I found this book and thought it would be interesting to see what happened to the press during the war. Unfortunately for me all this author talked about was bureaucratic problems and drinking and smoking. I kept reading thinking that once the war started the book would pick up and at page 275 the war started but the book remained dull. I am assuming that the author is a much better TV producer then author or there is no way he would have a job with CNN.

The book was dull, there is no way around it. The author kept focusing on his drinking and the issues with this ministry and that ministry - not the most exciting. I wanted more detail on what it was like in Baghdad leading up to and during the war - - all the author gave us was what it was like for him in his hotel. Overall I would skip the book and watch the movie.

Live From Baghdad is one of those books that you just cannot put down. Giving the details of the struggle to get the story out before and during the Gulf War, this book is a tremendous personal account of what it takes to succeed in impossible circumstances. Robert Wiener and his crew made extreme personal sacrifices, sometimes in life-threatening circumstances, to get the story out and beat the competition. A great textbook example on how to negotiate what you need through respect and patience, being rewarded with sucess and a place in history. Great anecdotes about life behind the scenes make this a truly enjoyable read.

Will Podmore's review concentrates more on the current situation with Iraq than a review of the book. Keep to the facts Willy.

This deeply researched and extremely well-informed book by Dilip Hiro, the noted expert on the Middle East, presents a most useful survey of the recent changes in Iraq and Iran. It is especially timely since it refutes Bush and Blair's war propaganda.

Hiro notes that the 1991 war against Iraq killed from 57,600 to 62,600 people, and cost Iraq $200 billions' worth of damage. US and British bombers dropped 140,000 tons of bombs, equivalent to seven Hiroshimas.

He points out that the UN's weapons inspection team, Unscom, was compromised by the US government which illegally inserted CIA operatives and by its co-operation with Mossad, the Israeli secret service. As the Pentagon stated, "information supplied by the monitors had played a part in the careful selection of targets" for the subsequent continual bombing attacks.

Hiro reports that by April 1998 Unscom and the International Atomic Energy Authority had destroyed all Iraq's missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons facilities. As Martin Indyk, the US assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, confirmed in September 1999, "We do not at this point have evidence of any kind that Saddam Hussein is attempting to rebuild his arsenal."

So how, after twelve years of the most punishing sanctions in history, could Iraq produce weapons of mass destruction? If Bush and Blair had the evidence, they would surely have told us!

Some claim that UN Resolution 687 gives the US the legal warrant to take 'all necessary measures' to change Iraq's regime. But the Resolution guaranteed the inviolability of the Iraq-Kuwait border and authorised 'all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the Charter'. It "does not talk about getting rid of leadership", as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan observed. And as the British commander in the 1991 war, General Peter de la Billiere, noted, he had no mandate to invade Iraq or to take over the country. Nor did Resolution 688 authorise military action: the US and British governments tried to add the 'authority to use force', but China and India successfully opposed this. So Bush and Blair have no legal mandate for war.

Odd dictionary, which uses arabic letters for each of the gulf arabic roots, which is a problem for learners non-readers of Arabic. This does also lead to confusion - jiim, for example, is used both for words containing classical jiim and classical qaaf. This would be fair if there wasn't a good degree of flexibility in "Gulf Arabic". Personally I find it confusing. I find Dr. Qafisheh's previous "Glossary of Gulf Arabic" (pub. Librairie du Liban) more useful esp. as it is GA-English and English-GA, but this new work is more complete.

This book is for the Arabic spoken in qatar saudi UAE and Kuwait very helpful. Hard to use until you are familar with tonal language rules

This book sounded good when I ordered it, but after receiving it, I was a bit disappointed. The layout of the book is at times confusing, and always unexciting. I find this book geared toward an older, wealthier crowd than most. I wish it had the style of Let's Go or Lonely Planet. The small section about Vancouver in the Lonely Planet Canada guide has as much helpful information as in the entirety of this guide. I would recommend purchasing the Lonely Planet Vancouver guide, as it is much more helpful.

This travel book is very good and easy to read. It covers basically all the major attractions in Vancouver and it even gives you a list of the top ten activities not to miss. For every single attraction, you will find detailed description on how to get there (either by car or by taking the public bus), the admission fee, hours of service, and a phone number. The book includes about ten maps that are absolutely great. You will also find the information on restaurants very useful. They organize them by location, by cuisine, and by price range. This book is a great travel planner you will like to read before visiting Vancouver. And, do not forget to bring your umbrella and your rain jacket!

For anyone who still believes that we have a free, open, and unbiased press in this country, read this book. Before we go to war again against Iraq and start getting the government's highly censored version of events, it will be helpful to understand what we were told last time and why.

A kinder, gentler nation? A compassionate country? Sounds like repeat season. Propaganda indeed, Mr. Bush! Highly recommended!

Ignore the crypto-fascists who were unable to put down their copies of MEIN KAMPF long enough to actually read this book. Very original and thought provoking.

Fighter pilots from around the world, the best in each of their respective countries, are sent with their planes to shore up a middle estern country facing a soviet-backed invasion in "First Air". When Bagdad gets nuked, things are bad enough. When an inept Admiral (I guess the author was in the Air Force; like Dale Brown who navigated B-52's for SAC, Skinner's naval officers, fighter-drivers aside, are unsurprisingly dim) accidentally sinks a Russian cruiser (that supposed to be a warning shot!), a Russian reprisal further thins out the western presence in the Persian Gulf area. A shady civilian analyst convinces different countries' air forces to lend both planes and aircrews, forging a hybrid force that contains American F-15's, German Tornadoes and, forgetting that we're in a middle eastern country, Israeli fighters as well. Leading the pack is Bobby Dragon, a mythic fighter pilot last seen flying Phantoms in Vietnam. Having spent the years since the war flying black jets out of Dreamland, Dragon is the obvious choice to send in. On the other side, an obviously evil Russian ace with a vendetta against Dragon (facially disfigured after narrowly losing a dogfight against Dragon over Vietnam) engineers an ethnic uprising in Baluchistan that triggers the war. With his MiG-29 fighters, he more than matches the firepower arrayed against him.

This was a horrible book - the author spends so much time and crams in so many obscure and unnecessary details about military aviation, and wastes so much effort trying to convince his readers about what he knows that his writing never comes close to convincingly detail what it must be like to sit inside of a monster jet fighter. Instead of concentrating on one of the characters, the narrative meanders between different fliers - the mythic Dragon, the "Weasel Twins" (a pair of electronics geniuses who appear to be the Steve Jobbs and Steve Wozniak of the military aviation community), the aged aircrew of a grizzled F-4 Phantom (they refused to transition to the "hated F-16") and a younger American who's determined to learn form dragon. There is no plot development, and the characters are non-existent behind their facades as fighter pilots. You don't have to write like Henry James to turn out at least a very decent technothriller. Nothing else will grab you here - the war scenario in the mideast seems like the same thing you've seen in other books and countless flight simulator games. The enemy is too thin to even rate being called "cardboard" - physically and morally scarred, with an agenda, weapons of mass destruction and the ear of corrupt Soviets, he's closer in consistency to that thin sheet stuff they put on overhead projectors. Skinner took half of an interesting idea, and killed it. The idea of a story about mercenary fighter pilots is cool because it avoids the trap of letting or forcing the author to swap the action we want for tired demonstrations of his experience with the bureaucratic nuts and bolts of an established air force. However, the idea only works if the writer replaces the boring stuff with the action we want. Also, since the story puts the mercenary pilots essentially in charge of themselves, we would have a unique opportunity to see what an air force would look like if it were run by the people who do the flying. Skinner doesn't just flub on that score, he doesn't deal with it at all - the pilots never form a cohesive unit, they just fly. Skinner's idea essentially takes all the boring guts out of your standard military aviation novel, and doesn't put replace it with anything.

Could have been a script from Jerry Bruckheimer flick (although the only F18s that Bruckheimer has such a stock for get slaughtered here). It realy aught to be made into a summer movie, or better yet, sold to the Japanese and drawn up as an epic Anime movie, but as it is, its a good quick read for those stuck somewhere for a few hours, or just sick of reading "War and Peace" or "Homage to Catalonia" weighted novels.

I read this book back in 1992 when I was 14 and it gave me the idea to create online 'squadrons' on the Prodigy network's bulliten boards that drew up offline mission story lines for flight-sim nuts, and tied them into huge online storylines/campaigns, before the advent of good campaigning sims/online multiplayer play. As far as I know, my "First Air" or FAR was the first such organization in a catagory that has since boomed and become very involved now that people can fly and fight togather through the wonder of the Net.

Also gave me the pipe dream of buying my own F8 Crusaider and going off to fight as an aireal mercinary.

As another asside, it was also the inspiration for the 1993 release of Origin's "Strike Commander"

First Air is a great book about war and gives a greatly detailed view on the persian gulf war, written around desert storm you won't regret picking this book up, I know I didn't; Some may find it a little weird but if you read through and use your imagination you'll have a great experience with this book.

This book could have been a winner, since it's topic is quite interesting. Rendall gives quite a comprehensive overview of the jet age combat, supplemented with action packed combat stories for each era. A promising combination indeed, but only when pulled off correctly.

However, the Rendall's analysis of the facts are weak and offers little, if any, new material or new insights. This is made even worse due to the numerous factual errors regarding equipments and terms. The combat stories are quite lively, but they are also plagued with errors that reduce its value to nothing more than an action story. Furthermore, whoever edited the final manuscript should either get a slap in the head or buy a better spell-checking software (preferably both) for letting so many typos slip beyond his (her?) nose.

Comparison to other books are inevitable. Two books comes to mind. The first is the classic Flight of the Intruder (Coonts). Although it is fiction, its attention to the technical accuracy is much better than this book. The other book is Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972 (Michel). Although much narrower in scope (it only covers the Vietnam War), it offers a much stronger analysis both in technological and political terms. Furthermore, the combat stories contained in Clashes are also both more exciting and much, much more accurate.

I cannot really recommend this book to anyone, except those who can look past the errors.

Ivan Rendall is a British television producer and his book is as superficial, incomplete, inaccurate and misleading as his medium. Its real value is as a series of vignettes of various fighter engagements. Do not buy it as a history of "Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War." It isn't.

Rendall's work is so USAF-centric, and "pointy-nose" focussed it could have been written by the fighter desk of the USAF's Public Affairs Office. Thoroughly ignored is any aircraft bearing an "A" or "B" prefix even if it is a jet. In addition, aircraft bearing the markings "USN" or "USMC" are only mentioned grudgingly.

As a result a major piece of the history of "jet" combat in Korea is ignored, including the USN's and USMC's vital roles in providing effective close air support to prevent the collapse of the Pusan perimeter. Subsequent historial investigation has revealed USAF close air support to have been ineffective, with North Korea and Chinese survivors going so far as to state that they "feared the blue planes the most." This critical effort is instead coopted to USAF F-84s.

The tremendous contributions of A-4 and A-6 fliers in Vietnam are almost entirely ignored. So too AV-8B, A-7 and A-10 fliers in the Gulf War. To all appearances, only F-100s, F-105s, F-4s, F-111s fought in Vietnam, and F-117s F-15s and F-16s in the Gulf. The crucial role of USN F-8 squadrons in showing the way to the reinstitution of gunfighting and the formation of Top Gun during the lull in the Vietnamese air war is entirely absent. So too is any mention of the F-8's unrivaled kill ratio in that conflict. Instead, Rendall's only nod to the USN is to document Cunningham and Driscoll. One suspects that had they not been the very first aces of that war, they too would have been ignored.

The two Gulf of Sidra incidents, and Operations Eldorado Canyon and Praying Mantis are not even mentioned.

His understanding of electronic warfare and precision munitions is pathetically bad. Once again he is blindly USAF-centric, laboring under the misconception that the E-3 and the E-8 are the sole hubs of the constellation of aircraft involved in electronic missions. His descriptions of precision weapons' guidance are very poor and misleading. His description of Gulf War Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses is particularly bad, and displays an ignorance of the geography, the weapons' capabilities and the techniques employed.

Once again he utterly misses the contribution of the USN, which provided better than half of the SEAD sorties that destroyed Iraq's air defense systems, and misattributes USN SEAD tactics to USAF aircraft.

The proof of the work's superficiality lies in the bibliography, which reads--with few exceptions--like a listing of works on jets which were available at Rendall's corner bookstore. His writing is almost exclusively from secondary sources and "picture books."

If you're interested in Vietnam jet combat, buy Michel's "Clashes," Tillman's "MiG Master," and Nichols and Tillman's "On Yankee Station." The last is listed in Rendall's bibliography, but he appears not to have read it (Cunningham and Driscoll's exploits excepted). For the Gulf War, I recommend Murray's "Air War in the Persian Gulf" and Friedman's "Desert Victory."

This book analyzes the evolution of jet air superiority warfare from the German Me-262 of 1944-45 through the mid-1990s. More than being a mere compilation of aircraft performance statistics, photographs and macho war stories (all of which are somewhat lacking), Rolling Thunder analyzes the major jet air superiority campaigns to date - late-WWII, Korea, Cold War bomber-intercept development, Vietnam, Israel's 1960s-80s conflicts, the Falklands, Desert Storm and post-Desert Storm in the Balkans and the Iraqi "no-fly zones".

I do NOT agree with other reviewers who compare it unfavorably to more narrowly focused books or complain about focus on the U.S. Air Force (there's a lot about German, British, Israeli and non-Western air forces) And let's face it: the U.S. Navy did not have good enough jets to maintain air superiority in Korea and in Desert Storm the Navy only downed two Iraqi jets compared to 30 for the USAF (and half of THOSE were accounted for by one unit!). The number of misspellings, typos and date errors is relatively minor and NOT distracting from the overall book quality.

Besides well-written complex narratives explaining how tactics and weapons use evolved over time, Rendall emphasizes the importance of human factors in achieving battlefield air superiority. While it's important to have the highest quality aircraft and weapons, it's still - to date, at least - pilot ability and tactical leadership make the ultimate difference. This is most strongly illustrated by Israel's ability on many occasions to establish air superiority - with air-to-air kill ratios of 50-to-1 - even with comparable aircraft and Britain eventually beating back Argentine aircraft that outnumbered them by more than 6-to-1.

One of Rendall's most thoughtful insights is the fundamental advantage of Western culture's celebration of individual excellence, competition and initiative. Non-Western air forces, most significantly the Soviet Union, relied heavily on central ground control of large numbers of aircraft and mediocre pilots rather than letting a small number of superior pilots and air warfare leaders act with individual initiative. Soviet training showed its spectacular weaknesses in the annihilation of its client states' air forces, most notably Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

There's a fascinating description of declining Soviet pilot skill levels during the 1970s-80s due to their leftwing obsession with a form of pilot "affirmative action". Rendall says that to ensure weaker pilots would not be "left behind", and thereby reflect badly on the pilot selection/training establishment, the Soviets systematically reduced pilot training standards. They had many outstanding pilots, but their average pilot skill level steadily declined even as their aircraft performance and weapons quality increased.

At the end of the book I understand how Western - especially American/Anglo - air forces came to dominate their actual and potential adversaries. However the incredible cost of developing and deploying new aircraft is almost beyond the range of even the United States - an F-80 cost $90,000 in 1946 and today's fighters can cost more than $30,000,000! And if the United States ever loses a couple of AWACS at the same time during combat the air battle will quickly descend into total confusion. Finally, Western air forces and other superior military capabilities have driven our adversaries to employ suicide bombers and other asymmetrical tactics not easily countered by conventional forces (Saddam Hussein is probably the only person in the world dumb enough to take on the U.S. armed forces (twice!))

I REALLY enjoyed this book and recommend in the highest possible terms to anyone interested in modern warfare, late-20th Century international conflicts and the history of technological development. Rolling Thunder's weakest point is its unfortunate title, which was the name of an air campaign that, despite pilot skill and gallantry, was notably ineffective while losing and resulted great aircraft and aircrew losses due to strategic, political and leadership flaws at the highest levels of the U.S. military and civilian government.

When the U.S. Marines were sent to Saudi Arabia in 1990 to fight the Iraqis, Swofford was there, a jarhead in the infanty, on the front lines. This is Swofford's story about what life was like fighting the war and living for six months in the deserts of the Middle East -- the sand, the camaraderie, the physical challenges, the heat -- as well as a few anecdotal flashbacks to boot camp. While those stories are definitely enthralling, what makes this memoir really stand out is Swofford's honesty and candor about what he felt while he was there -- the emotional ups and downs. Anger, hate, fear, compassion, sadness. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Swofford swears like a sailor and writes like a pro, but everything else about him is 100% USMC. This book isn't pretty -- it delivers as many troubling truths about war and soldiers as it does inspiring tales of incredible valor. But it's a must-read for anyone curious about what life is like, physically and mentally, for the military personnel who fought in Iraq then, as well as now. Highly recommended, unless you are easily offended by lots of cursing or talk about private parts. I'm looking forward to reading more of Swofford's writing soon -- hope he keeps churning things out!

I served in the Marines at roughly the same time as Swofford, although our "careers" took distinctly different paths. He was a STA-Platoon grunt with the 7th Marines, while I was a "pogue" (rear-echelon) armorer/ammo tech who did time with three separate units. Swofford was in the Gulf during Deserts Shield and Storm; the closest I got to the war was watching CNN in Southern California. At the time, I felt cheated and ashamed for being in the States - like I was left out of making history, and safe at home while other Marines were in harm's way. So, as soon as I heard about "Jarhead", I knew I had to read it. I was not disappointed.

The Corps is a place where you rub shoulders with colorful individuals and see interesting places regardless of your job category, and Swofford's excellent story-telling skills took me back to that period with a sharp immediacy. This is a tribute to the author's writing style and no-holds-barred honesty, which are both exemplary. His descriptions of boot camp and the Fleet during that era are absolutely spot-on, and the extreme personalities he encountered are uncomfortably real archtypes of "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children." Of course, he shares a large number of lurid personal anecdotes, but that's the way things were (and probably still are) in the Corps. Indeed, Swofford does not sugarcoat the Corps as an institution, so don't expect an "ooh-rah" account of Marine Corps life. But he still finds humor in the midst of the headgames, while dealing with weightier philiosophical questions about the brutality of war.

Anyone who was (or is) in the Corps's enlisted ranks will immediately identify with the author, regardless of their MOS. In addition, those seeking insight into the Marines who are currently fighting Saddam's legions will find "Jarhead" a compelling insider revelation. Swofford's story is not disrespectful to the Corps, but it is honest and real. He is to be commended for writing this important book.

Anthony Swofford's Jarhead couldn't be timelier. It provides a sobering perspective of Marine Corps life that flies in the face of the current neo-PC movement that lambastes anyone who dares to not brownnose our military or executive branch.

The book is an honest account of one man's struggle to reconcile his sense of duty with his awareness that he is an expendable pawn in a game of dubious moral validity. The author's intelligence makes it impossible for him to blindly accept his role and mission without question. Nevertheless, military discipline and honor prevail and Swofford is able to keep his demons at bay while giving us a dramatic look into the alcohol fueled testosterone fest that is the life of a young marine. The fact that Swofford and his mates manage to take care of business in spite of their own opinions and emotional baggage (and the author's got a few steamer trunks worth) is a testament to their own character and the solid training and professionalism of the USMC. Swofford and his buddies are a sordid lot but this makes the book all the more compelling. It's nice to read about soldiers that have foibles just like the rest of us. The overprevalence of Saturday matinee idol-like characters in military literature (e.g. Tom Clancy) that are so squeaky clean you think they were grafted off of Ward Cleavers's leg gets a little tiresome after a while. The grunts in Jarhead are like any other group of young men. They are predisposed toward drinking and being obsessed with sex. Their ribald behavior makes the book a highly entertaining read but is definitely not for the faint of heart.

this novel looked so promising at first, then it became like a dog chasing his own tail, round and round, and going nowhere. i don't know, maybe this author is a foreigner and has tried to write a book about america and americans, about army, arms sales, covert operation, u.s. customs, i.r.s., etc., etc., but he seemed to get too deep while trying very hard not to be too shallow. the tempo is too slow to call it a thriller, except "ned" suddenly awoke in the mid night, found one of the window shades fluffed and thought there was somebody in the house...then some car started not far away....that's thriller, but what else we got?
i lost my patience....this author's english writing is very good, besides that, i really don't know what else we got here.

Read the book this week and the inaccuracy of the details reveal a basic lack of understanding of the American Military. These flaws make an otherwise "OK" book plotwise almost painful to read. I think Mr. Sutherland wrote the book to reflect a British Officer and some publishing wizard (rolleyes) convinced him to re-write it was an eye towards the American market. If more (any?) research was conducted, this would be a decent read. If accuracy isn't an issue with the reader get it. If having F16s become carrier borne and officers hopping on and off active duty while working at West Point as a "Weapons Instructor" isn't a bother, enjoy.

the writing is very good. flow smoothly. don't have to be bothered by f-16 fighters or westpoint instructor. the writing is very smooth, better than maybe 90% of other writers who ever got their books published. the feelings of ned, his wife, his son and others are quite well delivered as any real person might feel and face. the tempo of the story maybe a bit too slow but since the writing is so smooth, you can just read along without any second thought. i'm going to seek out his books to learn some good english. thanks mr. sutherland.

First of all this Iranian guy is correct. The official name of this body of water is PERSIAN Gulf. The term Arabian Gulf was invented in 1970s by some Pan Arabists who failed to show up at their geography classes. The author's use of this term shows simply his arrogance and fact that he does not know the region nor its people. By using "Arabian Gulf" he simply wants to impress ignorant Arabs into buying his book.

Other than that his book is useless as it does not touch on the cultural aspects on the region.

The book makes repeated references to the "Arabian Gulf" - but there is no such thing. There is an Arabian Sea, and a Gulf of Oman, and the PERSIAN Gulf, but no "Arabian Gulf" exists. The Persian Gulf is the official name of that body of water, and has been known by that name since ancient times. Even the ancient Greeks referred to it by its correct name. One has to wonder, if Lonely Planet is so willing to pander to the Arab governments of the PERSIAN gulf in this manner by renaming the PERSIAN Gulf, then how accurate can their travelogues really be?

Having just returned from a 5 week trip through Oman, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain I can say that Lonely Planet has again produced an accurate and useful guide. And despite the fact that it is several years old, prices and descriptions were still right. The guide's advice to try to get to the Musandem Peninsula in Oman was a fine piece of advice--it is amazingly beautiful.

And to the person who gave one star to this guide because of it's reference to the "Arabian Gulf": relax. If you say "Persian Gulf" to anyone in the Arab Gulf states they will have no idea what body of water you are talking about. I suppose you would be equally upset if 25 years ago a guidebook to China refered to the capital as "Beijing" instead of the Western imposed name "Peking"?