5 comments about Beyond Fear.

1. Most people think that they think rationally about security decisions.
   
   Most don't even know when they're making security decisions.
   
   Fewer know what those decisions really entail.
   
   Only Bruce Schneier knows how to make those decisions sensibly, and he's passing that information along to the world.



2. The content of this book slightly overlap the content of the author previous book Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World but presents the material with a different angle. An angle with the perspective of a security expert that witness security measures taken by governments in reaction of the 9/11 terrorism attack and wants people to understand the absurdity of some of these measures.
   
   It is not technical at all and does not necessitate any particular background to understand and enjoy. The author explains clearly how to make a risk assessment of something that you want to make more secure and then evaluate the cost of the security measures. Only when you have that data, you can evaluate if the added security is worth it.
   
   These explanations are backed up with concrete examples such as evaluating the risk to make purchase with a credit card over the internet. Other examples include the absurdity of securing a lunch in a company refrigerator because the potential loss if having a lunch stolen does not justify securing it. The author also explains that even with technologies that looks very accurate such as facial recognition with an error rate of, let's say, 0.0001 % are totally ineffective when they have to control a huge number of persons like a stadium crowd because even with this accuracy, they would create an unmanageable amount of false positive alerts.
   
   The author also elaborate about why you should question the motivation of a security provider when it is a third party and link this with how people fears can be exploited to introduce invasive, excessively expensive and inefficient security measures. I think that the goal of the author was to make people more critics about security questions and my opinion is that his goal has been successfully achieved.



3. Beyond Fear is a well-written book on the fundamental concepts and applications of security theory. In the first chapter, he proposes a sequence of five questions that should be asked about any suggested security system.
   1. What assets are you trying to protect?
   2. What are the risks to those assets?
   3. How well does the security solution mitigate the risks?
   4. What other risks does the security solution cause?
   5. What costs and trade-offs does the security solution impose?
   
   He spends the rest of the book discussing various aspects of security, and talking about various implementations of security both historical and modern. He finished writing this book in 2003, so there are many references to the 9-11 incidents and the security activities implemented because of them.



4. I was pretty excited to read Bruce Schneier's Beyond Fear, I have enjoyed hearning him speak and like his blog. I will say that the book could have said what it says with a lot less pages, possibly even an essay. However, there are lots of great stories and a fantastic word picture called "Security Theater". His illustration is that after 9/11 no one knew what to do to combat air terrorism, so they gave the appearance of action by doing things like confiscating nail files. Oh do I agree that much of what we see is security theater!
   
   Bruce has a five step process he tries to illustrate, especially in the second half of the book:
   
   * What assets are you trying to protect?
   * What are the risks to these assets? ( I think threats is a more correct word than risks )
   * How well does the security solution mitigate those risks?
   * What other risks does the security solution cause?
   * What trade-offs does the security solution require?
   
   This is a nice implementation of threat vector analysis and he tells great stories. I am not sure the book teaches that much, but it might be a valuable awareness tool for executives.



5. Nutshell review - A great read. Entertaining and informative. So well written and very useful at the same time.

5 comments about Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror.

1. Richard Clarke's account on how Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. dealt with terrorism. Honest, insightful and non-partisan.



2. People can say what they want about Scott McClellan, but there is no comparison as to the character differences between these individuals. Whereas Scott had no courage to do what he is now doing, Dick Clarke, here, had all the gull to infight with some of these individuals and let his discontent be known right off. Of course his book did come out a little over a year later, but that is still much more than most "tell-all's".
   
   Now, there can be no doubt that some of this was done out of saving his own arse, it still has to be said that he DID do what he was supposed to. He informed, time and again, and was treated as if he weren't there. Richard's job was to analyze, then inform. He did that. The president ignored what was given to him. It was then astonishing to learn that the new "goal-post" for where the buck stops, was, suddenly, not with the president, but with others.
   
   A sad-but-true tail, indeed.
   
   This is a necessary book. Thanks, Dick.



3. After more than 1,000 reviews, what can I possibly add? I noticed one little thing, a very small point, in the book that kind of twisted my jaw.
   
   Clarke is very clearly partisan in tone in the book. I think he comes across as being in the leftist/liberal mold politically. OK, that's fine, sometimes the libs get it right and sometimes the conservatives do. (Myself, I have no love or loyalty to either political party and prefer to endorse viewpoints that represent ordinary, self-supporting, responsible, hard-working people, as I think the majority of us are. Frankly, anymore, I think people who obey the law, work to support themselves and their families, pay their bills, try to teach their kids right from wrong, etc. are the most underrepresented and disenfranchised bunch in the country. Neither party represents us, in my view.)
   
   With that out of the way, the little point I caught in this book refers to Clarke being advised by the U.S. Secret Service that he needed to carry a handgun for self-protection. He describes being "issued" a semi-automatic pistol for this purpose. He mentions something to the effect that he is a big supporter of gun-control, but in this case he felt he should carry this weapon.
   
   Well, I'm glad he was issued this pistol and carried it. The underlying tone in his comment is that the rest of us really shouldn't have handguns, because guns are bad, kill people, etc. But of course, HE needed one for self-protection; so what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If he was true to his liberal view of the right/need of a handgun for self-protection as it applies to citizens, he should have been abhorred at the thought of a civilian carrying a weapon for protection and vigorously declined this advice--after all, he was not a law enforcement officer! (For what it's worth, I have been a federal law enforcement officer required to carry a firearm etc. so I have some sense of this.)
   
   I admit I have figuratively expressed his views, he did not use verbatim the words I have used above. If you read this passage though, it was relatively early in the book, I suppose somewhere in the first 1/4 of it, I think you will see what I mean.
   
   Does Clarke represent truthfully what really happened or does he have his own axe to grind? ONLY GOD KNOWS.
   
   I am writing this some 4 years after the book came out though I read it right after it was published. Subsequent events have left more data for people to digest about the truthfulness of the Bush administration. Still, I recommend people read the book to receive one view of events and judge for themselves.
   
   I see also now that Clarke has come out with a new book in the last couple of weeks. That should be an interesting read as well.
   
   Thanks for listening.



4. Rather interesting book by an counter-terrorist insider to several administrations. Clearly, he doesn't like Bush and his court very much, so it seems a wee bit partial. However, there is also some real insight about what it means to be tasked with keeping a democracy safe in the face of terror.
   
   You get the impression that he would have liked a more nuanced, more cooperative and diplomatic approach to neutralizing international terrorists. In fact, he compares Bush senior's handling of the diplomatic runup to Gulf War I with GW's go-it-alone policy in 2003.
   
   Nevertheless, no peacenik he. He strongly regrets having released the noose around the Republican Guards armor in 1991, in what people usually refer to as the Highway of Death. To him: escaping armor => Saddam stays in power and threatens neighborhood => US stays in Saudi => propaganda for Bin Laden's jihad. Mind you, as ugly as the Highway of Death was, Iraqi soldiers, maybe those troops, were soon afterwards involved in savagely repressing the Shias.
   
   One annoyance is his heavy use of "I, I, I" and tendency to put himself forward at every turn. Though he also says several times that he, and his team, failed at preventing 9/11 and that they failed at protecting their country. No one else from this administration accepts blame or admits mistakes, so that's refreshing.
   
   Concerning the pre-9/11 hunt for Al Quaeda, he often criticizes the CIA and the Pentagon, but just skewers the FBI and its director. Broadly speaking, he seems to sing the same tune as Ghost Wars, except that he thinks the CIA had unequivocal backing to kill Bin Laden and wasn't justified in hiding behind legal fig leaves.



5. As targets of the political mass suggestion discussed in my reviews of: Propaganda, U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960 (Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication), and Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s, we must be careful with books like this from an "insider". The pattern is the same on all these books "written" by insiders who have "left" the administration: There is one and ONLY one controversial assertion given in the book (the hook to generate sales and publicity), with the remainder of the book running parallel with the party line.
   
   I have no doubt, given corroborating evidence from other authors, that Clarke is correct that Bush and his cabinent were planning an Iraq invasion well before 9/11. The "Downing Street Memo" is the smoking gun on this.
   
   The much bigger purpose of this book, in my opinion, is simply to disseminate the party line, yet again, that Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman, that his world-threatening military is al-qaeda, and that they can deliver mass destruction anytime, anywhere (you know, the Cold War program). It's the repeat, repeat, repeat that we get from George Tenet, Michael Scherer (sp) and all others who are wittingly or unwittingly part of the propaganda campaign.
   
   The only question on Clarke is: is he witting or unwitting? The answer, however, is moot. As long as he is spewing party-line propaganda, his books are worthless to a suspicious public.

5 comments about The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11.

1. Suskind's "One-Percent Doctrine" is an in-depth look into the "war on terror" and the administration in-fighting regarding it. The title derives from Vice President Cheney's idea that if a there is a one-percent chance that someone can harm the US we must act like it is a certainty. (Which I think is lower than the chance I get four of a kind if someone's already made their flush on the flop). The book is analytical, but never enough. Yet it does reveal some questions: How is government supposed to react? Is it the Civil Service and in Uniform military that we should listen to or our elected officials?
   This stems from the idea of how to approach such a strategic problem as Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden. Do they hate our freedom? If that is said enough, people begin to believe that we cannot fight them logically instead we can only crush them using force. Yet, many inside the government, from Secretary Powell on down, saw that these terror actions were connected to a global strategy. From this point, Suskind shows that unless we understand what they are trying to achieve we cannot win the war on terror and the one-percent doctrine is just flailing around at perceived threats (and inventing threats such as Iraq.)
   The crux of this flailing is the competition between the civil servants at the CIA and the political appointees at the Department of the defense. Suskind sees the CIA operatives as good foot soldiers and patriots. Many of them are experts in their fields and are willing to risk life and limb to use their expertise to defend the country. Yet, the Bush-Cheney group did not trust the CIA because they are often wrong (including the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the fall of the Soviet Union). This bureaucratic infighting was among the things that obscured the real goal of protecting the country.
   Yet, Suskind does not get a few things. First, the whole thing is politically motivated to keep Republicans in power (if UBL was so bad why didn't they try to capture him, if not to continue the fear factor? if they really cared about the "war on terror" why did they release the name of an undercover CIA agent for purely political reasons?). He finds Condoleezza Rice an almost tragic figure instead of the political operative she proved to be - sacrificing the validity of her position as National Security Advisor to win an election. Suskind also gives George Tenet a pass on most things - he must have been a source for the work. I mean really, "slam dunk!" and his admitted delinquency to do his job that allowed the "16 words" into the State of the Union.
   The book is good journalism. Unfortunately while the book delves into the "war on terror," it maintains the stance that the policy is misguided. Suskind does not see that forest for the trees. Each of these trees - the one-percent doctrine, the dereliction of duty by the President in letting UBL get away, the treasonous acts of the vice-president's office in releasing Valerie Plame's name, the complete disregard for international law in the Iraq invasion, and the hubris that we don't have to know anything about our enemies to win - have all lost us the war on terror and sacrificed the future of our country to the likes of China, Iran and Europe. But Suskind doesn't see it. I give the book 3 stars because of his lack of "big-picture" insight, but would put it on the first tier of books you should read!



2. "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind is a very compelling book. Addressing the Bush Administration's reactions to the events on 9/11/2001, it provides a detailed and very interesting analysis of what transpired within the intelligence community. To the CIA, the success of Al Qaeda's attack was a groin shot to their service, and there was a tremendous effort to find and kill Al Qaeda operatives. You can tell by the narrative that Suskind admired many within the CIA, Tenet in particular, whom he characterizes as a tragic victim of the ethically challenged Bush cronies.
   
   The basic thesis the book addresses is ultimately the driving force behind the Bush Administration, namekly, "the Cheney doctrine". This notion, of considering a one percent probability threat as if it were a certainty, came to define U.S. foreign policy after 9/11. The implications behind the Cheney doctrine are quite alarming, but very explanatory towards the behavior of the Bush administration. That a country like Iraq, that had never attacked the U.S., could by atleast potentially being a threat, be invaded by the United States shows the degree to which the Cheney doctrine resonated within the administration.
   
   On an individual level, the doctrine also resonated. That detainees, by their just their potentially being a threat, were subjected to that detainment without legal recourse, or were potentially subjected to torture. Americans could be spied upon, because they are a potential threat. The Geneva conventions could be ignored on the basis of potential threat. Any uncertainty, could be used as the basis for unlawful actions by an out of control executive branch. All in the guise of keeping us safe!
   
   Cheney, a long-time believer in an imperial Presidency, used the 9/11 attacks for his own agenda. "The One Percent Doctrine" is the story of how it all came to be. Suskind's admiration for the ground-level intelligence officers contrasts sharply against his disdain for the Bush administration.
   
   The picture Suskind paints of George W. Bush, is one of a weak President who was easily led by strong-willed subordinates. In this regard, his analysis is consistent with many other authors such as Thomas Ricks in the book "Fiasco." Despite the tough talk, Bush is ultimately ruled by his gut, and his gut usually went with whoever sounded the most sure of themselves. In the immortal words of Carl Sagan, "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain.....is likely to get me into trouble." In the words of Bill Engvald, "there's your sign."
   
   Suskind is to be commended for putting together this book. I suspect that 100 years from now, when people try to understand the tragedy that was the Bush administration, Suskind's book will be one of the first to be examined as well as Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. Our nation's collective over-reaction to the attacks on 9/11/2001 have undermined our Republic in ways that may take the hindsight of history to fully appreciate. Suskind does an admirable job of examining the period as a contemporary. A very important and significant book.



3. Ron Suskind is excellent and The Price of Loyalty was a great book. I found that The One Percent Doctrine was a bit late to the party in that I had read most of this in previous texts on the same topic.
   Maybe I'm oversaturated with material in this area and this would serve as a good primer for those that haven't already explored the War on Terror, post 9/11 books.
   Some of the anecdotes were presented in a cartoonish way and the moral of the story is redundant at this point, i.e. Bush administration is secretive and flawed in a big way.



4. Interesting look at the "cheney doctrine". If interetsed in the 9/11 story give this a listen.



5. I bought this book for a read on a long flight and found it very engaging. If you've ever been curious to get a better sense of what was happening behind the veil of government secrecy during the time after 9/11, this will go pretty far in satisfying that curiousity.

5 comments about First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan.

1. This is a first-person account from an experienced CIA operative who, after the 2001 terroists attacks, led a team to join Afghanistan's Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Provides background on both U.S. and Soviet Union involvement there. It describes tribal councils, a classic cavalry charge, and the aftermath of the war.



2. An interesting introduction to the people involved on the ground, just days after 9/11, in the early stages of the war in Afganistan.
   
   The focus is on the interaction between the CIA teams and their Northern Alliance allies. Most of the book covers the inner circle of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was assasinated immediately prior to 9/11. Near the end, you get a brief introduction to Hamid Karzai, the current President of Afganistan. The brief mention of Professor Abdul Sayyaff was a suprise to me. I did not realize the namesake of the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines was fighting with the Northern Alliance.
   
   Schroen thinks very highly of himself and, although he seems to respect their capabilities, is compelled to point out mistakes made by the Special Forces operators and the military in general. If you have ever read books by the FBI profiler John Douglas, you will recognize the general tone.
   
   Overall a good book about very brave men who were willing to take significant risks for their country.



3. A lot of research went into this publication and the places cited really come to life....I know because I am currently in Afghanistan.



4. First In, is a first person account of the events between the 19th of September until the 10th of November, told mainly from the perspective of Gary Schroen, leader of the JAWBREAKER CIA squad sent to establish relations with the Northern Alliance in the Panjshir Valley, near the stalemated frontlines of the Taliban. Despite being the lead of US forces in Afghanistan (a 7 man crew), his account is very low to the ground, recounting the incessant problems of Diarrhea and relations and the daily interactions with Northern Alliance leaders. The details make the story, such as taking naps on boxes holding $10 million in cash or the simple pleasure of Starbucks coffee brewed in the field.
   
   Schroen still manages to give a picture of how the Afghanistan war unfolded, with ground forces of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban hemmed in to their respective defensive positions. He details how the US military consistently acted ponderously or incompetently. One poignant example is when Schroen was called by the Air Force to confirm coordinates for a Predator UAV strike; he realized that the `thin man wearing western clothing' was not Bin Laden, but his teammate Ed. Schroen combines the personal narrative with sections from other teams across Afghanistan, when they took Mazar-e-Sharif or the perils of Karzai in the south. The timeline ends with the fall of Kabul, with only a small afterward from 2004.
   
   For what it aims to do, the book succeeds with flying colors. Schroen makes his opinions known, but they do not interfere with the story. Mild prose is overwhelmed by the amount of detail and clear description of the conflicts in strategy among the myriad of parties involved, making for a compelling and informative story.



5. I purchased this book because I heard reviews from soldiers who served in Iraq & Afghanistan. All said this book represents the truth & not limited/censored press reports. I bought it because I wanted know the truth about various living conditions & the US progress in addressing the Taliban & Al Queda issue. My rating is based on hear say because I have not read the book yet, but I trust in the words of those who recommended it.

5 comments about War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.

1. Historians surmise that in all of recorded human history, there's been only some 250 years in which a war wasn't going on somewhere in the world. This sobering fact has generated a number of hypotheses that account for the widespread prevalence of warfare. Some argue that humans are innately aggressive; others focus on material scarcity as a deep cause; still others point to religion and ideology as determining factors. Probably, though, it's foolish to try to reduce the phenomenon of war to a single overriding factor. The cause of war is complex.
   
   In his War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, Chris Hedges eloquently and persuasively argues for yet another thread to the causal explanation. His thesis--that war is attractive because it injects in our humdrum lives a sense of meaning, vitality, and importance--isn't a particularly new one. But he argues for it with rare grace and cogency.
   
   According to Hedges, nations that war must rely on the "myth" of war to sustain their resolves and energies. This myth includes narratives of cosmic proportion: good battling evil, heroes battling villains, causes greater than oneself worth dying--and killing--for. These myths constitute a kind of fundamentalism which sweeps entire populations up in emotional waves by appealing to deep, chthonic passions that not infrequently link violence and sex (largely because the myth seeks to lower inhibitions). In the process, memory is hijacked, histories are rewritten, national identities become suborned to the war effort, and the The Cause becomes the new center of gravity for the nation. (I'm reminded here of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre's claim that he never felt "more alive" than when he was a member of the French resistance during World War II.) It's important to note that the myth of war necessarily kicks in even if a nation has "just" cause to go to war. In the absence of myth, the actual violence and destruction of warfare is hard to endure.
   
   Although Hedges' thesis can't be the entire explanation for the popularity of war, it is, I think, a crucial one--and all the more so because I suspect we often feel too embarrassed to admit that sheer boredom and the yearning for a sense of adventure can propel us into violence. William James once wrote an essay in which he argued that nations ought to search for "moral" substitutes for war. His underlying assumption was that war is an excess of unchanneled energy that needs to be sublimated in nonviolent outlets. Given Hedges' thesis, perhaps we also need to cultivate "meaning" substitutes for war too.
   
   At any rate, Hedges' book is well worth reading and pondering. I've taught it at the college level four times since it was published, and each time my students and I have profited from discussions based on its arguments.
   _______
   * Shakespeare's "Coriolanus," Act IV, scene V



2. This book is one of the most disturbing and unsettling books I have read since I examined "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Griffin. It was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent who has covered wars for more than 20 years. It isn't the rantings of an ivory tower academic. He has covered wars in El Salvador, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere. He has been imprisoned, beaten by military police and attacked by death squads. His perspective deserves to be taken seriously and soberly. This book is neither a diatribe against war nor an argument for pacifism. His claim is that he "wrote this book not to dissuade us from war but to understand it. It is especially important that we who wield such massive force across the globe see within ourselves the seeds of our own obliteration. We must guard against the myth of war and the drug of war that can, together, render us blind and callous as some of those we battle."
   
   He points out how, rashly and quickly, only three days after 9/11, the Congress granted the President the right "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks." This resolution was passed unanimously by the Senate and with only one dissenting vote, from Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California, by the House of Representatives. She warned that military action could not guarantee the safety of the country and, "as we act, let us not become the evil we deplore."
   
   He sets down the basic premise of the book with these words. "The enduring attraction of war is that it can give us what we long for in life, even with its destruction and carnage. It can give us purpose, meaning and a reason for being. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent. War is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those who have the least meaning in their lives, the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised north African immigrants in France and even the legions of young who live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world, are all susceptible to war's appeal...."
   
   Before I could recover from his assault on my ill-informed conscience, I remembered how evangelical religion has given sanction and certitude to the war in Iraq. This haunting word, reported in "Utne," of Sam Ross, a paratrooper wounded in Iraq is a vivid testimony to the truth of his thesis. "I lost my left leg, just below the knee. Lost my eyesight....I have shrapnel in pretty much every part of my body. Got my finger blown off...I had a hole blown through my right leg....It hurts a lot, that's about it. You know, not really anything major. Just little things....It was the best experience of my life."
   
   This book is a clear call to us to understand just what continues to take place in Iraq as President Bush refuses to end it. My guess is that he finds meaning in that conflict. Hedges says that it gives us meaning! But there is another force, maybe even a new and unsuspected force. It is love regardless of the violence inflicted upon us. There is meaning in a life lived differently. I suggest that you read this book carefully.



3. I finished reading War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges. It is a very interesting book. Chris Hedges is a foreign correspondent that specializes in war correspondence. In the book he makes some very true statements:
   
   "We are tempted to reduce life to a simple search for happiness. Happiness, however, withers if there is no meaning. The other temptation is to disavow the search for happiness in order to be faithful to that which provides meaning. But to live only for meaning - indifferent to all happiness - makes us fanatic, self-righteous, and cold. It leaves us cut off from our own humanity and the humanity of others. We must hope for grace, for our lives to be sustained by moments of meaning and happiness, both equally worthy of human communion."
   
   I recommend the book for those who wish to understand the meaning of war and how any people react to war.



4. Chris Hedges isn't an armchair commentator. He gives the perspective of an observer thrust into the center of the maelstrom of war time and time again. Out of it he brought some new and powerful insights about why the human race -- even the supposedly most "civilized" elements -- hasn't been able to extract itself from the endless cycle of war. It provides a mirror to the bleakest parts of the soul of humanity. If enough of us would listen and understand, this book could begin a process to break the cycle. It's one of the most powerful anti-war books I've read.



5. In this book Chris Hedges does an excellent job of describing what he accurately terms the "myth of war" and why that myth has been, and is, so prevalent in human culture. As one could extrapolate from the title of the book, it is a force that gives us meaning. It provides a feeling of serving a higher, worthy, purpose, it provides in its life and death struggles a kinship felt nowhere else, and can become a powerful, addictive "narcotic." At the same time, in order to justify the inhumanity of war we exaggerate those positives to the point that they do effectively become a myth while ignoring the ugly (what Hedges terms "sensory") reality of war. Hedges argues that this myth is perpetuated willingly by the state because popular belief of this myth is required in order to provide willing volunteers for the meat grinder of combat, and my personal experience gives me cause to agree with his thesis.
   
   What I found most interesting are his words regarding what happens when the myth breaks down, both among those who have done the fighting and the society on whose behalf they fought. The collective amnesia, rewriting of history, all a willing coverup to protect the myth. Those who have seen the "sensory reality" of war are ignored and vilified by the very people whom they volunteered to serve.
   
   This book means a lot to me because much of what he articulates has happened to me over the last several years. I believed in the myth, tried to live up to it, saw the myth come crashing down, and experience great trouble as a result. Unfortunately I believe that people like me are the only ones who will find value in this book, as the endurance of this myth throughout the entire history of human civilization gives me no cause to believe this myth will evaporate anytime soon.
   
   If I had any advice for someone who still believes in the myth, it would be this:
   Do not risk your life, based upon your limited, flawed, Hollywood understanding of battle and desire to fill the shoes of the "greatest generation" that lived before your own, in order to produce through force of arms the political aims of the powerful elite who control our government. You will not serve patriotism, nor any similar higher ideal. You will serve only the murderous desire of your superiors at your own expense.

No comments about Epicenter Study Guide.

5 comments about The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

1. I must have a problem. I need to go back and read the book again because after the first reading I wasn't sure what I should be learning. Was this a book about anti-pronography or a description of the world threat of Islam? There were some interesting ideas, but I still put the book down wondering what I had learned about the death of grownuups.



2. The author makes some good points. However, the book is shallow and so extremely disorganized hat it is almost impossible to understand. She jumps from one illustrative situation to another to generalizations, with little rhyme or reason. It is too easy to get lost in a morass of details which are inadequately tied together into a coherent thesis.



3. This book is riddled with logical fallacies and culturally biased expectations of how people "should" act without corresponding explanations of why these types of social structures are the only representations of "grown-up" behavior. Instead of making well-thought out logical arguments, Diana West singles out and fixates on particular events as evidence of widespread chaos and the disintegration of society, and beats readers over the head with self-evident truisms that don't really reflect any sort of logic or rational thought processes so much as personal political and moralistic agendas. She takes these rather oppressive self-righteous convictions and complains that people who don't adhere to these arbitrary behavioral guidelines and belief structures are destroying America. This somewhat masturbatory screed does not offer sound reasoning, does not pose convincing arguments, and it's very tiresome to read. It is any wonder she got hired at Fox News?



4. In this relatively short (217 pages) book, Diana West argues that America and the West have been taken over by a cult of perpetual adolescence, which has lead to the death of grown up behavior, the end of critical thought and has gravely weakened our culture as we are being attacked by resurgent Islam.
   
   I agree with the major thrust of her argument. I was not, however, terribly impressed with the book, for two reasons. First, these ideas are not new. Most of the main ideas here are, in my mind, far better explored in Mark Steyn's America Alone and Judge Robert Bork's Slounching Toward Gomorrah. She has some new insights, but not many.
   
   Second, West covers a wide range of material, and she reveals a distressing ignorance and lack of balance in her discussion of most of them. Let me give two examples: American popular music and Islam. Her argument in both cases is simple, and inaccurate.
   
   On music, she argues that, prior to the mid-1950s, we had good, complex, sophisticated adult-oriented jazz. At some point in the 1950s, the dam broke, the barbarians broke through and we had bad, childish, wildly emotional and out of control rock and roll. Of course, there is truth to this viewpoint. However, it is a more complex than that, and West misses all of the complexity. She is unaware that rock n roll, as we knew it in the 1960s and 1970s, is basically dead, and has been replaced by rap, which is a very different art form than rock. She also has no appreciation for how country music has developed in the last thirty years, becoming at one and the same time the musical heir of 1970s rock and in its lyric content a dramatic alternative to rap. While country music certainly has many anthems to the joys of unending adolescence and teenage rebellion, it also has many defenses of tradition and tributes to adult behavior, from Merle Haggard's clasic defense of traditional values, Okie from Muskoggee or today's country hit, Alan Jackson's, Small Town Country Man. On the whole, country has a similar level of adult sophistication to that of jazz, bearing in mind that jazz certainly had its share of boozy songs in favor of sex and drinking, as well as sophisticated explorations of adult emotion.
   
   On Islam, West's basic argument is that a good Muslim is a dead Muslim. In her view, Islam is a totally aggressive, totally barbaric attacking force, with zero separation of Church and State and zero chance of reforming itself. She sees moderate Islam as a fantasy and Bush as delusional in attempting to bring democracy to the Middle East. She does not say how we should respond to Islam, but the logical consequence of her argument is we will have unending war with Islam until either Islam is destroyed or the West is destroyed. Again, there is certainly truth to her argument, but she misses a tremendous amount. She says that Islam has no tradition of separation of Church and State. What about the Republic of Turkey, which has had a radically secular government since the aftermath of World War One? What about the Kurds, who welcomed liberation from Saddam Hussein and created a peaceful, stable enclave in northern Iraq?
   
   In the end, West seems to me a victim of the pathology she describes. Adults are able to see the world in complex, nuanced terms. Children tend to see everything as black and white. Measured by that standard, West is herself not especially adult in her thinking.



5. Ms. West really has a good topic, I just really wished she could have developed it more. In the first half of the book, she makes a great case for the "Death of the Grown Up". She traces the emergence of teenage culture back to the late forties, when the adolescent subculture began to have disposable income on a large scale. Since that time, the mass markets have cashed in by exploiting the nuances of teen behavior. This is all fine except that it appears that US teenagers have it so good that many refuse to grow out of it. Ms. West explores several main themes for this phenomenon which I found enlightening. For instance, if you've wondered why most television shows are written for the average 13 year old pubescent; why sportscasts are filled with endless ads for hair coloring, male enhancement, and rejuvenation schemes; why the term "adult" is a synonym for pornography; or why your neighbor's 30 year old son still lives at home, this may be the book for you. I only gave the book three stars due to the last half of the book. About midway, Ms. West appears to shift gears and go on a tirade against Islamic fascism, emphasizing how the Europeans are basically letting extremists take over their countries (because their leaders are all a bunch of wimps, presumably). This may be true, but I felt that the original premise of the book was displaced in favor of making a case against Islamic intrusion. Other than that, I enjoyed her insights and appeal for adults to start acting like "grown ups".

5 comments about America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between the United States and Its Enemies.

1. A few months ago, at the suggestion of a friend who is active in the American intelligence community, I subscribed to the Friedman's Stratfor email newsletter. In it I have found some of the best analysis out there. It consistently gives clear, concise, and factual explanations of world events--something that is very rarely found in the mainstream media today.
   
   This book met the same high standard. The discussion covers the 9/11 attacks and the American response. Friedman attempts to cut through the fluff and public statements and looks at the hard geopolitical realities of the events, and he does an excellent job of doing so.
   
   I was constantly impressed by the innovative explanations he develops. For example, he argues that a major reason for the Iraq war was to put greater pressure on Saudi Arabia to reign in Islamists. Another compelling idea is that the very purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to provoke an American overreaction, which would in turn help Islamists gain ground within the Muslim world.
   
   [...]
   
   Friedman's prose is succinct and readable, with the occasional entertaining anecdote to keep things interesting. This makes for a fast and enjoyable read.
   
   My only criticism (and it is a significant one) is that Friedman does not cite any sources. There were many facts that I would like to have looked up, but I had no idea where he got his information.
   
   Still, this was a tremendously good book. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in America's contemporary foreign policy.



2. George Friedman gives us a rare look behind the scenes of America's fight with radical Islam. It was fascinating to get a look at how the U.S. viewed acts of terror and terrorists in general before and after 9/11. Friedman goes into detail that you simply cannot get from watching the news or reading papers. For example, Friedman lays out many reasons for invading Iraq other than WMD's. These include: a need for an impressive military victory to send a message throughout the Arab world, a point of leverage to deal with Saudi Arabia, and the fact the Saadam was a brutal dictator. Friedman discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various U.S. intelligence and law enforcement services in great detail. He also explains why Al Qeada has been as successful as they have and what seperates them from other terrorist groups. The book takes the reader through the military operations and campaigns of the first three years in the global fight against terrorism. For a more specific look at Al Qaeda and the rise of radical Islam see Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower."



3. Dr. Friedman explains the birth of Al-Qaeda, the failures of U.S. intelligence, and the goals and objectives of both the Bush Administration and Al-Qaeda in this fascinating and well written book. You're not going get this analysis in the major media.
   
   In short, Dr. Friedman says that the 9.11 attack was nothing really personal -- it was just a way for O.B.L. to unite the Arab world. The other main point: the invasion of Iraq was purely a strategic move to demonstrate the prowess of American forces to Saudi Arabia who was caught in the middle of Al-Qaeda on its turf and cooperating with its ally the U.S.
   
   In the end he concludes that the U.S. is generally winning the war but only time will tell who the real winner will be (and there will not be clear winners).



4. I highly recommend reading this book as one source in a broader study of US foreign policy since 2001. The author of this book, George Friedman, provides an interesting geopolitical explanation of the reason the US invaded Iraq under President George W. Bush as part of the broader war on terrorism. Even if one does not agree with Friedman's analysis, this book provides excellent insights into US foreign policy interests both in the Middle East and globally concerning the war on terrorism (including Afghanistan) that goes beyond events reported in the mainstream press. The book was published in 2004, so Friedman's analysis does not deal with events since that time. However, the book is still valuable for a different viewpoint into US foreign policy since 9-11-2001.
   
   NOTE: the title of the book might give the impression that this is a conspiracy theory type book. Not so! Friedman provides background material and analysis from a geopolitical viewpoint. Since the geopolitical aspects of international events are rarely discussed adequately in the press, this book analyzes the reasons for US foreign policies that are rarely, if ever, reported in the press. Hence, the title "America's Secret War" concerning the war on terrorism. Friedman also provides insights into the security interests of other nations involved in this conflict, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others.
   
   One drawback is that the author does not provide documentation for certain facts cited in the book. This is because the book focuses on his analysis of these facts. Still, providing references for these facts would make this book even better.



5. AMERICA'S SECRET WAR is a blow by blow account of the Bush regime's "war on terrorism." And while several chapters do offer valuable insights -- particularly the author's discussion of the war in Afghanistan -- overall, the book is a mine field. I cannot recommend it because the author, George Friedman, is either incredibly stupid in believing that a rag tag bunch of 19 jihadists using cell phones outsmarted the most sophisticated security establishment in the world on 9/11 -- or he is just downright devious.
   
   In the intelligence world deception is a finely honed art. The game is played by subtly spicing truth with falsehood -- and there are enough examples in AMERICA'S SECRET WAR for us to suspect that George Friedman is spinning yarns. Allow me to be blunt: He is quite skillful in the art of lying.
   
   Here are some examples:
   
   Friedman mentions the US-Iran discussions that followed 9/11 -- but he fails to acknowledge that in 2003 Iran made a bona fide peace offer to the US that could have resulted in a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement -- IF the US had responded. Iran offered to cooperate in the Gulf, to disarm Hezbollah, to accept stringent IAEA oversight of its nuclear program, and even signed onto the 2002 Arab peace offer, indicating that Tehran was willing to live in peace with Israel -- provided the Palestinians received a measure of justice -- in the form of a state.
   
   As we know, the National Intelligence Estimate in November 2007 provides strong evidence that the 2003 Iranian offer was genuine. The NIE concluded that Iran abandoned work on its BOMB program in 2003, which -- notice -- coincides with the date of the peace offer. The real question, which Friedman never mentions, is why the US rejected the Iranian peace offer out of hand.
   
   Friedman also poo-poohs the 2002 Saudi peace offer, characterizing it as nothing but political posturing. He writes: "The Saudis had consulted nobody about the idea. which meant that this radical proposal didn't even have the backing of [prince] Abdullah's own government." (p. 244)
   
   This is total BS. In fact, the 2002 Arab peace offer had the backing of every member of the Arab League -- and again -- could have become the basis for an Isareli-Palestinian peace settlement -- IF Israel and the US had responded favorably. Both, however, simply ignored it.
   
   The Saudi Prince Abdullah actually went so far as to personally confront Bush about the Palestinian issue during his June 2002 visit to Crawford Texas. At that meeting Bush promised Abdullah that he would take steps to solve the Palestinian question. Of course, as we know, Bush did nothing of the kind -- because his idol Ariel Sharon opposed a peace settlement.
   
   Friedman is also dishonest when he writes about an Iranian BOMB --as if Iran already had nuclear weapons. When in fact they did not -- and do not. There is no excuse for his getting this wrong. As a self-described intelligence expert Friedman should have known this. We must interpret this "error" as a case of calculated deception on his part.
   
   
   Friedman's confused analysis of why the neo cons invaded Iraq fails to persuade -- and again -- we must conclude that the author is simply fibbing to us. Friedman fails to mention the obvious: that the war was largely about controlling Iraq's oil -- and had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I would argue: It was also about destroying Iraq as a nation -- leaving Iraq prostrate so that it could never again challenge Israeli hegemony in the region. Now why couldn't an expert like Friedman simply tell the truth and state the obvious? Clearly, he has an agenda.
   
   Friedman gives a really bizarre justification for the US policy of arming BOTH Iran and Iraq during the bloody war which raged between these two nations between 1980-1986. He states that if either Iran or Iraq gained "the upper hand in the region it would try to sieze part or all of Saudi Arabia." (p 253) Which, again, is total nonsense. Why couldn't the author simply state the obvious: The US pursued a wicked policy of bleeding and weakening both nations for its own selfish reasons -- and also to divert attention from Israel's continuing illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. It had nothing to do with protecting Saudi Arabia.
   
   Friedman also repeats the lie that Saddam Hussein kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors in 1998. This lie has been told so frequently that it has taken on a life of its own. But Scott Ritter, the chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, knows what actually happened because he was there. According to Ritter it was Bill Clinton who ordered out the UN inspection team, on the eve of a major US bombing campaign in late 1998, Operation Desert Fox, which was an attempt by the US to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Indeed, this is why the Iraqi leader then refused to allow the inspectors to return. He correctly accused the US of using the UN inspection effort to gather intel about Saddam's whereabouts in an attempt to take him out. Ritter affirms this is what actually happened. Now, why couldn't Friedman get this right?
   
   What is Friedman's agenda? We get a clue from the author's discussion about the Madrid bombings in March 2004, which he attributes to al Qaeda. Yet, today, we know al Qaeda had nothing whatever to do with that attack, which ocurred shortly before major elections in Spain. The bombing was almost certainly staged by operatives of the ultraconservative Spanish government then in power -- as a way of terrorizing the Spanish people into re-electing that same government. They blamed it on Basque separatists. Fortunately, the false flag attack failed. The Spanish people saw through it -- and voted out Bush's allies -- in the process, electing a new populist government that immediately fulfilled its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq -- consistent with the strongly anti war sentiment in Spain. Here, again, by misfiring, the author shows his true colors.
   
   Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR -- which claims to be an independent intelligence agency. However, I suspect he has links to the Israeli Mossad and maybe even to the CIA. The reader should beware: Read the book with a discerning eye -- because the author weaves many falsehoods between the lines. He is a liar.

5 comments about Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't.

1. I studied Islam on my own for 6 months last year. I read ONLY Muslim texts and avoided anything like this until I could form my own opinion. I have 5 English translations of the Qur'an, Bukhrai and Muslim (collections of hadith) and Tafsir Ibn Kathir. I have read as much of it as I could stand.
   
   You can do it the hard way like I did, or you can read this book. Spencer has Islam spot on accurate. Islam is not a religion of peace. In fact it's more of a tribal code of law than a religion. The Islamic world view divides the world into two camps, the House of Islam, and the House of War. If you aren't Muslim, you are in the House of War.
   
   There may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Learn it the easy way by reading Spencer, or learn it the hard way and pick up a Qur'an and hadith, but learn it! You need to learn the truth for yourself.



2. It's astonishing that other reviewers think this book presents "facts". It is a starkly ignorant book (and this is an understatement) of vast swathes of Islamic history which, if examined, would disprove its main theses almost point by point (for e.g. that Islam is the "religion of the sword", rejects rationality, etc). Islam is not perfect, and no religion is, but it is downright dishonest to take a look at a book (the Quran) and base your judgment of an entire culture on it. Look at the history of a culture and how it USED the book as a civilizational project. In this respect, Islam has been astonishingly open and tolerant. Again, I am not saying Islam is perfect, but the above picture is so ignorant and biased that it doesn't take much research to show that it is grossly distorting.
   
   An even cursory acquaintance with Islamic civilization and history ought to dispel such long-standing ideologies as the above (not to mention that Christianity waged battles of the sword in the Mideast and the Americas of horrifying proportions, in which millions of people died (the Spanish Conquistadors or Columbus were peaceful Christians?!! read the historical record and see for yourself what a wonderful and loving Christians they were). Despite that, and despite being a non-religious person, I condemn neither Islam nor Christianity wholesale as faiths). Religions are not coherent bodies of belief; hell, not even philosophy is, and it is one of the most systematic attempts in human history to systematize our beliefs about the world, so how could religion be?
   
   For the historically challenged like our author:
   even in medieval times, there were debates over the question of reason and its relation to faith in Islam. The great Muslim philosopher Averroes went so far as to say that philosopher and prophets are on an equal footing, i.e. that prophets have no more claim on the truth than do philosophers. There were even atheists in the history of Islam, one of them for instance was the great physicist Ibn al-Haitham, and the great poet al-Ma'ari.
   finally, Islamic philosophy and science had an enormous impact on Western thought and have been one of the prime sources (often unacknowledged) behind the development of Western modernity. They went far beyond the Greek philosophers and scientists they learned from and developed the scientific method before even the great Bacon. read a good history of science and you'll see that immediately (for instance the renowned BBC science historian James Burke in his series which you can find on youtube, called The Day the Universe Changed, shows this very clearly. And that's just he tip of the iceberg as far as Muslim contributions to science and rational inquiry go).
   so one can only conclude that far from Islam being irrational, it is the book that is.
   
   so please spare us the hate-mongering in the guise of "facts", since the book is clearly deeply under-infomred! and please dear reviewers who bought this cheap trick of a book, don't be so gullible as to base wholesale condemnations of entire civilizations and cultures on one or even several biased accounts. surely one has to be more responsible and inquire and search for oneself what the truth of such matters is. after all, isn't this an Emersonian (and American) virtue, of "self-reliance"? or do you simply abandon critical judgment and rationality when Islam is under discussion?
   so before accusing others of being irrational barbarians, let's look at ourselves in the mirror when we so heinously misrepresent and condemn an ENTIRE civilization. we ought to be more responsible as citizens of a democracy.



3. Robert Spencer is among only a handful of people in the United States that is not only a walking wealth of information on the religion of Islam, but has the courage to speak his convictions. This is a truly courageous act for which he receives numerous death threats from those "Religion of Peace" adherents. If you want to experience a very small taste of what his courage brings Mr. Spencer for exercising his freedom of speech rights, just peruse the 1-star ratings on this book. Mr. Spencer has always maintained a standing invitation to anyone wanting to debate his facts in an open and public discussion. Few have attempted to do so and those who have, always came out the losers. The reason is that Mr. Spencer does not speak from his emotions or personal bias, but from the scriptures of the Koran, the Sira and Hadith, as determined by the major religious teachings of all the major Sunni and Shia theological leaders in the world today.
   His many detractors don't offer any evidence that what Mr. Spencer writes and says is in error, they simply do what ignorant bullies do the world over. They threaten and resort to character assassination, which is all they are left with when confronted by the truth. Almost every single book authored by Mr. Spencer has made the New York Times Bestseller list, and for good reason. Hasn't anyone noticed how the "Religion of Peace" followers rioted over the Danish cartoons, the short video "Fitna," the murder of Danish citizen Theo Van Gogh, the endless fatwa's calling for the murder of those who speak out against the "Religion of Peace," such as Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses? Has anyone noticed the worldwide celebratory crowds of thousands of Muslims around the world, who are so quick to publicly celebrate the Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979? Or the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? And of course the worldwide euphoric eruption of sheer joy from Muslims around the world on 9/11?
   More to the point, has any one else noticed the deafening silence from the Muslim community against these same acts? Mr. Spencer's book "Religion of Peace" is factual and well written. I would highly recommend any of his books and eagerly await his future ones as well. If you don't want to know what is going on in the world of Dar al-Islam then go back to sleep, but if you are interested in your future and the future of our children, then I would read every article or book written by the superbly knowledgeable and talented Robert Spencer.



4. Spencer is well studied in islam... This is more of an eye openening / informative book rather than an "islam bashing" book as the bad rerviews here accuse. If you want to understand the jihadists of today you must understand the historical / religious roots of their belief. Spencer points out text in the koran / hadiths to the modern jihad and helps remove the whitewash of the "religion of peace". I thought it was a good read.



5. Robert Spencer produces a hateful, revisionist, and triumphalistic argument about why he thinks Christianity and the Western world (he conflates the two) are superior to Islam. Christianity is a religion of peace and dialogue and Islam a religion of terror and suppression. He accuses Christianity's detractors of "cherry-picking" evidence of the support of violence in the Old and New Testaments, but then goes on to do the same in his treatment of the Qu'ran and Christian history itself.
   But the most basic error he makes is to dismiss the long and bloody history of Christian cruelty, forced conversion, slavery, destruction of native cultures, and environmental disaster with a flick of his temporal wand. Yes, there were Christians who did such things in the past, he notes, but this was not essential to Christian's message of peace and love for others. Besides, most of these more troublesome episodes of Christian history were not as bad as they seemed and have now passed. Christian anti-Semitism was not all that bad (especially compared with Muslim anti-Semitism). Slavery was a mistake and Christians finally figured that out.
   Even if one accepts the latter point that such Christian atrocity-mongering has diminished (which is eminently debatable with good Christians in America still enthused for racial and gender inequality and positively foaming at the mouth for guns, capital punishment, and a vast nuclear arsenal) it is patently false to suggest that it was anything other than the Enlightenment, the throwing off of theocracies, and the embrace of secular, constitutional democracies, that spurred our best, though always fragile, efforts to live with our differences without killing each other.
   No one is arguing, as Spencer seems to believe, that there are not Islamic terrorists and theocrats who wish to suppress people with Sharia law. They use religion to justify their violence. Yet Spencer ignores the consensus that most of the anger that drives such things is political rather than religious. It is anger at Western cultural hegemony, globalization, and the inequality of wealth that feeds the discontent of radical Islam.
   Why should Christians who do evil get the benefit of the doubt that they simply missed the point of their faith's deeper teachings on peace in the pursuit of more worldly and self-serving ends, while Muslims do so because they are just following their religion? Because Spencer wants to goad on the great "Clash of Civilizations" view of the world and take up good, loving, Christian arms, if necessary, to defend the great Western civilization of peace and reason. With books like these, he and his ilk may just succeed.

No comments about Protect and Defend.