Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq

by Michael Scheuer

A veteran CIA counter-terrorism analyst provides a sobering analysis of the U.S. Iraqi War policy while making unsettling predictions about how American security will be affected by the conflict, in a report that reveals how America's foreign policy is undermining key national goals and rendering the country vulnerable to terrorism. 200,000 first printing.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Terrorism, Middle East, War, Islam

384 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

Scheuer resigned in 2004. He is currently a news analyst for CBS News and a terrorism analyst for The Jamestown Foundation's online publication Global Terrorism Analysis. He also makes radio and television appearances and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation's December 2004 conference, "Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11."

Source: Wikipedia

Reviews

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very slow, and at times frustrating read. Slow because sometimes you need to just stop and process the information, and a lot of the information/wisdom the author has to share is in the footnotes, of which there are many. Frustrating when you come to fully realize how completely, totally, and utterly wrong the US policy in the Middle East has been.

This is a book written by a justifiably angry, passionate man, who invested 20+ years at the CIA specializing in the Middle East, among other things creating and running the bin Laden unit and watching Clinton ignore opportunity after opportunity to take bin Laden out, or Bush II execute a half-hearted, ineffective war in Afghanistan and follow it up with a pointless, equally ineffective invasion of Iraq, while bin Laden celebrated his good fortune and the strategic victory that Iraq represented.

Indeed, one of the things I learned from this book is that bin Laden's publicly stated goals not only are very different from what US politicians spout in sound bites for the cameras, but also that they are very consistent over time and make a certain amount of sense relative to the realities of Islam and the Middle East.

Reading this book (and the others by the author) also taught me that there is no politician of either party that can be trusted to give anything like a true accounting of the events leading up to, including, and after 9/11. The 'ruling elite' (a contemptuous term used a lot in the book) of the US in both the executive and congressional branches is in either mass denial, or unfathomable ignorance and stupidity, or both. They are also guilty of a mass paranoia about what other countries think - they are convinced that we have to fight 'polite wars' where civilians are never hurt and a minimal amount of damage is done to the country, largely to keep in the good graces of European governments and special-interest voting blocs at home. The author makes a compelling, if squirm-inducing case for why we need to bring the full force and power of the US military to bear when it is used without tempering it, or apologizing for it.

The book has one interesting theme throughout, which the author returns to again and again, and finishes the book with -- and that is how far from the principles set forth by the founders of the American republic our policies in the Middle East have been...in many cases directly contrary to the wishes and warnings of the very gentlemen whose memories the neoconservative politicians who got us into this mess just love to invoke when they thunder forth about spreading American democracy anywhere and everywhere, appropriate or not.

[Mustakim · Rating 3 out of 5]

বই - Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq
লেখক - Michael Scheuer
পৃষ্ঠাসংখ্যা - ৪০০
প্রকাশকাল - জানুয়ারি ০১, ২০০৮

লেখক সম্পর্কে:

মাইকেল শইয়ারের জন্ম ১৯৫২ সালে বাফেলো, নিউ ইয়র্কে। তিনি একাধারে ব্লগার, লেখক, আমেরিকার পররাষ্ট্র নীতির সমালোচক, রাজনৈতিক বিশ্লেষক এবং জর্জটাউন বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের 'শান্তি ও সুরক্ষা' কেন্দ্রের প্রাক্তন সহকারী অধ্যাপক।

মাইকেল শইয়ার একজন সাবেক সিআইএ এজেন্ট। তিনি
দীর্ঘ বাইশ বছর সিআইএ-তে কর্মরত ছিলেন। ১৯৬৬-১৯৯৯ সাল পর্যন্ত তিনি BL Issue Station (the OBL tracking unit at the Counterterrorism Center aka "Alec Station") এর প্রধান হিসেবে দায়িত্ব পালন করেন। তিনি ২০০১-২০০৪ সাল পর্যন্ত আবারও OBL tracking unit এর প্রধানের বিশেষ উপদেষ্টা হিসেবে দায়িত্ব পালন করেন এবং এরপর দায়িত্ব থেকে অব্যাহতি নেন।

পাঠ পর্যালোচনা:

আমি যথাসম্ভব সংক্ষেপে শইয়ার তার বইয়ের মূলভাব এবং সে সম্পর্কে আমার মতামত লেখার চেষ্টা করবো।
শইয়ার এই বইয়ে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের শত্রুদের(মিলি/ট্যা/ন্ট ইসলামিস্ট, AQ, TB) চোখে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের পররাষ্ট্র নীতি এবং মুসলিমবিশ্বে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের আগ্রাসন এবং ইসলামপন্থীদের কাছ থেকে আসা এর প্রতিক্রিয়া বোঝার চেষ্টা করেছেন।
শইয়ারের মতে, BL(বিন লা*দে*N) এর প্রকাশ্যে ঘোষিত মূল লক্ষ্য এবং যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের "Ruling Elite"-দের মিডিয়ার সামনে বলা ইসলামপন্থীদের লক্ষ্যের মধ্যে রয়েছে আকাশ-পাতাল তফাৎ(বইটা ২০০৮ সালে লেখা)। যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের হর্তাকর্তাদের মতে ইসলামপন্থীরা তাদের ওয়েস্টার্ন লিবারেল লাইফস্টাইল সহ্য করতে পারে না তাই তাদের ওপর আক্রমণ করে। যদিও বাস্তবতা অনেকটাই ভিন্ন। শইয়ার জোর গলায় বলেছেন যে, যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের সেক্যুলার লিবারেল লাইফস্টাইল নয় বরং US Foreign Policy বা যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের পররাষ্ট্র নীতিই ইসলামপন্থীদের সাথে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের দ্বন্দের মূল কারণ। আর এটা অস্বীকার করা বা জেনেও না জানার ভান করে থাকা যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের নিজেরই ক্ষতি বয়ে আনছে।

শইয়ার আরও মনে করেন ইরাক, আফগানিস্তান এবং সর্বোপরি ওয়ার অন টেরোর বা সন্ত্রা*সে*র(!) বিরুদ্ধে যুদ্ধে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র হেরে যাচ্ছে। এর একটা বড় কারণ হলো যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের স্নায়ুযুদ্ধ বা কোল্ড ওয়ার যুগের সমাপ্তির পরেও ইসলামিস্টদের প্রতি সেই কোল্ড ওয়ারের নীতি অনুসরণ করা এবং ইতিহাস সম্পর্কে না জানা বা ইতিহাস থেকে শিক্ষা না নেয়া। "The Bush administration lost the war in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, because it did not know history and believed that, in any event, history held no lessons for the United States (Ch. 4, page 194 approximately, I read the epub version, and the page numbering in epub differs somewhat from that of hardcopy or pdf)."

তিনি আরও বলেন ইরাকের সাদ্দামের পতন বা সিরিয়ার বাশার আল আসাদের সাথে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের দ্বন্দ্ব শুধুমাত্র ইসলামপন্থীদের জন্যে সুফল বয়ে আনছে। এর কারণ এতদিন ইরাক বা সিরিয়ার শাসকগোষ্ঠীরা ইসলামপন্থীদের বিরুদ্ধে থাকায় ইসলামপন্থীদের বিরুদ্ধে তারা একপ্র‍কার প্রতিরক্ষা কবচ হিসেবে কাজ করতো। সে হিসেবে এই রাষ্ট্রগুলো বা রাষ্ট্রের শাসকগুলো পরোক্ষভাবে ইসলামপন্থীদের বিরুদ্ধে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের মিত্র ছিলো, কিন্তু যুক্তরাষ্ট্র নিজেই নিজের মিত্রদের সর্বনাশ করেছে বা এখনও করে চলেছে। এদিক বিবেচনায় বলা যায় BL প্রতি পদক্ষেপেই যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের নীতিনির্ধারকদের চেয়ে কয়েক ধাপ বেশি অগ্রসর ছিলো। শইয়ার BL-কে একজন পলিটিকাল জিনিয়াস হিসেবে স্বীকার করে বলেছেন, "I think it is best to give America’s most dangerous enemy the benefit of the doubt and judge BL to be near a political genius."

লেখক আমেরিকা কর্তৃক ইসরায়েলকে সহায়তা করার বিষয়টিকেও যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের জন্য ক্ষতিকর মনে করছেন(এর কারণে তাকে এন্টিসেমেটিক ট্যাগও দেওয়া হয়েছে)। কারণ এতে তো যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের কোনো লাভ হচ্ছেই না বরং এর মাধ্যমে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র মুসলিম বনাম জায়োনিস্টদের আরও বড় যুদ্ধে জড়িয়ে পড়ছে।

এবার আসা যাক বইয়ের নেগেটিভ দিকগুলোতে। লেখকের আরেকটা বই বাংলায় অনুবাদ(সাম্রাজ্যের ত্রাস) হওয়ার পর হয়তো বাংলাদেশে লেখকের বেশ সুনাম রটে গেছে। ভক্তরা হয়তো মনে করেন লেখকের মন মুসলিমদের প্রতি সহানুভূতিতে টইটুম্বুর করছে। কিন্তু, আদতে সেটা ভুল। শইয়ার একজন কঠোর আমেরিকান জাতীয়তাবাদী৷ তিনি যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের ইসরায়েলকে সহযোগিতার বিরোধীতা এই কারণে করছেন না যে ইসরায়েলিরা নিরীহ মুসলিমদের ওপর অত্যাচার করছে বরং বিরোধিতা করছেন এই কারণে যে এতে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের কোনো লাভ হচ্ছে না। বেশ কয়েক জায়গায় তিনি যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের প্রশাসনের ইসলামিস্টদের ওপর নমনীয়(!) প্রতিক্রিয়ায় সমালোচনা করেছেন এবং সময় থাকতেই তাদেরকে সমূলে নিশ্চিহ্ন করে দিতে বলেছেন পাশাপাশি যেসব সাধারণ মুসলিমরা ইসলামিস্টদের প্রতি সহানুভূতিশীল তাদের ওপরও চড়াও হতে বলেছেন। লেখক হয়তো যুক্তরাষ্ট্র ও ইসলামিস্টদের মধ্যকার দ্বন্দ্বের মূল কারণ বোঝার মতো বুদ্ধিমান কিংবা সৎসাহসী কিন্তু দিনশেষে সব রসুনের গোড়া এক। লেখক মুসলিমদের উচ্চ জনসংখ্যা বৃদ্ধির হার এবং পশ্চিমের নিম্ন জনসংখ্যা বৃদ্ধির হার নিয়েও বেশ উদ্বিগ্ন। কারণ মুসলিমদের জনসংখ্যা এমনিতেই বেশি, জনসংখ্যা বৃদ্ধি পেলে আরও বড় একটা জনগোষ্ঠীর রোষানল থেকে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রকে রক্ষা করতে হবে যা যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের জন্যে আরও কঠিন, শ্রমসাধ্য ও ব্যয়বহুল। বাংলাদেশ নিয়েও বইয়ে অনেক কথা আছে আমি সেসব আর এখানে আনছি না কারণ রিভিউ এমনিতেই অনেক বড় হয়ে গিয়েছে।

বইটাকে একদম মাস্ট রিড বলবো না কিন্তু হাতে সময় থাকলে পড়ে দেখতে পারেন।

ব্যক্তিগত রেটিং - ৩/৫

~ মো: মুস্তাকিম বি.
০৪ ফেব্রুয়ারি, ২০২২

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm giving this five stars, not be cause I agree with everything the author has to say. Some of his analysis is hard to accept, his assertions not based on anything but obvious bias, some of his prescriptions for correcting what he sees as catastrophic failures unrealistic.

However, Scheuer does succeed in making one think, to question commonly held beliefs (e.g., that we need to support Israel no matter what) and to try and get a more realistic view of what our Islamic enemies are after (at least in the short-term; Scheuer does not seem to have a very long-term idea of the threat Islam poses to the West and does not want to place the current conflict in the context of the 1300-year-old war between Islam and the rest of the world). He also rightly points out that America's main problem is a leadership class so enamored with it's own goodness and moral and intellectual greatness that it fails time and again to actually act in America's best interest (and, for those of a partisan bent, Scheuer plays no favorites; Republicans and Democrats are equally reviled).

I recommend reading it, but pausing often to ponder what Scheuer has to say. Even if you wind up disagreeing with everything in the book, at least it will serve what I think his primary purpose is - to get Americans thinking about our role in the world and how our leaders have come very close to destroying our country.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very frank critique of current U.S. foreign policy; focusing on Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The author is a recently retired CIA analyst who apparently was heavily involved the agency's monitoring of Bin Laden in the late 1990's. He believes the U.S. has already lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says that our support of Israel politically and militarily while simultaneously remaining dependent on Saudi Arabia for much of our energy supply is an untenable position. He seems to believe that we haven't heard the last of Al Qaeda, and that further 9/11 scale attacks are in the works.

[Terry Cornell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I discovered this book back when Scheuer was a guest on one of the Fox News shows. Impressed with his background working in the CIA, and deciding to get out because the politicians wouldn't listen to him. This book should be a must read for anyone in our government involved in forming our nation's foreign policies especially in the Middle East. Even though the book originally came out in 2008, it is still relevant today. Bin Laden is dead, but our government's cold war era leaders are focused on regime change wars. They understand very little about Islam, and keep making the same mistakes governments have been making in the Middle East for decades.

Amazing I finished reading this, as the current President decides we need to get our troops out of Syria, and one war veteran Democratic Presidential candidate, is talking about our failed foreign policies and the need to stop regime change wars. Scheuer thinks our political elite spend too much time focused on solving problems all over the world, instead of fixing problems at home. At times Scheuer can sound like an isolationist, but our political and financial elite seem to be focused on globalism instead of our nation. I don't agree with Scheuer on everything, for example he doesn't think the U.S. should support Israel at all, that we can't pick sides in the region However, Scheuer does a great job of describing what we need to fix regarding foreign policy.

[Ayman Fadel · Rating 2 out of 5]

As I was listening to this abridged book on CD, I pictured its author Michael Scheuer as a combination of Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now and Cersei in Game of Thrones. His commitment to no principle other than the cohesiveness of the United States and his view that ultra-violence is a necessary tool to preserve that cohesiveness made it difficult for me, a proponent of non-violence and globalism (his term is antinationalist), to keep an open mind to his ideas. Yet I'm glad I did persevere and finish the book, and there is some value in it.
Let me get the things which I think are bad out of the way first:
He portrays al-Qa`ida and the rest of the neo-Khawarij who believe that planting bombs in marketplaces and mosques and kidnapping and executing civilians at checkpoints are legitimate means of "resistance" as authentic to Islam. Well, it's nothing that I would consider Islam. Now, granted, Scheuer is not claiming that he's talking about Islam, and he neither has no stake nor claims any in what Islam sanctions, but I'm concerned that a reader may believe that these terrorist Islamists are the "true Muslims." He mistakenly refers to them collectively as Islamists, and I think others have demonstrated that the term Islamist covers a wide variety of actors, include a wide swath who would not consider attacking civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, much less the United States.
The idea that there is an "America" and an "Islam" as entities which can be joined by the conjunction "and" promotes the idea that there is an unchanging "America" (or more accurately, an America which should not change from his ideal) and an unchanging "Islam." Islam does not do anything. Muslims do things. Edward Said, in Orientalism and his more accessible book Covering Islam, explains the importance of identifying agency and not relying on non-historical concepts like Islam to explain events. I think Scheuer has an idealized view of America as a unified body of free individuals contributing to the common good by seeking their interests with as little government interference as possible.
He repeats the assertions that Muslims are taking over Europe, a la Eurabia.
His prioritization of security over all other concerns, especially clean energy and immigrant rights.
While I think these are serious problems, it's only the final point which leads me to diverge with Scheuer in his policy recommendations.

Scheuer advocates for non-intervention. He does a good job explaining the difference between non-intervention and isolationism. But he does not think the United States can implement non-intervention without controlling immigration, and he even mulls the emergence of a United States "Bin Laden" who would force the federal government to implement true Homeland Security. He approves of non-federal government measures, states, municipalities and non-governmental organizations (militias), designed to identify and deal with (incarcerate, deport, execute?) undocumented immigrants.

I wonder if this is exclusively a security concern. In some passages of the book, he disparages multiculturalism and implies that America's uniqueness is a consequence of its Anglo-Protestant heritage. If the only issue with immigration is security, then would not a more liberal immigration policy (e.g. amnesty for the undocumented currently working in the United States who haven't committed felonies) coupled with raising minimum working standards in agriculture and food processing and other low-wage industries and decriminalization of drugs result in elimination of the industrial smuggling networks into the United States and reduce the possibility that terrorists could enter the United States with components of a nuclear weapon? On the other hand, if the problem with immigrants is that they are generally not Anglo Protestants, then the only option is to transform the United States into a (more of, much, much, more of) a White Supremacist police state.

I agree that the United States can reduce its need to intervene in oil-exporting regions of the world if it no longer needed to import oil. However, increased reliance on natural gas extracted through fracking or Canadian shale oil or Gulf of Mexico oil or Alaskan oil or Arctic oil or nuclear power has serious environmental consequences. God forbid we justify mountaintop removal of coal in the name of national security. It is better to subsidize the development of clean energy and reduce energy consumption.

Nevertheless, this book is medicine for people for whom immigrants' rights and environmental concerns are not a concern and see no way out of the War on Terror other then maintaining US empire. Many of the problems I had with the book may be a result of its abdrigement, which probably reduced my exposure to the evidence for the author's assertions.

In our local peace group, there is a split between self-identifying progressives and libertarian/non-interventionists. This book is useful as well for illustrating how progressive interventionists often support war.

[Glen · Rating 1 out of 5]

An unrepentant Machiavellian and self-described unreconstructed Reaganite, ex-spook Scheuer idolizes Bin Laden's political genius yet offers no operable solution to the scourge of Islamism except "change our Foreign Policy in the Middle East". I agree with him that our goal of democratization of Islamic regimes is idiotic in the extreme, and that we missed a lot of opportunities to take out Bin Laden before he made his mark, but this book does nothing to help us fight al'Qaeda in the present or future, it's just a 270 page rant on how historically ignorant Americans are (again, I can't disagree).

He does offer some suggestions though.
First, we should abandon Israel because they draw us into conflict with the rest of the Arab world. While I see his point, they are our only real ally in the Middle East and I think they are useful as a proxy and counterweight in our dealings over there. I agree with him that Saudia Arabia is not our "friend", they would be one of our biggest enemies if it weren't for their oil and the fact that they are the second biggest holder of our debt (behind China).
Next, we should extricate our troops from the "already lost" Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns and return them home to guard our porous borders against illegal immigrants with the help of "an effective network of fences, trenches, watch towers, radars, and - if necessary - minefields"(!) This, he says, is not isolationism, but non-interventionism, however, if we do deem something is a national security threat, we should apply the full force of our military might without regard to collateral damage or international opinion to eliminate the offense. I agree we have reached beyond our means and that attacking Iraq was one of the dumbest things we've done in a decade, but minefields in North Dakota, really?
His other two suggestions are to secure the Former Soviet Union's nukes so they can't be stolen and used against us, and to "do something" about our energy policy. He offers no tips on how we're supposed to solve these problems; it amounts to the Saturday Night Live skit where the economic "expert" comes out and says, "Fix it!"

While I agree with some of his points, I don't think this adds much to the debate over what to do about fanatical Islamism. It basically comes down to a "no more blood for oil" diatribe.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was an incredibly hard book for me to review and rate. Most books I have been able to say I liked it or didn't like it. But this book, on what America's foreign policy has been and should be in the Middle East, is one of the few books that I both appreciate and detest at the same time. I appreciate Scheuer's willingness to air unpopular decisions in the hopes that our political leaders will completely reevaluate our Middle East policy. I also appreciate his genuine desire to destroy al Qaida, Osama Bin Laden, and his lieutenants and protect American lives. However, I detest his historical analysis of America's foreign policy from 1973 to 9/11 which is incredibly myopic as it doesn't take into account the fact that the Middle East wasn't the biggest problem for America at the time. Also, his hatred for human rights and women's rights NGO's seems incredibly vitriolic and perhaps very personal. And finally, his recommendations for changes in policy probably wouldn't work and would probably lead an even worse situation in the Middle East. All in all, a brave book for the criticisms he levels at our disastrous policies, but a wrong-headed approach to fixing them.

[Gerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totally debunks all party myths of the political gaming in Washington DC and how neither party was particularly "good" or "bad" at this terrorism related matter. Rather, they both used the system for political point gaming. Good humor along the way - but be forewarned you may find yourself bonking your head with a frying pan (in a matter of speaking of course) as I did along the way.

[Peter Hazzan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Plenty of information and background on how the US got involved in the Iraq War and the failings of the Bush administration. However, a slow read marked by going back and forth on different issues instead of a progressive timeline.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are parts that are interchangeable with Mein Kampf. That does not mean that the military and political establishment has utterly failed to prosecute two wars—which he argues were both the wrong wars at the wrong times. A lot of his predictions for how Afghanistan would bear out bore out. Al Qaeda's long-term staying power beyond bin Laden's slaying and the lack of a charismatic replacement (al Bagdadhi not withstanding) was overestimated. Islamic terrorism seems to have waned somewhat in the second half of the second decade of the second millennium. Certainly, with the protracted Syrian conflict, his prescription of midle-Eastern regional conflicts featuring Islamists killing Islamists seems to be at least partially responsible for the decline of Islamic terrorism with all the global jihadists fighting/being killed by Assad/Putin.

[Kristopher Driver · Rating 1 out of 5]

The most trite and emotionally charged call to murder I've read all year... The book casually promotes mass murder and opines bill Clinton didn't bomb mosques during prayer to maybe kill a suspected terrorist as symptomatic of weakness. This is horrifying mostly because the author is clearly promulgation manifest destiny with unabashed superficial logic while employing colloquialisms like "outside the box thinking" over and over again to convince the reader of some sort of enlightened thinker.

It's been a long time since I've regretted reading anything so much. If you want to learn something look anywhere else - "literally".

[Dominic · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book for no other reason than I was able to follow it front to back via audiobook on a long road trip through the desert. It felt a little repetitive like most political books but that made it easier to come in and out of my daydreams and get right back into it. I found the chapter written from the perspective of the Jihadist most interesting. I also respect his view on Muslims as a whole and how they ought to be accepted by Americans. It was unlike any book I’ve read showing the dark side of extremism and how important it is to wipe it out before it spreads.

[Owen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This guy hates EVERYBODY. Well, almost everybody. Except for a grudging respect for Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, this guy hates everybody. He hates Clinton more than either Bush, Carter more than either of those, and heaps more scorn on George Tenet than any of the above.

Michael Scheuer led Alec Station, the CIA unit tasked with hunting Bin Laden in the 90s. By all accounts, they provided several opportunities to capture or kill him of varying qualities. Importantly, none of them seemed to involve Scheuer leaving Langley; by all accounts he was a desk analyst for life. Steve Coll talks about several of the proposed plots to capture or kill Bin Laden in the 90s, most involving local Afghan fighters. These seemed far-fetched at best- and that was BEFORE I went to Afghanistan. Thinking about the logistics, terrain, and tribal webs that govern the area where Bin Laden lived, I cannot believe any of those would have succeeded. If US SpecOps or Tomahawks were involved, I'd like their odds better.

Setting aside his incessant quoting of Founding Fathers and other era-inappropriate political thinkers like Locke and Hobbes, my problem with Scheuer is that while he knows a ton of facts, I come to very different conclusions from those facts. For instance, to his solution to the Iraq war was to 'finish it the first time,' and it was only the unseating of Margaret Thatcher in a Parliamentary election that saved Saddam, because she would have provided the requisite backbone to finish the job (I found it entertaining that he would consider the elder Bush- a decorated WWII pilot ad former head of the CIA- to need a backbone injection from the Iron Lady). Scheuer provides no blueprint of how that war in the 90s would have turned out any differently than the one we fought a decade later, but no matter. We should have finished the job and all our problems would be solved.

He points out the folly of blowing up Iraq's intelligence agency at night, which presumably killed only janitorial staff and night watchmen, rather than dismantling the intelligence apparatus. Scheuer has no interest in symbolic or 'level- appropriate' retaliation; he is of a mind with Genghis Khan that once war is joined, it is to the finish, and the enemies in this fight have sworn to die in the cause. He thinks we should give them what they want- I agree, though disagree on the particulars. One reads his work wondering how many times his editors took out references to tactical nuclear weapons in his manuscript.

There were some other areas that I agree with him, as well. Tactically, allowing known terrorist camps to operate in plain site for over a decade in rogue nations was unconscionable, particularly after people at those camps had publicly declared war on the US- and actively targeted US embassies and military, killing Americans. And, most importantly, a President's driving purpose must be the preservation of the Republic and it's people; the support of other nations for a just cause are nice, but the first duty of the President of the United States is to the people.

Feel free to read the book and disagree with my assessment. Mr. Scheuer did give decades of his life in service to his country, and frankly, I wish more Americans knew more of what he knows. I just disagree with many of his conclusions.

Owen Gardner Finnegan

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Scheuer was a senior U.S. Intelligence official in the CIA, and has clear positions on what is being done wrong, and what needs to be done, to keep America and American citizens safe. He is critical of the Bush Administrations simplistic position that "... they hate us because of our Freedoms...".

Instead, Mr. Scheuer points out that the writings and speeches of Al Qaeda indicate that the key issues continue to be the presence of U.S. troops in "Holy Lands", the U.S. unabashed, one-sided, and unquestioning unilateral support for anything Israel does, and the U.S. continuing support of repressive Arab regimes such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. To more and more Muslims, the U.S. championing of Human Rights is hypocritical in that it only applies to enemies, but does not appear to apply to pseudo-allies like Saudi Arabia, (since we need their oil), or Egypt (if they maintain a peace treaty with Israel). Scheuer points out that these are the issues which must be addressed, and the causes of our troubles.

While taking issue with the Bush policies, hard core Party loyalists from both the Republican as well as the Democratic sides of the aisle can take issue with "Marching Toward Hell". Mr. Scheuer is clearly a Reagen Republican, but while criticizing the current administration's handling of the war on terror following 9/11, he's no supporter of Clinton's earlier actions against Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda either. The common theme is that neither the current nor previous Administration, in this ex-CIA manager's opinion, have taken the appropriate steps to combat radical Islam, and if the US is to succeed, the Country must change it's approach.

It's true that many Muslims may be offended by aspects of Western culture, organizations such as al Qaeda are not fighting against us because of our democratic system of government, our civil liberties, gender equality, or our policy of separation of church and state. Those among them who preach violence are prompted by specific US military, political, and econimic policies that create antagonism in the Islamic world. Those strategies convince many into believing their communities, lands, and religion are under attack. Mr. Scheuer makes the argument that the longer we continue to fight and remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more enemies we are creating. He is a supporter of the earlier Powell policy of , if faced with war, go in with overwhelming force, win quickly, and get out. The auther states that if our leaders fail to recognize the true issues, and US policies and rhetoric do not change, the west will continue to lose the war on terror.

[Efrem Sepulveda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Scheuer's book on our failed adventures in the Middle East and South Asia serves as a warning for those who on one hand refuse to get the job done in exacting vengeance on those who would harm America and on the other hand those that think that they can replicate the poltiical culture and ideas of the West on other parts of the world.

A major theme of the book is that our government refused to put down terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden in a timely manner before they could do damage to America like what they did on 9/11 due to their fear of offending various allies and human rights groups and that they open us to subsequent consequences. Another theme is that the book reveals that the motivation behind most muslim terrorists is not that they hate America's freedoms, but rather that they are retaliating for our continued occupation of parts of the muslim world and that this country was/is propping up various dictators such as (until recently) Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, the al-Saud dynasty in Saudi Arabia and siding with Israel over Palestine.

Scheuer departs with some libertarians in that he believes that terrorists should be located and destroyed in any area of the world regardless of that country's protestations of its soveriegnty and doing it without congressional approval. He also proposed statist measures to get us independent of any energy sources that emanate from the Middle East in order for us to stay away from any future crises that flare up in that part of the world that could tempt us to intervene.

However, he is fully in line with libertarians in terms of not intervening in areas of the world where we have no interests. He also protested in his book that installing "democracy" and "women's rights" in certain parts of the world is futile as they never had the Western traditions that made such things as rights as we know them possible. Even in the West, the ideas of democracy are still imperfect even after 800 years of tradition of rights stemming from the Magna Carta.

Scheuer presents a brilliant case that one might disagree with to some extent. The text is 270 pages long with extensive endnotes, a strong bibliography and a short index. I rated it four stars due to some repitition of the material, yet I recommend it for a good read.

[Zach · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book raises some very interesting ideas, you may not agree with them, but they are intersting to think about. For example:

--What is the US strategic interest in Israel?

--Should moral issues (human rights, womens' rights, encouraging democracy) be part of US foriegn policy? What is the interest?

--Is AQ focused on the US not because of "our freedoms" but because we appear to support anti-Muslim regimes (Israel, Russia, China, India) or oppressive "secularist" regimes (Egypt, Saudi) while trumpeting democracy and free societies.

--Negative impact of Cold War policies on US CT efforts--reliance on nuclear deterrence (ie that we have no deterrence against terrorists), dependence on international coalitions--which may limit US actions, proxy wars(Nicaragua) which caused the US not to focus on total victory as it did in WWII--due to fear of provoking Soviets. Intelligence/Nat. Sec. structure became overly comfortable with the predictable nature of Soviet structure v. more rapid/less predictable actions of terrorists.


Book's down sides are mostly Schuerer himself. Scheuer often has a habit of going off on his own personal tagents from why he loves R. Reagen (ironic for a book that accuses others of being overly focused on the Cold War) to how everyone else, except his team at CIA, have screwed up to literally the poor state of popular music today--yes literally "what are these kids listening to??"...He belittles in childish language environmentalists, womens' rights activitsts, Jay Leno's wife (yeah, I know weird)...

Probably most painful of all is the chapter where Scheuer attempts to draft a long message from a supposed AQ intel agent in the US back to AQ members in Afghanistan. Probably the only thing more painful than reading actual jihadist sermons is reading someone making one up.

Overall the book has some interesting ideas, but I would recommend reading this rather than listening to an audio book, as it helps to skip through the more repetitive parts, something that is harder on CD.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm about a third of the way through it now and it sucks shit. And I really, really, enjoyed Imperial Hubris and most articles by him that I've read. I might get around to finishing this but Christ is it a whole lot of effort for not a lot of joy.

Short list of some of the things and people Scheuer despises up to page 110:

FBI (nosy, incompetent, actively sabotaging the CIA)
NSA (pretentious, not willing to do their job)
Entire Clinton administration (no balls)
Entire Bush administration (no clue)
All US Presidents since WWII with one exception (see below)
Europeans (a.k.a. land of "hedonistic athiests")
Non-Governmental Organizations (especially Amnesty International and other members of the "human rights mafia")
Academics (in particular just-war theorists)

Short list of some of the things and people Scheuer loves up to page 110:

Michael Scheuer
The CIA
Margaret Thatcher
Ronald Reagan

Apparently later on in the book he proposes a solution to protecting US from Al Qaeda which includes a crash program to set landmines along the entirety of the Mexican and Canadian borders. I can't wait.

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr. Scheuer reminds us of the federal government's primary responsibility in this book; one which is too often forgotten: promote the country's national (including security) interests. Too often our federal government makes the mistake that President Washington warned against about becoming entangled in other nations' affairs.

His other primary thesis in this book is that the military, through the government's mandates, has forgotten how to fight a war, and instead has become overly concerned with nation-building and international opinion.

He proposes a national conversation about what our national interests are, one that is unafraid of unflattering labels by those who have other interests than the national interests of the United States. Like "Imperial Hubris," I found this book to be an extraoridinarily thought provoking tome and one which needs to be expounded upon in the public sphere.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audio books take me a lot longer to get through now that I have a 3-minute walk for a commute. I had mixed feelings about this book. I understand it's seriously controversial but I do think Scheuer has some decent points. He is excessively logical and I appreciate logic but I have learned that there is more to humanity than logic. All head and no heart makes Homer something something (or something like that). In any case, his argument is compelling when it is not outright offensive and while I don't think his suggestions are fully actionable, there are pieces that should be considered more seriously and it was, in any case, good to think about and consider. There are certain things in American policy that we just take for granted as the way things will always be and I do wish there was a way for our leaders to change paradigms.

I think my favorite part of listening to this was the author's accent. It reminded me of my college buddy Adam B.

[Tim Edison · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be an excellent and critical analysis of the failure of American foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1980s. Scheuer makes an excellent arguement about how successive American governments have failed to properly deal with Middle Eastern nation states and thus have failed to adequately protect their citizens and their soldiers from its subsequent Islamist enemies.

Despite this, Scheuer can barely contain his own rabid religious (Christian) fundamentalism and this weakens his arguement somewhat. He claims that most Muslims do not despise the modern "western" way of life but then goes on to decry the "pagan culture" of contemporary America and claims that exporting American style democracy is unlikely to create "post-modern European like atheistic hedonists".

Still, despite Scheuer's own thinly veiled fundamentalism, I found this to be a very illuminating critique of America and Islam, post 2001.

[Shea Mastison · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a much weaker book than "Imperial Hubris" and it suffers because of the frustration that Michael Scheuer allows to cloud his thoughts. It's obvious that he left the CIA under poor circumstances, and one has to wonder whether or not it's affected his ability to rationally analyze the subjects he's tackled.

However, seeing as this book was written some years ago; his descriptions of the brewing problems in Syria and Libya seem almost prescient.

If you love reading about foreign affairs; and can identify with Scheuer's frustration--don't pass this book up! It's a good enough read for such a recommendation.

[Bob · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting view of the war on terrorism from an ex-CIA analyst. This was written before the "surge" in Iraq and therefor we get a hindsite look at Mr. Scheuers predictive competence, which is not 100%. He definitely has a unique perspective on the U.S. and its roll in the world. But his solutions are not even on the radar in Washington. Maybe Ron Paul is the closest example of his thinking. An interesting read if only to round out what is fed to us by the mainstreem media.

[Jen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow. Scheurer is a fantastic analyst when it comes to the Middle East and terrorism. He also should have stopped with his first book. This one is nothing more than embittered CIA analyst bitching about any politician that doesn't want to blast the entire region into a parking lot and pave over it.
His first book was a great analytical piece about bin Laden, his rationale for war and al-Qaeda in general. This book is a bitter, vitriolic rant with a few facts sprinkled in for good measure.

[James Hatton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here's another excellent analysis of U.S. foreign policy as it pertains to the war in Iraq and the "war on terror". It's a criticism of U.S. foreign policy at the time it was published, and for a couple of decades preceding its publication; but foreign policy has a way of sticking around, so the book is still relevant.

The author is a Republican, so don't be thinking it's all about bashing Bush. Read it and judge for yourself.

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing like a long-time CIA guy whose specialty was AlQaeda to perk up your perception of how our government is (mis)handling the whole Middle East.

I actually didn't read it all, as I was sliding toward the black hole of depression and just couldn't take it if it was headed where I know it was headed. I've see the author speak enough times to be aware of how bleak it all is.

[Bjorn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sure hope this guy isn’t right, but after reading the book, I suspect he is. This book is worth reading, even in 2009; especially if you think what we are doing now in the Middle East is OK. I’ve seen him on FOX News a lot, and he is always interesting and controversial. If you think he is the typical right-winger, you need to read this book.

[Karmen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This books asks "is the protection of U.S. interests and American citizens, and the maintenance of American sovereignty, independence, and freedom of action, any longer the primary, overriding concern of the U.S. federal government?"

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

A no nonsense look at the huge challenges ahead for the US of A and why we as a nation must fundamentally rethink the current approach to Islamic Fundamentalism and national security.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as good as Imperial Hubris, but anything by Scheuer is worth it.