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 Special Operations and Strategy: From World War II to the War on Terrorism (Cass Series: Strategy and History).

3 comments about This Connection of Everyone with Lungs: Poems (New California Poetry).

1. We can get a sense of the grand, encompassing scope of this book from its title alone, a phrase drawn from the opening poem: "Poem Written After September 11, 2001." This poem's central task is to articulate the model of radical interconnectedness upon which the rest of the book depends. Over its eight pages it performs this task through what essentially amounts to a slow zoom-out, from the microscopic level ("cells, the movement of cells and the division of cells") all the way out to global scope ("the space of the cities and the space of the regions and the space of the nations and the space of the continents and islands"). To call oneself a "global citizen" is slightly pollyanna-ish, but this poem still functions as a lovely vision: the way it is made elegiac by its positioning as a "post-9/11" poem feels slightly predictable, but that makes the elegy no less real. One of the more "important" poems in recent memory (let's set aside, for now, the question of whether poetry should aspire to importance).
   
   More interesting and important still is the book's remainder, a single long poem (broken into discrete chunks), entitled "Poem Written From November 30, 2002, to March 27, 2003." I think this poem is more interesting because it's doing the thornier work of dealing with the consequences of the first poem: if "everyone with lungs" is connected in a "lovely [and] doomed" global matrix, then what does this mean? If we can successfully expand our consciousness to the point where it encompasses the whole earth as a system, then what does it mean when part of that system (including but not limited to "our part") is attempting to kill another part of that system (including but not limited to "their part")? Is it possible to love humanity in an all-encompassing way when some of the humans that we're connected to behave murderously? Is a person killed in the Burij refugee camps important? What about someone killed in the Monoko-Zohi civil war? What about Justin Timberlake? How important is the weather? If you can make your own bed a place of "connected loving" and "pleasure" and "agency," what relevance does this have to the rest of the world, if any? How can you consider these questions seriously in a world at war without going insane or succumbing to crippling grief?
   
   I don't think that the book answers these questions, but I think they're the right ones to be asking, and any book that represents a sustained attempt to address them (lyrically no less!) gets my recommendation.



2. You thought this was err.
   You thought err, and that was err.
   There is no err anywhere.
   There nears err, but it is there.
   Like air. Prefer air like a sea otter confused as we are, my preciouses.
   Precious is was Precious does, and Precious is bare, with air in her hair
   and an heir in her snare.
   
   For we are confused as we are. Read and be confusedednesses.
   For the meaning of meaning is meaning and meaning combined with
   air and the hair of someone we remember, recall, call later when we've run
   across err and need console gaming.
   
   Oh, game show host's false smiles smiles back to me,
   back to me and my poetry's poetry back in the back where
   I eat a snackpack.
   
   For we are fullness of bologna and tasteless cheese.
   Tasteless.
   Bologna.
   Cheese.
   Cheese and bologna and bologna cheese taste tasteless fullness.



3. I read this book for my Writers on Writing Class, and the author paid the class a visit to discuss the book. Here is my response:
   
   Juliana Spahr compiled poetry for her collection, this connection of everyone with lungs that is part creative non-fiction and part political statement. Not including repetition, the poetry follows no form or scheme (except for line breaks/double spacing here and there) and the collection literally consists of two poems. The first, "Poem Written After September 11, 2001," is a single piece that spans eight pages. The second, "Poem Written from November 30, 2002, to March 27, 2003," spans 61 pages, but is broken up chronologically by date fifteen times. This unusual format speaks of a postmodernist approach to poetry, one that Spahr herself admits to not fully understanding. But she says, "it was the way it had to be written."
   The poems in the book read less like poetry and more like a diary, or rather like an intimate conversation. This comes from the conversational, albeit unhappy, tone and the use of addressing the reader as "beloved," The conversation topic couldn't be clearer: 9/11 has emotionally shaken up Spahr, and she's against the war. This seems fair enough; this is her book and her poetry, thus she can talk about whatever she feels like. However, the constant reiteration of her position on past- and present-day politics becomes tiring. Spahr told the class, "I sometimes feel like a hammer, because I feel like I'm always hammering in my point." And in this book, she has done just that. Her repetition of words, and constant list-making, such as the list of major cities in various countries on page 54 which felt exhausting and unnecessary, seemed to be more distracting than powerful. For example, one couldn't help but anticipate the upcoming word or phrase ("I speak for..." or "...exists"), and ignore the accompanying sentences.
   And yet another distraction was her use of pop-culture references. It appeared to make a point in the beginning: the American people were more aware of Snoop Dogg's affairs than world affairs. But as the "time" went on, and more pop-culture references thrown in, it was even more distracting, as it caused my mind to start thinking about the famous actor that was jus mentioned.
   However, the author does have many admirable qualities within her words. The strong, steady voice and tone within the poems, keen word choice and her ability to articulate pressing questions made reading enjoyable.
   In the end, this connection of everyone with lungs was an ambitious and noble project. Spahr attempts to put words to an unthinkable tragedy and controversial conflict. However, it seems almost inappropriate to read these poems if you are not a left-wing political affiliate. Her viewpoint on the war is made so abundantly clear that it becomes a hindrance to the beauty of her writing. I find that she was at her strongest when she was posing questions and observations about all people and human beings, of course, "everyone with lungs." It was when she made connections between people, and the simple beauty in things like love, is when she truly had my attention. Alas, with her many disheartening facts thrown in, and strong political views masquerading as poetic voice, she lost a potential fan.

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

1. 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.



2. 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.



3. 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.



4. 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.



5. A series of articles written in the early `00s, one might be tempted to think the pieces in BETWEEN WAR AND PEACE have been rendered outdated by subsequent events in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would, however, be reading the book too narrowly. Victor Davis Hanson, whatever you may think of his policy suggestions, is a well respected military historian who has taught at some of the U.S.' premiere universities, including the Naval Academy. Although the essays relate to this nation's present struggles, it approaches those struggles from the perspective of a long, long history. That is what makes the book worthwhile.
   
   Yes, reading these essays today, it is easy to nitpick where VDH got it wrong. Like many commentators, he was right about the facility with which the American military took out Saddam Hussein, but missed the mark as to the difficult nature of the Islamic insurgency attempting to thwart the establishment of democratic values. And he seemed to underestimate just how far into the national psyche the raw sewage of pessimistic anti-Americanism, originating within the academy and broadcast to us via the media, would creep. I suppose some degree of realism prevents one from really recognizing, not how badly the elites want America to fail, but just how tenaciously they will try to achieve that failure through the fomentation of cultural and political decay.
   
   Yet for the misses, there are more hits, broader in scope and of more lasting importance. VDH's analysis of European anti-Americanism and hypocrisy produces those `a-ha' moments, in which someone else puts into words that which you kind of knew but could not really articulate. The U.S. does, in fact, need to seriously re-evaluate its relationship with a culturally decayed Europe, remove its military bases there, and establish closer ties to those nations whose values more closely parallel our own. "Polite friendship - but no alliances," is a solid guide for whatever administration is soon to be elected and VDH's projections of America's best path forward, making U.S. power more flexible, would likely make us both more effective in reaching our goals while also removing the excuses for the petty resentments that so many others around the globe feel towards us, often as a way to evade their own problems.
   
   VDH's take on the Middle East, and his moral support of Israel, is indeed a breath of fresh air compared to the nauseating anti-Semitism or, slightly more or less pathetic depending on one's perspective, the moral equivalency all to frequently heard from so-called intellectuals. The issues playing out in the Middle Eastern stage are the same ones Americans now face, they are just more easily recognizable due to the proximity of the actors.
   
   Again, VDH is a military historian of some note. That makes this book more than just a period piece. In fact, I found this book not in the current events section of the bookstore, but in the history section. There is a reason for that. VDH brings history to the present and applies it to modern day conflicts. That approach will make BETWEEN WAR AND PEACE valuable long after the current struggles are over and won.

5 comments about Terry Jones's War on the War on Terror: Observations and Denunciations by a Founding Member of Monty Python (Nation Books).

1. This is just what you'd expect from a member of the extraordinarily literate and politically aware Monty Python. Jones shows that the years have not dulled his wit, skewering Bush, Blair and their minions with a thousand razor-sharp barbs, and showing up many of their absurdities by extending them to everyday life. Whether he is debating killing his neighbors because he suspects that they are up to no good or "justifying" the chaining of his son to a radiator because, after all, his _intention_ was to obtain information, not to torture, he makes us unsure whether to laugh or groan at the fact that this _is_ the real world of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.
   
   Not all of these columns (which they were originally published as) are classics, but they are always informative and most of them take a different perspective on issues that are all too often portrayed by the mainstream media with a mind-numbing sameness. Since they were published at sometimes widely-spaced intervals and of necessity repeat a lot of information, I would recommend not reading the book straight through, but picking it up and reading a chapter or two at a time.
   
   Highly recommended chapters: 1) The Grammar of the War on Terror; 3) A Bag Over the Head is Worth Two for George W. Bush; 10) I'm Losing Patience With My Neighbors, Mr. Bush; 11) How To Bomb and Save Money; 20) If Fish Feel Pain...; 28) The War of Words in Iraq; and 32) It Really Isn't Torture.



2. 
   
   Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame, prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction, has written a very funny book on current affairs, composed of articles he wrote for the Guardian and the Observer from 2001 to 2004.
   
   He shows the real reason for the attack on Iraq quoting the Project for the New American Century's `Rebuilding America's Defenses 2000': "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
   
   The same report admits, "adversaries like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate." So they want nukes to deter American aggression - sounds reasonable.
   
   Terry is not very nice to Mr Bush. He cites an undersecretary in Bush's administration as saying, "George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the U.S. [That bit's right, anyway!] He was appointed by God."
   
   So was it God who wanted to take health insurance off four million Americans, and jobs off two million? Did God want to withdraw benefits from working families earning less than $35,000 a year, by cutting Medicaid, supplemental health insurance, nutrition assistance and welfare? CNN reports, "Half of all Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck - effectively one paycheck away from poverty." But then he (He?) balanced all this by generously awarding tax breaks worth $50,000 per person to America's richest one per cent.
   
   It's only fair that Bush's crony Blair gets some stick too. In `Grading Tony's latest essay', Terry writes, "Tony's uncritical acceptance of information supplied by the U.S. reveals a naivety that would be surprising in any sixth-form pupil, let alone one who has hopes of going on to university and then government, as I know Tony does." He ends, "To be quite candid, Mr. and Mrs. Blair, it's lucky that your son is not in a position of power; otherwise his lack of insight and his crass ignorance would place us all in appalling peril." Other classics include, `I'm losing patience with my neighbors, Mr. Bush' and `It really isn't torture'.



3. Ordinarily, I would not take the time to write a review, but if I could get my money and time back for having purchased and read this book, I would. I love Terry Jones' work, along with the rest of the Pythons, and I was excited when the book arrived. I expected something entertaining, and at least insightful, but what I got was one rant, retold a dozen slightly different ways. It's all based on one web site spelling out some possible right wing conspiracy, and the fact that one web site is cited again and again...and again makes me wonder what the publishers thought they had to work with? At the very least, *do not* pay full retail price for this turkey, buy it used or check it at the library.



4. Jones has the kind of cheek to make almost anything medieval seem fresh and exciting - however, for truly incisive, biting and dead-on accurate contemporary political and cultural commentary read Christopher Hitchens. If we could find a way to weaponize Hitchen's intellectual and verbal firepower within a missile system there would be no more to fear from Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, the Baathists, Syrian and Iranian insurgents, or any other group only too happy to strap bombs onto their children and send them into a crowd of civilians.
   
   Read Hitchens, period, literally for anything!



5. Jones also did a series of "documentaries" on the Barbarians aired (predictably) by the International History channel. He portrays Rome as a bunch of murderous thugs while the Barbarian tribes are portrayed as honorable, honest, highly cultivated philosophers, smart, sophisticated, high-tech people! With very little evidence (?), Jones builds a series of entertaining programs. Yet, the historical evidence he presents is so thin one wonders why real historians are not denouncing him. But if you watch his series very closely you'll understand: Jones is actually equating the US with the blood-thirsty Rome of his program. The other cultures, unfairly called Barbarians according to him, are all for "diversity" and "respect other cultures." Yup, Assyrians, Babylonians, Arabs, Goths, Visigoths, Gauls, Huns, Vandals, etc, were just too busy creating their wonderfully "civilized" nations to take care for defense... and the murderous Roman took advantage of these good-hearted intellectuals... Jeez, his trick is so transparent one wonders how long it will take until this clown is unmasked!

3 comments about Holy Terror.

1. Terry Eagleton has written an excellent, albeit dense, history of terrorism. Eagleton's argument is that terrorism is actually a modern method that has its roots in the French Revolution.
   
   Eagleton's work is both well reasoned and researched. If you want a good, solid general survey about terrorism history, then this is the book for you.



2. This is very much a philosophical reflection on the idea of terror, as it is on concepts such as life, death, love, desire, good and evil. Eagleton asks us to think critically about what these words imply, instead of accepting interpretations which we may have inherited.
   
   It is extremely theorectical, very much academic and written in a style can feel like the author is deliberately trying to exclude readers. It is full of specific literary references - most of the time it doesn't make a huge difference if you don't know the work in question,but other times it does. Eagleton slows down for nobody, nor is he one to offer explanations for certain things where they might be needed.
   
   This book is not about international relations, foreign policy or the differences between civilizations. It is a reflection, and as such it works very well indeed. Overall a commendable piece of work.



3. As early as the first page of this work Eagelton shows his political colors. He accuses the Pentagon and the United States of being guilty of terror in the same way as those Islamic groups which deliberately target civilians are. This is an irresponsible and mistaken claim.
   In fact Eagelton's method of mixing literary references with matter- of - fact happenings give a sense that he has no real experience , no true understanding of the subject. The gruesome cruel deliberate targeting of civilians for political purposes is not much illuminated by abstruse and complicated jargon- making.
   Terror's is not holy. It is Evil.

No comments about Risk Balance and Security.

4 comments about Unconquerable Nation: Knowing Our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves.

1. The author (Brian Jenkins) writes, not only with authority, (but then who doesn't these days?), but also in a way that makes this debacle and it's potential solutions, (and ongoing difficulties), crystal clear to even a neophyte.
   
   I've read other of his works and this is, easily, not only his best but one that can also be read and understood quite clearly though the reader may be neither in the terrorism industry, (and it is, so deal with that reality), nor particularly interested in this field beyond mere daily survival and continuing ability to go about one's business relatively undisturbed.
   
   The book deserves a wider audience if only for its thoroughness, readability and pinpoint clarity about what has become an ever too real part of our daily lives.
   
   I've never written a review before... this author is truly talented in his ability to create understanding and a sense of personal efficacy, rather than consternation, where once concern and mystification may have resided.
   
   Kudos.



2. Mr. Jenkins seems to be very well qualified to write about this subject, since the study of terrorism has been his career at the Rand Corporation for many years. I like that he doesn't appear to support either political party; there's no finger pointing. Yet, he clearly states and explains what a big mistake it was to take out Saddam Hussein. First he tells us what and who we should be fighting. Instead of just merely saying that these 'folks' are very evil and should be eradicated, he explains what motivates them. We learn that our enemy has been brainwashed to believe that God wants them to kill or at least create havoc for all infidels (the West, their sympathizers and other nonbelievers in their militant brand of Islam). Jenkins doesn't have an opinion about whether or not we should now leave Iraq. Fighting this enemy won't be over whether we quickly leave Iraq or annihilate the entire country of Iraq or something in between these two scenarios. That's because our enemy is all over the world and won't be deterred by anything we do just in Iraq. We need to change the murderous thinking of our enemy. Sort of doing some reverse brainwashing. We need to work on breaking down their recruiting machine while also trying to physically destroy them and their supporters wherever in the world we discover them. The author accepts that 'winning' this war will take many years. The author has many suggestions how to go about doing this. We need to fight this war from many different directions. In the mean time, we need to get used to occasional horrible events happening. He doesn't think that our enemy (the Jihadists as he calls them) will try anything too horrific on us. If they launch nuclear weapons on us, then they know that we would return the favor by wiping out entire regions of the world where they reside; which will be counterproductive even to our death loving Jihadists. I personally am not so sure of this. I believe that our world may not survive if our enemy gets too far along with their weaponry. Nonetheless, I think the author's book should especially be read by our current and would be future national leaders. Also, those that plan to vote in our next Presidential election, or others that want to actively, in any way they choose, help the non-Jihadists win this war, should read this book. Our nation's future existence, as we know it, might depend upon following the approaches suggested in this book to eventually defeat the Jihadists and their way of thinking.



3. Brian Michael Jenkins is perhaps the number one US expert on terrorism and thus writes with almost peerless authority. Those who have studied the terrorism literature will know that he was the one who coined the much quoted phrase "terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead" back in 1975 (he revised this opinion later).
   
   Jenkins is also a good writer. This book reads easily and shouldn't be too hard to get through or too boring for anyone, I imagine. I recommend Unconquerable Nation without reservations as perhaps the best summary of the threat from terrorism at the present date.



4. In a glutted marketplace, discerning readers will scrutinize each new book about terrorism by asking why this specific volume has been written and what unique contribution it makes, as stated by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Sadly, Jenkins's book fails to offer satisfactory answers to these questions. This is unfortunate because he is an experienced student of terrorism who over the years has made important contributions to the field.
   
   The first chapter sheds light on the volume's disjointed feel, explaining that the book is a collection of the briefings, memoranda, and essays that Jenkins, senior advisor to the president of the RAND Corporation, has written since 9-11. "Reviewing my own work," Jenkins states, "I find that certain basic themes recur." But the ten themes he lists are largely unrelated and do not comprise a coherent idea or theory.
   
   Jenkins does manage to organize the book loosely around the idea of how the United States can be an "unconquerable nation" in its battle against terrorism (the term is taken from a saying of Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who argued that "being unconquerable lies with yourself"). Jenkins' main prescriptions are inner resolve or "stoicism in the face of threats," preservation of such American values as the prohibition of torture, and smarter, more effective counterterrorism.
   
   Although Jenkins's argumentation is overly sparse (the reader is frequently forced to take his word on assertions that are made without supporting evidence), his writing is lucid, and he makes many intelligent points. One of his more interesting observations involves the current threat "feedback loop" wherein analysts trumpet America's vulnerabilities in testimony and reports, and in turn, terrorists--who "do not live on another planet"--incorporate these vulnerabilities into strategic discussions. "When our intelligence in turn learns what terrorists are talking about," Jenkins observes, "the feedback loop is completed, seeming to confirm our own worst fears."
   
   Other interesting passages include an analysis of President George W. Bush's failure to mobilize the American citizenry to play a role in homeland security after 9-11, a counter-intuitive defense of the pervasive official press conferences about possible terrorist threats, and an explanation of advantages that could be gained by persuading detainees to publicly turn against Al-Qaeda. Yet such smart arguments should have been presented in shorter form: The book's desultory feel will disappoint all but the most dedicated readers.

5 comments about Silent Death, Second Edition.

1. SILENT DEATH does have some interesting stuff in it, but there also parts that I found a bit ridiculous.
   The corrections to bad information in "The Poormans James Bond" are much appreciated, as are the little anecdotes that appear from time to time. However, some info is really off the wall. For example, one chapter includes instructions for delivering a poison from 1,000 feet above: Uncle Fester tells you that all you have to do is buy an issue of Popular Mechanics magazine, get the instructions for building a small airplane (using a VW Beetle engine), build it, join a club of pilots and learn how to fly the thing, find a location (not an airport) where you can take off and land without being noticed, build the little gas bomb, and drop it on your intended target! Why don't I just build a nuclear submarine while I'm at it?
   Then there is another poison that he states is "really terrific, one of my favorites and very easy to make with all the ingredients readily available...EXCEPT ONE". Well, if one ingredient is unavailable, what good does the rest of the info do me?
   There is also a short but interesting chapter on using hydrogen peroxide as a fire starter. Uncle Fester acknowledges that the drug store stuff is only 3% potent and you need more like 30% to do the job, but there is no info on how to distill it or whatever. Frustrating.
   Pick this book up if you find a used one at a low price. Don't pay $20 for it.



2. Got a pest problem? Call Uncle Fester! If you don't have this book, your library ain't complete!



3. On it's Revised and Expanded Second Edition, this most fascinating book tells it all. I'm a former special-operations officer with 16 years of service in my country's intelligence agency (something like a "mix" of CIA/FBI/Secret Service, now defunct), and I have done years of overseas "contractor" work... I've been in five major guerrilla wars (Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Lebanon), and alt. I had previous experience with all kinds of land-warfare weapons, I once or twice wish to have some nasty Chem-Bio weapon to get rid . Old warriors never die (they only go to Hell to regroup), and I even ask some "insiders" on contrating me to work in Iraq, earlier this year, as a "security advisor", but they find me too fat & unfit to be of use in there... a close friend, former Royal Marine and veteran of Northern Ireland and Malvinas/Falklands, who lived in another big town here, go there, and now is doing what he was trained for... and alt. in all wars we once fought we can get any ammount of firearms, ammo, support weapons, you name it, there was a lack of high-explosives to we "Soldiers-of-Fortune". If I had this amazing book with me on "my wars" back in the '80's, I could do things in a better, faster, more funny way, if you can get what I'm talking about. I do not love these terrible weapons the way I love conventional ones, but they are the most capable weapons ever and they are at anyone's reach - of course with some experience in this field. If you want real weapons, this is the book for you. This book tells the most secret knowledge in a way it CAN be put into practice. Let me mention one George Magazine article (that can be viewed at www.unclefesterbooks.com, where a Dr. Patrick was quoted as saying that the publication of this book may constitute a threat to national security... and I must say that, if at anytime you must face conventional forces and you are outnumbered & outgunned, with the knowledge you can get from this book, if you put it into practice, you can WIN. Guess where that nut Japanese fanaticals get the recipe for Sarin used in the Tokyo attacks... yes, you can bet... Uncle Fester knows what he writes about - and knows a LOT. Thank you for this amazing book, Dr. Gozilla, the Tokyo-buster, as your friends call you!!!



4. For mystery writers like me, this is a wonderful resource; full of information that you can't find anywhere else. Granted, it isn't intended to be used in the real world! I expect bits and pieces of what I learned to stain the pages of my next book.



5. An interesting read, but the availablity of his raw material is problematic. Carbon Tet these days requires EPA registration, and is for practical purposes unavailable. Metal (red) phosphorus is $1000 a gram and I could only find in 10g quantities.
   
   The end of the book on naturally occuring poisons is more practical to my view.

4 comments about Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism.

1. This book spews the progressive line that judges should make laws and run the country. By proposing that war powers be taken over by a group of congress and ruled over by judges, he proposes that we all give up our right to vote and express ourselves to an unelected and unfireable federal judge. More of the same "we know better than you" pablum spewed by the socialist/communist/nambla movement. What is even sadder is that he is a professor of law and influences young minds in this capacity. Save your money. Why pay to read "I am smart and you are not". If so bright why has he never been able to get a real job in the private sector without the cushion of tenure. Buy a latte instead, more satisfying.



2. This is a pretty good book for people concerned about possible deterioration of American civil liberties in the event of further successful 9/11-type attacks. It is almost impossible to amend the U.S. Constitution. So Ackerman proposes laws that could be enacted by Congress and states that would help do this. It should be read in conjunction with Richard Posner's Catastrophe, which makes a case for some curtailment of civil liberties, given the dangers of the age we live in.



3. Ackerman's argument is straightforward. Future large scale terrorist attacks are probably going to happen, but happen infrequently. The problem after an attack is the uncertainty about immediate follow-on attacks; if terrorists successfully planned and executed one attack, they may have more in progress. Ackerman fears that in the rush to prevent attacks the President and the administrative organs will accumulate too much power and destroy our liberty. Worse, Presidents will be tempted to claim the country is at war, giving them even more power.
   
   Ackerman advocates a temporary state of emergency which the president may declare of his own authority. The declaration would have a built-in sunset provision, with only congress capable of reauthorizing. Reauthorization would require an escalating supermajority; the longer the emergency persisted the smaller a minority of legislators needed to end it. The declaration would permit broad powers of arrest and detention after an attack. Such measures would presumably mitigate the risk of further attacks, as well as re-establish national sovereignty.
   
   The book is thought provoking and worth reading, but there are problems with Ackerman's ideas. He assumes that the most pressing need in the immediate aftermath of an attack will be to reassure the public that measures are being taken to prevent further attacks. Reassuring the public is a concern, but I think it overextends a factor unique to 9/11. The actual attacks on 9/11 and the time needed to restore order was short. Aside from those stuck because of the airspace shutdown, most people were back to normal within a few days. The system disruptions were minimal.
   
   Such a short event period is unlikely in future large scale terrorist attacks. Dirty or nuclear bombs, chemical or biological weapons will involve much greater disruptions for a longer period of time. The event will look more like Katrina then 9/11. Massive social breakdown, no police or fire services, looting, confusion over evacuation destinations and means of transportation, these problems will last for weeks if not months. Plus, any response will be hamstrung by the need to protect responders from the contaminant (radiation, virus, chemical residue on skin or clothing). So at the time Ackerman thinks feds will be rounding up thousands of suspected terrorists most national systems will likely be overwhelmed just coping the direct aftermath of the attack.
   
   An even bigger problem is with Ackerman's assumption that terrorist attacks will be infrequent. This implies that the administration is capable of effectively stopping most attacks. If it fails to do so, wouldn't that initiate further restrictions of liberty which Ackerman fears? Put another way, if terrorists successfully execute an attack under existing laws, it implies those laws are inadequate to prevent terrorism. Cheap information flow implies the holes or flaws in the law will be exploited with increasing frequency until they are closed, and they will be exploited again if the holes are allowed to reopen. Closing those holes necessarily entails restrictions of liberties we now enjoy. This dynamic is I think the core of the problem, not the short term emergency response but the long term incremental battle between terrorists and the law. The state of emergency concept is flawed because it assumes temporary measures can have long term preventative effects.
   
   In a sense this book was aimed too much at 9/11. That event featured an improbable combination of mass casualties through primarily conventional means, with no subsequent attacks for a period of several years. Future attacks are unlikely to follow this pattern. That said, it is a starting point for dealing with the reality that in the current system terrorism encourages a dictatorial presidency, and terrorism isn't going away. Framers of the Constitution sought systematic ways of preventing tyranny from taking root, but they did not envision mass casualty terrorism. We owe it to them and to our children to further their work.



4. As the author says, this is a downer of a book. It attempts to use the National Emergencies Act of 1976 along with other constitutional and legal features of the U.S. system to propose a three-stage model of declarations of temporary states of emergency. The writing is somewhat crisp and vernacular, as if the heavy law parts were simplified, although it has teeth in some parts without being legalistic. Readers expecting detailed legal analysis will be disappointed. It's written at a low level. The best parts are the last two chapters which apply the book's ideas to a devastating attack scenario on Washington D.C.