From one of the world’s most admired women; this is former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s compelling story of eight years serving at the highest levels of government. In her position as America’s chief diplomat; Rice traveled almost continuously around the globe; seeking common ground among sometimes bitter enemies; forging agreement on divisive issues; and compiling a remarkable record of achievement. A native of Birmingham; Alabama who overcame the racism of the Civil Rights era to become a brilliant academic and expert on foreign affairs; Rice distinguished herself as an advisor to George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. Once Bush was elected; she served as his chief adviser on national-security issues – a job whose duties included harmonizing the relationship between the Secretaries of State and Defense. It was a role that deepened her bond with the President and ultimately made her one of his closest confidantes. With the September 11; 2001; terrorist attacks; Rice found herself at the center of the Administration’s intense efforts to keep America safe. Here; Rice describes the events of that harrowing day – and the tumultuous days after. No day was ever the same. Additionally; Rice also reveals new details of the debates that led to the war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The eyes of the nation were once again focused on Rice in 2004 when she appeared before the 9-11 Commission to answer tough questions regarding the country’s preparedness for – and immediate response to – the 9-11 attacks. Her responses; it was generally conceded; would shape the nation’s perception of the Administration’s competence during the crisis. Rice conveys just how pressure-filled that appearance was and her surprised gratitude when; in succeeding days; she was broadly saluted for her grace and forthrightness.From that point forward; Rice was aggressively sought after by the media and regarded by some as the Administration’s most effective champion. In 2005 Rice was entrusted with even more responsibility when she was charged with helping to shape and carry forward the President’s foreign policy as Secretary of State. As such; she proved herself a deft crafter of tactics and negotiation aimed to contain or reduce the threat posed by America’s enemies. Here; she reveals the behind-the-scenes maneuvers that kept the world’s relationships with Iran; North Korea and Libya from collapsing into chaos. She also talks about her role as a crisis manager; showing that at any hour -- and at a moment’s notice -- she was willing to bring all parties to the bargaining table anywhere in the world. No Higher Honor takes the reader into secret negotiating rooms where the fates of Israel; the Palestinian Authority; and Lebanon often hung in the balance; and it draws back the curtain on how frighteningly close all-out war loomed in clashes involving Pakistan-India and Russia-Georgia; and in East Africa. Surprisingly candid in her appraisals of various Administration colleagues and the hundreds of foreign leaders with whom she dealt; Rice also offers here keen insight into how history actually proceeds. In No Higher Honor; she delivers a master class in statecraft -- but always in a way that reveals her essential warmth and humility; and her deep reverence for the ideals on which America was founded.
#80444 in Books Hastings; Max 2006-01-03 2006-01-03Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 7.97 x .83 x 5.17l; .87 #File Name: 030727571X368 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. UnprofessionalBy Ron LLet’s dispense with the reason the first star was lost: MAPS!When there is a map included in the book; the particular map dealing with the issue at hand may or may not be close to the discussion of that issue; and if it is; I defy you to find the towns and features mentioned in the copy. For pete’s sake; you’re describing actions often dictated by the geography and structures; and the reader is supposed to imagine the battles and their circumstances from your blithe mention of ‘on a hill’; or some such? MAPS; MAPS; more MAPS and MAPS; why is this so hard to understand by the authors and their editors? Add MAPS with identified locations; Google won’t charge you much.Hastings salvaged one star; unlike entirely too many accounts of WWII actions and campaigns; he never once writes “north†when the attention should be directed “southâ€. But then; while he is a writer and I assume he has an editor; the difference between “further†and “farther†must be a mystery to both. He or his editor should have further understood that the troops went farther in certain directions. I’d take another quarter-star off if I could.But for all that; this is not an easy book to read if you have read other accounts and are the least bit skeptical. The author writes as if he has a chip on his shoulder; as if he alone has determined the truth of the matter at hand; and it is not sufficient that he is right; someone else must be *WRONG*.We are introduced early on to the author’s conviction that the Nazi troops were better than the Allied troops (Pg. 24) and continuing hints and suggestions that other writers have missed or ignored this point. I can only say that after reading several books on Overlord specifically and many others on the western theater in general; others certainly have noted and remarked at length on the difference. Hastings does mention at intervals (and in what amounts to the summary; Pg. 317) that Germany had a long tradition of celebrating the military and granting prestige to those who make a career of it. England was less subject to such tendencies; but it was certainly not absent in the Isles.In the US; only pockets in the south saw the military as an admirable career; others saw military schools as a chance to get a subsidized education. The US entered the war; as Hastings admits; with an army of ‘citizens in uniform’; and posting as a US citizen; that seems like a desirable position for any population. Trained and eager killers are not my hope for the pinnacle of a culture.But he goes too far in the claim on the same page that that “Throughout the Second World War; wherever British or American met the Germans in anything like equal strength; the Germans prevailedâ€; see The Bulge for a corrective of that impression. The Allied troops were capable; later in the war; of more than matching the Nazis under certain circumstances.Similarly; comparisons between the Sherman tank and the Nazi tanks; between Panzerfausts and bazookas; between Nazi light machine guns and the BAR are all subject to what seems breathless reporting; but none of this is new; and all of it simply assumes that the Nazi preference for fewer; more effective weapons was the proper choice in that dilemma. Demonstratively; it wasn’t.Further; it is roughly 4;000 miles from Detroit; where the tanks were made; to some port in France. For nearly all of the war; transportation throttled the available materiel on site; shipping defined the weapons at hand. I have to admit an inability to cite the source at this time; but one report had the available ships delivering 6 Shermans compared to 2 larger tanks; and that totally ignores the peripheral logistics to support a new tank in spares; ammunition; etc. Besides which; US doctrine did not presume tanks battling tanks; tank destroyers were to deal with enemy tanks; US tanks were to be cavalry spearheads. Finally; quantity and reliability do matter; suffice to say; the German preferences also lead to more fragile weapons; a Panzer with a blown tread is a sitting duck for a brace of Shermans with smaller guns; and that was certainly common enough.I certainly have other disputes: Hastings’ claim that the Villers-Bocage ambush of the Brit tanks said something regarding the disparate quality of the tanks rather than the Brit’s tendency to stop for some tea before setting out guards (pg.132); his gratuitous slur regarding Eisenhower’s tours of the front (with his “sycophantic†aides and his “driver and perhaps loverâ€; Pg 240); Churchill’s “misgivings†regarding “unconditional surrenderâ€; Pg 185 (according to “An Army at Dawnâ€; Atkinson; Pg. 294; Churchill had plenty of opportunities to demur and raised no concern); the claim that Montgomery “was driven to winâ€; where many others have pointed out he was more driven to avoid the appearance of losing; the repeated inference that the Allies could have modified their weaponry in some schedule such that it would have effected a change in the progress of the war in Europe except for parochialism. There are plenty more questionable claims; mistakes; and some ‘carefully’ selected data; it’s fun AND instructive to find them!European war is (or was; we hope) an economic competition; unfortunately often sacrificing human lives in some vain attempt to prove it isn’t. See Overy (“Why the Allies Wonâ€) for an internally contradictory argument proving it is indeed. And see Tooze (“The Wages of Destructionâ€) for a clear explanation of the German economic imperatives.There is no doubt that the Allies could have done better in Normandy. But there is also no certainty that lives were lost in reliance on gunpowder over flesh or the reliance on caution over heroism. Hastings has every right to argue otherwise; but he would be better off if he stuck to facts to support his claimsWorth the read; but entirely too much second-guessing and counter-factual assumptions.In my opinion that unwarranted (and unsupported) editorializing cost two stars; not a professional effort.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Hastings Is Truly GREATBy Scott BruneauThe book the writing itself is great.The only negatives I can give are the same as so many already have: Perhaps too much emphasis on the British side of things and not very balanced with all of the allies participating BUT UNLIKE SO MANY OTHER AUTHORS AND HISTORIANS Hastings TRYS to have a BALANCE. The other negative has nothing to do with the writer: The PRINT is insanely small. Publishers way of saving paper. Would have been a very large volume had they increased the font size to twice it's size to save on eye strain ;-) I love how Hastings writes the GERMAN side of things. He Tries to find a BALANCE in his reporting in this part of the war as he tries to find balance in all his writings of conflicts. So many American writers do bang the drum of nationalism in their writings about WWII as-if the USA won the war by itself. According to Hollywood films the USA WAS the ONLY one fighting the Germans ;-) I joke with a Russian friend that the "Russians" or "Soviets" won that war. It could be argued that Hitler LOST the war for the German people. THAT is something else that Hastings shows. Hasting's gives the reader a rare wonderful humanizing glimpse into the German soldiers that fought the war. They were human. Soldiers. Doing a job doing their duty just like any Allied soldier. Hasting's addition of this humanizing element makes for an energetic enjoyable rendering of history.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. The Battle Comes AliveBy MunseyfloraI bought this book for two reasons. One; I wanted to get a British perspective on Normandy: too often; books written from the American perspective are a one-sided. Second; having read Hastings' excellent description about the Falklands War I wanted to read another of his books. I was not disappointed on either count. Hastings makes the battles come alive with lots of maps; details from interviewed soldiers and a personal interest (his father was in the battle). He doesn't glorify war; both sides made stupid decisions often with poor execution; had ineffective commanders and soldiers; and both sides suffered horribly. Politics aside their were no "good guys". On paper; this should have been a rapid; decisive battle. Despite far superior numbers of men; air power and materiel the Allies barely overwhelmed a largely German army that had far fewer (but superior) weapons; soldiers with a philosophy geared to war and; fortunately; a commander-in-chief who was a liability rather than an asset. The French people who lived in Normandy were victims of both the Allies and the Axis. The Allies were the ultimate "victors"; but everyone involved (and their families) lost significantly. If you are planning a trip to Normandy; and have any interest at all in the battle; read this before you go.
