Customer Reviews

The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The New Crusade: America's War On Terrorism is a very serious treatise by peace activist Rahul Mahjan on current events which focus on the September 11 attacks and the consequent war in Afghanistan. The New Crusade also addresses the issues of American policy in Israel and Palestine, Iraq, humanitarian intervention in Somalia and Kosovo, and more. Scathing in its indictment of the US government and IMF for such advocations as denying AIDS drugs to third-world countries (unless sold at inflated prices no third world nation can afford) and demanding privatization of scarce water resources, as well as gauging how September 11 changed America and the world, The New Crusade is a sober, thoughtfully argued presentation not to be taken lightly and deserving of as wide a readership as possible. This is a highly recommended and welcome contribution to the current national dialogue regarding our "war on terrorism".

Why do they hate us? It's because they hate our freedom - was the picture painted by the media and the US government. It was a nice, comfortable idea (this line from book). If you delve into this question a little further, you will soon realize, "they" probably don't care how you live inside your country, and they might actually care more about what the US government is doing outside the US. We obviously don't sympathize with the brutal and senseless actions of the fanatics that caused 9-11. However, the actions of the US government cannot be justified either. The bombings took a lot of innocent lives and will continue to do so for several years from starvation, disease and even unexploded bombs. War as we know is death for the people who live there. What's very bothering is that a lot of people believe that this war was and is justified. A lot of people believe the lives of children and innocent people are justified.

If you want to get an idea as to why they hate us, and whether or not the war can be justified, this book will give you a great insight. The book also talks about how the war on terrorism is affecting our daily lives here, our future, and what we can do to help. The book presents a lot of facts after thorough research, analyses and suggestions as well.

Being aware is in itself a great help we can do to ourselves.

This is probably the best book I've seen on the 'War on Terror." It's clearly argued and well documented. Others have already discussed the books strengths so I won't go into them here, but there is one problem I have with it.

For all his research into the history of the United States' constant flaunting of international law, he fails to draw the logical conclusion from it: the United States will not obey any law that it does not want to. From the local to the international level, laws are only as good as they are enforceable; otherwise, they're just words on paper. To put it another way: political power grows from the barrel of a gun, and the US has the most and the biggest guns so there is little reason to believe, as Mahajan and others like Noam Chomsky do, that an international body can somehow compel the US to do anything. Before we start looking to the UN for solutions, we should see what it's track record has been when it comes to preventing or facilitating US militarism and we'll find that it consistently does the latter. Is that simply due to weak-spined political leaders? I don't believe so. It's because the US is such a cornerstone of international capitalism, that its role has to be preserved for the system to keep functioning, even at the short-term expense of other nations. What that implies for social justice movements is that we must be brutally honest about our country and its social-economic system, and I think any debate has to start with this premise.

Despite that, I would recommend this book to anyone looking for a good understanding of the US government's post-9/11 actions, both domestically and internationally.

Addendum: for further confirmation of Mahajan's concerns about of domestic anti-Arab hysteria , see Jill Malter's review of this book on August 5, 2005. In it she says, among other things:

"Sami al-Arian! For those of you who don't know who he is, he's on trial for having been the North American leader of Islamic Jihad, a notorious terrorist group that has claimed "credit" for attacks that have killed at least 100 people in Israel and the disputed West Bank territories. He's also accused of having played a crucial role in writing the Jihad's constitution, raising money for the Jihad, helping other Jihad leaders enter the United States, and planning an extensive espionage operation.

If there were just one person the United States ought to have been firing from their position, arresting, and putting on trial, it might well have been al-Arian. He's not the right person to try to defend by claiming anti-Arab racism! He's not the right person to try to defend by implying that his only crime was that "in his youth" he made 'an intemperate speech.'"

Notice how she points out that he's 'on trial' and 'accused' of certain activities in the first quoted parargraph above. Nothing proven yet. Then in the second paragraph she basically pronunces him guilty and says it was right for him to be treated the way he was.

Here are some other facts: the unjust perscution of Al-Arian was exposed in a salon.com article on Jan. 19, 2002 - it's still online. He did work with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the early 1990's but that was legal since the PIJ had not been put on the terrorist watch list until 1995. In 1996 the university itself investigated the charges and found no evidence to support the allegation that Al-Arian was involved in, or supported, terrorist activities. And in 2000, a judge addressed the charges and found there was "no evidence" that either of Al-Arian's groups were fronts for militant Palestinian terrorist groups.

On December 6, 2005 he was found not guilty of funding terrorism at his Federal District Court trial in Tampa.

From year to year while amassing wealth and light-heartedly thinking that one can shut out world poverty and problems, the nation was forced to open its eyes to the atrocities of imperialism with the September 11 attacks. Mahajan's New Crusade speaks on U.S. imperialism and its effects on subordinate countries. From the blatant defiance of international law to impoverishing sanctions on Iraq, he touches on several subjects to explain the root of the 911 attacks and a prelude to potential Third World retaliation that he aptly labels the "blow back".

Mahajan begins by explaining the role of the media as a propaganda machine, shifting public attention away from foreign policy and to justify war with Afghanistan. Weeks after 911, President Bush addressed the nation in his first speech by stating "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" (p 13). Mahajan adds that news anchors jumped on the "They hate us for our freedom" bandwagon to stir controversy. He quotes the omnipotent news anchor Dan Rather of CBS News as saying, "They hate us because they are losers. They see us as winners. And those who see themselves as losers sometimes develop a deep and abiding hatred for those they see who are winners"(p 13). An onslaught of like statements invoked a delusive sense of supremacy, arrogance and promoted prejudice that according to Mahajan, was designed to steer public attention from the motives of the attack.

Virtually unknown to the public, Mahajan also mentions the initial agreement of the Taliban to extradite Osama Bin Laden to Pakistan where he would be tried by Islamic law provided substantial evidence was produced indicating involvement in the 911 attacks (p.21) and the refusal of the Bush camp to negotiate. Though The New Crusade was published in 2002 during the Afghan war, Mahajan accurately predicts the recent Iraq conflict stating that the country has been a target since the early nineties during the Gulf War. He writes about the illegal patrolling of British and American aircrafts over Iraq in no-fly zones (p 91), and the continuous police of Iraqi nuclear weapons while neighboring countries are allowed to freely stockpile arms.An additional slap in the face came with the 25% taken from Iraqi oil sales to repay Western oil companies for their "loss" during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. These penalties hinder cash flow into the country, stifle local economy and place Iraqis at the mercy of a Saddam ruled, Western funded government

Besides from some slight personal disagreements, specifically Mahajans' view of racial prejudice towards Arabs following the attack (p 71-75), the book is well written and gives excellent facts about U.S. foreign policy and offers a non-conventional view of the US and its relation to the rest of the world. It points out the flaws of the United States: arrogance and its refusal to follow international law (Mahajan notes $17 billion to owed Nicaragua for civilian bombing as ordered by the World Court in 1986 has yet to be paid). Information provided needed for a government, community and most importantly an individual self-assessment. In order to establish global harmony we must first evaluate ourselves, recognizing weaknesses and creating solutions to overcome them. This cannot be successful if we (as a nation or individual) are not aware of our actions or purposely choose to ignore how they impact others. America should be more socially conscious of the evil that it produces if not for the sake of morality for the sake of karma. - V. Jennette-Evans

If you've ordered this book and read it, then you've taken the first step to freeing your mind from all the garbage the media suffocates us with. And if you swallow these eye-opening books like I do then I earnestly recommed anything by Noam Chomsky, as well as these two books, which will no doubt enlighten you about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq: (1) War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq (Milan Rai); and (2) STUPID WHITE MEN (Michale Moore). And if you love a good laugh, here's a satire on Bush and the media: The little samba boy (Jay Singh). The truth is out there.

ountry, without evidence to his guilt presented. And, according to the London Daily Telegraph, the Taliban had agreed to extradite Bin Laden to Pakistan where he would be tried within the framework of Islamic law before an international tribuanal, which would decide to try him themselves or extradite him to the U.S. Apparently General Musharaff scuttled the deal, obviously under U.S. pressure. The author notes that the U.S. demanded that the Taliban open all "terrorist training camps" to U.S. inspection and the Taliban must hand over everyone in the vaguely defined "terrorist support structure" of Al Qaida. No sovereign state could accept these demands; thus the bar was set so high for the Taliban that war was inevitable. The author says that this war is simply about terrorising third world countries who refuse U.S. demands. Getting Bin Laden is a goal but it is really further down the list. The author points out that the threat of bombing and then the bombing itself caused the creation of about a million internal refugees within Afghanistan, severely exacerbating the humanitarian crises in that country. The threat of bombing and then the bombing forced aid agencies in the country to suspend their work most of the time. He quotes a Christian Aid official as saying that the humanitarian crises during the bombing was not related to the Taliban blocking the relief efforts but the U.S. bombing. He points out that with seven million people desperately needing food in the midst of the bombing, the U.S. government had to cover its tracks a bit. This was done by dropping 37,000 food packets on the country, ridiculous not just for the small number compared to the actual needy, but, as was denounced by the aid agencies, it is very difficult to distribute food to the needy that way. Aid agencies argued that it was perniscious that humanitarian aid was being dropped with bombs. The author points out that the U.S. really didn't block aid distribution after the Taliban fell; they just really didn't do anything to help that distibution, whatever the rhetoric. The author notes that the heroic efforts of the World Food Program averted widespread starvation for a few months last December. The WFP said that the danger of widespread famine was over but other agencies said it was only not a danger for a few months. The speculates that tens of thousands of people at minimum died because of the cutoff aid caused by the threat of bombing then the bombing from September to December 2001. This in adition to the probably 4,000 people who died from the bombs themselves or who accidently picked up a cluster bomb, which were strikingly resembled the yellow food and medicine packets that the U.S. was dropping as part of its sham humanitarian operations. The U.S. packets with medicine had instruction for dispensing written in English for a nation of people, the vast majority of whom can't read their own language.

The author notes that a hundred people were dying a day in January at the camp of Maslakh near Herat and that there was still numerous reports of inability to access isolated villages cut off by snow. Those villagers of course, were surviving by eating bread made of grass. The author notes that the amount of banditry and lawlessness, particularly harming aid distribution, vastly increased with the Northern alliance takeover of the country. And the author notes that the Northern Alliance barbarians, though including a few women in their government-- greatly impressing Western intellectuals-- instituted a harsh farm of Sharia (Islamic law) law and a judge announced that adulterers would still be stoned but with smaller ones than the Taliban used.

The author says some other interesting things. He refers to the furor about the CIA being "restricted" from doing business with terrorists, by the Church committe of the 70's, the law passed in 1995 requring CIA agents to get permission from headquarters to business with human rights violators and so on. He notes that the CIA managed to fund its largest operation ever in the 80's supporting the Al Qaida-types in the 80's in Afghanistan. He quotes Carter's National security advisor Zbygniew Brzesinski as as saying that the United States had been covertly funding the fundamentalist fanatics in Afghanistan, trying to provoke the Russians, at least six months before the Russians invaded in December 1979. He notes that it dosen't look very smart to give even more power to an organization, the CIA, that created, funded, armed and trained these "Afghan Arabs" organizations like Al Qaida and then left them to be set loose on the world. He points out that the CIA was able to fund very well the terrorist contras in Nicaragua. And he quotes the CIA spokesman as saying under the 1995 rule, agents have been rarely refused requests to work with various thugs.

He discusses other matters like the U.S. forcing the shutdown of the Hawala money transfer affiliate in Somalia, on the grounds of its suspected ties to Al Qaida, though no actual evidence has been found of it (U.S. government assertions don't count). The author speculates about the closure of the prime way of getting money into Somalia will lead or has led to the deaths of many thousands of people. He notes that the U.S. "humanitarian mission" in Somalia back in 1992-93 was actually intended to secure a foothold in a strategically important and mineral rich area. It had been undertaken after most of the famine was over. After funding the Somali dictator Mohammed Siad Barre, overthrown in 1991, whose bloody rule was largely responsible for bringing the famine about, the U.S. managed to kill 7,000 to 10,000 people during this intervention. Nobody remembers or even knows about that but they remember the American servicemen killed.

Amazingly clear, Mahajan's book considers topics like our freedom, our security, the media's tactics and influence, analysis of polling data, the relationship of race to our government's activities, humanitarianism, and likely new directions in military activities. Ending on an optimistic outlook, in just 150 pages Mahajan demonstrates his ability to provide sourced facts, relevant history, and crystal-clear logic in explaining the complex topic of our response to terrorism.

This book should be required reading in American high schools and colleges, for both its exemplary writing style and its content combined with an explained logic.

Excellent review of the issues whether or not one agrees 100%. It is unfortunate that the reviews are all positive because it means those who SHOULD read it wallow in books and opinions that support their own biases. No right wing or JDL reviewers here. No pompous Bennett or bigot Pipes. Should be assigned to all members of Congress (with a quiz) before they debate Iraq too. (But now freshmen get sessions with Rush Limbaugh rather than Harvard's school of government that better reflects the intellectual standards of the Right and of Bush.) The mainstream Press, and members of Congress fear truth - or even different opinion - unless subsidized by voting blocks and paid for by the beneficiaries of Bush tax reform. ('Making the world safe for Billionaires' is the order of the day, not truth, justice, or democracy - not even civil rights.)

At a time like this, when government propaganda is forced down our throats, Mahajan offers a devastating critique of U.S. foreign policy. He shreds the facade behind the "war on terrorism." He shows the hypocrisy of the vicious attacks on the people of Afghanistan under the guise of freedom. As he points out, the Bush government planned an invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9-11 . Why?- well, let's see- OIL.

If more of the media had Mahajan's cynicism toward the government, the American people might know the real story behind the "war on terrorism." I await his forthcoming book on the invasion of Iraq.

My only complaint is that he goes on side issues, like affirmative action, which have nothing to do with the subject. Otherwise, I would have given it 5 stars.

Is there a risk that following the events of September 11, 2001, the United States may be overreacting, or acting in an improper or counterproductive manner? Of course. We need some thoughtful, objective, and constructive criticism. And some good advice. But this book doesn't provide it.

I'll mention just a couple of areas where I think the book disqualifies itself from being helpful. The first is in the discussion of a racist American backlash against innocent Arab Americans. And a backlash against dissent from American policies. That's something that I do not take lightly. And what this book says will, in my opinion, make matters worse. Mahajan says "the backlash against dissent got so bad that even one tenured professor lost his job because of it."

Um, who lost his job?

Sami al-Arian! For those of you who don't know who he is, he's on trial for having been the North American leader of Islamic Jihad, a notorious terrorist group that has claimed "credit" for attacks that have killed at least 100 people in Israel and the disputed West Bank territories. He's also accused of having played a crucial role in writing the Jihad's constitution, raising money for the Jihad, helping other Jihad leaders enter the United States, and planning an extensive espionage operation.

If there were just one person the United States ought to have been firing from their position, arresting, and putting on trial, it might well have been al-Arian. He's not the right person to try to defend by claiming anti-Arab racism! He's not the right person to try to defend by implying that his only crime was that "in his youth" he made "an intemperate speech."

Well, let's see how this book deals with the Levant. The author says that the Oslo process was about the Arabs "bargaining away part of their internationally recognized rights to the whole of the occupied territories." Unfortunately for him, there is no such right to all of the disputed West Bank. Nor is there even a right to ethnically cleanse all Jews (or Arabs) who might wind up on the "wrong" side of the Israeli border.

You can give constructive advice on how to deal with terrorism. Or you can support terrorism and taunt its victims. But you can't do both. And this book is defending the bad guys.