5 comments about American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others.

1. This fact filled tome will aggravate those with a fixed set of assumptions whether from the Left or the Right. The reason? They view themselves as exceptionally virtuous, morally superior, and they're convinced they are middle-of-the-road as to their beliefs. It doesn't take very long to see that this point of view leads to a distorted perception of reality i.e. if Dan Rather sees himself as middle of the road then moderate Libertarians would be far Right in the pantheon of his worldview. It's the same story with the abortion issue, particularly from the Right.

   John George, a professor of Political Science and Sociology at Central Oklahoma University and Laird Wilcox, founder of the Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements, are the book's authors. Wilcox has the largest collection of extremist literature in America and it can be found at the University of Kansas, home of copious fields of wheat, endless horizons and a highly successful basketball program.

   They cover every facet of extreme political movements including what radical groups exist, who joins up and why, what do they want to accomplish, how far are they willing to go to achieve those ends, and the degree of danger we face should they achieve their ends. They begin by summarizing pre-60's movements, then morph into the makeup of conspiracy theories and what motivates extremists. They thoroughly document and detail a listing of contemporary groups in addition to adding an in-depth appendix of fake quotes and fabricated documents.

   If you've ever wondered how the far-Left in America could fawn at the feet of a butcher like Fidel Castro or lap up the distorted and inaccurate screeds of a false intellectual like Noam Chomsky then go no further, it's all here. I'll share with you some insights in the book.

   For the alienated and "ideologically prone", identification with a power figure or someone held up as an intellectual guru can serve as a mechanism to free them from anxieties and doubt. A failed ideology such as Socialism can thus continue to embody all their fantasies, utopian ideals, and hopes for the future. This phenomenon is repeated over and over throughout history from the heaven-on-earth promises of Communism to the heaven-hereafter central to the teachings of radical Christianity as well as radical Islamicism.

   The "true believer" tends to believe in theories with little or no evidence to support his conclusions or predictions. Eric Hoffer addresses this condition in his book by the same name. Put another way "true believers" tend to believe what they tend to believe, a form of "petito pricipii", where dogma is presented which assumes the truth of the premise. It assumes that the thesis speaks for itself.

   After pounding home this theme with his followers the guru uses selected facts, working backwards from his addled assumptions, to support his flawed thesis. Rituals are often invoked to soothe the listener by incorporating what amounts to the elements commonly found in the practice of hypnosis.

   There is much, much more and it's all worthwhile if you're a student of people and how they come to believe what they do. This is the best book of its kind I've read, and I wish to say thanks to the authors, "I needed that". It was getting just too difficult to understand my Libertarian-Socialist-Communist friends let alone my friends of strong religious conviction. And, these are my friends! they're not even trying to kill me! We're a lucky bunch here in the USA.




2. When future American historians and political scientists look back at political extremism in the last half of the twentieth century, this is the book to which they will turn. It is thoroughly detailed and meticulously researched; in short the definitive work on this subject.

   The following groups, along with their leaders, are covered.

   THE FAR LEFT

   Communist Party USA
   Socialist Workers Party
   Black Panther Party
   Students for a Democratic Society
   Progressive Labor Party
   Revolutionary Action Movement
   Revoluntionary Communist Party
   Communist Workers Party

   THE FAR RIGHT

   Reverend Billy James Hargis and his Christian Crusade
   The John Birch Society
   The Christian Right
   Willis Cato and Liberty Lobby
   Robert Bolivar DePugh and the Minutemen
   The Militias
   Gerald L. K. Smith and Christian Nationalist Crusade
   The LaRouche Network
   Jewish Defense League
   The Nation of Islam
   Assorted Neo-Nazis
   National States Rights Party
   Ku Klux Klans

   Appendix 1 contains 36 pages of fake quotes and forged documents extremists are fond of using.

   Appendix 2 contains a handy guide for extremist watchers and lists their common characteristics and differences. It also lists some mainstream organizations which are sometimes considered extreme, but really are not.

   A sample paragraph, from page 48 of American Extremists:

   "McCarthyism existed on a half-truth. There were Communists in the United States and some of them were entirely anti-American and would like to do in our system of government. For the most part, however, the Communists, real or imagined, were of no significant security threat to our country. What was a greater threat was the witch-hunting and official and unofficial persecution of these people as heretics. One of the worst things extremists can do to a society, usually without intending to, is to cause it to overreact and burn down the barn to catch the rat, so to speak. The net effect of domestic extremism has been negligible. The net effect of attempts to exterminate it have been quite telling, a legacy that haunts us to this day."

   "American Extremists" is the favorite book in my library, and, outside of the dictionary, the most useful.




3. This book is the definitive work for anyone who wants to know about extremists in this country. I notice that one reviewer described the book as "tedious." I cannot agree. The book was extremely well researched, well written, and fascinating from one end to the other. A must read.



4. To be sure, the authors have done quite a bit of research, looking into the histories of various groups which they deem to be "extremist" in nature. Many of these facts are unknown to all but those who are familiar with groups which -- like the ones covered in this book -- are hardly covered at all in the so-called mainstream press. Despite citing various documents from said "extremist" groups and admitting that the U.S. state has no business infiltrating them and attempting to destroy them, this book is pretty poor. Despite the authors' attempts to pose as "objective" in their scholarship they thesmelves are propagandists for a particular ideology -- lets call it "centrism."
   The authors suggest repeatedly that anyone who identifies with these so-called extremist groups -- be they on the far-left or the far-right -- have some kind of psychological problems. There you have it -- anyone who disagrees strongly with the way the political system "works" (or, in actuality, doesn't) in America have personal problems; they have some kind of personality disorder, and their criticism of the system is thus without merit.
   The authors are thus "establishment scholars" in the sense that what they write can only please the powers-that-be. But in posing as "neutral defenders of democracy" the authors ignore a critical point: the political agenda pushed by the power-brokers is not now the same as it was 20-30 years ago. Thus, to continue to be a "centrist" means to adapt oneself continually to the ideological/policy shifts embraced by the political elite; an example of this is that a good argument could be made that Bill Clinton was farther to the right than Richard Nixon. Clinton bombed Bosnia in 1995, the former Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Iraq continually throughout his two terms in office, invaded Somalia in 1993, Haiti in 1994, etc. eliminated welfare, advanced so-called free trade agreements which enhanced the ability of corporations to undercut the wages and conditions of workers all over the world and pushed budgetary austerity in the US and abroad. To be sure Nixon was himself responsible for the horrific bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (not to mention the coup d'etat in Chile), but he pronounced that "we are all Keynesians" now, while Clinton stated that "the era of big government is over." Thus, the political establishment moved further to the right from the 70s to the 90s, and this shift logically meant that people who regarded themselves as centrists had to do the same. In my opinion (being unashamedly a socialist and a revolutionary) to not be outraged at the types of things which I mentioned marks one as a vile reactionary.
   Finally, it deserves to be said that arguing that far-right and far-left groups have quite a bit in common with one another -- as these authors do -- is cliche as well as false. While many of the far-left groups mentioned in this book were led by profoundly confused people, it goes without saying that it is dubious to lump those opposed to US imperialism, inequality and discrimination with those who felt that such things are actually in too-short supply.
   Political conflicts are based, in the final analysis, on class, and not psychological phenomena on the individual level. This book is based on fundamentally false premises, and thus, while at least containing facts about groups little known to the public at large, should be regarded as propaganda in defense of the capitalist status quo.



5. John George and Laird Wilcox present an extensive and surprisingly non-biased look at movements considered extreme compared to the standard liberal-conservative spectrum. The book examines the histories and personalities behind a host of marxist-leninist, religious fundamentalist and white supremacist organizations.
   
   While the actual descriptions of the organizations are interesting, the book's real strength is in its analysis of the history of extremist movements and looks at what motivates people to join. Various theories explaining the attractiveness of extremist movements to certain types of people are explored. Perhaps best of all, the authors recognize that extremism is a matter of "style and tactics more than goals." The kinds of emotionally laden thinking, logical falicies and argumentative tactics that extremists tend to employ are analyzed. Yet the tone of the authors is generally non judgemental and they are quick to recognize the dangers of dismissing or worse, suppressing the rights of extremists. Repeatedly throughout the book the authors defend the rights of people to hold controversial views and warn of the dangers of violating the rights of those who hold unpopular opinions. Furthermore, in a day and age marked by liberal dominance over academic discourse, the authors are pleasantly centrist and without dogma or agenda. They are both equally hard and equally gentle with both left and right wing beliefs.
   
   Yet the book is incomplete, especially in its treatment of the far left. The vast majority of leftist organizations looked at are Marxist-Leninist groups, which are quite dated in modern progressive thought. The authors concede that "Extreme radical feminists or environmentalists, for example, may be as "extreme" in their behaviors as the most dedicated Marxist Leninist" but do not look at a single such organization. Militant Minorities, Deep Ecology, Anti-War, Radical Feminism, Gay Pride, Postmodernism and Anarchism each command far more intellectual and activist vigor than Marxist Leninism, yet the only groups promoting any of the above discussed are the Black Panthers and possibly the Students for a Democratic Society. The omission of such groups as Earth First! or the Radical Feminist "Off Our Backs" collective makes their study of the political left incomplete.
   
   On the subject of ideologies, there is a surprising lack of information about the precise beliefs of the groups studied. Far more is said about the histories and personalities of the groups, and some inclusion of each group's doctrine or "statement of principles" would have been nice. While any half way educated person probobly knows what a nazi or a communist believes, some inclusion of the doctrines of the groups examined would have rounded off the study rather nicely.
   
   Yet the flaws are minor and the strengths are far more considerable. This book is essential for anyone seriously interested in radical thought in America today.

5 comments about Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism.

1. As recent history attests to, some people act irrationally when under conditions of stress, and frequently do not hesitate to deny others basic human rights or even react violently. This kind of behavior does not occur under normal conditions of life, so the trick is get back into mental equilibrium as soon as possible after the shocks have occurred. The time needed to do this varies considerably between individuals, and the individuals who are having trouble calming themselves put undue burdens on those who do not. Therefore there is usually a considerable amount of tension between these two types of people, and this in fact creates more stress on top of what was experienced by the original shocks.
   
   One can see this type of conflict throughout the history of the United States, as the author of this book shows in great detail in this book. Superbly written and full of helpful references and footnotes, the author narrows his discussion to the effects of war, or rumors of war, or invented threats of war, on free speech. When reading the book one is amazed to learn the low degree to which citizens of the United States have placed on the First Amendment, even as early as 1798. The First Amendment was not really thought of as sacrosanct as it is at the present time (outside of the government). This may explain why early on in U.S. history, the populace was quite willing to stifle speech they thought as treasonous or threatening in time of war (or false threats of war). And the stifling of speech was not unique to a particular political party, newspaper, magazine, or pamphlet. Both the left and the right, and in between, took their turns in the suppression of speech at various times in U.S. history.
   
   Everything in the book is fascinating, and those readers who are not aware of the events discussed may be shocked that they actually took place in a country that so prides itself on freedom, both in speech and association. The author though is not content to merely report facts. He analyzes the different attitudes about free speech, both in the minds of the citizens, the press, and in the courts. Legal issues in constitutional law are all discussed in great analytical detail, and the author does not hesitate to express his own opinions on how the different cases should have been decided. A book like this definitely stands out against the hype and yellow journalism that so frequently is labeled as objective analysis these days. It is a welcome part of the political and legal literature, and all readers willing to take the time to its study will walk away with a massive amount of information and insight, and be better equipped to grapple with the issues of free speech as even now they are being debated (and suppressed). Cooler heads did prevail throughout the U.S. constitutional history of free speech, as this book proves without question. One can only hope this will continue to be the case.



2. Perilous times is an in depth review of the repression of free speech and assembly and political affiliation from unmasking Lincolns assumed good intentions, the debauchery of the cold war and mccarthy era until the consolodation of views by the media today. dense read. good to smarten up and learn the truth.



3. Geoffrey Stone's Perilous Times is a great book for understanding how free speech is affected during times of war and other periods of unrest. Specifically, Stone looks at episodes in American history including the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Red Scare and the Cold War, the Vietnam-Watergate era, and very briefly on the war against terrorism. This is an excellent book in my opinion and written in an eminently readable and engaging style.
   
   These episodes I just outlined are the main areas where Stone gives us an idea of just how serious freedom of speech was threatened by our leaders in government as well as by our citizens. The Federalist period in the late 1790s saw a vagrant attempt to suppress political dissent expressed by the Republicans, i.e. those who followed Jefferson and Madison. Judge Chase is a key figure in this blatantly political attempt to suppress the opinions of those who politically dissented from the Adams Administration. The Civil War period also saw some controversial excesses, most notably in Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus ,as well as the enactment of martial law (in certain circumstances) by military officers, who did on occasion act contrary to Lincoln wishes. But Lincoln, overall, did prove to tolerate those who voiced opposition to his administration.
   
   President Wilson did use the tool, quite popular with many politicians even today, in branding (or at least inferring) those who voice dissent against a war as being disloyal and unpatriotic. The Espionage and Sedition Acts during his administration helped demonstrate the willingness of political leaders and the courts to undermine freedom of speech. In addition to all these events and the others which I will only touch on, Stone traces the evolution of the Court's handling and deciding of cases (during these historical periods in question) that involved or challenged the right of free speech in wartime. In addition to leaders like Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon and so forth and the courses of action they took in these crisis, he examines various justices of the Supreme Court like Holmes and Brandeis to lower court justices like Judge Hand, to noted scholars, lawyers, attorney generals and others who played major roles in cases involving freedom of speech. You see those who bravely did the right thing and those who succumbed to their own prejudices and fears.
   
   This book sheds light on terms used in regards to deciding what represented protected and unprotected speech, such terms as bad tendency, express advocacy, clear and present danger and so forth are all used to shed light on the decision making processes involved in the cases discussed in this book. This serves to illuminate and reveal the level to which the courts had to decide some of the more controversial cases involving freedom of speech. Sometimes the courts reflected the mood of the times and as a result could react in a negative way and sometimes it acted more wisely.
   
   Stone is fairly balanced in his treatment of those who faced these questions, though he does scold some while lauding others. He is sensitive to the times they lived in and how even those serving on the courts (who we all think of as being above the fray) succumb to the same feelings and emotions all people do, especially in times when fear runs rampant. The other periods in question include World War II , which saw the internment of Japanese Americans, the period known as the Red Scare often symbolized by Joseph McCarthy with his over-the-top accusations that helped fan the flames of fear and suspicion that threatened free speech, the Vietnam conflict and the period of government coverups, to the present day war against terrorism.
   
   There are many things I'm leaving out, but the point to this is that in all these important periods in American history, our leaders and institutions have often failed to live up to the ideals of the First Amendment right to free speech, though as Stone discusses, we have come a long way from years such as 1798 and 1918. The times do influence all of us, but we must hope that cooler and wiser heads prevail. A very good book.



4. ~Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism~ is an erudite constitutional analysis of First Amendment freedoms to speech and assembly. Throughout American history, free speech and freedom of assembly has been adversely affected by rationalized wartime suppressions in the name of security. Justice Robert Jackson in the mid-20th century declared, "It is easy, by giving way to passion, intolerance, and suspicions of wartime, to reduce our liberties to a shadow, often in answer to exaggerated claims of security." Sadly, overzealous wartime suppression of liberty has plagued the United States throughout much of its history.
   
   Geoffrey R. Stone has put together a well-written account of American constitutional history from the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the Patriot Act of 2001. His focus is First Amendment Freedoms. In 1798, ostensibly to guard against the threat of a counterpart "French Revolution" spearheaded by imagined American Jacobins from emerging on American soil, Federalist Party officials marshaled the Alien and Sedition Acts as an effective counterpoise. Its constitutionality was clearly suspect. In reality, it was a shameless partisan attempt to prosecute and suppress critics of the Federalist administration. Virginia and Kentucky responded by protest and state interposition through their Resolutions of 1798, which threatened state nullification of unconstitutional acts.
   
   With much of the major wars throughout American history from the Civil War of the 1860s to the Great War, World War II, Vietnam, and now the Iraq War, shameless attempts emerged to intimidate, stifle and suppress political dissent. Lincoln was the precedent setter for unconstitutionally suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and found a follower to his dubious doctrines in George W. Bush. During the Great War, resident aliens were deprived of the right to due process prior to deportation. The Cold War paranoia was so absurd that the FBI drew up reports citing the classic 1946 Frank Capra movie like It's A Wonderful Life as being evidence of subversive communist propaganda. And thus began the McCarthy era. The 1970s felt the tragedy of the Kent State Massacre in Ohio as National Guard troops shot and killed students protesting the war in Vietnam. In the 1970s, ostensibly the FBI and CIA were reigned in on by Congress for running astray in anti-war activities, but those restrictions came loose following 9/11 when somehow unbridled federal power became more trustworthy.
   
   James Madison judiciously reminds us: "The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences of the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." It was to secure against suppression of freedom of conscience that the First Amendment was framed. It was flatly a negative against Congress to legislate on such matters, hence the interpretative keystone, "Congress shall make no law..."



5. the book is, of course, on the topic of article 1 free speech during perilous times. the author provides the reader with an exhaustive review of the literature, extensive end notes, detailed history of six conflicts that resulted in legal conflicts surrounding free speech. the author details executive orders, congressional legislation or mandates, and reviews by the courts and supreme court in efforts to execute the functioning of the government while imposing limitations on free speech. i found no flaws in logic, no errors of grammar. i found two instances in which factual details were not consistent when represented. i was disappointed that the author had not written more on the founding father's beliefs regarding the 1st article. i was disappointed that he hadn't provided historical background regarding the formation of the first article. a history of how other democracies with free speech have dealt with such challenges might have been interesting. a history of how our own democracy has dealt with free speech in non-war time crises might have been interesting. not all wars (e.g., Mexican and free speech by Lincoln, Spanish-American and free speech by Randolf Hearst ...) were covered. i wish that the author had spent more than a dozen pages discussing the current wars in afghanistan and iraq and the challenges they have imposed on free speech AS WELL AS differences in how the usa has handled those challenges versus other countries. given the importance of context in each conflict, i might have been interested in seeing how great britain and the confederate states dealt with free speech during the civil war and how germany dealt with free speech in ww1 and ww2 ... this is an outstanding book, well worth the read and purchase, new or maybe even more. great work!

5 comments about Che Guevara Reader: Writings on Politics & Revolution.

1. this book is a great collection of various writings and speeches by ernesto che guevara. it contains some entries in his diary of the cuban revolution, speeches he gave internationally and in cuba, and letters he wrote to people close to him. it's an interesting collection of his stuff, which is actually pretty hard to get a hold of. so if you see this book, and your interested in che, grab it, because i really had to look around for this one.



2. Mr. Deutschmann:

   On page 13 you write:

   "April 1, 1965 Guevara delivers a farewell letter to Fidel Castro.....Guevara operates under the name Tatu, Swahili for "Number two."

   I dont know where you got this quote of "Number two." from, but Tatu in Swahili stands for Number three. Number two is Mbiri.

   Thank you.




3. This is a good book if you want to know about Che's Marxists theories and if you want to know some of his views on the world during his time. But this book (though it is good) only scratches the surface a good portion of these speeches and essays have been published in many other books what the editor should've done was published parts of Che's critique of the Soviet Union that Castro has hidden away,printed parts of his congo book and sections from the Bolivian Diary, and more sections from the nine volume Che Guevara writing and speeches then this book would worthy of the title Che Guevara Reader



4. Good book, but be prepared. Che was a failure as a guerrilla leader because he refused to accept the possibility that a revolution could begin and end in major population centers. He reallty didn't have many wins to his favor when he was in charge.



5. Che Guevara has been so etched into the public consciousness as an icon of revolution, rebellion and guerrilla warfare that it is easy for many to forget about the more intellectual aspects of the man. The "Che Guevara Reader" is the perfect tool to really study and learn the ideas behind Guevara's quest for Latin American unity against imperialism, poverty and racism. The depth of thought and analysis will be stunning to many, there are passages where Guevara writes and expresses at a level worthy of Noam Chomsky. Here we see that the man was no joke, there were very real philosophies behind his drive for revolution. The book covers Che's writings from the time of the Cuban guerrilla war against the U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship to his various speeched as Cuba's ambassador to the world. Among the most powerful pieces are his speeched at such forums as the United Nations, where Guevara gives an angry, heartfelt summary of the suffering felt in the Americas at the hands of imperialism and how the people will rise. When one looks at current events in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, there is more resonance to a passage where Che states, "our example will bear fruit." Some of the most fascinating passages in the book deal with the concepts behind social progress and unity, where Che stresses the need to work as one and not give in to shallow materialism. Che especially focuses on the need for education to build a stronger system and build social consciousness. Che and Fidel bashers will be infuriated by sections where Guevara clearly states that not ALL aspects of Marxism work for a society, destroying the myth of Che being a radical dogmatic Communist. There are also interesting speeches where Guevara expresses the need to analyze what kind of revolution every country needs, what worked in Cuba might not work for example, in Chile where the people elected Salvador Allende without having to resort to a guerrilla war, interestingly Latin America's recent tilt to the Left has been driven mostly be democratic elections as well. There is also a wonderful depth of feeling in writings where Che states the need for a true revolutionary to have a sense of love, real, true love and not pure cold calculation. The most rewarding experience of reading the "Che Guevara Reader" is realizing how important these ideas are for our times as well when corporate ideals have monopolized our industrial nations and created a huge gap between the poor and rich. Some will be surprised to find only a fraction of this book dedicated to pure guerrilla warfare talk (for that check Guevara's "Guerrilla Warfare") and a good 90% dedicated to discussions on society, people and the need for true social reforms in the face of tyrannical capitalism and social inequality. A valuable book so you can wear the T-shirt, but know the philosophy as well.

No comments about The Circle of Reason.

5 comments about Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden.

1. Bruce Lawrence (the compiler) points out that while occasional fragments of bin Laden's words are cited, official pressures have ensured that, for the most part, his voice has been tacitly censured - as though too dangerous to hear. This collection of 24 items include interviews with Arab and Western journalists, handwritten letters, and video recordings.
   
   Lawrence also helps one to understand why bin Laden is a heroic figure for millions of Muslims, including many with no sympathy for terrorism. This is based not just on his success in eluding Americans and their allies, but because his personal reputation for probity, austerity, dignity, and courage - contrasting starkly with the mismanagement, lavishness, and arrogance of most Arab regimes.
   
   Bin Laden points out that his terrorism acts are only retaliation, and that the West has killed far larger numbers in the region within living memory - poison gas and strafing of Iraqi villages by Britain in the 1920s, crushing the Palestinian uprising of the 1930s, France's colonial war in algeria in the 1950s-60s, and deaths through malnutrition and disease of Iraqi children in the 1990s due to the U.N. sanctions. Bin Laden estimates 1.5 million were killed in the preceding - Lawrence estimates it as 300,000.
   
   Bin Laden began his massive undertaking against the U.S. after seeing the mujahidin victory over the Red Army in Afghanistan, and the withdrawal of American forces from Somalia in '93. Unfortunately, bin Laden greatly underestimated the special circumstances associated with both - the U.S. and Pakistani support in Afghanistan, and the inconsequentialness of the U.S. landings in Somalia.
   
   Bin Laden on 9/11 (10/21 interview): ". . . they have done this . . . in self-defense, defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and in order to free our holy sanctuaries." "the defeat of America . . . is easier for us . . . than the defeat of the Soviet Empire previously. We have already fought them . . . as in Somalia. We have not yet found a significant force of note." ". . . America, has lost its values and appeal . . . Freedom, Human Rights, and Equality . . . were revealed as a total mockery."
   
   On Surviving Tora Bora: Bin Laden reports that bombing was around the clock, every second. There were about 300 mujahidin dug into 100 trenches, spread over one square mile in ten degree below zero temperatures - only about 18 were killed by the combination of ground and air attacks. Certainly this had to have been an easy opportunity for American ground forces if they had been deployed at that time, instead of outsourcing the job to Afghans!
   
   Bin Laden also speaks of how Iraqis should resist the U.S., describing a guerilla campaign like that actually waged.
   
   "Messages to the World" is essential to understanding bin Laden, America's "Public Enemy #1" - especially for counteracting the incomplete and misleading statements provided by our own government.



2. This collection of translated and annotated statements by Osama bin Laden is the sort of primary source collection I had begun to fear would never be published.
   
   In order to understand the "War on Terror" environment in which we currently live, it is imperative to understand the rhetoric of both sides. Regardless of which viewpoint one supports, it is important to know exactly what the other side is fighting for. This knowledge is abundant on the non-terrorist side, but has so far been available on the terrorist side purely through analyses by expert commentators. Thus, being able to read the actual words of the major ideologue of world terrorism at the moment is a considerable boon.
   
   I say "ideologue" for very good reason. As these statements and their accompanying (and copious) notes and introductions demonstrate, there is a distinct ideology involved in this movement. It may be an ideology directed against everything the West holds dear, but it is an ideology nonetheless. Osama bin Laden has clearly thought about a great many issues prior to initiating the campaigns of violence he has.
   As case in point, the significance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often debated by academics and policymakers: Is it central to the globalisation of terrorism, or is it merely a convenient justification to use when asked? As even the earliest statements here demonstrate, this is a key plank in al-Qa'ida's ideology - perhaps even more so than many writers have realised.
   
   While one particular statement (the "Declaration of Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders") will be familiar to any reader interested in this conflict as it has been included in a great many works (Gunaratna's "Inside Al-Qaeda" being the most well-known), many of these statements appear never to have been translated fully into English before. In this case, the team involved in this collection deserve even more praise for enabling those with an interest in understanding these issues to do so - particularly when, as they frequently note, the websites originally hosting these messages have been shut down.
   
   The scope of these statements will probably be debated for many years to come. One review here makes the dogmatic assertion that these are not all of the statements made by bin Laden, for example. While this may be true - and bear in mind that many of these statements have been excerpted by various news outlets at various times, which may create the impression of there being more than there are - it seems rather immaterial. Far from only presenting a reasoned side of the man, these statements present his ideas in a clear form. Those translated from audio and video tapes, for example, never make mention of any gestures or tones of voice, since to do so would be rather pointless in my opinion.
   
   Taken as a whole, these statements tend to appear rather repetitive - the only notable change from one to the next being a slightly different emphasis on particular events as they've changed. That said, reading the book cover to cover is probably not the best way to go about it anyway.
   
   The copious amounts of footnotes and introductory matter are also a great strength of this collection. While it is possible to criticise the scholars involved (and it's almost a hobby for some of the reviewers here already), they have at least attempted the difficult task of placing Osama bin Laden in context. He's not a representative of all Muslims, but neither is he the "monster under the bed" for the new millennium.
   The footnotes, too, provide a wealth of Qur'anic and Hadith references - including remarks on when the verse or tradition has been taken out of context or deprived of a section of text. Similarly, key figures and events (both past and present) referenced in the text are explained concisely in the notes.
   Unfortunately, the sheer volume of these notes has presumably caused the poor proofreading which some statements suffer from. There are a number of words and phrases footnoted which do not have an accompanying note below, and some of these are germane to the text.
   Further, one of the introductory notes makes the comment that Yemen is a "military dictatorship" (along with Pakistan and Nigeria). In reality, Yemen is a multi-party democracy (the only such in the Arabian Peninsula) and was so both at the time the book was written and at the time the statement was made. Admittedly, the country may not have a stable and entrenched tradition of democracy, but it is far from the military dictatorship described in this note.
   
   In conclusion, "Messages to the World" is an invaluable aid to those who want to understand the current conflicts "from the source" as it were. It is somewhat heavy reading in places and will remain a controversial book for much of the foreseeable future. Its publication, however, represents a great step forward for much of the world.



3. As someone who has been critical of US foreign policy through a variety of administrations, it may seem inevitable that I would be drawn to someone like bin Laden. Having read my share of writings by sociopaths such as Hitler, Mao, and even Kaczynski, my only compliment for bin Laden would be that his thoughts aren't nearly as fractured and self-contradictory as others I've read. In a sense, I agree with the commentary provided in the foreword -- whatever his faults, he is very likely a true believer and not merely a charlatan.
   
   On to the book. It enlightens on several fronts. It provides small glimpses into the world of Islamic expression -- I was never aware of the existence of Arabic literary forms such as the juridicial decree. It made me wonder how an American analog to bin Laden might communicate with the masses -- the newsletter, the Shakespearean sonnet, the folk song in 4/4 time, iambic pentameter, maybe even a film documentary. Could one man besides Bob Dylan be able to flow between media and literary forms with the ease of bin Laden?
   
   Also interesting were some of the Arabic social trivia such as the uses of bin/ibn and Abu in Arabic names.
   
   The sign of a good book (as with good research) is that it generates more questions than answers. For instance, why did bin Laden wait until 10/2004 to fully (or at least convincingly) accept responsibility for 9/11? Obfuscation? Maybe. The book itself does not hazard any speculation. My take is that he's reluctant to accept credit for something in which he did not personally participate. Once it was obvious he was going to get the rap anyway, he probably decided it was best politically to accept the credit. After all, he has to compete for resources with other jihadis, and "Mastermind of 9/11" is the jahidi equivalent to membership in the CFR or Trilateral Commission. We've seen recent (if less credible) examples of self-incrimination in the Moussaoui case.
   
   That being said, I wish bin Laden much ill. If anything, he has given America an excuse to shed any vestige of self-reflection about its' past. What we've done to the Muslim world is a drop in the bucket of blood compared to what the Cherokee nation or African-Americans have suffered. If he has come to collect damages, the line forms in the WAY BACK.



4. Osama Bin Laden's statements have been widely covered in TV and radio in bits and pieces; but they haven't been gathered together under one cover before; so to receive a unified presentation of all his admonitions, turn to MESSAGES TO THE WORLD: THE STATEMENTS OF OSAMA BIN LADEN. Statements issued in his name over the last ten years are here newly translated from the Arabic and annotated with a critical introduction by editor Lawrence, an Islamic scholar, which adds historical, political and religious context to the statements. Any who want insights on Bin Laden's thoughts and viewpoint must have MESSAGES TO THE WORLD.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



5. Many of these messages have been printed in whole or in part in other sources, however this book is unique and valuable in offering a very comprehensive collection of his statements and rationale. Osama bin Laden wages jihad against the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and those wishing to comprehend Bin Laden's actions should read this book. It is accompanied by excellent explanatory footnotes, offering concise factual context for Bin Laden's statements. While Bin Laden's thought rates only "one star" - he operates on the primitive logic of tit-for-tat violent retaliation - the book as a source for understanding his thought rates at least four stars. It is a good read for those wishing to understand his motivation for violent jihad.

5 comments about The Third Option.

1. I just love this Mitch Rapp series. He's definitely our over the top guy. I hope there are people somewhat like him in real life. Prime characters: Mitch Rapp counter terrorist operative; Dr. Irene Kennedy Director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center;CIA Director Thomas Stansfield the ultimate master spy;President Robert X. Hayes;Senator Hank Clark Chairman of The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence;Congressman Albert Rudin Chairman of The House Select Committee on Intelligence. Peter Cameron a man for sale with 24 years of experience in The Agency's Office of Security. Secretary of State Charles Midleton an elitist snob who thought he should be running things. Clark has designs on the Presidency.Rudin has a deep hatred of the CIA. Plenty of spellbinding excitement as the plots unwind while Rapp thwarts the ambitions of Clark,Rudin & Midleton to take over the CIA.



2. Flynn has hit his stride in this book. He carefully is starting to transition characters, which only adds to the complexity of the plot[s].



3. Rapp is involved in an assassination plot in Germany and should have taken the advice of his gut. His cohorts aren't working on the same side and try to kill him. Fast paced and always great to watch Rapp get out of a mess. Like Stansfield and hate to see him go. Kennedy is okay, but does not have the savvy that Stansfield has. Boy, once again those dirty Senators. Boy, it motivates one to get rid of Congress. Have to read Separation of Power to get justice. Loved it.



4. The Third Option is Flynn's third spy thriller. Each one seem a little better then the previous. Nuff said, simply the best.



5. In this installment of the Mitch Rapp series the CIA operative is nearly assassinated in Germany while completing a mission. Rapp has to go underground to see who wants him dead and why.
   
   "The Third Option" has the same elements readers have come to expect from this series: violent action, descriptions of weaponry and special forces operations, and Mitch Rapp cutting through all the political nonsense to get things done.
   
   Though "The Third Option" does end with some unresolved issues it is another fun ride for readers of action novels.

5 comments about Trapped in the War on Terror.

1. Having heard Ian Lustick speak today at Princeton Univrsity I immediately ordered his book (on which the talk was based).
   HIs revelations on the subject of the War on Terror are frightening because since 2001 we are led to believe only war and destruction will deliver us from evil.
   I hope a lot of smart people will buy this book and spread the word.



2. The thesis of this book is that the so-called `War on Terror' is an exercise in futility that is driven by opportunism and demagoguery. Strong words, but they are backed by very persuasive arguments. This book is a good follow up to "Overblown" by John Mueller (Amazon.com) that effectively puts the much hyped terrorist threat into perspective. This book provides the approaches that would best mitigate an over-hyped, but still real threat from minority elements of the Islamic extremist movement.
   
   Social scientist that he is, Lustick devotes the first two chapters of the book to statistical analysis concerning the average U.S. citizen's understanding of terrorism and real or imagined terrorist threats. He then attempts to demonstrate, successfully I think, that the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks has been transformed into a massive fraud dubbed the `War on Terror'. In Lustick's opinion, the reality of the terrorist threat has been turned into a political hobby horse by politicians of both parties, a ratings game by the print and electronic media, and a money cow by almost everyone else. These of course are matters of opinion, but they have a ring of truth to them. The War on Terror itself is a really silly concept rather like declaring a war on skirmishing. You can't fight a war against a tactic. In point of fact, the strategy for the War on Terror is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed.
   
   The book makes clear that a "serious understanding of motivations and predicaments of al Qaeda and other Jihadist groups" is absolutely essential to developing a defensive strategy that can mitigate the threat from Islamic brands of terrorism. One might add that such a strategy ought to also be based on an understanding of the organizational structures of al Qaeda and other such entities. Lustick cites the work of George Kennan, whose grand strategy guided the successful U.S. prosecution of the Cold War. According to Lustick, Kennan's strategy was founded on an enormous accumulation of knowledge on the Soviet Union and the Russian people developed over almost thirty years of careful study and analysis. Lustick makes the point that this store of target knowledge was the principal reason Kennan was able to devise such a successful strategy. Needless to say no such store of knowledge has informed the strategies lumped under the rubric "War on Terror" or unfortunately one of its key strategic concepts, the creation of democratic Iraq to serve as an example of the fruits of democracy and moderation. By the end of this book, one has to marvel at ignorance and venality that appears to lay at the heart of our counter-terrorist strategy.



3. If you are considering this book, you are already likely convinced that the War on Terrorism is riddled with deception and behind it is the Bush administration and big business: the war profiteers. Unfortunately, all war brings profit. Destruction of human life creates jobs and creates wealth. It is one of the ironies of war to "make peace". However, there is something that the author does not properly address nor understand: the will and core belief of our enemies.
   President Bush lied to the American people, in the name of oil, when he said in 2001, "they hijacked a peaceful religion". Although politicians have always used religion as one of the tools to make war, there is no established religion today which teaches conquest by bloodshed outside of Islam. It is the direct teaching of the Koran. The Bible (both in Judaism and Christianity) speaks of war (like a history book) and limits war, but the Koran actually calls for war against Infidels (anyone who does not believe in Allah and the Koran). This is a core teaching of Islam and for 14 centuries has been the practice. People act upon what they believe. Mohammad was a violent man and he started a violent religion which holds pathological hatred of the Jews, and all things Jewish. They vow to destroy Israel. Their hatred of America has mostly to do with America being an ally of Israel.
   
   The war is not a clean cut, black and white portrayal of good versus evil. No single war can be. Every war is attended by terrible atrocities, yet, we must understand: Islam, which owns a significant part of the world, has overrun Europe (there are actual towns in France where "Infidels" do not enter, do not police, and do not have courts), and Muslim women are averaging almost 4.1 children per; while European women are at 1.2 to 1.3; which is not sufficient for a culture to sustain itself.
   
   Islam is winning the war. Though President Bush may not understand the core teachings of Islam, at least we have taken one nation of Muslims (Iraq) out of the picture (for now) for wholesale slaughter of Americans. Iran should be next.
   
   We cannot build nations, and house to house fighting means prolonged killing, but if we allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, in OUR GENERATION, we are going to see it used --and innocent women and children will suffer and die.
   
   I have always believed in religious freedom, but when that religion calls for the very death of every Christian and Jew in America, it is time for a Constitutional Admendment outlawing Islam, for our own survival. We must find a way to get off our oil addiction.
   
   Kipling warned the British soldiers...if injured behind enemy lines against the Muslims: when you see a Muslim woman approach you, better to save your last bullet for your own head than to find out what, in the name of Muhammad that woman is going to do to you.
   
   Islam has produced a barbaric and cruel world and continues to behead, burn, execute and mutilate women who do not follow its strictest codes.
   
   Where is the voice of the women of free nations in condemning this horrific slaughter of women everywhere where Islam is found?
   
   I hate war. Any reasonable person must. But, there are times when we must answer the call to duty, even in the worst circumstances possible. My father was in the Sea of Japan when the bomb was dropped. He was being prepared for the invasion of mainland Japan. Had that bomb not been dropped...



4. Finally some sanity about the so-called "war on terror": Ian Lustick's "Trapped in the War on Terror" persuasively argues that the real peril is not terrorists but the "war" itself.
   
   Lustick shows how a cabal of neoconservative leaders hijacked the country's response to 9/11, hatching long-held plans to attack Iraq while vastly enlarging executive power. Most originally, he details the ways in which the "war" has grown. Stoked by continual fear-mongering by pandering politicians, newly-minted terror "experts," and an unquestioning media, the "war" has spiraled into a whirlwind none can control. The result has been monumental waste of money and lives. Beyond the Iraq war and the Homeland Security behemoth, countless billions of federal dollars are now being squandered on terror-related programs. Smelling an opportunity, all manner of businesses, interest groups, bureaucrats, and others have been only too happy to feed at the anti-terror trough. Meanwhile, political leaders on both left and right are too cowardly to tell Americans some simple truths. The bad news: terrorism has always been and will always be a tool in some political conflicts. Therefore, the "war" on terror can never be won. The good news: terrorism poses remarkably little danger to Americans compared to any number of risks we blithely run every day. The most dangerous forms, such as a nuclear bomb exploding in a city, are extremely unlikely.
   
   Few have had the courage or ability to tell this story. Read "Trapped in the War on Terror" as a necessary first step for bringing America back to its senses.



5. Professor Lustick's book is a devestating critique of the so-called "war on terror", which has been a disaster for the nation and must end. He quite correctly argues that the cure (the WOT) has been much worse than the disease (terrorism).
   
   The WOT has created an awful culture of fear that now permeates our society. Prof. Lustick talks about how we can face the terrorist threat in a rational way and not give in to fear.
   
   This is a great book and the only disappointment is that there are not more books like it. Wake up America! The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. One day people like Prof. Lustick will be viewed as being ahead of their time.

5 comments about The Camel Club.

1. This is my first Baldacci read, and Camel Club was enjoyable enough to pick up more of his books. One of my favorite genres is the political/espionage/thriller, and this has a good balance of technical info, action, and character development. You do engage with the characters and that allows you to get past some of the wordy or improbable parts.
   
   Unfortunately this book suffers from a common fault of many writers in that Baldacci rolls out a lot of the worn out political talking points for texture rather than actually creating real back story. One character is angry because his army unit was decimated by Agent Orange; another character loved "Ronnie" Reagan but thought Jimmy Carter was the best president ever; the American invasion of Iraq turned Baghdad into a "constant fireball," etc.
   
   Just skip over the political commercials and you will enjoy this book. It's a great beach read.



2. I became a David Baldacci fan while reading The Winner. I don't remember what caused me to pick it up. I'd never read him before, and I guess I was looking for new authors. It didn't take me long to realize that this was a master story teller. I savored that book as one might savor a fine wine.
   
   The Camel Club is another edge of your seat tale that takes the twists and turns that Baldacci weaves into the story so cleverly. He does something new this time, at least from the books I've read. He reveals some of the villains early in the story; he just doesn't reveal what they are planning to do. The concept is a fun change in his story telling.



3. The overall low rating of 3 stars has motivated to do my part to bump the ranking up. The Camel Club is a compelling and enjoyable read. I finished and immediately ordered the next book in this series.



4. The Camel Club is cool. They're an odd group of conspiracy theorists, led by Oliver Stone, on a quest for the truth.
   
   Baldacci weaves quite a tale that keeps your attention and is full of twists and turns.
   
   I thought this was a great mystery thriller with a bunch of interesting characters.
   
   This is the first Camel Club novel. The second is The Collectors and the third is Stone Cold.



5. Really enjoyed this book and I am placing orders for the next 2 that follow. This was the first "serious" book that I have read in years (since college) and I must say it was great. I endured a few late nights as I didn't want to put the book down. I just finished the book and I am sad that I don't have the next one to start reading right away.

5 comments about Desperate Lands: The War on Terror Through the Eyes of a Special Forces Soldier.

1. If you are looking for action packed memories of events experienced in the Afghanstan war this book is not for you.
   Zapata's service to his country is commandable, but his stories and writing style in this book are dull and uneventful.
   This book may well be cherished reading for his grandchildren when they get older, but anyone expecting it to be full of adventure and intrique will be disappointed.
   Definitely not worth the price Amazon is asking.Desperate Lands: The War on Terror Through the Eyes of a Special Forces Soldier



2. This is a compelling first-hand account of what our soldiers are facing in the War on Terror. It is both entertaining and emotional. The book is written from the heart and is a must-read for anyone hoping to gain a better of what it is like for our troops.



3. I loved this book! It was a real story, written by a real special forces soldier. It was compelling, and had me hooked. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in what the war is like from a soldiers perspective.



4. A great book to read if you have ever wondered what is really happening over there with the war on terror. Zapata gives us all insight as to what these soldiers go through day by day. Brings heightened respect to those who are there. Detailed information on what these soldiers face and the little time that they have to react to any situation. I picked up this book and couldnt put it down, how refreshing to have the truth.



5. Master Sergeant Zapata has opened my eyes and taken me on a tour. We traveled to the other side of the world, the war torn side that no one wants to visit. Before this, I had only seen things in the bits and pieces that the networks offer.
   
   From the mundane and tedious, (I believe "Hurry up and wait" comes from the military experience) to the heart pounding encounters, I felt like I was actually there, witnessing the events unfolding in front of me. I could almost feel the burning heat of Qatar, and the biting cold from the icy wind sweeping across the Afghani desert. The sparse comforts and extreme conditions that they lived with fill me with guilt when I think of what they have done on my behalf. Being exposed to exploding artillery and seeing team members injured, I can't even begin to imagine the mental as well as the physical stresses!
   
   The ways that they prepared for their deployment made me not hate commute traffic as much. Reading about the weight that they have to carry in their packs made me appreciate the weight of my tool-bag at work.
   
   Some may say that they expected more excitement, or it wasn't well written... but I say... I'm sure that some things had to be cut out and there is no added fluff just for the sake of excitement or book sales. I LOVED THIS BOOK! This is a real account, from a real man, that was part of a special unit. He shared his story with us, and everything he did there, WAS FOR US!
   
   All I can offer is a humble "THANK YOU!" to Master Sergeant Zapata, and all the other dedicated souls that have defended my freedom.

5 comments about The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace.

1. Recommended by my son who is in the U.S. Dept of State. Found it interesting and well written. Thought it might be somewhat biased as the author was part of the post occupation phase in Iraq.Arrived in good time, in very good condition.



2. Books about the Iraq war are plentiful to say the least and unfortunately, many of them add little to the debate. Even so, there are many books that do and it can be a bit intimidating to dive into the subject. There isn't a single definitive book on the subject and if you really want to understand the war and its aftermath, you'll need to devote quite a bit of time to that end. Ali Allawi's book is definitely worth the read, but it's hard to tell exactly where this book fits into the overall picture from the title alone. What you'll find in The Occupation of Iraq is primarily a narrative (from an Iraqi perspective) of the political process in Iraq after the U.S. invasion. Although Allawi is at times critical of the U.S., what you won't find in this book is a rant against the Bush administration or the U.S. in general, even though many people reviewing books like this like to say that it's somehow incontrovertible proof that Bush is a lying criminal etc.
   
   As an Iraqi, Allawi provides a number of important insights that normally get left out of the discussion by American writers. One important piece of conventional wisdom is that Saddam Hussein's regime was secular and that the rise of Islamic extremism in Iraq is somehow America's fault, but Allawi correctly points out that in 1994, Hussein launched a faith campaign in order to enhance its authority and credibility. This more than anything the U.S. did planted the seeds of Sunni extremism. Another important, but often overlooked point involves the looting of the country that happened after the invasion. Allawi draws attention to the fact that the systematic looting of government buildings was not the work of random criminals, but rather by regime elements determined to dismantle as much of the state's infrastructure as possible, making in more difficult for the Americans and successive Iraqi governments and also to destroy as much incriminating evidence as possible. This never really gets discussed in other books on the subject, but it's an important point that makes a lot of sense when you think about it. As far as the criticism goes that Allawi was an exile, and therefore unqualified to really write about Iraq, the vast majority of the book is concerned with the post-invasion period, when he was part of the government. There is very little about Iraq before the war. These types of criticisms against Allawi carry little, if any weight.
   
   Some things that stood out to me as odd though. One was that the preface was obviously written by someone whose first language isn't English, but the rest of the book doesn't come across this way at all. Maybe it was that the rest of the book was subject to careful editing while the preface was left alone. In any case, it seems like one person wrote the preface while a different person wrote the rest of the book. Also, there are severl times in the book where Allawi refers to himself, but it's in the third person. This adds to the impression that someone else wrote the bulk of the book. In most narrative accounts like this, a person involved in the story itself uses 1st person, not 3rd. Another odd thing about this book is that Allawi never capitalizes the words West or Western. Normally when writing about "the" West or "the" East, the words are capitalized. A subtle jab at the West by Allawi perhaps? Hard to tell, but odd nonetheless.
   
   At 460 pages, The Occupation of Iraq is a lengthy and sometimes difficult read, but ultimately rewarding. To my knowledge, this is the only work of such depth written by an Iraqi involved in the work of rebuilding Iraq at the governmental level. Fiasco and Cobra II cover the story from the American military perspective, The Assassins' Gate and the Foreigner's Gift are more of an investigative journalism/extensive travel diary, and State of Denial is the ultimate insider's look at the Bush administration. These are all important angles and necessary ones to fully understand what's happened in Iraq. Allawi's contribution provides a much needed Iraqi government perspective and in many ways, he's just as critical of the Iraqi government's failures as most are of the Bush administration. This probably shouldn't be the first book about Iraq that someone reads, because I think it requires at least some prior knowledge about the country. Someone with no background will likely have a difficult time here, but the book is certainly rewarding for those well-versed in the subject.



3. I just finished reading this book. It is the sixth book I have read on the war in Iraq, and the first by an Iraqi. It is not an easy read, but it is worth the effort. The only reason that I didn't give it 5 stars is that it is kind of a chore to grind through the whole thing, but I am glad I made the effort.
   
   Compared to the other books on Iraq which I have read, this painted a much more complex picture of Iraq. It helped me to understand the complexities of Iraq, and how hard it is to govern it. The identification of Iraqis with Iraq seems pretty thin compared to identification with their religion, their ethnicity, their tribe, clan, family, etc.
   
   Allawi complements some and reproves others. The failure of the occupation is due to mistakes both by the U.S. and by the Iraqis. And he lays it all out quite well. One comment on the U.S. administration really stood out: He cited cheery quotes by both President Bush and General Petraeus in the midst of explaining the then current situation, which was anything but cheery. So I am even less inclined to believe anything said in the future by these two men. I had an idea there was corruption, but the scale of it is mind-boggling. Where other books, by Americans, detail the corruption on the American side, Allawi explains it on the Iraqi side.
   
   If you want to be informed, read this book. If you don't want to be depressed, pass it up.
   
   Dennis Veith



4. If you read just one book about Iraq you need it to be this one. This book is the most comprehensive book out there. It provides a very in depth explanation of Iraq. The book focuses on the political angle of Iraq. He has a lot of inside information that the American press just misses. He has some good insight on American policy that is interesting. The author is Iraqi so he has such an insight that is amazing. You can't find this anywhere else.



5. Title The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace
   Author: Ali A. Allawi
   Rating *****
   Tags iraq, occupation, war, george w bush, dick cheney, middle east, politics, government, achmed chalabi, ali allawi
   
   Excellent book, indispensible for any Westerner seeking to understand Iraq. Ali Allawi is an Iraqi who spent much of his life in exile from the Ba'ath regime, and was well-connected to the opposition who were influential once Saddam was overthrown, being a nephew of Ahmed Chalabi and a cousin of Ayed Allawi. He held various positions in post-Saddam Iraq.
   
   All of which prepares one for a biased telling of the story of Iraq, from the viewpoint of a partisan with a particular view. What one gets instead is a stunningly broad and deep look at all the strands that go into creating the Iraq of today. Allawi discusses the politics, religion, and economy of Iraq, showing the major players and their complex viewpoints, the interaction of all the persons, events, and influences in a remarkably dispassionate and balanced way. Yet he writes with an insider's knowledge and access to people in positions of influence.
   
   Moreover Allawi is competent in discussing the influences that drove the American invasion, and provides an excellent analysis of a theorist the Americans SHOULD have paid attention to , Robert Merton, and his theories of the law of unintended consequences. By the end of the book one is well aware of how difficult and multi-faceted a job is nation building, not something that should be attempted lightly or in ignorance.
   
   Allawi includes brief but important analyses of the views of the other regional powers, including Iran and Saudi Arabia. Their views are complex and multi-layered.
   
   One item was particularly interesting to me. I just read the book _Century of War, Century of Media_ which was particularly horrifying in describing the use of phosphorus by US troops in Fallujah. Allawi's book confirms that account on p. 339, "The MNF [multinational force] was accused of using banned chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and incendiary bombs, a charge denied by the State Department but subsequently indirectly confirmed by the Department of Defense."
   
   The book does not end on a hopeful note. The situation in Iraq is dire, with few good solutions. But after reading this book one has a much better idea of how the situation became what it is, which is a necessary condition to finding solution
   
   Publication Yale University Press (2007), Edition: 1, Hardcover, 544 pages
   Publication date 2007
   ISBN 0300110154 / 9780300110159