Losing the Long Game

Before reading this, I was worried it would be the “enlightened centrist” take on US interventionism. My fears were absolutely correct. “The case against regime change in the Middle East in this book is a practical, not a moral, one.” The author very clearly supports the lie of American Exceptionalism and cares more about utility than morality. He worked in the Obama Whitehouse so no shock there.

This book is a mildly more conservative successor to “Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq” (2006) by Stephen Kinzer. But it has a much narrower focus (just Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, & Syria). Of course we haven't learned our lesson since 2006 so the latter 3 nations are a new edition not covered by “Overthrow”. For those interested in learning more about Iraq specifically, the podcast “Blowback” goes into much greater detail and I would strongly recomend it.

The author is a pragmatist and steeps the reader into the “damned if you do, damned if you don't” quandaries that presidents faced when deciding if overthrowing the ruler of a sovereign nation would be tactically wise. The history of the last 70 years is clear: don't do it. The author has no moral code guiding him, merely a metaphorical spreadsheet and cost-benefit analysis. It's pure coincidence that he and I agree on this specific subject. He is not opposed to US interventionism, military or otherwise. He's just against regime change, specifically. This made the book extremely frustrating to read.

I would only recommend this book to those who've already read “Overthrow” and want to learn more about 3 recently added victims of US Imperialism, or if you're a liberal/reactionary who thinks interventionism is effective and want to learn why you're wrong but aren't willing to entertain the possibility that US imperialism is fundamentally unethical.