Customer Reviews

Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Michael Scheuer, PhD and former CIA career officer, made a big splash in June 2004 as the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. At that time he contradicted Rumsfeld and other officials by informing us there was an insurgency in Iraq.

Now Scheuer tells us where we're going. We're going to hell.

Marching Toward Hell claims that U.S. foreign policy is often based on faulty assumptions and is driven by some lobbyists whose interests are different than those of the American people. This book goes well beyond the themes of Imperial Hubris.

Dr. Scheuer's book merits 5 stars. He sacrificed his career at the CIA in order to publicly denounce the 9/11 Commission for having become politicized. He did this at a time when other insiders protected their careers and are only now coming out. He's also superb at explaining the relationship between the intelligence community and elected officials in the U.S.

Scholars take Scheuer seriously because of his 22-year career as a top intelligence analyst and also the success of his first book, Imperial Hubris. He stalked and studied Osama bin Laden (ObL) for years and urged superiors to remove ObL no less than 10 times when the opportunity arose. No action was taken each time for political reasons.

ObL has recommended Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris, to the American people in a taunting missive. Marching Toward Hell strikes back with recommendations aimed at helping the American people to wise up.

According to Scheuer, U.S. policymakers still prefer to present the bin Laden Movement as a lunatic fringe even though it has broad appeal in the Islamic world. Also, U.S. support of Israel and U.S. troop presence contributes to the popular perception within the Muslim world that the West is bent on destroying Islam.

As if that wasn't disturbing enough, Scheuer says that some officials possibly never intended to win in Iraq (and certainly not before the 2004 presidential election). Otherwise, more troops would have been sent. While the logic of this argument is irrefutable, it is almost too disturbing to think about.

Other points: the fact that very few political leaders have children serving in the wars is disturbing on many levels; the divide in the U.S. between the political elite and the rest of the people has never been wider; and young people will be sent to war in the coming 8 years regardless of election results.

Scheuer concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid war with Islamists, that it will be much more violent that what we've seen so far, and also that it's too late to win in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Scheuer is angry for several reasons including the reluctance of Americans to understand Muslim viewpoints, the Bush administration dismissal of Middle East experts' wisdom and advice, and the lack of political leadership regarding energy policy.

Marching Toward Hell includes a thoughtful proposal that is already being discussed seriously in the nation's universities. A summary of Scheuer's proposal (The Scheuer Proposal) is that the U.S. must reduce its foreign commitments and to first focus on domestic security, including stationing the Army along America's borders. Problems with U.S. foreign policy include operating without regard to the best interests of the country and also budget limitations. Simultaneously, the country would begin to take steps to reduce oil dependency. Then the U.S. would prepare to defeat its enemies such as Al-Qaeda. (That is my summary of his proposal, not endorsement.)

Among other things, the Proposal calls for effective use of intelligence assets and willingness to use the military differently, more violently. The Scheuer Proposal is filled with surprises and brings into question to what extent it speaks for the intelligence community as a whole.

The author says foreign policy is going to become more important, not less. He wants America to change its message to Muslims by changing foreign policy. This means, among other things, to stop the current brand of support provided to Israel and to remove troops from the Arabian Peninsula. The wars, he says, are lost regardless - that we're in a fourth generation war where adversaries have a scorched earth strategy, leaving nothing for the occupier to occupy anyway. Remarkably, he goes much further and includes Russia, China and India as countries against Islam that the U.S. supports. Even so, he concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid an even more violent war with Islam.

In my view, the Scheuer Proposal cuts across so many emotional pressure points that Scheuer is guaranteed to get the attention of Middle America this time. I think the least contentious point is to change the way the President and Congress use the intelligence information and assets provided by taxpayers at great expense. The most controversial point is probably assignment of blame to Israeli lobbyists for encouraging the war in Iraq. (Notably Scheuer does not blame these lobbyists for the mismanagement of same. He also says this has made Israel less secure.) And the weakest point of the Scheuer Proposal is probably the lack of specifics for how the U.S. will reduce its energy dependency. The Scheuer Proposal relies heavily on a successful new energy policy.

Possibly Scheuer thinks hell is our destiny as the Proposal holds that alarming horror is in our future. Such an approach from such a man attracts and holds the reader's interest as if by a spell.

Well, Michael Scheuer certainly doesn't pull his punches. As a former CIA officer, he was in a position to know a lot more than most people about what was going on before and after 9/11, in the Middle East and in Washington and Langley. He also reads widely in world history and politics (A favorite author is Machiavelli). His verdict, delivered with a pen often dipped in acid, is discouraging. Basically, he finds all our recent presidents failing their prime duty to (a) understand reality in foreign affairs (b) focus completely on what serves America's interests and ignore anything else. The wellbeing of other states, for instance Israel, is not our concern, and we certainly have no role in trying to export our political system to other countries.

His diagnosis of our current troubles is clearly accurate. I've always been astonished that Bush could get away with claiming that Muslim activists hate us because they don't like out freedom or social structure. As Scheuer points out, they have made it perfectly clear that are not really interested in what kind of society the infidels choose to live in - in fact they are somewhat ambivalent about it, liking some aspects but considering it decadent - but they are infuriated by the presence of non Muslim troops in their own countries. They also feel their oil has been sold off cheaply and the profits have benefited only rich, decadent and corrupt rulers like the House of Saud. And of course there is the one-sided US support of Israel.

However, his prescription is one that many will find far off track. He has a good analysis of some of our military problems as being related to the hangover of a "Cold War" mentality - hostility between well-defined, technically advanced, nation-states, and how this does not fit the Middle East. Well, that's convincing - who was it said that generals are always ready to fight the last war, but not this one? But he thinks that the only way to win the "war on terror" is to apply rapid and overwhelming force. Anything less, he feels, causes an opponent - especially those who are accustomed to living with much violence and respect force - to think you are weak and step up their efforts. In this he considers civilian casualties, while regrettable, of minor importance. For instance, his approach to Afghanistan in 2001 would have been dramatic - reduce Kabul and Kandahar to rubble and strew salt over the remains. Strong hint of using nukes for this. He fully approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He optimistically thinks this kind of action would be a knock-out punch that would save us from further troubles. It's surprising that he doesn't consider what an incredible reaction of horror in the whole world - including our allies - this would provoke. That, he may not care about: but what about the fury throughout the Muslim world, which as he well knows, contains over a billion individuals - three times the population of the US! Also, in 2008, where would you aim such a blow anyway? The Iraq and Afghanistan insurgencies are widely-based and it's hard to see a defined target.

Other weird ideas include sealing off some Middle Eastern borders - has he ever seen those mountains? and our Mexican and Canadian ones, with no particular evidence that these two countries are terrorist entry points. Besides, making the land entry difficult will just make it more attractive to send that little old cargo ship into a major port with something very nasty in its hold.

To me, because there is really no practical defense against that last kind of attack, it makes much more sense to do what Scheuer cannot bring himself, in his macho attitude, to consider: actually address some of the reasons that Muslims are so angry with the US. He seems to understand them well enough. He has just read too many mailed-fist writers in the ancient and modern military fields.

But read this book, because whether you agree with him or not he gives a consistent viewpoint and much fascinating information.

Scheurer's CIA career and innate intellect combine in "Marching Toward Hell" to create an outstanding and very timely book. He begins by pointing out that our bipartisan governing elite has an unquenchable ardor to have the U.S. intervene abroad in all places. Some prefer diplomatic, others military, humanitarian, covert, and/or foreign aid mixed with Christian proselytizing. The result is that we live in a prolonged Cold War hangover that creates more problems than it solves.

Scheuer's intent in the book is to reconstruct how the U.S. found itself with an untenable set of foreign policies and national security strategies on 9/11, and to explain the costs of trying to maintain them.

U.S. ties to Israel, a state that contributes nothing to America's economic welfare or strategic security, are absurd, per Scheuer. Responding to those claiming Israel has a "right to exist," he states that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" applies; further, "Are we to also resuscitate the USSR, Sparta, etc.?" "You form your country, and you take your chances."

The second major nonsensical decision that burdens America is our doing little in response to the '73 oil embargo. Thus, we have ended up playing both sides (Israel vs. the Arab states) in a religious fight-to-the-finish.

American policies are further undermined by human rights groups - eg. they pushed the Senate to pursue human rights for Afghan women instead of us being able to try to get the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. Other secondary issues have stayed our hand numerous times - eg. blowing up Iraq's Intelligence Service headquarters at night (minimize casualties) in response to its effort to assassinate Bush I in Kuwait, and calling off multiple efforts to kill Bin Laden.

Scheuer believes we have lost both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and that launching the Iraq War was a major blunder. Further, we need to stop believing that a "post-war Marshal Plan" will change the hearts and minds of Arabs - not unless we stop backing Arab tyrants and Israel.

As for Europe, Scheuer sees it becoming overrun by Muslim immigrants and their children. Meanwhile, its support for the U.S. is weakening - witness the recent fall of supporting leaders in the U.K., Spain, and Poland.

Concluding, Scheuer states that Islam is the fastest growing religion, U.S. officials have lied to citizens (providing erroneous reasons why terrorists hate us - eg. "they hate democracy)," instead of telling the truth while counteracting terrorists, and the U.S. is VERY vulnerable to more terrorism subce we've cut funding to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons, failed to close our borders, and failed to even propose an effective energy policy.

As for "preventing follow-up terrorist attacks in the U.S.," Scheuer is unimpressed - they're simply defeating us without bombs, through dragging us down towards bankruptcy. His recommendation - focus on "America first" - issues that truly threaten our survival.

Michael Scheuer is a distinctly (and valuably) American phenomenon, the lone-gun unafraid to take a stand, no matter the odds against him. As a writer on security affairs myself, I may disagree with Scheuer on some specifics (such as terrorist motivation or Israel), but I can only admire the fierce integrity and citizen's passion that fills every page of this book. We are all fortunate to have this voice in the debate and this book--written by a man whose insider experience didn't corrupt him, but, on the contrary, led him to dig in his heels and fight for the country he loves on the battlefield of ideas. And whether or not a given reader agrees with Scheuer's analysis of issue X or Y, it's undeniable that he has no agenda beyond wishing the best for our country--it's just a marvelous thing to have so fearless an author, a man who isn't angling for a job in the next administration or worried about a promotion, but who is just deep in the fight and swinging for the United States of America. This is a book of great character, courage and raw anger--a book worth reading, reacting to, arguing with and, ultimately, absorbing. It is not a well-mannered book in the typical Washington vein, but a frontal attack on the follies Scheuer personally witnessed (not least, the utter unwillingness of the Clinton administration to take any meaningful action against Islamist terrorists--a fateful cowardice I saw myself from a different angle while serving in the Pentagon).
In this read-it-now recommendation, I've concentrated on the character of the book, letting others address the contents. I'm glad I read it myself and hope that many others will. In the great American tradition of constructive provocateurs, Mike Scheuer doesn't demand that you agree with him on every point--but he does want us all to think for ourselves, instead of accepting the platitudes delivered from on high by the governing "elite." I value the book, and I admire the man who wrote it. It's encouraging to have this voice crying out in the Washington wilderness.
--Ralph Peters

MTH is a depressing but eye opening book. The writer does a great job of laying all the problems America faces on the table regarding Islamic terrorism. Here is a warning; if we elect McCain, Obama, or Hillary the present problems with the Middle East will still continue and never get better. We will have different directors but the same music will be played by our government.

I was surprised about the Author's view towards politicians and law enforcement. His view of the CIA on the fact gathering arm is very good. The author glosses over the fact that the CIA itself is involved in its share of debacles. The author makes it clear that the present political situation is really terrible. All of our leaders - Democratic and Republican - are more interested in looking good towards leaders of Europe and the rest of the world community than taking care of American citizens. The FBI, all the high US military commanders, and most government agency personnel only really care about their careers and not really protecting the average citizens. The author gives legion stories about all the various government agencies caring more about their piece of turf than protecting the average American.

Some of the book is depressing to read. We support some Islamic dictatorships, the logic is "better the devil you know". The CIA knows of most of the terrorist training camps in Islamic nations, such as Pakistan. We don't want to attack them because it will provoke them. This is insanity. During the 1860s the USA successfully had Britain stop supplying arms to the Confederates. In the same period Britain had the US government stop cross border raids into present day Canada by Irish insurgents. In both cases the British and American governments had the interests of their citizens at heart. Now the author gives case after case of all the western leaders are more concerned about looking good to one another than to their own citizens.

I knocked off a star because the Author has no military back ground and says the governors of each state could stop the national guards from being called up for military service. Sorry, but the national guards were all de facto nationalized back in 1963 under a defense reform act. A National Guard unit is actually - from a command point of view - an Army Reserve unit detached for duty in a state.

The author also writes, truthfully, that the USA had lost every war its been in since 1945. Our enemies know this fact. They count on it. The giant American military is commanded by career oriented politicans who wear both suits and uniforms.

I should have knocked off a star because the author gives no solution to the present Middle East situation from an American point of view. Honestly, there may be no solution except for the insolvency of the American government. The fact of the matter is the poor American taxpayer is bound by his feckless government to give billions to Israel and the neighboring Arab states. If the taxpayer says anything against this unholy relationship they are called anti-Semite. This is mind boggling in concept. Actions by a citizen's government put the citizen at risk, put the citizen in physical jeopardy, and if the citizen complains about it the result is the citizen is then made to seem like an ignorant bigot instead of somebody shrewd enough to have figured out that his own government is working against their own best interests. The author makes this fact abundantly clear and any reader will have to come to the logical conclusion that they are right.

But this book is very well researched and will give great background to people who want to learn how we got into such a tangled mess. Don't expect anything to change regarding terrorism against average Americans because our American leadership does not want things to change. Our leaders want to look good to their fellow leaders in Europe or Western Civilization. And that's the most damning fact of this book.

This is a book that one could hope every American would read with an open mind, regardless of political ideology. And it is a very enjoyable read. Dr. Scheuer delivers a closely reasoned challenge to the concepts on which our current foreign policy is largely based, with a savagely eloquent and engaging style, seasoned with ironic humor. Members of the "bipartisan governing elite" are individually and collectively castigated, scathingly and without mercy, and also without evident political bias. Open the book to almost any page at random, and you will find a succinct and logical argument, or a quotable quote.
As a longtime fan of Israel, I was dismayed that I could not devise a logical response to his assertion that our support serves no compelling American national security objective. Indeed, most critics who disagree with him can only resort to ad hominem fallacies, not to logical expostulation.
Dr. Scheuer's prognosis for America is quite dismal on our present course, a conclusion which he bases on a study of history, critical analysis of the performance and concepts of our governing elite, and comprehensive knowledge of our global adversaries. He concludes that a reversal of our policy to one of non-intervention and strict adherence to national self-interest is our only hope of salvation.

Former CIA officer Michael Scheuer's first two books, Through our Enemies' Eyes and Imperial Hubris, provided timely and necessary correctives to Western governments' contention that Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamists in general had declared and were waging war against the West because of some fundamental hatred for the democracy, rights, mores, consumerism and social habits that it epitomizes. Rather than a madman, Scheuer rightfully portrayed bin Laden as an adept student of Islam and a not unreasonable voice for the millions of Muslims who have clearly defined political grievances against the US for its encroachment in the Arabian Peninsula, unqualified support for Israel, tolerance of authoritarian regimes (Russia, China) that repress Muslim minorities, open support for and arming of police states (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan) that can only be characterized as an affront to Islam, and now the open-ended occupation of two Muslim countries.

Based on his experience as an intelligence officer and as the head of the unit in charge of hunting bin Laden, Scheuer's main argument that the US and the West would be locked in a war without end unless they changed the policies that were generating so much anger in the Muslim world -- policies that, as he argued, bin Laden has clearly decried in his declarations of war against the US -- had much traction, so much so that it was imperative that I quote him in Smokescreen: Canadian security intelligence after September 11, 2001, my book on the subject and Canada's disastrous participation in the US-led "war" on terrorism.

Sadly, aside from reiterating those very helpful points, Scheuer's latest book, Marching Toward Hell offers little else, aside from a contradiction in strategy that can only be described as apocalyptic. Building his argument toward a prescription for success, Scheuer savages every US president (except Ronald Regan), non-governmental organizations, Amnesty International, leftists, peace activists, "antinationalists," neoconservatives, academics, Europe, expatriates and the Clinton and Bush administrations, and bemoans the lack of courage that, in his view, is necessary to win the war militarily, through means that would put to shame the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the carpet bombing of Vietnam. Through vengeance disguised as Machiavellian wisdom, Scheuer writes that only the muscular, no-holes-barred use of military force that punishes both non-uniformed terrorists, their supporters and those who tolerate their presence in their midst (that is, civilian populations) -- the incineration of Kabul and Kandahar soon after Sept. 11, 2001, for example -- would bring back global awe of the US' power to deter its enemies, the kind of deterrence that existed at the height of the Cold War, which Scheuer seems to miss dearly.

The contradiction in Scheuer's argument could not be starker: While, at one level, he correctly and wisely identifies the 30-year-old grievances that gave rise to the jihad against the US, and furthermore argues for a change of course in such areas as support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and over-dependence on oil, he then mortally undercuts his argument by saying that overwhelming force -- using an arsenal that includes landmines, depleted uranium ammunition and total disregard for collateral damage -- should be used to exterminate the enemy. Given that he has named the political grievances in all of his three books, it defies the imagination that he would then propose military action on such a scale as would not only fail to address those grievances but surely fuel even greater hatred for US policies and potentially spark a cycle of violence from which no one could possibly benefit. If the US' problem in the Islamic world can be fixed by correcting its policies -- which Scheuer points out on numerous occasions -- why the use of overwhelming force? For some quaint reason, Scheuer fails to understand that the two are not subsets of the same strategy.

To his credit, Scheuer gets many things right that even other intelligence officers fail to grasp, including the West's self-defeating policies on Hamas and Hezbollah, or the fact that Iran should be left alone and that the invasion of Iraq was not only a fiasco but prevented efforts in Afghanistan, where he rightly sees defeat, both on military terms and in the "hearts and minds" campaign, on the horizon, if not already upon us. On those points and in his assessment of the nature of the al-Qaeda threat, Scheuer offers quality advice that one wishes our leaders would follow. But unfortunately, his anger, thirst for vengeance and ostensible need to demonstrate his support for the military and intelligence officers is such that it overwhelms the reader and, as David Rieff wrote in his review in the New York Times, makes it difficult for the reader to take him seriously, just as it is difficult to take seriously another proponent of overwhelming force, Ralph Peters, for whom Mr. Scheuer seems to have boundless admiration.

When he sticks to assessing the nature of the threat, Scheuer has few equals and remains a helpful guide. But the strategic prescriptions he provides in his latest book will -- and wisely should -- be ignored.

Michael Scheuer worked for the CIA for 20 years until he resigned in November 2004. In this brilliant book, he argues that the US ruling class has a single overriding aim which is harming the USA - "an unquenchable ardour to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations, and times." He believes that US foreign policies should focus on defending US national interests, citizens and sovereignty, not on crusades to change the world.

He denounces Non-Governmental Organisations' `unquenchable thirst for western intervention'. He describes them as `arrogant and self-righteous engines of Western imperialism and intervention abroad'. For example, in company with Republican candidate John McCain, they want to send a US-UK military force to Darfur, where there are no conceivable US or British interests at stake "and where a military action can only waste American lives and money, worsen the civil war, and again validate the Islamists' contention that Washington intends to destroy the Sudanese and all Muslim regimes that will not do its bidding."

Scheuer also criticises the US policies of support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, noting that backing Israel is "absolutely irrelevant and manifestly counter-productive to the national-security interests of the United States." He urges the maximum practicable energy self-sufficiency to end dependence on Saudi Arabia's oil. He points out that Saudi Arabia is not a friend: it hikes up oil prices then uses the profits to fund worldwide anti-Western activities. He proposes that the USA should exploit its oil, gas and coal reserves, increase its use of nuclear power and invest in renewables.

He argues that the attack on Iraq diverted resources away from the war on al-Qaeda and destroyed the Iraqi bulwark against al-Qaeda. Now, as Bush's Iraq Study Group has said, "there is no action the American military can take that ... can bring success in Iraq."

Scheuer writes, "For the United States, the war in Afghanistan has been lost. By failing to recognize that the only achievable U.S. mission in Afghanistan was to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda and their leaders and get out, Washington is now faced with fighting a protracted and growing insurgency." As he writes, "it was the United States that had been attacked ... the US military could and should have taken care of Afghanistan by itself." Why should we in Britain be involved at all? Scheuer urges a limited war against al-Qaeda, not worldwide, unending war on `terror'.

He sums up that current US foreign policy increases the threat to the USA, creates enemies faster than they can be killed and puts the USA in a worse position today than it was on 9/11.

Scheuer is an expert on middle east policy and is one of few Americans whom Bin Laden has quoted by name. He is a CIA veteran and former head of the UBL unit. As with Imperial Hubris, this book provides the reader a cogent understanding of why so many citizens and radicals alike in the middle east hate us. Scheuer disputes the notion that 9/11 marked the commencement of hostilities between the west and the middle east. Rather, he traces said friction back to 1973 following the oil embargo and America's reaction to the Yom Kippur war. A must read.

Michael Scheuer should be read by all American's. He is a good writer - lots of great words and verbiage and he doesn't pull punches.

We need a Commander in Chief with his mentality. He understands the enemy and how to defeat the enemy. He also understands American history and the lessons of it's founders. Too many of our leaders neglect both American history and the wisdom of our elders.

We will not come close to winning this war until we do two things - drop the politically correct bunk and put America and the security of it's people first.