Its hard to believe in 2008 that so many racists still feel comfortable
spouting hate against 1 million people. 99% of whom are innocent and good.
Yes, I have been to the middle east and not as a colonial occupier with a gun but as a traveler who respected their culture. I don't believe the
WEST is the best philosophy. That is juvenile type of thinking. You boys like to play at war without contemplating the long term effect of everyone involved. Shame on all of you!
Ms. Podhoretz is beyond shame. His belief system is as extreme as Osama Bin Laden without a doubt. People who are that arrogant glory only in there own light. THIS BOOK sucked and good thing I got it second hand!

The title of the review says it all. If you want to kill scary brown people on behalf of hardliner Zionists in Israel and the Lobby, then keep drinking the neoconservative Kool Aid. The whole world knows that the so-called War on Terror was conducted using already created off the shelf plans (PNAC), and is about US-Israeli domination of all resources in the region, from oil in Iraq to water in southern Lebanon.

Face reality or Drink the Trotsky loving Pod Man's Kool Aid and continue to be conned by the same old Wilsonian interventionist myth about America's role in making the world safe for democracy. Whatever keeps Israel happy and gets Lockheed its welfare check, Nanny/Surveillance/Police State at home and endless war abroad, all wrapped in the flag, soaked in patriotic self-love, and delivered by an all powerful executive. Rah rah rah, everyone loves a winner, nobody likes a loser, especially The American People. That is what "Conservatism" has become.

A book called The Much too Promised Land by Aaron David Miller makes Carter out to be a hero by talking about his success at Camp David but deletes any mention of how Carter let the pro-Israeli Shah fall and the anti-Israeli Khomeini rise! This book shows how Carter is indeed responsible for Khomeini's and now even Ahmadinejad's bad succcess!

The Bush Doctrine on our struggle against Islamofascism is basically correct but by not naming it "World War IV" the doctrine lost clarity and focus and that has had a negative effect on the conduct of the war.
The author takes on all critics from the left the right and the media with logic and facts. He is fair in blaming Presidents from both parties for decisions that made 9/11 possible.

World War IV was not quite what I expected, and the title certain belies the contents of the book, although it performs several necessary functions despite its brevity. The American public is fed a steady drumbeat of pessimism and oftentimes outright hostility towards anything that George W. Bush has done or will do. Podhoretz places what GWB had called the `Global War on Terrorism' into the lager historical context of `World War IV,' which was preceded by World War III (the cold war). Objections to the current war on Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, are deconstructed into component strains of American isolationism extending back to Woodrow Wilson's presidency, outright anti-Americanism continuous with 1960's radical movements, metastasizing liberalism bordering on outright socialism, Democrat party hypocrisy and the myriad schools of foreign policy with Cold War genealogy. Podhoretz also demystifies the currently misused term `neoconservative,' exposes the blatant and shameful politicization of national security by the Democrats and succinctly defines the `Bush Doctrine.' I would highly recommend this book to both liberals and conservatives, although the former group is in desperate need of historical context in their often a-historical arguments.

I went in thinking this book was going to be very interesting and have the typical hystorical facts of violence in result of Islam. Well, I was wrong, it is a very historical book, and includes an incredible amount of information. You'll get the typical people who will write bad reviews simply because Mr.Podhoretz describes himself as a NeoCon, but dont be fooled. This book is very well written and mostly in context for intelligent people. Its a must read.

The world, and the U.S. public, must wake up to the threat of Islamic extremism. They are determined, well organized and well financed... Sad but true.

Key highlights of Podhoretz's arguments:

* Like the Cold War and unlike the first two World Wars, the war on terror and terrorism will be measured in decades, not by years. Unlike the Cold War (which he terms WW III), the GWOT does not have a defined/distinct nation-state or a discernible capital.
* He effectively punctures the idea that the Bush administration lied about Saddam Hussein possessing WMD. He persuasively argues that the administration had reasonable grounds to think that Saddam had WMD or was imminently going to acquire them. The fact that, in hindsight, they have not been found does not prove deception.
* If the US had had the same media coverage on World War II and the same yardstick of success, its efforts would have been roundly pilloried and Pres. Roosevelt and Truman would have heard cries of impeachment.
* He likens the GWOT to George Kennan's "containment policy" vis a vis the Soviet Union, with comparable stakes for our national survival.

Your view of this book will likely be determined by your political leanings. If you are a Democrat, a liberal or Bush-hater, you will consider WW IV to be the night soil of a large male ox.

If you are a conservative, Republican or Bush supporter, you will see it as a cogent and spirited defense of the global war on terror. (I admit my bias here.)

Either way, "World War IV" is a provocative and thought-provoking book.

This is a clear and concise defense of the post-911 Bush Doctrine of military preemption/democratization in response to the Jihadi threat. That doctrine replaced the cold war (WWIII) strategy of containment/deterrence and the pre-911 (Clinton) strategy of police action/status quo. After 911, it seems obvious that something different was needed in response to the threat from millions of suicidal religious zealots (even if only 1% of Muslims are included, that's still 13 million people) with access to vast sums of money, modern technology and eventually biological/nuclear weapons.

Podhoretz answers both liberal (internationalists) and conservative (realists) critics of the Bush Doctrine and does so persuasively. He is most worried about the politically correct, multicultural, anti-American left wing obstructionism and defeatism that opposes virtually all steps Bush has taken to protect us (Patriot Act, Gitmo, agressive interrogation, electronic and financial surveillance, etc.). Unfortunately, those forces are formidable (particularly after the the somnolent public forgot about 911) and will continue to resist those measures and otherwise undermine Bush's efforts to make us safer (security leaks, media bias, Democrat defeatism and attempts to micromanage the military). Podhortz fears only another 911 attack (or worse) will convince the public we are facing a vital threat.

Wake up, America.

This is a clear and concise defense of the post-911 Bush Doctrine of military preemption/democratization in response to the Jihadi threat. That doctrine replaced the cold war (WWIII) strategy of containment/deterrence and the pre-911 (Clinton) strategy of police action/status quo. After 911, it seems obvious that something different was needed in response to the threat from millions of suicidal religious zealots (even if only 1% of Muslims are included, that's still 13 million people) with access to vast sums of money, modern technology and eventually biological/nuclear weapons.

Podhoretz answers both liberal (internationalists) and conservative (realists) critics of the Bush Doctrine and does so persuasively. He is most worried about the politically correct, multicultural, anti-american left wing obstructionism and defeatism that opposes virtually all steps Bush has taken to protect us (Patriot Act, Gitmo, electronic and financial surveillance, etc.). Unfortunately, those forces are formidable (particularly after the the somnolent public forgot about 911) and will continue to resist those measures and otherwise undermine Bush's efforts to make us safer (security leaks, media bias, Democrat defeatism and attempts to micromanage the military). Podhortz fears only another 911 attack (or worse) will convince the public we are facing a vital threat.

Wake up, America.

Norman Podhoretz is a clear thinker and wonderful writer. The fact that he is controversial shows how many of us refuse to see what is right in front of our noses. Regardless of how you view the "War on Terror," you should read this book to understand one side of the debate that will continue throughout the next decade.

Norman Podhoretz's "World War IV" is the kind of discourse largely absent from today's dumbed down political arena. It doesn't call names, it doesn't make unsupported accusations, it doesn't lie. It is an argument in support of the actual position of those who proudly call themselves neoconservatives.

Intelligent and rational people on the left and right will find much to mull over in Podhoretz's 217 pages of lucid discussion.

Essentially, Podhoretz provides a summary of what he and others believe was World War III, the 42 year struggle between the Soviet Union and, largely, the United States. For the most part, this followed the precepts of George F. Kennan's "containment" strategy. People like Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brezinski, foreign policy "realists" who wanted no change in US policy fall into this camp and Podorhetz explains why they opposed George W. Bush's policies: they felt that rocking the boat was dangerous. Podhoretz relays an anecdotal experience between Condi Rice and Brent Scowcroft. Scorcroft explained to Rice that policies such as those favored by him, such as supportint Yasir Arafat had provided "50 years of peace" in the MidEast. Apparently 24 wars in the region during those 50 years did nothing to disturb the peace.

On the other end of the spectrum, according to Podhoretz, are people like Patrick Buchanan who is depicted as an isolationist of the long ago discredited America First variety. Interestingly, Podhoretz does not have to reduce himself to calling names as the left-wing often does to depict Buchanan for the troglodyte he is.

Then there is the unreasoning political left. Podhoretz demolishes them by pointing out that millions of left-wingers around the world gathered their forces one day to march in support of a fascist tyrant. Intended or not, Podhoretz's putdown of the left in this manner and his implied dismissal of them is masterful.

But the main element of "World War IV" is the nature of the struggle between Western Civilization and what Podhoretz terms "Islamofascism".

Podhoretz recounts the long history of Islamic terrorist acts that preceded September 11. He convincingly argues that the conflict between Israel and so-called Palestinians is at the periphery of the goals of the Islamic fascists. He points out that Israel is quite far down on the list in Bin Laden's own words.

Rather it is the quest for power on the part of the Islamofascists that is at the root of the struggle. Podhoretz makes the case that because of the very nature of the enemy, the struggle must of necessity be a long one.

He questions whether Europe has the will to resist and essentially concludes that it probably does not. Thus, America is left with the responsibility (once again) of protecting the world against tyranny. The question in Podhoretz's mind is whether the people of the United States will once again rise to the challenge as they did in World Wars I, II and III. Will the American people tolerate another long struggle, such as the 42 year long war against Soviet Communism?

The jury in Podhoretz's mind is still out on that question.

Obviously no discussion of the struggle against Islamofascism can be had without also discussing George W. Bush and his policies. Podhoretz makes no secret of his support for Bush's policies of attempting to essentially remake the Middle East.

Unlike an Ann Coulter or a an Al Franken, Podhoretz calls no one names. Nor does he engage in incendiary attacks on those who hold differing political views such as Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and others on the left do. Podhoretz's reasoning is lucid and tightly woven. You may not agree with his views, but unlike so much of what passes as political discourse today, Podhoretz speaks his mind in plain, detailed terms, supporting his arguments with facts.

"World War IV" is, I think, an extremely important contribution to the national debate. I believe that rational, intelligent people of all political persuasions will find much to contemplate within its realtively few pages. It is a pity that political debate is not carried on generally in the manner Norman Podhoretz exemplifies.

Jerry

The writing and moral clarity of Norman Podhoretz has been invaluable in America for the last 40 years. This short and blistering new book, which showcases his wisdom and intellect, is an unapologetic and robust defense of the Bush Doctrine, and a full-frontal assault on its critics.

Podhoretz connects the dots of the Islamofascist war against Western civilization over decades and contends that we are involved in World War IV (WWIII being the Cold War), and that we are engaged in this war on several fronts. Lots of people obviously deny this and prefer to take refuge in conspiracy theories about `perpetual war' for empires and resources, while the police take away our civil liberties. Others prefer to believe terrorism is a `police, judges and courts' problem, which can't be fought by military means (the pre-9/11 establishment position). Even the term `Islamofascism' is denounced as racist or a `war on Islam'. President Bush has used the term sparingly because of these howls of protest; Podhoretz doesn't shy away or euphemize. In an age of messianic religious totalitarianism and WMD proliferation - in which Mutually Assured Destruction no longer applies - it is imperative that we use moral clarity to identify our enemies and call them by their names.

After the `wake-up call' of 9/11 it was apparent that the US was at war. The ridiculous legal restrictions on the FBI and CIA cooperating together were lifted, and the mantra of terrorism as a `nuisance' was destroyed. This terrorism had progressed from the PLO in the 70's, the Beirut and Berlin bombings, the Leon Klinghoffer murder, the 1993 WTC attack, the Khobar Towers bombing, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam attacks, and the USS Cole atrocity - right through to 9/11. Radical Islamic terror groups had seen the US, like Hitler and Stalin did , as a corrupt, hedonistic, degenerate society which didn't have the stomach for a fight. Bin Laden himself believed the US was a `weak horse' and a `paper tiger'. The US ran away from, Beirut, Somalia and didn't go to Baghdad in 1991 because they couldn't accept body bags (the Vietnam syndrome) - this was the jihadist belief, and still is today.

In the wake of this, a new policy had to be adopted. Out with the old status quo of coddling dictators and `realism', and in with the Bush Doctrine. (Like Truman before, this would be attacked from all sides). Bush made three classic speeches - Congress, State of the Union and West Point - in which he laid out this bold and inspiring philosophy. Moral clarity and idealism triumphed `realism' and `stability' and this disgusted the `sophisticated' establishment - liberals and conservatives - with its `good vs evil' rhetoric. The four pillars of the doctrine were, embracing moral clarity and repudiating realism; "draining the swamp" by regime-change and democratization; pre-emption "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer"; and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the "with us or against us" rhetoric were the first full demonstrations of this new doctrine in practice. Deterrance and containment could no longer work with religious terrorists and state sponsors with WMD; they had to take the fight to the enemy.

After the attacks there was very little protest, but soon the 1960's and Vietnam started rearing its ugly head. Leftist apologists like Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag and Noam Chomsky were back to denouncing the US and the campuses were awash with cretinous Leftism which blamed Israel, foreign policy, capitalism and pleaded for `understanding' of Al-Qaeda (assumed to be another anti-imperialist rebel group). This nonsense bled into the Democratic mainstream with the fake outrages over the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay (another Gulag apparently). Only Joe Lieberman and a few other Democrats avoided the crude lies about `unilateralism', `jew conspiracies', `oil wars' and `quagmires'. The Democrats have almost invested themselves in failure in Iraq. It took 12 years for McGovern during Vietnam; it only took 2 years for Howard Dean.

In Europe the glee was barely containable amongst the left/liberal intelligentsia. `They got what they deserved' was the cry from so-called liberal people. European politicians and diplomats weren't much better. They saw Bush as a `simple minded trigger-happy cowboy' who was a unilateralist, whereas the `sophisticated' Europeans had `laws, habits, structures' and preferred multilateralism and `soft-power'. This is explained brilliantly in Robert Kagan's classic book "Power and Paradise".

Podhoretz describes the mainstream media and the `domestic insurgency' after the Iraq invasion. The media constantly over-emphasized bad news and under reported good news; relentlessly talked about body bags and have been openly defeatist since the start of the Iraq war. The `domestic insurgency' is a collection of isolationists (Pat Buchanan on the Right; Chomskyites on the Left), liberal internationalists (UN centred liberals) and conservative realists (Kissinger Associates etc). All three were rooting for defeat. The only support Bush was getting was from his neoconservative defenders and from Arab and Muslim democrats like Walid Jumblatt and Saais Eddin Ibrahim. They believed regime-change and democracy promotion was the "Berlin Wall coming down" and "midwifing" in a new era of hope and liberty.

Not to be outdone the Right has trashed Bush and his doctrine too. William Buckley, George Will, Fukuyama etc. Even some loyalists like Perle, Adelman, Kristol and Kagan were angry over the refusal to stop Iran, Syria or to help open up Egypt. And Senator McCain's criticism of strategy has been relentless too.

However, Podhoretz believes that the Bush Doctrine will stand the test of time. It will have its ups and downs, but like the Truman Doctrine, it will be adopted by whoever succeeds him - Democrat or Republican. The Iraq war is not an isolated or contained war; it is the front line - as Bin Laden says - in the struggle between us and them. (Recently the top three Democratic presidential contenders declared that US troops would not leave before 2013). The long term strategy will remain the same whether the defeatist surrender faction likes it or not. Bush resembles Truman more than Reagan, Podhoretz argues, and his substantive speeches and doctrine are models of clarity and prescience.

Will Islam reform and modernize? Only Muslims can do that; but we can help plant the seeds of a reformist and open culture. Will Europe join the struggle properly or keep committing cultural suicide? Probably the former as the demographics and bombings get worse. Will America have the stomach for the `long war'? Is it too absorbed, soft and self-indulgent? Not according to Podhoretz. The 9/11 generation are serving their country, and the free-world, in the struggle against Islamofascism, and the silent majority of `invisible America' is behind them.

And this book will go a long way to stiffening that resolve.

Even now in 2007 these neocons still use the dead horse phrase "they are dedicated to the destruction of the freedoms we cherish and for which America stands." This is non-sense and is based on nothing solid. Podhoretz states that the number of terrorists out to get us numbers around 125 - 200 million people. Bullcrap.

From the outset Podhoretz rewrites history with a bunch of lies and misstatements of fact. In chapter 1 he writes that "the FBI had been so hobbled by congressional restraints that it could scarcely make a move, and so intimidated by legal restrictions that it shied away from taking action even when it had very good reasons to pounce." But he never shows how. He gives some short one paragraph anecdote that goes nowhere. Then in the next paragraph he states that there was a "wall of separation" between the FBI and CIA but again doesn't explain or clarify. He blames the missteps that occurred before 9/11 on Democrats. As if the FBI and CIA are full of liberals who voted for Carter or Clinton. He also says that Clinton ignored Islamic terrorists but fails to mention that there were Islamic terrorist attacks against American targets as early as Reagan. And Reagan didn't retaliate.

Further, within the first twenty one pages he notes several times that no one in the intelligence community in America could have imagined that 9/11 could have happened. This is totally false. Many in the intelligence community predicted something like 9/11 could happen. This doesn't mean it was preventable because you would have to know exactly when and who not just what. In addition, he writes about FBI agent Dan Coleman who was frustrated because his superior wouldn't listen to him. What Podhoretz fails to mention is that his superiors were ignoring him because they all knew that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were a CIA asset.

Podhoretz also writes that 9/11 lies solely at the feet of Al Qaeda "along with the regimes that provided it with protection and support." Does this include the United States and Pakistan? Podhoretz goes through a plethora of unanswered terrorist attacks against the US or American citizens but fails to note that these were either false flag attacks, attacks against occupation or used to the advantage of the administration in charge.

Read this book solely to see that the neocons are lost and to see how they stretch the truth or even make stuff up. If you are liberal do not expect to like this book at all. If you are a neocon you will love it.

Norman Podhoretz is a master painter. He uses broad strokes to create images that when viewed from afar seem reasonable yet when scrutinized, do not hold water. This is perhaps his greatest failing in attempting to present his views. He relishes in blanketing every terrorist as a follower of Islamofascism and present a nice case for it - until you actually think about what he's saying. Could is really be that all Shiites, Sunnis, Salafists, Sufis, Wahhabis, etc etc decided to ignore their separate ideologies and embrace what Podhoretz terms Islamofascism? Of course not. Each group has their own objectives and march to different drums. Of course, democracy is the answer to all the woes Islamofascism brings. Unfortunately for Podhoretz, most people will realize that the only democratic results in the middle east have led to governments even less friendly to the US. Podhoretz's assertions are shallow and misleading. Perhaps the most hilarious and absurd assertion Mr. Podhoretz makes is that terrorists hate us for our freedom. Oh, well then why hasn't switzerland been attacked? I'm not sure even he believes the picture he is painting is a good one.

There are many far better books that address terrorism in a more honest and sensible light. Robert Pape and Michael Scheuer are two authors that have far more credibility and experience with the subject.

No one wants to say the word. From the President (he only occasionally uses the term), to our Congress, to the media; they use the words "War on Terror", along with other creative titles. I believe Norman Podhoretz's newest book title appropriately names it, World War IV, The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. The key word being Islamofascism.

World War IV does a very good job of describing our current struggle and the importance that we as a nation win in the battle against Islamofascism. Below is a description of two to the key chapters in World War IV.

Podhoretz's book does an excellent job of laying out the United States' foreign policy since WWII, describing the Truman Doctrine and the process of fighting WWIII, which was often referred to as the Cold War to Bush's current doctrine of how to fight WWIV. Chapter two "How We Emboldened the Terrorists" is an excellent chapter showing how President Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, even Reagan), H. W. Bush and Clinton appeased and/or ignored terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens and interests and how this indeed did embolden our enemy.

I believe chapter eleven, The Radicalization of the Democrats, is worth the price of the book alone. Podhoretz succinctly refutes the argument of "Bush lied and people died". After reading this chapter you will see why Podhoretz states "If, given all this, George W. Bush had failed to take action against Iraq, he would have been guilty of an egregious dereliction of his responsibility to `preserve, protect, and defend' this country `against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and for that he would truly have deserved to be impeached". (pg. 161). Two be fair, Podhoretz is also addresses the right in chapter twelve, Defeatism on the Right.

Our current politicians and citizenry would benefit from reading this book.

World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism

compelling book.

A terrific read.

If you are interested in the neocon perspective on the war against islamofascism, you will find this an excellent summary and overview. I enjoyed Podhoretz's solid and positive stance on the Bush doctrine, grounded in a grasp of the basic principles and not swaying with each negative headline.

Excellent read. Historical events aids in understanding what really occurred during this time period. Recommend.

I have noticed something about Publisher's Weekly, some others may have noticed as well. They just don't like books written by conservatives and apparently the door swings the other way.

It is true that Mr. Podhoretz is an unashamed Bush lover, he certainly has enough people that think otherwise so balance is good. Although I haven't liked all things about our President, I do generally like him and think he is an honorable man.

The writer has a wonderful perspective of going from a liberal to a Neoconservative. Much like Clarence Thomas' book he reveals a coming to self discovery which I find fascinating. If we are open and take in a lot of varied sources of information, weigh the validity we all come to different conclusions, hopefully we are open minded enough to accept the results of the journey.

I do believe his historic perspective is correct and his analogies valid to enforce his argument. I also believe the long range view of this struggle taking more than a 100 years might be optimistic. Looking at places in the world that have grudges that have existed between tribes and countries for a 1000 years or more. If born into hate, it is likely you will die with hate, sad but few break out of that and it has sustained through 1000s of years and many cultures.

If your the kind of person that wants to throw a shoe at the television when President Bush gives a speech, then I wouldn't buy this book. However is you have a little bit of an open mind and willing to listen to some good although pointed arguments to learn a few things about our recent history and our world, you might want to read this book.

A great review of the Cold War (World War III) and a realistic assessment (non-politically correct)of the ongoing War on Terror. Well documented false rhetoric from the Left when addressing the problem of terrorism (if they even acknowledge there is a problem). This book is another indictment of those who cannot or do not think beyond the immediate or near furure. Unless future historians are totally in the tank for the liberal worldview, they will count George W. Bush as one of our greatest principled presidents. It is the signs of our times that his primary detractors have shown virtually no integrity, demonstrated consistent hypocrisy, and are willing to lie to make a political point.
This is must reading for those who are honestly seeking a true and realistic evaluation and rationale of the period of the Cold War and the current War on Terror.

Robert H. Shear, MD

This book is mostly a rant for a neoconversative. He spends limit time explaining the threat of Islamofasicm. The book is poorly citied and mostly a bash on those he disagrees with. Read this book if your are a neocon to give yourself a pat on the back. He calms they attacked us on 9/11 because of our freedom and prosperity. This book was very eye opening to understanding how neocons think.

I don't entirely agree with some of Podhoretz's conclusions, especially in comparing the current conflict to WWII or the Cold War, but he does not pull any punches when it comes to what we've done wrong in dealing with Islamic terrorists. When it comes to spreading blame there is enough not just for the Clinton Administration but also for George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Carter and Nixon. As Podhoretz points out, President Bush is the first president we've had who has made the hard decisions to do what needs to be done not just to bring terrorists to justice but also to eliminate them as a threat. All the liberal hand-wringing and smokescreens about "WMDs" is just rubbish: we have to win this fight and win it in such a way as to prevent Islamofascism from being a factor in the world.

President George W. Bush has moved towards democracy and freedom as engines of positive change, a move violently opposed by "realists" in our State Department, who believe stability is more important than free governments... a policy which helped prop up Saddam and many other such regimes in the first place.

Possibly a little bit of both. In Norman's proposed universe... Iran is Germany, 2007 is 1938, Ahmadianajad is Heil Hitler, Bush is Churchill, Billy Crystol is Churchill's cigar, Bush's war on non-prescription drugs is World War 4, or 5 or maybe 6 and Podhoretz is... the king's philosopher? Or maybe... senile?

Well, let's grant him 'senile' but, without a doubt we should also celebrate him as an enthusiastic and not-so-secret agent of Israel, fifth columnist ordinaire, tasked with draining whatever is left of America's might, international prestige and ability to borrow from China so that more wars can be fought on behalf of his beloved Zionist motherland.

"as an American and as a Jew", he writes, he "prays" that Bush attacks Iran. This is a great insight and it could be very informative if he removed the "as an American" from the quote above.

The book should be mandatory reading for all members of the US Congress and the State media because their marching orders, the insane talking points, the "they are coming here to kill us" hysterical propaganda, is all there, in one, easy to read compilation.

This is great work and, as an American, I pray that this is only Volume Four in a series very much like the Star Wars double trilogy. We could have "War War 5" and "War War 6" as the next 2 installments and, of course, WW 1, 2, and 3 could be issued later in three-dee and "smell-blood-o-rama", for the enjoyment of those survivors with any stomach left for the great prequels.

This is a superb book which should be read by everyone who takes seriously the good fortune of being a citizen of a free country.I believe President Kennedy said: "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy endangers the security of all." Unfortunately far too many of us are completly ignorant about Islamofascism. This book is
a valuable resource to get knowledge and understanding and is easy and very interestig to read.

A not too clearly written rehash of all the arguments concerning the policies that work or don't work against our enemies. Interesting thoughts on the nature of the cold war (WWIII) and the nature of the current struggle against Islamic terrorism. (WWIV) Worth the read if you are interested in policy to the depth he goes.

This guy is not an American, he is a secret agent for another power manipulating America into fighting for it. Beware of this man and his ravings and lunatic theories. His book is just perfect though for lining bird cages, cat litter boxes and picking up dog poop.

Podhoritz gives the reader insight into the true nature of the world struggle with the Islamo facists that are intent on literally taking over the world and converting all humanity to sharia law.

The author explains in detail the history of how we got to where we are today.

A must read for people concerned with the "truth" about our current state of international affairs, as opposed to mere "political positioning". The book is filled with quotes by others to substantiate the author's points - this is most helpful for credibility along with the historical information presented. This is the presentation of the "big picture" (yet also filled with details) I have so much wanted in order to better understand what is truly evolving in our horribly unfortunate need to confront terrorism.

Norman Podhoretz has nailed it with this book .He outlines how we are emboloding the terrorists and how the Bush Doctrine lines up with the Truman Doctrine opposing The Soviets. He is right on point with his view of the mainstream media and the anti- war left.

The reality we face is quite different than the thesis of this book. The "Islamofascism" Podhoretz speaks of is nowhere in state power. Osama bin Laden and his followers constitute a very small section of Islamic opinion, and there is not a single Arab or Muslim state that can rightly be considered "totalitarian" in the sense that the word fit the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or the current Zionist entity--Israel!

The author says we are at war with "Islamofascism" because of 9/11--AND WE NEED TO BOMB IRAN.

Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 40 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.

The ZIONIST Norman Podhoretz lives his life knowing these facts and not caring about it. The arrogance and the callousness is part of his everyday being. Is his life worth living, if he doesn't care how the 'Pro-Zionist American government' is using his tax money to hurt people? - to destroy the livelihoods of an entire region? - to allow American bombs to be used in a criminal way when dropped by Israel? - Knowing the U.S. veto power would come to the rescue of Israel, in virtually any UN resolution that is condemning Israel's crimes against the Arabs.

Mr. Podhoretz why not bomb Israel?

The label "neo-con" is used as a slur by those on the left much as the way accusations of "racist" or "homophobia" are used to squelch discussion. The idea is to push the people so labeled out of the public square. The accusers want you to believe that the ideas are so far out of bounds that they need not even be considered. In fact, they must not even be uttered. However, considering the tripe foisted by the left over the past century, I think it is time to simply dismiss the technique and take a look at the ideas and then decide for ourselves.

Norman Podhoretz is one of the founders of what became called the neo-conservative movement. It was known for three things: 1) it's adherents were formerly social liberals, 2) they were strongly anti-communist, and 3) they were strong supporters of Israel and advocates of America's interests in supporting that democracy. They were called neo-conservatives because they were newly conservative and held certain issues that differed from traditional conservatives such as Russell Kirk, Reagan, William F. Buckley Jr. and the movement he founded.

This book was written because the public record about 9/11 and our conflict with radical Islam has become so distorted that it is hard to even have a decent discussion about the issues anymore. The anti-war crowd believes so strongly in their cause that they justify any amount of distortion to manipulate public sentiment since they are so sure of the just nature of the cause.

The book consists of thirteen short chapters. The first goes over the 9/11 blame game being played today and uses actual quotes from the time to demonstrate the difference with what is being peddled today. The second chapter discusses how our inaction and retreat in the face of terrorist attacks under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton emboldened the terrorists. Chapter 3 discusses what was so radical about the doctrine of Bush II towards terrorism. In chapter 4, Podhoretz explains why he calls the Cold War World War III and this conflict World War IV. Chapter 5 is a very useful genealogy of a strain of the American left that is still quite rooted in the Jacobin strain of the French Revolution.

Chapters 6 and 7 talk about those in the public square and media who start with the assumption that all the ills in the world are rooted in America and its way of life. Chapters 8 and 8 talk about the bookends of the Isolationists (right & left) and the leftist internationalists, who both want American power reduced and left within our shores. Chapter 10 discusses those who advocate the doctrine of realpolitik. Chapter 11 discusses the way the left has been captured by the Soros backed leftists represented by MoveOn, the Daily Kos, and others and how it is influencing the public debate. Chapter 12 talks about how the somewhat less influential group on the right is advocating a turn away from these "foreign entanglements". The final chapter talks about Bush II being more like Truman than Reagan.

I think this is an excellent book. No, I don't agree with every view expressed. However, it is more firmly grounded in fact and history than most of what we get in the papers and on TV. Also, I wish that they had included references for the many quotes provided in the book. It would make it much easier to check and reference the material he uses in his arguments.

Very much worth reading and debating. But, no, simply slandering the author is not an argument. And no, repeating the slander in a louder voice and in a more vitriolic manner is not restating or refining your non-argument. An argument has counter reasoning and marshalling of fact that persuades readers and listeners. It is not enough to say that the other side is unfit to speak and anyone who holds those views is a bad person. So, beware of the slanderers. Read this book for yourself and then decide. It is only a couple of hundred pages and is easy to read.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

This book is long on lies and short on history.
Like it or not, Iran has a right to defend itself.
In fact, Iran would be crazy not to defend itself seeing that the US and England's spy agencies staged a coup against its democratically elected leader in 1953 and in his place put a US puppet who tortured anyone who disagreed with him.
More recently, the US invaded a bordering country, Iraq, which posed no direct military threat to the US.
If anyone is criminal state, it is the US.
The USA is not the World's Police.
If the America wants nations to act with respect toward each it, it should start acting like a grown up and not a child.

It has long been noted that the phrase "global war on terror" constitutes a certain amount of fearmongering. President Bush has used this expression ad nauseum. The enemy is only vaguely identified, but everyone knows who he's talking about because he's speaking in code. Now Norman Podhoretz takes it to the next level; he identifies the enemy. He is actively warmongering. This war is a good war as were World Wars I, II, and III (the Cold War). The enemy has been named. They are not merely Islamists, they are Islamofascists. This multipurpose word defines them as anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and just about anti-everything that is associated with liberal democracy and values of the Enlightenment. In short, we're in a global war with an enemy that threatens our values and existence. For the author, it's that elemental.

Podhoretz, along with Irving Kristol, is one of the founders of the neoconservative movement, and he remains one of its most unrepentant members. His purpose in this book is to mobilize the somnolent and apathetic massess into joining the right-thinking few in the war against a dangerous enemy. Critics will point out that Osama Bin Laden is not Hitler or Stalin; he doesn't have a country nor a traditional army. Podhoretz counters with statistics: "Islamists constitute 10% to 15% of the Muslim population worldwide, they number some 125 million to 200 million persons, a far greater total than all fascists and communists combined, who ever lived." That Islamists are waging wars in many parts of the globe is undeniable; their numbers and their unity as a group, however, are still far from making it a World War.

But this is not the enemy that Podhoretz addresses in this book; it's the enemy on the home front. The enemies at home are the ones that disagree with him, which includes not only the left but also some members of the right such as Pat Buchanan, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brezinski, Francis Fukuyama, and Samuel Hunitington. He claims that these pundits as well as the non-Fox media in general are responsible for America's troubles in Iraq. There failure to overtly support the war effort puts them in the same category as al-Qaeda.

Dividing the world into two camps - those who agree with you as good and those who do not as evil - is always a crude undertaking and can usually be written-off as ideological fanaticism. This book, however, is important. Podhoretz is Giuliani's (currently Republican frontrunner) foreign policy advisor. For those who are looking for a continuation of Bush's foreign policy, this is your candidate.

Aside from its for-or-against posturing, this book does make some important points. Terrorists are looking for nuclear weapons and they want to use them. This is the clear and present danger. Also, Islamism is a much more durable and deeply felt creed than communism or fascism, making it all the more formidable. But the action that needs to be taken does not mean branding dissident voices at home as the enemy nor declaring war on uncooperative countries. This will not mobilize people to the right side of history.

This book explains the current global war against our jihadist enemies in remarkable detail with clarity and coherency. The author exposes our opponents on the homefront as well as enemies overseas. It is my opinion that history, indeed, will call the current struggle "World War IV." Read Podhoretz and his writing for a fuller understanding of its underpinnings.

this book is what its all about. We have a problem that the liberals just cannot see. The book is a well writen documentation of the facts of the problems the USA faces today.

This book should scare you way past Halloween. The best explaination I've read about why our civilazation is in danger.

A no nonsense reality check for all to read. The left wing moon bats will be dissing this all the way to the grave.

I feel the author is very accurate in his analysis of the Fundumental Islamist threat. It has been ongoing for several decacades and will continue for several decades more as Mr. Podhoretz comments. The western world, particularly the Unted States, must remain focused on our number one national problem. This book is well worth reading if you want to more fully understand this problem and its potential consequences.

There are some parts in this work that might be a little off-putting, some rather partisan comments that diverge from the main focus of the book. However, the book overall contains some significant insights that make it well worth the time. The most important point is the answer to the "realist" view (Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, et. al.)that we were better off maintaining "stability" in the region even if this resulted in supporting oppressive regimes and the myopic focus on the Arab-Israeli dispute as central to everything in the Middle East. Bush's policy of promoting democracy is destabilizing, but, as has been noted before, sometimes the only thing worse than instability is stability.

Easy to read, filled with information all Americans need to know. The author has done us all a great service writing this book.

The first world war was supposed to make the world safe for Democracy, in the words of Woodrow Wilson. The Second stopped Nazism. The third stopped Communism. But now we are faced with Islamism. This is the thesis of Norman Podhoretz, a brilliant writer, man of letters and editor of the magazine Commentary. He argues that Islamism is sweeping the world, from conflicts in Nigeria to Sudan to Kkashmir, Thailand, Israel, the Balkans, Chechnya and beyond. The infiltration of Europe takes place beneath our eyes.

This is indeed a world war. Podhoretz argues that the war in Iraq was justified and that the U.S should take on Iran before she acuqires Nuclear weapons. He argues that the world may be offended by U.S policy but that this is the world's problem.

A very strong and well argued Polemic, on the heals of The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent and The Rage and The Pride andInfidel, this book rounds off the list of books to buyt this year that describe the coming crises at home and abroad.

Seth J. Frantzman

After an innocuous chapter on why our present struggle against Islamic radicalism should be called World War IV (apples and oranges in my view), the author gets to the meat of the argument concerning Why We Fight. He praises the much-maligned Bush Doctrine as our only recourse to battle our insurgent enemy, after the failed policies of the 1990's. The book spends too much time, in my view, castigating the Left, and not enough on the Doctrine itself, and its continued success in keeping us safe from a repeat 9/11. All in all what Podhoretz does reveal on the subject is right, he just fills the book with too much nonessentials before reassuring us we can win this fight if we continue our support of the President's policies.

Something every American should read. Learn your history and understand what is happening in the world today, if you don't learn about the past history will repeat. An incredibale education and understanding of the war we are in against Islam and it's lies.

Mr. Podhertz does an excellent job of laying out the logic of why this current struggle is indeed a World War, and why it should be seen as number IV instead of III. I'd like to have seen a better connection with history to cement his assertions, but nice job nonetheless. His prsence on Giuliani's prospective foreign policy team gives me some reassurance that, although the Mayor is not my first presidential choice, his administration would be filled by men and women of substance and vision. It may be premature to write an update on this book, but I would love to see it when Mr. Podhertz does author it.

I expected a book on how to fight Islamo fascism, and the likely course this war will take, and why.

Instead, the bulk of the book is devoted to documenting the American Left's smear campaign against the war effort. While I realize this is part of "the war", I was expecting a discussion of other issues.

Norman Poderhertz puts forward more of his insanity, calling for more American blood and treasure to be spilled to wage an un-winnable war.

The neoconservative ideology is a colossal failure. People like Poderhertz, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld have destroyed the Republican Party. The only redeeming value of the Iraq war is that (hopefully) the neocon ideology will be fully discredited forever.

The final nail in the coffin hasn't been hammered home yet. Hopefully the victory of Hillary Clinton in '08, and more Democratic gains in congress, will inspire what's left of the Republican coalition to throw Poderhertz and the gang under the bus.

I read about two-thirds of the book and stopped. The title is promising but each chapter seems to be a rehash of discussion about Bush foreign policy, liberal tactics to force an early end to Iraq conflict (or discredit the President).

Maybe it will get better???

Steve in Dallas

This book features the neoconservative's own captain ahab. After having sunk a republican president and congress, he is not going to give it up. Its almost pathetic watching the last of them flail around wildly with almost nobody serious paying attention anymore.

Its also a book full of rage directed an random toward almost everyone. Almost every president except for the great George W. Bush was a weakling and a coward. Reagan was a failure appearently for not launching an Iraq-style war in Lebanon in the 1980s. After a while he starts to sound like John Wayne in his 1970 documentary "no substitute for victory". For those not familiar with it, Wayne's film likewise pushed the idea that all presidents (since Hoover) were cowards/traitors and the US needed to get serious about fighting communism even if that meant a hot war.

The author is also probably the clearest speaker on the neoconservative project to hijack the post-9/11 war on terrorism. You get the impression reading the book that terrorism is irrelevant to the struggle the author wishes on the country.

The book's message is that the United States is in a war against what he calls radical islam. Then he tells us that the war is world war 2 in that it is a struggle between good and evil where one side must win at any cost. The enemy is defined to be "Islamofascism" which is a term used to create a mental association to the second world war. Then he tells us its just like the cold war in that it may last for decades.

The problem with the message is that you can't very well fight a world war against an idea. Wars have to be fought against individuals, groups or countries. Wars against countries (i.e WWII or the first gulf war) tend to go well and have definitive conclusions. Wars against ideas tend to get bogged down into indecisive conflicts which don't have any clear end game (Vietnam, Iraq). Wars against ideas also tend to get hijacked by people with political agendas like the author.

The author demonstrates the above by his defense of George W. Bush and everything he has done in Iraq. While even most conservatives are not very happy about the state of things in Iraq, the author sees the problem as being a lack of a wartime attitude and wartime propaganda from the press. How dare the media say negative things about Iraq!

And that brings us back to the idea of a "world war". Because we are in a world war, we are not supposed to question what Bush does. The press is not supposed to say anything negative about Iraq. And if the Iraq war takes fifty years, people just need to shut up and support the war. If we had followed the advice of people like him in the 1970s, the US would probably still be fighting the vietnam war today.

What he never quite understands is that fighting a world war (or any war) requires a national consensus. After Pearl Harbor, there was a national consensus. After 9/11 there was a national consensus to go to war with terrorism, to go into Afghanistan or wherever the people responsible were. But there was NOT a national consensus for the Iraq war or for a broader "world war" against something as vague as "islamofascism".

And what does really want: To expand the Iraq war into a Syria-Iraq-Iran war to start with. And then there is europe. While he is clear in saying that muslims living in europe are a threat, he is far less clear as to what is to be done in response. The obvious reason for silence is that the choices in that regard are all really nasty things. I mean if you want to save europe from Islam does that mean laws against Islam in europe? Does it mean mass deportations? Its easy to talk about an Islamic problem in europe, but not so easy to offer up practical strategies to do anything about it.

The neoconservatives bet everything on the Iraq war. They promised dancing in the streets, soldiers greeted with flowers and town-hall democracy springing up. Iraq they told us was going to be a model for the rest of the Islamic world. It didn't happen. And now years later all the author has to say is that we need to get used to it and fighting similiar such wars for decades. They bet big and they lost big.

And now while the people responsible for 9/11 sit laughing at us safe in Pakistan, while the leader of the terrorists we were supposedly going after in Iraq sits laughing at us from safety in Norway (Mullah Krekar), we are now supposed to sign up for more war. And this time in Iran they promise they will get it right.

This book features the neoconservative's own captain ahab. After having sunk a republican president and congress, he is not going to give it up. Its almost pathetic watching the last of them flail around wildly with almost nobody serious paying attention anymore.

The book's message is that the United States is in a war against what he calls radical islam. Then he tells us that the war is world war 2 in that it is a struggle between good and evil where one side must win at any cost, then he tells us its just like the cold war in that it may last for decades.

The problem with the message is that you can't very well fight a world war against an idea. Wars have to be fought against individuals, groups or countries. Wars against countries (i.e WWII or the first gulf war) tend to go well and have definitive conclusions. Wars against ideas tend to get bogged down into indecesive conflicts which don't have any clear end game (Vietnam, Iraq). Wars against ideas also tend to get hijacked by people with political agendas like the author.

The author demonsrates the above by his defense of George W. Bush and everything he has done in Iraq. While even most conservatives are not very happy about the state of things in Iraq, the author sees the problem as being a lack of a wartime attitude and wartime propaganda from the press. How dare the media say negative things about Iraq!

And that brings us back to the idea of a "world war". Because we are in a world war, we are not supposed to question what Bush does. The press is not supposed to say anything negative about Iraq. And if the Iraq war takes fifty years, people just need to shut up and support the war. If we had followed the advice of people like him in the 1970s, the US would probably still be fighting the vietnam war today.

What he never quite understands is that fighting a world war (or any war) requires a national consensus. After Pearl Harbor, there was a national consensus. After 9/11 there was a national consensus to go into Afghanistan or wherever the people responsible were. But there was NOT a national consensus for the Iraq war or for a broader "world war" against the idea of Islamic radicalism as he defines it.

And what does really want: To expand the Iraq war into a Syria-Iraq-Iran war to start with. And then there is europe. While he is clear in saying that muslims living in europe are a threat, he is far less clear as to what is to be done in response. The obvious reason for slience is that the choices in that regard are all really nasty things. I mean if you want to save europe from Islam does that mean laws against Islam in europe? Does it mean mass deportations? Its easy to talk about an Islamic problem in europe, but not so easy to offer up practical strategies to do anything about it.

The neoconservatives bet everything on the Iraq war. They promised dancing in the streets, soldiers greeted with flowers and town-hall democracy springing up. Iraq they told us was going to be a model for the rest of the Islamic world. It didn't happen. And now years later all the author has to say is that we need to get used to it and fighting similiar such wars for decades. They bet big and they lost big.

And now while the people responsible for 9/11 sit laughing at us safe in Pakistan, while the leader of the terrorists we were supposedly going after in Iraq sits laughing at us from safety in Norway (Mullah Krekar), we are now supposed to sign up for more war. And this time in Iran they promise they will get it right.