mostraligabue
» » Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan

ePub Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan download

by Mark N. Katz

ePub Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan download
Author:
Mark N. Katz
ISBN13:
978-1421405582
ISBN:
142140558X
Language:
Publisher:
Johns Hopkins University Press (April 16, 2012)
Subcategory:
Politics & Government
ePub file:
1669 kb
Fb2 file:
1253 kb
Other formats:
mbr txt docx mobi
Rating:
4.5
Votes:
413

Leaving Without Losing is quite possibly the best book written thus far about the long-range strategic implications of the . draw-down in both Iraq and Afghanistan

Leaving Without Losing is quite possibly the best book written thus far about the long-range strategic implications of the . draw-down in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Drawing upon the Cold War paradigm, Katz analyzes the "war on terror" in much the same way. He provides a new way of looking at the balance of power in the Middle East and the forces of radical Islam. His book is succinct, well-written, and offers a careful and balanced approach to the study of post-9/11 political realities. 4 people found this helpful.

Mark N. Katz (born November 11, 1954) is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University . Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012).

Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012). Reflections on Revolutions (St. Martin's Press/Macmillan, 1999). Katz, Apr 30 2012, 562 views . On September 11, 2011, the War on Terror entered its second decade. Despite the death of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, the War on Terror continues-with no end in sight. Intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq has not led the United States to victory in the War on Terror. But withdrawing from these two countries will not either.

Leaving without Losing book. Anyone concerned with the future of the War on Terror will find Katz’s argument highly thought provoking.

Leaving without Losing provides a thought-provoking analysis of the potential impact of a US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan on the larger global war on terrorism (GWOT). 26 Temmuz 2015, 15:32 ·. Herkese Açık. 1 Yorum · Haberin Tam Boyutu. Türkçeالعربية Español. Kurdî (Kurmancî) English (UK).

Leaving Without Losing. As the United States withdraws its combat troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, politicians, foreign policy specialists, and the public are worrying about the consequences of leaving these two countries. Neither nation can be considered stable, and progress toward democracy in them-a principal aim of America and the West-is fragile at best. But, international relations scholar Mark N. Katz asks: Could ending both wars actually help the United States and its allies to overcome radical Islam in the long term?

This means that, although leaving Afghanistan and Iraq may well appear to be a victory for America’s opponents in the short .

This means that, although leaving Afghanistan and Iraq may well appear to be a victory for America’s opponents in the short term-as was the case when the . withdrew from Indochina-the larger battle with militant Islam can be won only by refocusing foreign and military policy away from these two quagmires.

Mark Katz's book Leaving Without Losing contributes to trying to analyze this failure and describe the lessons Americans should .

Mark Katz's book Leaving Without Losing contributes to trying to analyze this failure and describe the lessons Americans should learn to design productive policies to address the challenges of the future. Professor Katz's work is insightful and his discussion of America's counter-terrorism policy is useful. Since the attacks, there have been many books written on the War On Terror, but what makes Leaving Without Losing unique are two characteristics: first, is a discussion of the political structure of some of the states in the Islamic world, including Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Indonesia.

As the United States withdraws its combat troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, politicians, foreign policy specialists, and the public are worrying about the consequences of leaving these two countries. Neither nation can be considered stable, and progress toward democracy in them―a principal aim of America and the West―is fragile at best. But, international relations scholar Mark N. Katz asks: Could ending both wars actually help the United States and its allies to overcome radical Islam in the long term?

Drawing lessons from the Cold War, Katz makes the case that rather than signaling the decline of American power and influence, removing military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq puts the U.S. in a better position to counter the forces of radical Islam and ultimately win the war on terror. He explains that since both wars will likely remain intractable, for Washington to remain heavily involved in either is counter-productive. Katz argues that looking to its Cold War experience would help the U.S. find better strategies for employing America’s scarce resources to deal with its adversaries now. This means that, although leaving Afghanistan and Iraq may well appear to be a victory for America’s opponents in the short term―as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from Indochina―the larger battle with militant Islam can be won only by refocusing foreign and military policy away from these two quagmires.

This sober, objective assessment of what went wrong in the U.S.–led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the ways the West can disentangle itself and still move forward draws striking parallels with the Cold War. Anyone concerned with the future of the War on Terror will find Katz’s argument highly thought provoking.

  • Leaving Without Losing is quite possibly the best book written thus far about the long-range strategic implications of the U.S. draw-down in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Drawing upon the Cold War paradigm, Katz analyzes the "war on terror" in much the same way. He provides a new way of looking at the balance of power in the Middle East and the forces of radical Islam. His book is succinct, well-written, and offers a careful and balanced approach to the study of post-9/11 political realities.

  • The title tells you it's from the Israel lobby. The first three words tell you that. The next four words tell you it's from the conservative wing of the Israel lobby.
    My first idea of what to call this review was "how to not read a book". While it's occasionally interesting to see what the Israel lobby is putting out--whether it's Chiapas or Darfur as distractions, Syria: Monster-at-bay as the trigger for regional war at the moment if Israel decides it wants one, or yet another pathetic look at the pathetic Palestinians if Israel decides, for the moment, just to expel them rather than kill them--but in general the idea that you should listen to the enemy to see what it will come up with next doesn't apply to Israel because Israel is the archetype of the self-limiting problem. It doesn't need any management because it has absolutely nowhere to go. Reading its PR output as a means to pick up peace feelers underestimates its determination, on the other hand.
    So, an occasional dip into America Abroad (or public broadcasting in general), or a glance at the NYT front page, is enough to remind oneself that Israel is still pumping out the guff, still clueless. It is occasionally slightly pleasing to learn what salient of public opinion has been coopted by the Israel lobby as a badge of loyalty. Anti-China sentiments are a recent favorite which you might not generally have expected. It apparently comes from China dealing with Sudan, which, as a front-line state has long been in Israel's sights, which explains the Darfur distortion as an element of Israeli public diplomacy. But it might emerge here currently that "pink slime" will become a means for the thoughtful public to express its solidarity with the racist genocidal Jewish state without risking itself too much (in proper Nietzschean bourgeois fashion).
    What makes Israel a self-limiting problem? Look at how its PR treats Egypt currently, the Egyptian parliament, the two-thirds of whose members (in the lower house, at least) are either Muslim Brotherhood or Salafi, the recent utterance from that body referring to Israel as "the enemies", etc. The Israel lobby's PR ignores the whole problem, like Himmler staring out at a vast sea of Soviet tanks (in some day dream) and saying to his faithful first adjutant, Joachim Peiper, "Look here, Jochen, take a platoon and go deal with that, will you?" Actually that would have been Peiper's nightmare, and, next morning, Peiper would have taken his mechanized battalion and tried to carry out his master's orders.