Dereliction of Duty is an odd little book. It is a book that is at cross-purposes with itself, and seemingly, with its author as well. It is timely, and arguably necessary at this point, but still strangely conflicted.

Dereliction of Duty is a weird hybrid of two different genres; one older than the hills, the other newer, but intense. The first, of course, is the tell-all book, the chronicler of gossip and tall tales and new facts common to every tale of the high-ranking and high-living. The author, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, was one of several personal military aides to President Bill Clinton, and spent substantial time by his side during some of the most turgid episodes of his wretched Presidency.

Colonel Buzz Patterson kicks off his book with a trenchant and telling story of his running interference between the President and Nat'l Security Advisor Sandy Berger on an important strike against the Hussein regime in Iraq. Patterson retells the story of his ineffectual attempts to get Clinton to even talk to Berger or to make a decision on the strike; a golf tournament had the President's full attention at the time. Good, juicy stuff, this.

The second genre is the indictment piece, the full furor of the conservative journalist's wrath against the Clintons and all their works. I say this is a newer genre; I suppose it isn't really, but there has been an explosion of books by conservatives tearing into the Clintons. The most admirable of these efforts so far has been The Case Against Hillary Clinton, by Peggy Noonan. I haven't yet had time to read the twin books by the late Barbara Olson on the Age of Clinton, but am convinced of their excellence. (And let me say a word here bemoaning the loss of Michael Kelly; what a book he could have written on the Prince of the Ozarks, given world enough and time.) And there are no few other tomes pointing out, with detail, vigor and relish, sins of omission and commission by Bill and Hillary and the ghastly gang that did their woeful work.

Patterson picks up here by concentrating his criticism on Clinton's treatment of the military (although Whitewater and Paula Jones and the Starr Report all find their place in these pages). He says early on that the book is meant as an indictment, and at times it reads like a prosecutor's brief. He points out the level of the military downsizing, the failure of the Administration to pay its soldiers, the vast scope of humanitarian missions, and the extensive social engineering efforts made by the Clintons to transform the military culture.

One could wish that Dereliction of Duty could be two different, and longer, books. There certainly is room for a comprehensive tell-all book from inside the Most Ethical Administration In American History, especially the latter days of the Clinton White House, especially one that is untinged by the gross Clintonesque culture of deceit and dishonesty. Patterson, however, is not really the person to write this. There's nothing about his writing that's dishonest, necessarily, but it's not colorful or vivid enough to be really as nasty as the subject requires. Patterson's description of the First Lady's temper tantrum on discovering that Chelsea has lost her backpack, or the President's misplacing of his nuclear security codes are enlightening, but they are somewhat dry and matter-of-fact. Patterson is a pilot, not a writer, and it shows here.

Furthermore, Patterson's focus is limited. For example, he talks about discovering Clinton on the famous night at Greg Norman's house in Florida, lying on the steps with a badly wrenched knee. He implies that the President had a little too much to drink, but doesn't confirm it. And he does nothing to dispel or substantiate the rumor that Clinton was sneaking around, or trying to.

Also, you get instances where Patterson is clearly trying to make too much soup from one oyster. He discounts Clinton's self-serving and ingratiating claims to be the "first black president" by pointing out that he frequently refused to take calls from Jesse Jackson - which, in my view, shows uncommon good sense for once from the Sage of Arkansas. Also, he uses some occasional rudeness by Clinton cabinet secretaries towards African-American staffers to paint a wide brush of racism -- a substantial overreach.

On the other side of the book, Patterson's compilation of the Clinton Administration's failures in defense policy is thorough, but not well-researched. Again, one could wish for a lengthy, scholarly presentation of this data, with copious footnotes to support the thesis. Patterson bases his conclusions that the Clintons were derelict in their duty towards our troops in the field primarily through his own personal recollection of military morale, and through the various snubs and sneers he received while on duty at the White House. Again, there simply isn't enough data presented in the book to support and substantiate everything that he presents as fact. Dereliction of Duty is a good short summary of the problems with the national defense services on the watch of the Man From Hope, but it is far from comprehensive.

However, the oddest thing about the book is right at the end, where Colonel Patterson presents his performance reports, signed by Bill Clinton his own bad self. Clinton mentions Patterson's "discretion and tact" specifically -- and God knows what he meant by that -- but, you know, he had a point. If there's one thing glaringly wrong with Dereliction of Duty, it is the idea that it should be written at all -- that a serving military officer, serving in close proximity to the Commander in Chief -- should author something so substantially disloyal and self-serving. It taints the book slightly, undercuts its effectiveness and rigor.

The conflicted nature of Dereliction of Duty stems from its author's own (at least subconscious) understanding that writing this book would be a betrayal of trust and duty, of tact and discretion. The argument for writing the book is that the Clinton Administration's betrayal of the American military was so much greater that it puts lesser betrayals in the shade. History will have to judge whether Patterson was correct in his argument. But Dereliction of Duty is not history, and it's not completely gossip, either. An odd book, but a timely one, and useful.

Recommended: Yes