Title: Uninformed
Product review: Sure, the book is an interesting read. But it should not be labeled as history nor taken seriously by analysts, scholars, or policy-makers. It is completely uninformed and provides no delineation between fact and fiction. And considering how seriously it was taken by the Clinton administration (which Kaplan himself writes about), I feel he should personally be held accountable for the administration's subsequent strategy of non-intervention in Bosnia. Maybe he wasn't expecting Clinton to buy into his ideas whole-heartedly (and we'd expect Clinton to have done his homework better), but Kaplan is at fault for writing such a distorted book.Some of the other reviewers recommended alternative sources of (actual) history - Ramet, Gordy, Wachtel, or Woodward.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
