Posted by
Rob Stevenson on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:15:40 PM
Anyone examining the beginnings of Operation Iraqi Freedom
needs to read “War
and Decision” by Douglas Feith. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
assessment, the level of scholarship in his 540 page memoir of his service as
the 3rd ranking civilian in the Pentagon is surpassed only by his
140 page appendix of notes.
For such a thoroughly researched document by a person of
such seniority and access, media coverage of “War and Decision” has been
conspicuous by its absence. Radio and new media have covered the book, but thus
far newspapers and other mainstream media have not.
In the interest of full disclosure, I love the Washington
Post and rarely miss an article by their Pentagon Reporter, Tom Ricks. Today
however, I was disappointed. In a conversation this morning, Mr. Feith informed
me that the Post does not intend to review this groundbreaking work. Not now.
Not ever.
To their credit, there are lots of books and one can’t
review all of them. After all, “War and Decision” is only ranked #4 in
Amazon.com’s “International Relations” category, #2 in the “Freedom and
Security” category and #1 in “Terrorism.” I guess being the first and thus far only well documented inside view of the planning
and execution of a major military conflict just isn’t what it used to be.
The Post ran a front page story on March 9th,
based on a leaked copy of the manuscript. Although it correctly identified the
author and the title, the article mischaracterized the book and missed key
points, specifically Mr. Feith’s exposition of the “Post-war Plan.” Apparently
I am not the only reader who objected to this coverage, since the article triggered a letter to the editor by the executive editor of the
book's publisher, Harper Collins.
I enjoy reading the Post and I enjoy reading Tom Ricks, but
friends must hold one another accountable.
The Bottom Line:
The Washington Post, and institutions like it, have
a narrative: ‘The invasion of Iraq was a fiasco and the
occupation an inescapable quagmire.’
Any rebuttle to this statement, no matter how well
argued or researched, is simply not considered.
The Mainstream Press is not interested in the sort of historiographical
work done by Mr. Feith. This would require knowledge and insight, not mere opinion.