Book Review
Rating: * * *
Author: Tim Weiner
Published: Legacy of Ashes, a nonfiction book, was published in 2007; I listened to the unabridged audiobook (Blackstone Publishing; read by Stefan Rudnicki; 22 hours)
Enemies, also a nonfiction book, was published in 2012; I listened to the unabridged audiobook (Random House Audio; also read by Rudnicki; 19 hours)
What is the story?
• Legacy of Ashes: For years, the CIA has managed to maintain a formidable reputation in spite of its terrible record, burying its blunders in top-secret archives. Its mission was to know the world. When it did not succeed, it set out to change the world. Its failures have handed us, in the words of President Eisenhower, “a legacy of ashes.”
Here is the hidden history of the CIA: why eleven presidents and three generations of CIA officers have been unable to understand the world; why nearly every CIA director has left the agency in worse shape than he found it; and how these failures have profoundly jeopardized our national security. --from publisher's website
• Enemies: We think of the FBI as America’s police force. But secret intelligence is the Bureau’s first and foremost mission. The FBI’s secret intelligence and surveillance techniques have created a tug-of-war between national security and civil liberties, a tension that strains the very fabric of a free republic. Enemies is the story of how presidents have used the FBI to conduct political warfare—and how it has sometimes been turned against them. And it is the story of how the Bureau became the most powerful intelligence service the United States possesses. --from publisher's website
Does the level of language make it easy or difficult for the reader to follow? the books read smoothly, more like well-told stories than dry lectures
Did you like these books? I liked the way they were written, and certainly the way they were read by the outstanding Rudnicki. I was not so enamored with the smug self-assurance of the author, who clearly believes himself the most perspicacious, smartest guy in the room... every room. In sum: there have been many, many history and political science books I've enjoyed more, but they were each worth reading.
If you could change something, what would it be? less reliance on words and phrases like "clearly" or "of course", more consideration of alternate conclusions.
For instance, a common theme through both books is that the CIA has, historically, failed in its mission. However, if the books can be believed, that "mission" has been vague, confused, and even contradictory at times. It is and always has been unrealistic to believe that the same organization can be top-notch at two differently-focused tasks: gathering intelligence and performing covert operations. It's inconceivable to me that anyone could ever believe that those two very distinct jobs, which would seem to appeal to and require the skills of very different types of people, could be accomplished well under one roof, at the Agency. Covert operations is an off-the-scale Orange job—a reference to True Colors—while intelligence gathering and analysis is perfectly suited to Gold/Green folks. These contrasts are significant, and when one tries to work that far outside one's comfort zone and skill set, the results are disastrous. For example, my taco salad lunch buddy is the quintessential Gold. If she had a job that required frequent, dramatic changes or a degree of danger, she would break out in hives and be distracted by longings for her spreadsheets, and she would be an excellent intelligence analyst. On the other hand, my animal-brained lawyer is perhaps the most perfectly orange Orange I've ever known. Pen him in behind a desk with the requirement that he study something in detail, and he will start climbing the walls and creating his own drama just to keep his blood up. I wonder if maybe he's not actually a covert operator and I just don't know it yet. Hmm.
I would have been more impressed, and would have learned more, if the books had addressed this inherent flaw in the Agency's setup. (I refer to both of them because, with their similar government-ish, political-adjacent, slightly skeevy subject matters, the books and the entities that they cover are naturally entwined. That is, in fact, part of the problem....)
What were your favourite parts? the political infighting, the intelligence intrigue, the name-dropping and scandals, and the stories of how (every now and then) the Agency and the Bureau got it right
Who stands out, among the characters? from the CIA: George H.W. Bush, of whom I had known very little substantive information before reading this book. The term 'character' is apt; I learned far more than expected about his government life before his run to the White House. And from the FBI: J. Edgar Hoover, of course. He was a complete and total lunatic, a power-broker, and probably the cause of a lot of preventable mess in our national history.
What is your recommendation? these are good popular nonfiction books for people who are looking for some history, some drama, and for the author's interpretations and analyses to be presented as fact. Academics, realists, or people who prefer doing their own thinking might find different books on these topics more suitable.
5 adjectives you would use to describe this text: presumptuous, engaging, opinionated, dishy, provocative
[book review template 5 adapted from here; the title quotation is from Legacy of Ashes]
No comments:
Post a Comment