Patrick Bishop's work, Famous Victory, is another of the "popular" works. Bishop is an experienced war correspondent, having covered Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Africa, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. He has been the Daily Telegraph's Middle East correspondent and has worked in the Middle East since 1987. His book follows the development of the Gulf Conflict as Bishop relates an unceasing stream of anecdotes from his travels throughout the region. His writing style is overly rich, "Determined insouciance was the order of the day" being typical of his prose.

A glance at the back cover of Famous Victory quickly disabuses the reader of any expectation of impartiality on Bishop's part. U.S. Marines are "macho fantasists," Saudi Arabians are "cynical" and "secretive." He does not reserve his scorn for the allied side, however, both sides share the burden of Bishop's disdain. In case the reader might not be educated enough to notice, the cover also states that "the title is ironical."

Authors rarely write the back cover descriptions of their books, so there is usually little correlation between the back cover claims designed to sell books and the actual prose inside the cover. This is the exception that proves the rule. Bishop states up front that the book is not history, but rather a "memoir." Following this absolution of impartiality, he plunges into a bookof constant opinions, no one is spared from his pen, be they Iraqi "Baathist thugs" or "self-pitying" Kuwaitis. His opinions are not supported by documented sources and are often stated as if Bishop had some omniscient view of events: "Despitethe constant talking up by American briefers of the Iraqi threat, allied military Intelligence privately had a low opinion of the quality of the troops and of the strength andsophistication of their defenses." And "...American tank crews and pilots..." were "...anxious to experience the thrill of killing before it was all over." He does not explain how he knows what these men are thinking, the reader is expected to take his statements at face value.

Bishop's book attempts to give a more balanced view of the war in one major respect. He spends agreat deal of time on the Iraqi side of the story. Having covered the Iran-Iraqi War from the Iraqi camp he was able to make a great deal of comparison between the troops he saw then and the shattered remnants that he saw during the Kuwaiti conflict. In addition, his franticjourneys throughout the region allow a quick glimpse of the mentality of the people most directly affected by the war, whether they are Egyptian workers returning from jobs in Kuwait or spoiled Jordanian teenage girls debating the merits of returning to theUnited States, "...Jordan was a society of victims....King Hussein had a strong sense of his own misfortunes, which he believed were deserving of the widest sympathy andunderstanding...."

While this produces a broad view of the area's tensions, Bishop's anecdotal styles leaves each event just a quickly as it is mentioned jumping from country to country and viewpoint to viewpoint in a series of drive by events that leave the reader feeling disjointed and confused. His attempt to present theIslamic side of the war is praiseworthy in conception, but the sparsenessof his text gives the reader knowledge of the Islamic view that is perfunctory at best and erroneous at worst.

More Gulf War Literature Survey

Introduction
A Woman at War Review.
Famous Victory Review.
From Shield to Storm Review.
Desert Shield to Desert Storm Review.

A Survey of Gulf War Literature Part II

Triumph Without Victory Review.
It Doesn't Take a Hero Review.
Desert Victory Review.
The Gulf Confict 1990-1991 Review.