BT Review: Web of Deceit

Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush, by Barry M. Lando (2007) (Publisher: Other Press)

[disclosure: a complimentary review copy of this book was provided by the publisher]

This is quite a good book, marred by two faults: first, it's actually one excellent half-book (i.e., until about page 184) coupled with another not quite fully realized half-book to result in one hardcover work; second, it's one of the few works which I can safely say is poorly served by its jacket copy.  The second matter is, of course, hardly fatal; the first is more troubling.

With respect to the jacket copy, politically conservative readers are unlikely to be drawn to the book.  From the title to some of the blurbs on the back cover, some readers will be lead to dismiss this book out of hand - frankly, I would probably have been one of them.  Which would have been a shame - subject to what is said below, this is a valuable book which contains some first-rate reporting, and deserves a wide audience.  One additional quibble: the choice of subtitle and pictures (Churchill, Kennedy and Bush) which grace the cover is, frankly, bizarre: Kennedy, in particular, is only mentioned twice in the entire book, and Churchill's role is only marginally more material; Dubya doesn't make a significant appearance in the narrative until the last fifty pages or so of the text.  Based on Lando's conclusions, Jacques Chirac, among many others, would have been a more appropriate choice.

Lando is at his best right up until he begins discussing the UN sanctions regime maintained in place after the end of the Gulf War in 1991.  One of the comments on the back cover describes Lando's writing as "dispassionate" - which is meant as a compliment, but does, I think, a disservice to the writer.  Lando's writing is anything but dispassionate: the prose fairly sings with a restrained moral outrage - and what makes the first half of the book so refreshing (and probably so jarring for many readers who approach it with preconceptions as to its political slant) is that Lando's outrage is levelled at everyone who deserves it.  When he describes American duplicity towards the Kurds, when he describes the billions of dollars of French weaponry and business handed over to Saddam Hussein, when he describes the moral support lent to Hussein by the USSR, when he describes the torture and slaughter effected by Hussein and his regime - you'll find few better recountings.  No one escapes the detailed dissection, and this serves as an excellent source for whatever nugget of information you're looking to cite in your next argument about Iraq - whichever side of the political divide you fall on.

Unfortunately, the second half of the book degrades into a sometimes parochial harangue against the United States.  Which is surprising, since up until the end of the first Gulf War, the treatment has been admirably even-handed - Lando isn't trying to impose a morality play on his evidence.  He judges Saddam and his regime to have been a loathsome and evil construct, and the Iraqi people and Iraq writ large as the hapless pawn of the cynical game players around it, from the US and USSR to the Europeans to Iran.  But the tone changes and the marshalling of evidence seems to lose its focus - more properly, I suppose, it becomes too focused, a Lando turns his attention to the US to the exclusion of very nearly anyone else.  For example, little effort is expended on examining or commenting on the corruption behind the "Oil for Food" program, or the actions of other players (such as French or Russian commercial interests) in the slow slide from ceasefire in 1991 to invasion 2003.  The book never descends to the screeching over-simplification of, say, a Linda McQuaig treatment, as Lando seems too professional and sober to allow that.  But after the extremely high threshold set in the first half of the book, the fall is disappointing.

While the "final" outcome of the war in Iraq will still be written for some time to come, this book is an admirable, and even indispensable, account of the years leading up to it.  Though it shouldn't be relied on as the sole source, it does deserve serious consideration, and belongs in the collection of materials of anyone seeking to develop a comprehensive account of the modern history of Iraq.

Grade: B

Recommendation: Buy (on the Buy / Borrow / Don't Bother metric)

[I should explain the B/B/DB system, in light of the fact that I've given a middling grade to the book, but also assigned a recommendation of "Buy".  For those following these things, I've given "Borrow" tags to highly graded books (e.g., Shutting Out the Sun) and it's quite possible I'll be giving a "Buy" recommendation to a book which I felt otherwise warranted a poor grade.  The rationale stems from what I think the long-term value of the book is: would a reader be well-served by having this book on his or her shelf for future reference? Especially for prose books, is there likely to be pleasure or additional insight derived from multiple readings? If either of those criteria are met, a book is likely to get a "Buy" - so even a poorly written or structured non-fiction book which contains material that it would be useful to have at hand would fall into that category.  If a book is an enjoyable read the first time through, but unlikely to reveal additional layers on subsequent passes, it is likely to get a high grade, but only a "Borrow" recommendation - a good number of fiction works that I enjoy will likely end up with this assessment. As with everything, your mileage may vary.]

Comments

[Mike H]

I picked it up last week, and jumped straight to the chapters dealing with the Shia-Kurdish 1991 uprisings, and UNSCOM inspections.

I doubt even the Vietnam war can match the polemical bait that Iraq provides. From the chapters I've read, Lando takes it hook, line and sinker. Inconvenient facts are ignored en masse in relation to the WMD file, while other "facts" are serious distortions at best. Lando employs illogical, dishonest arguments to make Bush 41 culpable for instigating the 1991 post Gulf War slaughter.

A good rule of thumb for the book store assessing of recent histories of Iraq and the Gulf Wars is to fast forward to the index, look up Scott Ritter's name, and peruse the relevant passages.

If the author cites Ritter favourably, (and Lando does) you know exactly what you'll be buying; an exercise in fact bending, fact omitting America bashing.

There isn't any shortage of historical ammunition for legitimate condemnation of the United States in its dealings with Iraq and the Saddam regime. The actual wrongdoings should be enough fodder to keep Lando and like-minded journalists happy. That it isn't enough speaks volumes about the uniquely rabid revisionist compulsion Iraq seems to afflict on so many contemporary historians and journalists.

[Mike Campbell]

Hi Bob, Thx. This kind of thing was discussed recently over at Google ChurchillChat group ~ that publishers will often stick the name 'Churchill' in the book title to increase sales when there's very little regarding Churchill in the book.