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

Rating:
Summary: Gripping and Thought-Provoking
Review: The writer evidently (according to the Boston Phoenix) was involved in tracking Bin Laden for the intelligence authorities. The book is a well-argued well-written brief: one should read it responsively, trying to counter the author's arguments. He is making a case on how to analyze Bin Laden's actions, how to predict what Al Quaeda will do, and how to fight Al Quaeda. There are specific policy prescriptions, and specific analyses of policy mistakes. I think this is a very important book - whether one agrees or disagrees with the author, he gives facts, backed by publicly available cites and references, which enable the reader to make informed judgments. Very well-written. The author must be a first-rate analyst. I believe that it is rare that the general public gets to read material of this calibre on issues of such moment.

Rating:
Summary: Whose side is Mr. Scheuer on?
Review: This book is all doom and gloom and very painful to read because it is tedious, repetitive, and, as the title suggests, even defeatist in tone. To hear Mr. Scheuer tell it Osama bin Laden is a gentle, pious, master strategist, who currently has America right where he wants us and will ultimately lead the 1.3 billion Muslims of the world to victory. Of course this is somewhat obscured by the fact that UBL is currently on the run, in hiding somewhere, probably in a cave in some remote part of Pakistan, eating goat meat provided by the charity of sympathetic Pashtun tribesmen. As you would expect, as the CIA's top expert on UBL, the author does provide a great deal of interesting information about UBL's resume and the history of the region, etc. But he gets into trouble when he attempts to venture out into other areas such as policy and criticisms of other agencies. He spends a chapter arguing that Muslims do not really hate America merely because they don't like our values, lifestyle, etc, but rather, they hate us because of our (in his opinion) provocative foreign policy. What policy is that, one might ask? Well, we are close friends with Israel and we support corrupt and decadent Muslim regimes so that they will sell us cheap oil. But don't we have those policies because of our values, lifestyle, etc, one might ask? Mr. Scheuer pretty much concedes that there is essentially ZERO chance that those foreign policies will change so he then goes on to argue that in that case we should annihilate our enemies. He argues that we are doing everything wrong in the war on terror, that the military is not ruthless enough, that law enforcement has too big a role in the war, that we are too legalistic, and so on. He spends several pages defending his right to be an armchair general, and bristles at the fact that military officers have had the temerity to suggest that since he has never actually served in the military perhaps he should be more restrained in his advocacy of extreme belligerence. In one chapter the author describes the great reverence afforded to UBL by the world's Muslims. At one point he is described as like Robin Hood. On the next page he is described as the great leader of a noble cause like General Robert E. Lee. There are strange apparent contradictions in this book. Mr. Scheuer describes how one of UBL's most cherished goals has always been the creation of a pure Islamic state that he can ally himself with and that this was finally realized with the advent of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But wait, didn't the author also consider it a victory for UBL when Bush smashed the Taliban regime and chased them out to the boonies? How can both be true? Mr. Scheuer exerts himself to argue that, contrary to what the US Government and everybody else puts out, UBL is not a lunatic terrorist. But he also describes how after the 9/11 attacks UBL offered the American people mercy if they would accept Islam, generously offering his own services as teacher, and this, of course was after he sent 19 of his most devoted followers to hijack four large airliners full of people and turn them into kamikazees for suicide attacks against some of the world's biggest buildings, murdering thousands of innocent people and thereby declaring war against the greatest superpower the world has ever known, led by a resolute president like George W. Bush. Then the author describes how UBL has indicated a willingness to make peace with America if we will meet his stated demands. And Mr. Scheuer doesn't think that this is a lunatic terrorist? Then what does a lunatic terrorist look like? As I was reading this I kept thinking , `This is the best that the CIA can come up with?'

Rating:
Summary: Authoritative, obsessional, even brilliant at times
Review: This book is primarily about Osama bin Laden, his psychology, his utterances, his demonic vision for jihad and what that means to the Western world, and especially to the United States. Anonymous (actually CIA analyst Michael Scheuer) is obviously an expert on bin Laden. I would even say that he is obsessively devoted to the study of bin Laden; but this is good since bin Laden is indeed a horrendous threat to the US; and furthermore it is good that somebody has the motivation, the ability and the desire to learn as much as possible about this Hitler of the Muslim world.

The two most important points that Anonymous argues are (1) that to dismiss bin Laden as a madman or simply a crazed mass murderer is a mistake for which we will pay dearly; and (2) that a further attack against the US by Al Qaeda, probably involving weapons of mass destruction, is nearly inevitable.

This latter assertion is revealed almost inadvertently in Chapter 5: "Bin Laden Views the World: Some Old, Some New, and a Twist." Our author advises us that bin Laden has prepared the Muslim world and its clerics for the horrendous loss of civilian lives to come in the US (while absolving himself of Islamic moral blame) by giving us the opportunity to embrace Islam and accept Allah as the one true God before Al Qaeda unleashes its attack. Anonymous quotes bin Laden as saying: "I urge you [Americans] to seek the joy of life and the after life and to rid yourself of your dry, miserable, and spiritless materialistic existence. I urge you to become Muslims..." (p. 154) Bin Laden further lays the responsibility for his coming mass murder at the hands of the American people by saying that since America is a democracy, the crimes committed by its elected leaders are the responsibility of the people who elected them. He urges us to elect leaders who will convert to Islam.

The problem with this for Anonymous's main thesis (that bin Laden is not a madman but a brilliant military and political strategist) is that only a madman would seriously present such a proposition. Anonymous himself realizes its absurdity and writes that bin Laden does not really expect us to comply. His pronouncement is merely for the consumption of those Islamic clerics who may have scruples about killing innocent Americans.

The other thing wrong with Anonymous's argument is that he claims that bin Laden would not be attacking the US if we were not on Islamic soil and had not done nasty things to Muslims. We are on Islamic soil and we have done nasty things to Muslims; however just reading bin Laden reveals that he and his kind would wage war against the US and other "infidels" and "crusaders" merely because such people do not accept the Muslim religion. Islam has always been a religion of conquest and intolerance. Anonymous knows this perhaps better than I can even imagine, yet he seems to have gotten lost in the very thick foliage of his arguments so that he misses the larger picture (a huge forest) that screams out to us that for people like bin Laden there is only total conquest or death. There is only his vision of God and what is right and what the true religion is--on the one hand--and godless evil on the other.

What Anonymous makes clear (at least to me) is that bin Laden wants more than anything a religious war with the West, especially with the US, and will work to his dying day to bring that about.

Some lesser points that Anonymous makes so very well:

We are losing the "war" in Afghanistan and that will be obvious before long. Indeed no one (but The Christian Scientist Monitor, Anonymous notes) really covers that on-going war anymore. Anonymous believes that an Islamic regime in Kabul is inevitable regardless of what the US attempts to do. (p. 47 & p. 58) Since Bush and the media have conspired to keep Afghanistan off the front pages and out of the nightly newscasts, I think our mole-ish author is entirely correct.

We will lose the "peace" (how absurd that word sounds in context) in Iraq and be driven out of the country. Anonymous is certainly on target here as of this writing since the Bush administration is calculating its "exit strategy" as even the most diehard neocons are beginning to realize what many of us knew long ago, namely that the cost in terms of lives and dollars to long occupy Iraq is more than the American people will tolerate. It can even be said that it is not an exaggeration to call Iraq another Vietnam; it is an understatement.

An interesting but somewhat minor point that Anonymous makes is that part of bin Laden's strategy is to weaken the US economy by making us pay enormous security costs (called "Aborting the American economy"--see page 102) . I wonder about this, but clearly the way Bush is throwing money at the problem in such a scattered and uninformed way does give one pause.

There is much, much more to react to and to appreciate in this most interesting book. Anybody who wants to understand what is going on in the so-called war on terror needs to read this book. It is one of the best I have read on the subject, notwithstanding the exaggerated admiration and respect that Anonymous seems to have for bin Laden. Indeed, it is no wonder that Anonymous cannot use his real name since some of his nearly adoring statements about bin Laden would be intolerable to his superiors. Of course, Anonymous believes that his admiration for bin Laden is like that of field commanders for the wily enemy commander. I think he goes a bit beyond that, but you judge for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Imperial Hubris: Why the CIA is always wrong
Review: To give him his due, Mr. Scheuer does answer the question "Why the West(the U.S. really) is Losing the War on Terror."

The answer is that the CIA rarely, if ever, has a clue about anything from the fall of the Shah, to India's nuclear programs, to Osama bin Laden. But one needn't buy this book to find that out. A reading of the Church report, though 30 years old, ought to tell the reader everything he needs to know about the effecicy of the CIA and its Rube Goldberg capers.

Those interested in bin Laden and Terror would do better to read Jason Burke, among others, and leave Mr. Scheuer to babble in the wildernss.

Mr. Scheuer's solution, unleashing the CIA, is as self-serving as it is misguided. It was tried by the British in Kenya, Malaysia and Aden with lamentable results.

A military cum intelligence campaign was tried and failed in Northern Ireland. Peru's military campaign against the Sendero Luminoso was likewise crowned with less than success.

On the other hand, West Germany and Italy's reliance on police methods seem to have solved the Badermeinhoff and Red Brigade problems. In this country, the Weather Underground was defeated with police work, rather than spies and armies.

Mr. Scheuer is a hammer desparately attempting to make a nail out of the currently funded problem.