Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq 
asked by nexus on November 26, 2006 1:15 PM
Informed by unparalleled access to still–secret documents, interviews with top field commanders, and a review of the military’s own internal after–action reports, Cobra II is the definitive chronicle of America’s invasion and occupation of Iraq—a conflict that could not be lost but one that the United States failed to win decisively. From the Pentagon to the White House to the American command centers in the field, the book reveals the inside story of how the war was actually planned and fought. Drawing on classified United States government intelligence, it also provides a unique account of how Saddam Hussein and his high command developed and prosecuted their war strategy.
Written by Michael R. Gordon, the chief military correspondent for The New York Times, who spent the war with the Allied land command, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general and former director of the National Security Program at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cobra II traces the interactions among the generals, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and President George W. Bush. It dramatically reconstructs the principal battles from interviews with those who fought them, providing reliable accounts of the clashes waged by conventional and Special Operations forces. It documents with precision the failures of American intelligence and the mistakes in administering postwar Iraq.
Unimpeachably sourced, Cobra II describes how the American rush to Baghdad provided the opportunity for the virulent insurgency that followed. The brutal aftermath in Iraq was not inevitable and was a surprise to the generals on both sides; Cobra II provides the first authoritative account as to why. It is a book of enduring importance and incisive analysis—a comprehensive account of the most reported yet least understood war in American history.
Written by Michael R. Gordon, the chief military correspondent for The New York Times, who spent the war with the Allied land command, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general and former director of the National Security Program at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cobra II traces the interactions among the generals, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and President George W. Bush. It dramatically reconstructs the principal battles from interviews with those who fought them, providing reliable accounts of the clashes waged by conventional and Special Operations forces. It documents with precision the failures of American intelligence and the mistakes in administering postwar Iraq.
Unimpeachably sourced, Cobra II describes how the American rush to Baghdad provided the opportunity for the virulent insurgency that followed. The brutal aftermath in Iraq was not inevitable and was a surprise to the generals on both sides; Cobra II provides the first authoritative account as to why. It is a book of enduring importance and incisive analysis—a comprehensive account of the most reported yet least understood war in American history.
Reviews
0%
0%
I came upon this book, looking for a basic historical view of the Iraq invasion.
Not the insurgency, not analysis, and definitely not American Patriotic hype. I got what I wanted, a straight forward blow by blow account of the invasion. The details on the war were good, and provided both high level strategy accounts, as well as specific information on what happened at every stage of the war.
While that's all great, I did find some deficiencies:
1. Like most journalist books, the book focused only on those events that the author was aware of, or gave any importance to. So the northern and western invasions of Iraq were given 10 pages each. Obviously, more information on those aspects of the war will require further reading.
2. The first 100 pages were on the political leadup to the war. I didn't find the information very thorough or useful. If I need the politics, then I'll delve into Bob Woodwards many books that deal only with the US political side of the invasion.
3. The lack of lists, charts, diagrams and appendixes was almost delibitating. There are references to over 1000 people in the book, and trying to keep track of everyone was impossible. I was forced to establish my own list of who was who, and where.
Conclusion: I find this a good book as a primer on the invasion. With this book, I imagine I'll need to read up on several more books on the invasion to get an even picture. Including one from the Iraqi perspective.
Not the insurgency, not analysis, and definitely not American Patriotic hype. I got what I wanted, a straight forward blow by blow account of the invasion. The details on the war were good, and provided both high level strategy accounts, as well as specific information on what happened at every stage of the war.
While that's all great, I did find some deficiencies:
1. Like most journalist books, the book focused only on those events that the author was aware of, or gave any importance to. So the northern and western invasions of Iraq were given 10 pages each. Obviously, more information on those aspects of the war will require further reading.
2. The first 100 pages were on the political leadup to the war. I didn't find the information very thorough or useful. If I need the politics, then I'll delve into Bob Woodwards many books that deal only with the US political side of the invasion.
3. The lack of lists, charts, diagrams and appendixes was almost delibitating. There are references to over 1000 people in the book, and trying to keep track of everyone was impossible. I was forced to establish my own list of who was who, and where.
Conclusion: I find this a good book as a primer on the invasion. With this book, I imagine I'll need to read up on several more books on the invasion to get an even picture. Including one from the Iraqi perspective.
reviewed by selena on November 27, 2006 7:45 PM
0%
0%
Gordon and Trainor have answered the single overarching question that has been tugging at me for the past three years: how, given the outstanding soldiering and superlative field leadership of our military in Iraq, could we still lose? How can this be? How can the world's finest army be inexorably headed for the same ignominious end as my own beloved, but ramshackle Army in Vietnam?
Because just like we had Robert McNamara and William Westmoreland during Vietnam, we've now had Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks in Iraq, that's how.
Because just like we had Robert McNamara and William Westmoreland during Vietnam, we've now had Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks in Iraq, that's how.
reviewed by john316 on November 28, 2006 11:55 AM