Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(88)
4 star:		(48)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(20)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Regardless of your political leanings, this book is worth a read. The author unflatteringly lays out how some of our actions are perceived by many muslims today. While much of the motivation for anti-US sentiment is logically flawed, we should strive to understand it.

While I disagree with the author's bleak predictions of democracy's future in Iraq and Afghanistan, his points are well researched and presented. I must note that he is an expert and I am not.

Bottom line, there is a reason these young men are being convinced to construct and place the roadside bombs that are killing troopers over here, and it's not because they hate baseball and apple pie. It is important for us to understand the motivation for their hatred if we are to effectively counter it. Leave partisan politics at the door and read this book.

"Anonymous" has certainly accomplished his stated goal of contributing to a debate in the U.S. over foreign policy. He was the head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit in the late '90s, was interviewed as "Mike" in Coll's book GHOST WARS (see my review), and is still a CIA analyst. Most of us by now have figured out that he is Mike Scheuer. Sun Tzu said "know yourself, know your enemy," and Scheuer's main goal in IMPERIAL HUBRIS is to share what he knows about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, arguing that the official view is totally and dangerously wrong. It seems to me that Scheuer is for the most part right on target with his critique. There is one major problem with his proposal for what to do about it, which I will address below.

Here is a list of Scheuer's main points:

1) Osama bin Laden (OBL) is neither an evil madman or just a criminal -- he is a highly competent, religiously motivated, charismatic leader who we had best take seriously.

2) Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization, but is rather part of and attempting to lead a global Muslim insurgency.

3) OBL & Al Qaeda are not opposed to the U.S. because of "who we are," (ie, "we stand for freedom"), but because of what we do -- because of specific aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

4) The doctrine that informs OBL/Al Qaeda is that of DEFENSIVE JIHAD -- they see the Muslim world under attack by the U.S., and call upon scripture to support defensive military action by all faithful members of the "umma" (the universal body of Islam).

5) 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.

6) The war in Afghanistan was a failure from the beginning, because OBL & the other leaders were allowed to escape at the beginning, and because the U.S. is just propping up Karzai in Kabul while the rest of the country is still in the hands of warlords and the Taliban.

7) The offensive invasion and occupation of Iraq was a huge gift to OBL -- it has just tied down more U.S. forces that otherwise could be fighting Al Qaeda, and it has become potent evidence for OBL's claim that the U.S. is aggressively targeting the Muslim world.

8) Scheuer concludes that at this point there is no choice but to resolve to fight a relentless war against the Al Qaeda-led insurgency. However, if the U.S. took action on the list of demands, it could undercut the insurgency dramatically. Scheuer argues that the U.S. should move to energy sufficiency, stop propping up corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia, and remove itself as a target of the so far effective-because-largely-true propaganda campaign of the insurgents. There is no contradiction here, as some readers think. Changing political policies AND waging a more effective military campaign are both parts of an overall strategy, and only one-dimensional thinkers would imagine that it's an either/or choice.

If Scheuer is largely correct, then what's the problem? As I see it, the problem is that Scheuer doesn't seem to know nearly as much about counterinsurgency doctrine as he does about Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, which is his area of specialization. He disparages police work (including the FBI) and calls for greater application of military force (just not in the places the Bush Administration has applied it). But the problem is, an insurgency can no more be defeated through conventional military means than a terrorist group. He should know -- Afghanistan itself is striking evidence -- but the record is clear whether you look at Vietnam, or anywhere else. Insurgents, guerrilla forces, engaged in asymmetrical conflict, are rarely if ever defeated on the battlefield. This is why Scheuer's use of the Civil War as an analogy makes no sense. The South was not an insurgency -- Northern generals were fighting an army, and when that army was defeated, so was the South. So the distinction between terrorism and insurgency, which Scheuer thinks is so crucial, does not lead to the conclusion he comes to at all. Actually, it's worse than that, because if the U.S. was to adopt the sort of scorched-earth scenario he proposes (granted, he says it would only be necessary if we don't change our self-destructive policies), we would provoke that much more determined opposition. The U.S. armed forces, no matter how big and powerful, can't just kill 1.2 billion Muslims.

In fact, the counterinsurgency literature suggests that political legitimacy is the key to victory. The regime or regimes under attack have to make reforms and address the grievances that are fuelling the insurgency -- then it stops growing and starts to shrink. Along with that, good intelligence and police work are vital. Scheuer's call for changing U.S. policy implicitly recognizes this, but he doesn't absorb it fully into his argument, as indicated by his failure to appreciate solid police work. There is a reason that urban insurgency rarely succeeds -- it is much easier to surveil and capture individuals on urban terrain than in remote jungles and mountains. Of course the U.S., an invading army with virtually no intelligence sources in the population in Iraq, is maximizing the effectiveness of the Sunni urban insurgency in and around Baghdad. And whether we should have any confidence in U.S. intelligence inside the territory of our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I'll let you judge.

I disagree with Scheuer's call to drill in ANWR as part of becoming energy sufficient. It's unnecessary, there's not that much oil there -- what we need is an all-out push for renewable energy. But Mike Scheuer is a conservative, a tough-minded Catholic conservative. He is brave to go public with this scathing critique of U.S. policy. I salute his public service, and I hope that his voice is being heard in policymaking circles. But I'm not holding my breath.

"Anonymous" deserves a prize for writing this book, except that he wouldn't be anonymous after that.

The author brings an intelligence and tough-mindedness to the so-called War on Terror that we badly need, and that George W. Bush wants to avoid. Among this book's insights:

--In Osama bin Laden's worldview, there are good reasons for attacking Americans and their allies. A look at bin Laden's public statements can tell us why he feels this way;

--Many Muslims see the world as bin Laden sees it. Indeed, he is a hero in most of the Muslim world, the more so for having escaped capture for so long;

--Afghanistan ought to be the focus of our efforts, but instead it's a disaster waiting to happen. U.S. forces never defeated the Taliban, blew the best chance to capture bin Laden, and have imposed an alien form of government in Kabul that commands little support among the people;

--The Iraq war has made is less safe, by diverting resources and energies away from the fight against Al Quaeda; and

--When the U.S. tries to export democracy at gunpoint, we ignore our own long, hard struggle to achieve the freedoms that we have, and we ignore the nature of Islam in society, especially Mohammed as law-giver.

"Anonymous" tries to get inside the mind of bin Laden and his supporters. George W. Bush says that trying to understand "why they hate us" is a mistake, and that all we need to know is that terrorism is evil. I'll take knowledge over faith any day.

The author offers a balanced, provocative look from a unique perspective. Naturally, there is some posturing, perhaps even a number of views that seem ill-advised to observers, but the author has earned the right to express these opinions and be taken seriously. The book presents the material in a way that offers insights into the intelligence world as well as the current political/intelligence situation. Not to be dismissed, the book is highly readable and well worth serious consideration and polite debate.

I wish every American had been required to read this book before the recent re-coronation of Dubya. "Anonymous" is now widely known to be Michael F. Scheuer, a longtime CIA veteran specializing in al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Islamic insurgencies. He lambastes both the Bush and Clinton administrations for their lies of ommission regarding terrorism, and he makes a pursuasive argument that our government has actually made things worse, not better. And Scheuer is no leftie dove. He repeatedly calls for the US to do one of two things: either change the foreign policies that give rise to militant Muslim responses, or go after the terrorists with every weapon we have.

The author explodes the ridiculous lie that Bush has been pushing since 9-11: that terrorists are insane, irrational murderers who only want to destroy the freedoms that Americans enjoy. This Big Lie, that an innocent America is a victim only because of its very goodness and success, has prevented Americans from confronting the true roots of Islamic hatred towards the US: the several streams of anti-Muslim foreign policy that have been flowing for decades. Everyone needs to read this book, so that we can, as citizens, demand an end to the unwinnable War on Terror. Americans must know the truth about Islamic militancy, so that we can demand sweeping policy change, the only hope of saving lives and avoiding future attakcs.

This is an important book with an exceptionally important message that will be misunderstood by many readers. The author is dead on in his analysis of the long-term effects of our "war on terror" i.e. that our actions will provoke more terror attacks, not protect us from them. He is also wise, but will be reviled by some, for insisting that we need to understand the worldview of our enemies if we are ever to end terror attacks.
His analysis of problems in the intelligence community and the abuse of the system is truly insightful. It is simply amazing to hear the CIA analytical arm getting blamed in the press for bad intelligence when in fact the problem was political distortion of clear intelligence that did not support the President's viewpoint.
This book is not an easy read and there are times when the author tries to be a little too glib, but it is an important read for anyone who truly wants to understand the problem facing us from terrorists.

The author's arguments run parallel to those presented by the antiwar movement, but he hasn't "co-opted" anyone or anything. The similarities lie only in what is fairly obvious, specifically that the Muslims who attack the U.S. do so for reasons of U.S. foreign policy, not out of hatred of participatory democracy. That observation is not the core argument of the book, but only serves to prepare the reader for the choice to come.

The choice is this -- change the policies that make the Muslims hate the US, or wage all-out war on Muslims until they can't or won't wage war against the US. The current "war on terror" isn't all-out war, or for that matter an all-out annoyance. He's talking about war the way Curtis LeMay defined it--total war. Millions of people dead, with no concern for civilian casualties. Think of the incendiary bombings of Tokyo (100,000+ dead in one night) or the bombing of Dresden. Not surgical, targeted war, but carpetbombing until everyone is too weak or dead to attack back.

Or... change the policies towards Arab lands that cause them to attack the US. Pull out of the Arabian peninsula. Stop supporting Israel. Stop supporting tyrants and dictators just because they keep the oil flowing. Stop supporting regimes (China, Russia, etc) who are slaughtering Muslims. There are a few more, but you get the point. This would require energy independence, and a will to stop trying to run/enlighten/liberate the world.

The author does not advocate one or the other, at least not as far as I can tell. His point is that we have to choose. The status quo will guarantee that bin Laden et al will continue to attack us, and that eventually they will do so with a weapon of mass destruction. All we are doing now is helping terrorist/insurgency organizations like Al Queida in their recruitment efforts.

I think this book is fantastic. I can't recommend it highly enough. The author makes his point very strongly, and leaves the reader with little option but to agree that a choice must be made.

I'm not terribly surprised to see that a few fellow readers still cling to the "they hate us for our freedoms" nonsense, even after reading Imperial Hubris. Would that the answer were so simple. Unfortunately for the world, it is not. This is an intelligently written, carefully researched book, authored by someone who has access to classified information and, logically, a fuller perspective on the Al Qaeda phenomenon. According to the NY Times, Anonymous works on the bin Laden unit at the CIA; it's one of the reasons I picked up a copy.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested the broader view, the more complete picture, not the pre-packaged "Them vs Us" polemic. Anonymous writes compellingly about the terror problems we, as a world, face today. Some of the conclusions you come to are uncomfortable and conflicting, but if we are to conquer this immense divide and beat the terrorists, we must be prepared to hear the unpleasant truths. And act upon them.

As a CIA retiree with some 3 decades of service, I was very interested in what this book had to offer regarding the current American crisis. I was acquainted with "Anonymous" and can attest to his qualifications to write such a book. He is not only an exceptionally gifted intelligence officer, he is also a man of the greatest integrity and dedication. His opinion is most worthy of consideration.
Anonymous has presented a compelling argument for the United States to modify its current policies toward the Middle East. He has also noted that there is little if any chance that we will change our policies. It is, therefore imperative that we as a nation resolve to fight and win the current war against the Islamists. We must return to the thinking of an earlier generation when we hated our enemies and had no problem in seeking their total annihilation. We cannot remain averse to casualties of war on either side. Our troops have been trained to fight wars and are expected, unfortunately, to sometimes die for their country. Thank God for these noble men and women. We, the American public and especially our effete leaders, must resolve to destroy our enemies before they destroy our way of life. Anonymous clearly establishes that when a group of people have such hatred for American policy and have vowed to kill us and disrupt our lives for generations to come, it is not politically incorrect for us to seek to destroy that group.
It is essential that our leaders read and, if at all possible, understand this book. Given the real threat that confronts the United States today, Imperial Hubris is perhaps the most important book of the past 100 years.

I found this book tremendous-Anonymus unfolds the reasoning behind the Muslim world's anger towards the United States and it's allies while understanding the genius of Osama bin-Laden as the articulator of this Muslim anger.

The Western media has let the English speaking world down by its continued failure to explain why the events of pre and post 9/11 happened-to say nothing about offering us a reasonable path of response [see particularly page 164]. We have been fed
an unending soup of misinformation and outright lies to lull us into a stupor that will allow our acquiescence to the ridiculous international policies of our "leaders". Anonymous writes clearly that the move into Afghanistan played into bin-Laden's hands and the next move-the invasion of Iraq-was a gift that could not be anticipated by him because it so ludicrously suited his and al Quaeda's greatest desires. This stupidity was laughed at here in Western Australia by people that had only a smidgen of the knowledge and education of the people that formulated these stumbles so the great puzzle for me through the events of these last years is: "Why"-why could these events have emerged as the response of the world's most powerful nation with access to the best minds and the most up-to-date intelligence?

I found this book a demanding read-I read pages 110 to 113 over the space of two hours because the information was so important and dense. This information demanded re-reading, hi-liting and then digestion. I would read paragraphs and then just sit and stare off into the distance thinking about his information and ruminating about it and it's implications for the world we live in.

On page 110 Anonymus states the crux of the situation facing America and it's allies-[we refuse] "...to see that US government actions in the Islamic world are causing Muslims to attack the United States"-as well as her allies throughout the world. Once this salient bit of information is digested many problems will be avoided.

Of the books and other media I have tried to digest since 9/11, this is by far the best. Anonymous is a conservative so his book should not be on the restricted list because the writer is a dreaded leftist so it's open to everybody. It must be read for an understanding of what is facing the world as this millennium begins.