2 comments about Guatemala: Never Again!.

1. This book is a summarization of a human rights report presented in Guatemala in 1998. Through eye-witness testimony, it outlines the military atrocities committed during Guatemala's Civil War and the effect the war has had on Guatemala's indigenous population.

   This edition has been edited from the original lengthy report but retains important testimony in smaller quotes where relevant and offers the reader stark evidence of the massive violence as well as the psychological warfare that was perpetrated on the citizens of Guatemala.

   The author of this report was killed two days after it was published. His assailant has not yet been brought to justice. This report is a must read for anyone interested in Human Rights, Native cultures, or the history of Guatemala.




2. I highly recommend this book for a number of reasons.
   If you are just starting to delve into the knowledge about Guatemala's tragic civil war this is the place to start. What this is is an abridged version of the Human Rights report on the atrocities committed by the Guatemalan army. This book is made up of two things: analysis and then personal testimonies from the victims.
   
   What it does for you is reveal that these crimes committed against the indigenous population went far beyond simply stated genocide and ethnic cleansing. There was far more to the army's tactics than massacre and physical torture.
   
   The crimes against the Mayas were highly psychological and I think that this report reveals that and puts it clearly. This book takes what you might already know about the horror and brings you in deeper. By the time you're done you will have a more clear, more concise, more accurate picture of what was done by the army to not only affect these people but to also keep them in silence about a war that not too many people know about.
   
   It also shows why Guatemala is still so devastated by this war, and what it's going to take to ensure that this history doesn't repeat itself. It's difficult in some places to read, but I think you need to. As you sit in your comfortable house reading it, I think it will change your perception on life. It did mine anyway.

5 comments about France: The Dark Years, 1940-1944.

1. Julian Jackson's history is the most distinguished account I've read on France during the period from 1940 through 1944. He makes an excellent case noting how the Vichy Regime was indeed part of a longstanding political tradition in France which went as far back as the Ancien Regime; he makes a similar observation of the Resistance, noting how its political philosophy could be traced directly back to the French Revolution. Jackson clearly notes the intense dislike - if not outright hatred - of many French towards their German occupiers, noting that such sentiments may have played a decisive part in ensuring the survival of more French Jews than their counterparts in other Nazi-occupied countries. Much to my surprise, he clearly demonstrates how support for the Vichy Regime came not only from a staunchly conservative elements - but also liberal, and indeed socialist elements - within French society. He also succeeds in noting how figures such as French resistance leader Jean Moulin and future French president Francois Mitterand underwent transformations - some major, but also minor - in their politics, eventually shifting their support from the Vichy regime to DeGaulle's Free French movement. Despite Vichy's reputation for cultural as well as political repression, Jackson shows that cultural activities ranging from the fine arts through film not only survived, but also flourished, at least during the early history of the Vichy Regime.



2. Buy this book - truly outstanding. I look forward to the other parts in Jackson's three-part series, "France: The Dark Years: before 1940" and "France: The Dark Years: after 1944". I gather there is a special book being brought out called "France: The Very Dark and Frankly Bloody Annoying Months, October 2002 - March 2003"



3. Although I knew something about de Gaulle, Vichy, "The Resistance," etc; usually these topics were tangential to some other main topic I was reading. Jackson's BIG book set me straight on everything I always wanted to know about Vichy, the Germans, and the Free French, Petain, de Gaulle, etc.

   France 1940-1944 covers highly controversial "history."
   Almost none of the various personalities and political parties survive Jackson's detailed analysis without taking their "lumps." France 1940-1944 presents an ambiguous, painful story about collaboration, indifference and a few resisters.
   Surely the French will never escape the shame of Vichy

   Jackson often delivers clever insights and mixed judgments. Jackson gives you enough background to evaluate some of the following puzzles:

   ·Why did Churchill recognize De Gaulle in 1940, instead of the Vichy Government?

   ·Why did FDR try so hard to get rid of "Le Grand Charles" (De Gaulle)?

   ·Why did many French literally cheer when France lost the War with Germany in June 1940?

   ·Why did powerful and influential French express such bitterness, invective, and hatred against Jews?

   ·Why did the "Resistance" accept De Gaulle in 1944? After all, thousands of French fought and died inside France while De Gaulle remained safely in England and Africa.

   ·Why didn't the Communists launch a takeover at the time of the Liberation?.

   After you read this book you will understand some of the powerful destabilizing forces in French society. But Dark Years is a long book, it's serious reading, and it's written in
   a rather academic style -- dull if you are not really intrigued by France, the French, De Gaulle, the Germans, the Jews, etc.




4. In other readings of World War II, I had always felt I did not have a solid grounding in the history of Vichy France. I have been greatly intrigued for some time as to how a country like France could have collaborated to such a degree. This gap in knowledge, I hoped, could be filled by a general treatise on the subject. Having reviewed several books on Vichy France I chose 'France- The Dark Years, 1940-1944' as the one work upon which I would rely.
   While I did admire the scope of the work, and have no argument that this book may be called the latest definitive source, be warned that this book is not written for those who do not have a working knowledge on the subject. The author does not spend time on set-up: the reader is presumed to know of not only the leading political figures in France during the 1930's-40's, but also those of greater obscurity. The list goes on with the presumptions of the author- we are supposed to know about newspapers of the era (of which there were many), political parties, both major and insignificant, and the names of resistance groups.
   Again, this would not be critical if I had the requisite knowledge of the politics and society of France during this era, of which I do know some. But this book is written for the doctoral level student of this era in history, not for those seeking a more general overview.



5. By all accounts, this is the penultimate history of "the dark years" in France during 1940-44. I agree wholeheartedly. The approach is at once scholarly without being pedantic. Every page is a gem. I have learned so much about not only the years of the occupation, but also about France itself, and why its history (political and social) contributed greatly to the rise of the Vichy government. There are, according to Jackson, proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, many,many strands of influence upon not only Vichy but the Resistance and how both were viewed during and after the war. To those who complain that it is "geared toward specialists", I suggest that you choose your topics a bit more carefully if you want something a bit more simplistic. The subject is not easy, but Jackson does a masterful job of keeping the prose interesting and vibrant. This would get SIX stars if it were possible. Bravo. A tour de force that belongs in every historian's library.

No comments about Wiley Pathways Threats to Homeland Security (Wiley Pathways).

5 comments about Terror in the Name of God.

1. This is coming from someone that hasn't done any prior research into the subject, but has certainly given it a lot of thought. The book is an vivid evaluation of different types of religious terrorists and their motivations. Furthermore, it reveals the practical details on how the organizations function in terms of finance, hierarchy, etc.



2. While it is critically important to understand why terrorists commit the atrocities they do, a much more significant book is needed to gain those insights.
   What you will learn from this book is that most religious terrorists feel humiliated and deprived. How novel. You'll also learn the difference between terrorism and jihad. The latter only kills soldiers and elected officials or particular targets, but not woman, old people and infants. Unless of course, you're talking about attacks against Israel, where anyone is fair game. All that's needed is to redefine who is in the military (any potential will do) and their death is deemed ok. Sounds like old news to me.
   Stern always described how she dressed during interviews, what she was served to eat, any gifts she was given, and never failed to mention that she usually bestowed upon her interviewees a Harvard pen. Thrilling. What any of that had to do with her subject matter is beyond me.
   Her chapter on Al Qaeda was the best written part of her book, and it is chilling. And her analogy of terrorism as being like a virus is unfortunately all too accurate.
   Her recommendations for combating terrorism are for the most part weak.
   Karen Armstrong is the kind of writer who could tackle this subject competently.



3. A real page turner! I have never felt compelled to write a book review . . .until now. Dr. Stern has spent years interviewing American terrorists motivated by faith and international jihadists and has compiled an interesting profile of the religious terrorist. What I found so very refreshing was that she does not write like most academics; rather, she writes and approaches the topic like a novel. Considering the sensitive topic of religion, Dr. Stern has approached the subject in a fair and, in what I believe, impartial matter. I would urge attorneys representing terrorist suspects, or prosecutors for that manner, analysts, investigators and the like, to read this book and keep it close for future reference.



4. Jessica Stern provides insight to the behavior of religious extremists through her personal interviews with members of different religious sects in America and around the world. This is not written as an "edge of your seat" or "read one weekend" style of book. It is a means of educating the reader though sections of the book are filled with suspense and espionage. Stern provides details to the way of life of religious extremists, their surroundings, family, who they trust, who they want to kill and why.
   
   The book is well written with the right amount of detail to place your mind on the dusty road traveling to the mountain camp where Stern will have her interview, to the apprehension she feels of not knowing what will happen next.
   
   The descriptive interviews and statements Stern makes in her book are supported by news casts of today. Stern enlightens the reader to the complexity of the militant's way of thinking and provides reasons for no easy solution to stopping their growth around the world.
   
   An excellent read by an impressive author.



5. Although the concept is interesting, this book was not as accurate as I would have hoped. It was also fairly monotonous. I saw Stern speak in person; she never answered the questions from the audience and did not really even know her own book well enough to be informative.

5 comments about The Interrogators: Inside the Secret War Against al Qaeda.

1. A gritty view of the confrontion in Afganistan, eyeball to eyeball



2. This is the story of military interrotagtors, how they are trained, and what they do in combat. To my knowledge it hasn't been told before. I see this as a pretty reasonable and accurate account -- Chris Mackey is obviously one of the most capable, cleve, and cunning linguists DLI has ever produced.
   
   Dave Taggart (Arabic class 02-78)



3. You should read this book. Provides a very good "day in the life" view into US military interrogations and provides a look at some of the techniques used by the US military to extract information from detainees. It also showcases the careful planning and preparation work that goes on behind the scenes in collecting human intelligence. One of the many other items touched on in this book that I found intriguing was the US military relationship with US "Other Government Agencies" (i.e. CIA) and how painfully disconnected "OGA"s efforts were with Military Intelligence early on in OEF. I recommend this book to anyone that wants a clearer understanding of US military interrogation techniques in the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom and the self imposed limits placed on interrogation techniques by Military Intelligence.



4. I think we should have read this book in the seventies in order to avoid the mistakes in our "dirty war". As we know, some Latin America's countries based the doctrine of counterinsurgency in French Doctrine used in Indochina and Argelia. This doctrine is described in some books, such us Modern Warfare written by Col (Fr) Roger Trinquier. He justified in some ways the use of torture in order to obtain information. When Latin America's armies adopted this doctrine, they didn't give the necessary time to see the effects of it. The interrogation under torture could have obtained information; however, the strategic effects in the long term of the torture were disastrous for the legitimacy of the struggle against communism. Moreover, the torture is immoral and is a crime. Thirty years after the war, torturers and the soldiers, who fought the enemy inside the law, were both equally accused for violation of Human Rights.
   
   After this comments, I'd like to continue with the book, Part one is focused in the training of interrogators in the US Army and the British Army. The differences are, in my point of view very important. The main difference is, meanwhile the US Army is trained to fight against a conventional enemy, the British prepare their people to both conventional and unconventional enemies. This part finished with the terrorist attack of 11/ 9 and the built up of the force to fight in Afghanistan.
   
   In Part II we can read about the first operations of TF 500 at Kandahar. Here is described how the interrogation is developed. This part shows us about the ICE (the interrogation control element), the duties of the interrogators and the reports. Three things I've found remarkable in this part. The first thing is how to break deception techniques. The second is about the screening, its purpose and its differences and relations with the interrogation process and its value to select prisoners by their will to collaborate and their information. And finally, the most interesting thing is about the body language and how to use it to know if the prisoner is telling the truth.
   
   The Part III is about the TF 500 in Bagram. Here the authors explain us how to use the mobile interrogation team to support SF and how we can develop an interrogation plan. One of the best chapters is "How far to go". It suggest us the principle of "you must not handle a POW worst than you handle our own troops, however, you should not give POW advantages against our interrogators". Other useful tools to improve the interrogation process is the use of snitches and rumors or PSYOPS.
   
   The Part IV is about the relief of the interrogators and the newcomers' lack of understanding of the techniques learnt by the TF 500.
   
   The appendix is a very good brief of the approach techniques.
   
   The book was written with humor and is very easy to read. It doesn't have too much acronyms. In my point of view, the most important lesson after I've read this book is that the interrogation is an intelligence duel more than a physical one. Moreover, any physical punishment in the interrogation is not only immoral, is a way to admit the lack of skills of the interrogator.



5. In addition to being an interesting read, this book is salutary in that it confirmed that the abuses of Abu Ghraib and the other archpelago of U.S run prisoner facilities, far from being useful to intelligence gathering and bringing more "heat" down on the likes of Al Qaeda terrorists, were damaging both to the long and short-term interests of the U.S. It also restored my faith in the professionalism of the average American soldier and intelligence operative, and confirmed that no right thinking operative would have been caught dead condoning such outlaw tactics.
   
   As the author notes in the introduction:
   
   "It may be impossible to grasp fully how destructive [these] actions were - to the reputation of the intelligence corps, to our country, and to the world hoping for better from those who wear the army's uniform."
   
   Later in the book the author raises additional interesting points that make equal good sense: that the more prisoners hate America, the harder they are to break; and the more the populations where Al Qaeda hides out hate us, the less likely its citizens will be in helping to lead us to suspects. But almost equally as important, the book points out that the converse is also true: When the U.S. proves to be more civil than the terrorists indoctrination has led them to expect, the more quickly that indoctrination and their anti-U.S. worldviews break down. And of course once broken down -- whether through benign or hostile methods -- the more willing they will be to assist us.
   
   This point was dramatically drilled home on page 426, when after being "broken," a prisoner responsible for helping to store and transport Ricin (an essential ingredient for chemical weapons) for possible use against the USA was asked why he decided to talk. His answer was that once he realized that hostile questioning was the worse the Americans were going to do, he decided it was time to reconsider which side he was on.
   
   The author makes one other telling point in the book's summary: He disavows the commonly accepted notion that "monstering" does not work, because in fact it does work. As he notes in the epilogue to the book: It should not be used because, in addition to the reasons cited above, it is also wrong; violates international norms of civility; and undermines every value that America stands for.
   
   One can gather from this, and from the subtext of the book that interrogating prisoners is as much a "seat-of-the-pants kind of art" as a science; and thus must of necessity evolve along with the nature of the conflict and the culture of the prisoners interrogated. Although trickery and deceit does often indeed work, the brutal and sadistic tricks popularized in the movies apparently do not, and often are never even tried by the professionals. In the end, the author likens the process to that of finding the correct pieces to put a big jigsaw puzzle together. The advantages almost always goes to the skilful interrogator, in that the prisoner, unlike his interrogator, has no way of knowing what slivers of information he might inadvertently "give up" will be valuable to putting the whole puzzle together.
   
   It is equally true from the subtext of the book that in order for such information to be useful requires not only innovative tricks, developed on the fly, but seamless information processing up through a robust chain of the military and intelligence command. And while the 911 Commission Report demonstrated conclusively that what we have is far from ideal, this book shows in excruciating detail how incompetence at either end of that chain can hurt our efforts at catching and removing the terrorists threat. A litle too much description of scenery, but still a truly great read: Five stars

5 comments about The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.

1. This is a polished proposal for the invasion of Iraq. It was highly praised in 2002. In retrospect, it was a bit too candid:
   
   "Assembling a coalition would be infinitely easier if the United States could point to a smoking gun with Iraqi fingerprints on it -- some new Iraqi outrage that would serve to galvanize international opinion and create a pretext for invasion. Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons is the real reason for invading, but because estimates vary widely on how long it will take for Iraq to do so, and because some countries simply assert Iraq is not doing so and dismiss all of the evidence to the contrary, that may not appear to be an imminent enough threat to justify the march to war, especially for those countries (such as France, Russia, and Turkey) which do not want to see Saddam overthrown."
   
   No doubt Feith and Wumser in the Office of Special Plans took this to heart ("Within a very short period of time, they began to find links that nobody else had previously understood or recorded in a useful way" - Richard Perle, PBS Frontline Oct 2003). Niger yellowcake, Al Qaeda ties, aluminum tubes, unmanned drones, mobile bio-labs, plagiarized studies, and "smoking gun in the form of mushroom cloud" followed. All were needed to create "outrage" to sell invasion.
   
   The lies are now blissfully forgotten, and felonious collaborator Chalibi firmly controls the Oil Ministry. Most countries failed to buy the sales pitch (maybe they didn't want to see international law overthrown: they were right about the threat).
   
   Is this important? Reinhard Heydrich was tasked to provide an incident on the German-Polish border to justify invasion in 1939. His `attack' on a Gleiwitz radio station (`Operation Himmler') murdered KZ prisoners in Polish uniforms to provide a `smoking gun.'
   
   This book, and the invasion it helped engender, became illegal when it's claims (WMD, etc) failed to materialize post invasion. It can not, and should not, so easily be excused as `faulty intelligence.' It was then (and remains) an invitation to aggressive war.
   
   "Any resort to war - to any kind of war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal, and saves those conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal." -Justice Robert H. Jackson; Nüremberg 1945.
   
   The author is worth reading (I enjoyed this book in 2002, but wasn't convinced). His proposition was then (given the inspections option), and is now, as illegal as crimes prosecuted at Nüremberg. He has since has moved on to targeting Iran.
   
   Meanwhile, American firms feast on Iraqi oil and no-bid reconstruction. Four years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar remain at large.



2. Although some of the reviewers have applied descriptors such as "debunked" or "false," Pollack's book is an important study of the situation in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Critics of the war should read this to gain a greater understanding of what kind of threat really did exist (and check the footnotes if you remain skeptical), and hardcore supporters should read this book to understand better the premise as well. By criticizing people on the Right and Left, while also singing their praises at times, Pollack weaves a fair account of the political situation surrounding Saddam Hussein, and the finished product is a well-crafted argument for removing a tyrant in the Middle East. The staunchest war hawks will even find new information that alters their opinion and handling of the war and aftermath.
   
   Although some of his beliefs turned out to be incorrect (such as his belief that France, even while supporting Saddam Hussein, could be brought into the coalition to invade), his larger argument remains true: Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the international community, and his repeated defiance of international laws and restrictions validates the Bush administration's argument that he could not be trusted.
   
   Pollack's most convincing argument comes in his description of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs. By pointing out how easily it is to mask their development in civilian research centers, coupled with the evidence of Saddam's usage of these agents, Pollack shows that just because coalition forces did not find WMDs does not mean that Saddam never had them or used them in the past.
   
   A person who reads this book cover to cover will come away with a different opinion of the entire situation, for better or worse.



3. ...this book on the face of it has done serious harm. That's all I have to say.



4. Well Ken, guess you kind of blew it huh? Looking at the pathetic reviews here from 2002 I have to wonder do any of you feel any guilt? Even just a little? Well "Dubya" followed the advice of this book and now he and Kenny-boy have the blood of over 3000 Americans on their hands. And now this clown has a book about Iran! In the words of a REAL Republican president: There you go again.



5. Many reviewers here are criticizing Pollack for supporting the Iraq war as it was waged, talking about the disaster Iraq is now and laying that at his feet.
   
   This is unfair. Pollack was clearly very concerned about post-war stability and blowback against the United States, and laid down a number of prerequisites to any invasion ... all of which were completely ignored by the Bush administration and other Iraq-war backers. Ultimately, the situation we face now is exactly what Pollack predicted would happen if we didn't take appropriate steps before the invasion.
   
   Now, one may reasonably conclude that invading Iraq would have been a mistake even if we followed Pollack's advice, but recognize that such criticisms are squarely in "what if?" territory. Ultimately, to lay the chaos we now face there on Pollack's feet is to cherry-pick from his book in much the same way that the Bush administration cherry-picked evidence to argue that we must invade. It's an intellectually dishonest criticism.

5 comments about No End To War: Terrorism In The Twenty-first Century.

1. Laqueur's book is an excellent source of background information for those interested in approaching the issue of terrorism as objectively as possible. For those lacking the time to read this work in its entirety, the conclusion is a must-read. It is hoped that Bush, Powell and Rice, and their advisors, have the opportunity to share Laqueur's views as they develop foreign policy for our nation.



2. For facts and details this book is a marvel. You will not only learn about the situation regarding terrorism in different parts of the world but about groups and splinter groups and how they differ on their philosophy toward terror. The author's knowledge of the field is truly encyclopedic. The book is not tightly organized and several times I wondered where the author was going with his line of thought and how, exactly, it tied in to the chapter title. Laqueur doesn't like to leave an issue without a thorough examination and more than once he would pull himself back to the topic after a discourse. I got the impression that this book may have been hurried to publication. However, his thought is so interesting that I was willing to hear him out. Loaded with details, this book might be a bit hard to digest for someone looking for a good, easily readable overview of the field and recent history of terrorism. A better book for that is Jonathan White's "Terrorism: An Introduction". I finished Laqueur's book thinking what a complicated and dangerous political situation exists in so many parts of the world and how "progress" is a fragile thing, mostly a matter of people having money and lots of goodies to spend it on instead of raging at each other. You don't get overly irritated with others if you have enough money to be preoccupied with your own comfort and possessions in a place of your own. Americans such as I are truly clueless about the depth of turmoil and resentment that roils the world. Laqueur lets us see how there are many fanatics that can loosely organize for a cause, and quite a few mentally disturbed individuals who have a cause all their own. Both the groups and the individuals are using more powerful means to terrorize. The future has always been unpredictable, but now it will be more explosive than ever.



3. Like many Americans, I'm searching for some explanation of the terrorism that has befallen us. Although I'm an avid reader of several good daily newspapers, no analysis found in those pages has provided me with any particular insight. What I was looking for, however, I found in Walter Laqueur's No End To War.
   
   Laqueur is a scholar who has devoted much of his career to studying and writing about terrorism. His book provides an historical perspective to today's terrorism, which he demonstrates differs markedly and frighteningly from the terrorism of the past. He debunks many popular myths about today's terrorists, such as that terrorism is caused by poverty, or that the peaceful settlement of disputes, which necessarily involves compromises, will stop the terrorists from further atrocities. Laqueur admits that much is not known about terrorism, and he proposes no particular one course of action on how to stop terrorism, thereby thankfully rendering his book non-political. On the other hand, there is a great deal of knowledge on the subject and much of it is contained in these pages.
   
   I read this book slowly and with a highlighter in hand. I have gained from it some understanding of terrorism, which I had previously lacked. The book is difficult reading in part because it is not elegantly written. However, what it lacks in style and organization, it more than makes up for in information and wisdom. I'm going to read many parts of it a second and third time. The one adjective that best describes my view of this is book is "important."



4. This new book on terrorism is quick to be honest in showing that while Islamic terrorism is by no means the only terrorism, it is in fact the greatest threat to the world today. This book builds on other books on the topic of terrorism focusing mostly on the second half of the 20th century. Here we learn also about the `battlefields' of the future where terrorism will certainly bring new conflicts to China and India and Southeast Asia. Already one sees this books predictions proving themselves in Thailand and the Phillipines. A good study and a great edition to the post 9/11 terrorist literature.



5. The more I thought about this book, the less I liked it.
   
   Oh, there is plenty to like about the book. It discusses roots of terrorism, jihad, suicide missions, intelligence failures by the West, anti-Americanism, and future potential battlefields.
   
   It defines terrorism as "the systematic use of murder, injury, and destruction, or threat of such acts, aimed at achieving political ends." And it mocks those who insist on calling terrorists "activists" as though they were merely devoting some time to a political party or local club. He asks if we then ought to call Jack the Ripper "an amateur abdominal surgeon."
   
   Laqueur explains that the main threat now is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He also discusses the connection between terrorists and the drug trade but points out that these groups are not natural allies: criminals want to preserve the status quo that keeps them in business, while terrorists want to mess things up.
   
   And the author points out that there is no end in sight to terror: the terrorists will go on fighting for a very long time whether we fight back or not. For example, many Islamists believe that it is a sin against nature to allow Jews to exist in Jerusalem or Israel. This is not conducive to peace.
   
   Laqueur also points out cases in which media supporters of terror have gone way out of bounds, including the Guardian, in England.
   
   But there was one thing about this book that got me thinking more than any other. Namely the claim that Israel was foolish not to have surrendered the entire West Bank to the Arabs - any Arabs - immediately after winning the six-day war, even without any truce or peace or anything. Was this just a slip on Laqueur's part, or a symptom of poor thinking about terrorism in general?
   
   I think it is a symptom of a more serious problem in the author's thinking. After all, there are two errors we see here. First, we see the claim that it would have been moral and practical for a land-poor nation to give disputed land to an enemy that holds itself to be superior and holds you to be trash. Second, we see the claim that it would be possible to convince the majority of the people in a democracy to simply roll over and unilaterally surrender their rights to an annihilationist enemy, given the disastrous results they had doing just that in World War 2. And I think this is a symptom of a larger problem of blaming ourselves just a little too much for the sins of the criminals who attack us.
   
   What I think Laqueur needs to do is adopt some moral standards. There is a difference between being just and unjust. One can try to pretend that one does not know who one is, a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Christian, Chinese, Arab, American, man, woman, adult, child, or whatever. And then try to come up with a just solution, knowing that one would find out who one was only afterwards. That would help clarify blame a little better. Another question Laqueur ought to ask is this: is he refusing to demand rights for his "friends" that he routinely demands for his enemies? I think he fails both questions on this little test. There is no need to make matters worse by alienating people who have the option of supporting terrorism, but I think that outright appeasement is almost always terribly counterproductive, and tends to establish a right of the terrorists to attack and oppress others.
   
   So I'll give this book three stars. I don't recommend it. I think you ought to go out and buy Sharansky's book (The Case for Democracy) instead. Or maybe Paul Berman's (Terror and Liberalism). What we all need is truth and moral clarity. And this book gives us quite a bit of it, but not enough.

No comments about A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence (Northeastern Series on Gender, Crime, and Law).

5 comments about The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.

1. The facts will set you free. Well researched. Bluntly honest. A very readable treatment of Islamofacism every self-respecting journalist should read. It is now on my short list of books that correctly shape one's understanding of this century's principal narrative.



2. Walid Phares is an expert on the middle east and Islam but his writing style is a bit dry. There are many generalizations and specific detail is a bit harder to find. It is worth reading but I was a bit disappointed.



3. I read The War of Ideas after reading Mr. Phares' book Future Jihad. Just like Future Jihad, I found this book extremely well-written and thought provoking. In no way am I an expert on jihadism, so I am not well-versed enough on the topic to state whether his arguments are completely accurate. Regardless, his arguments are worth considering - as citizens of the U.S., and for the nation as a whole. What I liked best was that he concludes his book with thoughts for a way ahead that in my opinion needs to be discussed and argued.
   Mr. Phares believes that one of the necessities in reducing/eliminating the jihadist threat is education of the public - this book does an excellent job of providing that education. Highly Recommend.



4. Dr. Phares book is a must read for ANYONE interested in the true nature of the enemy of Democracy and the mindset of radical Islam. It's informative, clear and complete in it's coverage of those subscribing to the radical's view of Islamic Holy Law and Jihad. This book should be required reading for every candidate running for President of the USA.



5. This is the most clear work made ever so far about the threat of the century. It should be require for reading for any profesor of international relations, history, political science, US policymakers and Intelligence officers in the US in particular and the rest of the the world in general. There's no other book like this.

No comments about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism (Textbook).