Two problems with responding. First, I don't think it's appropriate to comment -- particularly, to issue charges -- without specific references (and one simple way to answer your question is to check to see how well the review meets this absolutely minimal standard). And it is hardly worth taking the space to go through it line by line. Second, it's particularly inappropriate to do so in the case of a review of one's own book.
Nevertheless, with the hesitations just mentioned, since you request a general and nonspecific comment and I don't want to ignore the request, I'll make one, not so much about the review as about the genre it typifies. I think the review has a certain interest as an illustration of the nature of mainstream doctrine, particularly on what is considered the "liberal" end, and I would urge that you check for yourself to see if what follows is fair and accurate.
Quite generally, if anything departs even slightly to the critical side of doctrinal orthodoxy and for some reason is not simply ignored (the usual case), then the typical reaction is a tantrum, with outlandish charges, endless deceit, pouting and ridicule -- but in general, fear verging on terror that the barriers to "correct thinking" might be even marginally breached. I think this is a good illustration -- but check case by case to see for yourself. I presume, as well, that the reviewer saw the oblique reference to her on p. 61, in the one chapter she may have actually looked at, judging by her few (quite remarkable) "references," because it dealt with a topic that is very sensitive to liberal intellectuals: the astonishing display of self-adulation at the end of the millennium, as they lauded themselves for leading foreign policy to a "noble phase" with a "saintly glow," with a historically unique "altruism" and dedication to "principles and values," etc. The two prime examples of this intriguing display were Kosovo and East Timor, both discussed in this chapter. The Kosovo illustration of their historically unprecedented magnificence requires quite extraordinary falsification and suppression of massive Western documentation. The East Timor case requires even more dedicated deceit because because those who were glorying in their nobility had to conceal their direct complicity in one of the worst atrocities of the past quarter-century, and the very dramatic demonstration of how easy it would have been to terminate these terrible crimes from the beginning: namely, by withdrawing their decisive contribution to the atrocities. These facts, which are very clear, surely cannot be faced, so if mentioned, the only reaction of dedicated cowards is lies and deceit. And this is not the only example; there are many others that are discussed, sometimes in detail, which simply cannot be allowed to enter history, or even to be mentioned, as you can easily determine for yourself.
It is not very comforting to look into the mirror and see a criminal and hypocrite who could easily do something to live up to the ideals he preaches from on high to others while praising himself for his magnificence -- sometimes even descending to the level of saying "yes, even we are not perfect: we sometimes do not respond adequately to the crimes of others," a charge against themselves that I am sure would have been greeted with enthusiastic praise by the commissars in the old days.
If you can find some statement in the review that is not either an outlandish fabrication, deceit and distortion, or merely insipid, I'll be glad to consider it. As for the points of "agreement," I think you may have misunderstood her point. Thus the reference to fighting terrorism by not participating in it was not intended, I think, as endorsement; rather, as an illustration of "how crazy can these lunatics be" and part of the pretense that I said nothing about how to deal with terrorism, just one element of the general deception that begins right at the outset.
But please don't take my word for it. Check and see. And again, if you can find a statement that doesn't fall into the categories above, and think merits comment, I'd be glad to look at it.
On Mon, 3 May 2004, Dennis Perrin wrote:
> Has anyone read Power's book, "A Problem From Hell"? My wife's reading
> it as part of a group, so I picked it up and thumbed through it, and
> it is, my friends, an utter fraud. For a book about "American and the
> Age of Genocide," there's very little about direct American
> contributions to global misery and mass murder. A brief mention of
> East Timor, where Power says that the US "looked away" once Indonesia
> began the slaughter, no mention of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala
> or the Turkish anti-Kurd campaign in the early-90s, but plenty about
> Saddam, Milosevic, et al. At best, Power lambastes the US for inaction
> or short-term realpolitick. But you're not gonna find much about US
> action against the world's poor, either directly or through proxies,
> which is why Power's book is so lauded by the liberal intelligensia.
> Even Nation eds like Marc Cooper praise the thing, and attack those on
> his blog (like myself) who point out these glaring omissions as "Red
> Guard" cadre, and so on. I'd call it a disgrace, but it's too commonly
> done to warrant such a dramatic term.