Twice as Good, by Marcus Mabry

In "Twice as Good" Marcus Mabry has been thorough in his research. He has talked with old friends and relations of Condoleezza Rice. His portrayal of her youth is inspiring. I even had my 11-year-old daughter read the first few chapters of this book to help her understand a bit of the history of modern America and the way that Condoleezza has driven herself to be the best that she can be.

The education of Condoleezza Rice is a study in discipline and fortitude. She gave up her two youthful goals of becoming a pianist and an ice-skater to pursue education because she felt she would be more competent there. She got her undergraduate degree in Political Science and she concentrated on Soviet Studies at a time when the Soviet Union was a huge threat to the United States. It is interesting how Mabry treats this part of Rice's life. It seems like awe coupled with disdain. Two emotions difficult to rectify, but he does it by making Condoleezza's life a dichotomy. He can admire her strength of will, perseverance, smartness, and star quality attractiveness. But he seems to resent the fact that she did not advance herself by claiming victim status and whining about all the wrongs done blacks in general and herself in particular.

Read an On-line Biography of Condoleezza Rice

Marcus Mabry is an excellent writer. His text is crisp, clear, and readable. He is able to convey ideas, motivation, and events without engaging in the tittle-tattle that might have diverted another author. I would have enjoyed this book immensely if Mabry had stopped at the point where his own political agenda began to cloud his judgement. In a style that attempts to appear unbiased he begins to marshal what evidence he can that the Bush Administration has been a failure.

Of course, Mabry goes into congressional hearings and interviews regarding the 9/11 hearings. It is at this point that the biography breaks down. It is easy to see that he has a partisan view and wishes to point a finger at Condi Rice accusing her of failing to be prepared for the attack. Common sense is enough to say that no human being, Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian, would have foreseen the scope and nature of the unprecedented attack. To engage in specious criticism at this point seems egregious. Rather than draw the conclusion that the government in general and Condi Rice in particular were unprepared (which is truly a no brainer), it would be more truthful to show how this incident was a learning experience and actually enhanced Rice's ability to deal with such crises in the future.

Mabry writes, "In the final analysis, Rice's actions before 9/11 were reasonable: She restored what she saw as the appropriate--if outdated, as Clarke charged--hierarchy to the NSC; she worked to craft a regional strategy to deal with al-Qaeda rather than attacking it in isolation; and she logically expected the FBI to do its job. But those moves were not the actions of someone who understood the magnitude of the threat." Nevertheless, Mabry admits in an earlier paragraph, that even the few people trying to warn the administration that some attack (they were not specific on its nature) was possible did not relay the scope of the possible attack, putting casualties in the hundreds. In the end, Mabry's criticisms of Rice during this period sound more like partisan carping than balanced analysis.

Mabry treats Condoleezza Rice much better as Secretary of State than as National Security Adviser. Having reviewed her entire life, he seems to feel that her personality and training are much better suited to this job. Yet even as he praises her ability to negotiate, he says that these abilities come to naught in the face of a flaw in the Bush Administration's policy of exporting democracy. He points out that extremists can and do come to power in a democracy, destabilizing a country or region. What Mabry fails to understand is that part and parcel of true democracy is the idea of minority rights and the rule of law that would ultimately, mitigate an extremist party in power. Any student of history will agree that democracies tend to be more stable and more likely to "play nice" with their neighbors. Certainly there will be setbacks on the road to democracy, certainly some education is necessary, but this does not mean that the underlying assumption that exporting democracy will bring stability is inherently incorrect. Far from it. The education process, the trial and error of finding the best system will, in the end, result in a more stable government.

Unlike those whom Mabry euphemistically calls "realists" in their desire for status quo foreign policy (the kind of Clintonian policy that made us vulnerable to attack in the first place). Rice and the Bush Administration were pro-active in their dealings with other countries and in the "War on Terror". Throughout the last few chapters of "Twice as Good" Mabry seems to bemoan Condoleezza Rice's inability to admit that the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq was a mistake. He does not agree with Condoleezza Rice's comment comparing those who wanted to pull out of Iraq early were like those Northerners (Copperheads) who wished to make peace with the Confederate States before the slaves were freed. Yet he does not see that this is exactly the case. The South continued to fight on for nearly a year after it had actually been hopelessly defeated militarily only because its leaders were encouraged that the "Copperheads" might emerge victorious, throw Lincoln out of office, and hand the south victory on a silver platter. (It was the Democrats then as well.) The fact is: the Iraq policy was the correct policy from the beginning, and the extreme political caterwauling has only served to exacerbate the difficulties and prolong the struggle by making our enemies believe that a shift in power in the U.S. is all they need to force U.S. defeat. If they can throw the U.S. out of Iraq they will only take their war to the next level. Democrat appeasement will not even buy us time.

The fact is, the last half of "Twice as Good" is more political thesis from the left than biography. Condoleezza Rice becomes merely the grindstone upon which Mabry sharpens his axe. The first half of the book is good. If Mabry had stuck to honest reporting and avoided veiled polemics, the book would truly have been "Twice as Good".