The One Percent Doctrine, By Ron Suskind

[Vexatious Ape]

Anyone out there read it? Need to know before I plop down the $$$.

[truebrit71]

1. Just started it the other day....

..I'll let you know...

[Pendrench]

2. I plan on buying it this weekend - I read Suskind's two other books

"The Price of Loyalty" and "A Hope in the Unseen" - and really enjoyed both of them, so I have high hopes for this one as well.

Tim

[chat_noir]

3. "HE TRULY ENJOYS GETTING PEOPLE TO KNUCKLE UNDER"....

The game was tight. The other team's captain, Gary Engle...went up for a shot. Bush slugged him — an elbow to the mouth, knocking him to the parquet.

....Moments later, at the other end of the court, Engle went up high for a rebound and felt someone chop his legs out from under him. Bush again. Engle jumped up and threw the ball in Bush's face. The two went at it until two teams of future business leaders leapt on their captains, pulling them apart. Engle, angry and vexed by what had happened, began wondering why the hell Bush would have done what he did. He lost his composure, and his team lost its leader.

A few years later, Engle...bumped into Jeb Bush....Engle, a Republican contributor, had thought from time to time about his game against George. Nothing like that had happened to him before or since. This was his chance to get a little insight about it. He told the story. Jeb kind of laughed, Engle recalled. "In Texas, they call guys like George 'a hard case.' It wasn't easy being his brother, either. He truly enjoys getting people to knuckle under."

Thanks to kpete for posting this on GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1527854

[ColonelTom]

4. Too much detail = suspicious about its veracity in spots

I just started it last week. It's a riveting read, to be sure. However, the exact quotes from key high-level meetings within the Bush Administration makes me wonder how - or whether - he got that level of access.

I'll post more when I'm further along in the book.

[BurtWorm]

5. I felt that way in the beginning. A little too much like a spy novel.

But the last two chapters are brilliant and, therefore, illuminating. I'm actually in the middle of the last chapter, so I don't know if he sustains it, but what I've read so far displays a very astute understanding of the politics of the war on terror, and how it gets in the way of the actual work of countering terror, actually gives aid and comfort to the other side. It's a very interesting and important book.

[Radicalman]

6. Yes, Absolutely Buy Suskind's Book!!

Response to question at to whether Suskind's, "The New American Militarism" is worth purchasing.

Suskind suggests that the guiding principle for the U.S. is a "default strategy" designed by Dick Cheney . In dealing with our adversaries, the strategy says, if there's even a one percent chance that the unimaginable occurring, act if it is a certainty. In other words, the bar is set so low for standards of evidence that empirical evidence in the real world doesn't count. Fact-based responses to threats don't matter. What matters only is the response. So, for example, if there's a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Queda develop a nuclear weapon we must act as if this is a certainty. This theory is coupled with the rejection of diplomacy and the reliance on military power this most dangerous argues Suskind. As part of this witch's brew, there was no policy process in the White House, in the years examined in the book. Controversial issues that were the subject of heated debate at the level of deputies and principles did not find their way to Bush's desk.

For Bush, "instinct" or "gut" determines action and there are no shades of grey. There is no world of daunting complexity. Things are good or bad, democratic or undemocratic, black or white. "What Bush knew before, during or after a decision remains a mystery," writes Suskind. No complex "whys for him." No need to be bothered by the facts. It's acton - never give in, never admit error.

Without relying on facts, the Bush Administration could create whatever reality it wanted to. In part, this book is a study of that. What counts for Bush is action, the response to our adversaries. What we are witness to is an account of the use of U.S. military power based on hearing messages from God, intuition, wishful thinking and a refusal to understand the limitations of power against terrorism as a technique to humiliate and disempower the modern nation state (this last sentence is my idea, not a paraphrase of Suskind's).

(Who knows where this non-fact backed basis for American foreign policy could lead? Perhaps we could nuke Pakistan? Is there a 1% possibility that Hugo Chavez is sending assassination squads to Washington? Well, let's overthrow the government of Venezuela, it could be argued on the basis of this theory- yes, Bush did try!)

I think Suskinds thesis about the 1% doctrine is well-documented, and his insider's knowledge, which allows for the disclosure of facts not heretofore known, sometimes in elaborate detail, are fascinating. Suskind is an excellent researcher.

I think it's a must read, along with Thom Hartmann, "Screwed," Bacevich's "The New American Militarism" and Linker's "The Theocons," and everything every written by Harry Magdoff and Noam Chomsky.

I appreciate your asking the question because I read the book when it first came out and needed to do a re-read and look at my margin notes.

[Vexatious Ape]

7. It was an interesting behind the

scenes read. I see you mentioned "The New American Militarism", that was a good book. And Yes, anything by Chomskey--a certain leader in a certain Latin American country would agree.