This book is in a league of its own. This book takes you right inside the belly of the beast. If you have ever been remotely curious at how things really work - the inner workings of the UN, the politics at the highest levels of the US government, State Department etc. This is a must read.

Blockbuster stuff. And the dirt on the permanent bureaucracy? Jaw dropping

I admit I rather admired Bolton before I read this book, but after reading it, I admire the guy even more, the white-mustached David taking on the UN Goliath--although in this case, David didn't exactly win, though he did make an impact. Bolton tells his entire life story, though, unlike some recent political biographies (e.g., Bill Clinton's), he doesn't assail us with every detail of his childhood in youth, fast-forwarding through those periods and bringing us up to his service in the State Department, the one government agency he consistently derides (and backing up his derision with mountains of data). The thing that makes the book so appealing is that Bolton is the Great Pragmatist, not fond of the UN, but willing to accept it as a flawed but potentially useful institution (as all human institutions are, of course). My one beef with the book is the TMI factor--Too Much Information, which I suppose will be useful to some future Ph.D. student doing a dissertation on US foreign relations. The book runs over 400 pages and I wouldn't have minded getting a Reader's Digest version at around 200 pages. But all in all, it is a great read, some delightful insights into George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and especially UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

thank god I did not pay for it. ANOTHER NEOCON who did not take TWO english classes in college. SAVE YOUR MONEY.

This is the book all future Presidents, Congressman, and elected officals should follow. A great book all Americans should read! In response to the reviewer who accused Mr Bolton of having a huge ego...Mr Bolton is not cocky, he is conifident: there is a difference, look it up!

Surrender Is not An Option is well written, and at times one wonders why so much detail in Bolton's narrative, but as you get into the book you discover it is necessary to really comprehend every problem he is presenting to the reader. I knew for years the U.N. was in trouble, but Bolton brings the dark problems to fruition. If one wants to understand the frustrations the U.S.A. encounters at the UN, read this book. Hurdrey-Angus Jordan

I start by saying that I have always felt that John Bolton is the best things that ever happened to the UN (unless your North Korea or Iran), and I agree with all of the points he made in his book. But I was a little disappointed in this book and doubt I would buy another book authored by him.
His style is wordy. At times he gets tangential with supplemental information, such as when he reminisced about his good old days at Yale.
Another distraction while reading the book was his self-congratulatory tone. One example is, crediting his mother, not for her nurturing him that led to him becoming a stronger more successful person, but rather providing him with such a strong gene pool?. I'll have to remember that one.
Pare it down by half, be a bit more succinct and its a 5-star book.

Ambassador John Bolton's "Surrender Is Not An Option" (2007 488 page hardback) is an eye-opening history from his public service career with the Bush State Department and the United Nations. Although the book presents few sources (keeping it from earning all five stars) it is informative with eight pages of black and white period photographs and 29 pages of index.

Lawyer Bolton's narrative is an eyewitness account from Barry Goldwater to George W. Bush. His Reagan administration work helped to prepare him for the Bush years (beginning as an undersecretary to Colin Powell until appointment as US Ambassador to the United Nations).

The retired Ambassador describes, with precision, various people and events that shaped history from 2000 to 2006. He has immense respect for Bork, Buckley, Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney, McCain, and Bush (disliking, particularly, Annan, Eliasson, and career diplomats). Bolton says that US's closest friends at the UN ("Turtle Bay") are Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. Canada is often a go-between among hostile nations. Britain and France at home with the UN's "culture of inaction" often vote for appeasement. On all issues Russia adopts its former Soviet politics while China remains an unknown, but predictable, factor.

Bolton, at the UN epicenter, understands the Human Rights Council to be always "directed against Israel", supports Japanese efforts for Security Council permanent membership, and witnesses Kofi Annan's deviousness, incompetence, and corruption during the Food for Oil scandal. Although he supported, and worked for, Ban Ki-moon's UN Secretary Generalship in late 2006, Bolton ends the book concerned for the South Korean's ability to change the UN's determined culture of passive inactivity.

This recommended book is a good, but long, read. Hopefully, Bolton will write more history of the United Nations.

John Bolton is an unabashed apologist for the Bush administration and its multi-layered failed policies, and when he realized the Bush party was losing ground he stepped off like a pouting child and left his ambassador position (so much for the courage of personal convictions). His biases have crept into every facet of this book. It cannot be considered impartial or apolitical. Bolton himself is extremely suspect and one should read this book with a great deal of skepticism and be ready to do some fact checking. Bolton bloviates and blusters but amidst the smoke there is very little fire. I slowed down and read thoughtfully, hoping that he would have something substantial to contribute to the record now that he has stepped down, but I was disappointed. Bolton may have a lot to offer someday, but for now he is just another political mouthpiece for the administration still in place. I do not suspect that history will just this book well when placed in the fuller historic context.

Mr. Bolton has proven the UN is a waste of time and money. But that's not what this book is about.

Mr. Bolton shows how Bush won the greatest military victory in history in Iraq, thus saving the world from destruction by a madman.

Karl Rove proved liberals would rather talk than fight. He proved only war can solve problems. But, John Bolton takes that a step further by showing we must use decisive force, like in Iraq, to defeat the enemy.

And don't believe the liberals when they say only diplomacy ends wars. It isn't true, and John Bolton proves it.

God Bless America. Long live George W. Bush, the greatest president ever. Only he had the courage to recess-appoint Mr. Bolton!

Just when you thought that another book on international relations would be too arcane and narcoleptic to be noticable to the general population, think again. Ever read an article in the press about why the Bush administration opposed controls on biological weapons, and wonder what were they smoking? Bolton deftly slices through the falsifications authored by the Ministry of Information at the New York Times and CNN, and reveals how, through diabolical skill, certain European and Third World advocates incrementally seek to cut the heart out of American sovereignty and right to defend itself. Bolton's discussion regarding the ABM treaty is particularly engrossing. Not unexpectedly come well-known critiques of the stultifying State Department bureacrats who are more concerned with appeasing ill-tempered (and often corrupt) world "community" diplomats than defending their own country, which by the way pays their mortgages in Fairfax and Arlington counties.

Even more interesting are the perhaps inevitable episodes of acrimoniousness among super-achievers such as Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld. President Bush remains above the fray and like a dad coming home from work, comes to find his kids aren't playing so well together. Another interesting fringe benefit from reading this book is that one comes away with a deep education in the art of surviving a bureacracy - be it government or private sector. The lessons are palpable and wholly applicable to any sphere.

"Not an Option" is not a meditation on the fine points of multipolar international political theory. Rather, it is an unsentimental yet reflective, just-tell-me-the-facts-ma'am work of what actually happened when Bolton was in the shark tank. Whether you are writing a doctoral thesis for your Ph.D. in international relations or you drive a delivery truck in Chicago, you'll find this book entertaining and very satisfying. You'll want to keep the light on the nightstand on a little bit longer with this one.

Adam Goldman
Lake Mary, Florida

Mr. Bolton has proven the UN is a waste of time and money. But that's not what this book is about.

Mr. Bolton shows, in sobering detail, how Bush won the greatest military victory in history in Iraq, thus saving the world from destruction by a madman.

Karl Rove proved liberals would rather talk than fight. He proved only war can solve problems. But, John Bolton takes that a step further by showing we must use decisive force, like in Iraq, to defeat the enemy.

And don't believe the liberals when they say only diplomacy ends wars. It isn't true, and John Bolton proves it.

God Bless America. Long live George W. Bush, the greatest president ever. Only he had the courage to recess-appoint Mr. Bolton!

Notice how many people have just recently, within the last few days, shown up to rate the most glowing review of this book? See all the positive reviews that are SUDDNELY pouring in?

They aren't real; they are troll accounts. That just doesn't happen within a 2 day period. This book had recieved a 2 1/2 star rating the day before yesterday.

Now for the real review: Mr. Bolton offers us the same view on defeatism and what 'disasterous' implication that would have for our country. He does this in a way that is more scholarly than punditry, but is no more convincing if you are already a studious observer with regard to national security.

The tone takes negative a few times, which in turn sounds like it is talking down at you, not very pleasant. I had to dock a star on that. It is just annoying.

There is nothing new here, Mr. Bolton does take effort to lay out his systematic reasoning, which is better than you'd expect.

Other than that, I can't really recommend it.

What an exercise in egotistical self-promotion. Bolton bungled everything he touched in the State Department and the UN because of his colossal vanity. Here he documents his failures using the ludicrous excuses of his 'toughness' and 'uncompromising integrity.' In reality, he compromised American welfare time and time and time again in his efforts to make himself a cult figure and bully. He's the most self-serving character since Clarence Thomas and his tedious, didactic book shows it. I was given a review copy, not only is his book a waste of your time, but you will be contributing to the delinquency of an immature gangster by seeing your money go to Mr. Bolton. The right wing, the lying radio commentators and the crooked Publicans have made a career of exploiting American politics and the American people because they stand for nothing and advance a culture of destruction and self-promotion. Mr. Bolton and his book proclaim the moral bankruptcy of this position in his own words. Reading his book is like smelling a rotting corpse.

You really have no idea how much goes on behind the scenes. I love the fact that John Bolton is out there leading the charge for us in the world. Someone need a running mate?

Ron Marlar (a retired USAF officer, college professor, school teacher, living currently in Florida)

Most books that I read and review I rate a 5. Otherwise I have a specific purpose for reading the book, or I will stop reading it if it is less than a 5.
Surrender Is Not An Option is John Bolton's story of his service in the U.S. government with some introductory family and personal background - his preparation to serve our country. I have rated his book a 3 for two specific reasons: 1) It is filled with acronyms, the alphabet soup of abbreviations for government agencies, programs, policies, plans and activities. One must hold those acronyms in one's head for some period of reading time to grasp fully the book. 2) There is too much detail for me of the "who shot John," "I said, he or she said" variety. The detail goes even to the specific times of various meetings on given days; unnecessarily so I believe.
Despite these drawbacks for me, however, I soldiered on to the end of the book. I read it cover to cover as I usually read books. I am glad that I did so. The best part of the book for me turned out to be the final chapter. In that chapter Bolton gives his views on the future challenges likely to face the U.S. in the continuingly dangerous world in which we live.
Along the way I did connect and interact with some of the specific events reported in the book. A few of these include: election night 1964 - the first time I was old enough to vote in a Presidential election, parents of "the Depression ... steeled by World War II," Muammar al-Qadafi, the Libyan dictator's transfer of nuclear weapons capability to Oak Ridge, Tenn. - where I grew up from infancy to early teen, the Presidencies of Roosevelt not remembered since I was too young at the time but then Truman, Eisenhower, JFK brief as it was cut short by his assassination, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton and GWB started in the fiasco of the ongoing recounts of the Florida election results in 2000.
(I expect any who have lived from the mid-20th to the beginning of the 21st Centuries and been at least semi-conscious, relatively sober and drug free can connect as well with some of the events reported by Bolton.)
As might be expected Bolton is not especially kind in his criticisms of the UN and the Presidencies of Carter and Clinton. A bit surprising he also relates some tensions with Powell, Rice and GWB. A few other surprises, at least attention getters or directers: "Reagan's most important domestic achievement," according to Bolton, changes in the characteristics of the UN Security Council members - declining or fragmenting with the exception of the U.S. which has actually expanded, and Security Council focus on Africa and UN near neglect of the Middle East.
He also directs attention to some current buzz phrases, e.g., "blame America first" reporting the person that he believes coined that phrase, "moral equivalency," and "disproportionate use of force." These phrases are important because they guide so much the world view and thinking of not only the UN, but politicians and common citizens - voters - in their decision making about important issues of our current and probable future days.
He spends some ink, of course, relating his work attempting to reform the UN, his nomination confirmation thwarted not once but twice by liberal Democrat opponents of President Bush, his recess appointment and considerations for reappointment in lieu of confirmation. He is kinder and less accusatory than some other authors, e.g., Robert Patterson in War Crimes, Kenneth Timmerman in Shadow Warriors, and Rowan Scarborough in Sabotage toward liberal Democrats. He treats lib Dem perfidy more like business as usual. Only once did I notice him coming close to those other authors in his relating a story about his run in with an obviously lying, politically-motivated intelligence officer.
In perhaps the most affirming of Bush's policies regarding the Middle East, including the invasion of Iraq, he quotes Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese Druze leader, saying: "... this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world."
Scholars and general readers who want to gain some insight into the inner workings of national government and international relations, as seen by John Bolton, will appreciate this book.

This well documented book is fascinating reading and an eye-opener. Recommended for readers of all political persuasions.

No slight intended when I say it is a difficult book to read. Difficult because it, to quote Glenn Beck "makes blood shoot out of your eyes;" difficult because it made me want to vomit; and difficult because I felt I was trapped in a time warp where one continually repeated the same scene with only the names and dates changed--perhaps a simple description of life at the UN.

Bolton exposes Kofi Annan as a little tyrant, the secular pope. Then he debunks the "oil for food" program--which in reality was Saddam's "oil for palaces" program.

Ambassador Bolton clearly demonstrates the UN is a useless organization, a hole in New York City into which the U.S. pours billions of dollars a year.

Bolton's analysis of the U.S. State Department is insightful: another department with an out of control bureaucracy that requires a total overhaul. As Bolton says on page 448, "... what happens at State, where too much of the permanent bureaucracy thinks it is responsible not just for implementing policy, but for setting it, no matter what the president of the moment thinks, ... ."

For those readers who become overwhelmed, do not put the book down, skip to chapter sixteen. This chapter is worth the price of the book.

Well done, John.

John Bolton puts his own unique brand on the American presence in the UN, and it is fascinating to learn how the various players were involved in that organization while he was there. Often wry, often just plain tongue-in-cheek, Bolton gives an honest measure of the behaviors of many ambassadors and the requirements placed on them by their coutnries. This book is at times tedious because it provides so much detail, but the daily posturing and "ducking and dodging" of these powerful people, all on different pages, and often in denial of reality is fascinating. Bolton is every inch an American patriot, and as such, his own attitudes and views come roaring loudly through his prose. Always frank, Bolton writes about those in power through his own unique perspective, and on that level, his candid assessment of the UN and the powerful people there is both informative and refreshing.

What a fascinating look at the complexities of international relations and the personalities which drive them.

A good look inside the UN. But why is there a UN in the first place?

By Baker Irregular 21 (ida m. lee, do not use my name. Thanks)


Before John Bolton's book, 'Surrender Is Not an Option' (his life as UN ambassador), is reviewed, it is important to know important facts about the United Nations.

Many Americans are beginning to realize that the United Nations is far from being a pro-American values organization. When Marxist leaders like Castro and Venezuela's cad enter the U.N., they get standing ovations and cheers, as well as thugs like Mugabe. Not so when the U.S. representatives arrive, except for Clinton. They loved him and laughed at his immoral ways. Clintons' socialistic and one-world-order values were akin to theirs. UN wants dominion over the United States. So do many Democrats in America's universities and Democrats in the US Congress.
***
United (Socialist-Communist) Nations; Time to Withdraw? Or at Least Move Headquarters?

Alger Hiss (and Harry Hopkins?), two American Communists, was/were one of the major architects of the United Nations in 1946. The One World Order we hear so much about today is synonymous with the United Nations. Strobe Talbot (one of many in Clinton's administration) in 1999 has publicly boasted of the eventual One World Order.

Selected excerpts from The Un-American United Nations, by Steve Farrell,
courtesy www.NewsMax.com, August 20, 1999

The UN is no friend to American ideals
The UN's Founders were known Communists. Of the 17 individuals identified by the US State Department as having helped shape US policy leading to the creation of the United Nations, all but one were later identified as secret members of the Communist Party USA. ¶ Joining them at the UN's founding conference were 43 members of the ultra influential, ultra pro-socialist, globalist think-tank the Council On Foreign Relations (6 of the 43 CFR members having the additional distinction of membership in the Communist Party USA). And, importantly, the UN's first Secretary General and orchestrator of the San Francisco conference was the man later convicted as a Soviet agent--Alger Hiss. ¶ Following in the footsteps of that unhallowed class of `46, the ideological makeup of the UN's leadership has been constant. In its 54 year history all seven Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists, all 15 of the UN Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN's military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation), and two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations. ¶ Further, the collection of US employees at the UN have not fared well either. Besides the scandal of having American communists Alger Hiss and company as the creators of the UN, a 1952 official Senate investigation into the then 6 year-old United Nations revealed, "extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered." And these were high officials. ¶ Twenty years later, the "anti-American, anti-freedom" flavor of the UN continued unabated, which prompted former UN enthusiast Republican Senator Barry Goldwater to call for US withdrawal from the UN, and the re-stationing of its headquarters to a place "more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of its voting members, somewhere like Peking or Moscow ."

Things were no different by the 1980's, so Republican President Ronald Reagan, expressed the same conviction; adding that the UN was the host of the greatest concentration of spies in the world and thus he vowed to withdraw the US from the UN. (He did boot UNESCO out of the US)
The UN's Charter is the antithesis of the US Constitution.
Its Bill of Rights (10) creates radical new rights [which deny the dignity of the human substance] to include:

* The socialist right to "adequate" housing, a "living" wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, and widow's pay. [Exactly what the illegals are getting today.]

* The family threatening right for children to possess "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion [which has led to children suing their parents in the United States]," and the right to privacy [i.e., the right for a child to seek an abortion without parental consent].

* The sovereignty destroying right for humans to immigrate and receive welfare services in whatever nation they choose. [From 12 to 20 million illegals in US today.]

* The brainwashing right for "students" to learn the "principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations." [This has already begun. One principle children 6-9 years are learning is that two mommies or two daddies in the house is okay. Romans 1:18-25 says this is wrong, as well as 55 other places in the Bible.]

* And the statist right for the UN to eradicate any and all "rights and freedoms... exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations," A Soviet Constitution style proviso, to accompany all of these and more Soviet style rights.

The UN aids Communists and Attacks non-Communists and Capitalists

11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, Verse 3. Note: Verse 2 also utilizes the tactic of the old Soviet and "new" Russian Constitution when it states: "in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law." And of course the law then rules against rights, which rights are inalienable in the US system.

18. The absolute veto, unlike the veto power of US Presidents cannot be subject to an override vote. It is, as it says, absolute, and thus a dictatorial power.

Clinton is [was] currently active on Executive Orders and UN treaties that threaten the sovereignty of the United States. In Dec. 2000, just before he left office, his executive order was that US would be part of the ICC, the International Criminal Court of the UN, where Americans would be subjected to their laws. Bush deleted that law immediately in 2001.

Bolton's book is an excellent read in the day and a life of a conservative patriot working in a political world. John folks were first-generation bright Scottish-Irish immigrants, and John's brains got him into some expensive schools. We learn that during the `60s, there were only 3 conservative professors at Yale! John does not go into detail of the United Nations horrific scandals but does explain the day-to-day seemingly useless attempts at reform, which Pres. Bush and Rice hoped for. Way way too bureaucratic, just like the State Dept. which is not pro-America! Eric Shawn's book, 'The U.N. Exposed: How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security' is a weightier book in exposing gaudy details. John's major was political science so one can gain a good grasp of current world concerns.

Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United NationsAnyone who wants to understand the manner in which the UN operates and undermines the interest of the US and western democracies should read this book. It also peels away the curtain from the career bureaucrats in the State Department who care more to being liked by foreign governmetns than serving the interest of the country. Bolton has paid terrible personal price for his honesty and beliefs. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Given his impressive tenure (1 year) as UN Ambassador, this guy is really qualified as an expert in world affairs. The loudmouth is so bad at diplomacy, he couldn't even get confirmed as ambassador by the conservative-led Senate, our braindead president had to recess-appoint him, which meant bypassing the democratic process (such an obstacle, that democracy stuff).

But, finger pointing is always good when you have no real message to convey. I bought this book just to have a finger-pointing bully stare me in the face every day to remind me who I want, and don't want, to run this country. I have learned to never, ever, take my voting privileges lightly. I also hang it on the door at Halloween.

Excellent book about bureaucratic misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance at the United Nations and our own State Department. The ineptitude of the UN is not a surprise but it is painful to read a first hand account. The ineptitude of the U.S. Department of State is especially distressing. The way departmental subdivisions become entrenched in fostering their own policys regardless of who is the president is alarming. John Bolton has done an excellent job of telling this story and exposing many of the culprits but the real problem seems to be the system that permits these conflicting policys to flourish.
The distracting but admittedly necessary use of countless acronyms tends to confuse the reader and often makes it necessary to stop and run down some obscure meaning thereby interrupting the flow of the narrative. A glossary of the acronyms used would have been a welcome addition to this book.
This is a worthwhile read and I look forward to the day Bolton might return to the state department in some high level administrative capacity to work his "I don't do carrots" approach on straightening out the system.

John Bolton is a petty, mean-spirited insecure little man. This book is just a litany of every tiny slight and every word of praise from any other Neo-Con non-entity. Dull, poorly written and unrevealing of the realities of how the UN works or how the US dominates its actions (while permanently sniping at it). The UN and other global institutions such as the World Bank were created by the US to serve its interests and they do that to this day. There are problems there but Bolton never made any real effort to reform them. He was a dog in the manger during the reform attempts under Kofi Annan and is now a whining, ignorant man who has been wrong about everything.

Bolton should still be U.N. Ambassador. He's a sharp guy... much sharper than the liberals who vote against him for purely selfish and partisan reasons. It is good to hear the facts straight from Bolton and not "spun" by the liberal press.

The detail could be too exhaustive for many potential readers. But in the final chapters the author does rise above the detail and get into a more general discussion about diplomacy, politics and what he believes. I give the author five stars for taking all those shots but still plowing ahead trying to do the right thing for this country.

Normally, I would be bored to death with the inner workings of the UN. Mr. Bolton has managed to express with some wit and some humor about exceedingly dry subject material. I also learned more of his politics and why he rose to become the necessary foil to the enemies of the us around the world. We would hope that President Giuliani hires him on as Secretary of State.

What a pity that this nation's left-wing is do determined to see the United States fail that it does all it can to keep men like John Bolton from serving the nation.

Bolton is a lifelong conservative. He worked on the Goldwater campaign as a young man. Interestingly enough, he found a wallet on the Yale campus when he was a student there and turned it in. The wallet's owner was another student who was trying to reconcile his radicalism with what seemed to be the commonsense taught him by his grandfather. That student's name is Clarence Thomas. The two have remained friends.

Bolton left a successful private sector legal career to become involved in government.

Here he recounts his service in negotiating with the Soviets, "following the yellow cake [uranium] road on North Korea", his early encounters with the left-wing, helping defeat Al Gore's effort to steal the election in Florida with a recount in only four counties instead of the entire state and so forth until what he is best known for, his contentious confirmation hearings as the nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

With good reason. Bolton's view of the United Nations is unfavorable. As a result the left-wing did its absolute best to smear him as they have smeared other decent and honorable men such as Clarence Thomas. There were no limits for the left-wing. As Bolton puts it "[f]inding that there was simply no substance to the allegation that I had tried to distort intelligence, they [the leftists] shifted the debate to whether I was a nice person, thereby inviting every person in government whom I had ever defeated in a policy battle, of whom there were many, to turn the issue into one of personal disparagement . . ."

Bolton's confirmation was defeated, but President Bush used a recess appointment.

What pity Bolton could not serve throughout the remainder of Bush's term.

Bolton is unsparing in his criticism of the United Nations. His critique is rich . . . almost too rich . . . with details of why the UN is ineffective, why the left's naive belief in it is unfounded and dangerous to the United States (and all of humanity, for that matter), why assessments for dues should be voluntary and much, much more. Only the totally naive could read Bolton's critique and not wonder why the US bothers with the UN at all.

Bolton is even more devestating at deconstructing the United States State Department. I personally fear the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies which have entrenched staffs that have become unelected policymakers. Weak secretaries and directors like Colin Powell and Condi Rice are unable to impress their wills on the bureaucracies. The United States, unfortunately, left behind the idea of dedicated civil servants who served the nation and executed the directions of the President.

Bolton is a clear writer. One problem with Bolton, however, is his mastery of detail. I found myself wishing that Bolton had written a 50 page precis of his indictment of the United Nations and the State Department. This superb book will only keep the interest of those who are truly interested in the survival of the United States, which is at the heart of Bolton's message, as you might gather from the title being "Surrender Is Not An Option".

But there is a much larger audience that Bolton will not reach: those who need things explained in bite-sized chunks.

John Bolton is a patriot. He is an extremely intelligent man and the left-wing's character assasination and blocking of his nomination is a loss to the United States. "Surrender Is Not An Option" is no mere biography. It is, indeed, the journey of one man through some interesting aspects of modern history such as arms negotiations. More importantly, it is a blistering and accurate indictment of the United Nations and our own State Department and the dangers they represent to our nation.

It is must reading for those seriously concerned with the destiny of the United States. But I do hope that Mr. Bolton produces a much shorter summary that would attract the attention of those who need a more easily digested wakeup call.

Jerry

I love this book, I read it over the weekend. Bolton's details his experiences in his various positions throughout his career and reveals insights about our recent history that has made me really understand recent events better. I like his views and wish he was still working for the government, we do not have enough John Bolton's and that is why are government is so lame at times. I wish he would run for public office!

This book should be used as evidence to slap these corrupt UN officials on trial. The UN is way past it's use-by-date and Bolton shows it in spades. It is time to say bye-bye to the UN.

How about a review by someone who actually knows what they're talking about?

This is taken from the December edition of the Economist:

"SURELY even John Bolton cannot be quite as curmudgeonly as this? In a memoir devoted mainly to his nearly six years of government service under President George Bush, America's former ambassador to the United Nations has a bad word for almost everyone who dared stand up to him. This is odd. One of his attractions has always been his willingness to argue it out with his opponents: when other neocons went missing in action, he defended the cause. Yet in this book, this undeniably talented man of principle often comes across as a domineering bully.

[...]

He describes the State Department, where he worked for nearly ten years, as a den of dangerous "high-minded" (his worst term of abuse) liberals, "schooled in accommodation and compromise rather than aggressive advocacy of US interests." He blames successive secretaries of state, including the present one, for having ignored the root-and-branch reform which he believes the department needs even more urgently than the UN. The problem has thus been allowed "to fester and grow to the point where our capacity to advocate American interests in foreign affairs is now seriously impaired". America's foreign policy, he says, is now in "disarray".

Mr Bolton is also hard on his former colleagues in New York. "Watching [Sir Emyr] Jones Parry in action," he says of Britain's ex-envoy to the UN, "I often wondered how Britain had acquired an empire." Mark Malloch Brown, the UN's former number two and once a writer for this newspaper, now a British foreign minister, also angered him. In a speech in Washington in June 2006, Lord Malloch Brown complained about America's "fitful" engagement with the UN and the distorted image it had in "Middle America" thanks to conservative detractors such as Rush Limbaugh, a television talk-show host, and Fox News. This, Mr Bolton sneers, "was a typically elitist, left-wing view of the slobs in `flyover country'."

His greatest spite, however, is reserved for Kofi Annan, regarded by many as one of the finest secretaries-general the UN has ever had. Yet Mr Bolton describes him as weak, vain, power-hungry and possibly even corrupt; a man who was "simply not up to the job". Mr Annan's proposals for UN reform, published in March 2005, were "an unrealistic and pretentious grab-bag of ideas", designed to rescue his "diminished reputation" (as a result of the oil-for-food scandal) and ensure his legacy, he says.

What he fails to mention is that Mr Annan's proposals were almost entirely based on those put forward three months earlier by a "high-level [UN] panel" of international dignitaries. They included Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser under presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush senior, and chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in 2001-05.

Yet, for all his bluster, Mr Bolton seems curiously insecure. He apparently feels a need to report every honour he has ever received, every round of applause and every kind word, however trivial. "You're absolutely right," he carefully notes Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state as telling him on one occasion. "I'm for him," said Arlen Specter, a senior Republican senator, at Mr Bolton's (second) confirmation hearings: "I think he's done a good job. He's smart, he's industrious and he's cantankerous, and those are good qualities." But not sufficient.

On many issues, Mr Bolton fought the good fight at the UN. He failed because he went about it the wrong way. Intelligent, energetic and witty he may be. But in an organisation where nothing gets done without a readiness to make friends, form coalitions and accept compromises, Mr Bolton put almost everyone's back up.

The publishers describe this as an "explosive" book that is "sure to become required reading for everyone interested in international affairs". It is not. Although there is some amusing tittle-tattle, it reveals little about America's recent foreign policy that was not already widely known--or at least strongly suspected--and aired in the press. A pity."

Score, game, you're silly.

Reading this book is like sitting in a UN discussion. It was a difficult slog thru but enlightening.
One has to wonder after reading the book the usefullness of the UN.
The book provides valuable insight on the interactions of our government and the current world problems.

The fact that President Bush needed a recess appointment to give him a job tells you all you need to know about the current crop of idealogues on the left. Thank you for your service to the nation, Mr. Bolton.

This is an excellent and interesting book. However, the level of detail that Bolton goes into makes it difficult to sustain interest. Many of the details could have been omitted to make the presentation move at a better pace.

This is the very interesting memoir of a fireman's son, who fought a lot of the battles of America in the UN and related agencies for many years. It is a shame that we are not guided by his intellect and common sense instead of the instituional memory and methods of the State Department.

John Bolton was America's greatest UN Ambassador. I'll never forget how he stood up to the North Korean terrorists and laid down the law on the UN floor, despite the appeasement pleadings coming from linguine-spined liberals. In this book, Bolton continues telling the truth no matter what the cost.

You may be shocked and offended to learn that terrorists are actively trying to destroy America, but John Bolton doesn't care. This book is full of facts that may make the appeasers want to cry, that is what makes it so great. Surrender is NOT an option as long as George W. Bush has strong men like John Bolton working for America.

bolton seems to look down on the liberals who protested during Vietnam, citing his working class background and his need to study while in college.
If you ask me, it seems like he is just angry. This is not a book I enjoyed reading.

John Bolton's memoirs meet his billing as a "gray battleship" that keeps firing.

Bolton's advocacy for America, more human freedom and voluntary UN contributions clearly makes the book at least somewhat agenda-driven, but unsurprising for an in-again, out-again, back-in American Enterprise Institute (a major conservative think tank) fellow. That said, this book allows a full portrait into the messy UN Bureaucracy.

Also, like with many bureaucratic organizations (I've worked with and in public service bureaucracies), Bolton realizes for reform he must not be the lone wolf but on the synergy with other perm reps to the UN. Bolton wasn't out to take out 10 stories of the UN HQ when Ambassador... he was out to weaken the then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who considered himself a "Secular Pope" who could have (and had) bit the hand of America that pays over 20% of the UN's bills and streghen member nations' voices in the UN.

Ultimately, I really felt this book gave me an education in the nature of the UN as well as how to reform bureaucracies and have already given one as a Christmas present to a pen pal. Hence the 5 stars. A must have for any conservative or watchdog of the United Nations.

Patrick Moynihan entitled his memoir of his years as Ambassador to the UN "A Dangerous Place." John Bolton (Ambassador in 2005 and 2006) shows that little has changed.

During his tenure at the UN and his prior service as Undersecretary of State for arms control and international security affairs, Ambassador Bolton dealt with issues such as the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, the UN "Oil for Food" scandal, the election of a new UN Secretary General and efforts to reform broken parts of that organization, of Darfur and the war in Lebanon. These issues, and the challenges at making and implementing policy both within the US government and through interactions with allies and adversaries, are detailed in Bolton's memoir.

Making policy, and dealing with diplomats from other nations, involves interacting with people of differing, sometimes naïve, worldviews. Amusing (if it did not reveal the insularity of UN leaders) is the episode in which the President of the General assembly at the time lectured the recently reelected President Bush on how American public opinion viewed the world (and the UN). Distressing is the conclusion of many UN diplomats that the embezzlements in the Oil for Food scandal were properly addressed by adopting resolutions and changing the subject, instead of changing the structure.

Bolton takes the UN seriously, as a place where words have meaning and where the nuances of phrasing in resolutions can promote or retard national policy. In a world where entropy is the natural order, where the natural end of any negotiation is perceived, even by many of our allies, as reaching an agreement by consensus, which means be surrendering any principled position in order to meet the lowest common denominator --- usually the party causing the problem. But Bolton shows how seeking agreement for compromise sake fails either to address US national interests or to address serious, and dangerous, threats to peace throughout the world.

"Surrender is not an option" is a professionally written book, not a "tell-all" memoir in which the author seeks to even scores for his adversaries in the policy making process by ad hominen, personal attacks upon his rivals within the government. While Bolton's traditional candor animates his writing, he treats his disagreements with others as arguments over policy and tactics. The result is more than a personal memoir; it is a study on how policy is made in our democracy and at the UN. Whether readers will find the result reassuring or disturbing may turn on the illusions the reader brings to the work,

For myself, I look forward to Bolton's memoir of his next period of public service.

I put off reading Surrender Is Not an Option as I had much reading in front of me when your book came out. I always hoped our country would dump the UN in the dust bin of history and I didn't need to provoke my anger reading about that sewer. Finally, deciding the read was a duty of citizenship; I started the read yesterday and finished this morning. I couldn't put it down! I haven't encountered so many slim balls since I flushed my pet rabbit's crap down the toilet as a kid. And I thought America Alone was the best book I read this year! Thank you John Bolton!

There are basically two groups of people in this country, when it comes to the big topic of relations with allies, the UN, and US global diplomacy.

One group feels we need to "reach out" to allies and listen to them before formulating policy (or, perhaps just do what they want, so they'll stop hating us), respect and follow "international law", and for the most part, subordinate our considerable power to international institutions, which mostly means the United Nations.

The other group believes there is no such thing as "international law", it being a catchy buzzword for a collection of politics, largely unenforceable treaties, and anti-US "norming" by non-state actors; no such thing as an "international community", an absurd construct that implies a a global "consensus" which doesn't exist but from which we're constantly accused of being "isolated"; that yes, of course we should have allies and friends but pleasing them should not come before defending and promoting our own national interests, and that the UN is a corrupt and unaccountable bureaucracy which oscillates between "total uselessness" and "serious liability to the United States" - an organization that, if we're going to continue participating in at all, should at least be forced to serve as a useful tool of American interests, as was clearly the intent at its founding.

Of course, those are opposite ends of a continuum, and there are many people in the middle.

John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, is the world's leading proponent of the latter camp - the UN skeptics who don't necessarily think we should ditch the UN, but who do believe strongly that we should be leveraging the UN to extend American power, and should more strenuously fight the UN's ongoing evolution into the key global collection point for anti-US propaganda and policy.

If you are already a Boltonite (as I am, obviously), you will not only find this book convincing and authentic, but hugely refreshing, too, in confirming what you believe, backing it up with facts and the "inside scoop", and articulately stating the fundamental arguments against US submission to the UN or "international community" agenda. I have so many times asked myself questions like: Why exactly do we care what Belgium thinks? What specifically is an "international community", and where does it live? What gives the UN, an unelected collective of bureaucrats who we don't get to choose, evaluate, or fire, the right to pass judgment on or influence the policies chosen by democratic peoples via their elected representatives (in the US and elsewhere)? Is that not completely antithetical to the basic thrust of history in the past century - power to free people, expressed through their elected officials? Aside from the dismal practices of the UN, even the underlying theory of the UN is such a huge step backwards: subordination and gradual erosion of the sovereignty of freely-elected governments to a secretive, unelected elite. That should bother people a lot more than it does, and is a point made very articulately and persuasively in Bolton's book. Finally, UN skeptics ask what all those UN committees, memoranda, reports, "high level groups", "special rapporteurs", etc. etc., actually accomplish - would the world be any worse off if it was all just tossed in the garbage? With so many people, worldwide and in the US, too, supporting the UN monstrosity, it's easy to feel self-doubt as a UN skeptic, because not many of us have the self-confidence and knowledge-base of a John Bolton. Well, this book will get like-minded people back on track and confident that, yes, in fact, the special rapporteurs and high level groups and UN special committees - all of it is a bunch of pointless nonsense, or worse, basically a way for second-rate European powers to regain through soft power and "norming" what they've already lost in the arena of hard power, combined with a way for thousands upon thousands of anti-US bureaucrats all over the world to come together in one place to do some serious US ankle-biting, and maybe score some gains for their own countries' or regions' interests while harranguing us for pursuing our own. All under the banner of the UN, with its post-WW2 legitimacy and grandeur which we bestowed on it, and continue to fund. And house.

If you are one of the "We need to work with the International Community" or "we need to respect international humanitarian law" (whatever that is!) crowd, you'll probably disagree with most of this book, or just plain not understand what the heck Bolton is talking about.

It's a damn shame Bolton's out of the US government. It really is. He is a unique individual with a powerful voice. Without him, the current administration is adrift. He was the antidote to the sappy, Europhile lefists running the State Department, along with a third or so of the US public, who are falling all over themselves trying to meet an impossible, insatiable global demand for apologetic regret on the part of the US for being what it is - successful, powerful, and dominant. I highly recommend this book to people who want to learn the real deal about Bolton and the incredibly tedious, and implacably obnoxious, American-power-sucking institution known as the United Nations.

P.S. I was quite taken aback by how funny this book is. Bolton has some superbly witty and humorous observations on many topics in government and diplomacy, and especially, as you'd expect, the United Nations. I literally laughed out loud at least a dozen times. Sounds strange, but it's true. There's just a level of poignant directness in this book that leads to some very amusing and telling observations about politics.

I start many, many books on current events and politics, but I rarely finish them, usually getting bored after around 100-150 pages. This book - I read every single word on every page, and I'm going to go back and reread it.

There are basically two groups of people in this country, when it comes to the big topic of relations with allies, the UN, and US global diplomacy.

One group feels we need to "reach out" to allies and listen to them before formulating policy (or, perhaps just do what they want, so they'll stop hating us), respect and follow "international law", and for the most part, subordinate our considerable power to international institutions, which mostly means the United Nations.

The other group believes there is no such thing as "international law", it being a catchy buzzword for a collection of politics, largely unenforceable treaties, and anti-US "norming" by non-state actors; no such thing as an "International community", an Alice in Wonderland level absurdity implying a global "consensus" of views which of course doesn't exist, from which we're constantly accused of being "isolated"; that yes, of course we should have allies and friends but pleasing them should not come before defending and promoting our own national interests, and that the UN is a corrupt and unaccountable bureaucracy which oscillates between "total uselessness" and "serious liability to the United States" - an organization that, if we're going to continue participating in at all, should at least be forced to serve as a useful tool of American interests, as was clearly the intent at its founding.

Of course, those are opposite ends of a continuum, and there are many people in the middle.

John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, is the world's leading proponent of the latter camp - the UN skeptics who don't necessarily think we should ditch the UN, but who do believe strongly that we should be leveraging the UN to extend American power, and should more strenuously fight the UN's ongoing evolution into the key global collection point for anti-US propaganda and policy.

If you are already a Boltonite (as I am, obviously), you will not only find this book convincing and authentic, but hugely refreshing, too, in confirming what you believe, backing it up with facts and the "inside scoop", and articulately stating the fundamental arguments against US submission to the UN or "international community" agenda. I have so many times asked myself questions like: Why exactly do we care what Belgium thinks? What specifically is an "international community", and where does it live? What gives the UN, an unelected collective of bureaucrats who we don't get to choose, evaluate, or fire, the right to pass judgment on or influence the policies chosen by democratic peoples via their elected representatives (in the US and elsewhere)? Is that not completely antithetical to the basic thrust of history in the past century - power to free people, expressed through their elected officials? Aside from the dismal practices of the UN, even the underlying theory of the UN is such a huge step backwards: subordination and gradual erosion of the sovereignty of freely-elected governments to a secretive, unelected elite. That should bother people a lot more than it does. And what do all those UN committees, memoranda, reports, "high level groups", "special rapporteurs", etc. etc., actually accomplish - would the world be any worse off if it was all just tossed in the garbage? Yet, with so many people, worldwide and in the US, too, supporting the UN monstrosity, it's easy to feel self-doubt, because not many of us have the self-confidence of a John Bolton. Well, this book will get like-minded people back on track and confident that, yes, in fact, the special rapporteurs and high level groups and UN special committees - all of it is a bunch of pointless nonsense, or worse, basically a way for second-rate European powers to regain through soft power and "norming" what they've already lost in the arena of hard power, combined with a way for thousands upon thousands of anti-US bureaucrats all over the world to come together in one place to do some serious US ankle-biting, and maybe score some gains for their own countries' or regions' interests while harranguing us for pursuing our own. All under the banner of the UN, with its post-WW2 legitimacy and grandeur which we bestowed on it, and continue to fund. And house.

If you are one of the "We need to work with the International Community" or "we need to respect international humanitarian law" (whatever that is!) crowd, you'll probably disagree with most of this book, or just plain not understand what the heck Bolton is talking about.

It's a damn shame Bolton's out of the US government. It really is. He is a unique individual with a powerful voice. Without him, the current administration is adrift. He was the antidote to the sappy, Europhile lefists running the State Department, along with a third or so of the US public, who are falling all over themselves trying to meet an impossible, insatiable global demand for apologetic regret on the part of the US for being what it is - successful, powerful, and dominant. I highly recommend this book to people who want to learn the real deal about Bolton and the incredibly tedious, and implacably obnoxious, American-power-sucking institution known as the United Nations.

P.S. I was quite taken aback by how funny this book is. Bolton has some superbly witty and humorous observations on many topics in government and diplomacy, and especially, as you'd expect, the United Nations. I literally laughed out loud at least a dozen times. Sounds strange, but it's true. There's just a level of poignant directness in this book that leads to some very amusing and telling observations about politics.

I start many, many books on current events and politics, but I rarely finish them, usually getting bored after around 100-150 pages. This book - I read every single word on every page, and I'm going to go back and reread it.

There are basically two groups of people in this country, when it comes to the big topic of relations with allies, the UN, and US global diplomacy.

One group feels we need to "reach out" to allies and listen to them before formulating policy (or, perhaps just do what they want, so they'll stop hating us), respect and follow "international law", and for the most part, subordinate our considerable power to international institutions led by, first and foremost, the United Nations.

The other group believes there is no such thing as "international law", it being a catchy buzzword for a collection of politics, largely unenforceable treaties, and anti-US "norming" by non-state actors; no such thing as an "International community" (basically, a fancy buzzword for uppity Eurocrats still living the dream of empire even though the expiration date has long-since passed); that yes, of course we should have allies and friends but pleasing them should not come before defending and promoting our own national interests, and that the UN is a corrupt and unaccountable bureaucracy which oscillates between "total uselessness" and "serious liability to the United States" - an organization that, if we're going to continue participating in at all, should at least be forced to serve as a useful tool of American interests, as was clearly the intent at its founding.

Of course, those are opposite ends of a continuum, and there are many people in the middle.

John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, is the world's leading proponent of the latter camp - the UN skeptics who don't necessarily think we should ditch the UN, but who do believe strongly that we should be leveraging the UN to extend American power, and should more strenuously fight the UN's ongoing evolution into the key global collection point for anti-US propaganda and policy.

If you are already a Boltonite (as I am, obviously), you will not only find this book convincing and authentic, but hugely refreshing, too, in confirming what you believe, backing it up with facts and the "inside scoop", and articulately stating the fundamental arguments against US submission to the UN or "international community" agenda. I have so many times asked myself questions like: Why exactly do we care what Belgium thinks? What specifically is an "international community", and where does it live? What gives the UN, an unelected collective of bureaucrats who we don't get to choose, evaluate, or fire, the right to pass judgment on or influence the policies chosen by democratic peoples via their elected representatives (in the US and elsewhere)? Is that not completely antithetical to the basic thrust of history in the past century - power to free people, expressed through their elected officials? Aside from the dismal practices of the UN, even the underlying theory of the UN is such a huge step backwards: subordination and gradual erosion of the sovereignty of freely-elected governments to a secretive, unelected elite. That should bother people a lot more than it does. And what do all those UN committees, memoranda, reports, "high level groups", "special rapporteurs", etc. etc., actually accomplish - would the world be any worse off if it was all just tossed in the garbage? Yet, with so many people, worldwide and in the US, too, supporting the UN monstrosity, it's easy to feel self-doubt, because not many of us have the self-confidence of a John Bolton. Well, this book will get like-minded people back on track and confident that, yes, in fact, the special rapporteurs and high level groups and UN special committees - all of it is a bunch of pointless nonsense, or worse, basically a way for second-rate European powers to regain through soft power and "norming" what they've already lost in the arena of hard power, combined with a way for thousands upon thousands of anti-US bureaucrats all over the world to come together in one place to do some serious US ankle-biting, and maybe score some gains for their own countries' or regions' interests while harranguing us for pursuing our own. All under the banner of the UN, with its post-WW2 legitimacy and grandeur which we bestowed on it, and continue to fund. And house.

If you are one of the "We need to work with the International Community" or "we need to respect international humanitarian law" (whatever that is!) crowd, you'll probably disagree with most of this book, or just plain not understand what the heck Bolton is talking about.

It's a damn shame Bolton's out of the US government. It really is. He is a unique individual with a powerful voice. Without him, the current administration is adrift. He was the antidote to the sappy, Europhile lefists running the State Department, along with a third or so of the US public, who are falling all over themselves trying to meet an impossible, insatiable global demand for apologetic regret on the part of the US for being what it is - successful, powerful, and dominant. I highly recommend this book to people who want to learn the real deal about Bolton and the incredibly tedious, and implacably obnoxious, American-power-sucking institution known as the United Nations.

P.S. I was quite taken aback by how funny this book is. Bolton has some superbly witty and humorous observations on many topics in government and diplomacy, and especially, as you'd expect, the United Nations. I literally laughed out loud at least a dozen times. Sounds strange, but it's true. There's just a level of poignant directness in this book that leads to some very amusing and telling observations about politics.

I start many, many books on current events and politics, but I rarely finish them, usually getting bored after around 100-150 pages. This book - I read every single word on every page, and I'm going to go back and reread it.

There are basically two groups of people in this country, when it comes to the big topic of relations with allies, the UN, and US global diplomacy.

One group feels we need to "reach out" to allies and listen to them before formulating policy (or, perhaps just do what they want, so they'll stop hating us), respect and follow "international law", and for the most part, subsume our considerable power under international organizations led by, first and foremost, the United Nations.

The other group believes there is no such thing as "international law", it being a catchy buzzword for a collection of politics, largely unenforceable treaties, and anti-US "norming" by non-state actors; no such thing as an "International community" (basically, a fancy buzzword for uppity Eurocrats still living the dream of empire even though the expiration date has long-since passed); that yes, of course we should have allies and friends but pleasing them should not come before defending and promoting our own national interests, and that the UN is a corrupt and unaccountable bureaucracy which oscillates between "total uselessness" and "serious liability to the United States" - an organization that, if we're going to continue participating in at all, should at least be forced to serve as a useful tool of American interests, as was clearly the intent and purpose at its founding.

Of course, those are opposite ends of a continuum, and there are many people in the middle.

John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, is the world's leading proponent of the latter camp - UN skeptics who don't necessarily think we should ditch the UN or our membership in it, but who do believe strongly that we should be leveraging the UN to extend American power, and should more strenuously fight the UN's ongoing evolution into the key global focal point and collection point for anti-US propaganda and policy.

If you are already a Boltonite (as I am, obviously), you will not only find this book convincing and authentic, but hugely refreshing, too, in confirming what you believe, backing it up with facts and the "inside scoop", and articulately stating the fundamental arguments against US submission to the UN or "international community" agenda. I have so many times asked myself questions like: Why do we care what Belgium thinks? What exactly is an "international community", and where does it live? What gives the UN, an unelected gaggle of bureaucrats who we don't get to choose, evaluate, or fire, the right to pass judgment on or influence the policies chosen freely by democratic peoples via their elected representatives (in the US and elsewhere)? Is that not completely antithetical to the basic thrust of history in the past century - power to free people, expressed through elected officials? Aside from the dismal practices of the UN, even the underlying theory of the UN is such a huge step backwards: sublimation of the sovereignty of freely-elected governments to a secretive, unelected elite. That should bother people a lot more than it does. And what do all those UN committees, memoranda, reports, "high level groups", "special rapporteurs", etc. etc., actually accomplish - would the world be any worse off if it was all just tossed in the garbage? Is there anything the UN has ever accomplished since its inception date that couldn't have been done cheaper, faster, better, and with more integrity by either an individual