The authors provide interesting, behind-the-scenes accounts of the political and military players in this war, based on many interviews. What unfolds is far different from what was said publicly at the time. Occasionally, the New York Times reporter's and the retired Marine's apparent biases show through, detracting from an otherwise very good book. They seem to blame President Reagan's administration for not buying mine-clearing equipment for the Marines and the Navy, but then blame the Air Force--and not the administration--for using its money to buy items other than the latest survival radios for its aircrews. They also inaccurately claim that the Air Force developed a new doctrine for this war where they would be in charge of all theater airpower (a doctrinal concept developed by them during the North African campaign in World War II) and that the Strategic Air Command had controlled the B-52s deployed to Southeast Asia during the Viet Nam War (they actually were operationally controlled by the Theater), as well as a few other inaccurate items regarding the Air Force. It became rather apparent that all Services that were not Marines (and to a lesser extent, Navy) were denigrated. An example is their claim that the Air Force required that friendly aircraft obtain two means to verify an unknown aircraft's identification before firing on it in order to hold down the Navy's 'kill' rate (since the Navy had not invested in the systems to install two separate means of identification on each of their aircraft, they needed to contact the AWACS to obtain the second means). The Viet Nam War demonstrated this requirement and for whatever reason, the Navy had not addressed it in the interim--which the authors evidently refused to say. After summarizing what the politicians and military should do differently next time (after acknowledging that the media's outcry that the military had created killing zones north of Kuwait City partially caused the premature ending of the war), they also conveniently omitted a recommendation on what the media should do differently. Although the items cited above and a few similar ones throughout the book are distracting and cast some doubt on the entire book, their documented sources were sufficient (approximately one per page) to make them generally believable. I would recommend the book to anyone wanting to know what occurred behind the scenes, with a caution that it should be read critically and not be used as the reader's only source.

This is an objective account of the planning and execution of military force during the gulf war. It brushes aside many of the claims made by the USA, and our military brass(details ineffectiveness of patriots, lack of SCUD hunts, overestimation of enemy, etc). It is well written and entertaining, however I wish it had more maps with greater detail of the region and military advances and attacks.

I would give this book my highest recommedation.

The General's War is an excellent account of the planning and implementation of the Gulf War. In short, it shows why the United States is a great nation. One of the main reasons we were so successful was because we DID argue on how to fight this war. Both the Military and Washington worked together to come up w/ the best possible plan. No war is ever conducted perfectly, but the Gulf War comes pretty close. Don't forget...it is the men and women who fought the war that won it, but the planning phases were crucial to putting our soldiers in the position to win. A little luck in some area never hurts as well. The best part of tis book is that it questions specific decisions from the war. This critcal analysis not only brings awareness, but helps our military and polititians plan future military operations.

Don't forget to read "Bravo Two Zero" about the British SAS in the Gulf. Great book!

King's book deals with the performance of Arthur Conan Doyle's short play "A Story of Waterloo" by eminent Victorian actor Henry Irving and a devastating review of this production written by George Bernard Shaw in 1895. The play is about an old and feeble soldier who has played a heroic role at Waterloo and pathetically dies while reliving his finest hour, thereby bringing the house down (in the theatre, that is). King uses this intersection of two remarkable theatrical careers to consider the Victorians' retrospective glance at the Napoleontic wars, the nature of Irving's performance, which by modern standards would be inconceivably sentimental, Irving's relation to his audience, Shaw's development as a critic and playwright, Irving's leading lady Ellen Terry and her son, the theatre director, designer and Irving acolyte Edward Gordon Craig. An instructive and entertaining read for anyone with a broad interest in the theatre and (cultural) history. Highly accessible, but marred by some unnecessary excursions into academic obscurities that the opening chapters had led me to believe were going to be avoided. Still, fascinating stuff.

I read this book to understand more about communism in America mid-century, how America could castigate some citizens and how some citizens could "worship" another country's ideals while living here. I was pleased and somewhat let down.

The book has two distinct parts but needs a third. First, he quickly explains why he was a member of the communist party. I still believe this fascination was a liberal viewpoint which was carried to an extreme given the recent depression. This section discussing life in Hollywood under fear of subpeona was very interesting and compelling as written from a struggling screenwriter.

Section 2 then deals with his life as a screenwriter working mainly in Spain and Paris. This section really didn't deal with the politics of the time but instead is a personal memoir into his life in the business. I learned a lot of the movie business from a different perspective but actually found this part to run a little long. His description of his side trips in Europe was also very interesting.

There are two important pieces I felt were left out. A more in-depth discussion of his involvement with communism and his current feelings. When he came back to America he talks of how pleasing the return was but he never closes the chapter on what his current feelings are about communism. I think anyone that condemns this man's thoughts without listening are short-sighted. But I also think that he should more fully explain his thoughts, how they have developed and what his thinking is now since that was the premise for the book.

The final item left out of the book were the last 20? years of his life. Since I invested this much time reading about him, at least he could have given a short description of what he has been doing once he left the business. What's happened in the last few years. He mentions what his daughter is doing. What about him? He does mention his wife dying and I was very touched as they seem to have had a very good marriage in a business where there are so few.

Overall, I enjoyed this book. It taught me and showed me a life with which I was not familiar. It also addressed some of my unanswered questions as to the fascination with Communism in the mid-century. But it also left some questions unanswered. If the Author reads this review, I wish he would contact me and explain some of his beliefs in further depth than the book.

This book is a wonderful surprise. Although it deals with very serious matters, it is vastly entertaining, plum full of tasty anecdotes about people whose names we know, people we wish to know. Movie makers and movie stars are dealt with without fear of favour. Among them are Ronald and Nancy (Davis) Reagan. Ronnie denied there was a blacklist although when president of the Screen Actors Guild, he was secretly and treacherously supplying the FBI with the names of his members he considered radicals; Gordon, while blacklisted, was secretly writing love scenes for Ronnie and Nancy in the film, Hellcats of the Navy. This became one of the First Couple's favourite films and was run repeatedly at the White House.They never knew who had put the words in their mouths.

Read about David Niven, Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner (not so good); Telly Savalas, Robert Shaw, James Mason (good) and many others. Most of all, read how Gordon, laughing much of the way, turned the tables, built a fascinating career and refused to be destroyed by the blacklist.

This book is not just about Hollywood. Europeans will be surprised to read of the involvement of their contrymen in the McCarthy period. The British and Spanish film industries gain new stature as places where Gordon finds he can work without having to suppress his independent spirit.

I first heard that Bernard Gordon was working on his memoirs some years ago on a CNN piece, I believe about restoring the credits of blacklisted writers. And only now after I forgot about is it finally availible. A worthwhile wait. "Hollywood Exile" is a great autobiography that paints a vivid word picture of Mr. Gordon's years living and working in Europe. Focusing mostly on his complex relationship with producer Philip Yordan, this book is a remarkably candid account told with humor and intelligence. The blacklist was a terrible period in America's history and it's always gratifying to hear from those few who managed to beat it. Plus I'm a fan of Bernard Gordon's work, including his production of "Horror Express" and writing gigs like "Battle of the Bulge"(a guilty pleasure if there ever was one), and the 1964 version of "The Thin Red Line."

I am a Ph.D Candidate, majored in Multimedia Communication. This book provides the reader with some very important principles and fundamental knowledge about the design of distribuited multimedia systems. It is a good book for the researchers and graduate students majored in multimedia communication architecture. You must have enough knowledge about CORBA, DCE, ODP and multimedia communication. If you just want to get some general knowledge about ODP, do not read it.