2 comments about Hold Everything Dear: Dispatches on Survival and Resistance.

1. I love reading John Berger. He is an original thinker.
   I don't always agree with his point of view but I love to read it.
   This book was very moving at times but also very enigmatic. I think
   that Mr. Berger is such a sensitive man that art criticism offers a safer space,
   than political discourse,to provide a more succinct point of view.
   I felt when reading his book the human tragedy that is going on
   now in the middle east is so hard to believe even when one is a witness to it.



2. One of the wisest voices of our time, John Berger, has pieced together 17 thoughts or, 'dispatches'(with its military connotations) about the post 9/11 environment which we now, all share. For most of his long life, Berger has sided with the powerless and dispossessed, even taking the step of quitting a high profile career in London, where he seemed to be at the cutting edge of art criticism with his ground-breaking,'Ways of Seeing' made for BBC T.V and never out of print in book form.He relocated in a peasant village in rural France, to immerse himself in what would form the subject of some of his most compelling writing.There has been no diminishing of power in his thought or eloquence as he gains his senior years. The Palestine issue, in particular, gets coverage. And he returne to the pitiless paintings of Francis Bacon for what I suspect will be his final published view of him. And there is a re-contexturalising of the great Piero Pasolini; Berger having just watched his 'La Rabbia'(how and where can I ever get to see this?). I guess, I wish the collection had more in it. But what is there is potent, direct and as usual, poetic. Which leads me to its title; not one of John's pieces, but the publication in its opening pages of a very beautiful poem by one, Gareth Evans. Have a squizz!

5 comments about The Terrorist (Point).

1. Laura Williams and her parents and little brother Billy are Americans who have recently moved to London. Laura and Billy go to a school with students from all over the world--it is an elite private international school. They imagine they are safe. They have no concern for any danger and pay little attention to the problems in the rest of the world.
   
   One morning on the subway on the way to school, a man hands Billy a package and says that one of his friends dropped it. Billy takes the package and exits the train. Moments later, the package blows up and Billy is killed.
   
   No one knows who gave Billy the bomb, or for what reason. Laura immediately becomes interested in world affairs and begins to suspect all of her classmates, each from a different, and sometimes volatile, country, of being terrorists. She scrutinizes them and questions them and tries to find some sort of meaning for the death of her little brother. Then she sees a way in which she can use his death to help one of her classmates. Should she do it? Is it what Billy would have wanted?
   
   I liked the intrigue of this book, and Laura's desperate attempt to make sense of her brother's tragic death. I didn't like that the other characters were unable or unwilling to put things together and help Laura in her investigation. I also hoped that there would be more resolution at the end of the story.



2. I recommend this book for grades 5-7. I rated this book a 2 because I thought it wasn't as exiting as I thought it would be. The book The Terrorist is a mystery book its about a young girl named Laura Williams. Her family had just moved to England for her father's job. She has a brother named Billy Williams he was a paperboy.
   One day he toke the subway and a terrorist had killed him the terrorist put a package in the subway. She is now committed herself to now find every little detail about the terrorists. Laura will not give up finding the person responsible for her brother's murder. Caroline B. Cooney is a good writer but this book is all that great. Most of her books are mystery books but this one I didn't like that's why I rated it a two. I don't understand why Laura would think everyone around her is a suspect in Billy's murder she even quizzes her friends and her family. The only thing I liked about Laura is that she never gave up she kept on looking for the killer. Over all I thought the book was for kids under High School, more like for upper grade Elementary kids and Middle School kids.



3. I recommend this book for grades 5-7. I rated this book a 2 because I thought it wasn't as exiting as I thought it would be. The book The Terrorist is a mystery book its about a young girl named Laura Williams. Her family had just moved to England for her father's job. She has a brother named Billy Williams he was a paperboy.
   One day he toke the subway and a terrorist had killed him the terrorist put a package in the subway. She is now committed herself to now find every little detail about the terrorists. Laura will not give up finding the person responsible for her brother's murder. Caroline B. Cooney is a good writer but this book is all that great. Most of her books are mystery books but this one I didn't like that's why I rated it a two. I don't understand why Laura would think everyone around her is a suspect in Billy's murder she even quizzes her friends and her family. The only thing I liked about Laura is that she never gave up she kept on looking for the killer. Over all I thought the book was for kids under High School, more like for upper grade Elementary kids and Middle School kids.



4. In my pursuit of reading the 100 most-challenged books of the period of 1990-2000, I recently picked up "The Terrorist," ranked at #99. It is interesting to me that this book was on the list, as it was written and challenged pre-September 11th and, beyond being built on the disturbing premise of an innocent child killed by a terrorist act, there is really nothing I know of in the novel that I would find objectionable.
   
   Caroline B. Cooney, of "The Face on the Milk Carton" fame, is a very good young adult writer. I remember reading the aforementioned book and its sequel and loving it when I was in junior high/first year or so of high school, and thinking it was good writing. Perhaps it is because I read this book as a 26-year-old, but the writing does not seem to be very good. The story is quite compelling, but the delivery of it falls flat. The climax and denouement seem incredibly rushed.
   
   Cooney very capably tells the story of Laura, a sixteen-year-old American whose family has relocated to London, England, after her father's job transferred him from Boston. When Laura's younger brother, Billy, is killed by a terrorist bomb in London's Underground, she turns her attention to attempting to find Billy's killer, thus, simultaneously, finding some meaning in Billy's seemingly senseless death.
   
   Cooney does a great job of describing Laura's growing feelings of paranoia, and the story of her suspicious eye turning to even her closest friends of Middle Eastern descent seems more timely than ever. However, Cooney seems to want to delve into Laura's parents' reactions to their only son's death, but then pulls back, leaving things quite up in the air. No explanation satisfies the reader, which seems to go along with Cooney's strange and short Epilogue with a too-happy ending. Perhaps, though, that was Cooney's intent: leaving us feeling unsettled and without a good explanation for terrorism seems to be all too real.
   
   In today's world, there's really no good reason that this book should not be read by children as soon as they are able to read it. It could spark great discussions about the results of terrorism, especially in terms of rampant suspicion. Ruling: challenges to this book are completely unjustified.



5. All in all I think the book The Terrorist was a good book for just about any age group 6th grade and up, that is definitely worth reading. It really raised my awareness of terrorism in the real world, making it more than just an idea in the back of my mind about something happening on the other side of the world.
   This fictional book took place in European London in the late 1900s and was about a teenage girl named Laura whose family had just moved to London from America because of her dad's job. Soon after the move, Laura's young and energetic brother, Billy, got blown into pieces by a terrorist's bomb. After being handed a package from a stranger in the Underground, Billy realizes the package must be a bomb and therefore wraps his body around it to shield the crowd around him, instead of throwing it into the crowd and saving himself. After this event, Laura focuses all of her sadness into an obsession of finding her brother's killer, thinking of everyone around her as a suspect, even her closest friends.
   Caroline Cooney did a great job with the beginning of the book and creating enough suspense and mystery to catch the reader and cause him/her to not put the book down. She also explained Laura's character and her obsession of finding Billy's killer amazingly well and did a great job of putting you in Laura's shoes. Though the beginning of The Terrorist is great, the story really slows down in the middle and gets pretty depressing after the pages and pages of Laura and her family mourning Billy's death and of Laura risking all of her friendships to try and find Billy's killer. Once you get past this point, the story picks up again and speeds toward a very thrilling and surprising climax. Caroline also ingeniously leaves you hanging at the end of the book. This really caused me to think over the book and the meaning of the last few chapters.
   I personally am not a very big fan of mystery books and even I greatly enjoyed this book so, though I would recommend this book to just about anyone, I would say that anyone who particularly enjoys mystery books should definitely go to their local library and pick up this book for a good read.

5 comments about Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.

1. This book first came out in the mid-1990s. If only the U.S. government had listened to the Israelis and the author, who increasingly had warned the U.S., or tried to, of the growing jihadist threat, not just around the world, but also inside the U.S (the Israelis had known of Islamic terrorists in places like Oklahoma city, etc. in the 1990s). At one point in this book, the author states that the threat is growing and "it is only a matter of time before they strike the United States, from within". Very true, unfortunately. This book costs less than $ 20, and yet, the CIA could have learned more from it than the billions they spend every year "monitoring" terrorists.
   
   I think the author also does a good job in explaining that it is not Islam per se that is the enemy, but the jihadists (Wahhabis, etc.). He also is able to put himself into the shoes of the Arabs and see how they view the world, which of course is very helpful. He does this from a position not of hatred or conflict, but just from a position of knowledge, and wanting to know.



2. Bibi, gives a sober assesment of the situation of Israel and the surrounding area.
   He starts with a review of the history of the founding of his country going back to the 19th Century.
   His writng style is fresh and clear with a superb command of English. He is a graduate of MIT so his use of our language makes easy reading.
   Although the book was written several years ago, the information is as current as today's news.



3. Interesting how Netanyahu already had "terrorism" on his mind even before his Zionist buddies from the PNAC think tank were writing that the militaristic foreign policy they wanted to pursue in the Middle East would not be possible without "a catalyzing event like a new pearl harbor.) Man did that prediction come true! What insight these Zionist warmongers have! Oh and don't worry about the 5 Mossad operatives who were caught high-fiving each other while filming 9/11 as it happened who were dressed as Arabs, failed a lie detector & whose van tested positive for bombs. And nevermind the fact that Netanyahu said that it would be "very good for Israel" immediately after 9/11. (This is sarcasm, you should be concerned about this and look into all of it and more.) The towers were brought down with explosives. Read this book only to know your enemy, these guys had a plan for us and we're in the midst of it today. It's leading us to destruction and the victimization needs to end. Our government listed to Netanyahu & his friends alright, in fact they listened all too well.



4. Another piece of trash, good to line bird cages with. What about the terrorism practised against the Palestinian people? I call that ethnic cleansing. Do not waste your money.



5. This book was first published in 1995. If we had implemented the hard learned lessons in this book then, thousands of Americans would be alive today. However, the lessons are timeless thus making it never too late to learn.

4 comments about Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.

1. Another fine book by a former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. This Egyptian author memorized the Muslim's holy book: the Koran/Quran in Arabic, but later questioned Islam's validity and converted to Christianity. Thus, the author brings that rare insight of a former Muslim believer in explaining the little-understood underpinnings of Islamic beliefs. Rather than exploring the what, where, when and how of Islamic suicide-bent terrorists, the author details what is behind the "why" of their Islamikaze justifications that they have found in their Muslim beliefs. The author either translates or researches translations of the speeches or documents of the Al-Quida leaders and explains their relevance in noting how the Islamic terrorists trace their theological and political concepts to Mohammad and the Quran. Following are some of this book's topics: The Constitution of Al-Jihad; Inner conflict; Hasan al-Banna spreads the Great Awakening; the relationship between Qutb and Mawdudi; Dr. Salah Sariah: Proving Apostasy; Shokri Mustafa: Separation from infidels; Bin Laden: Finding jihad in Afghanistan; Al-Zawahiri: Al-Qaeda's key recruiter; 1998 Fatwa against Jews and Crusaders; Bin Laden's Letter to America--2002; Justifying Unintended victims of suicide bombings; What binds radical groups together; The Five Pillars of Radical Islamic Philosophy: (1) No law but Islamic law, (2) Infidels are all around, (3) Islam must rule, (4) Jihad is the only way to win, (5) Faith is the Reason; Deception: An art of war practiced by radicals; Al-Zawahiri's teachings on deceit; Muhammad: Uncensored (a) cooperation and tolerance, (b) the book of jihad, (c) the next stage; The unrelenting bloodbath: (details the warfare between various Muslim sects -- the Umayyads v. the Abbasids); the importance of the Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah (how he is the link between Muhammad and today's Islamikazes); the relevance of the militant booklet 'River of Memories'; and how the 'Silent Muslim Majority' opposes the Islamic militants -- at least in not flocking to them. The author explores the Muslim mind in explaining how today's Islamikaze's justify their terrorist attacks based upon the military campaigns of Mohammad against the Jewish and Christian 'unbelievers.' The author notes how Islamikazes today look to Ibn Taymiyyah's (c. 1300 A.D.) writings and "conclude that if a government refuses any part of Islamic law, then that government has chosen to follow man instead of Allah. Therefore, whether that government claims to be Muslim or not, it must be fought" (p.147). The author claims that Ibn Taymiyyah's philosophy of Islam was used by Sayyid Qutb's Egyptian Brotherhood to justify its assassination of President Anwar Sadat and used by Osama bin Laden (c.1990-2006 A.D.) to justify his attacks against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, the United States, as well as the 'Crusader' attempts in Iraq to establish democracy there. The author argues that hard-core Muslims fear the 'democracy of the secularists' -- as the public might not really be all that enamored with the painful punishments for sinful crimes that are mandated in the Quran. The author does a fine job in tracing the linkage of the theological history of the Islamikazes from Mohammad, to Ibn Taymiyyah, to the Egyptian Brotherhood and finally to those following the Quran's "straight path" as traveled by bin Laden and his cohorts: Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu M. al-Zarqawi. Liberal and moderate Muslims won't like this book as the author illuminates how the Quran begat today's Islamikazes, which is why fundamentalist Muslims should like this book as it propagates their militant strategy. (Okay, one critique: the author could have used more footnotes to his hadith quotations.)



2. Since 9/11 we in the United States and the West have come full circle. For years we looked at events in the Middle East as just something happening "over there" but now we know that Islamic terrorist want nothing more than the entire world to be under the control of an Islamic government. Dr. Mark Gabriel's book solidifies that point.
   
   In this work Gabriel does a good job of presenting what it is that Islamic terrorist really want. It has nothing to do with money, or with Iraq, Iran, or even with the United States itself but with Islam. Gabriel, a former Muslim cleric, knows from his own first hand experience what goes on in the minds of sincere Muslims who desire to obey the Qu'ran and live their lives after "the Prophet."
   
   The book does a good job of presenting facts from the writings of Muslim clerics and radicals themselves as well as from the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. He also presents biblical teachings against Islam.
   
   Overall this is a solid work. For Christians desiring to know more about Islam see his other works. For better understanding of what Islamic terrorist think and why they do what they do, read this book.



3. This is an insider's look into the Muslim world. I don't think he bashes the Muslim faith, but it does provide an understanding of their teaching, faith, rules, goals, and beliefs.
   It was nice to read something that was not second hand knowledge.
   It is a very quick read.



4. Helpful in better understanding the terrorist mindset and Islam. Book was extremely interesting as were Mark Gabriel's other books.

No comments about Democracy and America's War on Terror (Albma Rhetoric Cult & Soc Crit).

No comments about Tearing Apart the Land: Islam and Legitimacy in Southern Thailand.

5 comments about Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack.

1. OK, wake up America! How did the towers free fall to the ground? What mass of energy was so strong as to pulverize the reinforced concrete to dust? Why very quickly destroy evidence by immediately shipping off all steel to China for re-cycling? Building 7 looked exactly like an everyday controlled demolition. You have to be a blind man not to see that. Why was it so, so very hot at the base of the collapsed towers for so long after? Have you never seen a magic trick before?



2. I am not a conspiracy theory person, in fact I've always laughed at them.
   
   But reading this book certainly has made me question a lot of things!!!
   
   Read it with an open mind. And then decide if the arguments hold water or not.



3. This is one of the best 9-11 books (with its own video) and I am persuaded by this author and others that 9-11 has not been properly investigated, and that there has been a major cover-up. The video is very powerful, very detailed, very thoughtfully narrated, and carries this book and this author to the very top of the list of reasoned and thus authoritative contributions.
   
   Unlike the other 9/11 books I have reviewed, this book, which is letterhead size, is a brilliantly compelling collection of color photographs, color diagrams, thoughtful calculations, and plain text in two columns. The book and the DVD represent, in my opinion, the single best personal effort, and the single most credible case, to the effect that 9-11 was a huge scam on the American public.
   
   The book, and the DVD, are *exhaustive*. There is no better word.
   
   I especially like the author's discussion of the Oklahoma City bombing as a preview of a diversion (the truck bomb versus two airplanes) combined with controlled demolitions. Unexploded bombs are reported to have been found at the Federal Building, with news clippings. The author also covers the destruction of a wedding hall in Israel, and the downing of an Egyptian airplane, as rehearsals for 9-11.
   
   I personally believe that the WTC were brought down by controlled demolitions planted by order of Larry Silverstein, but I am not certain if his action was done in partnership with Rudy Guliani and Dick Cheney, or on his own. The author does not mention the aspestos problem facing Larry Silverstein, for that I recommend viewing the DVD "Loose Change" as well as "9/11 The Press for Truth."
   
   I also believe that the evidence strongly suggests that the Pentagon was hit by a missile fired by the US, and that there has been a massive cover-up.
   
   I am relatively certain that 9-11 was allowed to happen, and that the majority of those who died--over 80%--died by order of Larry Silverstein, with or without the explicit protective consent of Dick Cheney.
   
   I am quite certain that the 9-11 Commission was a deliberate cover-up, and that Controlled Demolition, all of the WTC security people, the insurance executives, and key Pentagon officials have not been properly investigated.
   
   One day these monsters will be held to account. I have to say, on the basis of all that I have read, viewed, and thought, that it is not Bin Laden that has brought down the Republic, but rather Dick Cheney. Our most fearsome enemies are domestic, not foreign.
   
   Bottom line: the political leadership of America can not be trusted and are almost certainly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors (see my lists on holding Cheney accountable, and on impeachment guides for citizens).
   
   For those skeptics that continue to believe their government, see the points made in my reivew of the below superb revisionist history:
   Someone Would Have Talked: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Conspiracy to Mislead History



4. If you believe the line about how the towers fell due to heat, fire, impact...you need to read this book. Warning: When you present people you know with the hardcore evidence that this book presents, you will know first hand what "willfully ignorant" means. People don't want to know the truth! As the title of the book says, it's "painfull" to accept the truth sometimes.



5. This is more of a review of some of the less articulate reviews about this book.
   You may notice that detractors of this book who give it a poor review do so by using a lot of ridicule and insulting comments, apparently these reviewers were not on the debate team in school.
   Terms such as "you are just stupid" don't win debates. You need to explain why they are stupid with facts.
   
   One reviewer who claims to be an engineer says the buildings were designed to withstand impacts by airliners, but not a plane load of fuel.
   Think about that for a second...
   Were the designers of the building under the impression that most planes are powered by a wound rubber band?
   I don't think so, most people will agree to get a large passenger plane in the air and keep it there you'll need a lot of fuel, maybe even a full tank of it.
   
   When fuel explodes what causes the explosion? the ignited fuel. So why would most of the fuel escape through an elevator shaft? Answer... it would not, an explosion would cause the fuel to fly outward in all directions. The elevators shaft was not a straight shot all the way to the ground floor either it had numerous chambers to prevent the spread of fire.
   
   Another reviewer thinks that only a competent government could pull off the attacks, incompetent or not it doesn't matter when you hire out professionals to do the majority of the work.
   I mean when you can't fix your car you hire a pro, just because you can't fix your car doesn't mean you're too stupid to hire someone qualified to do it.
   
   What it boils down to is this... the 70-80 floors beneath the affected areas were not in any way affected by the fires, yet all those floors and hundreds of vertical beams that get thicker and stronger as they go down blew up at free-fall speeds and the top portion was also obliterated.
   
   The book is well researched, i've sourced all the quotes and others have as well, the questions in the book are fairly simple and if peoples emotions were not clouding their minds they would be able to think logically on this subject.
   
   And no, the idea of explosive demolition is not absurd, rather it is the only explanation.
   
   Here's my brief comparison of the two theories, the governments (which came out on 9-12-01) and the alternative theory which has been developed over time.
   
   Official theory
   regarding the collapse of the WTC 1,2, 7
   
   Fires caused the collapse of the WTC buildings 1,2, the few weakened floors gave way falling onto the floor below it causing it to collapse and so on.... This is called the pancake collapse theory.
   
   No official theory on building seven's collapse has been offered by the government.
   
   This theory has no precedent, and has not been duplicated before or after 9/11.
   Empirical evidence
   No fire has ever been proven to cause any multi story steel frame building to collapse before or after.
   
   Given the fact that their theory has not been tested it cannot be considered viable.
   
   Considering the long odds of this occuring, odds that get longer every day a steel framed building doesn't collapse due to fire, its a good bet that fire didn't cause this collapse.
   
   
   Counter theory
   Regarding the collapse of the WTC 1,2,7
   
   Explosives placed prior to 9/11 caused the collapse of WTC buildings 1,2,7
   
   #1 Video evidence shows explosions, as well as molten metal emanating from the building as it collapsed.
   
   #2 Audio evidence shows the sound of explosions, as well as police warning people about more bombs.
   
   #3 The floors didn't end up stacked like pancakes, rather they were turned to dust.
   
   #4 Its been scientifically proven (with computer simulations) that the floors would not fail at even higher temps than on 9/11.
   
   #5 In the 70's a fire raged thru the entire sixth floor and burned all night, yet caused no damage to the structure. Afterwards the floor was simply refurbished.
   
   #6 The Windsor building in Spain burned day and night at higher temps, yet it didn't collapse. The Windsor didn't have the huge steel core columns, rather it had a concrete core.
   
   #6 Using explosives buildings can and will fall at freefall speeds like the trade centers, explosives will also cause a building to fall straight down 99.9% of the time.
   
   #7 Fire has never been proven to cause the collapse of a steel frame building, during recorded history.

5 comments about In Defense of the Bush Doctrine (Contemporary Issues in the Mid).

1. I found the book helpful, though not without its short-comings. It offered better military and foreign policy explanations and historical context for its position than I have ever heard, and it offered plenty of pro-Bush rhetoric, too. About the comments on this site from those who didn't like it, I am still not entirely sure where I stand on the issue, so I am very interested in thoughtful arguments either way. However, simple disparagement and mindless nay saying do not qualify as "thoughtful" or "argument." It is simply a display inane bias and is helpful to no one who is wondering whether to purchase a certain work. So, try this: When writing a comment about a book, please, at least attempt to make an intelligent, cogent argument for your position, or shut the #%& up!!



2. enough facts and analysis to give the reader a platform for understanding current events, and more important, an insight into the intillectual requirements for developing policy



3. I am most of the way through this book and have been impressed by its clear, readily understood prose and its straight-to-the-point sentences explaining the various foreign policies that the U.S. has embraced and the proofs of their failure or success with the reasons why. Naming and explaining one by one the foreign policy schools of thought and their proponents, as the author does in the first part of the book, was helpful in placing the current Bush doctrine in an historic context. The author then describes the Bush policy as, on the one hand, vigorous encouragement of the growth of stable, liberal democracies -- because stable, liberal democracies historically do not fight each other -- and, on the other hand, vigorous opposition to totalitarian regimes that deny freedom to their oppressed populations -- because oppressive regimes historically have defiantly ignored negotiated agreements of peace. Ironic that this book is available just as the tide of our miltary success in Iraq and public opinion at home and abroad is seen to be turning. Short and important, this book should be on everyone's coffee table.



4. The easiest way to review this is via ideology. People favorably inclined toward Bush will like it; those who oppose him will hate it. But since the author elected to publish it with a university press, I'm going to assess it as a work of scholarship and analysis. On that count, it comes up woefully short. It is well-written but panglossian defense of the Bush strategy. I am amazed that the University Press of Kentucky, which is an up and coming academic publisher, produced it. It is most certainly not an academic work but a ideological polemic masquerading as scholarship as per Noam Chomsky or Chalmers Johnson. There is no critical analysis of the Bush strategy, but simply a legal brief asserting that is it the best of all possible approaches. The author develops caricatures or strawmen of alternative strategies and then demolishes them. For instance, on p. 129 he write, "As the lessons of history attest, critics are wrong to object to the Bush Doctrine because it does not defer categorically to the UN Security Council or to multilateralism as any guise as an end in itself." This is Rush Limbaugh discourse--invent a position that no serious person actually holds (who, exactly, advocates categorical deference to the UN Security Council?) then ridicule it.
   
   Let me give just a couple of examples of Kaufman's selective use of history and double standards to sustain his partisan argument (there are many dozens more). On p. 120 he writes, "By the end of his administration, Ronald Reagan has shifted away from his initial inclinations to back America's right-wing allies unconditionally, as it became apparent in El Salvador, the Philippines, Korea, and Chile that liberal democracy was a plausible alternative to either authoritarianism or communism." In reality, it was the Democratically controlled Congress that forced Reagan to push for democracy in these places, not some personal epiphany.
   
   Second, Kaufman excoriates Clinton for not preventing the genocide in Rwanda (although failing to mention that in 2000 candidate Bush explicitly said he would not have used the U.S. military in Rwanda had he been president). Alan Kuperman has demonstrated that even had Clinton moved immediately once he was aware genocide was underway, it would only have had a limited effect, so I have to assume that Kaufman's criticism is because Clinton did not act in advance to prevent the killing. But in anything other than a hagiography, if Clinton deserve blame for not being prescient in Rwanda--a place with very limited American attention or involvement--then Bush deserves even greater criticism for for not anticipating the emergence of armed resistance in Iraq and taking steps to limit or prevent it (such as an infusion of a large number of troops and implementation of an effective reconstruction program in 2003). Kaufman does suggest "we [sic] should have anticipated better" in Iraq when, in fact, those who did anticipate better were attacked by the administration. Even after this mousy criticism, Kaufman goes to great lengths to make the ridiculous argument that even though "we" didn't anticipate better, it wasn't a big deal anyway since more Americans died in the world wars and the Civil War than in Iraq! At that point, I could no longer take the book seriously. It was, from the start, a blend of propaganda and scholarship. Since I assume the author does actually understand that the criterion for judging strategy is not the aggregate lives lost, but whether the benefits justified the costs, I have to believe that along the way he elected to jettison the veneer of scholarship and shift purely into propaganda.
   
   Perhaps the most pressing conceptual flaw in the work is its disregard for the role of culture. The author uses the spread of liberal democracy to Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Pacific rim as evidence of its universality and hence as support for the idea that it should be the cornerstone of American strategy. What that overlooks is the idea that liberal democracy can only develop stable roots in Western, Western-influenced, or Confucian cultures. Kaufman reiterates the Bush idea that Islamic violence is caused by the "insidious interaction of poverty, brutality, and oppression" rather than deep flaws in a culture which create unstable, uncompetitive states and then seeks external scapegoats for the ensuing failure. Unless the United States is willing to alter this culture--and nothing in the Bush strategy is designed to do that--the violence will persist.
   
   Since Kaufman's book is a defense of the Bush strategy rather than an analysis of it, the author does not address the real criticisms of that strategy. For instance, rather than dealing with the question of whether liberal democracy is feasible in Islamic cultures, Kaufman simply demonstrates that it would be a good idea. To counter the criticism that Islamic culture is not fertile ground for liberal democracy, Kaufman, like Bush administration spokesmen, simply points to post World War II Germany and Japan. But, like the administration, he does not address the valid criticism that the Bush approach to Iraq and Afghanistan has not, in fact, followed the Germany-Japan model. Rather than a massive and protracted occupation while the foundation for democracy was built, the administration has sought democratization on the cheap. Kaufman cannot have it both ways--arguing that the post-war occupation of Germany and Japan validate the feasibility of a method while defending the Bush approach which did not replicate that method.
   
   In most places, Kaufman simply re-asserts Bush administration talking points, taking them at face value. There are dozens of examples. In justifying the intervention in Iraq, he writes (p. 140)that "victory" there will "keep terrorists on the run by depriving them of the sanctuary of a rogue regime." While ideas like that are the standard stock of talk radio, Kaufman ignores the fact that Hussein was a very minor provider of sanctuary to transnational terrorists and whatever system emerges in Iraq--be it a fragile democracy, a fragmented state, a militia-dominated quasi-state, or some new authoritarian system--is much more likely to provide sanctuary to terrorists, either deliberately or by virture of its inability or unwillingness to fully control its own territory. Kaufman also lauds Libya's decision to abandon its nuclear program as validation of Bush's strategy of regime change and democratization without noting that Qaddafi's decision was a result of decades of sanctions, not anything Bush did. He attributes democratic reforms in Lebanon to Bush even though, in reality, democracy in that country is decades old (and floundered during the Reagan administration). He accepts without question the flawed assumption of the Bush strategy that democratization in the Islamic world will limit anti-American militancy. And, like the Bush administration itself, he does not grapple with the fact that Islamic violence in Spain and the U.K. refutes the connection between democracy and terrorism.
   
   Ultimately readers looking for a balanced and rigorous analysis of the Bush strategy will be disappointed by the book. Bush supporters looking for intellectual ammunition to defend the administration will find it useful.



5. Kaufman's book sets out to defend the "indefensible" and does a pretty good job of it. He answers some of the more common criticisms of the Bush Doctrine, all the while reminding us (as we are apt to forget) that the situation looked very different in 2002-2003 than it does now. He explores some of the alternatives to it, such as multilateralism, and reminds us with recourse to history (without any egregious examples of anecdotal cherry-picking) that most of them have serious drawbacks as well. Some of the book's strong points were also incident to its flaws; for instance in reminding us how the world looked in 2002-2003 he becomes wedded to an international and diplomatic snapshot that has since changed, namely our relationship with Germany and France after the succession of Merkel and Sarkozy, respectively. On the whole a solid and important book.

5 comments about Militant Islam in Southeast Asia: Crucible of Terror.

1. This is a fascinating book that examines the Southeast Asian terrorist network in chilling detail. It is highly readable, yet filled with data and information. It is essential reading for all those interested in Southeast Asian terrorism,and to understand how Al Qaeda has morphed.




2. 
   I have the advantage, in reviewing this book, of having heard the author present his views in a superb illustrated briefing that held 150 government intelligence professionals glued into their seats and fixated on the author's rapid-fire compelling presentation.

   This man is a brilliant scholar who has returned to the almost lost art of combining persistent field work with foreign language open sources (both printed and oral), and thoughtful analysis.

   Across the board, from his narrative to his footnotes to his bibliography to his index, this book is as good as it gets. This is a world-class contribution to our understanding in three areas: 1) what can be known about terrorism and militant Islam from open sources of information (but is being largely ignored by the so-called professional intelligence agencies that are obsessing on secret sources and methods; 2) what governments in Southeast Asia are and are not doing about it (in many cases, abusing American naiveté or being put off by American arrogance; and 3) where militant Islam is going in this area--be afraid, be very afraid.

   If all academics were this good, we would not need spies. This book and this author represent the very best scholarship that one could ask for. The author is the Program Director for East Asian Studies and associate professor of international politics at Simmons College. Goggling him yields a fine selection of interviews and Congressional testimony.




3. This book is rubbish. Abuza uses weak secondary sources with third rate results. He does not know the relevant languages to do substantive research (Indonesian, at least) and has cobbled together a text that panders to the most paranoid of policymakers. He's part of the fear-mongering industry and his work should be read with great skepticism, if read at all.



4. This is a frustrating work. You read the glowing blurbs (none of them experts on Southeast Asia, to my knowledge) and you expect a great book. The book does not, alas deliver: it is good in some ways, not in others.
   
   At one level, the book is quite good. Abuza manages to tie together a wide variety of facts into a coherent narrative. The book reads reasonably well, although there is clear evidence of haste (e.g. misspelled names). If you knew little about Islam or Southeast Asia, you'd probably come away with the impression that this is a crackerjack book.
   
   But what if you *do* know something about Islam or Southeast Asia? Alas, here the book is irritating. Take this howler: "Because Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country, it is easier for radicals and terrorists to fit in." (p. 123). That is an absurd statement. (On the same page, Abuza opines about former PM of Malaysia Mahathir's "insecurity about being a Muslim Malay" -- who knows what he is talking about?)
   
   Abuza, to his credit, usually avoids such bizarre claims. But he resorts to a formulation all too common on "terrorism" experts: that there is something called "moderate" Islam in SEA and then radical or extremist (which he identifies with "Wahhabis" or Salafis).
   
   If you know anything about Salafis, you know that Saudi Arabia is full of them, some of them probably seeing themselves as Salafis committed the 9/11 attacks . . . BUT that the vast majority of them do not embrace terrorism! No matter. Abuza paints with a broad brush and thus smears all Salafis without explaining what, exactly, in their beliefs makes them terrorists. This is intellectually lazy. It explains nothing.
   
   The use of terror is a TACTIC. It is a tactic used by weak non-state groups of all sorts of backgrounds. What we really need to know is why, at this particular time in history, a tiny percentage of Salafis have decided that it is the tactic to use.
   
   One last point: Abuza seems to like "moderate" Muslims. WEll, almost all Indonesians are Muslims. Some of these so-called moderates (e.g. NU, the military leadership) engaged in the killings of 1965-66 that left about 500,000 civilians dead. Some of these "moderates" killed East Timorese (over 100,000). But just as I would never use this as proof that "moderate" Muslims are bloodthirsty thugs BECAUSE OF THEIR ISLAM, so I don't think that individuals are terrorists because of their
   Islam. Islam contributes a world view, and many Salafis are rigid and uncompromising in their beliefs. . . one might want to argue that Salafis are more *predisposed* to the use of terror . . . but Abuza does not even make that more nuanced argument.
   
   My advice: read this book for the story of the different networks of terrorists in SEA. Take some of its claims with a grain of salt: after all, who really respects the Philippine intelligence services, who provide some data to Abuza. But discount Abuza's explanations on Islam.



5. I acquired this book, "Militant Islam in Southeast Asia," in order to do some background research for a novel I am writing. My book is a long-term project with no projected publication date as yet. It is a rather ambitious undertaking - a retelling of "The Odyssey" set as an Al Qaeda terrorist story that takes place partly in Indonesia! So, in preparation for an eventual fact finding trip to Indonesia, I have been doing some reading about terrorism and Southeast Asia.
   
   Zachary Abuza is on the faculty in the Political Science and International Relations Department at Simmons College in Boston. He has traveled extensively in researching this book, which has received enthusiastic praise from many quarters.
   
   W. Scott Thompson of Tuft's University's legendary Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy had this to say about Abuza's work:
   
   "Showing an astonishing persistence in tying together the threads of the terrorist threat, Abuza has come up with a dazzling display of Al-Qaida at work. It is rare that a book comes out with so deep and thoughtful analysis of a contemporary subject - this may well become the standard reference on everything happening in the Southeast Asian theater of the world terror crisis."
   
   Barnett, in "The Pentagon's New Map," and in his recent "Blueprint for Action," makes it clear that Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia, will play a pivotal role over the next several decades in impacting the balance of power among the leaders of what Barnett calls "the Core" and the "New Core." Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in the world, and will play a significant part in determining the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. Therefore, Abuza's seminal work becomes a very helpful tool in understanding how terrorism in general - and Al-Qaeda in particular - may serve as a crucial factor in determining how the relationship between the West and the worldwide Muslim may evolve.
   
   Using painstakingly well-documented and footnoted research, Abuza traces the growing influence of Al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia - from Afghanistan and the jihad against the Soviets to the bombing in Bali and beyond. His basic premise follows a logical chain of events. Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, many zealous Southeast Asians who had fought as mujahadin returned to Asia to use their skills and battlefield experiences to bring the passion of jihad to several local struggles to establish autonomous Muslim states through Southeast Asia. These struggles included the secessionist movements in Mindanao, East Timor, Sulawesi and the Malukus and Aceh - among others. Once the U.S. attacked Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and neutralize the command and control of Bin-Laden's team, Al-Qaeda was forced to flee from its lair in Afghanistan and scatter among a handful of safe havens - many in Southeast Asia. At first, these safe havens - Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand - were used as a convenient "back offices" for Al-Qaeda to conduct training, money-laundering, weapons acquisition and coalition building. Al-Qaeda also funded and co-opted many local insurgents and gave them a vision of taking part in a global jihad against the "savage intervention of the American Crusade Armed Forces and their allies [who are involved] in the Muslim cleansing scheme. . . as a `harsh reprimand' to Jews and Christians led by American heathens in oppressing and tainting the Islamic holy land, where the Revelation of the Prophets descended." (Pages 166-167).
   
   Eventually, the terrorists took advantage of lax security and political dissent in these nations to launch terrorist attacks on soft targets within these host nations - the bombing in Bali being the most spectacular and deadly among these incidents.
   
   For anyone who wants to develop a more comprehensive understanding of where Al-Qaeda is heading in its long-term strategy and short-term tactics, this book as a valuable resource.
   
   Al

No comments about Contemporary Moral Problems: War, Terrorism, and Torture.