Customer Reviews

Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

As an American, even one who disagrees with much of our foreign policy since the early 1980s, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim is a tough pill to swallow. If you're the kind of person who needs the reassurance of a staunchly pro-American ideological screed to sooth your delicate sentimentalities and shore up your patriotism without questioning your beliefs, this is definitely not the book for you. But if you go into this book with an open mind, willing to have your preconceptions about your country challenged, you will learn a lot from it, albeit painfully.

This book seems to have two main purposes: First, to dispense with the notion that terrorism carried out by Muslims is somehow an intrinsic element of either Islam or Muslim culture; and second, to identify the root causes of that terrorism. The second point is actually a bit more complex though, because what the author really sets out to do is blame the US for causing terrorism. And although he makes some excellent and well-supported points, this is one of the weaknesses of the book, as I'll discuss below.

It was only natural for me to squirm a bit when I read many of the accusations in this book, and because I'm not the kind of person who immediately believes everything he reads in a book that is very obviously tilted heavily toward a single viewpoint I did not simply swallow everything the author says. However, I have to concede that, on most of the major points, I cannot offer a rebuttal. One would think that a book of this nature would spawn a mountain of heated and defensive responses, but I have been very surprised to find that the overwhelming response has been no response at all. In fact, I have been unable to find a single rebuttal to anything in this book. It has either somehow managed to remain under the radar of its likely critics or those critics simply have nothing to say in response.

In the end I shorted this book one star because there were several glaring problems in both the central thesis and some of the factual details, some of which I'll mention here. Before beginning it is important to point out that the author goes to great pains to essentially blame the US for the very existence of Muslim terrorism today. But focusing on such a narrow mission I believe he goes astray from time to time and loses some credibility in what is otherwise a very well-reasoned book. First is his claim that the US was "the source" of chemical weapons to Iraq. This is simply not true, and while the US certainly did help Iraq develop its chemical and biological weapons programs, it is well-documented that Iraq's program was the product of a fairly fragmented system involving quite a lot of other countries.

The author makes the point several times that terrorism is a political response to certain repressive conditions rather than simply a religious response. And while I agree with this 100%, he overplays his hand by next claiming that the US is primarily to blame for the political conditions to which terrorists are responding. In doing so the author almost completely ignores decades of often brutal oppression by Muslim governments. Perhaps it is convenient for disenfranchised elements of the populations in those countries to blame the US for their plight in life (and to be sure, the governments often promote that view as a safety valve to shield themselves), but that doesn't mean they are correct in blaming the US. The author should have explored the subject of Muslim oppression of other Muslims much more thoroughly. Somewhat related to this issue is the fact that the governments and people of many Muslim countries (such as Saudi Arabia) have contributed a tremendous amount of support to terrorist organizations. The author acknowledges this in passing but fails to explore it further, focusing instead on how actions of the US have contributed to terrorism.

Where the author really went overboard was his claim that the US committed widespread war crimes and used weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and in Kosovo. Specifically, he says the use of depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, and Mark-77 firebombs violated humanitarian law because they are "incapable of distinguishing between civil and military targets." He also says the US conducted bombing with no regard to the civilian population. These claims are really quite silly. Had the US really wanted to kill the civilian populations in those engagements it could very easily have conducted the sort of saturation bombing so prevalent during WW II. Instead, it is quite clear that great pains were taken to minimize civilian casualties in all these engagements. The fact that these efforts were not always successful does not mean the US simply disregarded those concerns. With regard to the specific weapons used, there really is no such thing as a weapon that can distinguish between civil and military targets. The best one can do is try to hit the intended target, but obviously that doesn't always work as planned. I feel that I need to specifically address depleted uranium weapons. The author makes it sound like some kind of nuclear weapon was used, when in fact it is simply a very dense metal (albeit one with low grade radioactivity) used in armor-piercing munitions and even in the armor of some vehicles. Even after it impacts with a target it does not add significantly to the normal background radiation we encounter in the natural environment every day. And while the potential danger of these materials is not disputed, there is a lot of misinformation out there about them, and their long-term health risk is very debatable. Referring to them as a "weapon of mass destruction" and calling their use a "war crime" is way over the top and exposes the author's predisposition.

There are other instances where the author overreached, but this book review is already long enough and I don't want to nitpick every single little point I disagreed with. In the end the problems I have identified do not negate the central theme of the book. However, they do damage the credibility of the author a bit and help illustrate how the book goes a bit off course by focusing almost solely on the US rather than discussing many other factors that have contributed to terrorism. I still believe this book is very much worth reading, with the understanding that the reader will encounter some claims that need not be accepted as completely accurate or evenhanded.

This is the best of the forty or so books I have read recently on the results of recent US foreign policy, on forms of political Islam, on the roots and character of terror, as well as on common misperceptions. Chapter two on "Culture Talk" is itself worth the price of the book. The origins of our enemies in US policy, CIA training, even University of Nebraska contracted textbooks is damaging to the myths supporting US policies now.

Discussion is painfully frank, honest, and thought provoking. Some will be unwilling to face this.

The origins of the worst may be in the Reagan era and now with this preemptive war but Carter and Clinton's errors are noted in what is a constructive rather than partisan analysis.

The types and motives of political Islam is a useful antidote to the simplistic poisonous tripe so common from the Media and the Administration and even scholars who should know better like Lewis and Huntington.

The summary of major costs of the focal Afghan War include, and continue to include, eroding democracy at home; US blowback from the creation of international trained and experienced terrorist Alumni; dramatic increases in Drug trade and users from financing methods of the wars; increased incoherence and decreased communication between the CIA and FBI. One can add that Press self censorship and complicity recently rated the US as not in the top 20 world wide for having a "free Press." The author does not mention that after first disarming then attacking Iraq the US `bully' inadvertently makes a case for nukes for all for some deterrent (remember that word?).

The analysis of an commonality of irrational interest with Israel as another settler state and the discussion of the nature of suicide bombing will upset assumptions widely held but deserve thoughtful consideration.

Read this book! More importantly, THINK about what is said. Definitely worth buying. I'm giving a copy to the local library too!

This is a fine book, a real eye-opener. For people who don't have a lot of background in Islamist politics, the first half is a hard read because the issues are extremely complicated. However, this is good place to start if you want to try to begin sorting the threads of religious and political Islam. For US citizens with even a modicum of political background, the rest is a piece of cake, and fascinating. Especially interesting is reading about how the Clinton administration was shackled and thwarted as it tried to accomplished some of its more humanitarian objectives. While I believe that Mamdani is not an apologist for 'suicide' bombings, some people are going to have difficulty with his explanation of this phenomenon, which he frames in light of Israeli aggression and compares to similar oppression and violent reactions in South Africa. In any case, it forced me to think of what drives this behavior, and how far humanity must be pushed to the wall in order to exhibit it. The final chapter is heart-wrenchingly poignant, and calls for a world-wide peace movement in the face of what the author believes to be one of the most volatile political scenarios in recorded history: the 'good vs. evil' standoff between the political Christian Right and militant political Islam, a standoff with no hope of negotiation or reconciliation - a fight to the finish resulting in total annihilation of the other.

<P>

This is an inspired, disciplined, nuanced, Nobel-level book, and if it ends up saving America from itself, then it would surely qualify the author for the Nobel Peace Prize.

This is the first of three "must read" books that I am reviewing today, and it is first because the other two are best appreciated after absorbing this one. The other two books are "IMPERIAL HUBRIS" and "OSAMA'S REVENGE."

The main weakness of this book is the author's lack of strong criticism of Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and of other states that are corrupt, repressive, and therefore a huge part of the problem. Having said that, here are some of the key points:

- "West" pioneered genocide, expulsions, and religious wars, with Spanish genocide of Indians in Americas, and Spanish expulsion of first the Jews and then the Muslims as critical starting points in understanding Muslim rage today

- America adopted terrorism as a preferred means of fighting proxy wars in both Central America and Africa, when Reagan began "rollback" with the same neo-conservative advisors that guide Bush II today.

- West has four dogmas as summed up by Edward Said (who is admired by the author): 1) that Orient is aberrant, undeveloped and inferior; 2) that Orient is inflexibly tied to old religions texts, unable to adapt; 3) that Orient is inflexibly uniform and unable to do nuances; and 4) Orient is either to be feared (Green or Yellow or Brown Peril) or controlled.

- Fundamentalism actually started in the US among the Christians seeking to insert religion into the state's business and ultimately demanding faith and loyalty as the litmus tests for acceptance.

- Earlier generations of Islamic reformists disavowed violence, but ended up adopting violence after being in state prisons (e.g. Egypt).

- Earlier incarnations of a Muslim revival were in the open literature in the 1920's and then in the 1960's, and lastly in the 1980's to date--our national "intelligence" agencies appear to have missed the importance of all three

- Viet-Nam, Africa, and Central America all fostered extremely unhealthy connections between CIA covert operations and the drug trade, with CIA routinely condoning and often actively enabling massive drug operations and related money laundering, as the "price" of moving forward on covert operations.

- The obsession with winning the Cold War at all costs essentially destroyed U.S. foreign policy and set U.S. up as the enemy of the Third World [see Derek Leebaert's "The Fifty-Year Wound"].

- Morality in the US has been perverted, as the extreme right, joining with extreme Zionists, has "captured" the U.S. government in both Congressional and Executive terms. Orwellian "spin" together with the labeling of all dissent, made possible by media corporations "going along", has destroyed any possibility of informed, objective, or actually moral dialog.

- The Central American campaign pioneered the privatization of terrorism and proxy war by the US, with secrecy and deception of the US public being the principal role of the US government.

- The US Government is explicitly accountable for introducing bio-chemical weapons into the Iraqi arsenal, and thus accountable for the genocide and war crimes attendant to their use.

- US (AID) sponsored textbooks, such as those created by the University of Nebraska, routinely used terrorism against Russians as examples in the mathematic and other textbooks being distributed in Afghanistan.

- CIA's main contribution to the destabilization of the world has been in its Afghan-related privatization of information about how to produce and spread violence, and its training of tens of thousands of jihad warriors from all over the world who have now returned home and are teaching and leading others.

- Under US leadership, Afghanistan has gone from providing 5% of the global opium production in 1980, to 71% in 1990, and even more today--much of which comes to the US.

- America not only accepts massive drug activities as part of the "cost of doing business", but also ignores human rights in its rush to cozy up to corrupt dictators.

- From an Iraqi point of view, the 1.5 million or so children that died in Iraq due to the sanctions, must be seen as a major war crime and a form of terrorism, together with the air war with its indiscriminate murder of thousands if not tens of thousands civilians including women and children. The US has killed more civilians in Iraq than it did in Japan with two atomic bombs. Napalm and depleted uranium are disabling US troops as well as Iraqi civilians long after their use in the field.

- Economic sanctions, when they have the impact they did in Iraq, must be considered weapons of mass destruction, their application terrorism, and their results war crimes.

- The US Government's general disdain for the rule of law, but the incumbent Administration's particular focus on ignoring treaties and refusing accountability (e.g. for war crimes) sets a new low standard for immoral behavior by nation-states.

- The UN Secretary-General was forced by the US to ignore the Rwandan genocide because of a US desire to keep everyone focused on Sarajevo, and continues to us its veto power to prevent UN from being effective against racist Zionism, which is routinely committing crimes against humanity with its Palestinian campaign.

The author concludes, without sounding inflammatory, that America was built on two monumental crimes: the genocide of the Native Americans, and the enslavement of African Americans. His point: the US is in denial over this reality, while the rest of the world is completely aware of it. He agrees with Jonathan Schell, concluding as Schell does in "Unconquerable World," that the challenge of our times is in "how to subdue and hold accountable the awesome power that the United States built up during the Cold War." The last sentence is quite powerful: "America cannot occupy the world. It has to learn to live in it."

There are some outstanding reviews of this book by amazon readers; additional description would contribute little. The aim of this book is twofold. First, it wants to demonstrate the extent to which the U.S. helped "fuel" terrorism through its own actions in Afghanistan. These actions were, according to Dr. Mamdani, an extension of the US desire to privatize and to rely on proxies to combat the Soviets during the Cold War. In fact, Dr. Mamdani refers throughout to the American, or U.S. jihad. (Note: Dr. Mamdani seems meticulous about the use of that term, at least until he applies to U.S. actions.) Second, Dr. Mamdani wants us to understand exactly how the outward projection of terrorism from within Islam evolved. The latter objective, emphasized throughout the text, is quite revealing. His thesis is that the West errs insofar it applies the blanket description, fundamentalism, to what are otherwise quite disparate movements within Islam. Fundamentalism is a "counter-cultural," not a political movement. Within political Islam, society centered Islamists attempt to reconcile democracy and justice, while state centered Islamists eschew popular organization. This book's attempt to enhance our understanding of contemporary Islam is a complex, but worthy and welcome undertaking. The principal problem with this book is that it is overly ambitious. Dr. Mamdani did us a great service in introducing us to nuances in contemporary Islamic society, and these merit further investigation. His effort to place those in Islam who resort to terror in the context of U.S. 20th century diplomacy -- Central America, Vietnam, Laos, Iran-Contra, the Boland Amendment, Afghanistan, and politics in the Middle East generally -- dilutes his discussion of Islam and its many facets.

The book explodes the myth of the `good' versus the `bad' Muslim and renders baseless US claims that the war on terror is a war between good and evil, civilized and uncivilized peoples. Mamdani locates the origins of terror in American Cold War foreign policy and shows how Al Qaeda is a product of American efforts to `contain' and `rollback' communism. These efforts did not just produce `Afghan jihad' with all the pernicious apparatuses for terror supplied by the CIA, it also created conditions for the movement to grow into an independent organization targeting the Soviet infiltration of Afghanistan and later directing its ire against Egypt, Saudi Arabia and yes, the US. But for Mamdani, terror is not simply an anti-American thing; rather, on many occasions American terror has had equally devastating consequences in Angola, Mozambique and Nicaragua. Reading this book leads you to understand whose definition of terror is in operation at the moment and why this definition receives lukewarm support in the international community. Mamdani knowledge of Islam in general and political Islam in particular is exceptional and his analysis of different strands of Islamic thought in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria is meticulously matched by his understanding of political processes in these countries. A must read book if you want to think outside the `you are either with us or against us'box.

Mamdani, who is a professor of political science at Columbia, has written one of the best books on this topic. This book brings out issues that are often disregarded in the media. Mamdani provides a very clear and through analysis of the Islamic world and the origin of the modern tension between the U.S. and Muslim countries. I specifically liked his analysis of Reagan years. Overall, the book is well-written and all the claims in the book are supported with ample evidence.

The blurb on the dust jacket says: "a provocative and important book that will profoundly change our understanding both of Islamist politics and the way America is perceived in the world."

This is probably true. The book presents a view of the Muslim world that is quite different from others such as Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" which holds that the next big struggles between Muslims and the Christians will be the world's next big battlefield based on cultural differences. Mamdani sees the Muslim's current actions as an extension of the Cold War. (He grew up in Africa, among who's nations the US and the Soviet Union fought the war.) That he is probably right does not alter Huntington's view in my mind.

I'd also like to see a chapter, maybe two, on the impact of oil on the crisis. Would 9/11 have happened if Iraq's invasion of Kuwait hadn't happened right over the oil we need to import?

I further question some of his historical aspects. Mohammed was both a religious and military leader. (He was pretty good until he came up against one of the Greats - Genghis Kahn.) There seems to be to me more of an emphasis on uniting the two in the current Muslim thinking.

I really like his closing statement: "To win the fight against terrorism requires accepting that the world has changed, ... that to occupy foreig places will be expensive, in lives and money. America cannot occupy the world. It has to live in it.

Mr. Mamdani's book is a good read all through. His thesis is novel, arguments sound and conclusion is unbiased. His analysis of America's cold war policy of transition from containment to rollback is an eye-opener. Specially noteworthy is his observation of how covert operations undertaken during Reagan era in order to bypass obtaining funds from tax-payers' money through rampant act of aiding and abetting drug trafficking changed to Bush's approach of privatizing military with similar goal of keeping American people in dark regarding its imperial policy in Iraq and elsewhere. Also, his arguments showing parallel mind sets of imperial Europe and modern America regarding the practice of democratic despotism is laudable. European historians always argued in favor of colonizing "lower" races with the `sacred' interest to civilise and enlighten them, the so called "White men's burden" (Rudyard Kippling) and that mass slaughter (genocide), mass starvation and plundering natural wealth and enslavement to feed industrial revolution in their home countries are but the `collateral' damages. Similar `collateral' damages inflicted on the Third world countries in the name of containment during cold war and globalisation following that era by America bears all the diagnostic features of imperial Europe. Finally, I share his frustration when he concludes by saying that whereas serious efforts are being made by the world at large to restrain the terrorism of Muslim origin, an absolute lack of similar efforts to check American and Israeli fundamentalism (the Judeo-Christian terrorism) gives a helpless feeling.

First I must say this book is very well written and easy to read.

The stated purpose of the author is to stimulate a deeper and more intelligent debate on how to tackle the problem of terrorism. To solve a problem, one needs to first understand it. The author explains why common presumptions often based on ignorance and racism should be dismissed since they are too simplistic and too inaccurate to provide a real understanding of the complex problem of radical political extremism. His thorough discussion of the various political and religious movements in the middle east (and in the US) helped me understand the various philosophies and alliances that have influenced politics in the middle east in the last few decades.

In the second half of the book, Mamdani spends much time on the emergence of the jihadist movement in Afghanistan. He shows how an ideology that had gathered only marginal support since the 60's became so influencial as a result of the Russian invasion, and the involvement of Pakistan and the US. This section was very well written and very informative.

Up to this point, I found the content of the book to be extremely enlightening and it indeed fulfilled its goal of stimulating a more intelligent debate on terrorism.

When it came to discussing the post-9/11 period (namely, the US invasion of Iraq and Israel's policy in the occupied territories), I found more bias and partisan views than I found scholarly analysis. This disappointed me, it gave me the impression that the author finished the book in a hurry and just spoke with his heart instead of his mind... Instead of promoting rational debate, this section was more similar to the ridiculous partisan and self-interested debates we hear from our politicians!