Customer Reviews

How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq

5 star:		(38)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I've read a number of books on the Iraq War, from soldiers' memoirs to journalists' observations. "How to Break a Terrorist" stands alone from that group, as it gives an inside look into specific tactics on the most personal level.

I can see why the book ruffled some feathers--it is a complete rejection of the ways of old, and the new methods expressed in it could certainly raise some eyebrows. Creating relationships and developing mutual respect seems counter intuitive when dealing with mass murders. Why show respect to people who would just as easily blow you up as they would sit in a room with you? And indeed, the author's inner turmoil over this point, combined with his persistent dedication to the cause (nailing Al Zarqawi) and trust in new methods of interrogation, is one of the more compelling subplots of the book.

The characters we meet are fascinating. I won't talk too much about that, because you should read about them yourself, but the men he interrogates are all distinctly different, and the methods he uses change based on the subject, from the street peddlers up to the final link to Al Zarqawi, whose breaking requires the most creative interrogation tactic of all.

To make it even more interesting, the new methods aren't even entirely accepted by the other members of the interrogation team, who prefer control tactics instead--the office politics--set in a warzone--remind us that old ways die hard. Also, as someone who only has a view of the military from the outside, I was surprised to read about the structure of the interrogation unit. Matthew is a major, but his rank doesn't matter--one of the funnier exchanges comes within the books first few pages, when an NCO asks him if he'll have a "hard f***ing time" with a sergeant giving him orders. Nearly everyone is an equal in this endeavor.

Beyond the interrogation and workrooms, though, the author also makes a poignant commentary on the conflict itself: many Sunni join Al-Qaida out of economic and security reasons, and not because they care too much about the cause or are particularly fanatical. It's a decision to maintain the livelihoods of them and their families. By building good relations with the Sunni and presenting an alternative to joining Al-Qaida, the author posits, we can better go about creating a strong Iraq (he is vindicated--and I don't think this gives anything away--by some of General Petraeus's later initiatives that do exactly that).

The author manages to convey his message about the effectiveness of the new, psychological interrogation methods without sounding preachy. He mentions torture sparingly, and focuses on why his ways work far more than on why others don't. Unlike other Iraq commentaries I've read, he doesn't have an ulterior agenda, and isn't out to get anyone, destroy careers, or anything even close to that. The DoD censures a good chunk of lines in the book, and yet, besides some exasperation linked to the aforementioned office politics, he never once says anything bad about his command--that's quite admirable.

I suggest picking up a copy, pronto. It's short (275 pages or so) and a total page turner--I read about 150 pages tonight alone, promising myself after each chapter that I'd go to sleep. But the book kept reeling me back in.

Cliff notes version? Enthralling read that offers an alternative perspective on the war, and a micro view of how we might enjoy overall success in the conflict.

Some people don't see eye to eye with the Bush Administration. Some do. That's okay. We're still America. We can disagree amicably.

The author presents a story involving how psychology was used to obtain better data more rapidly than through the use of brutality. I see that as a positive thing.

People die in war. Many times the innocent suffer far out of proportion to the gulty. There is no way to eliminate "collateral damage" as long as there are wars.

And there is no way for free peoples to avoid war without just surrendering to anyone who demands it.

I liked the stories in the book. No, I'm not offering any spoilers here; but I was fascinated by the ways the captured terrorists were manipulated into willingly revealing data that they might never have given up under torture.

We all hate war; but this book shows that we can win and still be the good guys...

It's non-fiction that reads with taut suspense...a hard dose of truth. A game within a game with the highest of stakes: American lives.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and literally could not put it down.

If you enjoy reading mystery, intrigue, military warfare, special ops, good vs evil, covert ops, psychological ops, and good old fashioned tactics, you will love this book and keep it displayed on your bookshelf long after you've read it.

An awesome read.

How to Break a Terrorist by Matthew Alexander is a story about the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Alexander was in the Air Force and sent on a special mission to Iraq to gather intelligence in order to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by utilizing interrogation skills. At the time Zarqawi was a brutal jihadist who was wreaking havoc in Iraq utilizing methods such as videotaped beheadings, torture, IED's, car bombings and homicide bombers.

The book is well written and flows from chapter to chapter. Essentially, Alexander puts forth the hypothesis that building rapport with prisoners will yield more information than utilization of fear or other harsher tactics. He tends to refer to this as the "new" method but in actually building rapport to gain information is nothing new or revolutionary.

Alexander uses the book to show how effective his interrogations skills were as opposed to some of the `old timers' in Iraq that were not willing to be flexible, adaptable and open to different ideas. It is clear that Alexander has a level of frustration with some of the other interrogators such as Lenny who is very closed minded. In addition, Alexander is not happy with some of the decisions made by those in upper leadership positions.

One gets the impression that Alexander wrote this book to say that my way is correct and yours is wrong. I view this as an over simplistic solution to the situation. Some of the detainees will not respond to rapport building in which other interrogation techniques may need to be utilized. It appears clear that Alexander was effective utilizing rapport building to gather crucial intelligence. As with any situation one must have many tools in the toolbox and have a clear understanding of when and why a tool will be needed and under which circumstances.

As a person who feels very disappointed in our government's torture policies, I was intrigued by this book. Once I started it, I could not put it down. It reads like finely crafted fiction, even though it's purely factual.

As the interrogations unfold, you get to feel the full range of emotions experienced by the terrorist, and then see how they are used by a new breed of interrogator. These interrogators use their brains, rather than force, to 'break' one terrorist after another, leading them to the most wanted man in Iraq.

The book has left me with a better sense of how complex the situation is in Iraq, and also a deeper understanding of what it means to be human...and why some people do inhuman things. In the face of these inhuman things, I deeply admire the courage of the author to maintain his moral compass and lead change.

This book should be read because it's one hell of an exciting story, it's beautifully written, and it conveys a hopeful message!

This is a fascinating must-read for anyone who is interested in the war on terror. I was handed this book by a friend and I assumed it was going to be a typical anti-war screed that demands that terrorists be "understood" and coddled. There is also little fear of coddling with Alexander. He is repulsed and haunted by the senseless butchery that went on in Iraq and was sickened by those that were willing to kill innocents with suicide bombings. Alexander's techniques only prove that his eyes were strictly on the goal - stop Zarqawi.

Alexander's techniques are hardly "touchy-feely" - in a way they are a form of psychological trickery. He fools his interview targets into giving him the information he wants and then expolits their trust. It is also the type of technique that any regular viewer of TV detective shows see every day.

The methods Alexander espouses only make sense to me, a veteran teacher. It is easier to get cooperation from someone that you can create a sense of rapport with, even if it is only temporary.

Anyway, the book reads like a suspense novel. It is a quick and intense read and absolutely riveting and informative.

Well done. Highly recommended.

This is a very, very important book. It rekindles my belief in the integrity of America, it's moral values and my support for our brave men and women in the US military. This book should and will hopefully be the catalyst which changes the way we do things in Iraq, Afghanistan and all future military operations.

How to Break a Terrorist is a riveting story that teaches us that we, The United States, can win the war against terrorism; not by using brutality and coercion but by living up to the ideals which make our country great.

Once you begin reading How to Break a Terrorist, you will be drawn into the secret world of interrogation. You WILL NOT want to put the book down. Despite knowing the ending - you will be on the edge of your seat the entire journey.

There's a five-star book written between the lines of this one. I found the author's account of interrogations of Iraqi prisoners fascinating and his defense of noncoercive techniques persuasive. I'd like to believe that it's a fair and accurate portrayal of these techniques, but the book's credibility is affected by several editorial decisions.

Written as an as-told-to, first-person account by someone clearly convinced of his own beliefs, there's a question of his bias as the sole reporter of what happened behind those closed doors. The magazine-style of the writing makes a real page-turner out of the book - like good detective fiction, you can't put it down - but the breezy, breathless storytelling makes it all seem much more superficial than the material deserves. Finally, the "blacked out" passages suggest a further ratcheting up of drama, when they could simply have been deleted from the final version of the book like everything else that was edited out. Frankly, they seem more like a marketing ploy.

As torture remains an issue in the detention and interrogation of prisoners suspected of connections with enemies of the state, this is an important book for Americans especially to read. Written in a less accessible style, as an argument with substantiated evidence, instead of as an exciting story, it would surely not reach a large audience. But with its entertainment value emphasized, one can wonder whether its ultimate objective - reducing the reliance on and acceptance of torture - isn't finally compromised.

I picked up the book, intending to read a couple of chapters (they are short), then did "just one more chapter" until I had read it all in one sitting. ?Would I _encourage_ someone to read this book? No. But I certainly wouldn't discourage reading it.

The book is best described as a police procedural that charges straight ahead, pulling the reader along with it. But the key element of the procedural is immersion in the details, and this book stops far short, presumably because revealing additional details about the techniques and the personalities would compromise their ability to do the job. For example, on interrogation technique, there was nothing I hadn't read/watched in popular accounts of police interrogation (the author's background). However, this absence of deeper detail didn't sink in until I was finishing the book. Despite these considerable constraints, it is a very well told story.

There are a lot of tidbits about the Iraq war. However, if you are interested enough in this topic to read this book, you have likely already encountered those details elsewhere. Nonetheless, it is interesting hearing them again in this context, plus hearing what was known when by whom. For example, long after reporters were describing support for al-Qaeda in Iraq as complex, most of the members of this intelligence unit - and the people they reported to - still hung on to the myth of its members as religious fanatics, thereby hobbling their ability to produce badly needed intelligence.

This book is disappointing in how constricted its viewpoint is. It describes the conflict between "old school" techniques (control, fear, "extraordinary measures") and "new school". The author could have been expected to have access to insights about the whys and wherefores of the rise of the "new school", both on the basis of his rank (Major) and this success. It would have been fascinating to understand why the "old school" practitioners resisted change despite evidence in their midst, but I suspect this would have involved profiling the interrogators as well as revealing organizational culture and weaknesses (which could help an enemy with their countermeasures). One of the few surprises - noted in the Foreword - was that this shift to "new school" had occurred in the US military but received scant outside notice.

Note: This conflict (over interrogation methods) has been widely covered in the media, but primarily as one of the CIA and the Bush Administration (ineffective/"old school") versus the FBI ("new school" from way back), with the military's participation dominated by Pentagon lawyers focused on adhering to the Geneva Conventions as protection for captured US warfighters (in subsequent conflicts). For example, see the recent book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals . Also "The Dark Side" has an abstract/policy view (rather than a personal one), thereby providing a broader perspective, for example, providing detainees with lawyers can help "break" them because the lawyer can shift the detainee's perspective from resistance to looking out for himself by cutting a deal.

The US military emphasizes operating within an enemy's "decision cycle" as critical, and intelligence gathering and exploitation is a key component. In immediate _tactical_ situations the US has a massive (but shrinking) advantage over the rest of the world. However, at the strategic level, the US military failed badly, going into the Iraq war with doctrines that were over a decade out-of-date. Echoing criticism by many, Defense Secretary Gates said that the US military has to prepare for the wars the nation _needs_ them to fight rather than the wars the generals _want_ to fight. Once in Iraq, the military was inconceivably slow to adapt, routinely being months, if not years, behind the curve. This story is one example of the US military's failure to push critical doctrinal changes into the field in a timely manner. For example, the unit should have being using the incoming "new school" interrogators to also train the existing ones in those techniques rather than letting them continue using ineffective techniques. This whole aspect goes unmentioned in this book. Aside (added 2009-05-27): see the review "Must read for Interrogators before Deployment" of May 5, 2009: It gives a (depressing) sense that training in interrogation is _still_ woefully inadequate.

At the very end of the book, there is a most unsatisfying comment on how military careerism had hobbled the hunt for al-Qaeda leadership, presenting it as an isolated incident. Although the author had little visibility into this particular situation, the very long history of problems for specialist operations (such as intelligence) from careerists such as "ring-bangers" (a type of Academy grad), "ticket-punchers", "bureaucrats" and "politicians" should have provided the author, with his many years of military service, with the basis for much more. With the author using the word "treason", it was boggling that he just let it drop.

As a mother of two young kids, I am very particular about the books I read because my spare time is too valuable to waste on mediocre books. I didn't know what to expect. Military history is not my typical genre, but the book title piqued my interest. I was not let down by the author. The book reads like a good novel and completely captivated my attention for hours. It still amazes me that the events depicted in this book really occurred.

Not only is "How to Break a Terrorist" a great book to read by the fire, I am heartened that there is a positive lesson learned from the Iraq war. Torture is not necessary. Bravo!