Customer Reviews

The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How It Affects You Today (An Uncle Eric Book)

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

 

 

Richard Maybury is a very rare bird. He can take a complex subject, such as why the US government is engaged in a war with radical Islam, and explain its root causes in simple, truthful terms. He is a tough, hardheaded, fearless thinker who is unafraid to go past the facile explanations of the mainstream press and seek out the deeper causes of socio-political phenomena. Maybury relies on science, reason, and a penetrating study of history for his explanations. He is also an ex-military man with an astonishing grasp of military history and the current level of effectiveness of US armed forces

For instance, his analysis begins in the 8th century with the founding of Islam. He explains why the devastation visited upon the Islamic world by the European Crusades and the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan in the 11th-13th centuries still exert a powerful influence on the peoples of the MidEast.

He also clearly identifies the theoretical basis of his reasoning, i.e., Austrian (free market) economics and the natural or "scientific" jurisprudence that underlies the evolutionary development of Common Law, the basis of American freedom. I was stunned by his ability to extract from his studies the two basic laws (stated in short, simple sentences) upon which every successful civilization is and has been based. He explains in another book how America's success derives from the founders' understanding of these two laws. He writes that he has never found anyone who disagrees with the rightness of these two laws...although the current American political state massively violates both every day. In the context of this book, he shows how the US government's intervention in Middle Eastern affairs tramples on the two laws that, ironically, have always been the source of American freedom and prosperity.

I have read most of the deeper academic works of the Austrian school and am well-read on American/European history. I have also applied myself assiduously to understand the current conflict and its probable outcome. However, until I read Maybury's clear, concise book, I honestly did not understand what was going on. Maybury has given me the tools I was seeking to grasp the nature of the current conflict. For instance, he not only predicted that something like 9/11/2001 would happen years before it did, but also why it was bound to happen. He also predicts that unless the US gov't withdraws from the MidEast and apologizes for over 50 years of murderous meddling in the afffairs of the Islamic world, we will face far worse consequences. Maybury is also honest about the limitations of his ability to predict. He lays out the principles upon which he bases his projections in straightforward terms so you can judge his conclusions for yourself.

Maybury uses simple examples to explain why he thinks the way he does. Eg, he asks how we would feel if the Iranian navy were permanently deployed in Chesapeake Bay. He further states obvious truths that the mainstream somehow overlooks, such as, that the US military is over there in their homeland killing people right & left and has been doing so for 50 years; their military is not over here on our (US) homeland. He points out, without justifying them, that two decades of Muslim attacks on Americans have been in response to prior American attacks on Muslims that have killed thousands of innocent islamic men, women & children.

Maybury does not take sides (the thinks both sides are wrong) but does show how the American government (not the American people) has instigated the current version of the "1,000 Year War" through its continuous interference in the Middle East or as he calls it "Chaostan." Finally, he explains why the US gov't cannot possibly cure the ills of tyranny, poverty & constant violence that plague that part of the world. US meddling will only make things worse at great cost to both sides.

I feel so strongly about the rightness of Maybury's analysis in this book that I urgently recommend it to any and all free thinking people the world over, but particularly my fellow Americans. We are truly on the brink of potentially catastrophic events and Maybury is the one thinker I have come across who shows a realistic pathway out of the war and chaos to come.

I thought this book is a very useful read and does much to inform about the historical roots to the mess that is currently the Middle East. There are ancient hostilities and tensions that are beyond the understanding of many of the policy makers that determine the direction that nations take in the Middle East.

Maybury does an excellent job explaining 'why they hate us so' which was a seemingly unanswered question in the days after 911.

However, I felt that Maybury did great disservice to his readers by not explaining that the crusades were in response to hundreds of years of Muslim advance, often brutal and murderous in nature. All the countries we now know as Muslim countries were once considered Christian. Istanbul was once Constantinople, the seat of the Holy Roman Empire. Maybury paints the Muslims as innocent victims without presenting the more honest view that the Muslim religion was birthed in hostile, war like advance. Muhammed essentially conquered Mecca and Medina to make them Muslim; they did not convert voluntarily.

This oversight was quite disturbing because it is the oversight that one hears from the Muslim extremists. They often refer to the crusades without any reference to their own heritage of bloodshed.

While I tend to agree with his assertions about the role the USA should play in the Middle East, I feel that Maybury lacks a thorough knowledge of the religious ideology that drives the Muslim extremists who are seeking to become the norm.

I found this book in a quest to find a fairly impartial discussion on the war in the Middle East. Over the years I have read about what ever was the current headline of the day but I had no appreciation for the intricacies and the longevity of the issues that have kept this part of the world at war for over a thousand years. Being born on American soil, a nation that is in its infancy by comparison to so much of the rest of the world, I had no context in which to even begin to understand what has fueled the fires of war and hatred for so many generations. I feel very lucky to have stumbled upon Richard Maybury's book. Instead of being put off by what seemed like a student textbook approach I was appreciative of his assumption that the reader knew almost nothing about the history and geography of this part of the world. Armed with a map and paper to make notes I tackled this book. Maybury uses a ptolomeic style of writing that is reassuring for the reader but the information is so complex that I found myself having to re-read sections and go back and refer to earlier sections of the book. This is not meant to discourage. I think Maybury did an incredible job of tackling such weighty subject matter.

Basically I came away believing with much conviction that America has no business being involved in the Middle East. Our involvement speaks to our arrogance as a country and our selfishness as a nation of consumers who upon finding our own oil reserves dwindling have jumped into the fray to try to gain control over as much oil as we can grab with both fists. Being a big fan of Daniel Quinn I was struck by Maybury's comments that our fears that the Middle East will not sell its oil to America do not justify our involvement because, after all, those people cannot 'eat' oil.

I highly recommend this book. Give yourself the opportunity to read something unbiased by your newspaper's editorial board, politicians, your newstation, talk radio host or TV personality. Think for yourself!

This book is not the best way to learn about the history of the Middle East. Not if one wishes to learn in detail of what has happened and when. However, if one wanted to learn the why of these events, this book is invaluable. It provides a simple clear cut reason for a conflict that has been going on for more than a millenium and to which, even today, no end seems in sight.

Continuing in his favourite style of writing letters to his nephew, Chris, Richard Maybury applies the operation of his two basic laws on events that have shaped, and are still shaping the history of Europe over the last thousand years.

The two basic laws read as follows: 1) Do all you have agreed to do: 2) Do not encroach on another's property. Evidently, they are based on the equality of all human beings and oppose the use of force to wrest anything from anyone. As history is replete with power play, especially where emperors, kings and eventually governments are concerned, it is not difficult to see how the wanton abuse of these two laws, backfire on those authorities and organizations who do not adhere to them. In this book, Maybury begins by analyzing the Crusades, (Christian aggressors to the Holy Land, which was not their own and which they wanted to take by force), goes on to examining the authority of the Church, and finally ends up with a bird's eye view of European politics that led to World War I. Application of his logic on these diverse, seemingly unrelated events, makes their outcome almost self evident. Richard Maybury also speculates on the connection between the thousand year old animosity between the Western World (symbolized by America) and the Islamic World (represented by the Arab countries), leading onto the terrorist attack on Sept.11, 2001 (this is added later as the book was originally written in 1999). He shows clearly the role of the Allies (mainly Great Britain and France) as the aggressor in the conflict and how this role has been taken over in later years by the United States of America, a country which was created in order to preserve this very freedom. And especially, how the role of 'global policeman' adopted by America is accepted by the Rest of the World and officially justified in the name of ' protecting American interests'.

Each one of Richard Maybury's books is a fast read and this one is no exception. Maybury's strength lies in his crystal clear clear logic, and his total fearlesness in confronting contentious, emotional issues. Highly reccommended if only to stretch your minds to see a greater picture than the one given out by the authorities-that-be.

Best historical perspective on the insider/outsider and local/foreign tensions in the Middle East. The approach given by Maybury will clear up questions you may have about imperialism and political domination as they are attributed to western powers--there have been massacres and despots and wicked abuses of power in the Middle East since the beginning of time. There are no simple resolutions to the conflicts of today, so at least attempt to understand why and how the conflicts continue to simmer until they occasionally break out in open war. Please read it! For reviews of similar books, see also the resource pages at civilsociety at seedwiki. Thanks, Richard, for this great book. Write more!

I am fascinated by Maybury's ability to make history seem relevant. He is fairly persuasive in showing the error of American meddling in the Middle East. Maybury is one of the few men who has the ability to change my political views. My only complaint is that the book should be bigger. I get the feeling he is jst offering a cursory version of what he really has to say.

This is an excellent book on the conflict we see going on in the Mideast and spreading worldwide.
The author has condensed the history of conflict in the Mideast over the last 1000 years and maintains the reasons for the situation today has its roots from the earliest days of Islam.
Although the author makes very strong cases for his arguments,not everyone will agree with him on all points. Not so much in anything he actually says;but what he overlooks and does not say.
This book has history actually starting in the 6th Century ,with the beginning of Islam and essentially overlooks everything before that.Particularly the Biblical times and the centuries of Christianity in the Mideast.
Most of the author's ideas are argued ,based on how the Islamic world sees things as a result of the Crusades,approximately 1000 years ago.He gives little weight or argument to the spread of Islam during the centuries before that,which resulted in the Crusades coming about.
So ,as my title suggests; this book is a good analysis of the Mideast ,if yuo want to look at history beginning with the birth of Islam and particularyy after the Crusades ;and even more particularly from the Islamic point of view.
All that aside,no matter what version of history you want to accept;the important thing is how does the world deal with what is happening today.
The author has two ideas running through this book that he proposes as the reasons for this conflict.
These two ideas are;
"Do all you have agreed to do."
and,
"Do not encroach on another,s property."

History has witnessed conflict from the beginning of civilization ;with endless wars and conflict by every country and culture that can be attributed to those two ideas.However;each "side" sees violations in these ideas from their own viewpoints.
This book is well worth reading to see the Mideast conflict from the Islamic viewpoint.

Have you ever wondered why the people of the Middle East and Asia have such a hatred of America? The Thousand Year War explains, in lucid detail, why America is considered evil by so many people in the world. This book takes easy steps through the last thousand years tying the past to the present, and tying the Crusades to September 11. This book is an absolute must for anyone wishing to understand the world we presently live in.

In a world increasingly dominated by news of Middle Eastern mayhem, Richard Maybury's book is increasingly relevant. I was disappointed, however, that he was somewhat unbalanced in his presentation. I'll list the reasons below.

1) He lambasted the Roman Catholic Crusades (and rightly so) for their cruelty, while giving Islam a free pass for their crusades (which preceded the Catholic Crusades). Ironically, the term "Blowback" can probably be used in describing the Catholic Crusades, since they were more or less a response to Islamic agression that had been going on for over 300 years prior to the Catholic Crusades.
2) He has a few errors in facts.
a. He states "All three [religions] revere the Bible and believe in its God, and regard Jerusalem as a holy city." (page 54) As a Protestant Christian, I know that those of my faith do not view any earthly city as being "holy". Also, the Jews reject the New Testament, and the Muslims reject most of all of it as being filled with errors.
b. A few paragraphs later, he writes "How would you feel if you were, say, Presbyterian, and you were told that you would have to live under a Baptist state? My guess is you'd first say, 'what is a Baptist state?,' then you'd say, 'I don't care what it is, I refuse to live under it.'" As a Baptist myself, I can tell you this is a false argument. "A Baptist state" can't exist, because Baptists (and Christians in general, including Presbyterians) reject the idea that a "Christian state" can exist. We are people who are called OUT of every tribe, tongue, and nation, and the New Covenant of Christ was not made with any nation, only with individuals.
c. On page 59, he mentions (very briefly) the vast Islamic subjugation of neighboring lands (which he seems to believe is an aberration, even though the Prophet Muhammed began the process). He excuses Islam by saying "The basic philosophy [of Islam] is no more warlike than that of Christianity or any other religion.....after all, where did the two worst wars in history begin? They began in Europe, between Christians." Quick note here -- unlike Islam, Christianity never had an early militaristic period in its history. "Christan conquest" is a completely oxymoronic term. The words "Christian" and "conquest" are mutually Biblically exclusive of each other. The New Testament forbids the Church (by "Church", I mean the universal body of Christian believers) from bearing the sword, whereas Muhammed spread his teachings by the sword once he gained the majority.
d. On page 60, it reads "...the Koran encourages intellectual inquiry." Not about the early history of the Koran itself, though...
e. On page 61, he writes "You see, Chris, the science and teachnology of the ancient Roman world had been lost by the Europeans, but the Moslems rescued it." Sorry Richard, but no. The Greeks had taken it to (or produced much of it in) Muslim lands. This is especially true in the area of mathmatics -- the Muslim Arabs have gotten a lot of the mathmatical credit that should go to the Byzantine Christian Greeks.
f. On page 63, "They (Muslims) built medical schools and gave us surgery, anesthesia, and pharmacology." All the Muslims did was build the hospitals. They were staffed with Greek physicians, which calls into question who really should get the credit for all these medical advances.
3) Maybury states that the "Thousand Year War" began with the Catholic Crusade in 970 AD. He writes on page 66 "This was a period when Moslems had control of the Holy Land and Pope Sylvester didn't like it. He believed Christians should run the place and began laying plans to make it so." Actually, Pope Sylvester wanted it BACK, since the Holy Land had been in Christian hands until the Muslims conquered the area in the 700s. In no way am I excusing the Catholic Crusades, but I want to give the actual perspective on why the Crusades were fought.
4) Maybury seems to have either overlooked or ignored Islamic aggression that has been present since the beginning of Islam itself. When Muhammed was in the minority, he spoke of nothing but peace, tolerance, and friendship with all faiths and all men. When he gained the majority, the rhetoric changed, and religious minorities had 3 options: Convert, pay the Jizya tax, or die. Muhammed spread his religion by war when all else failed, and history shows that his adherents have done the same ever since.

While there are legitimate criticisms of Maybury's book, I agree with his overall thesis that we should just leave the Muslim nations alone. The USA is currently occupying Iraq and Afghanistan while having a military presence in Libya, Uganda, Pakistan, and Yemen, and we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to fund it all. That leads to increased inflation, which leads to hyperinflation (think Weimar Republic). Middle Eastern Islamic dictators are a Middle Eastern problem, and Middle Eastern nations should bear their own problems without American money and blood being wasted trying to bring freedom to a region (and a religion) that are completely incompatible with the ideals of liberty and freedom. Non-interventionism is the correct route to go -- open trade and contact with all nations, and only go to war when threatened or attacked. If the Islamic nations in the Middle East want to butcher and slaughter each other as they've been doing for several centuries, there's nothing the American government can do to change their behavior. It's past time that the USA removed itself from the Thousand Year War.

All of the Uncle Eric books are great this one is on the area known as Chaostan.
Basically foreshadowed the 9-11 attacks. Get the whole series.