Power Faith and Fantasy is an interesting book about the relationship between the US and the countries of the Middle East. This relationship has a long history going back to the declaration of American independence from England. Reading this tome helps the reader understand our current involvement in the region and put it into a realistic context.

I had a few problems with the book. Although the author's purpose is to elucidate this part of history, I felt that he occasionally was too focused on the relationship, losing sight of many other historical events. For example, to claim that the US navy was created in order to contain piracy within the Mediterranean Sea is a bit of an exaggeration. Although the battles in the Mediterranean may have been important, piracy in the Caribbean was much more threatening to US political and economic interests and was the primary driver behind the creation of the Navy. This is an example of misplaced emphasis that I found throughout much of this book.

Overall, this is a good book and useful for the reader of today, but it is not without faults.

This book is a comprehensive and highly enjoyable overview of the history of United States relations with the Middle East. Michael Oren is truly talented as a writer. He is able to illustrate the essentials from history in an engaging and educational manner while still remaining scholarly. He also presents history in a narrative fashion as he evidently recognizes the importance of past events in influencing attitudes towards shaping the future.

I especially enjoyed the sections on the Barbary Pirate wars, the Theodore Roosevelt Administration's handling of Ion Perdicaris' being taken hostage in Morocco, the history of the Zionist movement, the adventure involved in Getty's discovery of oil in the Arabian Peninsula and the U.S. attitudes and political involvements with the Arab-Israeli wars.

This book is a must read to help acquire a broad, integrative understanding of the history of the intersection of the United States and the Middle East.

Any parochial notion that America only recently stumbled into the maelstrom of Middle Eastern religious and political conflict will not long survive this entertaining, though flawed, survey of Americans' encounters with the region since the War of Independence. Oren identifies three overarching themes that have shaped the country's attitudes towards the Middle East (they're right there in the title, in case that weren't already obvious) and sticks manfully to a rotating tripartite structure through the volume, though the last chapter, which covers the period from the birth of Israel to the Iraq War, is hopelessly rushed and inadequate. A large number of typos and avoidable errors of fact, coupled with a prose style that can best be described as earnestly clunky, will probably set one's teeth on edge more than once, but there is plenty of information here that will come as a surprise to the average reader (for example, did you know that American veterans of the Civil War - both Union and Confederate - essentially created the Egyptian army? I certainly didn't). It's not a book I care to own, but I'm glad to have read it. One suggestion for future works, Mr. Oren: Describing each and every major personage's physical appearance is a luxury only, NOT a requirement!

An excellent textbook about our country's relationship/history with the Middle East over the past 230 years. I highly recommend it. Especially relevant in today's world.

this book is excellent for those who want a good read and some serious facts about the continued interwoven involvement of the US in the Middle East. The first part of the book adeptly describes how America came to think of the Middle East as a place where Americans could change history. Recommended reading for all who enjoy history and like reading in novel-style.

Oren's book offers an interesting description of 18th and 19th century Americans' vision of, and relations with, the Middle East. It includes good accounts of early American visitors to the region, the naval/pirate conflicts with North African states, and the origins of American evangelical ideas that Jews needed to be returned to the Holy Land. (Two of Oren's fun facts: the Star-Spangled Banner has its origins in an earlier work by Francis Scott Key on the conflict with the Barbary states, and the Statue of Liberty was a remodeled version of colossal statue that was supposed to depict the enlightenment of Egypt).

As the book plunges into the 20th century it becomes less adequate. Oren explains that he does not feel obligated to give more than a brief survey of events in the Cold War and after. That seems fair enough; the book is already 600 pages. But even before the post-1948 survey, the desire to chronicle what happened seems to overwhelm any incisive interpretation. The significance of oil in shaping relations and policy is definitely described, but it seems like it deserves a more prominent place. Also, Oren makes this grand claim in the final pages of the book: "On balance, Americans historically brought far more beneficence than avarice to the Middle East and caused significantly less harm than good." Does the history of US relations with Middle Eastern states really support that analysis? It seems a particularly risky proposition in 2008, with the US mired in Iraq. How would one go about trying to tabulate such a balance sheet? How would one factor in US bolstering of dictatorial regimes in places like Saudi Arabia? Or the overturning of a nationalist Iranian government by the CIA? Oren's own history shows how little Americans actually understood about the region and its people, even as they attempted to shape its future. It seems unlikely that a basically imperial perspective could also coincidentally be the basis for a good policy that put the people of the Middle East first. Oren seems to be falling into the trap that he describes in his book. His final judgment oddly seems to reinforce the myths about the American role in the region as a champion of enlightenment. It understates how much US policy was driven fundamentally by what all states are driven by: strategic interests and demand for economic resources.

As the title indicates, this book reviews US history in the Middle East from 1776 to 2006. The most interesting part for me was the first half which takes you up to WWI. I had no idea how ignorant I was about our pre-WWI history there, even though I've now read several books on the Middle East. Especially for a history book, it reads very well. It is fascinating, educational, sheds light on our current conflicts, and should be read by anyone with an interest in the subject.

I purchased this book with great, but hopefully realistic expectations. Looking for a further knowledge in my rather meager understanding of the history of this critical geopolitical and religious region, I was ready to put up with a variety of difficulties. What I found, however was really disappointing.
Firstly, FAITH. There was a decided lack of explanation of Islam. In order to understand why the missionaries were unable to get any Muslim converts, one needs to know what the "power" is within Islam to hold its adherents. To ignore the many sects within Islam, selecting only occasional reference to Shia groups doesn't help in our understanding of the animosity among Muslims. To deal so lightly in delineating the two main branches, let alone the numerous factions within them does little justice to the reader. Indeed, reading only a few pages of one of the dictionaries of religion gives far more edification about Islam, and Richard Burton's book (the polyglot spy, not the actor) illustrates the subterfuge amongst the Sunni factions which makes understanding difficult and infiltration nearly impossible. This is of great importance in our present "war." Further FAITH. The "conversion" of Eastern Orthodox Christians is referred to without any explanation as to why they, very early on, broke off from the "parent group," let alone what the inherent differences were originally and how that figured in to the interface with the evangelical Protestant missionaries. Indeed, one could even question whether they were truly converts. And FAITH, SELECTED AND SKEWED. In reading about the author, I found that his fellow Princetonian PhD had excoriated him for his previous book as being far too pro Israeli. This was a bit surprising since the critic, himself, is Jewish. Thus, I read this book, expecting no such slanting of history, yet willing to accept a bit here and there that would reflect the author's Israeli background. Spending page after page, chapter after chapter, and allusion after allusion on the importance of Restorationism, ie, bringing the Jews back to Palestine - ostensibly to facilitate the second coming of Jesus - without providing an historical counterbalance of the Palestinian's side is patently slanted. Repeating this theme whiile lauding the Jewish queue behind it begs for counterbalancing. SKEWING, SLIGHTING, NEGLECTING, AND, NOT SELECTING THE TRUTH. To spend less than two pages on the Armenian massacre before adding two more on Clara Barton could be said, at the least, to be SLIGHTING. Referring vaguely only to the incident in 1864, Oren neglects the three years of continued massacres. Indeed, he grossly misrepresentis the reasons for such. His noted source for this, "The Burning Tigris," clearly indicates what should have been written; Balakian (author of that source) delineates the numerous reasons (double taxation, Ottomans and Kurds, the umbrella of "the young Turks," etc.) as well as the important, massive, and varied responses in the United States. Oren indicated that the problem was due to Armenian suspected alliance with Russia and allegiance to Christianity. This is not what is indicated in his source. Such a representation borders on fantasy, and is history SELECTED, SKEWED AND SKEWERED. Of the approximate 800 pages, only some 600 are text. The reader is deluged with references, especially dealing with primary sources of minutia. When he hasn't gotten the facts straight from his own references, when he selects and disregards so misleadingly, and when he resets the nail and hammers home the restoration of the Jews from so many different angles, one cannot help but be disappointed. Perhaps Dr. Finkelstein (critic of "Six Days of War") had it right after all.
PAGEPHAGE

Fascinating, well-researched history of American's inevitable entanglement with the Middle East (for better or worse).

this book could have been cut down to only a few pages. Even then I wouldn't believe what he told me. Very one sided that is stated as fact.

This is a very good book and I found it a simple read for most western readers. It's fairly balanced with respect to US foreign policy in the middle east and even handed in its approach to the issues. It's a good read!