a crook and
that he was a traitor for selling out to communist “Red” China.

In 1972, my limited perspective demanded a condemnation of
Nixon’s outreach to China — as utter appeasement of a brutal
dictatorship which I felt should be our sworn enemy. I was
outraged. But now with today’s grasp of Nixon’s context, I
was perhaps mistaken.

Nixon was a visionary on the global scale. So dangerous to US
security had the Soviet threat become by 1972 that “opening
up China” was America’s best chance to thwart the ever-
expanding Soviet menace. Who knew?!

Nixon’s thesis is that we are currently fighting World War III;
his book is from 1980.

Only from the vantage point of 32 years later can we marvel at
his insight and depth of his understanding.

Nixon foretold of today’s terrorist movement which would
comprise much of WW-III.

He foretold of how China would rise up — and,
coincidentally, serve as an important force in containing
Russia.

He foretold of how only technological prowess could defeat
Communism; he knew that only economic (not military or
political) power could beat Communism. He, of course, didn’t
know we’d have to wait for Reagan for that to materialize.
But he thoroughly foresaw the fall of Communism, if not the
literal tearing down of the Berlin Wall. His outlook was that
“the Soviet Union is vulnerable to the innate resistance of man
to tyranny.” And in the end, the wall fell because the Soviet
leadership couldn’t maintain its tyranny in the face of
worldwide moral outrage.

What he did not see was how altruism would allow
Communism to rise back up after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
But Nixon did see that World War III is, importantly, an
intellectual war, not just a hot war.

****************

From the moment I began with page one, the profound soul of
this under-credited politician breathlessly revealed itself on
ever-deeper levels.

He offered insights in a wide range of areas, insights which
were brand new to me after six decades on this planet.

There are chapters on Vietnam; on the Middle East; on China;
on Japan; on the Soviet Union; on strategic thinking about
military power. And everywhere there is new insight.
Middle East

Importantly, Nixon pointed out how Iran nationalized (read:
stole) Western oil interests in 1951 (Iran nationalized the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company); Iran’s economy tanked; Russia
came close to taking over the entire country; the CIA in 1953
engineered the Shah back into power as our only alternative to
stopping the “Red” menace from advancing.

But what Nixon does not point out is that America let them
get away with the theft: America embraced the policy of
appeasement — emboldening the Islamist movement which
years later would rise up against the “Great Satan.” America
was so relieved that Russia’s advance had been temporarily
blocked, that nobody seemed to notice that we allowed Iran to
steal (and get away with it) crucial Western oil properties(!).

Nixon has some prescient observations about the political
dynamics of those Middle Eastern countries; but he does not
one time mention this critical American mistake. But even
with this shortcoming, just the chapters on the Middle East
alone are worth the price of admission.


Vietnam
I had not realized that everything changed when, after the Bay
of Pigs, General Maxwell Taylor wrote a report
recommending that America’s Vietnam efforts be taken away
from the CIA (which had a sophisticated and on-the-spot feel
for local conditions) and given to the military (which had no
such perspective).

America gave up its critical finger on the pulse in order to
conduct large scale bombings, which, it turned out, were
mostly ineffective. Who knew!?

It turns out that the Buddhist temples were headquarters for
the Viet Kong — just like Islamic mosques today are
headquarters for planning acts of terrorism against the West.
And I did not realize that South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh
Diem was a Roman Catholic who was being painted as a
repressor of the Buddhists. When Buddhist monks burned
themselves up, it was easy to spin it as caused by Diem’s
repressive rule.

So when Diem was assassinated in 1963 and when Kennedy
was too timid to offer support, the perceived American
appeasement emboldened the Communist north to step up
their aggression.


China
As with the other hot spots, there are some interesting points
about China, as well. Nixon makes a big point about China
having enormous natural resources as some kind of gigantic
plus. But then he misses the central point about Hong Kong
and Taiwan: they have little to NO natural resources but
became productive giants. He does not explain clearly how
that came to be.

Nixon does tell us that the mainland’s failings have been
mainly “political,” but then he does not clearly point out that
“political” here means that the difference lies in the protection
of individual rights in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and no
protection of individual rights on the mainland.

The actual reason why Hong Kong and Taiwan did so much
better than the “mainland” remains obscured by Nixon
because he was imprecise in telling us what “political”
actually consisted of in this case.


Soviet Union
The world might be designated as a struggle to protect
individual rights vs. the relentless attempt to squash individual
rights — and to say that the world stage is merely
“ideological” seems to assign moral equivalency between the
two sides here.

Today’s MainStream Media uses the term “ideological” to
smear any politician who has reasons for his positions.
“Ideological” is taken to imply closed minded, racist,
simplistic and small. The MSM is always calling for someone
who isn’t “ideological.”

Nixon grasped all of this in his discussion of the Soviets, as if
he had a crystal ball to see how the issue of “ideological”
would be handled 3 decades later by the media.


Japan
“The reason for Japan’s stunning economic success is that it
never hobbled itself with communist dogma or a socialist
system.” (p. 144)

Nixon can say all that, but he can’t seem to bring himself to
clearly make the point that it is the communist dogma itself
that denies individual rights, and that without protecting
individual rights there can be no prosperity.


Strategic thinking about military power
“What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the
enemy’s strategy…..next best is disrupt his alliances…..the
next best is to attack his army.” (p. 162)

How many American presidents would assess the facts from
such a perspective?

Here was another area where I became more enlightened. I
had not realized that Jimmy Carter unilaterally cancelled the
B-1 bomber program, which then threw the already-tense
missile negotiations completely to the Soviet favor. After
Carter committed that treasonous act, his administration gave
in to the Soviet position on every important point for the years
ahead. Did you know that?

The balance of power had shifted significantly to the Soviet
favor and that was the disaster that Reagan inherited, not the
inflation, oil embargos and high unemployment.

I had pretty much forgotten all about the neutron bomb fiasco,
the SS20 and Backfire bomber that American had no defense
against. I did not know that the SS18 Soviet missile was 16 to
40 times as powerful as the meager Minuteman III missiles
that the Americans had opposing them at the time(!).

At the time, all the machinations about military tactics and
military strategy were unknown to me. In an era marked by
the goal of Soviet containment by the West, Nixon’s
orientation was to craft a policy that would lead to Victory for
the West. Very few understood what energized him. His
orientation is entirely lost on today’s generation of so-called
“leaders.”

Nixon stands as one of the few politicians who deeply
understood John David Lewis’s dictum: in order to win any
war, you must take the war to the homeland of the aggressor;
and the corollary: a negotiated peace always leads to further
aggression down the road — always.


Today: 32 years later
“A major strategic goal of the Soviets in World War III is to
weaken and destroy our economy.” (p. 215)

Imagine what Nixon would have said if he had seen
D’Souza’s movie (“2016: Obama’s America”), where it is
pointed out that the current American President has figured
out how to use Debt as his own personal secret weapon to
hobble the American economy, to cut America down to size. It
turns out that America had to destroy its own economy, as the
Soviets were never quite able to pull that one off on their own.

But for all of his insights and understanding, there were still
important points that Nixon was unable to bring into focus.
And for all of his cleverness, neither Nixon nor any of the
Republicans has ever figured out how to frame any national
argument without allowing the statists to appear in possession
of the moral high ground. And so it remains today.


The Real War
“There are only two powers in the world, the sword and the
spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by
the spirit.” (p. 310)

So, Nixon ends his warning to future generations telling us
that victory without war requires us to engage our enemy on
the battlefield of ideas. This, he tells us, is the way to win
World War III.

He is prescient enough to grasp that on the “dawn of the
twenty-first century,” we can expect “a new age of barbarism
on a global scale.” (p.309) He didn’t specifically know about
the World Trade Center nor about the Iranian atomic arsenal,
but he knew that, in pattern, anti-Western mayhem was
coming.

He would have been sad had he been able to see the
deplorable intellectual fight that the West would wage against
Middle Eastern mysticism. (After all, one can’t successfully
fight Islamic mysticism with Christian mysticism.)
But nevertheless, the West still has a chance to preserve its
sacred liberty if only it can make the moral case for liberty
and capitalism.

In the three decades since Nixon’s book, Westerners have
continued to cede the moral high ground to the statists. The
West still comes up short as a conquering spirit.

[Hotspur · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent insight on foreign policy in the first third. Explanation, justification and defensiveness of what would be American foreign policy from the late 1950's to the fall of the Berlin Wall in second third. A summing up, with justification and defensiveness in the last third. Interesting how his foreign policy was essentially adopted by Reagan. This is perhaps the best overview I know of American foreign policy in this time span. While I might not agree, he laid it out so clearly--which is odd, as this is Nixon--I felt I understood the motivations for American choices in this time span.

Its obvious from the undertones of this book, he did not believe Watergate was wrong.

Such breadth of intelligence. He has such a strong non-American like understanding of other people's and cultures.

[Sneed · Rating 5 out of 5]

More than 40 years after it's publication, this book is more relevant now than ever. Nixon's realist views on foreign policy and american society may seem outdated to many, but in reality they've withstood the test of time remarkably well. Predicting many aspects of our current international order, from China to Russia, to Iran and the Middle East, Nixon paints a picture of the tensions of the cold war, pointing each challenge the US faces in each corner of the world, but if you remove the dates, you could almost swear he was writing about our decade.
Nixon believed World War III was already being fought, not militarily, but morally and intellectually, warning of a demoralized and divided United States incapable of winning this decisive battle for the West. Well, we wasn't wrong then and isn't wrong now.

[Phil · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not, strictly speaking, a history book,it is a fragment of history. Its not some well-researched reportage on the state of the Cold War as we tipped towards defeat in the presidency of Jimmy The Jerk. It is an account, by someone who had recently been a player, of the declining strategic situation in the late 70's. This book will be read as a source book for historians. Nixon's unique experience and strategic vision make his opinions and value judgements more important than the well-reasoned research of the scholars. This book still reads well and a student of recent history would be well served to give it a look. Its one of those VERY FEW books written by ex-presidents that will be read a century from now.

[Sydney Martinie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really well written, I knew little about his presidency or his geopolitical views before. I skimmed the next to last chapters as it was his prescription for US diplomacy in the years to come (and we’re 40 years hence) but otherwise good read from a brilliant mind.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Someone on here wrote that Nixon is a better writer than he was president. I'll have to take your word on that I know know what limited stuff I know about that but the book is exceptionally written.

Ironic that 40 years on we're still talking about the Gulf, Oil, Russia and China.

[Khalid Umar]

Nixon possessed a deep understanding of history. His book "Real War" makes a fascinating reading. Set in Cold War, it unfolds ways for American policy makers to match the Soviets using imagination.

[E Mac · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting as to his views after resigning and a look at today's affairs.

[MatiBracchitta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aunque al principio no me parecía que la lectura de "La verdadera guerra" fuera una experiencia agradable, verdaderamente logró sorprenderme para bien. Sobre todo al ver que hay ciertos elementos que, aún pasados 40 años, continúan vigentes como por ejemplo las disputas de poder con China y Rusia, o los intereses de EEUU en oriente medio y su política para con los países árabes e Israel.

Obviamente, para leer este libro y no morir en el intento es necesario que el lector adhiera a los ideales de Nixon o que, en caso contrario, entienda la postura del autor y entienda que para una correcta lectura hay que dejar de lado la ideología en pos de una visión más abarcativa.

Si bien Nixon es una de las figuras más controversiales y uno de los presidentes más criticados, lo cierto es que se nota que se trata de un político pura sangre. Un personaje con experiencia en todas las lides políticas al punto tal de ser un verdadero animal de la geopolítica. Obviamente hay estadistas mucho mejores que él, pero creo que Nixon es muy representativo de cierto estadounidense de ese momento y su lectura en base a ese análisis resulta sumamente interesante y enriquecedora.

[Scott Malensek · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had no idea Nixon undermined peace talks to keep Vietnam going until he was elected. Then, once elected, was so hamstrung by the war that he almost went nuclear on the North Vietnamese several times.

Revealing book!

[Dimas Ardana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Portraying the US Foreign Policy during the Cold-War. Practicality in today's world? Maybe not, since the global order has been moving toward multipolarity, but it definitely provides an understanding from a different angle.

[Zvi · Rating 2 out of 5]

couldn't finish it.