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 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: He Doesn't Want to Be Labelled as Being Anti-Semitic BUT
Summary: 1 Stars
Mikey Scheuer, in this babbling buffoonistic tome that not only gives aid and comfort to our enemies but also to the usual "Blame America Hate Israel" goons gathered around the Soros-Moore-MoveOn.Org kool aid pail, chooses to blame American Middle East policies and our support of Israel for why Osama is mad at us.
In fact, four out of the five major reasons why we have failed with the Arab-Islamic world, according to Mikey, is because of Israel. Never mind that a Mohammed Atta chose to slit the throats of innocent civilians because he and his fellow Islamonazis were nothing more than cowards and cockroaches. Just blame Israel. Aaaaaah doesn't that make you feel better.
Or that the deliberate targeting of civilians, whether they be Jews, Christians, or even fellow Moslems (look at Darfur, for example)goes back long before Osama, Saddam, or Yasser. It's just the fault of dem Jews. Oh yeah, and their friend W.
At a time when ironically enough the Sharon government has chosen to use more manpower on driving their fellow citizens out of Gush Katif than they did in expelling babykillers and thugs out of Jenin and Bethlehem, Scheuer still wants to point the finger at Israel - as if the IDF is the moral equivalent of Al Qaeda, PLO, Hamas, Hizbullah, the Taliban, Fatah, and the rest of them. Of course Scheuer, unlike Robert Baer, did NOT serve in the field. While I disagree with a Richard Clarke, and he was certainly no Ollie North, who would have made sure the President got his full attention in regards to the menace of Bin Laden, Clarke at least won't play the blame Israel for the Middle East game. On the other hand, Scheuer would give the scum a pass and a swipe at our government because - well, because it is the Bush Administration and because Israel, not Al Qaeda, is our ally.
We need to build bridges with the Islamonuts and jettison the Israelis - that is Mikey Scheuer's main point in "Imperial Hubris". Or to put it in simple terms, let's just give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Scheuer was on his way out of the CIA when 9/11 happened. He wasn't there, and knows very little. But he has already played the "pooh-pooh just because I blame Israel I don't hate Jews" game. Don't bother with another kool aid vendor.
Book Review: First class treatise on the most cruicial facing America.
Summary: 5 Stars
Let me get the bad stuff out of the way first: the writing of this book is a little clumsy in places, and many of the key points are repeated over and over to the point of irritation.
Once you get past these issues, the book is a compelling read. The main books points can be divided into two broad categories.Firstly, the areas in which the intelligence community has failed to collate the available information and how the policies that have been followed have at best done nothing to improve our safety and in many cases have made the situation worse.
Secondly, the information that our leaders are providing to us about the nature of the threat that we face is castigated because it is deliberately false and prevents the development of a broad debate about our foreign policy, which is in large part responsible for provoking the wrath of the Muslim public. For instance we are not hated because we are free, we are hated because our policies support totallitarian regimes across the globe that opress Muslims.
As such this book is readable by both concerned/interested citizens, as well as policy makers. It's hard to object to the book's points, in part because the research is so thorough (befitting an intelligence agent who has spent a 20 year career following Al Quada), in part because the arguments are clear and well made, but largely because the actionable points are so conservative in their nature: for instance, having detailed the extent to which our foreign policy has antagonized the entire Muslim world (not just a few fanatics) and how at odds our policy is to the core values our nation was founded on, the author does not recommend that we change policy, but merely that we have an informed debate about the costs and benefits of our current policies. It is hard to conclude that the outcome of such a debate would be anything other than demands for radical change in policy, but as an intelligence agent, the author stops short of telling us what to think, he simply provides the facts as he sees them, and then allows us to form our own opinions.
There may be a perception that this book is politically motivated. A reading of the book does not support this view. While the author is harsh in his assessment of the decisions and the decision making process of Bush and his cabinet, he describes Clinton's policies as politically correct cowardliness and describes Reagan as a "great man". If there was any political bias in the book I didn't detect it.
Book Review: Must read by all caring Americans
Summary: 4 Stars
On the topic of "Why they hate us", the average American in 2005 still does not have a clue. Mr. Scheuer takes the readers deep into the causes; the problems stems more from how United States are dealing the situations by politician who, also, does not have a clue! Perhaps Mr Scheuer can do more good by sending free copies to our politicians. To be sure, unless the reader has well traveled -- not as a mere tourist, but as an educated person seeking to learn more -- this book might be the answer in taking us through the next 2 decades. Book Review: Imperial Hubris
Summary: 4 Stars
The book is well written but there's a lot of repetition among the important points.
I still recommend it to any reader.
Book Review: Detailed but Plain ... An essay by any standard
Summary: 5 Stars
Responses to this book have been so varied, that it is surprising. The most bizarre riposte to this work is from those who call Mike Scheur a liberal, and if you read the book he is not.
I give this book 5 stars simply because it has been eerily prescient over events in the regions it has covered. The presumption seems to be that "Anonymous" wanted to start a debate. With a book that on one level has cover to cover details, it is a surprise to find that in a very self-deprecating review of his own work, Mr Scheur states that he has failed to ignite a serious discussion on what he obviously considers to be an important topic. In the same review, in an uncharacteristic show of succinct writing, and clear summing up, he gives the three points the book is giving forth, and he also says that the failure may in part be due to the lack of clarity in his writing. Mike Scheur's review of his own book is, I hope, an indication that he is aiming to be clearer, or aiming to get better editors.
To take this book apart chapter by chapter would basically be pointless. The book has, in public forums, been seized on by idealogues of the left and right. Once the idealogues get the scent, they pick a point or two out of the book, even if these points have come from third parties, and then slam the book based on the third parties "analysis". The nature of polemics in these circumstances is "don't confuse me with facts... I have already made my mind up...". So, the source for some reviews gives a skewed perspective, since it is one idealogues view set in a Polemical style, which is then rehashed when the reviewer, who as some other reviewers have stated, have obviously not read the book, presents a variant on a theme from a third party source, usually uncredited.
The difficulty in looking at this book, is that any one chapter could easily be expended out to a book in and of itself. However, Schuer has said in his review of his own work that there is only 3 points. Even Richard Clarke has reviewed this book, and said that it is detailed, and one "hopes" it is not true .
I suspect that the administration has read this book, but I doubt that many opinion makers have read this book in any fair sense, since the general reviews of this work have been so distorted; personally I hope Mike Scheur continues to write and at least attempts to provoke thought, if not debate, on an issue that is defining a very shaky period of time in history. The one thing that is needed is action on any analysis, but most importantly it needs to be thoughtful action rather than action which has previously been governed by idealogues. I am currently reading the paperback of THE PRICE OF LOYALTY, and it is scarey how many similarities to Schuer's, Clarke's and others work exist.