No comments about Peace, War, and Terrorism (A Longman Topics Reader) (Longman Topics Series).

4 comments about America's Achilles' Heel: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism and Covert Attack (BCSIA Studies in International Security).

1. I picked up this book as a research tool for a paper. Not only did I find the book to contain everything I needed, I became so enveloped in the reality of what I was reading that I couldn't put it down. A fan of Tom Clancy novels, this book describes the harsh reality that we live in, while detailing both the strengths and the weaknesses of the US response to bioterrorism. A must read for those with an interest in national security issues.



2. In a very good way, I got more than I bargained for by reading this book. While seeking a solid source to inform myself on the "nuts and bolts", policy implications, and development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), I continued to come across this title. Expect some dense and intense reading; there is not a wasted word here. The book focuses exclusively on the covert delivery of a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon against an American target, exploring possible methods, limitations, locales, preventive measures, and consequences. This book will considerably broaden the knowledge of any first-timer looking into WMD and likely provides substantive material for discussion among policy makers and experts in the field.



3. This is a comprehensive analysis of the threat without being alarmist.

   It is far too easy to find shocking explanations of the biological weapons potential that do not describe some of the difficulties in their procurement and delivery. This "sexy" approach captures our attention and makes for good entertainment, but the `Chicken Little' approach doesn't help us develop rational methods for dealing with the issue.

   Read this book if you want a levelheaded examination. It also contains a good description and solid recommendations for a national strategy.




4. I needed this book for a class I am taking, however, I would have read this book just for pleasure, I finished it before the class even started

No comments about Counterterrorism Law (Elective Series) (Elective Series).

5 comments about 1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI--the Untold Story.

1. 
   But I'm not defending him (Bush) at all because he was too busy reading a book about a goat to a bunch of schoolkids in his brothers state of Florida for his failed 'No Child Left Behind Act' - He (Bush) was in Texas as Governor signing the death certs for death row inmates like Karla Faye Tucker (and 168 others) and mocking her for 'pleading for her life' while most of this was going on.
   
   Clinton was in office then for 8 years doing deals like Whitewater.



2. This book was well researched, and very well written. After reading this book you will never trust the F.B.I. with our safety ever again. The absolute incompentance of that Federal office is mind boggling. So many chances where had to stop the 1st bombing of the trade center, and the ultimate, 9-11-01. To many critical
   intel was ignored, and so many lives paid for inter agency infighting, along with the Clinton administration of stonewalling the FBI CIA, from sharing intel on terrorist and so many other national security issues. Lets hope the Feds can get their act together in time to stop the next attack on our country. God Bless the USA.



3. This book confirms that no matter the organization--private business, non-profit, or government--what rises to the top is way too often not the cream of the crop, but those who can play politics, manipulate situations, and befriend more powerful superiors.
   
   The people involved that allowed this to happen should all be charged with negligence. Of course that will not happen. As much as I would LOVE to lay all the blame on the Clinton years, it is likely that he was not aware of what was going on because there are just too many layers of (mis)management involved for any useful information to rise to the top. Poor judgement after poor judgement is laid bare in this well researched book.
   
   And, to say that the Bush administration is at fault would be equally wrong. They were faced with the wrong information that had been cultivated for years by those who were supposed to be protecting us.
   
   One oversight in the book is where we could quite possibly place the true blame--Congress! Only a few of us ancient readers (nearly 60) may recall that the LIBERAL CONGRESS made it illegal after Watergate for the FBI and the CIA to share information. It was ILLEGAL for the CIA to pursue any leads that they might find overseas in the US.
   
   The irony that the liberal Democrat-controlled Congress of the '60's and '70's, which passed ever more intrusive legislation for citizens, made it impossible for our intelligence community (oxymoron??) to find the truth is palpable.
   
   Of course after 9/11 those same self-rightous liberals were incensed that the Bush presidency "let" this happen. One can only wish that they eventually look in the mirror and recognize where the blame belongs--but I won't hold my breath waiting.



4. Peter Lance writes well, but does his homework thoroughly. The egotistical and vane behavior is quite disturbing, but more disturbing is the general ignorance of Peter's fine work in this as well as his other books. Surely it does point toward some, but I don't believe that was Peter's intention. The facts themselves speak rather well.



5. Peter Lance has done some of the best investigative journalism I've ever read in this book.
   
   1000 Years for Revenge goes further back in time than the 9/11 Commission did to get to the heart of the 9/11 plot.
   
   Important questions and aspects of the lead up to 9/11 are examined in this book with plenty of interviews, testimony, and documents to back it up.

5 comments about Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq.

1. Hanson's Between War and Peace is a collection of essays written between 2002 and 2003 about 9/11, the Afghanistan campaign, and the Iraq campaign. Most of these essays were written for the National Review Online and are now reprinted here in book form. These are excellent essays, carefully crafted, wonderfully written, logical, opinionated, often profound. The terrorist assault of 9/11 changed our world, and Hanson well understands this. He correctly rips apart the shallow, biased reasoning of the old world order, of the elitist media, of the boutique commentators and of the shrill leftist professors. Hanson looks fresh at basic, critical strategies and tactics. He calls for radical repositioning for America, but supports his arguments with carefully construed facts. His is a conservative view, but with no apologies. This is a must read.



2. I think I'm gettting to the saturation point with Victor Davis Hanson. He's intelligent, and he makes his points well with regards to the war and those who oppose it, but he's somewhat more argumentative than seems reasonable, at times, and his predictions aren't always on the mark. In this series of essays, written in the lead-up to and the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq a few years ago. The essays this time are more straightforward than in An Autumn of War, where some of them were somewhat more humorous or at least oblique than here: these are rather confrontational editorials insisting that President Bush is doing right in attacking Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power.
   
   Like most essay collections, this one has weaknesses. In Hanson's case, the largest problem is that he tends to repeat his arguments here, because many of the editorials are making the same points over and over again. After a while the repetition gets to be a bit tiring. While sometimes the points themselves make some sense, it's a bit jarring to read something at this point repeatedly stating confidently that Weapons of Mass Destruction will certainly be found in Iraq. I would imagine that opponents of President Bush (and Hanson) will focus on this and insist that it makes his arguments that much weaker.
   
   I enjoyed this book at some level, but at times it took a while to get through the various editorials. Recommended for those interested in the subject.



3. This is a strange, but ultimately good, book in two ways: First it is not so much a single book but a collection of essays arranged into topics and then arranged chronologically within each topic, and second it is a work of modern history and thus lacks the 20/20 vision of hindsight. This second quality however is what makes it so interesting, especially the further we get away from the time when each essay was written.
   
   Hanson is a classics scholar and an outstandingly good military historian who views the world through a Thucydidean paradigm, namely, human nature is the same throughout all time and anything we're experiencing has basically been seen before in the history of warfare. This gives him a perspective unique from most of the scholars and pundits we see or hear on TV, as he makes frequent and salient comparison with modern events to similar events in ancient Greece.
   
   The main argument of this book is that America and the West are not at fault for Arab and Islamic terrorism -their own internal forces cause terrorism-, that we must fight terrorism with resolve, and that we may only be victorious if we belive in our cause, and may only be defeated if we doubt ourselves. Unfortunately he showcases just how much Westerners, particularly the Left, do doubt oursevles and our civilization, and how this makes us vulnerable to the tactics of the terrorists.
   
   Hanson tackles a lot of issues with a harsh clarity of thought and unapologetic conclusions, including: Anti-Americanism, Who are friends really are and who are enemies really are and why we don't treat them as such, The amount of duplicity and irrelevant -if not dangerous- ritual and senseless tradition in how we conduct our foreign policy and how we should do it differently, the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and similar such topics. He has some very interesting prescriptions for reshaping the American military and re-directing our foreign policy. Yet even should we follow his suggestions it seems implicit that so long as there is so much self-loathing and reluctance for the West to act in any manner the Left sees as slightly objectionable we are still doomed to never truly defeating terrorism, since defeat and victory are more intangible mental states than tangible physical realities.
   
   Being a work of modern history however the book is replete with predictions that have failed to come true (as well as many that have), showing the difficulty of making sense of a situation in real-time, the effects a paradigm have on what you believe the situation is and what will happen, and the limits of a thorough knowledge of history. In the end you have to act however, in spite of the knowledge that you don't know what the consequences of your actions will be. Hanson is a historian unafraid to make decisions about what should be done, and by publishing his essays in a book format like this he shows he is also unafraid of exposing when events ultimately prove him wrong. An admirable trait in a world so enamored with self-image, delaying any decision or action with the blanket excuse of trying to add nuance, and rationalizing away any dirty laundry.



4. I define a barbarian as one who believes war is the answer and war is the solution. Individuals like V.H.D. are nothing more than intelectual, university insulated, souless cheer-leaders for war. This book is simply a Ra! Ra! for war. Victor loves war, this war, past war, any war America has ever or will ever be in (except humanitarian uses of the military, those he staunchly opposes). If you like the Iraq war, support the Iraq war, then you will love V.H.D., in short, you are a barbarian.



5. It's odd that a compilation of essays written 4-5 years ago can still be so relevant with such powerful meaning. Enter VDH, and perhaps as a surprise to Eurabia and the American Left, enter the post 9-11 world.
   
   Logical to the extreme, incredibly worded, accurate and essential, "Between War & Peace" should be required reading for every American college student----so don't hold your breath as the lefty fascists of academia will never allow such.
   
   The negative reviewers, as always, like Josh, didn't read the book. Thus, like typical ignorant hatemongers, they have no clue and spew nonsense. We need MANY more folks like VDH, especially in academia. Military History, instead as part of a Cultural Marxist plan, is being phased out of colleges. Typical.
   
   War is hell. Despite what the idiots on the left say, no one inherently likes war, but they are often necessary and keep pompous fools like Joshy safe and sound to live the wonderful, fre life America provides. Maybe someday they'll understand. Doubtful, though. Global Warming is more of his kind of faux battle.

2 comments about Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons (BCSIA Studies in International Security).

1. Tucker's collection brings together analyses of all known historical usages of chemical and biological weapons (including toxins) by terrorists, as well as debunkings of three popular but apocryphal stories of such use. The book is absurdly thorough, and an invaluable historical resource, whether one agrees or not with the conclusions the editor draws from the collection.



2. Tucker's collection of case studies involving the use or attempted use of chemical or biological weapons is truly excellent. It not only gives in-depth histories for each of the cases, but it also presents an analytical approach to their interpretation. The book is concluded by comparing all of the case studies in order to determine potential patterns and characteristics that would be useful in identifying potential terrorists and thwarting their efforts before they could come to fruition. Each case profiles the people that are involved, including the personalities of leaders, technicians, and of the actual cadres. It evaluates where and why successes occurred, and also where failures prevented perfect execution. From this book you will learn what certain groups have targeted, what as led them to violence, and how they attempted to use CBW. The book also examines a few cases where it has been believed that CBW was used, but the evidence has indicated otherwise. This book is perfect for people who desire to study terrorism in-depth, and for the reader who would like to be informed of many cases of terrorism throughout the 20th century.

No comments about Art That Kills: A Panoramic Portrait of Aesthetic Terrorism 1984-2001.

No comments about Media, Terrorism, and Theory: A Reader (Critical Media Studies).

1 comments about Losing Hearts and Minds?: Public Diplomacy and Strategic Influence in the Age of Terror.

1. Carnes Lord, a professor at the Navy War College, takes on the question of how to win the "hearts and minds" in, just as Foreign Affairs wrote in their review of the book, a controversial manner. A look at the table of contents, one finds he is taking a rather in-depth look, with chapter titles ranging from Strategic Influence and Soft Power, Public Diplomacy and Psychological-Political Warfare, Problems of Organization, and, Defense Department: Into the Act?. Lord sets out to look at bureaucratic obstacles, friction from domestic politics, and the impact of media.
   
   From the start, I found myself in agreement with "controversial" label from Walter Russell Mead's review in Foreign Affairs, but I don't know if our independent assessment was for the same reason(s). I had trouble with Lord's definition, arguments and positions.
   
   To start, I disagree with his confinement of public diplomacy to essentially be positive propaganda. Public diplomacy to Lord is not about tangible programs but radio, TV, and print. In effect, as he apparently sees it public diplomacy is primarily about media diplomacy.
   
   The essential thrust of Lord's vision of public diplomacy that comes out is an emphasis on talking with virtually no listening. There is some tangential mention of bilateral communication (not in so many words), but overall all the "three broad missions" of public diplomacy, as he sees them -- information, political action, and education and culture -- emphasize talk (not withstanding his comment on the need to "educate the world about the nature of American conservatism"). At times, this rather narrow definition is at odds with Lord's own recommendations and comments throughout the book.
   
   Lord does do well by bringing in the Defense Department into the discussion and informs the reader of contemporary applications of "strategic influence". But his emphasis on the future role of the Department of Defense in public diplomacy is not because of institutional barriers in the Department of State (the oft-cited reason elsewhere), but because "public diplomacy", in his narrow construction is best kept with traditional diplomacy, although he does suggest there might be a place for "defense public diplomacy".
   
   Lord's discussion of three possible models of how to institutionalize the reconstituted USIA and other public diplomacy / strategic influence capabilities is interesting. From the "Czar" model to the "Counselor" and ultimately to his "US Trade Representative" model, his strength in understanding how bureaucracy works comes through.
   
   The book was interesting and included some history to add context (although that too was sometimes incomplete), but there was a political undercurrent that undermined any objective goals of the book. I also found the book self-limiting in defining a narrow audience of public diplomacy and in over generalizing the enemy, both to the detriment of his argument.
   
   There is a disconnect between this book and fundamental concepts of counterinsurgency, for example, what it takes or even what it means to win hearts and minds, and even the fundamental concepts of public diplomacy or strategic influence, throughout the examples and discussions in the book. If read in conjunction with literature on the subject or knowledge on public diplomacy, this book may serve as a useful counterpoint. But absent that, this book becomes a text on propaganda (in the non-pejorative sense) tools and simplified tactics of countering misinformation. One last note, I did enjoy Lord's comment that most public diplomats are liberals, like most American journalists. A sentiment that is reflected in his concerns over current public diplomacy.

5 comments about A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies.

1. The cover of the hardbook advertises "9/11, Iraq, and the abuse of America's intelligence agencies" yet a lot of the book feels like a history lesson. The author has a tendency to provide extensive backgrounds and histories for each and every person, organization, and agency involved in his book. It becomes rather tedious after the first couple of chapters. I can't swear to it but portions of this book appeared in Mr. Bamford's other books. The chapters and sections that mention the NSA are an example.
   
   Overall, I am disappointed with the book and probably will skim the remainder of it.



2. It seems to me that Hans Blix and Muhammed al-Baradei correctly reported to us the likely state of Iraq's strategic weaponry and warned us against a preemptive war. The republicans are also using an incorrect definition of weapons of mass distruction. The correct definition of weapons of mass distruction only counts as WMDs those weapons which have at least the potential of killing millions of people. Using this correct definition most chemical weapons and some biologicals are NOT WMDs.
   I would also point out that the american attempt to produce a "shock and awe" effect was THEIR use of a terror tactic.



3. One has to wade through quite a maze of disinformation in order to arrive anything of real value in this palimpsest. But, for those with extraordinary patience, there is some small modicum of value.
   
   Bamford bores the reader at first with a very detailed, and absurd, recapitulation of the government's ridiculous tale relative to the "911" disaters, complete with impossible "cell" phone calls from high up in the atmosphere and implausible reactions on the part of government agencies that simply failed to act. Most of this seems to be intended to portray George Walker Bush as the bumbling fool that he is. We didn't need all this evidence, Mr. Bamford. That case has already been well made.
   
   Finally, near the end, Bamford gets to the thesis: that the "911" disaster was nothing more than a pretext for the Iraq War. One wonders why the reader was taken on such a convoluted path to arrive at such an obvious conclusion. More than anything else, this book appears to be a partisan attack on the absurdity of the Bush administration and its foreign policy. A more factual account would have been more efficacious. We cannot, in good conscience, recommend this book.



4. a MUST READ for every American...chronological facts laid out for you so that you can't ignore!



5. James Bamford only writes a book every so often, when he feels like he has information so important that the nation needs to know it. Thankfully so. This book is no exception. However, consider skipping Part I, which consists of the first four chapters (This is just a repeat of the party line myths about the way 19 cavemen, under the command of a guy in a cave half-way around the world, were able to do miraculous things and wreak massive destruction).
   
   Then, we get to the meat, in Part II where Bamford finally begins telling us what we need to know. Here, he writes about the largest terrorist training camp in the world, located on 1,200 acres in North Carolina, USA, ran by the US military. Bamford writes that the training here involves blowing up busses using fertilizer and fuel oil (yes, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was educated in North Carolina). Coupled with the revelations of Part III of the book, where Bamford talks about the Office of Special Plans set up by the neocons to deceive the masses, any critical thinker can figure out what really took place on 9/11.