Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

Rating:
Summary: Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance
Review: America's popularity has hit rock bottom. In the Middle East disapproval ratings generally run between 80 and 90 percent. So why do they hate us? Contrary to the rhetoric of the White House and Conservative pundits Anonymous states the obvious `It's our policies they hate'. Denying reality only exasperates the problem.

The writer unleashes a scathing commentary on the White House, the intelligence community, the `Elites' (whoever they are) and just about anyone else involved in the Afghan/Iraqi debacle. The `Hubris' is what causes us to engage in nation building without analysis. We Americans are engaged in flights of fancy where optimism alone can reshape centuries of culture overnight. In a sense the Bush administration diminishes the sacrifices that Americans and Europeans have made over the centuries in the fight for freedom, equality and Democracy by suggesting that it can be imposed on a people who consider them completely foreign ideas.

The main point is that we need to keep the focus on destroying the enemy and the enemy is al Qaeda and its offshoots. Nation building is costly, resource intensive and likely to end in failure. Anonymous states that are our Generals are taught one thing and asked to do another. War isn't about speed or low casualties or bloodless combat. It's about crushing the enemy until they have no more will to fight. Killing 20% of the Taliban or Iraqi army leaves 80% to fight another day. If politicians looked at war in that respect they might not be so quick to pull the trigger.

Anonymous sees Usama Bin Laden not as a madman but as a worthy opponent and as such worthy of serious American resolve. Instead of tackling the enemy we gave him a gift beyond measure in our occupation of Iraq.

Liberals may flock to this book because of its Bush White House bashing but be warned that the writer suggests ramping up the war, ending our defense at any cost relationship with Israel and ripping into the Alaskan wilderness to free ourselves from Middle Eastern oil dependency. Anonymous is a realist but some may not be so thrilled with his reality.


Rating:
Summary: An Important if Flawed Book
Review: I had the privilege to see Michael Scheuer speak at the AQ 2.0 Conference several weeks ago and his panel discussion convinced me to pick up his book. The book raises several vital points in that despite three years since 911, the United States still isn't regarding the War on Terror as a real war. The strongest point is his insights on the perceptions of the Arab World and how Bin Laden's message is crafted to appeal there. Where the book falls short is that he identifies too strongly with the AQ and the Taliban and completely discounts our ability to influence them.

Rating:
Summary: C'mon...
Review: I have read this book. I think the people giving it one star are ideologues who couldn't open their minds to ANYTHING outside of bombing muslims to make them submit to our will.

The author sounds like the few CIA workers who have TRIED to wake up the agency AND our government to the realities of Islamic terror. I, for one, do not think this book's detractors are average joes. They sound like ideologues who do nothing but discredit ideas and opinions to suit their agendas. Do you critics understand the CIA's role? They give intelligence advice to the President and Congress so foreign policy decisions can be made. Sorry, but you can't ALWAYS shoot the messenger. The person interpreting the data needs to have a good head.

Sure the CIA dropped the ball on 9/11 and with regards to the invasion of Iraq (even though I think Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney helped speed the misinformation up to get what they wanted) but from what has come out in these 9/11 hearings, the President and his cabinet refused to listen when information contrary to their agenda was given to them. I do remember the CIA saying back in November of 2002 that they DID NOT think Iraq was an IMMINENT threat. I do remember this and then ALL OF A SUDDEN politics took hold and they changed their tune (hmmm...sounds like POLITICAL PRESSURE!)

Reading this book, I realized that the author is completely on target with his observations. If he is truly the man who was in charge of chasing Bin Laden, I would assume he is steeped in vast knowledge of the Middle East, it's cultures and personalities. His viewpoint makes sense. We need to change our approach if we wish to purge extremists from the Middle East. No, I do not think Muslims are "humiliated" by our successes, they are humiliated because America treats everyone of them like terrorists and supports Israel wholeheartedly.

I am not saying we should ditch Israel, but like any friend, we need to have more stern dialogue with them and change some things.

I dunno...the Middle East is a mess, but since I have strong knowledge of the region, I can say that we helped in this mess and we MUST clean it up. The author has a point of view that may help break it down for my other countrymen to understand the situation better.

Rating:
Summary: Mad genius
Review: If nothing else, Imperial Hubris makes a great case for publishing anonymously - the unembarrassed verve with which anonymous champions the mass, wanton killing of admittedly innocent arabs is hard to imagine coming from someone putting his name on the book jacket. This sort of honesty provides invaluable insight for lefties like me who, frankly, have a hard time understanding that some on the right can make a coherent case that George W. Bush has been TOO MUCH of a multilateralist and too squeamish about bombing arabs. With style and real gumption, anonymous builds these arguments on the basis of a startlingly clear-headed view of Al Qaeda's beef with the US. His somewhat over-the-top militarism is built on a solid, sensitive understanding of Bin Laden's world view. Neither a reactionary nor a racist, Anonymous is perhaps best described as a Culturally Relativist Militarist. Think that's an oxymoron? Read the book, and be shocked by how much sense it makes...

Rating:
Summary: CIA Strikes Back
Review: It is important to realize that this book is not a lashing out at the current administration but a clarification of a state of affairs in the United States and abroad. The scapegoating of the CIA by the administration for faulty information on WMD possession to justify its invasion of Iraq has perhaps resulted in the need for the CIA to respond in the only manner it can, anonymously. Read this book not as a defamation of a president or an administration but as a genuine critique of imperial overstretch and its consequences for America's war on terror.

Rating:
Summary: A Review of sorts...... "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer
Review: Michael Scheuer originally wrote and published this book anonymously. Subsequent to publication, his identity became public. Scheuer was head of the CIA's bin Laden Task Force for a number of years before resigning. He left the agency prior to the current bloodletting under new DCI Porter Goss. The gist of his argument (and I do not pretend to do full justice to his case) is as follows:

1. It is a mistake to think we are simply fighting terrorists, or that such a fight can be won with legal and police efforts. These are, of course, a necessary part of the effort, but will never in and of themselves be sufficient. What we are fighting is an Islamic insurgency directed against, primarily, the United States. And we should conceive of the war, for war it is, in terms of an insurgency.....not as terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, one often used by insurgents (who are, by definition, weaker than those they oppose). We can't fight a tactic and thinking of the struggle in such terms only confuses matters and diverts our focus. This insurgency is more or less global in its scope.

2. While Osama may dream of establishing some pan-Islamic caliphate, that dream isn't what is motivating the foot soldiers of this insurgency. What motivates them are very specific issues:

- U.S. support for Israel that fails to recognize the problem of the Palestinians
- U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula, in the Middle East, and especially in Islam's holiest sites.
- The American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq
- Perceived U.S. support for Russian, Chinese and Indian repression against their Muslim populations.
- U.S. pressure on and collusion with arab oil producing regimes to keep prices low.
- U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.

Bin Laden and his people have been particularly adept at using these issues to energize and recruit to the cause.

3. All of these issues are related to actions and policies of the United States, and to a lesser degree its allies.

4. Sheuer says we have a choice (without also arguing what the choice should be). To the extent that we wish to continue these policies, we must accept doing so will continue to generate support and recruits for the Islamic insurgency. And to the degree that we might alleviate or change those policies and actions, we can reduce (though never entirely eliminate) the insurgency. He doesn't argue for appeasement, only that we understand the implications and consequences of our policies and actions. His point is that we are failing to really examine the nature of this war, the nature of the enemy, and the reasons why so many Muslims are prepared to die fighting against us. Saying they hate us for what we stand for is part of the obfuscation that prevents such a discussion and muddies the waters.

5. Sheuer makes the point that the policies listed above in fact may well be in the national interest of the United States, and that as a nation we might chose to continue them. He says we are not really having that discussion and we should.

6. In order to combat the insurgency in the Islamic world we need to get over our aversion to killing and being killed. He argues that if we are going to take on the insurgents/terrorists, then we'd better be prepared to kill lots of them. He points out that we had few moral compunctions about killing significant numbers of Germans and Japanese, including civilians, during the war against fascism, we should not be skittish about doing so if necessary in this war.

7. We also need to get over our aversion to losing American lives. No one questioned the need for sacrifices to take Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Normandy, etc. And any student of US history knows that the winning generals in our wars have been prepared to send men to die, sometimes in large numbers. In order to fight a serious war against the Islamic insurgency that now rages against us we need to accept casualties. Policies and decisions that are based more on keeping losses down, and avoiding politically unpalatable consequences do not lead to successful warfare.

Sheuer also is critical in that we continue to be complacent. The notion that if we fight them in Iraq we don't have to fight them here is bogus. The reality is they are already here and we are fighting them here. The public just doesn't see and hear as much about that fight.

Again, the above is a quick take on the overall direction and tenor of his main arguments. I've probably missed some things, and certainly not presented the arguments as fully or as nuanced as he has. But agree with him or not, I think the book is worth reading for anyone who is seriously thinking about the problem (as opposed to those who rely on television soundbytes and emotional rhetoric).

dtf

Rating:
Summary: Get Your War On
Review: My cheeks are sore from the non stop slapping this author gave me as I read the book. During the whole book, the author wrote with such unrelenting force that I felt as though he had burst into my home, grabbed me by the lapel and was shaking me so hard I had drool running down my face. I thought the author was going to spend the whole book carping about the Bush team and how they have handled the war on terror. I tend to like that sort of book so that story line was what I had in mind. No such light review of the facts crosses this books pages. The author tells the reader up front, very clearly and in no uncertain terms where the U.S. has gone wrong with the war on terror and what we need to do to correct the ships course, all of this without really blaming President Bush.

The author thinks the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been disasters and that the overall war on terror is being directed by the B team. He is not after Bush, but the level of cabinet Secretaries, military leaders and intelligence staff that should know better and really are falling down on the job. I must admit that I am receptive to this authors story, a case of preaching to the choir, so it should not be that much of a surprise that I felt the author hit the nail on the head. Outside of some widely disbursed victories, it looks like the current war on terror is more of a Chinese fire drill then a well planned and run military campaign. Most Americans know more about the color coded threat system that means nothing to the average Joe then what is truly driving the people out to kill us. And the current military action looks more like a bulls eye audition tape then the drive to victory we all were told was coming.

To say that this author grabs your attention just does not convey the sharpness of his message, no it is more like he runs up to you and administers a quick knee to the groin and a punch to the nose. I do not think if you are left or right, you can argue with his points. And for those that think any and all criticism of the war on terror is the mark of a Democrat, read this book. This guy is more of a Republican then I have heard speak publicly in a long time. I do not know how he did it, but he some how worked into a chapter about killing as many "terrorists" and there kind as possible, a plug for drilling for oil in Alaska. This guy is all American and I felt he wrote this book more out of dismay and disgust at our current situation then anything else. Overall I enjoyed the book and felt I learned even more. If you are interested in current events then you will get a lot out of the book. Just be fair warred that it is not walk in the park, this author is brutally honest and a bit grumpy.

Rating:
Summary: US soldier serving second tour in Iraq
Review: Regardless of your political leanings, this book is worth a read. The author unflatteringly lays out how some of our actions are perceived by many muslims today. While much of the motivation for anti-US sentiment is logically flawed, we should strive to understand it.

While I disagree with the author's bleak predictions of democracy's future in Iraq and Afghanistan, his points are well researched and presented. I must note that he is an expert and I am not.

Bottom line, there is a reason these young men are being convinced to construct and place the roadside bombs that are killing troopers over here, and it's not because they hate baseball and apple pie. It is important for us to understand the motivation for their hatred if we are to effectively counter it. Leave partisan politics at the door and read this book.

Rating:
Summary: No Secrets Revealed
Review: Sorry, no secrets were found but Anonymous has good insights when "analysis" runs into the "message".

Given the recent stable of anti-Bush books, you would think this book is part of the race for first-place in that crowded field. I would disagree. "Hubris" belongs with Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" or Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil..." and "See Know Evil..." If you must be political... read "America Alone" by Halper and Clarke. "Hubris" will compliment the reading of any of these books and if you have not read them... I suspect you will.

Any way you read "Imperial Hubris", it is likely you will not be disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
Review: The author, an anonymous senior US intelligence official, maintains that contrary to official pronouncements, organizations such as al Qaeda are not fighting democratic systems of government, civil liberties, gender equality, or the separation of church and state. Some Islamic conservatives are offended by these aspects of western culture, but those who turn to violence are prompted by specific US policies that create American military, political, and economic strategies in the Islamic world. Those strategies convince many into believing their communities, lands, and religion are under attack. If US policies and rhetoric do not change, warns the author, the west will continue to lose the war on terror.