Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.15 You Save: $4.80 (44%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.98 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
Book Review: Almost Excellent
Summary: 4 Stars
Overall, this is a great insider's view on CIA work in East Asia and the "War on Terror". Mr.Scheuer does a nice job explaining the in's and outs of whats going on.
Mr Scheuer provides his assesment early on, then goes chapter by chapter explaining why. I found the research well done, but some of the analysis off.
Chapters on the ineptitude of the FBI, were funny, and did nothing to break the Stereotype on FBI /CIA rivalry.
I recommend this book as a great birds eye view of what's happening in American/Eastern militant geo-politics.
Book Review: A must read!
Summary: 4 Stars
As for books on terrorism I believe this is a must read. Michael Scheuer brings up some great point in this book although I do not agree with everything that he has written. One of the more disturbing parts of this book are his views about the United States relationship with Israel. For someone who has worked in the government for such a long time one would think that he understands the benefits of the U.S having a relationship with Israel. It would appear that Mr. Scheuer sees no benefit to such a relationship and he clearly articulates that such a friendship with the Jewish state is causing the U.S. harm. Despite his viewpoint on Israel, Mr. Scheuer brings up many valid points regarding how the U.S. is conducting the global war on terror. This book offers more benefits than disappointments. Like I said, I do not agree with all of his viewpoints but then again I have not seen the information that his had access to while employed with the CIA. Read this book with an open mind and make your own judgement.Book Review: Bin Ladin and our failures
Summary: 4 Stars
The title had me questioning whether I should read the book or not. We all know who the author is now, he is Mike Scheuer. I had problems with the first 3/4 of the book, feeling as if I couldn't figure out who's side he is on. Some have compared him to Neville Chamberlain (if you don't know who he is, look him up.) This comparison is preposterous. I think the author is trying to explain Bin Ladin along with our failures from their side. I kept waiting for the pedestal talk to stop, and it finally did at the end of the book. It is definitely a thought provoking book and should be read by all, if you can get by the semantics and on to the last couple chapters. Tough to find a book that takes on terror, Bin Ladin and the Taliban in this way, but I wish the author would make he himself clear. Maybe that's just his mystique. We are reading the terrorists the wrong way, there is no doubt.Book Review: Defensive Jihad?
Summary: 5 Stars
From Mike's outstanding review above:
"OBL has repeatedly stated five demands for changes in U.S. foreign policy: i) end all aid to Israel, ii) withdraw military forces from the Arabian Peninsula and all Muslim territory, iii) end all involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, iv) end U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims in China, Russia, India and elsewhere, and v) restore Muslim control of the Islamic world's energy resources for the benefit of Muslims. A sixth point is to replace U.S.-backed regimes in the Muslim world with Islamic regimes, but that is really a demand on the Muslim population."
So, we throw Israel to the wolves. Hell, it would please a lot of folks. Say we do it. How about woman in France? or England? should their governments have the gaul to fail to institute Islamic Law. How about KSM and Ramzi Yousef? How about India? Force them to give up Kashmir? And how about Russia? China? and Canada? Perhaps a key demand that Mr. Scheuer failed to make is to change Western thought of free speech. After all, you can't have cartoons poking fun of Islam? Can you? We can't take in Hirsi Ali either. How about the 'oppression' of Muslim's in the Philipines? in Indonesia? at Gitmo? in Toronto? in London? in Paris? in Thailand?
Question to turn Mr. Scheuer's thesis on its head: How about the treatment of Christian in Muslim Lands. I guess the necessary converse to his thesis would be to throw all dhimmis to the wolves. For is it enough to cut the cord to Israel and India and the Saudi Royals? I guess we should ignore the rights of Christians in Saudi Arabia(maids and nurses), Pakistan(murdered, raped and sold), Darfur(genocide), Egypt(murdered, raped, forcibly converted).
Wouldn't any public statement, any show of support for these persacuted Christians in Muslim land incur Muslim outrage?
Maybe a more perfect methodology would be to simply ask UBL, what is allowed? Both in terms of what we can say, who we support, the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim lands, who we can make fun of, what distinct laws should be make for Muslim's ect. Kind of a slippery slope, if you catch my drift.
Also, might not the adoption of UBL's 'demands' embolden Islamists around the world?
So my problem with Mr. Scheuer's thesis is that it's not a complete 'unified' theory. He focuses only on the points made by UBL. Does UBL speak for all Islamists? Is he honest? Might not UBL add a point or two if we capitulate? What about our rights as members of the west? You know, little things like freedom to lampoon one another.
Book Review: I'm sympathetic, but not persuaded
Summary: 3 Stars
This is an interesting book to read, but ultimately I wasn't really persuaded by the author's thesis. On the one hand, I don't think the author gives the US media and public enough credit for understanding bin Laden's motives. On the other, I was surprised to find out that the author is Dr. Scheuer - he has a PhD in history, yet he frequently refers to the writing of various scholars with the kind of superlatives that should have been beaten out of you by the time you get your PhD: "this excellent analysis,", "this great scholar," etc. etc. - every time he uses this kind of language, it suggests that he can't hold his own in this particular field of scholarship, that he is too deferential to the authorities in the field, even though he is sometimes critical of them. I'm sure this isn't true - I'm sure that Scheuer can hold his own, but the excessive superlatives don't help his case; they make him sound like he is a graduate student, even though he is an analyst with decades of experience.
There are two other issues I have with the book:
The first relates to the author's attempts to demonstrate that bin Laden is not the cold-hearted manipulator that the Western media paint him to be; Scheuer goes on at length at how deep and sincere bin Laden's convictions are (although the author does try to note in places [not always successfully in my opinion] that he doesn't really sympathize with bin Laden). Fine, but then the author goes on to bash those analysts who ascribe bin Laden's persuasiveness and influence among Muslims to economic and other secular factors - unemployment, tyranny which leaves religious fundamentalism as a major outlet, etc... What Scheuer doesn't acknowledge or realize is that these explanations are not mutually exclusive - in fact, I think we can be confident that these secular factors do in fact lead to a population that is more sympathetic to fundamentalist ideas, which then give frustrated Muslim youth meaning to their lives. Bin Laden can be a sincere believer, but also a manipulator whose influence would wane with reform in places like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
The other problem I have with this book is with Scheuer's description of Bin Laden as a rational person who primarily has a problem with US policies towards Israel and the Middle East. What Scheuer neglects to say is that Bin Laden's idea of an acceptable US policy probably involves the US letting the Arab states annihilate Israel (if that were militarily possible). Bin Laden is not a rational guy who would acquiesce if the US simply moderated is stance towards Israel; bin Laden, like many Middle Eastern Muslims, does not accept the existence of Israel in any form. The US could not assuage his concerns by moderating its policies; we would have to give up the basic idea that Israel has a right to exist.
This is a provocative book, but there are defects that keep it from being as persuasive as it could be.