| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"elmer swanson" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 01:43:14 PM |
| Object: |
"Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" |
Has anyone read either of these books? I started reading `Through Our
Enemies' Eyes` but it seemed more like an al Qaeda supporter apologia
trying to pass itself of as analysis.
***************** QUOTE ON *****************************
Read the entire review at:
http://www.powells.com/atl/review/2004_08_10
`Through Our Enemies' Eyes,` a review by Benjamin Schwarz
The best book on al-Qaeda, Through Our Enemies' Eyes, was written
before September 11, 2001. Published by a house specializing in
military and intelligence titles, it failed to win a review in The New
York Times and most other major newspapers and magazines (including
this one). Written anonymously by the former head of the CIA unit
devoted to assessing and tracking Osama bin Laden (the author remains
a high-level counterterrorism officer at the Agency), the book is as
penetrating as it is unknown. I learned of it last year, when a friend
and former colleague, Bruce Hoffman (a terrorism specialist at the
RAND Corporation, who now writes regularly for this magazine), assured
me that it was unmatched. It appears that the anonymous author's new
book will gain the attention that eluded his first. It should.
Although he's repetitive and often intemperate, Anonymous presents
overwhelmingly persuasive evidence to buttress a host of significant
and controversial arguments. He demonstrates that by dithering in the
period immediately after 9/11, Washington missed its best opportunity
to destroy al-Qaeda's leadership and a significant number of its rank
and file; that when the Pentagon finally did launch military
operations in Afghanistan, those actions were so misconceived, and
built on such faulty assumptions, that they failed to kill or capture
the vast bulk of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters (Anonymous estimates
the number of al-Qaeda
-- trained fighters throughout the world to be at least 100, 000);
that America's current political and military strategy in Afghanistan
has permitted al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup and to wage "an
insurgency that gradually will increase in intensity, lethality, and
popular support, and ultimately force Washington to massively escalate
its military presence or evacuate"; and that the war in Iraq not only
distracted the United States from its urgent task in Afghanistan but,
even more important, has intensely mobilized anti-American sentiment
in the Muslim world and has created a new base for al-Qaeda and
organizations similar to it. (Anonymous sees the Iraq War as
Washington's "gift" to bin Laden, which "will haunt, hurt, and hound
Americans for years to come. ")
Although harshly critical of the current Administration, Anonymous
offers no succor to Democrats. He characterizes the Clinton
Administration's counterterrorism policy as a "sordid blend of moral
cowardice and political calculation"; he's scornful of liberal notions
that the campaign against al-Qaeda should be pursued as a
law-enforcement problem (he argues persuasively that al-Qaeda is a
worldwide Islamic insurgency, not simply a terrorist organization, and
that America must pursue a "savage" military policy against it); he
disdains what he regards as misguided and dangerous efforts to implant
American values abroad (such as the Clinton Administration's nebulous
policy of "democratic enlargement"); and he favors a less multilateral
approach to national-security policy and a far more ruthless use of
military power than the Bush Administration embraces. Anonymous is
even more provocative in his meticulous, nuanced, and dispassionate
analysis of bin Laden's leadership, ideology, and tactics, from which
he concludes that the terrorist leader is a "talented and personally
courageous Muslim who is blessed with sound strategic and tactical
judgment, able lieutenants, a reluctant but indispensable
bloody-mindedness, and extraordinary patience," and who has
articulated a consistent and compelling case, which resonates
throughout the Muslim world, that America is attacking Islam.
But Anonymous will draw the most fire for his cogent arguments
-- contrary to both Democratic and Republican leaders who orate that
Islamist terrorists hate America because of its freedom and values --
that al-Qaeda and the Islamic world hate this country because of its
specific policies and actions, and that bin Laden's war against
America (which, Anonymous asserts, has made him the Muslims' most
admired figure) isn't an act of rage; rather, it aims to alter those
policies. Accordingly, Anonymous advocates a combination of stronger
military action against Islamist terrorists and insurgents (although
he understands the grievances that fuel al-Qaeda, he's convinced that
"we are in a fight to the death" with it) and -- crucially --
"dramatic foreign policy change. " This change would include a
strenuous effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency; the adoption of a
far more modest global role based on an amoral pursuit of discrete and
concrete national interests; and the re-examination of America's
backing of Israel (he holds that, contrary to ill-informed assertions,
the elimination of Israel has long been a cynosure of bin Laden's
rhetoric, ideology, and strategy) and of the regimes in Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, and Jordan. (Here Anonymous is uncharacteristically gingerly
and disingenuous: although he calls explicitly only for rethinking
that support, in fact the only logical conclusion to be reached from
his arguments is that we should end it. ) Anonymous's position that in
foreign policy less is more -- that America's security will be
enhanced if Washington forsakes its hegemonic ambitions and many of
its attendant foreign commitments -- is, I should acknowledge, very
similar to arguments I've made in this magazine (see "Why America
Thinks It Has to Run the World," June 1996, and "A New Grand
Strategy," January 2002) and elsewhere. But whether one agrees with
this book or not, Anonymous's unsentimental critique deserves rigorous
scrutiny and debate. Those looking for forceful dissent and a genuine
alternative to the foreign-policy status quo should eschew the
intellectually slippery Noam Chomsky, the sadly muddled Gore Vidal,
and (most of all) the partisan hack Michael Moore -- and instead
examine the tough-minded neo-isolationism espoused in this book. ...
Read the entire review at:
http://www.powells.com/atl/review/2004_08_10
.
|
|
| User: "1MAN4ALL" |
|
| Title: Re: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" |
13 Aug 2004 10:48:58 PM |
|
|
(elmer swanson) wrote in message
But Anonymous will draw the most fire for his cogent arguments
-- contrary to both Democratic and Republican leaders who orate that
Islamist terrorists hate America because of its freedom and values --
that al-Qaeda and the Islamic world hate this country because of its
specific policies and actions, and that bin Laden's war against
America (which, Anonymous asserts, has made him the Muslims' most
admired figure) isn't an act of rage; rather, it aims to alter those
policies.
At least he got that much right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" |
14 Aug 2004 12:40:43 PM |
|
|
(1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0408131948.36b6981f@posting.google.com>...
elmer_swanson@hotmail.com (elmer swanson) wrote in message
But Anonymous will draw the most fire for his cogent arguments
-- contrary to both Democratic and Republican leaders who orate that
Islamist terrorists hate America because of its freedom and values --
that al-Qaeda and the Islamic world hate this country because of its
specific policies and actions, and that bin Laden's war against
America (which, Anonymous asserts, has made him the Muslims' most
admired figure) isn't an act of rage; rather, it aims to alter those
policies.
At least he got that much right.
And just what are these "specific policies and actions"?
.... from bin Laden's "letter to the American people" translated into
English by British Islamists and published in the Observor newspaper.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
********** ****** ***** ******** QUOTE ON ***** ****** ***** ******
"... What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from
associating partners with Him, [i.e. no Christian Trinity] and
rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete
submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions,
orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion [no
evolution for example]....
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies,
immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and
purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality,
intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
[...]
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you
consider them to be pillars of personal freedom.
[.....]
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization
witnessed by the history of mankind:
********** *********** ******** QUOTE OFF ****** ***** ****** *****
bin Ladens list of "what ... we want from you" includes Kyoto Accords
on global warming, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, incest(?!), drug trade,
Monica Lewinsky, women's liberation, big money in campaign
contributions, accusations that American invented AIDS, helping the
Algerian government crush Islamists (that was France, not the US),
ignoring International Law (Hey! That's not Shari'ah law!) apparent
references to Enron, etc.
It isn't until far down in his list of demands bin Laden gets to
Israel.
********** *********** ******** QUOTE ON *********** ***********
**********
"(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your
support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens
and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims
in Southern Philippines."
********** *********** ******** QUOTE OFF *********** ***********
**********
U.S. Mideast policy" is just the tip of the iceberg!
Christianity, charging interest on loans; drinking beer, wine; sex
outside of marriage, gay sex, lotteries - are amongst the "specific
policies" that have to go.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phaedrine" |
|
| Title: Re: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" |
14 Aug 2004 10:18:24 AM |
|
|
In article <3fade24c.0408131043.334824fa@posting.google.com>,
(elmer swanson) wrote:
Has anyone read either of these books?
Imperial Hubris is excellent, though I have not yet finished it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
