2 comments about Enemies of Intelligence: Knowledge and Power in American National Security.

1. This book seeks to balance the deluge of criticism that has been directed towards the U.S. Intelligence System (especially CIA) with a more sympathetic view of how the U.S. intelligence process works. Its author, Richard K. Betts is a recognized scholar specializing in national security issues who has held a variety of positions on the fringes of the U.S. Intelligence Community. This scarcely makes Betts an expert on intelligence processes, although he seems to accurately reflect the views of the senior executives who occupy the highest levels of that Community. For this reason this is a valuable book.
   
   Betts identifies three categories of intelligence which he characterizes as: attack warning; operational evaluation; and defense planning. These are essentially military intelligence subjects and apparently he never considered the value to policy makers of economic, political, or technical intelligence. He also conflates warning with prediction even after reading Cynthia Grabo's book on Warning Intelligence. As he should know but does not, it is virtually impossible to predict the occurrence of discrete events, but entirely possible to provide warnings and risk assessments of potential threats. He also clearly has no real understanding of subject matter expertise (also known as target knowledge) as key to sound analysis.
   
   Betts attempts to defend a number of CIA's alleged failures. For example, there is his defense of the CIA WMD NIE that was published prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to Betts, CIA analyst determined that ambiguous aluminum tubes were to be used as centrifuges and other principal intelligence agencies agreed with this conclusion. This is debatable, but more importantly he offers no evidence that any effort was made to determine if Iraq had acquired or was attempting to acquire the other components required to build centrifuges. As it turned out there are many uses for aluminum tubes. Then there is the issue of Iraqi biological weapon production. Betts informs the reader that in addition to the infamous and bogus German asset "Curveball", CIA had access to three other corroborating sources although two of these were also bogus. More to the point again CIA evidently made no effort to find independent verification of this claim. Its analysts could have asked outside experts about the technical details of the reports they had and they could have looked for supporting evidence such as Iraqi attempts to acquire containment technology or approaches to pharmaceutical firms for large amounts of antidotes (if you are going to use biological agents on the battlefield you had better be sure your own troops won't be stricken). Such omissions are inexcusable.
   
   It is a sobering experience reading Bett's discussions of reform and analysis as applied to the U.S. Intelligence System. He clearly seeks to portray major reform as both unnecessary and dangerous. Further, his understanding of intelligence analysis and production is that of someone far removed from the actual processes. The fact that this probably represents the thinking of the senior managers of that system as well is disturbing indeed.



2. EDIT: Amazon's new review system will not load images. If and when...
   see Comment for URLs to the images on the Web.
   
   Retired Reader is as usual being kind. I agree that the book is useful as a sense of what the insider's want us to think, but it is at best a superficial summary (easily read) that has so many errors (of perception) and omissions (of fact) as to hardly be worthy of the read.
   
   I quickly realized the general shallowness, but out of respect for the author stopped reading and instead went and read every single footnote, every single index entry, and indeed confirmed that this is a mix of old work, draws only on "members of the club" work, and fills in the gaps with Op-Eds and newspaper stories written by people who generally have no clue. Then I read the whole book.
   
   Anyone who cites Deborah Burger's pabulum about "revolution in intelligence affairs" is kissing the institution's ass (pun intended); and anyone who considers the Sims-Gerber book to be transformative (as opposed to useful if you want the status quo), is simply out of touch with reality, with the possibilities, and with the complex pathologies that plague both the intelligence community (see my five images) and our politicians, every one of them, but most especially Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi, impeachable for breach of trust. For additional background, see my IJCI commentary on "Intelligence Affairs: Evolution, Revolution, or Reactionary Collapse?"
   
   This is in fact what annoyed me most about this book--it glosses over the high crimes and misdemeanors of the White House but also of the Cabinet, as well as the blatant errors and omissions of virtually every senior intelligence officer. The USS Liberty and USS Pueblo were outrageous acts of war that could have been defended against and also justified retaliation, but instead both Administrations covered up, as they covered up on 9/11 and the Kennedy Assassination. In the case of George Tenet, he screwed up three big things: the clandestine service; the hunt for Bin Laden; and his ignorance in refusing to follow the recommendations made by Boyd Sutton in "The Challenge of Global Coverage," calling for 1.5B a year against the 95% of the world that we ignore at our peril.
   
   This book gets three stars instead of the two I planned originally because the author is an original, has demonstrated he knows what the higher standard is, and I will simply assume that at this time in his life he too busy to read broadly. He could start with my reviews, which are free.
   
   There are so many books over-looked by the author here that I just shake my head. I link to a few below.
   
   I expected the author to be dismissive of open sources of information, and to ignore my own work despite the fact that he has been a speaker at one of my conferences and knows full well the contents of my varied books. What I was not expecting was what I consider to be an abject superficial apologia, almost a hearts and flowers farewell to the John McLaughlin's of the past.
   
   I was also not expecting the quickly evident lack of familiarity (or lack of time to properly integrate if known) with the wealth of information from many authors on both policy and intelligence failures, and the facts thereof. Nowhere in this book, for example, does the author properly credit Charlie Allen with sending 35 line crossers into Iraq to confirm what we already knew from the defecting son-in-law: keep the cook-books, destroyed the stocks, bluffing for regional sake.
   
   Although acceptable in an academic book of this kind, the author's lack of understanding of the magnitude of the budget (it is $60 to 70 billion, not the loose lips $44 billion that Mary Graham gave us) and his lack of understanding of how what we do now fails to address the ten high level threats to humanity that LtGen Dr. Brent Scowcroft, USAF (Ret) helped identify, fails to help us create the needed four forces after next including the White Hat Peace from the Sea and Peace from Above, relegates this book to the curiosity pile.
   
   I was particularly annoyed by the disingenuous glibness in speaking of the value of an intelligence reserve, when the author knows full well that because of security blinders the secret puppies talk to just 14 of the 1400 Muslim experts in America; and either his obliviousness or naiveté in suggesting that dissent and multiple advocacy channels are worth anything when our young analysts are near idiots (the World Bank official I spoke to says their assumptions about Sudan and elsewhere are so ignorant as to be frightening); have no processing power, not even the analytic desktop that Diane Webb designed in 1985-1986, at which time I discovered we had no fewer than twenty "compartmented" projects to build the same all source fusion station, only each was a sweetheart deal with a different vendor; or access to the 96% of the information that the secret world does not have access to and will never have access to unless we first create a Multinational Information Sharing Activity outside the wire and able to share without restraint.
   
   The book whimpers to an end. For a free and broader grasp of reality and pathology, see my reviews of other books on intelligence (especially the ones the author neglects to integrate), and sign up for the free weekly report, GLOBAL CHALLENGES: The Week in Review. See Earth Intelligence Network.
   
   I won't even touch the lack of serious coverage of education, commercial intelligence, policy-maker ignorance, and all the other small but important details left out of this book. This book comes nowhere near the reality that you cannot create and maintain smart spies in the context of a dumb nation. This is what we get from a community that spends $60B a year creating a President's Daily Brief ($1.2B/week), largely ineffective at all else.
   
   Below are the tip of the iceberg.
   
   On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World
   The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public, & Political--Citizen's Action Handbook for Fighting Terrorism, Genocide, Disease, Toxic Bombs, & Corruption
   Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
   Who the Hell Are We Fighting?: The Story of Sam Adams and the Vietnam Intelligence Wars
   Denial and Deception: An Insider's View of the CIA
   See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism
   Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers
   Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11--How the Secret War between the FBI and CIA Has Endangered National Security
   Deep Cover: The Inside Story of How DEA Infighting, Incompetence and Subterfuge Lost Us the Biggest Battle of the Drug War
   
   See my many lists for broader recommendations.

2 comments about Combating Terrorism: Strategies of Ten Countries.

1. I thought that this book, an edited volume of experts from various countries on strategies to combat terrorism was done very well. The perspectives of (in-country) European, U.S., Latin American, Middle Eastern, and Asian analysts shows that terrorism is a global problem and there must be global solutions. The contributors also discuss the consequences of 9/11 so that adds to the helpfulness of the book.



2. In reading over ten thousand books, I found this one to be really exceptional. Editor Yonah Alexander did an excellent job describing terrorism in its many forms, and how each different kind of group can be defeated. The only down-side in this book was all the groups that were discussed we not "apocalyptic terrorist", or groups of terrorists that are not religious in nature. This is an very detailed book about secular terrorist groups, from the Maoist Sendero Luminoso to the militant Japanese Red Army and the narco-terrorists of South America. Countries dealing with terrorism in this book include:
   
   United States
   Argentina
   Peru
   Colombia
   Spain
   United Kingdom
   Israel
   Turkey
   India
   Japan
   
   A superb resources with lots of detailed information. A excellent and superior resource!

5 comments about America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order.

1. "America Alone", written by two traditional conservatives, is a good examination of the origins, ideology and influence of the neoconservative cabal which directs American foreign policy under George W. Bush and which was principally responsible for instigating the Iraq War in 2003. The authors lament the neocons' role in subverting the traditional Republican/conservative understanding of foreign policy as being based on American national interest, and point out how un-conservative, un-American and utterly radical the neocons' ideology actually is.
   
   The book offers no startling new revelations for anyone who has been following the neocon story these past few years in such publications and websites as the American Conservative, Counterpunch.com, antiwar.com, etc. We are told about the neocons' origin as Trotskyite true-believers, their Manichean world-view, their worship of military force, their unscrupulousness, hypocrisy, arrogance, their obsession with Israel and their utter rejection of any facts which conflict with their preconceived notions. The authors show how an "intellectual persuasion" which was widely discredited at the beginning of the 1990s built bridges with right-wing media, wealthy contributors, the Christian Right and mainstream conservative figures to become by subterfuge the dominant force in the Republican Party and thus the U.S. government today. We are told how the neocons had been pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein for years before 9/11 and how, when they finally achieved power, they basically lied us into war.
   
   Since all of the authors' assertions are indisputably true, one is rankled by the pussilanimous moderation which is proclaimed at several points throughout the book. Even though the authors expose the neocons as war-mongering liars who have hijacked American foreign policy and damaged American interests, they seem at pains to distance themselves from any sort of controversial conclusions or even sharp words against their neocon brothers. On page 231 they make the ridiculous statement, "A slew of administration opponents have used strong, harsh words about the administration's arguments in favor of going to war. This is not the camp from which we come". God forbid we should use strong, harsh words to describe _traitors_, a term that would probably make Messrs Halper and Clarke swoon like Victorian ladies!
   
   Indeed, these people are traitors, as their life's work has been to use the American government to further the interests of a foreign power. The authors acknowledge Israel's central and dominating role in neoconservative thought, but in keeping with their avoidance of controversy, deny (pg 58) that has anything to do with the ethnic/religious identity of neoconservatism's main figures. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that neoconservatives only ever agitate for war against the enemies of Israel! Even though the neoconservative label does encompasses people from many different backgrounds, the fact is that the leading spirits of neoconservatism share a common ethnic/religious heritage and a common primary loyalty to the State of Israel, and that unquestioning support for Israel is one of the main tenets-if not the main one- of neoconservatism. In support of their amazing assertion that that is irrelevant, the authors conveniently omit any reference to the instances when leading neocon figures like Perle or Feith have actually been caught passing classified secrets to Israeli agents. I suppose the authors are nervous that they might get lumped in with Buchananite "nativists" and other unfashionable folk if they too strongly condemn people who betray our country.
   
   Because the authors shrink from naming these people for the traitors they are, their final thoughts on the neoconservatives are consequently lame. They apparently assume that the neocons' errors are so self-evident to the country that they will soon leave the scene in shame and surrender control of foreign policy to the old conservatives who have steered the ship of state so responsibly in the past. It was sadly amusing reading those sentiments at the moment we are planning an attack on Iran because Israel feels threatened by its nuclear power program. Neoconservatism is dangerous to Americans. These people need to be exposed for treasonous dogs, expelled from all positions of power immediately and, God willing, imprisoned or expelled from our country. Dry, congenial disagreements and/or witty reproaches are not appropriately commensurate responses to neoconservative crimes. However, "America Alone" does give a pretty good (not great) overview of neoconservatism for the uninformed citizen. (The last third of the book can be skimmed though, as the authors go off on wild digressions about the history of anti-Americanism, terrorism through the ages, privacy rights and other topics that only peripherally touch on neoconservatism.)



2. The two authors here are ex-Reagan foreign policy officials. They argue that the neocon groups, that dominate the Bush administration and who claim to be "neo-Reaganites", are essentially exploiting Reagan's popularity, not reviving his policies.
   
   The real Reagan regularly over-ruled his hardline advisors. And the neocons turned on Reagan for his glasnost with Gorbachev and missile reductions. Contrary to the unilateralist neocons, Reagan worked closely with allies and was prepared to reverse course if he made a mistake (i.e. Lebanon). The authors wish the current Bush administration really was "neo-Reaganite" in deed as well as word. They should copy Reagan not just repeat his name as a mantra.
   
   Reagan had some neo-conservatives and uber-hawks in his administration but they were on tap, not on top. He was prepared to listen to his foreign allies, not just demand their fealty. It was a two way street. When he determined, after being persuaded by Maggie Thatcher, that he could work with Gorbachev, Reagan, a long time cold warrior, was able to reverse course.
   
   The authors highlight these differences but for my money I think they miss the real difference. The differences between Reagan and Bush, are not so much ideological as stylistic and personal. Like it or not, the big guy on top sets the tone for a whole administration. The personal and personality element colours whole administrations and their public and global reception. Reagan was certainly a better speaker and media performer than Bush, and he did seem to write credible material in his own hand. But there is more to it than that.
   
   Reagan was an optimist by disposition, and a gambler. He was prepared to take risks, like funding Solidarity in Poland or providing Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan rebels. Both bets that paid off. Few US leaders since Truman were prepared to play on the red side of the cold war fence. These were critical events in the ultimate undermining of the Iron Curtain. Reagan took some risks, like El Salvador and Lebanon, that didn't pay off. But in the case of Lebanon at least, he was prepared to reverse track on a bad hand and cut his losses. A good gambler knows when to quit. Maybe had the young George W Bush spent more time gambling and less time drinking fewer people would be dead in Iraq.



3. This book describes how the moderate conservatives lost their bid to still govern effectively by allowing a certain scet of neo-conservatvies come in and with a sense of paranoi and war mongering, slip us into a state where we are no longer the world's mediator but the world's tagert of hatred. The book concludes with 'And there will be plaenty of help from America's friends, who know that the world works best when they and America are in partnership.'



4. Authors Halper and Clarke expose the criminals who have been driving US foreign policy during the disasterous G. Bush administration-the Neo-conservatives.
   
   It's all here, in its raw naked truth. If you think these authors haven't stepped on some neo-con toes, take a look at the critical reviews, obviously written by the same "Ministry of Truth" propaganda program that fabricated the reasons for the Iraq War.
   
   All pertinent associations are covered, including Leo Strauss and the Neo-con obsession with Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince". (Several neo-cons have written books about their love of Machiavellian principles).
   
   Also, pay attention to the names of the neo-cons. They aren't yet wearing orange jumpsuits, but the key criminals are named.
   
   The authors approach the outer perimeter of establishment thought when talking about the causes of 9/11 by commenting: "about which there is still some uncertainty today".
   
   The authors mention the Defense Planning Guide, written by the neo-cons with oversight by Dick Cheney. The guide was so militant that it had to be revised. Later on, the letter written to President Clinton persuading him to attack Iraq by the neo-cons is discussed with all its proud signers. Then, the Project for a New American Century was discussed and its details of conducting war on many fronts simultaneously.
   
   The neocons left no doubt about their murderous intensions in their writings leading up to 9/11, including the transparent: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor". I know there's a lot of non-thinking sheep in this country who are fixated on FOX "News", but that statement leaves not doubt about the causes of 9/11.
   
   The book explains how the neo-cons recruited the Christian Right and Right-Wing radio talk shows to support their murderous agenda. They were all happy to join.
   
   This book is a very informative read and an awesome US history lesson-one you might not study...in class...



5. Excellent book about the political cult of neo-conservatism. This book gets into the nitty-gritty from the start to current dogma. Interesting because it divides the camps of the older 'neos' and contrasts that of the younger, second generation neos, who are responsible for the preemptive war strategies that are in vogue with the George W. Bush administration.

5 comments about Walking Ghosts: Murder and Guerrilla Politics in Colombia.

1. Overall, author Dudley has done right in laying open the running sores of the Colombian civil war to public view, a generally engrossing - and gross - account of chicanery, cynicism, and atrocity.

   That said, I could not give it more than three stars because of its flawed insistence - in my opinion - of blaming the left for its own destruction in Colombia. At one point he writes of the "startling number of dead" the UP "put in the morgue." Yet the Union Patriotica did not torture, kill, or "disappear" these people, nor force the death squads to do so, and therein lays the book's flawed premise.

   By his own admission, Colombia has engaged in political violence against dissidents for decades, and its 1980s death squads were willing to kill virtually anyone they disliked. The UP, then, did not have to be cynically betrayed or manipulated by the FARC to earn this lethal attention - it would have come anyway, regardless of any guerrilla politics behind the scenes. The paramilitaries were out to destroy the left, and the center; the guerrilla politics upon which Dudley lavishes so much scrutiny were a secondary factor at best, and in no way confirm the Colombian military's "analysis" or strategy.




2. I am on my second reading of the book, and unless you read each page three times, you will need a second reading of the book. There are a tremendous number of characters to keep track of. To his credit, Dudley does reintroduce characters in later chapters as if you've never read about them.

   It's obvious this book is a rewrite of a masters thesis, but I'm not sure what Dudley was rewriting it into. It feels as if it was supposed to be (and to some extent is) a story of the authors experiences in Colombia and what he was able to reveal about the Colombian political culture. However the chapters seem to be chunks of a thesis with a new title put on and rearranged text to better fit the title. For example, the "Black Vladimir" chapter contains a great deal of information on the character, however so does the rest of the book.

   Having said that, it is a great overview of the tumultuous 80's in Colombia through detailed accounts. This info is essential to understand current politics in Colombia. Also included is a cursory overview of the pre-1980 colombian political situation as well as the 90's. There is an attempt to cover politics outside of the UP, but it struck me as shallow. The 90's, for example, are glossed over for the most part. I also wish there was more information about the more current situation.




3. I feel that this a very strong series of stories and history of Colombia and of the FARC. Mr. Dudley has accomplished something few could, by interviewing the FARC, the UP, and the Paramilitaries - his interview with Carlos Castano is just incredible.
   
   The Union Patriotica, a political party created by the FARC rebels of Colombia, appeared to be the last, best chance for the FARC to find political space in Colombia and turn their ideas into something positive for Colombia. Unfortunately, what ended up happenning is that the FARC does not seem to care that by not giving up its war against Colombia, that it ensured the mass murder of politicians of the Union Patriotica. It is astounding that the members of Union Patriotica did not consider breaking off from the FARC - it ensured that they were all killed as well. The other astounding fact is of the amnesty for the paramilitary groups: they did the vast majority of the killing and drug trafficking, and also ruined the chance for peace and the UP. Why they linked with drug dealers to destroy Colombia's chance at peace, it seemed it was all about the money. Yet the paramilitaries come off with a very generous deal from the Colombian government.
   
   In any event: this book is a triumph. The FARC went from being justified, modestly popular, or even wildly popular, and the Union Patriotica, its political party, something that could benefit Colombians, to being one of the most disliked, controversial, selfish rebel groups on the planet, with no other plan other than its own military dominance for dominance's sake, and the vast dislocation of millions of Colombians.



4. This is a poorly written account of a topic so crucial for the history and the future of Colombia. The author seems biased against the victims of a political genocide a thesis he chose to build on self-contradicting, and in many cases, superficial, almost idiotic, narratives, gossip, cheap propaganda, and a strategically selected "balanced" approach to key events and people.
   
   The author, in a few words, tells us that it was the left's fault that it didn't disarm while it was massacred by the paramilitaries before the state could even guarantee a safe political and electoral environment. And so it is not the drug lords who organized a killing campaign threatened by the UP, it wasn't the psychotic paranoid generals that insulted their heads of state by acting unilaterally and against orders, it wasn't the paramilitaries that started cutting off people with chainsaws before even there was a UP that caused the UP's demise. IT WAS THE LEFT TO BLAME for not cutting their own throats off!
   
   Denial and the recycling of the same mythology for the last 40 years is one of the the reasons why Colombia is stuck in this mud of US-aid, narco-barons, government corruption, occasional genocides, multinational corporate liability, and psychotic narcissistic leaders.
   
   Here is a hint: lessons from Northern Ireland, South Africa, Nepal, Salvador, the PLO, and more have demonstrated that disarmament is not a condition for transition to peace as much as the state's commitment to integrate insurgents in the political process SAFELY. I recommend some serious literature on the topic, such as Militant Nationalism by Cynthia E. Irvin in understanding the dimensions of killing the UP, this horrendous crime against the future of Colombia and the region for decades to come.
   
   Mr. Dudley, please do your homework on peace processes first and then RE-WRITE this book at least so that the enormous work that you have invested in interviewing monstrous criminals such as Baquero, and Landazabal will not go wasted and your contribution will build an understanding and awareness towards a real progress instead of business as usual. I have never read such weight of accusations planted on the very shoulders of the victims themselves of such a significant political crime. Evidently, you have told us everything that you've been told, and presented us everything that you have found, but in exception to that bankrupted theory of placing the gravity of the blame on the victims, you Sir are absent from your own book! And the result of your absence is a caricature of a testament, a patched-up presentation that is confusing and misleading even to the advanced student of modern Colombian political history. In the end all that is left is the overwhelming bad after-taste of bias towards your own initial speculation.
   
   There is a lot of work needed on this material to shape up into a ground braking contribution, but the potential is there. I'd dispose off the "theory" first, study thoroughly the existent theory on insurgency transformation to poiitics, especially from the comparative-theory perspective, and then, even with the existent matterial, I'd give it another try.



5. Mr. Dudley has written a must-read book for anyone interested in understanding how futile, tragic and hopeless this civil war is, a war to end centuries of oppression by creating an alternate oppression. No matter how noble the goals of the militant left are, they have perverted that nobility with resorting to the tactics of the thug right that they despise. Mr. Dudley's extensive interviews with many of the "walking ghosts," many who died subsequently at the hands of the either the paramilitary wing of the Colombian army and narcotraffickers or the FARC, makes this a poignant tribute to their selfless idealism. The cynicism of both sides, coupled with a fatalism that would make Slavs blush, makes for a dreadful toxic brew that can only poison any hope of reconciliation. What neither Dudley or anyone else cares to address is why of all the Latin countries Colombia's insurgency has become so vicious and bitter, even though Colombia's experience with oligharchies or revolutionary movements is no different than any other of its continental or linguistic neighbors. The gist of his book concerns the Union Patriotica, the left wind political party that the FARC intended to manipulate for its own power-grabbing methods. seen by the right as just a front for their arms bearing enemies of FARC, the civilan members of UP became literal sitting ducks, martyrs for a cause that seems as far away from fruition as ever. Assassination became the norm, with the tentacles of the military entwining with the likes of Pablo Escobar and "El Mejicano" Gacha, well known cocaine lords. Dudly barely touches on US/CIA involvement, but their interference in other country's sovereign affairs is well known in any case. Dudley's writing style makes this an easy read from that perspective, but the endless parade of dead men walking became very sobering.

5 comments about The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism.

1. Comprised of a series of scholarly essays on the gradual of secretive reneging of US civil liberties post-9/11, "War on Our Freedoms" is an important book for anyone living in the United States to read. Though some government opacity and reining in of rights is always needed in the wake of an event such as 9/11 or the war in Iraq, this book is a chilling reminder that there is a thin line that we seem to be crossing, unbeknownst to most Americans.



2. In every era of this nation's history, there has been a small minority of wise and prescient thinkers who, unwilling to drift with the popular current, warn us of the forces threatening our basic freedoms. Labeled as agitators, often despised and feared in their own times, these are the people who take seriously the enlightened principles of the American Revolution. They said no to slavery when the rest of the nation was indifferent to it or saying yes; they protested child labor; they demanded the 8-hour day and the minimum wage; they said we must protect our air and water. Their passionate devotion to the ideals of democracy has chopped away at the greed and denial that grows in America like weeds if no one is watching. But whatever the issue, our nasty habit in this country is to ignore the voices of protest. Then we struggle and suffer and people get hurt, very hurt. Eventually the agitators of yesterday become the heroes of the new day. Why can't we learn to listen before the damage is done? This book is a compilation of essays that MUST be listened to. These people are telling us -- with passion, intelligence and good sense, and without greed or agendas and certainly without denial -- about the delicate balance between national security and civil liberties, about the crucial importance of the free trade of ideas, and the danger of popular intolerance of dissent. If we listen now we can prevent that moment for the historians of the future when they say, "How could they not have seen what was about to happen?" As Anthony Lewis says in his essay "Security and Liberty," "If we are to preserve constitutional values - the values of freedom -- understanding and resistance must come now." This book is a MUST READ for everyone who cares deeply about the direction of this nation.



3. I read this book cover-to-cover on a flight from L.A. to New York, and found it both well-written and informative. Indeed, I thought it was such a good survey of the major legal issues in America's war on terrorism that I assigned it as required reading for my American Law & Terrorism seminar at UCLA.

   This book provides the "backstory" for many of the key issues I plan to cover, such as prohibition of material support to foreign terrorist organizations and how that law squares with America's First Amendment jurisprudence. For the most part, this book takes a critical position against most of the current legal arguments advanced by the Bush Administration, e.g. that the President should be allowed to designate enemy combatants. But each article presents its argument in a fairly balanced way.

   Also, the articles do a great job of explaining the law at a college-graduate level, as opposed to a lawyer's level. That's unusual for most books on the subject, and I think it makes this a must-buy for anyone interested in the subject.




4. Reading this book, comprised of info from many sources, I got frankly angered by the way this administration, as well as others in the past, used tragedies and wars to take our freedoms from us and invade our privacy on a whim. I understand some liberties must be sacrificed in times of conflict. The government just after 9-11 was running straight from the executive branch without any checks and balances. Of course who would dispute or bring up civil liberties in times of crisis, obviously not anyone in the courts. People were labeled enemy combatants and contained without right to trial, any proof of guilt, and held months without anyone even knowing their whereabouts. Many were probably guilty, but some were innocent and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our government wanted to get people to act as spies, surveying their neighborhoods, spying on neighbors, getting your library to turn you in as a terrorist for reading muslim literature or something containing dissent to the govt. Luckily that brilliant plan of ashcrofts has not gone over to will not be tolerated, and should not be tolerated by the citizens that are supposed to be the backbone of our democracy. Very informative book. AMerica must fight to revise this orwellian act that is the patriot act.



5. Well being young and unexperienced I found this book very helpful, it really opened my eyes to a new way of looking at things. I liked the way most of the information seemed to be first hand, rather than just many assumptions.

5 comments about The Mirrored Heavens.

1. There's a lot to be said about this book, and most of it is even good.
   Basically from the first page of the story, it takes you on a rollercoaster ride with half a dozen characters that is so full of twists and turns that keeping track of what is actually happening becomes a task of its own after one's halfway through the novel. The action is unforgiving and direct, with the battle raging through the streets of bleak concrete molochs, the emptyness of space, the grey wastes of the moon and the depths of cyberspace. The writing style immerses the reader directly into the action after a short while. It's a tale about a looming world war, about idealism and about the uncertainty of identity in a future where mind and technology can interfere with each other very easily.
   
   The picture David paints of the future is deeply dystopian, with the world locked in a cycle of inner and outer conflict, with a completely collapsing ecosphere and a society where a life's worth less than even in ancient Rome. It's a world that's been completely thrown off balance, a world in which sometimes your own side is far more dangerous to you than your supposed enemies might be.
   
   The technology shown in "The Mirrored Heavens" is not too far out there. Whether we will truly be that advanced with regards to neuro-interfaces and cyberspace by that time is up for speculation, but at least the space technology and weapons systems shown already exists in their basics today.
   
   The novel is a great one - once you've adapted to the writing style. Usually I'm not fan of third person present tense writing, but with this novel it works rather well. There's also a certain degree of ambivalence in me with regards to the dystopian setting. I'm no optimist, but I think that most political systems primarily strive to achieve internal order. Thus, while the setting works well for the novel, I'm no great friend of it. Moreso, the very literal mindf*** that nowadays cyberpunks presents us with is, well, positively disturbing. If one has ever seen Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex, he know's what I'm talking about.
   
   My last point of criticism is that the actual information you get about the world is rather thinlayered. I understand that the novel focusses on the plot, but there is hardly said more than a) there are the Eurasians, and they have different factions; b) there is the USA and within it different factions intriguing against each other for influence on "The Throne"; c) and there are Combines and the Euromagnates, on which basically nothing substantial at all is said. I'm an avid fluff-reader, digging through pages of explanations is a good read to me, so that disappointed me somewhat.
   
   All in all I'd call "The Mirrored Heavens" a solid and action-packed work and definately a great first novel of David Williams. Maybe the world it plays in will be elaborated on in possible sequels.



2. Mirrored Heavens won't leave my mind. The present tense, staccato prose with constantly shifting POV (indicated nicely with icons), and a narrator so personal, it feels like it's in your head ... all that was refreshing and new. The action is constant and well written, but it comes off as a media tie in novel. I'd have given this a 4 star review if this was set in a world I'd been immersed in for 20+ hours already. As it stands, while I found each individual page enjoyable, and think many people will enjoy this book, it overall didn't work for me.



3. Little to no plot. No character development. Little to no world building exposition. It's basically one severely over-extended action piece with no back story or realistic motivation present, strung together with positively Shatnerian dialogue. If you want cyberpunk, read a real book. Gibson and Stephenson would be good authors to choose.



4. I couldn't put this book down. From start to finish, it had me breathless to see what would happen next. Characters were developed and intricate in a world that they struggle to survive and master. Surprise twists kept me on the edge of my seat.
   
   This is not a book for the faint of heart or the sci-fi uninitiated. However, if you can hang, it's totally worth it.



5. I just finished the book and trust me, I don't think that this review needs a "Spoilers" warning for the reader, and I'll tell you why.
   
   Before I do, I have to say that the story has a lot of action if you're in the mood for it and some interesting settings. However, I can't provide spoilers because I have no clear idea about what happened. Of course, I know WHAT happened but I'm not sure WHY it happened.
   
   That's because the book is narrated as if the events were viewed by a person living in another dimension. As if they have no concept of the players, their philosophies, their technology, or their motivations. We just get scene after scene of interesting, yet fairly meaningless, activity. It's as if a cowboy from the 19th century decided to tell you his impression of the Mideast war as seen through a crystal ball.
   
   It was vague to the extreme---but still interesting.
   
   The author, if he plans on writing more, needs to bore us with the details. Without a little bit of world building the story borders on dull and hard to care about. I was having trouble figuring out who to like in the story, and one guy, I still don't know who he is.
   
   I'd like to say that I have several grad degrees in a complex verbally oriented subject, so I know how to read and comprehend. The author made it tough to do that.
   
   Although I'm saying negative things, seemingly, I'm actually asking the author to do a better job. He clearly has a good concept in mind, and I'd like him to tell us about it.
   
   Cyberpunk:
   
   Get rid of that.
   
   You're writing something more like "cyberpro" and it needs to sound like it.
   
   Cyberpunk frequently features uneducated outcast types who "know cyberspace" and so their narration is like that of a laconic teenager chewing gum, or something along those lines.
   
   The text of this book was written like that with short sentences and the repeated use of "says" after the dialogue, much like a kid would say. However, the subject isn't about that, and has to do with super highly trained people, some of which may never have been exposed to pop culture.
   
   The "punk" needs to be fixed.

5 comments about The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad: The Revelation of Iran's Nuclear Prophet.

1. The chilling part of this book is not Hitchcock's analysis but the words directly from Ahmadinejad. It is an important read for anyone desiring more insite into the nutcase at the wheel of the Mahdi Army. If you, like me had heard of the Madi Army but didn't understand the significance, then this book is a must read.



2. This book is so current that I can relate back to it almost nightly as I watch the evening news. Now, I know exactly what the news anchors are talking about and reporting. A must read not only for religious readers, but skeptics as well. Stay informed with the world news. Read this book!



3. An excellent, straight forward biblical based analysis of the situation in Iran as it affects all of us. It is well written, easy to understand and shows the relationship of this person and his views against blibical prophecy.



4. Some might think because this author is a Christian who believes in what the Bible says about the endtimes that he is extreme. He is not.
   
   This book is the actual words of the president of Iran. They reveal his hatred of Israel and the United States and his willingness to destroy both.
   
   No one took Adolf Hitler's words seriously either until it was too late. Let's not repeat history.



5. Mark Hitchcock is part of the very disturbing chorus composed of figures such as John Hagee and Tim LaHaye who have created an entire industry of selling books, CDs and videos promoting U.S. imperialism by warning us about Islamic "plans" to conquer the world, or something. His latest, "The Apocalypse Of Ahmadinejad," is a direct shot at the current President of Iran, whom Hitchcock claims is hatching some sort of underground plan to destroy both Israel AND the U.S. to usher in the Islamic equivalent of the Christian Second Coming.
   
   This kind of fantastical alarmism is similar to LaHaye's own writings about Saddam Hussein planning to build a "second Babylon" to usher in the end times, a plan apparently thwarted by the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq which LaHaye and Hitchcock feverishly support. Like John Hagee's "In Defense Of Israel," "The Apocalypse Of Ahmadinejad" suffers more from it's basic lack of good history as it does from the radical, almost cultish religious angle. Consider that even in the opening pages Hitchcock admits he's not very well-informed on geopolitics or political/historical matters, something which should already tell the reader something about the book's validity. Hitchock zeroes in on many of Ahmadinejad's more radical, neo-religious comments pertaining to classic Islamic symbols and beliefs, the problem is Hitchock takes them literally, never mentioning that the current Ayatollah of Iran has even limited Ahmadinejad's powers as President due to some of his more looney comments and is reported to be weary of radical stances Ahmadinejad has taken.
   
   Hitchcock also conveniently ignores basic history such as the fact that the Islamic Republic was not born out of some Satanic plan, but because in 1953 we overthrew Iran's elected, very progressive government headed by Mohammed Mossadegh. The CIA overthrew Mossadegh because he nationalized the nation's oil, a big no no to corporate powers such as ours, and then re-instated the very brutal regime of the Shah who in turn was overthrown in 1979 by what became the current government. Hitchcock, like Hagee and LaHaye also dismisses Israeli crimes in the occupied territories or the fact that Israel is the only real nuclear power in the region, instead painting them as the helpless victims surrounded by evil Muslims including those pesky Palestinians who live in a horrific apartheid state.
   
   Hitchcock also backs the imperial occupation of Iraq, accusing Iran of causing trouble in the country, not the foreign army who invaded the place. But it all somehow works for Hitchcock because Muslims are the children of Satan and they want to destroy us because we're Christian and our women wear miniskirts in America. Iran is a very complex nation, it has the second-highest Jewish population in the Middle East and a very strong, Liberal movement gaining more power little by little.
   
   If tensions get worst between the U.S. and Iran it would most likely happen due to the kind of military interventionism Hitchcock reports, one wonders how he would have reacted to the NIE report, where all 16 intelligence agencies of the U.S. concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. And if Iran did arm itself, wouldn't it be logical considering a foreign power is invading it's neighbors and Israel is bent on dominating the region as seen in the brutal war it engaged with Lebanon in 2006? Again, Hitchcock simply dismisses important things like actual history and settles for Biblical code talk, Ahmadinejad's more curious quotes (not more curious than what President Bush says on a daily basis), and a recycled apocalyptic theory. One wonders how historians will look back at the kind of writings the radical fringe of Christian America produced, let us hope it's not for the need of understanding what drove America as a society to an armageddon of her own making.

5 comments about Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea, and on the Ground.

1. The book which preceded Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts (Imperial Grunts) was an informative and touching collection of snapshots of service men and women stationed on the edges of America's military map. As of this writing, I haven't finished Hog Pilots, but it's clearly cut from the same cloth. I'm profoundly grateful for the specific individuals mentioned in these books as well as their un-named brothers and sisters - all of whom faithfully serve us with ingenuity and determination. I'm also grateful that Robert Kaplan is willing to drag his 50-something bones out to these remote and dangerous places to bring these stories back to us.



2. With apparently unequaled access to all the branches of the U.S. Armed Services Robert Kaplan was unable to string his experiences together into readable form. I couldn't finish this book, and I hate not finishing books. The only reason I gave it two stars was because of the chapter on the A-10 pilots. hopefully my recycling this book will somewhat negate the damage done to the environment by publishing it. Sadly, the damage done to my wallet and my time will remain. If you really want to read this book I'll gladly sell you my copy.



3. This is a really bad book. Kaplan plays toy soldier, hangs out with military units all over the world and comes back with no particular insight and nothing to say. Its the adventures of a military groopie or wannabe who gets to play without paying.
   
   In as much as there is an argument, its the same one from Imperial grunts. We don't need a fighting army anymore and the special forces can do everything. And Kaplan still doesn't understand that special forces are special because they are small and that the concept can't be scaled up to infinity.
   
   He talks about covering Africa with A-teams. But he doesn't understand that 95% of the people in the military are not suitable for A-teams and that cost is not what determines how many A-teams you have.
   
   His evaluations of the military come across as nothing more than blind admiration. Elite is the most commonly used word in the book and its applied to almost everyone serving to the point where it loses all meaning. Same with special forces. He applies the terms to regular military units which are in no way special forces. And Kaplan is in love with every weapons system as well. I'm sorry but navy submarines are not special forces teams on the cutting edge of intelligence gathering. They are the "big force" army Kaplan used to be critical of.
   
   This is by far the worst book Kaplan has ever written (not politically but as a matter of writing craft). If your looking for a feel-good book about the US military and those who serve in it, you will probably like the book. Its a good book for amature military buffs. But for anyone looking for depth or useful content, don't bother.



4. Compared to his earlier book, The Imperial Grunts, this one is not as good but it enhanced my view of the US Military much more than the "Imperial Grunts" since that book was mostly written about the ground forces deployed around the world. This one is about the naval, air forces and ground forces altogether but its emphasis is more on Air Force and Navy. It's a very informative book on the status of the US military and its future. Robert D. Kaplan is an able author with tons of knowledge about the past and he wonderfully mixes the past with present and then predicts the future to the best of his ability. I recommend his books to the military and political enthusiasts.



5. As pointed out by several other reviewers, this book is a sequel to the earlier and better Imperial Grunts. Kaplan revisits some of the locales of the earlier book and reports tremendous progress in places like Columbia and the Philippines. He spends time on a nuclear carrier, a destroyer and a nuclear fast attack submarine. Those were the best parts of the book. He spends time with A 10 pilots on deployment to Thailand and provides well-deserved credit to these blue collar fighter pilots who fly the unloved but tremendously valuable attack aircraft. It was so unloved by the fighter mafia that runs the US Air Force that they were going to retire the plane. The Army, which depends on air support, and has no air wing of its own like the Marine Corp, offered to take over the plane and add it to its own air arm. The Air Force quickly restored the A 10 units to full flying status and no more was heard for a while about retiring them.
   
   Kaplan does travel a lot and the depth of his interviews in the earlier book isn't here but it is still a good source of information about the far flung US military as it fights the savage wars of peace.

5 comments about Saving the Americas: The Dangerous Decline of Latin America and What The U.S. Must Do.

1. I was excited that a new book by Oppeheimer was to be released and was probably the first person to order a copy prior to it being released....it turned-out to be a translation into English of his OLD 2005 book Cuentos Chinos....I think it is not fair to confuse consumers by changing the tittle so dramatically....Qué pasó Señor Oppenheimer????



2. Saving the Americas: The Dangerous Decline of Latin America and What The U.S. Must Do
   Good commentary on many problems in Latin America with pointed suggestions as to actions the US can take to help the LA Region, as well as ourselves.
   Good insight into Latin American politics



3. I first read this in Spanish and am now reading it in English. It is a crucial book for U.S. readers to have and to help them know about the issues facing the U.S. in Latin America. --Kenneth D. MacHarg, author, From Rio to the Rio Grande, Challenges and Opportunities in Latin America From Rio to the Rio Grande: Challenges and Opportunities in Latin America



4. This is the best book on Latin American affairs I have read in a long time. That's because instead of simply looking at the region, like most authors do, Oppenheimer compares Latin America's development with that of Asia, Eastern Europe and even Africa. I wish more authors would do this kind of comparative work, because it shows how Latin America, despite growing at 5 percent rates a year, is falling behind the rest of the developing world.And on top of it, it's a very entertaining book!



5. This book is a revolution in the making, a quo vidas, or 'E Tu Brute' to the Latin American states demanding, J'Accuse like, why they are failing and how they deserve to suceed on the world stage. Latin America is one of the great cultures of the world, with a diverse and brilliant history and yet, oddly, it is one a continent that is considered a sort of backyard, a place where nothing matter and little happens. Why is this? How can this be reversed. The only thing one hears about Latin America are complaints from tin pot dictators like Chavez when they show up at international gatherings and get in shouting matches with the United States or Spanish Royalty. But what of the great economies of Latin America, what of the potential it has to teach the world?
   
   A fascinating book that deserves to be read and re-read. A translation from the Spanish, it is a must buy.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman

No comments about Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness for Chemical, Biological and Radiological Terrorism and Other Hazards, 2nd Edition.