5 comments about Beyond Tuesday Morning (September 11 Series #2).

1. Karen Kingsbury did it again. Another fantastic story. Another, I can't put this book down until I finish it. I loved it! Great Christian fiction!



2. Great. A must if you have read One Tuesday morning.



3. It is an awesome book. I stumbled on to Karen Kingsbury kind of accidentally and it was one of the best things I have ever done. She is an excellent writer. This book must be read after One Tuesday Morning.



4. Received this book within a few days of ordering. Like new condition. I am very satisfied with this purchase.



5. One Tuesday Morning & Beyond Tuesday Morning, book series by Karen Kingsbury excellent books relating to
   September 11, 2001 - highly recommended

5 comments about Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity.

1. Berger's history of the Weather Underground is meticulously researched, and his writing is straightforward and clear. Weatherman is portrayed in a compassionate but unromanticized light. This important book is a must-read for everyone with an interest in 20th century social justice movements.



2. The Politics of the Weather Underground
   Volunteers of America
   By RON JACOBS
   
   In 1997 Verso published my history of the Weather Underground, The Way the Wind Blew: a History of the Weather Underground. Weather Underground member Bill Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days, published by Beacon Press in 2001, followed. Two years later, the film The Weather Underground, directed by Sam Green and Bill Siegel, was released. The film probably received the greatest amount of coverage in the mainstream media, although the unfortunate timing of Weather Underground member Bill Ayers' memoir (September 11, 2001) certainly provided his book with its own share, most of it negative.
   
   There have also been novels written where the WUO figured prominently (most notably The Company You Keep by Neil Gordon Viking 2003), a pamphlet written by political prisoner David Gilbert (SDS/WUO, Students For A Democratic Society And The Weather Underground Organization, Arm the Spirit 2002) and the comparative study of the Weather Underground and the German leftist armed organization, the Red Army Fraction, by Jeremy Varon (Bringing the War Home: The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies; UC Press 2004).
   
   AK Press of Oakland, California is adding another book to this growing library of Weather Underground literature. The book, titled Outlaws of America and written by up-and-coming radical author Dan Berger, is an important complement to the earlier works. The first history of the Weather Underground Organization(WUO) to be written by someone whose age parallels the ages of the children of WUO members and many other "sixties" activists (Berger is 24), this well-researched and detailed work provides a perspective on the most well-known group in the militant wing of the anti-racist and antiwar movement. The book is essential to understanding the history of the 1960s, as well as the present movements against racism and imperialist war.
   
   Two things make this book different than the one I got published 8 years ago. The first, and probably the greatest, is that Berger had access to the research and work that went into Green's film and my book. In addition, he also had much greater access to many of the personalities involved in the Weather organization. Green had a similar access. Things were a bit different when I was writing my book (1990-1997). Queries I sent to those members in prison were returned to me by prison officials, never having reached their intended recipient. Only a few individuals who had been in Weatherman/WUO were willing to talk with me and only two were willing to go on record. Others were willing to tell me if my story was accurate or not, but refused to discuss any specifics. One reason for this was the timing of my queries. After all, many Weather members were still unsure of their legal status and, politically, the US Left was still reeling from the effects of the incredibly reactionary Reagan era--a period that saw many members of the militant US left imprisoned and its infrastructure destroyed. In addition, hardly anyone that I approached knew my politics--which were a cross between the countercultural anarchism of the Yippies and the new communist movement of the 1970s. Berger and others have mentioned that my book helped to make it okay for WUO to be discussed as a force in US radical history. I was sent dozens of emails and letters from people telling me their stories as members of WUO or other militant groups after my book was published verifying this impression.
   
   The other major difference between my work and Outlaws of America is that Berger writes from the perspective of today's generation of radical activists. (Indeed, Berger is co-editor of the recently released collection Letters From Young Activists.) His perspective is that of an anti-imperialist who came of age in the 1990s, not the 1960s and 1970s. This obviously provides a different perspective simply because the face of US imperialism has changed, with the end of the Soviet Union and its allies, and the rise of two worldwide movements against Western capitalism--the anti-global capitalism surge and the Islamic movement against the west. Both of these movements have varied strains and are only semi-consciously aware of the connections they share. Besides providing a different perspective on the WUO because of the difference in the historical situation, Berger's viewpoint is one that is not laden with the personality conflicts and ego battles that are part and parcel of every "Sixties" activist's recollection of the WUO. On top of that, Berger's historical distance means that he sometimes places his emphasis on words and actions that have more importance now than they did when they occurred. This tends to provide a more congruous history. At times, his words may seem too uncritical, but as another historian who was accused of the same thing, it is my belief that most of those who make this criticism are either fundamentally opposed to WUO's politics and analysis or are still stuck in a past that most Weather members have apologized for over and over.
   
   Outlaws of America begins with a gripping description of Berger's first visit to Attica State Prison to interview/converse with former weather Underground member David Gilbert, who has been in the New York prison system since a conviction for his involvement in the tragic failure popularly known as the Nyack Brink's robbery. Berger obviously has a tremendous amount of respect for Gilbert's commitment while simultaneously understanding the tragedy of his position. In fact, each chapter begins with a quote from Gilbert--a technique that provides the reader with a glimpse of Berger's general perspective while never merely repeating Gilbert's take on things.
   
   Much of the book's beginning is a general history of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the dissipation of that organization into Weatherman, Revolutionary Youth Movement 2, and SDS/Progressive Labor. Using an academically-trained critical eye, Berger analyzes key documents published in the SDS newspaper New Left Notes and explicates the role these writings had in the political development of Weather. His generational removal from the times allows for an analysis that accepts the fervent anti-racism and struggle against white privilege that would become Weather's theoretical backbone at face value. This is important to Berger's history. Once he establishes these elements as the basis for Weather's politics, Berger is able to provide the reader with a history of the Weatherman/Weather Underground Organization that would make its former members critically proud.
   
   Given this, one might argue that while Outlaws of America might make former WUO members proud, it certainly couldn't be a good history if it accepts their political premise. After all, how could such a history be at all critical? To Berger's credit, it is the very fact that he uses the yardstick of Weather's essential political stance as the measure by which they should be judged that this history works as well as it does. It is apparent from his writing that his interviews with former members caused them to look at their actions and political words in relation to how well they measured up to their emotional and intellectual commitment to fighting racism, imperialism, and the white privilege these isms provide to white folks in the US.
   
   As an activist who sees things differently than Weather did in terms of emphasis on fighting white privilege, I am more than willing to admit that it was their focus on this element of US society that made me aware of the phenomenon of white privilege and reminded me to fight it in myself and the larger world. On the other hand, my relationships with workers who also happened to be white led me to draw different conclusions about the way the phenomena of racism, white privilege, and economic exploitation interact in modern capitalist society. Of course, I was (and am) but one of hundreds of thousands pondering these questions. And they are important questions, to be sure.
   
   Outlaws of America explores the final years of Weather in greater detail than its predecessors. In addition, Berger provides considerably more detail about the law enforcement activities arrayed against the WUO and its allies. This is one important part of the text where the element of time works in the author's favor. Not only is there more information regarding the law enforcement activities against the 1960s and 1970s popular leftist and anti-racist organizations, it is also much more accessible. This fact combined with Weather members willingness to discuss their years underground helps Berger flesh out the facts of State repression against the New Left, Black, Latino and Native American organizations, and especially the WUO. As regards the final years of Weather, the fact that many more former members feel safe in discussing the activities and politics of the group provided Berger with an opportunity to uncover the material. Of course, unless he asked the right questions, he would not have discovered what he did. Fortunately, Berger not only asked the right questions, he found enough former members willing to discuss their answers with him. Consequently, the reader is provided with the most complete explanation to date of how and why the Weather Underground Organization fell apart. Like every other aspect of its existence, the fundamental reasons were political. The stories and discussions in this section are instructive for today's movements as they struggle with questions of class, race, and gender.
   
   Berger's best writing occurs when he weaves the modern-day reflections of former WUO members into his narrative text. He does this so skillfully that those reminiscences never come off sounding awkward or irrelevant. Sometimes these reflections merely add a bit of physical detail, while more often they provide a contextual insight into what these women and men were thinking while they lived and took political action underground. This is what makes this book different and useful to the historian, the "sixties" buff, and the political activist of today. These people lived the life of clandestine revolutionaries and this book proves that they made the choices they made because of their politics. It wasn't because of some guilt due to class privilege, nor was their choice related to some psychological occurrence of their childhood. Even more than the previous works about Weatherman/WUO, Outlaws of America brings it home, especially to the US reader, that people do make choices (life-changing choices) based on their politics. This in itself is revelatory in a culture that thinks politics begins with the Republicans and ends with the Democrats.
   
   There's some criticism in these pages, too. To be sure, it's criticism from a left perspective, and that's a good thing. Those to the right of the US Left--and there are many--will read this book only under duress and rarely with an open mind. The reviews of the aforementioned works on the subject attest to that. Although I hope that Outlaws of America is read by people of all political persuasions, it's clear that it is intended for the growing left/anarchist movements of today and the New Left with its roots in yesterday. If those of us in that readership are to learn from history, it's very important that we critique that history. It's even better when that criticism comes from a variety of viewpoints. I hope this book, besides being an excellent read, sparks a new element in that conversation.
   
   (Reviewer's note: March 6 marks the 36th anniversary of the deaths of Weathermembers Diana Oughton, Terry Robbins, and Ted Gold in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion.)
   
   Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's new collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net



3. This was a thorough history, drawing on a number of sources and directions; but Berger keeps it rather readable. Casual? No. But approachable. Scholarly? Yes. But not egg-headed. It furnishes the reader with an overarching historical narrative, as well as dipping back and forth with another, contemporary narrative involving the interviews and friendship between a former Weatherman and the author. Few of my questions are left hanging by the text, with one particular exception: I would very much have had an appendix reproducing the texts of the WUO communiques and published works. Berger refers heavily and excerpts some, as I recall, but I would very much liked to have been able to flip to the back and read a whole communique.
   
   This is an engaging read that manages to strip back propaganda from both sides of the line and tells the story both in the WUO's own words and through the mouth of an historian.



4. a fascinating recounting of one of the more exciting, fresh, and daring movements of individuals known as the weather underground. This book recounts the early history, motivations, and background of social struggle taking place during this period of social struggle.
   
   Particularly interesting was the authors discussion of racism and the role it played (and plays) in American society. As well as the very deep analytical attention towards class and priviledge and the role it plays in a class seperated society.
   
   The individuals in this story are real with all their strengths and weaknesses intact. The author leaves us, the reader, to make our own conclusions about what the movement known as the Weather Underground means to our current reality.



5. Right from the acknowledgement --"David [Gilbert] has been a close friend . . ." we learn the author has a pro-radical viewpoint. Who is Gilbert? From Wikipedia -- "After eleven years underground, he was arrested in 1981, along with members of the Black Liberation Army and other radicals, after they killed three people in an armored car robbery. He is now a well-known prisoner in upstate New York, serving a 75 years-to-life sentence for his role in the robbery."
   
   Gilbert in the book is quoted as saying he is a "political prisoner." I wonder how the families of the dead Brinks workers feel about that statement.
   
   I've read many negative things during the 2008 election race about William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. You will not find them in this book.
   
   An example of the bias. During the Days of Rage, a Chicago city lawyer named Richard Elrod ended up paralyzed. See page 112 of this book and you will be told that Elrod missed a flying tackle against a running protester, injuring himself. This is a one-sided and cursory explanation. Elrod, now an Illinois judge, has an entirely different story. The alleged perpetrator of the stomping on a prone Elrod maintains his innocence, and a jury acquitted that person. But thorough discussions of the incident are available on the web that discuss the case in detail; I came away with the feeling from independent reading that the prosecution botched the case by allowing a biased witness to take the stand. I suggest the reader interested in the issue should do some internet research if he/she wants to properly evaluate the case.
   
   Unless I missed it, I did not see any of the eloquent statements attributed to Dohrn over the years. The book discusses the "Flint War Council" and says that Dohrn "praised the recent murders" committed by the Manson family. That's all. Why did the author not note her infamous quote: "Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson." As others have noted, those victims were Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, a middle-aged couple -- Leno was stabbed 12 times with a knife, and 14 times with a carving fork. Rosemary was stabbed 41 times. Perhaps a more careful researcher can verify the internet allegation that Dohrn also once led a celebration of Elrod's paralysis by leading her comrades in a parody of a Bob Dylan song -- "Lay, Elrod, Lay."
   
   The author, Dan Berger, is said to be a PhD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania. I hope his dissertation committee scrutinizes the work he presents there. This is a book with only one view, and apologia for the Weathermen. This book has limited usefulness.

1 comments about The Constitution and 9/11: Recurring Threats to America's Freedoms.

1. This book sheds a startling but bright and objective light into a very serious look at the coming 'New America'. A time as more than ever as these that we live in. Tells us that the time has come for overwhelming consideration of what is the ordinary man's response, reaction, responsibility and recourse as a proper answer to a threat of a true 'Orwellian' and 'Huxleyian' world for more than just America. For those of us here and other individuals around the world whom remember what a true sense of freedom and privacy was, the answer is an easy one, but the solution will prove to be a very difficult task. Louis Fisher has written a very excellent and comprehensive book detailing America's extremely dire predicament of it's frightening burden to maintain 'Constitutional Integrity' in a time of enormous strain and the extreme fatal outcome of this current state of 'Constitutional Frailty'.

5 comments about The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine.

1. The "Siege of Mecca" is a book that every serious reader should read. If you are an advocate or a beach comber or a pretender, you don't need to read this book - you wouldn't enjoy it because it would not suit your interests or needs.
   
   For "Serious Readers" (i.e. people who read everything including cereal box ingredient lists or those tags on mattresses and then think about it) the "Siege of Mecca" is simply a delight. It describes one of those weird historical moments (like the Bonfire of the Vanities) that seems to represent much more to the future than it did in its present. As far as this Serious Reader knows, Trofimov provides the most complete, dispassionate, and interesting description of this incredible act of stupidity and/or courage. It appears to be one of those "tipping point" moments in history to use the current hipster jargon.
   
   For English readers, the writing may seem just a bit ragged. Trofimov's grasp of the English (American) idiom is a bit . . . lubricated, shall we say? It slips just a bit now and then, but Mr. Trofimov's facility with English is much better than my skill with his native language, so I'm quibbling here. Sometimes his expressions are quaint, quirky, or merely violate the grammarian's whip, but in the spirit of Strunk and White, it nonetheless works. Get over it and focus.
   
   This book also provides one of those incredibly interesting tangents on the Global War on Terror. After you read this book you realize that there is a lot more going on than the New York Times, National Public Radio, or the current Presidential Administration is telling you. This is flip: If you like the really "good" restaurants, the ones even the cool guys don't talk about, this is the book for you. The "Siege of Mecca" is the truth, or at least the Current State of the Art.
   
   I highly recommend this book.



2. Overshadowed by other world crises in 1979, especially in Iran, the siege of Mecca has been largely forgotten. But it should not have been forgotten because it has set the stage for much of the terror that has ensued in the last 28 years. It was not exactly the birthplace of Al Quieda and Bin Laden but it gives a great insight into the trouble nature of the extremist regime of Suadi Arabia and how Saudi Arabia made a 'deal with the devil' by bringing in extremist cleric to help root out the more extremist people who had taken over the mosque. Rumours that a relative of Bin Laden was involved, the story of the beheadings of those who had participated, the claim that the French special forces called in to help converted to Islam so as not to 'offend' the Saudis and the story of the assault on American embassies throughout the Muslim world in the days that followed are all covered here.
   
   The book begins with a discussion of the history of Saudi Arabia and its extreme religious foundations, its apartheid like legal system for men and women and the origins of the Wahhabi movement. THen the story jumps forward to describe the radicalization of several groups of Muslims, including Juhayman Said al Otaibi and his brother-in-law Muhammad bin abd Allah al-Qahtani as well as other gulf Arabs and even some African-American Muslims. On November 20th, 1979 this group of men invaded the Al-Masjid al-Haram mosque in Mecca, the Grand Mosque, and in the battles that followed some 250 people were killed. Saudi National Guardsmen were shot down easily by the well armed and trained rebels. This necccesitated the regimes work with the conservative cleric Sheikh Abdel Aziz al Baaz and the calling in of non-Muslim foreigners to help with the siege.
   
   This is an expert story and the author not only tells it well but relates its history, its context and its aftermath, trying to show how this was pivotal in the increasing rise of Islamist terror in the Middle East that eventually culminated in Sept. 11.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



3. Purchased: May 2008 (Kindle)
   
   Pro: Fast-paced, concise story of an intriguing event. Illuminates the present state of affairs by presenting convincing evidence that the leader "...Juhayman's multinational venture,...was a precursor of al Qaeda itself."
   
   Con: Considering how hard it is to get accurate information about Saudi Arabia, I was initially suspicious that I was reading another "A million Little Pieces". I suggest scanning A Note to Readers at the end of the book to better understand how information was gathered.
   
   Overall: Buy it now



4. I was prepared to dislike this book, suspecting an "action pack thriller", full of loopy historical inaccuracies, if not outright fantasy - all because of the jarring black and red cover. Instead I found a lean, scholarly, and almost certainly dispassionately accurate account of one of the more important and not very well understood events in the last quarter of the 20th Century. It is written in a fast-paced action style, flipping back and forth among the major actors in this drama, but that enhances and does not hinder his story. Ramifications of this siege are affecting us today.
   
   Mr. Trofimov knows his subject well, amazingly well. He deftly describes the numerous disparate historical antecedents to the taking of the mosque by Islamic fanatics, and the reactions of the major actors. The Ikhwan, the religious brotherhood which was instrumental in Abdul Aziz's conquest and consolidation of what would be the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and his decision that they overstepped their limits, and so he had to mow them down with borrowed British machine guns in the early `30's, leading to a sense of martyrdom in the remnants of the defeated communities. America was tired of "foreign adventures," Vietnam being the prime reason, and therefore the CIA was severely constrained, with the coups it directed in Chile and Iran very much in mind. There was the Kingdom itself, being overwhelmed by the "future shock" of oil revenues, and the attendant rapid "modernization," with its own ills, inevitably leaving some people behind
   
   As with many events of this magnitude, ironies abound; they are described but not overplayed. The Royal Family must obtain a ruling from the Ulema, the chief religious body, that force can be used to remove the rebels, yet philosophically, the Ulema is in large measure in agreement with the complaints of the rebels. For days virtually no one knows the exact identify of the people who seized the mosque, so the United States insists it was Iran, and the Shiites; meanwhile Iran is insisting it is the United States and the infidels. Perhaps the best trained Arab force that could assist the Saudis is the Hashemite Jordanians, but they can not be used since they were once rulers in the Hejaz, were defeated by Abdul Aziz, and if they returned, "may not leave." Eventually the Saudis turned to the French, "because they were discreet and could keep a secret," which also proved false.
   
   I found the section of the French involvement particularly fascinating, since it dispelled the rumors that had dominated this topic, and described in an authoritative manner the exact nature of the fairly limited intervention (3 men, and supplies). Characteristically of Trofimov's account, he states the facts which he could ascertain, but does not speculate whether Barril, one of the three Frenchmen, actually entered Mecca.
   
   Equally important was the depiction of the immediate ramifications throughout the Muslim world, who blamed the United States, in large part because of Khomeini. US Embassies in Libya and Pakistan were burned, with loss of American life.
   
   John Burgess, on his CrossRoads Arabia website, pointed out some (relatively minor) flaws in Trofimov's book, citing the reason that the Bedouin were settled was not, as Trofimov contends, to better perform their ablutions, but rather to stop their raiding. I'd add a couple of my own: the Nejd would never be described as the "central Arabian highlands" (p14), and, of course, 1400 is not the first year of new century, 1401 is.
   
   On a personal note, I traveled by road in the Asir, from Abha to Taif, one week prior to the taking of the mosque, and may very well have passed some of the participants. On that trip, at a police checkpoint, was the only time in my 20 years in the Kingdom, that a Muslim did not give the proper response to my "As-Salaam Alikum" greeting; the followers of Juhayman believe(d) that a Muslim should not respond to an infidel when he gave the traditional greeting.
   
   In Trofimov's summing up, he correctly identifies Juhayman's deed as only one of the currents which lead to the formation of Al Qaeda. He also points out a second one, arriving from Egypt, in the person of Ayman Al Zawahir (who had been inspired by the execution of his hero, Sayyid Qutb). Of course, a third could easily be postulated: the unintended consequences, a/k/a "blowback" in CIA jargon, of America and Saudi Arabia funding and arming Islamic fundamentalist to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. And a fourth: the CIA coup against the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953.
   
   Epilogues can be used to examine some of the "what ifs" of an event. One of the rumors concerning Juhayman's capture stated that he had asked: "But where are the armies of the north"? Trofimov does not cover this, and only alludes to the self-delusional nature of individuals who succumb to millennial dogmas; the alleged Mahdi believes that he is "bullet proof," with the attendant fatal consequences. How many of my fellow citizens believe in the "rapture," the postulated end of the world when Christ returns, and would actually like to hasten the date? And "what if" they took concrete actions to accomplish this goal? Our own Juhayman...
   
   Trofimov account is almost certainly the best account we will ever have on the seizure of the mosque in Mecca in 1979, and is highly recommended.



5. This book has a very detailed description of the whole event. Well written in a typcial novel style, the book goes through all the happenings in a manner that keeps the reader engaged though I felt this book could be shorter and still have the same sort of impact as it does.
   An ideal book for a future movie script on an important event in the history of islam.

2 comments about Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger (Public Planet).

1. Appadurai draws on his former work on globalization in Modernity at Large, to propose a set of exciting and innovatively original reflections on the agendas set by post-September 11. The way terrorism is a sequel to former globalizing tendencies, and has been used in local contexts to deal in a discriminating way with 'difference', and 'minorities', is set against larger issues, such as the question of the role of the territorialized nation-state, and deterritorialized global terror. The interest of his approach resides in the fact that it considers a wide range of examples from South Asia to Europe, and the US, thus making the more evident how reductive - to say the least- are views of contemporaneity derived from Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. Appadurai is a genuinely original thinker, an exception in a world which sees a daily proliferation of repetitive and obvious approaches to such issues. An inspiring book I strongly recommend!



2. "Fear of Small Numbers" by Arjun Appadurai offers an exceptionally astute and often original analysis on the topic of violence and globalization. Drawing on his extensive knowledge gained over an impressive career as a scholar, consultant and activist, Mr. Appadurai brings an unique and internationalist perspective to bear on the subject. Written with a high degree of intelligence, clarity and conciseness, Mr. Appadurai's book convincingly explains how much of today's violence is tied to economic and social forces that are peculiar to our moment in history, thereby providing much-needed insight into how we might begin to address and resolve the problem of violence in our time.
   
   Mr. Appadurai contends that globalization has created mass uncertainty by demolishing the state's ability to control its own economic destiny; as a consequence, the production of cultural cohesion has gained greater importance than ever for the nation state's bid to retain relevancy. Unfortunately, the globalization game can easily destabilize national borders and upset the state's attempts at social cohesion by creating mass unemployment and encouraging inflows and outflows of destitute workers. Under these conditions, the downtrodden can sometimes become scapegoats for the nation's failures; in extreme cases, the poor and disenfranchised may become victims of violent purges that are driven by the majority population's heightened social and economic anxieties.
   
   However, Mr. Appadurai believes that terrorism constitutes the truly nightmarish side of globalization. Mimicking transnational corporations by organizing themselves in flexible, decentralized production networks, terrorist groups threaten the survival of the nation state. Terrorist rage is often directed at the U.S. as a consequence of its perceived cultural and economic hegemony as well as for its frequent exercise of military power around the world, especially in the Middle East. Mr. Appadurai points out that suicide bombers attempt to make political statements by personalizing themselves and their victims in deliberate and pointed contrast to the anonymous mass violence inflicted by U.S. air bombing campaigns. While Mr. Appadurai understands that some of these outsider perceptions of the U.S. may be difficult to accept, we probably need to acknowledge the author's point about how the unequal distribution of wealth and the sometimes indiscriminate and reckless deployment of U.S. power may be contributing to political destabilization and violent backlash if we wish to address some of the root causes of terrorism in a meaningful way.
   
   Mr. Appadurai goes on to discuss how the rise and fall of the BJP in India illustrates how political struggle can coalesce around ideas of cultural identification and exclusion. We learn how relatively small segments of the population can challenge legal and religious doctrines in a manner that can seem threatening to the majority population, elements of whom sometimes lash out violently against perceived threats in ideologically motivated attacks. On the other hand, the author finds hope in the many grass-roots activist networks around the world who are working for positive socioeconomic change. Mr. Appadurai believes that such organizations can create a much-needed "third space" for democratic deliberation and decision making, thereby helping the global economic system to work towards just ends.
   
   I give this timely and important book the highest possible rating and recommend it to everyone.

5 comments about Why I Am Not a Muslim.

1. Why I Am Not a Muslim
   
   A need to read book.



2. You know, sometimes I really hate writing these things, but some of them really deserve a bit of an enlightening oppinion. Okay Ibn Warraq it seems to me was a frustrated child who was never listened to, but that's neither here nor there since this is supposed to be a review on the work and not the creator of the work.
   
   I'll start with the first mistake that I noticed in this work. Warraq says in the Qur'an Surah 1 Verse 29 it states, On the day we shall unto hell, art thou full? And it shall reply, is there yet any more? Now any layman that is familiar with the Qur'an can see that this is ridiculous. For starters, the opening of the Qur'an mentions nothing about hell. Secondly, the opening chapter of the Qur'an is called the cure. Now why if this chapter is called a cure would it perscribe something like hell as a remedy. Thirdly, if you didn't already know, the opening chapter of the Qur'an which is the Fatihah has only and I repeat ONLY, seven verses. And he says Surah 1 verse 29. Check for yourself.
   
   Next he talks about the Trinity in the Qur'an and gives three proofs (so he says). And one of them is Surah 4 verse 169. In this verse it says, "Except the road of Hell, to abide therein forever; and that is easy for God." Now if you have read what I read, where do you see the trinity labeled in this surah. Nothing remotely points out a trinity. Warraq also points out two others in the Qur'an that talks about the trinity. They are Surah 5 and verses 77 and 116. They are too large to write in this review to show of warraq's incompetence on his "knowledge" of the Qur'an. I encourage all to go and look up these accusations for themselves.
   
   Lastly, Warraq talks about Zoroastrianism, which I will not go into in great detail for the sake of space, but in his explanation of Zoroastrianism he fails to introduce and inform the reader of what Zoroastrianism really is. Warraq makes the false claim that Islam origins can be found in Zoroastrianism, which is a totally false claim. Zoroastrianism is or was the end product of an evolutionary process which began with nature worship, passed through a more discrete polytheism, and finally concluded with a monotheistic deity. (Zepp Muslim Primer)
   
   I say all this to say that as readers we should be careful in the information we receive from writers like Warraq. He appears to be knowledgeable, because he was raised Muslim and taught the Qur'an at a young age until as he says "was able to think for himself." He seems not to either have not been taught correctly or he may have forgotten what he was taught, because this book is filled with numerous fallacies that can be taken to heart by the ignorant reader. Warraq needs a revised version of this book or needs to cease in writing about things he really has no idea of himself. To be so blatant in his claims, but yet so ignorant in his knowledge of the subject matter is absolutely perfidious.



3. You'll see right away why this book gets such a range of reviews. The man speaks his mind. After 9/11, when I set about clarifying my own beliefs about gods and religions, this and Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian were the two most useful books I found. No great surprise of course that the have much the same things to say. I appreciated Warraq's going into some detail about Islamic history and culture. Shame on my ignorance. But of course Jewish/Christian/Muslim are shoots of a common seed. An Episcopal priest friend of mine describes himself as a rabbi, and Muslims acknowledge Moses and Jesus. The pond is small. I used to make Buddhism a benign exception to what goes wrong in other religions but not so much anymore after a glimpse of Sri Lankan history. Take Me With You When You Go Nutty to Meet You! Dr. Peanut Book #1



4. I am a Muslim. Take it as you will when reading the following.
   
   I've been studying Islam since the age of 10. I am now 24, and have still continued my pursuit in obtaining knowledge in Islamic theology, methodology, etc. Even so, I still find myself interested in reading books such as these, simply because my curiosity intrigues me to listen to the other side.
   
   Yes, "the other side", as I am not convinced Ibn Warraq actually knows the religion he claims to have once been a part of. Indeed, after reading his book I was baffled at how it has sold so many copies. Then it struck me: Ibn Warraq does a phenomenal job and redefining Islam, and feeding it to his innocent audience, who without knowing, eats it up. It is not the audiences fault that the author is telling you "Boogieman: Islam Edition". How are they to know?
   
   What do I mean by this? Imagine if you were interested in buying a Hondo, but had never owned a Japanese car in the past. I offered you a book called, "Why I would never own a Japanese car", and as such, claimed I was once a prominent investor in Honda Motors. Throughout the book, I would paint my audience a picture of children in sweat shops, building these cars by hand. On top of that I would use auto-junkie vocabulary to under-sell the car.
   
   How likely would you believe me? Well... I guess that depends whether or not you realize that sweat shops are predominantly found in China, not Japan ;)
   
   This book is not for those looking to educate themselves on Islam. This is a book for those who need a reason to hate someone who is not like them.



5. 
   This man is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, incredible! Offering a plethora of information, not only his opinion but countless others' as well as history from I cant even recall how many sources.
   
   **College Level Reading** don't waste your money if your not on the higher end of the grammatical totem poll and have at least a fair knowledge of common Islamic phrases and Arabic.
   
   OVERALL BEST BOOK I'VE EVER READ!

5 comments about The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America.

1. Not a conspiracy book at all, but more a historical analysis of what's happened to US power over the past 50 years: how the "deep state" has swallowed what remained of the Public State. When people wonder why there seems to be a total de-link between what the American people desire and vote for, and what they actually get -- here is the answer. In November 2006, the US voted for the end of the Iraq War, the readjustment of the Bush Vampire tax burden, and for greater accountability(investigations, public hearings, supoenas issued, etc). What they got was the exact opposite. Why? This book is a good place to start to find the answer.
   
   When Professor Scott gets to 9/11/01, he goes into very minute detail over the very strange discrepencies involving Dick Cheney's whereabouts from 9:25 to 9:55 the morning of the attacks. Cheney has just flat out lied about where he was and what he was doing. He tells the 9/11 Commission that he did not enter the security bunker/command post just off the EOB until 9:50. Yet several witnesses swore that he was inside the bunker(including Leon Panetta) as early as 9:25, repeatedly going off to make phone calls in the tunnel which leads from the bunker to the EOB, on secured, untraceable phones. Why lie about this? Who was he talking to and about what?
   
   Even stranger is the testimony of an Air Force Lieutenant who kept asking Cheney the same question over and over: "Do the orders still stand? Do the orders still stand?" Eventually, Cheney got angry and responded: "Have you heard anything different?!"
   
   What were the orders? The assumption is that they were orders to shoot down incoming planes. Yet, this query had already been asked at least once before the plane plowed into the Pentagon. And if they were the logical shoot-down orders, why would the Lt. keep asking for confirmation? Scott theorizes that the orders in fact were STAND DOWN orders.
   
   A magnificent, chilling work by our greatest political historian.



2. The American author Peter Dale Scott shows how the richest 1% control key covert parts of the US state, including the Pentagon and the CIA. The private power of this military-financial complex has been secretly growing ever since President Truman founded the CIA. The US state serves the class interests of Wall Street's owners, not the national interest.
   
   The US state is becoming more repressive: in 1970, 31% of California's budget went to higher education and 4% to prisons, by 2005, 12% and 20% respectively.
   
   Scott shows how the US state built up fundamentalist Islam. From the 1950s, the CIA, allied with MI6, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, used the mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood against secular nationalism across the Middle East. Later the CIA outsourced its operations to MI6, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the Saudis, the Shah, the French intelligence service, Egypt and Morocco. In Latin America, the US state backed the fascist Operation Condor run by the military dictatorships of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay, funded by South Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia.
   
   Scott describes how the US and British states have fomented wars across Asia. From 1986, the CIA, MI6 and Pakistan's intelligence service launched guerrilla attacks from Afghanistan into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In 1988 the US and Pakistani states promised to end military aid to the mujehadin when Soviet forces left Afghanistan; Thatcher and Bush ensured that they broke that promise.
   
   Scott shows how the drive for oil determines much of US foreign policy. For example, in 1997, the Wall Street Journal stated, "The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace. Moreover, they are crucial to secure the country as a prime trans-shipment route for the export of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources."
   
   In sum, Scott shows how the US state is not a force for peace and progress, as Gordon Brown fondly believes, but backs war and reaction. Its ruling class wants to continue their disastrous attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan: it believes what Kissinger said in 2005, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."



3. See 'Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil' by Michael C. Ruppert and Catherine Austin Fitts



4. 
   Somewhere between George Bush and Noam Chomsky, who believe the 9/11 Commission Report, and David Ray Griffin, who believes "the Bush-Cheney administration orchestrated 9/11" (Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, 2006, p. vii-viii, ), there is Peter Dale Scott.
   
   Scott doesn't say who did it, but as Ola Tunander puts it,
   
   "Peter Dale Scott exposes a shadow world of oil, terrorism, drug trade and arms deals, of covert financing and parallel security structures - from the Cold War to today. He shows how such parallel forces of the United States have been able to dominate the agenda of the George W. Bush Administration, and that statements and actions made by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld before, during and after September 11, 2001, present evidence for an American "deep state" and for the so-called "Continuity of Government" in parallel to the regular "public state" ruled by law. Scott"s brilliant work not only reveals the overwhelming importance of these parallel forces but also presents elements of a strategy for restraining their influence to win back the "public state," the American democracy."
   
   This is not very different from the more widely held "rogue network" theory described, for example, by Webster Tarpley, as "an outlaw network of high officials infesting the military and security apparatus of the United States and Great Britain." Tarpley sees this network as "ultimately dominated by Wall Street and City of London financiers," but many other candidates have been proposed (Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, Illuminati, CFR, CIA, Mossad, Federal Reserve, etc.).
   
   What these two points of view have in common, if indeed they are different at all, is the idea that there is, or still is, a "public state" (or "non-rogue" network) at all. This sounds comforting, to the extent that it encourages us to think that if we can just expose and get rid of the bad guys, we can "win the country back." The latter expression brings us all the way back into mainstream politics, where anyone dissatisfied with the status quo can complain about the country having gone to the dogs and being desperately in need of change.
   
   It is along this continuum that we lose Chomsky and other advocates of a "structuralist" or "institutional" approach, which they oppose to "conspiracy theory" generally. The system cannot be fixed, they say, by superficial reforms, or by getting rid of the bad guys, because it is based on capitalist imperialism and the profit motive. Even if the "deep state" were exposed and removed, things would not improve significantly because the public state is the real killer. Chomsky's entire (political) oeuvre is dedicated to showing how the US government (and its allies) wreak havoc in the world, not by conspiracy but openly and consistently as the logical and predictable consequence of the economic system it serves.
   
   I think both points of view are flawed. Why Chomsky et al. refuse to acknowledge the evidence for high-level government complicity in "deep state" events like the JFK assassination and 9/11 is simply not comprehensible. They fit easily (and politically very effectively) into a "structural" analysis: both events precipitated imperialist wars -- the latter undeniably, the former arguably.
   
   On the other hand, is this notion of a coexisting deep and public state not precisely the state of doublethink Orwell described in 1984 -- "holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them" (Orwell, 1984)? How is it possible, logically, to have both at the same time? The concepts, it seems to me, are mutually exclusive. If the deep state exists, there can be no public state, by definition. The same is true of the rogue network. There can be no rogue network within the government controlling the government, because if that is the case the rogue network is the government.
   
   This is not "semantics." Scott is not talking about the public face, the propaganda mask, that "bad" governments use to disguise their evil nature. There would be nothing new about that. He is talking about two governments ("states"), a good one and a bad one, that are so intertwined they can hardly be told apart, like Jekyll and Hyde. This is what Scott's oeuvre is all about -- showing us how closely intertwined they are. My problem with this is that precisely because they are so intertwined, I see no point in trying to distinguish them.
   
   Worse, Scott's theory in the end exonerates the very institutions (CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, etc.) he impugns. Like his friend John Newman, who can present a mountain of evidence proving that Oswald was a CIA agent without implicating the CIA as an institution, Scott does not locate the deep state in the CIA or any other government agency, or in the government at all, since the "overworld" extends far beyond the US government into organized crime, international banking and finance, transnational corporations, foreign intelligence agencies, etc. Thus "9/11 was an inside job," for Scott, does not mean the (US) government did it. Ditto for JFK, and all other "deep events."
   
   As long as this doublethink holds, one is paralyzed. One cannot blame the government, or agencies of the government, because they didn't do it. Despite the overwhelming evidence tying them to all sorts of misdeeds, they are innocent as institutions because they are, after all, part of the "public state." This is where Newman leaves us, and it is where Scott leaves us. Maybe there is something about being a former intelligence officer (Newman) or a (Canadian) diplomat (Scott) that prevents them from taking the final, logical step, which I see as inevitable. If everything, or even half, of what they say is true, the government did do it, and only the government can solve the so-called "mysteries" and rectify the situation, whereupon it follows that we must try to remake the government into a true "res publica." Rather than exonerate the CIA as an institution, for example, it should be completely reformed (or abolished) as an institution. Since this can probably not be done without reforming the overarching institution, the government, of which it is a part, we can now rejoin Chomsky et al. in calling for fundamental change. I wonder if Maj. Newman and Prof. Scott would be with us on that one.
   
   Michael D. Morrissey
   August 26, 2008
   
   http://www.mdmorrissey.info/deepstate
   There is also a useful discussion at http://www.911blogger.com/node/17364#comment



5. Professor Scott, in his book "The Road to 9/11" provides a detailed analysis and discussion of contradictions in the 9/11 timelines, the reports, the inquiries ... In this regard, I believe that Scott writes in a manner that is quite easy to follow. It is well-written and superb in conclusions. I regret that it might have been more comprehensive - although, it introduces topics, such as the history of and manner of operations of the continuity of government.
   
   In the concluding chapter, Scott rises to his highest potential, not only summarizing the events of that most horrific day, but, it offers the readers insights and arguments inspiring, at least, me, to seriously evaluate the credibility of statements prepared by the US federal government and examine the appropriateness of bottom-up movements to take back our government and return it to the people.
   
   While the first 15 or so chapters were superb, the final chapter is sublime. The is well worth the purchase price, new or used.

3 comments about Getting to Maybe: How the World Is Changed.

1. This is an extraordinary book that changed my view of the world in the first 25 pages. While the main focus of the book is a set of principles and approaches to adopt if one is trying to make the world a better place, the principles can be applied more broadly to everyday life. The authors show how small interactions with complex systems can produce disproportionately significant results if one first understands the system, using examples such as Yunus's micro-lending in bangladesh.
   Everyone should read this book.



2. I head about this book at the 10th Regenstrief Biennial conference on system transformation of healthcare in the United States. It was mentioned particularly by Paul Biondich and Burke Mamlin with regards to their work to create effective treatment for people with HIV/AIDS in Africa through an open source electronic medical record. (See more at http://www.slideshare.net/bmamlin/openmrs-transformation)
   
   The book essentially describes a Zen-Canadian approach to social change. Although loosely based on complexity theory (the one where a butterfly creates a hurricane), complexity theory is very complex, so I would have to say that it is very loosely based.
   
   Reading its stories of how profound changes had occurred in social systems such as Muhammad Yunus' Grameen Bank and anti-poverty and anti-racist activists in Canada, it makes a case the change proceeds from a number of phenomena:
   
   A deep and human level understanding of social ills nurtured over time which leads to tentative hypothesized solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all quick fix or a certain recipe.
   
   A sense of being called to action in a way that almost makes taking action a non-decision for the change agent.
   
   An openness to feedback in the problem solving work (a fair amount of time is spent pointing out the ultimate futility of structured plans given the complexity of the world.)
   
   A willingness to confront the powerful - be that oneself, ones fears or other social stakeholders who may oppose change.
   
   Of interest to me as program staff person at a medium sized US foundation, there is a fairly extensive discussion of the sins of philanthropy with regards to social change. We tend to require more specific objectives and reporting than is realistic given this model of change. We tend to over-evaluate our grantees in terms of these foolish metrics and quantifiable outputs rather than using methods of appreciative inquiry or developmental evaluation to understand the process. I get the sense that at least one of the authors is an evaluator and is tired of being hired to do the wrong thing.
   
   Most moving to me were the observations that change is so very hard. Most social innovations fail in important ways. Even when they do succeed, that success is only temporary or limited - it can be reversed by changed circumstances or become a new baseline from which to aspire very quickly. Social innovators in this view face enormous challenges - they are fundamentally alone, necessarily always questioning everything, and doomed by the complexity of the world and human limitation. Is there such a thing as Zen-Existentialism?
   
   There seems to me to be a lot of truth in these views. However, I have to say that these change agents' program officers are lousy. In addition to handing out checks and demanding unreasonable reports and evaluations, our major job is to support the grantees. No grantee should ever feel alone, if their program staff person knows what he or she is doing.
   
   I still don't know what to make of this book. I look forward to seeing more reviews from others.



3. This is an inspiring book that gives a good sense of 'complexity theory' and how social change can come from many directions.

5 comments about Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad.

1. Dr. Gabriel presents an authentic analysis of the threat of Islam. He was raised Muslim, memorized the full Qur'an by the age of twelve, and eventually was a professor at Al-Azhar University in Cairo - the most revered Islamic University in the world. He tried to teach his students to be open-minded and for his effort, was kicked out of the University, spit upon, beaten and branded a heretic. He was arrested by the Egyptian secret police and tortured to near-death. He has been attacked and stabbed by Muslim fanatics for proclaiming the truth.
   
   I have read all of Dr. Gabriel's writing and have met him personally. He is a humble, sincere and soft-spoken man. He has a heart for Muslims and desires that they be given the freedom to think for themselves and have the opportunity to choose.
   
   I encourage you to read all of Dr. Gabriel's books in order to gain a full understanding of the threat that Islam represents - and more importantly - to offer hope and a refuge to those trapped in its oppression.
   
   I have the highest respect for Dr. Gabriel and refer to him often in my blog: www.y-factor.net



2. Dr. Gabriel has written an easily digestible accounting of what he experienced and how Islam as he knows it differs from how most of us in the West have been led to believe. I am becoming more firmly convinced that we need to devote more resources to actively study this religion/way of life in order to gain understanding and develop ways to communicate with the types of terror minded people he is writing about. The difference between the Noble Quran and the other translations is pretty startling... and scary!
   
   I read this book in preparation for a presentation I am making to team members on my police department. I found Dr. Gabriel's source list to be as helpful as the book itself! To date, I have read three other books on the subject, one video and several internet feeds. I have been trying to read the Quran and when I get a copy of the Noble Quran, am interested in comparing the two. Any suggestions for additional sources would be greatly appreciated!
   
   All the best,
   
   Jay



3. I had gotten this book as part of my thesis related to the global Salafi jihad, unfortunately within a couple of minutes I realized that I could not cite a book such as this whatsoever for several reasons:
   
   - The author, despite having acquired a Ph.D., does not provide citations nor complete quotes or correct translations when referencing Arabic sources.
   - The author's knowledge of Islam is terribly superficial, so that no real substance or Islamic jurisprudence is included or analyzed.
   - The book is simply a long rant against a small radicalized section of Islam, it's more like a long opinion piece for some fundamentalist Christian journal than anything else.
   - The publishing firm and its editors make it a non-credible source that no real thesis supervisor would less pass without questioning it.
   
   Seek other sources for research, but if you are a fundamentalist Christian seeking affirmation of the evils of Islam that is perpetrated by less than 1% of the world's Muslim population this is an excellent book. It is written at a middle-school level, making it a very easy read.



4. Gabriel's book exposes the lies and distortions being unwittingly disseminated by western media and governments. It could be the most important book you will ever read. Gabriel once taught in the Egyptian university that is the spriitual seat of Islam. He was forced to flee for his life when he began to question some of the tenets of his faith. He became a Christian and wrote this book using an Americanized name. Muslims the world over want to kill him. He explains exactly why in this clear and concise work.



5. We owe this guy. Should be require reading for policy makers and intelligence officials, so they understand the mental setting. Shocking and unbelivable.

5 comments about Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization.

1. This is an interesting little book. I think that it may promise more than it delivers, but its lesson is right on. The Foreword relates a key part of the book's thesis (page ix): "[Examples] involve the idea of turning the complexity and power of a developed modern economy from strengths to vulnerabilities."
   
   For one thing, terrorists can use relatively inexpensive techniques to create huge problems. For instance, it cost al-Qaeda about $500,000 for the 9/11 attacks and cost the American economy about $500 billion worth of damage--in the author's words (page x) "a million-to-one payoff ratio."
   
   Other examples: cheap techniques (explosives) have cost Iraq millions upon millions of dollars in lost oil revenue, as pipelines are destroyed and income lost. The book itself is about (page xiv) "rapid chaotic and unexpected events. . . . 'black swans--events so different from what we know, so unpredictable and hidden by uncertainty, that they are impossible to predict with accuracy."
   
   The book talks about the ability of terrorists to learn and use this learning to advantage against state actors. They tend to be more nimble and this provides an advantage. So, complex globalization presents an attractive target for simple responses by terrorist organizations.
   
   An interesting argument. However, there are some questions that arise because of recent developments in Iraq. Robb believes that the antipathy of a variety of actors to the United States is doom. Whether or not the "surge" ends up working, though, it is clear that in the short run many Iraqis who formerly fought against Americans are now working with them against, for example, al-Qaeda. Will this last? or will the formerly antagonistic and currently cooperative groups just outwait Americans? Who knows? But the current situation (November, 2007) suggests a more fluid situation than the author depicts.
   
   Only time will tell the outcomes in Iraq and against terrorists worldwide. The book has an interesting and even powerful logic. But we must wait to see what the evidence tells us in the future.



2. This book isn't of course as timeless as Lao Tsu's or von Clausewitz's, but it shares space on my desk with these and a few others, simply because it is the only concise fifth-generation warfare (and fourth) reference I've found. John Robb produced a minor watershed which I've tabbed with over a score of Post-It tabs. Nicely written and functionally useful. (Still, by the author's own admission, tentative in the face of our ignorance about the future's potential for yet-unrecognized means of conflict.)



3. 
   It sure requires a lot of effort to regard life as a pleasant experience when you have to wonder every day if you're going to get blown up in a bus on your way to work, or if there's going to be a sudden blackout, shortage of water or gas. This may seem like a distant scenario, something happening to some poor "unliberated" underdeveloped state - but according to John Robb, disruptions of this kind can take place anytime, anywhere. In fact, they're being prepared as we speak. New York, Madrid and London were merely a sneak preview - and of course, places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Thailand and Chechnya have become classic sites for such disorder. What we are looking at, Robb argues, is a new type of globalized warfare involving small and largely independent "terrorist" cells with lots of cheap and accessible technology (from the internet to explosives). Robb aptly calls them the Global Guerrillas.
   
   Never mind WHY such "nasty people" would want to disrupt your neat way of living: wars have always been fought for myriads of reasons and every murderer can be called a hero, every freedom fighter a terrorist, if you're so inclined. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about people plotting to disrupt other people's way of living (in fact, directly or indirectly, that's what we're all doing, all the time). One of the most refreshing aspects about Robb's book is that he doesn't waste many lines vilifying the global guerrillas, but rather coolly observes and describes their tactics, methods, even finances - and potential to emerge victorious. The one common aspect in all these groups (Al-Qaeda being the most famous) is that they are opposing a state, i.e., a huge organization with the (supposed) monopoly over violence (or security), taxation and all kinds of essential services such as the supply of energy, food, water and health care. And the interesting thing is that the global guerrillas have developed a cunning little trick to actually endanger the legitimacy and power of states: instead of going about waging massive wars with millions of soldiers and billions of explosions (which is really quite expensive), they engage in "systems disruption", damaging or destroying the very infrastructure on which states (and above all the population under their jurisdiction) rely. By blowing up pipelines, electricity grids, bridges, railroads, airplanes and buildings, the guerrillas cause massive damage and financial losses - not to speak of panic and insecurity - all of which end up weighing heavily on the state. For the perpetrators of such attacks, on the other hand, the costs can be minimal, as it is relatively cheap nowadays to organize and execute major disruptive actions. Plus they can be endlessly innovative, learning from each other's mistakes and successes, even though they are not connected or even cooperating with each other. Robb calls this "open-source warfare", analogous to Wikipedia, where millions of people can participate and improve, without need of a "central command". Which, of course, makes it all the more difficult for global guerrillas to be eliminated: you destroy one group here, and in the meantime ten others have sprouted up somewhere else.
   
   Much of the book concentrates on Iraq, not only because it is such an obvious conundrum for America and its allies, but also for its variety of "terrorist" groups wreaking havoc on a daily basis and undermining the West's attempts to "conquer the hearts and minds" of the invaded territory's population. This provides a good basis to observe a (supposedly) powerful state's inability to actually detect, much less control all the insurgency against it. The end-result, Robb predicts, will be the failure of the American intervention. Surprising as that may sound.
   With this in mind, Robb provides also countless examples of successful (and quite ingenious) recent operations in other countries, to finally conclude that we have entered a whole new stage in world events: the end of globalization and the beginning of global chaos. As he put it: "Now with the new forms of warfare any small group can wage war... and they will." A chilling prospect, perhaps, but Robb's arguments certainly sound convincing. Especially because he teaches us not to regard warfare as something stable, but rather as en ever evolving human talent, full of surprising twists and turns. The future will be one hell of an adventure. It's just a shame we will (most likely) have to participate in it.



4. If you are a traditionalist and are expecting the usual treatise to counterinsurgency then you will be disappointed. This is an out of the box approach to war in the 21st century. This book is not modern updates to Galula, Kitson, Mao or Trinquier. Examples of some of the topics covered include; "Superempowered Competition", "Open Source Warfare", and Guerrilla Entrepreneurs". This book is not for the faint of heart, it will destroy your conventional notions about counterinsurgency and will require you to completely rethink the "Graduate" level art of war.
   
   Terry Tucker, PhD
   Mobile Training Team Battle Staff Trainer
   Afghanistan



5. Some of Robb's assessments state the obvious.
   Others (irresponsibly) give would-be terrorists a blueprint for how to succeed.
   In my opinion, Robb overstates the threat of terrorism.
   Seriously, outside of Iraq, the U.S has not been hit since 9/11.
   In the final chapter, Robb reveals his motive for the book. He uses fear to advocate an extreme libertarian agenda. His recommendation? Eliminate federal government, let the rich hire private armies, let the middle class form militias and let the poor starve to death.
   No thanks.