I highly enjoyed reading this book and definitely recommend it for recreational reading. Kinzer's "Overthrow" is a carefully crafted narrative that attempts to link our initial forays in imperialism during the late 1800s/early 1900s to our present day activities in the Middle East. While this topic can come off as daunting or somewhat of a bore for the average person, Kinzer's journalistic skills clearly come to the rescue. He puts more emphasis on story telling; therefore, if you were hoping to find a miniaturized textbook with graphs and raw data, go find something else. In my opinion, he writes very well and each story flows seamlessly and smoothly. He organizes his examples to cover three different time periods [US Imperial era, Cold War era, and recent years] and makes several cogent arguments to tie them all together.

However, this book IS strongly biased towards Kinzer's personal view. Although the historical information he uses is fairly accurate (and he does admit that not all regime changes have had poor results), you have to keep in mind that he's trying to make a very specific argument - meaning he chooses specific viewpoints and examples to support his case. So before you get riled up, understand that many of these interventions have more complex details than what is present in Kinzer's book.

Overall though, "Overthrow" is a very good read. It kept my attention from beginning to end and I think he made some valid arguments. I think this book does succeed though, in pointing out that how we are conducting affairs in the Middle East today is nothing new and that maybe there are some lessons to be gleaned from this historical perspective.

This book is pretty much as advertised. It's a good general overview of many of the different instances in which the US was involved in regime change around the world from the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy to the invasion of Iraq. It is loosely organized around what the author considers to be different phases. Each chapter is fairly brief, giving only the most basic details of each incident and in many cases, the outcomes. In the end, the overriding theme is that most of the regime changes were done for reasons that benefited the US, either economically or emotionally, and in many, if not most cases, they ended up being detrimental to pre-existing stability, democratic impulses or cultural heritage of the country whose government was overthrown.

The book is a fairly easy and enjoyable read without too many controversial claims or hints of conspiracy thinking. Most of the things the author presents are somewhat common knowledge, but many people may not be aware of some of the specific details of some of the events, so this book brings them together in one place.

What had the potential to be a useful and enlightening book on US foreign policy is little more than a angry and historically inaccurate diatribe against the US and its foreign policy. Kinzer makes numerous misleading statements, uses quotes out of context, and assumes that all US foreign policy ventures are dictated by selfish economic interests in general and by corporate robberbarons specifically. Virtually all his villains are Republicans. Oddly, he puts Grover Cleveland on a pedestal as an anti-imperialist---the same guy who signed the Dawes Act into law that led to the loss of vast stretches of land owned by Native Americans.

The book is generally well written and people from the far left of the political spectrum will no doubt love his anti-US venom and manipulation of history. A more balanced monograph that placed people and events within a broader context would have been much more useful and intellectually honest. US foreign policy ventures have not been perfect, but we are not Satan either. For a contrasting view of US foreign policy ventures I recommend Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace.

Kinzer has written a fascinating, compelling analysis of US foreign policy since 1893. This should a must read for all Americans. I is quite possibly the best explanation of Obama's Peace Prize we can find.

Stephen Kinzer's book, likely an expansion of his excellent book on the coup in Iran in 1953, called "All the Shah's Men," is an interesting review of American foreign policy over the last 100 plus years. However, the thesis of the book, that the US seeks to overthrow foreign leaders it deems insufficient, sometimes with the encouragement of business leaders, often in the context of the Col War anti-Communism, seems to simplistic to be convincing. Kinzer rolls out an impressive amount of research to bolster his case, offering summations of a half dozen case studies. However, there seems to be too many factors Kinzer assumes to be static to make his case. In each of his cases the US pursues a misguided policy, and in each case what appears to be a short term gain ends up being a longer term headache. This might very well be true in each case Kinzer cites but, perhaps because of length restrictions, he does not make a convincing case.

I was born and raised in Hawai'i, but I had to leave my country in order to get the real history of how United States imperialism stole my country from me. This book tells the truth about the aggressive nature of US foreign policy. The US never found a natural resource that it didn't want to own, no matter what the cost to the people on whose land the natural resource resided. This book should be read along with Open Veins of Latin America. The British who voted the US a bigger threat than bin Laden knew what they were talking about.

Hawaii. Cuba. Philippines. Honduras. Nicaragua. Guatemala. Vietnam. Iran. Chile. Grenada. Afghanistan. Iraq. What do all these countries have in common? They all have been victims, either directly or indirectly, of American regime change operations. The reasons for American intervention varied from case to case, but the common denominators in most instances were anti-communism and/or the protection of American business interests. Not surprisingly, the CIA has done the footwork for most of these operations, at least since its establishment in 1947. Written by veteran journalist Stephen Kinzer, author of 'All the Shah's Men,' this dramatic narrative is an eye-opening journey through the annals of American foreign policy.

While the stories of Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam are generally well-known, many of the others are not. Cuba and the Philippines of course were acquired as a result of American victory in the Spanish-American war, but rather than granting these nations the independence they so desperately sought, the American government simply replaced the Spanish as colonial masters. To do this, they were forced to violently put down the respective native rebellions. The sovereign Monarchy of Hawaii was overthrown as a result of a plot designed by American businessmen in order to control the lucrative sugar trade. The governments of Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran and Chile were all overthrown in the context of the Cold war, where a fervent anti-communist sentiment swept through the US government. This led to a mindset where everything was seen through the eyes of the Cold war, and every nationalist and independence movement was viewed with suspicion. Soviet manipulation was seen lurking around every corner and as a result, many democratic and nationalist movements were brutally supressed. As Kinzer writes, the anti-communist view, and the pro-American business view were so intertwined that they often merged as one. Any threat to American business, such as a given country's nationalization of their resources, was seen as a potential move towards communism which had to be stopped. Many of the overthrown leaders had been democratically elected, and were replaced by brutal dictators. Men like John Foster Dulles figure significantly in this era, a man who epitomized the fervent anti-communist and was responsible for many such actions.

As a journalist, Kinzer as usual relays these stories in a compelling fashion, giving us a gripping, blow by blow account of each affair. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and there are doubtlessly those who would defend these actions, or perhaps even take issue with Kinzer's version of events. And while this reviewer certainly sympathizes with Kinzer's critical view of such policies, it is possible that some of the operations have been more justifiable than others. The problem, says Kinzer, is that the US government has made a habit of thinking it can simply overthrow any foreign government that is not to its liking. Either way, this is an entertaining and intellectually nutritious read for anyone interested in American foreign policy, or 20th century history in general. 4.5 stars.

What an incredible disappointment. In this study of regime change as a tool of foreign policy, Kinzer takes on a very interesting subject but really fails to make his case. Kinzer makes all the right choices in terms of subjects to make his case, but fails utterly to tie them together in any truly meaningful way. Further frustrating is Kinzer's poor grasp of history. He regularly claims that Hawaii was America's first foray into regime change which it was clearly not. Kinzer seems unaware of the misadventures of William Walker in Nicaragua, American intervention in Texas, and the American intervention in California prior to and druing the Mexican War. He also makes claims that the US has used regime change more than any other country, which excludes the imperialst adventures of Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, etc. Huge oversights like this pull into sharp focus questions of Kinzer's credibility and freedom from bias. Kinzer also fails to adequately express, through analysis or the use of primary sources, how the average person in each country felt about these events or even how their daily lives were truly affected by them. What Kinzer also fails to detail, in some cases but not all, is the reaction of the international community to these events. In the end, what Kinzer is attempting to do is make a moral argument against regime change and chooses foreign policy and history as the tools to make that case, tools which are not necessarily suited to the job. Far better arguments could have been made for almost all of these cases. For a better history of US intervention see Max Boot's "Savage Wars of Peace". Even if you don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, at least Boot gets the history right.

This is the real deal about our US history, the things youngsters should be taught about who we really are. I was taught about the Treaty of Paris, but not about who it really hurt in the long run. If you've ever wondered about our real motives, and yes---there are ulterior motives to everything we've ever done, please pick up Kinzer's book and don't put it down until you've got the scoop on the bloodiest fruit (bananas) and why the Panama Canal isn't in Nicaragua. Please give this a read and spread it around a little, Americans could use the behind-the-scenes knowledge, because there's a reason for the bitterness towards us yanks out there.

This is a great book. It really gives you the insight into our government that no one really knows unless you're the one making the decisions. I would recommend it to anyone that is a narcissistic about the American government and wants to know the truth about the last couple of hundred years with our foreign policy. It's a must read!

Chock full of useful and valuable information of how the USA grew to its present state of preeminence on the world stage. Great reference book for those who want to educate others who think America always does the "right thing".

Hawaii, Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Vietnam, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq. 14 nations. Iraq was not the first "preemptive war". The justifications varied but basically it goes down like this: There is a perceived threat to US business interests, this is covered up and the press is fed a story about a great humanitarian mission and/or the protection American lives and security of our nation. What is shocking is that in every single case the imminent threat to the US was false and yet the media dutifully recycles the same old lines everytime. And what's more striking, even mind-boggling, is part of this regime change pattern are "unintended consequences" and ultimate disaster.

Americans tend to think America's history is an exception to the rest of the world. To be sure America's history is special in some regards, but of course our nation has been all too typical in many others. Maybe it isn't a surprise they don't teach the kids in school this stuff. Distasteful episodes are briefly mentioned in a text or in classroom discussion, sugar coated, explained away, or presented as an anomaly. But can we now admit it is more important than ever for citizens to come to terms with the past? Isn't it more clear than ever we cannot afford to go about business as usual?

I agree that it is useful that Stephen Kinzer is not labeled a "lefty" or radical because it is simply impossible for many people, especially in the media, to listen to such non-respectable leftwing crazies from the fringes. Too bad since many writers have been covering ad nauseam all that Kinzer does in _Overthrow_. But, hey, what matters is that people start paying attention, right? Stephen Kinzer has the right credentials, having won an award and worked for the New York Times (the NYT is sadly a bastion of the radical left now according to many patriotic conservatives so it will take writers from various backgrounds to reach the public I guess). Kinzer does have a truly winning style. I've seen him speak on Book TV a couple times and he's quite engaging and not depressing in the least! And this I think is key. Often commentators that are alerting the public, or at least speaking to their choir, are a bit depressing. Or well they might not have that optimistic, cheerful, American can-do spirit. Kinzer has this quality about him, that despite America's past failings we're still a great nation. In anycase, he's a good writer.

I just started reading this book & have read about 100 pages. This book gives a great overview of US involvement & its motive behind overthrowing other governments. I think, it will be a great read to get a good perspective on the past and present.

Those high school and college history classes that cast the USA in a glowing llight are called to question by Kinzer. Here we find the extent to which commercial interests have dominated foreign policy. To this domination we add a huge dose of stupidity and a ton of arrogance. This will give the recipe for USA regime change operations in foreign lands. Details are included along with excellent documentation.

A revealing and very well-written book on America's history of meddling in world affairs, full of historical revelation and insight. Avoid the audiobook version of this; I don't know the name of the person chosen to read the book but his absurdly strident intonation turns it into a joke.

So there are these men, were there isn't a lot written about them in history (There is a airport named after one of them) and anyway they kind set the pace for American foreign policy. Later on OGA's kind of get over zealous with the "First to fight people" help and then congress cuts their balls off, presto 9/11. That's a Karma Theory. Kind of ironic were Obama was born. Mirror anyone ?

If you believe Bush's pithy statement above, then you really need to buy & read this book. I remember growing up in the 70's, when the Iranian Islamic revolution happened, and hearing all the "Death to America, the Great Satan" chanting, and like most Americans wondering what they were so mad about.

Never in the so-called "mainstream media" did I ever hear about our overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran and (re)installation of the brutul Shah. Err, that's why they hate us! Recommended reading for all US history classes...

This is a very well written book that provides us with critically important history that all Americans need to know. These are sad chapters that document the attempt to establish an American Empire and make it clear that the concept of a "war on terror" leaves out all history prior to 9/11/01. The chapter on the overthrow by the CIA of the democratically elected President of Iran in 1953 is especially important. This illegal intervention was undertaken on behalf of the oil companies who were infuriated at President Mossadegh's attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. This is essential information which puts a whole new perspective on our very troubled relationship with Iran. (It also further reinforces the idea that our illegal war and occupation of Iraq was undertaken to secure the vast prize of Iraq's oil reserves.) This book makes it crystal clear that all too often our foreign policy decisions have been made in the service of big business. This is an old recipe for continuing disaster- America can do better than blindly follow in the footsteps of the French and British Empires. This, tragically, has been our course of action in Vietnam and now in Iraq- the book has two excellent chapters that deal with these disastrous interventions.

Overthrow is a very well written book by Stephen Kinzer that covers slightly more than 100 years of history dealing with US involvement in overthrowing foreign governments. This is the history they don't teach you in schools. Beginning in Hawaii and covering such exotic locales as Cuba, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Iran, Iraq, Grenada, Guatamala, Chile, Honduras, Vietnam, Puerto Rico and Panama. Each chapter covers a different country and is a lively read. It is very interesting to see the different motives and different strategies used over the last 100+ years. And of course, it puts current events in much better perspective if you know the last 100 years of history behind them.

Also interesting is "All the Shah's Men" which is a more indepth look at the early 1950s coup in Iran, which the US led. This leads to the unfortunate 1979 revolt that brought Iran under Islamic rule and under which it remains today.

I highly recommend this book to anyone. It's a nice one to just pick up and read a chapter and think "I had no idea that was why [insert country] is like that today".

Stephen Kinzer takes a very pointed and critical look at the rise of the American Century as a global power and the interventions - diplomatically and militarily - in nations around the globe.

But where Kinzer bolsters his credibility is his approach from the angle that there were tangible alternatives to the policy of regime change, which would have been beneficial to the U.S. on the geopolitical stage and the nation's which suffered oftentimes brutal bloodshed.

This is not some anti-American diatribe, rather one which shows accommodation through understanding the political terrain would have fostered long-term solutions, instead of dictating a "one-size will fit all," without a true historical perspective.

Foreign policy cannot be operated by remote control and Kinzer depicts the consequences when the type of picture that is produced when the wrong buttons are pushed for the wrong reasons.

This is an excellent overview of the attempts by the United States government to change the leadership of other countries over the last century or so. Its a timely book which includes much information about the current Iraqi quagmire, helping Americans recognize that, sadly, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not aberrations but culminations of a long prevailing mindset.

Administration after administration has tended to believe that what seems to help large corporations must also help the entire country. Starting with Hawaii, which the US annexed in 1898 after Americans living in the islands overthrew the monarchy there several years earlier, and going on through to the present, the perceived need to protect corporate property has led the US to intervene in the affairs of other nations. Stephen Kinzer provides clear, astute discussions of the events in each nation which led to the US taking action, and provides brief but instructive speculations on what might have happened had the US kept its hands off. Usually, as with the results of the Iranian coup of 1953, the world would probably be far better off. Some of the stories have tragi-comic elements, as with the Grenada invasion of 1983, while others are simply demoralizing, like the stories behing the Guatemalan and Chilean coups of 1954 and 1973. Kinzer analyzes where the mistakes were made, who is to blame, and how things can be done more wisely in future. We'll probably keep on making the same errors, but at least we've been warned!

Stephen Kinzer. Overthrow. America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. 1st Edition. Reviewed by: Kristy

Americans Beware! An exploration of Overthrow's profoundly disturbing account of the mutinies, coups and invasions initiated by the United States in an endeavor to overthrow regimes across the world, may result in severe disillusionment, cynicism and discontent with traditional American philosophy. Stephen Kinzer, author of Overthrow, seeks to "undermine the myth of national innocence" by examining "the most direct form of American intervention, the overthrow of foreign governments" and revealing the political rationale behind the interventionism which has been cleverly swathed in the guise of patriotism. Overthrow not only exposes fourteen electrifying examples of "regime changes" engineered by the United States, but "by considering these operations as a continuum rather than as a series of unrelated incidents, it seeks to find what they have in common." Over the past two centuries corporate tycoons have allied with government officials to oust foreign regimes that attempted to block the exploitation of their country in the name of "national security and liberation, [although] in most cases...it acted mainly for economic reasons -- specifically, to establish, promote, and defend the right of Americans to do business around the world without interference."
Overthrow is a sequence of case studies on the consequences of American nationalism. The individual studies slowly begin to unite, provoking a sensation of déjà vu. As the hazy image that dwelled in the reader's subconscious is progressively fine-tuned, the feeling of repulsion toward American nationalism creeps down the reader's spine. Kinzer cleverly attempts to raises awareness of the atrocities performed under the guise of democracy. Overthrow not only surveys previous records of forcible interventions abroad, it delves into the United States' recent involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where some chapters lacked detail, others had an overabundance of it. The history of the Taliban, Al Qaida, and Bin Laden was by far the most enlightening segment of the book, but the journey through George Bush's psyche and the analysis of his rationale was overkill.
Readers without a strong background in history should be aware that the author's story-telling lacks a point of reference both geographically and chronologically, making it difficult to follow. Although the stories are fascinating, they would not serve as convenient reference material due to lack of linear cohesion. Despite the inclusion of over twenty pages of end notes, pictures, and acknowledgements the book suffered from a lack of maps. Kinzer supports his own analyses with an extremely thorough bibliography that cites a vast multitude of books and references, the most interesting of which is Henry Kissinger, the national security advisor under President Nixon. Overthrow is unrivaled in its ability to provide an educational snapshot of American foreign policy over the past two centuries. I would highly recommend this book for anyone who wishes to journey into the realm of government propaganda, rhetoric, deceit, and hypocrisy surrounding the history of the United States of America.

This review is coming from the point of view of someone that did not know of any of these events until I read All the Shah's Men and this book. The book gives a brief history of each time the US government has intervened in foreign affairs from the late 1800's until present. It is divided into three parts leading up to the present day. At the conclusion of each part there is a chapter summarizing the ramifications of each intervention.
I always wondered why other co a free and untries disliked the US so much when I thought all we were trying to do was bring them democratic society. Well now I know.
As I read this book I became more and more frustrated with the past and present leadership of this country. It's laughable that we the American public fall for the same tricks by the government over and over but we do! I only wish it were possible for the book to offer the solution. I believe whatever your political view you can learn something from this book and it will inspire more research.
After reading this book I will be looking for more books on Sullivan and Cromwell, John Foster Dulles, and other people who have slowly undermined the country so they can make a buck. The Bibliography and notes section provide a great resource to find more material on anything in the book.

This book provides information many American history textbooks leave out. It also sheds light on why the image of the United States abroad is what it is.

Despite the title of my room, I found this to be an extremely authoritative analysis of the history of American regime change. It forces you to think of regime change in a different light (specifically with early examples like Hawaii and Puerto Rico) and makes you severely question the motives behind American military might.

Unfortunately, after you leave the accounts of the regime change itself, there is not enough analysis of the effects regime change had in each country. The book divides into three parts, with the last chapter of each part being devoted to four to five page analyses of the repercussions of each overthrow. There could have been much more, but I don't fault Overthrow too much for this, because the book is meant as a history, not an analysis of American foreign policy.

While an excellent book, Overthrow is only a starting point. I do intend to read Kinzer's other books on Iran and Guatemala since he is a fascinating, lively writer.

Wow, love this book. Based on this and his All the Shah's Men, I'm going to read more of his books.

After September 11, many Americans asked the question "Why do they hate us?" having no idea why would some people around the world want to harm or kill such good people, Americans? You can find that answer in this book.

According to the this book, the answer is simple; It is because of the past American governments, who tried to exploit the other countries' resources in the detriment of their people for America's economic, political, strategic and corporate benefits, not the American people, who generally doesn't have much idea what's going on in the world, and always think that their government is always good as Americans themselves are good people. Unfortunately, American people mostly is not aware that there is blood of millions of people around the world in American people's today's wealth. And that's the root of hatred against us today.

This book should be a must-read in American-history classes to make people better understand the background of today's terrorism problem and to elect future presidents, who will follow foreign policies that will NOT make people suffer around the world and thus NOT hurt long-term national security and economy, etc., as it is the case today.

I haven't finished reading this book yet, but I just HAD to get it after reading "All The Shah's Men". Excellent moment to moment account of history and very infomative. As a matter of fact, I purchased 3 copies of this book as Christmas presents. I think it is a great eye opener for poeple who want to get the true picture of the American foreign policy. I also really enjoy Stephen Kinzer style of writing. It reads like a novel and it never gets boring. However, I think it is better if you draw your own conclusion.

It has been my experience that most of the U.S. population knows little about the facts behind our foreign policy. This book is a brief summary of the answers to the questions you didn't even think to ask.

If you maintain the rosy view that our country can do no wrong and is always right and just, this book will open your eyes.

This is a must reading for anyone who wants to better understand the American foreign policy in the past century or two.

The US has overthrown fourteen foreign governments in the past 100 years or so. Reasons and rationalizations for these actions include:

* Resources. Governments in Hawaii, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras were overthrown primarily on the demands of agricultural business owners in those places. Mining interests had a hand in Nicaragua as well as in Chile, while oil was the impetus in Iran, Iraq and (to some extent) Afghanistan. Also, countries with friendly governments could be considered markets for American products.

* Threats (real and perceived): In the late 1800's, the _Maine_ explosion, and yellow journalism convinced the US public that Spain was a threat. Post World War II, Communism was the bogyman, getting us mired in Vietnam as well as providing a rationalization for continued meddling in Central and South America, and Iran. Although actual Soviet involvement in most of these places was minimal, anti-Communist feeling in the US bordered on irrationality. Land-reform efforts in Central and South America were considered signs of Communist influence. (Of course, that fit right in with the US business community's opposition to such efforts, so now the US had two reasons--one "noble" and the other somewhat self-serving, to overthrow these governments).

The Soviets *were* in Afghanistan, however, and the US was compelled to arm the local "mujahdeen" to fight against them. Although the Russians were routed, Afghanistan was left to fend for itself afterward. The mujahdeen evolved into the Taliban, and set the stage for Osama Bin Laden and 9/11.

Of course, communism as a threat faded in the late 80's and early 90's, only to be replaced by Islamic terrorism in the late 90's and early 00's....Good Morning, Afghanistan and Iraq! (both of which the US had been involved in earlier)

* Amelioration. Overthrows were often cloaked in the rhetoric of making things better for the local people, using such terms as "civilizing the savages", "Christianizing the unsaved", or "bringing democracy to the people".

* Politics: Grenada was invaded, partly as a show of US strength, assuring the world that the US, after being defeated in Vietnam, could still win wars. This was also the case with Panama, after Noriega, once a US ally, turned against the US.

The result: Hawaii and Puerto Rico came out ok, although the book doesn't really get into Puerto Rico, and its independence movement. Grenada was also helped by the US invasion, since its internal politics were a mess. Panama? Perhaps, although the book doesn't really say either way.

Other stories weren't so happy. Vietnam and the Philippines turned into long, bloody campaigns. While we "won" in the Philippines, the country to this day is still poor and somewhat unstable. Of course we "lost" in Vietnam, and that loss still hangs over the US's collective head. History is still being written in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither really looks good for the US, now or in the forseeable future.

The US-friendly governments that replaced the ones the US overthrew in Cuba, Central America, Chile, Iran and Afghanistan turned out to be repressive dictators, not only costing the US much goodwill around the world, but eventually creating even bigger "monsters" such as Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Taliban.

The author likes to play "what if" in the pages of the book. What if we had just left these countries alone? Perhaps the world would be a much more peaceful place to day, although it is easy to Monday Morning Quarterback and assume the Soviets wouldn't have seen that as a weakness, and done some overthrowing of their own. The unholy alliance of big business and the US Government is given much of the blame for many (not all) of these government actions.

The US has overthrown fourteen foreign governments in the past 100 years or so. Reasons and rationalizations for these actions include:

* Resources. Governments in Hawaii, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras were overthrown primarily on the demands of agricultural business owners in those places. Mining interests had a hand in Nicaragua as well as in Chile, while oil was the impetus in Iran, Iraq and (to some extent) Afghanistan. Also, countries with friendly governments could be considered markets for American products.

* Threats (real and perceived): In the late 1800's, the _Maine_ explosion, and yellow journalism convinced the US public that Spain was a threat. Post World War II, Communism was the bogyman, getting us mired in Vietnam as well as providing a rationalization for continued meddling in Central and South America, and Iran. Although actual Soviet involvement in most of these places was minimal, anti-Communist feeling in the US bordered on irrationality. Land-reform efforts in Central and South America were considered signs of Communist influence. (Of course, that fit right in with the US business community's opposition to such efforts, so now the US had two reasons--one "noble" and the other somewhat self-serving, to overthrow these governments).

The Soviets *were* in Afghanistan, however, and the US was compelled to arm the local "mujahdeen" to fight against them. Although the Russians were routed,

Of course, communism as a threat faded in the late 80's and early 90's, only to be replaced by Islamic terrorism in the late 90's and early 00's....Good Morning, Afghanistan and Iraq! (both of which the US had been involved in earlier)

* Amelioration. Overthrows were often cloaked in the rhetoric of making things better for the local people, using such terms as "civilizing the savages", "Christianizing the unsaved", or "bringing democracy to the people".

* Politics: Grenada was invaded, partly as a show of US strength, assuring the world that the US, after being defeated in Vietnam, could still win wars. This was also the case with Panama, after Noriega, once a US ally, turned against the US.

The result: Hawaii and Puerto Rico came out ok, although the book doesn't really get into Puerto Rico, and its independence movement. Grenada was also helped by the US invasion, since its internal politics were a mess. Panama? Perhaps, although the book doesn't really say either way.

Other stories weren't so happy. Vietnam and the Philippines turned into long, bloody campaigns. While we "won" in the Philippines, the country to this day is still poor and somewhat unstable. Of course we "lost" in Vietnam, and that loss still hangs over the US's collective head. History is still being written in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither really looks good for the US, now or in the forseeable future.

The US-friendly governments that replaced the ones the US overthrew in Cuba, Central America, Chile, Iran and Afghanistan turned out to be repressive dictators, not only costing the US much goodwill around the world, but eventually creating even bigger "monsters" such as Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Taliban.

The author likes to play "what if" in the pages of the book. What if we had just left these countries alone? Perhaps the world would be a much more peaceful place to day, although it is easy to Monday Morning Quarterback and assume the Soviets wouldn't have seen that as a weakness, and done some overthrowing of their own. The unholy alliance of big business and the US Government is given much of the blame for many (not all) of these government actions.

"Overthrow" is an engrossing history of US "regime change", from the ouster of Hawaii's Queen Liliuokalani to the destruction of Saddam Hussein's government. The author weaves a fascinating tale of America's mostly sordid acts of interference in the affairs of foreign nations and the blowback they often engendered. However, although the author protests that he only wrote this book so our future interventions would be conducted more wisely, it would be hard to come away from this book not thinking that regime change is_always_immoral and deleterious to national interests, a point I would question. I think that this book suffers from a certain logical inconsistency and overly simplistic understanding. Rather than drawing one overriding lesson from our history of interventionism, I think the cases he examines are often so different as to defy comparison. Each case should be studied on its own and logical conclusions drawn from each.

Admittedly, American support for, and active participation in foreign regime change has, more often than not, been pretty ignoble, uninformed and frequently undertaken to benefit private corporations and individuals. Our record in Central America is particularly shameful. I sympathize with Mr. Kinzer's visceral opposition to regime change, and think the vast majority of Americans, of whatever political inclination, would agree that decapitating a sovereign, democratic government so that United Fruit could avoid paying taxes is not a wise, proper or moral use of American power. However, that does not mean that there will never be situations where American national interest might necessitate the overthrow of foreign governments, by intrigue if possible, by war if necessary. It also doesn't mean that regime changes whose motivations are impure and whose implementation is violent necessarily result in negative results for either America or the foreign nation in question. That's where this book's thesis falls apart.

For instance, during the Cold War, the United States and the rest of the free world faced an existential threat from the most murderous, aggressive, inhuman and tyrannical ideology in the history of man: Communism. If that insidious ideology, cloaked in the garb of an angel of light and promising paradise on earth, often tricked huge numbers of ignorant peasants and wool-headed "intellectuals" into supporting their own enslavement- such as in Chile- that was all the more reason to combat it with guns and bombs rather than pamphlets from the Young Americans for Freedom. Would Mr. Kinzer have preferred that we battle Communism expansionism with discussion and logic? In a life and death struggle, you play to win, not earn the respect of liberal journalists and the League of Women Voters. If we misjudged the actual threat from regimes in Iran and Guatemala, that's merely an argument to use our power more wisely, not to forfeit its use entirely. Another challenge to Mr. Kinzer's politics is that the sleazy machinations that resulted in the annexation of Hawaii and the disgusting war of conquest that brought us Puerto Rico ended up bringing undeniable material and political benefits to the natives of those countries, who are today quiet content to live under Yankee "imperialism" and would- and have- rejected independence when given the choice. While I wouldn't have supported either annexation, who's to say that the unintended consequences of leaving those islands alone wouldn't have been worse in the long run than what actually happened?

In my opinion, a few of the relevant lessons that can be learned from this history is that we should not allow paranoia and ignorance to conflate mere nationalism with the ideologies and international movements of our actual enemies. Being leftist or anti-American doesn't necessarily make you a Communist. Being Islamic or authoritarian doesn't necessarily make you al-Quaida. Secondly, different cultures, races and stages of political development call for different approaches. While extending the franchise to Puerto Rico and Hawaii generally pacified those conquered territories, true democracy in nations like Iraq or Egypt either results in anarchy or Islamic rule. Mankind wasn't made on an assembly line. And thirdly, as a democratic republic, we must be ever vigilant to elect leaders who are intelligent enough, and honest enough, not to let themselves be duped into foreign intervention for corporate greed (US agri-giants in Central America), because of media-induced hysteria (the Spanish war), or for foreign interests (the neocon-led wars for Israel). A serious threat to the national interest or security of the U.S. must be the high and sole criterion for foreign intervention.

I wish every US President and voter would be required to read this book. Of course some well read Presidents/candidates already know this stuff but unfortunately for the world and US tax payers some others are ignorant. Some may argue that Overthrow has a liberal twist but one cannot argue with the facts.

Kinzer divides this book into 3 parts by US's strategy of overthrowing regimes. Each part is further divided into 4 or 5 chapters which is dedicated to one particular country. The final chapter in each part summarizes what has happened in the countries/regions since US's involvement. The book is very well organized and researched. He covers the following countries: Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Phillipines, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Panama, Afganistan, and Iraq.

I learned a lot from this book but it often made me very sad at our involvement in these regions. Whether you are a liberal or conservative you owe it to yourself to read this important overview of US involvement in foreign governments.

In 1893 lawyer Lorrin Thurston and government offical John L Stevens, acting in the interest of American sugar planters and Christian missionaries, helped stage a coup that overthrew Queen Liliuokalani and gave the United States greater control over Hawaii.

This began a new era of American imperialism that has now continued for over a century. Kinzer's book details the history of American intervention in 14 countries, primarily in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. He makes an outstanding case that America's expansionist foreign policy has often had unintended negative consequences not only for other nations but America as well.

Victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898 gave America the opportunity to establish hegemony over former Spanish colonial possessions, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The majority of citizens in these countries wanted to set up free, independent and democratic states. But the US intervened militarily, including a very bloody war in the Philippines, to establish power. They claimed to be acting in the best interests of these nations. But American financial and political interests were the primary aim. For example, President William McKinley claimed that America was justifed in our blatant power grab in the Philippines because we were bringing the superior benefits of our white Protestant society to the pagan savages of Asia. Many Americans, including former Democratic president Grover Cleveland, believed that this new age of imperialism was contrary to longstanding Americans values. But the early 1900's was dominated by Republican presidents, such as Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, who continued to aggressively pursue American corporate and political interests in Latin America and Asia.

In the post-World War II era fear of Communism became the new pretext for American military interference in nations such as Iran, Guatemala, Chile and Vietnam. The case of Iran provides an excellent example of how American greed and intervention can often create tragically unintended consequences. Muhammad Mossadegh was the popularly elected prime minster of the secular, democratic government of Iran. Mossadegh was also staunchly anti-Communist. But when he sought to challenge British financial interests, by nationalizing Iranian oil, all hell broke lose. America saw this as opportunity to further American interests in Iran and thus a plot was hatched. CIA director Allen Dulles sent one million dollars to Tehran to support a program of "dirty tricks" known as Operation Ajax. This money was used to bribe Muslim clerics and members of the Iranian Parliament to speak out and spread lies against Mossadegh. It was also used to pay street thugs to riot, destroy property and generally create chaos while claiming to be Communist supporters of Mossadegh. This national destabilization reached a climax on August 19th, 1953 when these paid off "rioters" seized Radio Tehran while bribed soldiers and police took over the foreign ministry, army headquarters and the police station. American backed General Fazlollah Zahedi then seized power. Later Shah Mohammad Reza was given dictatorial control and he and his Savak secret police engaged in a reign of terror until finally overthrown by the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Here the story grows even uglier, at least in terms of American national interests. The fanatical Ayatollah Khomeni assumed power and helped inspire the global movement of Muslim extremism which continues to terrorize the world. If Mossadegh had been allowed to stay in power it is quite possible that Iran would have been able to maintain a secular, democratic government that served as a positive role model for Muslim nations throughout the world.

The final third of the book focuses on more recent American interventions in countries such as Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and, of course, Iraq. Nearly always the motivation has been a mix of corporate financial interests and the desire of government to further American political power. In fact, I believe that Kinzer's book makes an excellent case that, at least since 1893, American leaders have turned their back on the original values of our Founding Fathers - for freedom, independence and national self detemination. Instead we have followed down the arrogant and ignorant path of our European predecessors and have attempted, and succeeded to some extent, to build an American empire. I believe that America can and must do better!

Everyone in the US who can read should read this book. It debunks the myth that the US is "good" and that our foreign ventures are all done on high moral ground. All countries have self interests but in the 14 countries that the US overthrew in the past century, the US involvement was hypocritcal and immoral. These issues must have public debate before we can begin to reduce the anti-americanism found all around the world.

This is an excellent book written by a superb writer. Contrary to other political/historical novels, this book is easily read and progresses in a smooth manner. It does not overwhelm the reader with thousands of dates and names. The author has been able to keep it down to what is important. It is a very well researched and documented literary piece. This book should be mandatory reading in US high schools and Universities. An enlightening tool that makes us wonder how the American people have allowed mistake after mistake and abuse after abuse by their government for more than 200 years. Interestingly, it comes to show that the themes which we are observing today are nothing else than a new cycle in the history of lies and corruption that has putrefied American society for at least the last 100 years. People just don't learn. People are lied over and over by their governments. Then they find out the truth, only to be lied again in the next cycle. The book cleverly illustrates the machinery of lies employed over and over by the US administration to manipulate the naive masses. Interesting also to see some prominent names, such as Dole (the pineapple company) and Mr. William Cromwell (founder of the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell) prominently tied to the worst scandals and deceptions of the times, their reputations tainted with dirty mud.

An eye-opener!!! Excellent written and easy to follow the complicated intrigues of history and politics.

This book really opened my eyes to the cumulative effect of American foreign policy over the years, dating all the way back to the seizure of Hawaii. Very detailed research, and well written in a very convincing argument by Mr Kinzer. Our stated ideas have always been noble, to bring democracy to a certain country or to bring Christianity to a savage people but the real underlining reasons have always been the same, to advance American business and enterprise. Don't think big business is running this country and has been, read this book. It's called blowback, where the cumulative effect of a specific nation's actions will bring consequences further down the line that will bite us. Afghansitan, Iraq and Iran are so relevant today but alot of these situations that we now face are from foreign policy decisions made years ago. Awesome book.

Saying that regime change has been done poorly in the past is not the same thing as saying it is impossible to do it well in the future. I remain unconvinced that Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Panama, or Grenada would have been better off had America never intervened.

Even America's support for Mujahedin in Afghanistan and the subsequent toppling of the Taliban are presented as abject failures - I think the results in both of these interventions are more mixed than the author is willing to concede.

The author contends that many of the leaders America deposed weren't Communist, merely ardent Nationalists (as if nationalism isn't just as dangerous to human rights or individual liberty.)

I certainly agree that America has been too eager to resort to regime change, especially during the first half of the 20th Century, but I wouldn't be so willing to discard it as a tool of American FP. Done thoughtfully, with sober recognition of its limitations, it can create positive outcomes.

No single approach fits all cases. This is as true for diplomacy as it is for military action.

I recommend reading this book for the history, but draw your own conclusions based on more than just this source.

First of all, this is an important book, dealing with an important subject. Properly, the subject requires (and probably found or will find) a scholarly treatment adequate to its importance. The author, a journalist of renown and highest reputation, can tell a intersting story, writes very well, and true to his journalistic upbringing attempts to expect the reader to draw conclusions rather than to suggest them. This is terrific journalism, but poor history writing.
There is enough novelty and detail in the book to keep even a seasoned reader interested, and hopefully the book will be widely read. It is of only moderate or little help to a student of history.

The product is what I expected. It arrived on time and in the condition advertised.

I will grant this book is chock full of useful information. A lot of it encouraged me to further reading. (Do you know how little there is on United Fruit?!?)

But I must say this book was all over the place. The thought lines go from 1900 to 2000 to the 1950's back to Iraq to the Spanish American War, and then some.

If you can follow it, it's good and enjoyable reading. If you need it as a reference book, I'd pass as the information about almost every event is spread out over numerous chapters.

A Dutch friend of mine has argued with me that there is no exception for America in terms of imperialism. We still disagree on a number of aspects. Most of America in the post-WWII period has been living in a certain fantasy land in the belief that we're the good guys and we've always done things for good, moral reasons, specifically when we invade other countries. Our policy-makers have always couched our actions in moralist terms starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson's "making the world safe for democracy". Our WWII experiences have convinced us that it was the perfect war, for the perfect reasons, with perfect results. (Perhaps because we also lived under perfect press censorship and perfect complicency from Hollywood in supporting the propaganda). Vietnam has diffused that notion to a great extent. Now we're currently suffering through understanding the aftermaths of both wars with - sadly -little clarity.

"Overthrow" is a well researched and well presented look at the unvarnished truth about America's motives for intervening in other countries both close and far from our shores, and the long-term consequences of those actions. The unvarnished truth is not a pretty one, but it IS important for all Americans interested in understanding our past relations with countries around the world, and how they affect how we're viewed far from home. As a democratic body politique it's our responsibility to understand our past actions, specifically devoid of the political propganda that ALL administrations - Democrat and Republican - feed us. Iraq is not the first time - perhaps not even the worst - in our history of intervening in other countries. Chances are it won't be the last time. Kinzer has done a service to all of us by taking a step back when looking at our past actions and present them with a different, unattached view. The drawback of the book, in my opinion, is that it assumes that America is not permitted to have its own national interests in these past events, or that the policies we've chosen in the past WEREN'T in our national interests. Or that the alternative policy options would have been preferable. And at time he makes it seem like we are the bad guy and bully in every event, so that the "correct" action would have been NO action. Since he doesn't go far enough away from the event itself to put it in a full context of either our national interests or global events (like the Cold War) that - rightly or wrongly - led policy-makers to decide the way they did, it's a bit of a disservice, which is why I've only given it 4 stars.

Either way, however,there is, in my opinion, an urgent need for Americans to go beyond the moralistic rhetoric that always accompany our interventionist actions, and understand the realpolitik of the situations that are involved. We ARE allowed to have our own national interests. Sometimes they CAN support interventionism; sometimes not. But what's clear from Kinzer's book is that there really IS little exception for America.

Patric Hale

WHAT AN EYE-OPENER!!! This book airs all the dirty laundry of America's CONSTANT meddling with other sovereign nations. If you enjoy history, this is the book for you!!! Murder, intrigue, spying.....BUT NON-FICITON!!

A very thorough analysis of the forces at work in US power, and politics, which has led to interference in other countries' government, principally for the benefit of US corporations, over the last 120 years.
Frightening at times, when one considers the inadequate egos involved doing these things in the name of "freedom" or whatever.
Also, a stark reminder that it's the power hungry who get to the top, and are singularly inappropriate, and inadequately knowledgeable, for dealing with other nations.
A terrific book. Congratulations Mr. Kinzer.

Stephen Kinzer's hard-hitting book is a fascinating but depressing read.
It depicts in detail a long series of brutally imposed foreign `regime changes' fully endorsed by the US government.
The author exposes clearly that the official rhetoric of liberation, freedom, self-determination, democracy instead of communism or humanitarian intervention concealed commercial and business interests. The US government understood all too well that if it allowed democracy to flower in the countries it controlled, those nations would begin acting in accordance with their own interests, not those of the US.

The newly installed governments of countries with valuable hard or soft resources were told to let those resources be controlled by or shared with US interests or to abolish interference with US businesses (`the resource curse'). Other regime changes served to protect US interests, to open markets ('kick in the door') for US products or to control strategic locations.
The only exception would be Vietnam, but other authors point at the domino theory (the allowed self-determination of one country would be followed by others) and more specifically at oil-rich Indonesia.

This book painfully illustrates that those interventions were perhaps successful for the US in the short term, but catastrophic in the long term. Most US-sponsored regime changes in the end weakened rather than strengthened US security. Into the bargain, military force, even combined with political and economic power, proved ultimately not to be enough to bend the will of nations (Vietnam, Chile, Iran, Iraq?).
But for the vast majority of the populations involved the human and social costs of the regime changes were staggering and left a very bitter residue of pain and anger against the US.
Overall, the colossal investments in weaponry instead of in humanitarian aid, diplomatic posts, libraries and cultural centers could prove to be all too costly and totally counterproductive.

Stephen Kinzer gives also an in depth portrait of John Foster Dulles.
His book reads like a thriller and is a must read for all those interested in the history of mankind.

So many reviewers have aleady praised this book. Yes, I agree. I found Kinzer's 100-year perspective to be an eye opener. He shows that for more than a century America's greedy or jingoistic efforts at regime change around the world have been tragically short-sighted. Ignoring its own values, America has routinely disregarded democracies elsewhere in the world, when other peoples' democratic processes inconveniently conflicted with the profitability of American business.

I would also note that Kinzer's writing style, while very lively, could perhaps be even a bit better focused in a few places. He's at his best, in my view, in the chapters on Central American and Iran. Of course, he's an expert on Iran, and has written in even more detail in his book "All the Shah's Men" about America's shameful overthrow of Mossadegh. America and the world are still paying the price in the Middle East for what was begun there 50 years ago.

The lessons of Kinzer's book are certainly timely at this moment in America's history. America is again threatening to overthrow a few more of the world's democracies, flawed though they may be, with saber-rattling over Iran and Venezuela. Additionally in its occupation of Iraq, America has proved itself all but blind to the democratically expressed wishes of the Kurds.

(A brief diversion, related to the above examples, in a personal hope that we will not soon have two extra chapters in the next edition of Kinzer's book: Yes, of course, Ahmadinejad of Iran is a foolish fanatic. But he is an elected official; and America can peacefully and diplomatically urge that his administration change direction, or wait for it to be un-elected soon. Yes, of course, Hugo Chavez in an unembarrassed and tireless show-boater in his zeal to help Venezuela's poor while promoting his own personality. But he too was elected by his people. God forbid that the United States should again rough-house yet another reformist Latin American leader who wants to divert a share of corporate profits to benefit local residents. )

Kinzer demonstrates vividly that America has been a culpable instigator of many such conflicts for 100 years, with terrible consequences in nearly all cases. Maybe this current moment in history will prove different. Maybe the American people and their leaders will learn history, instructed by very helpful books such as this.

So many reviewers have aleady praised this book. Yes, I agree. I found Kinzer's 100-year perspective to be an eye opener. He shows that for more than a century America's greedy or jingoistic efforts at regime change around the world have been tragically short-sighted. Ignoring its own values, America has routinely disregarded democracies elsewhere in the world, when other peoples' democratic processes inconveniently conflicted with the profitability of American business.

I would also note that Kinzer's writing style, while very lively, could perhaps be even a bit better focused in a few places. He's at his best, in my view, in the chapters on Central American and Iran. Of course, he's an expert on Iran, and has written in even more detail in his book "All the Shah's Men" about America's shameful overthrow of Mossadegh. America and the world are still paying the price in the Middle East for what was begun there 50 years ago.

The lessons of Kinzer's book are certainly timely at this moment in America's history. America is again threatening to overthrow a few more of the world's democracies, flawed though they may be, with saber-rattling over Iran and Venezuela. Additionally in its occupation of Iraq, America has proved itself all but blind to the democratically expressed wishes of the Kurds.

(A brief diversion, related to the above examples, in a personal hope that we will not soon have two extra chapters in the next edition of Kinzer's book: Yes, of course, Ahmadinejad of Iran is a foolish fanatic. But he is an elected official; and America can peacefully and diplomatically urge that his administration change direction, or wait for it to be un-elected soon. Yes, of course, Hugo Chavez in an unembarrassed and tireless show-boater in his zeal to help Venezuela's poor while promoting his own personality. But he too was elected by his people. God forbid that the United States should again rough-house yet another reformist Latin American leader who wants to divert a share of corporate profits to benefit local residents. )

Kinzer demonstrates vividly that America has been a culpable instigator of many such conflicts for 100 years, with terrible consequences in nearly all cases. Maybe this current moment in history will prove different. Maybe the American people and their leaders will learn history, instructed by very helpful books such as this.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book which I could not put down. I learned a great deal about the USA's interventions in so many countries over the past one hundred years. One wonders why we do not learn from past mistakes and try to approach situations in the world differently. One also learns to look carefully behind the political and news statements that are made so that we appreciate the facts. Another useful lessons is that the seeds of the next crisis are sown in trying to solve a current one. The book is well written and highly informative.