Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein Kindle Edition

John Nixon's Debriefing the president offers a must read tell all about Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq from the perspective of a CIA analyst. This book is written as an autobiography in the first person, discussing the author's career up to and beyond the war in Iraq. Into this frame, the author inserts his discussion of Saddam Hussein and what he was really like. As a leadership analyst at the CIA, Saddam and his personality were long studied by the author. His debriefing of Saddam offered him as a historian the rare opportunity to encounter his subject of study in the flesh. The book is broken into three parts.The first part of the book discusses the author's early life and his early career as an analyst. I found this a fascinating account of all that goes into making a professional spy. The author describes the run up to the Iraq War and how the CIA provided faulty intelligence for the Bush administration who did not want to hear truth, but evidence that confirmed their own preconceived notions about Iraq. However, the narrative was somewhat tedious at times, becoming overly bogged down with data on the author's personal life. While this goes a long way to humanize the author, I bought this book to read about Saddam, not the author's wedding.The second part of the book is the real meat of the book, as you get a front row view of the interrogation of Saddam Hussein. Saddam comes across as a very traditional man devoted to Arab nationalism and secularism. With the modern decline into sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis, it is often very easy to forget that this was not always the case. Sa/ddam was proud that his predominately Sunni Ba'athist party contained Shiites, Kurds, and Christians, at least when it began. Respect and loyalty appear to have been gold under his administration, as they earned you fabulous western consumer good. However, disloyalty and disrespect were harshly punished with death. Saddam like many dictators was intensely suspicious of his inferiors, always on the look out for coups. In many ways, Saddam reminded me of Julius Caesar. Like the Roman dictator, the Iraqi dictator also seized control of a republic, replacing it with semi-monarchic rule. Both heavily emphasized their name not unlike Donald J. Trump today. Throughout the interview, Saddam appears to have talked about himself in the third person. Saddam will not tolerate this. Would Saddam do that? Both were also eager to give themselves all the glory for military accomplishments, minimizing the successes of their subordinates. At one point, Saddam even talked about how his dignity would not allow him to perform some action. Caesar famously said his dignity would not allow him to back down from the Roman civil war that ended in his dictatorship.However, we should be careful about labeling Saddam a dictator and laying on all the negative connotations this word implies. As the author notes, Saddam did not admire Hitler and Mussolini, as many have suggested in an attempt to blacken his name by associating himself with the worst of the worst of human history. He admired George Washington, Mao Zedong, Lenin, and others for founding a political system. His chief model was Saladin who destroyed the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem. Intriguingly, the author also undercuts the traditional narrative that Saddam Hussein was abused as a child by his stepfather. Modern psychology has a way of looking for childhood abuse to explain violence as an adult. For example, this is often used as a vector to understand dictators such as Hitler and serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. But as the author shows, Saddam had a positive, loving relationship with his stepfather, to whom he believed he owed his later success because he encouraged the young Saddam to go to Bagdad to pursue his career. The book is full of revelations such as these.The third and final part of the book returns to the US and CIA, detailing the author's subsequent career at the CIA. The author had the rare privilege to meet and clash with President Bush on a few occasions. Nixon is heavily critical of G. W. B., whom he sees as incapable of understanding Iraq and unwilling to change his long held views of Saddam and the region. Bush and his administration seem unwilling to drop any pretense that this was a freedom mission and something of a personal vendetta. Apparently, Bush was looking for connections between Saddam and 9/11 immediately after the terrorist attacks. The CIA was only to willing to oblige the president with fictions rather than the cold truth. Saddam himself thought 9/11 should have brought the US and his regime closer together in the fight against sectarian violence. Saddam was right that this is what should have happened, but he could not understand that the president and his advisers genuinely believed that toppling Iraq would result in vibrant, American democracies throughout the Middle East. As time has proved, this vision is grossly out of touch with the realities of the Arab world.Saddam is intriguing in this regard because he had a real grasp of the Iraqi mind that Westerners lack. For example, even the author struggles with Saddam's belief that he was the leader of the Arab world, fending off the threat of Iran. Nothing could be further from the truth, but this belief is instructive. There are some in this part of the world who still for a leader of all the Arabs like the caliph once occupied. We are now witnessing the fulfillment of that mentality with ISIS and the restoration of the caliphate.The book ends with an intriguing comparison of Saddam and Bush Junior, highlighting their similarities as militarily inexperienced ideologues at the reins of government. I found the book's conclusion compelling, as the author condemns the modern western tendency to demonize dictators and view them as all powerful despots. Essentially by viewing them through the lenses of evil Hitleresque dictator, we miss important insights into them as people. As the author suggests, by the end of his regime Saddam was a non-threat who had given up on WMD and simply wanted to finish writing his book. The author also cautions against the confirmation bias of American politicians such as G.W.B. who was unwilling to listen to news that did not confirm his view of the world. This is sadly a trait inherent to politicians in our two party political system. I suspect that many a president whether democrat or republican will continue to suffer from this flaw.On the whole, I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to friends interested in this subject. But I would caution readers. This is not history. Sections of the book are regrettably blacked out. The author also does not cite official documents or other testimonies in his assessment of Saddam, which could undercut his image of the Iraqi dictator. The author suggests that perhaps one day he will write a critical biography of Saddam based on testimony about his regime and official documents. I sincerely hope he does.

John Nixon has written a very good book. All we saw about Saddam on television was that he was a lunatic, a terrorist helper, a keeper of WMD, an enemy of the world. Bush, Rumsfield, Chaney, Blair all screamed this message. Of course each story always has two sides. Painted as a leper by the west, Saddam was puzzled by Americas treatment of him according to Nixon. He saw himself engaged in a war against terror himself. I don't believe he was delusional on this point reading Nixons words. He truly believed his purpose was in defending his country from terror inside or out, and stopping the Persian menace on his eastern flank. I remember the conflicting message sent to Saddam by George HW Bushs rep during the Kuwait incident where America spoke of no interest in local disputes. Then bam, Bush shows up and drives Saddam back to Iraq. The neocons drove George W Bushs agenda I believe. Everything is always painted with a Jewish brush. Saddam never threatened america, we're too far away; but he did represent a threat to Isreal, real or imagined. America became Isreals policeman, doing what they could not do themselves because of Arab backlash. The leaders of Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria. Chaos has followed their removal. Only a weakened Assad holds out. To make matters worse for this writting, CIA's office of review pulled out the redact pen. One whole page of Saddams thoughts are gone. Nixon says nothing missing would have compromised sources or methods. A lot of times you can read between the lines and fill in the blanks, but not an entire page!!! Shame on you Virginia farmboys.Nixon talks about the Agency going off course. Have seen this same charge in James Risens State of War. Political pandering not intellegence production. Then again CIA and others like them are insulated because of the illiterate ignorant mob called citizens. They don't read books (Harvard study), can't read chapter books, attention span too short (Stanford study), consumed by political correctness to the point of anarchy, (Yale). Reading is hard, comprehension is harder. Takes work and practice. Television and 140 character tweets is not a good foundation. What are we to do? People like Risen and Nixon are yelling about danger and no one hears them. Thomas Jefferson worried about an uneducated population. Even our elected leaders call us a democracy. Excuse me; but we are a representative constitutional republic. We are not mob ruled. Watching the current level of social media activism, the issues they embrace and the cut and past rehtoric employed says a lot. Confused to the point of serious stupidity. Driven to the placard carrying street by out of touch college professors. The sixties was bad for order, the twenties look to be a lot worse. All thinkgs begin at the college level. Higher education tenured trouble makers. Socialist and communist all or so it seems. Educate please not activate. Thank you. Americas future will thank you.mNixon showed several potential areas of neglect at CIA. Namely human Intel, needing someone on the street who understands the language, culture and history. The Bush W boys did not understand any of this in relation to Iraq and didn't really care I believe. I've read all their books, Bush, Rumsfield, Chaney, Blair, this understanding is missing. It's replaced with an underlying undefined hatred of Saddam. A point made by Nixon, after meeting the president, was the fact Bush seemed ignorant of the Sunni Shia divide. This in itself is troubling. How can you fight a people and not know the basics? Their Muslims aren't they? No, there is a difference in how they see the future and its important when considering this culture. Bush was touted by many as a student of history and a voracious reader. The president also demonstrated a classic first born arrogance coupled with a temper in his meetings with Nixon. Looked on others as truely subordinate. That comment the president made about Nixons salary was really freshmanisk. Not the picture portrayed from Crawford, ah shucks cowboy cutting weeds and trees on his ranch, driving a pickup truck. He seems complicated beyond his book, decision points. More like things known and unknown, punning Rumsfield sorry. Even George HW Bush went so far as to pronounce his name Sad dam, with an am not the om. I'm told it was an insult. This hatred led to a misrepresentation of the facts. Even Colin Powell showed up with his vial of powder at the UN.Anyway, for those who care, Nixons book is a good read. It balances the issue and he has done a good service. Another look inside an administration at war with terror.

I used to watch Saddam Hussein on TV in the evenings when I lived in Kuwait during the Iraq/Iran war so this book was of great interest to me. John Nixon was Hussein's main interviewer during Hussein's "debriefing". It was called a "debriefing" so that Hussein didn't feel that he was being interrogated and would therefore be likely to offer more information. Hussein enjoyed talking about himself and liked to compare himself with leaders like Saladen. In is own way, Hussein remained very much in control of interviews using every possible opportunity to curtail the interview when things were not going his way. He had quite a sense of humour but it was mainly cruel and at someone else's expense. My only criticism of the book (and which is not the fault of the author) is the fact that John Nixon, after many tiring weeks of debriefing Saddam Hussein was replaced by another interviewer. After that the book became a little less interesting because the relationship that Nixon built with Hussein was unique and Hussein had clearly developed an element of trust in Nixon as his interviewer and to some degree, he liked and respected Nixon and shows this on their last meeting. So I was really disappointed when the interview between the author and Hussein ended.

DEBRIEFING THE PRESIDENTJohn NixonIf you thought the Iraq war was an ill-conceived and dishonest act of revenge, this little book will give you all the support you want. I say “little” because its 270 pages are scarred by line after line of blacked-out text, the price demanded by the CIA who delayed publication not once but twice. If it seems dated, you know who to blame. As to their wisdom, contrast p.24's three redactions of the vehicles used by CIA staff with the detailed identification on p.75 of the building used to house Saddam for his questioning. On one page or another, somebody's slipped up.On the other hand, if you think that we were right to back George W Bush in ridding the world of a ruthless tyrant, you might just be persuaded into a doubt or two over the character of Saddam Hussein or the political ethics of the American President.In 2003, John Nixon was a CIA “leadership analyst” with five years of experience in Iraq. Who better to take on the slow, gentle, careful process of winning information from the recently captured Saddam Hussein ? And who better to cope with the frantic efforts of the policy-makers to use only the information (however unreliable or plain wrong) that would prop up the conclusions they had drawn a decade before ?There is an underlying tension in the book between the author's relaxed story-telling, and the inter-agency struggles that seemed to have swirled round the debriefing sessions. Angry and dismayed at the conflict, Nixon repeatedly stresses that Saddam was a spent figure, no longer interested in tyrannising his people; yet he could have been a stabilising force. Had Saddam and his knowledge been properly employed, much of the post-war tragedy – so Nixon claims - might have been avoided if the warring agencies had studied the debriefing reports; but the CIA was at odds with its own HQ staff and the FBI, while the FBI fought the Army, who were in conflict with the CIA. Meanwhile, in the wake of the Islamist attacks on 9/11, poor deluded Saddam “thought the United States would need his secular government to help fight the scourge of Wahhabist militancy.” But George W Bush “heard only what he wanted to hear” and as Nixon puts it, Iraq was the first casualty of a wider emasculation of national intelligence.This was a more interesting, less demanding, read than I had expected, but, to be fair to the author, I probably needed to dig deeper into the rationale and the psychology of the President's debriefing. And I have to agree with Nixon that Saddam Hussein deserved better than to suffer a vindictive midnight hanging by a lynch mob. (Review originally published in the Chesil Magazine, Dorset)

I looked forward to this book to get a real insight into events etc surrounding Saddam and some felling for the person and exactly what drove him to the ending he had. However at the end of the book I was sadly disappointed that I felt as if I had just read an executive summary and not any detailed voyage into events and experiences. Couldn't understand the various parts where the book was redacted, but I'm sure the various security agencies had their points to make. I thirsted for more from the intro and the lead up to its release but in the end felt let down.

Redactions force the author into a corner. It isn't as detailed as you might expect given the opportunities. Instead a personal account of the feeling of a particular time and place as much as a gripping narrative. Some of this is also due to that strange banality found at the core of momentous events. Those on the outside expect great drama, but on the inside there's a vacuum. An important source for future military historians.

You will be mistaken to think that it is about interviewing Saddam Hussain. It is actually a semi biography of the writer John Nixon. There are the few references to conversations with Saddam Hussain , but it is actually all about John Nixon's uninteresting career.Nothing in this book of any significance regarding Saddam Hussain, nothing that you would not have read in the tons of newsprint about his historySaad Jadir