Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror (Hardcover)

+

+

Price For All Three: $37.07

Show availability and shipping details

• This item: Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer

  In Stock.
  Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
  Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
  

• Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq by Michael Scheuer

  In Stock.
  Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
  Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
  

• Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, Revised Edition by Michael Scheuer

  In Stock.
  Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
  Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
  

Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, Revised Edition by Michael Scheuer 4.4 out of 5 stars (35)  $8.58

Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (American Empire Project) by Chalmers Johnson 4.0 out of 5 stars (100)  $10.88

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape 4.2 out of 5 stars (50)  $10.88

The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul 4.9 out of 5 stars (820)  $14.28

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by Steve Coll 4.5 out of 5 stars (160)  $11.98

› Explore similar items

Amazon.com Review
The war on terror has created near unanimity on many points, at least within the American press and political leadership. One essential point of agreement: al Qaeda specifically and radical Islamism in general are stirred by a hatred of modernity. Or as President George W. Bush has articulated repeatedly, they hate freedom. Nonsense, responds the nameless author of this work and 2003's Through Our Enemies' Eyes (the senior U.S. intelligence official's identity became an open secret by publication date). Indeed, he grimly and methodically discards common wisdom throughout this scathing and compelling take on counterterrorism. Imperial Hubris is not a book that will cheer Americans, regardless of their perspectives on the post-9/11 environment. We are, the author notes, losing the war on terror. Hawks will squirm as the author heaps contempt on U.S. missions in Afghanistan (too little, too late) and Iraq ("a sham causing more instability than it prevents"), but opponents of Bush administration policies may blanch at Anonymous' suggestion that what's needed is for the West to "proceed with relentless, brutal, and, yes, blood-soaked offensive military actions until we have annihilated the Islamists who threaten us." Quoting the at-all-cost likes of William Tecumseh Sherman and Curtis Lemay on one hand and contending that unrelenting military measures be accompanied by concessions to the ideology of the militants on the other are unlikely to curry widespread support from either side of the divide. And how will readers conditioned to references to Osama bin Laden as a deranged gangster or simple-minded fanatic with deep pockets digest the respect accorded "the most popular anti-American leader in the world today"? Imperial Hubris clearly wasn't written to win friends, though the author believes it's essential that his words influence people at the top. Whether it will is debatable, but that this blunt, forceful, urgently argued polemic recharges the discussion is a foregone conclusion. --Steven Stolder

From Publishers Weekly
It's unclear how, in an age when even office workers must sign confidentiality agreements, an alleged CIA Middle Eastern specialist has gotten permission to publish a sprawling, erudite book on the origins and present state of the "war on terror." His main point is that Arab antagonism to the West (and even non-fundamentalist Arab regimes' winking at terrorism) has its root in real grievances that have gone unaddressed by U.S. measures. The actions of the Saudis, and their U.S. supporters, come in for some hard criticism, as does the elevation of Northern Alliance warlords to de facto governors of Afghanistan. The author makes some challenging remarks regarding Israel ("Surely there can be no other historical example of a faraway, theocracy-in-all-but-name of only six million people that ultimately controls the extent and even the occurrence of an important portion of political discourse and national security debate in a country of 270-plus million people that prides itself on religious toleration, separation of church and state, and freedom of speech") while playing down the extent to which the Taliban itself was a corrupt theocratic regime. But his annotated compendia of battles and skirmishes won and lost by the U.S. and al-Qaeda are gripping, and his engagement with his subject has made him a pundit-in-demand.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

First Sentence:
In America's confrontation with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, their allies, and the Islamic world, there lies a startlingly clear example of how loving something intensely can stimulate an equally intense and purposeful hatred of things by which it is threatened. Read the first page Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more)
defensive jihad, suicide car bombs, imperial hubris, insurgent organization, policy status quo, clandestine service, wage jihad, senior intelligence officers Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
United States, Saudi Arabia, Mullah Omar, Northern Alliance, Ralph Peters, Red Army, Middle East, Bernard Lewis, New York Times, Arabian Peninsula, Persian Gulf, World War, Professor Lewis, Tora Bora, Shahi Kowt, Soviet Union, Bob Woodward, Prophet Mohammed, State Department, White House, Christian Science Monitor, East Africa, South Asia, Western Europe, Yunis Khalis New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Front Flap | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Flap | Back Cover | Surprise Me!

Search Inside This Book:

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

179 Reviews 5 star:  (86) 4 star:  (45) 3 star:  (22) 2 star:  (19) 1 star:  (7)           Average Customer Review 4.0 out of 5 stars (179 customer reviews)		Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Most Helpful Customer Reviews   627 of 694 people found the following review helpful: 4.0 out of 5 stars cutting through official propaganda from the inside, September 12, 2004 By  R. Hutchinson "autonomeus" (a world ruled by fossil fuels and fossil minds) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)       "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. Comment Comments (7) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)   44 of 45 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars US soldier serving second tour in Iraq, January 19, 2005 By  J. Souter - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)    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. Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)   68 of 74 people found the following review helpful: 4.0 out of 5 stars Brutally Honest, September 7, 2004 By  Hal B. Grossman (New York NY) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)    "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. Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this) Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review › See all 179 customer reviews...		Most Recent Customer Reviews 2.0 out of 5 stars At best, fodder for critics of the establishment. For all of it's clout, I frankly did not find this book very interesting or very convincing. Rather, it sounded like the author had a bone to pick with his former employers... Read more Published 4 months ago by Publius_Hamilton 5.0 out of 5 stars A Primer for Those Still Playing "Cowboys and Muslims" Scheuer accurately paints the backdrop for the current struggle and defines the human terrain upon which this ill-advised, wrong-headed global game of "Cowboys and Muslims" is... Read more Published 4 months ago by Horacio E. Schwalm 3.0 out of 5 stars A laborious read with an assortment of ideas Whew....books about terrorism are hardly fun to read. Since our leadership shows so little interest in educating itself on the matter, some alarmed citizens have taken it upon... Read more Published 6 months ago by J. Adams 5.0 out of 5 stars Losing the war on terror Imperial Hubris (Why The West Is Losing The War On Terror) If anyone thinks that the West has a sensible working policy that can beat terrorism with its approach to... Read more Published 10 months ago by William Gale 5.0 out of 5 stars Everyone Should Read This Book! Written by an ex-CIA back office dude who could not beleive the non-sense he witnessed first hand. I voted for Pres. Bush twice. I bought into the "we gotta kill 'em all now! Read more Published 13 months ago by BusDriverNYC 4.0 out of 5 stars Imperial Hubris Seems to be a well-researched and accurate account of why the Unites States is so despised among the Muslims of the world, and how we got there through the policies and actions of... Read more Published 14 months ago by Franklin L. Jones 5.0 out of 5 stars required reading This book should be required reading for any one that has an opinion is going to form one and be involved with the future of this country. Read more Published 14 months ago by V. C. King 5.0 out of 5 stars The Bitter Truth Michael Scheuer lets it all out and tells us that basically "The Emperor Has No Clothes". America needs more from our professioanl politicians, Military Officers and C.Y.A. Read more Published 15 months ago by R. Stevens 5.0 out of 5 stars A must read. Mr. Scheuer takes a serious look at why U.S. policy towards our Islamist enemies is failing and makes a compelling argument for a means to reverse this trend. Read more Published 15 months ago by Christopher Raissi 3.0 out of 5 stars repetitive I really liked the first 100 pages of this book. That's all one should really read because there is nothing new after the first 100 pages. Read more Published 16 months ago by N. J. Harmon Search Customer Reviews Only search this product's reviews › See all 179 customer reviews...

• Books > History > Americas > United States > 21st Century
• Books > History > Asia
• Books > History > Middle East
• Books > History > Military
• Books > New & Used Textbooks > Humanities > History > Middle East
• Books > New & Used Textbooks > Humanities > History > Military
• Books > New & Used Textbooks > Humanities > History > United States
• Books > New & Used Textbooks > Social Sciences > Political Science > Government
• Books > New & Used Textbooks > Social Sciences > Political Science > International Relations
• Books > Nonfiction > Current Events > Terrorism
• Books > Nonfiction > Politics > Freedom & Security > International Security
• Books > Nonfiction > Politics > International > Relations
• Books > Nonfiction > Politics > U.S.
• Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science
• Books > Political Parties > Purple Politics