"The Threatening Storm," though seemingly outdated, is still an excellent read. Even if Pollack's evidence for WMD has now been refuted, it at least gives some insight into the developments and modes of thought which guided the intelligence agencies in coming to their conclusions.

The book's biggest strength is its history of contemporary Iraq and how American policy towards the Middle East was shaped. Rather than making simplistic statements like "Saddam bad" or "U.S. bad for helping Iraq fight Iran," Pollack delves into the unseen side of American diplomacy, such as Saddam's successful attempts during the 1980's to convince the world that he was a moderate leader who wanted to make peace with Israel. A good analysis of Operation Desert Storm also follows. Other bits of Pollack's history lesson include an objective look at the effect of sanctions on Iraqis and even the way that names are assigned to children in Iraq (explaining why the New York Times is wrong in referring to Saddam as "Mr. Hussein.")

Pollack also offers up some advice that the Bush administration should not have ignored. He portrays Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile leader who wooed congressional Republicans, as a power-hungry egomaniac who can't be trusted. He also advises against letting inspectors return to Iraq because they won't find anything.

The chapters that analyze the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan in the context of an Iraq war are also fascinating for their analysis of military strategy and how effective it really was.

I read this book in July 2003 and I was glued to it. It's no longer regarded as an influential book on policy, but it's history is excellent and fascinating, and it serves as a time capsule that preserves the history of the march to war.

First off the book is actually written in a very well thought out and non-excited manner, there was no over the top crises wording to get the true believers fired up. The author takes the reader through a brief history of Iraq with a good amount of detail on the Gulf War and the 1990's. He spends a good amount of time detailing out what he views as the threats posed by Iraq and how the US can resolve them. He takes a good look at the pre war environment within Iraq and the sanction process. I have read a number of books on these topics and I found that, for the most part, this author stayed close to the facts. Sure, he had an end goal in mind, that the best course of action was a war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam and his conclusions worked the reader to that end, but his reasoning played on the real situation, not over the top fear mongering. He also did a very good job in guessing / assuming what the battle plan would be and the reaction of most of the Arab states.

He even detailed out some items that the Bush Administration did not take into account, that it was more important to find and kill off the Al Qaeda network before an Iraq war, that the Iraqi military was in very poor shape and would have a difficult time in using chemical or biological weapons, if they had them, and that one of the most important parts of the process would be to have a solid plan for after the war. The only thing I found to be a problem was the premise of the book and argument he presents is based on Iraqi having or being able to produce WMD. They did not have them and we are learning that the Iraqi government were really not able to produce much of anything let alone sophisticated weapon systems. This massive error has lead the author to publicly apologize and made his book thought of as a joke. I would agree with the characterization that the WMD fears were misplaced, but I do think the book has some value, if nothing more then to help the pro war folks have a literary shoulder to cry on.

The case for democracy in Iraq is patently absurd! The US has never done it, no one knows how to impose democracy, Iraq is not a 'unitary' state like McArthur's Japan with the Emperor in place, military results in Afghanistan are certainly no political victory in this regard. Nor is it at all clear that the US would want democracy when controllable friendly autocrats and dictators have always been prefered.

Except perhaps on invaders the chemical and biological weapons are of little use without terrorist cells that would have been used before now if Saddam were not primarily interested in his own survival - our defenses were lower before 9/11 and there was plenty of motive after the first war. Ignore that the Anthrax came from the US - both when used here and a strain held by Saddam. Nuclear weapons are no threat to the US with missiles that barely travel over 100 miles (except for those who include Israel as the 51st state?). In a short review one can not thoroughly counter each argument of a long book. The greatest strength of the book is that it does - however onesidedly - draw out details of the case. This is the strength and also the weakness of Pollack's book.

It is not only about oil, but strategy and hegemony. Opponents who point out Cheney will get richer rebuilding Iraq fields as he and his company did in Kuwait, don't look ahead far enough. Oil is a serious issue both because of huge needs growing and the unrealiability of Saudi supply in the future.

The US needs to find solutions to the three biggest problems of policy: nuclear proliferation; terrorism; secure oil and water supplies -- none can be done unilaterally or even by brazen military means alone. Pollack's case, and the administration's, largely ignore the real issues and rush to military solutions that make problems ultimately worse from immense disorder and blowback. They nuture conditions and hatred for more terrorists too. This unilateralism is revolutionary change in foreign policy when multilateralism is more needed than ever however frustrating this may be to the world hyperpower. Pollack does not see that far and 'buys' a military solution to what is not primarily a military problem. I don't think he is able to 'sell' it.