An End to Evil

How to Win the War on Terror

De: David Frum, R. Perle

Narrado por: Robertson Dean

An End to Evil charts the agenda for what’s next in the war on terrorism, as articulated by David Frum, former presidential speechwriter and bestselling author of The Right Man, and Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense and one of the most influential foreign-policy leaders in Washington.

This world is an unsafe place for Americans—and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people. In An End to Evil, David Frum and Richard Perle sound the alert about the dangers around us: the continuing threat from terrorism, the crisis with North Korea, the aggressive ambitions of China. Frum and Perle provide a detailed, candid account of America’s vulnerabilities: a military whose leaders resist change, intelligence agencies mired in bureaucracy, diplomats who put friendly relations with their foreign colleagues ahead of the nation’s interests. Perle and Frum lay out a bold program to defend America—and to win the war on terror.

Among the topics this book addresses:

• why the United States risks its security if it submits to the authority of the United Nations
• why France and Saudi Arabia have to be treated as adversaries, not allies, in the war on terror
• why the United States must take decisive action against Iran—now
• what to do in North Korea if negotiations fail
• why everything you read in the newspapers about the Israeli-Arab dispute is wrong
• how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory—not just stalemate
• where the next great terror threat is coming from—and what we can do to protect ourselves

An End to Evil will define the conservative point of view on foreign policy for a new generation—and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond. With a keen insiders’ perspective on how our leaders are confronting—or not confronting—the war on terrorism, David Frum and Richard Perle make a convincing argument for why the toughest line is the safest line.©2004 David Frum and Richard Perle; (P)2004 Books on Tape, Inc.

Reseñas de la Crítica

“A not completely crazy case can be made that the most influential thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of George W. Bush during its first two years was not one of the familiar members of the gold-shielded Praetorian Guard—not Dick Cheney or Colin Powell, not Condi or Rummy, not Tenet or Wolfowitz—but, rather, a forty-two-year-old Canadian named David Frum.” —Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker

“[Richard Perle is the] intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy. . . . [He] has profound influence over Bush policies and officials in the competition for the hearts of the president and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.”
—Dana Milbank, The Washington Post

An End to Honesty

I had to listen to this to see if Richard Perle was as crazy as I thought he was. No question, the man needs a straight jacket. Worth the listen to understand that the NeoCons are as dangerous and stupid as they seem.

Excellent Analysis of America's Options

Well thought out presentation of the terrorist problem and possible solutions facing America. Those who see our terrorist threat primarily as a legal problem will react badly to what the authors have to say (and might even try to score the book low not on its merits, but because they're afraid of its content and want to supress a valid point of view). Those who see a need for solutions with less due process and more direct action will appreciate the analysis. The work is an excellent contribution to the debate over where we go from here.

Neo Con propaganda at its worst

I listened to this book because I have seen Perle in interviews on PBS's Frontline documentaries, where he always comes off as very calm, lucid, knowledgeable and earnest, despite his reputation as a rabid neo-con and a self described "hard-liner".
That said, after reading this book Perle has lost all credibilty with me. He knowingly uses discredited information throughout the book to support his arguments, apparently assuming that many of the people that will read this book are ignorant of information readily available in the press. He rails against Saudi Arabia as a corrupt, oppressive, terrorist sponsoring nation and blames the US govt for coddling them, then gives the Bush administration a complete pass on the topic, despite the fact that the Bush administration has the worst record of muzzling criticism of Saudi Arabia, and, not coincidentally, more conflicts of interests with regard to shared financial interests with Saudis than any other administration.
Apparently Perle muzzles his own criticism of Bush because Bush has bought into the Perle's dream of establishing permanent US world dominance by any means necessary, including preemptive warfare against weak nations who oppose us (and I'm not just talking about Iraq. That's just the beginning for Perle).

Interesting book

In this book, Perle and Frum argue that the US ought to act in self interest while all other nations ought to act unselfishly. The argument rests upon the idea that the US is a moral authority and hence not bound by the rule of law. This is in my opinion a highly controversial claim which needs to be backed up by some sort of evidence. The authors fail to provide any such evidence.
Interestingly and strangely, at times the authors argue that the US was justified in attacking Iraq in self defence, due to WMD and al-Queda, and that the UN and those countries opposing the war were wrong. Yet, at other times, the authors acknowledge that there was no treat of WMD or link to al-Queda, but claim that the countries of Europe should have supported the US anyway, out of good will. In the end, the authors seem to believe that the UN and those countries opposing the war in Iraq failed to identify the US as that moral authority of the world the authors claim that it is.
As I read this book, one question kept lingering in my mind: Do the authors believe their own words? I find it more credible to answer the question in the negative. In trying to justify a more selfish foreign policy, the authors have shown themselves prone to adopt Machiavellian ideals. I see no reason why these authors would not adopt the same Machiavellian ideals when trying to persuade their fellow countrymen of their point of view. As Leo Strauss (a respected thinker among neo-conservatives) they seem to think that that it is necessary and proper for leaders to lead the people by creating myths for them to live by. These myths do not have to correspond to any truths about the world, as long as they are convenient and comforting.
I take An End to Evil to be an interesting yet scary demonstration of clever neo-conservative propaganda.

Neocon

propaganda that should be titled Keep Evil Alive. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about recent history will only be able to get through chapter 1. Watch the movie Vice.