April 06, 2006

Don't Ever Assign Plan of Attack in Your Classes?

I've assigned Woodward's Bush at War as required reading a number of times. It's obviously very easy for students to get through, and it raises a host of questions that spark debates about the sources of foreign policy. But I've always had qualms about it given the less that systematic way Woodward writes, and this comparison of Plan of Attack and Philippe Sands' Lawless World raises qualms. Should I stop assigning Woodward's so-sayeth-the-establishment, breezy works that students will actually read, or should I assign much more detailed and analytical case studies? I guess I'll ponder this question more - but I know I'm not going to assign Plan of Attack (or not as a basic text to work from).

Posted by armand at April 6, 2006 10:49 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Books


Comments

I've done Plan of Attack, but not the Bush at War book (which I haven't even read). Plan of Attack is a very pro-Colin book, and suffers from all the "normal" faults of Woodward: not too deep reporting, no challenge of facts as put forward by those he interviews, and a facile acceptance of reality as defined by those he interviews. In short, it's the interviewers version of events. There is some interesting stuff there, but I suspect it's utility will decline as time goes on (and more credible accounts of what really happened - versus what people claimed happened - come forward). That said, its an easy read, and I'd assign it again.

Posted by: baltar at April 6, 2006 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

A pro-Powell Woodward book?!? Surely you must be kidding. :)

Posted by: Armand at April 6, 2006 01:11 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, that was my take. Powell looked much better than any other character. Cheney must have refused to sit for interviews, as he comes out looking like Sauron or something.

Posted by: baltar at April 6, 2006 02:08 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know what subject or level you teach, but just at an experimental level, it might be interesting to give half of the class one version and half of the class the other and then see how they synthesize the two into a coherent narrative.

It would also offer a beneath the topic subtext of how history, especially contemporary history, is constructed.

(This is from the Mike's good ideas that involve work for other people department. It's our most productive department.)

Mike

Posted by: mikevotes at April 6, 2006 03:11 PM | PERMALINK

That's an interesting idea, but Woodward's pair of books don't cover the same subject matter: Bush at War is the terrorism book (and ends, I think, somewhere in 2002) while Plan of Attack starts around the same time, but goes through early 2003. Moreover, since one is aimed at Iraq and the other at terrorism, they don't cover the same story arc. Still, that's an interesting teaching suggestion to use. Maybe World War I?

Posted by: baltar at April 6, 2006 04:51 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?