What do you think?
How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq
Finding Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, had long been the U.S. military's top priority -- trumping even the search for Osama bin Laden. No brutality was spared in trying to squeeze intelligence from Zarqawi's suspected associates. But these "force on force" techniques yielded exactly nothing, and, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, the military rushed a new breed of interrogator to Iraq.
Matthew Alexander, a former criminal investigator and head of a handpicked interrogation team, gives us the first inside look at the U.S. military's attempt at more civilized interrogation techniques -- and their astounding success. The intelligence coup that enabled the June 7, 2006, air strike onZarqawi's rural safe house was the result of several keenly strategized interrogations, none of which involved torture or even "control" tactics.
Matthew and his team decided instead to get to know their opponents. Who were these monsters? Who were they working for? What were they trying to protect? Every day the "'gators" matched wits with a rogues' gallery of suspects brought in by Special Forces ("door kickers"): egomaniacs, bloodthirsty adolescents, opportunistic stereo repairmen, Sunni clerics horrified by the sectarian bloodbath, Al Qaeda fanatics, and good people in the wrong place at the wrong time. With most prisoners, negotiation was possible and psychological manipulation stunningly effective. But Matthew's commitment to cracking the case with these methods sometimes isolated his superiors and put his own career at risk.
This account is an unputdownable thriller -- more of a psychological suspense story than a war memoir. And indeed, the story reaches far past the current conflict in Iraq with a reminder that we don't have to become our enemy to defeat him. Matthew Alexander and his ilk, subtle enough and flexible enough to adapt to the challenges of modern, asymmetrical warfare, have proved to be our best weapons against terrorists all over the world.
Matthew Alexander, a former criminal investigator and head of a handpicked interrogation team, gives us the first inside look at the U.S. military's attempt at more civilized interrogation techniques -- and their astounding success. The intelligence coup that enabled the June 7, 2006, air strike onZarqawi's rural safe house was the result of several keenly strategized interrogations, none of which involved torture or even "control" tactics.
Matthew and his team decided instead to get to know their opponents. Who were these monsters? Who were they working for? What were they trying to protect? Every day the "'gators" matched wits with a rogues' gallery of suspects brought in by Special Forces ("door kickers"): egomaniacs, bloodthirsty adolescents, opportunistic stereo repairmen, Sunni clerics horrified by the sectarian bloodbath, Al Qaeda fanatics, and good people in the wrong place at the wrong time. With most prisoners, negotiation was possible and psychological manipulation stunningly effective. But Matthew's commitment to cracking the case with these methods sometimes isolated his superiors and put his own career at risk.
This account is an unputdownable thriller -- more of a psychological suspense story than a war memoir. And indeed, the story reaches far past the current conflict in Iraq with a reminder that we don't have to become our enemy to defeat him. Matthew Alexander and his ilk, subtle enough and flexible enough to adapt to the challenges of modern, asymmetrical warfare, have proved to be our best weapons against terrorists all over the world.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 121 reviews
June 21, 2010
Powerful and eloquent. The author is an interrogator with extensive experience in both police and military roles, and he thoroughly debunks the rationalizations for torture that made possible the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib - counterproductive abuses, in that they provided much less useful information than more appropriate methods, and in the terrible damage to America's standing in the world.
However, these legal, appropriate, and moral methods are more difficult to use than the simple thuggery which characterized those abuses of prisoners and the entire approach of that administration to foreign affairs.
This is one of the books I recommend to anyone who is studying the insurgency/counterinsurgency war in Iraq. A fascinating story I stayed up all night to finish reading.
However, these legal, appropriate, and moral methods are more difficult to use than the simple thuggery which characterized those abuses of prisoners and the entire approach of that administration to foreign affairs.
This is one of the books I recommend to anyone who is studying the insurgency/counterinsurgency war in Iraq. A fascinating story I stayed up all night to finish reading.
July 6, 2012
The story and the author's new techniques for interrogation are fascinating and impressive. They find relevance far beyond military or police personal - for that matter, building trust and reciprocity with friends and adversaries would do almost all of us a lot of good. And obviously the title sells the book much better than a review will be able to.
I do have two criticisms that undermined the credibility of the book. They may seem small but they are difficult to ignore both during and after reading.
1) The other annoyingly refers to himself and colleagues as 'gators (short for interrogators) and it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous. I'm sure it's different in person but in the book it is off-putting and obnoxious. Using the actual word would have made no difference whatsoever other than removing a colloquialism most of us are not familiar with.
2) Mark Bowden's foreword is a marketing ploy. Without exaggeration, it is 3 pages but has above the title billing on the book. Worse, Bowden says little and in no way provides context for the book. Anyone picking the book up for that reason will be disappointed.
Those two points of contention aside, the book is good. Unfortunately for the reader they are difficult to ignore and that prevents How to Break a Terrorist from being excellent.
I do have two criticisms that undermined the credibility of the book. They may seem small but they are difficult to ignore both during and after reading.
1) The other annoyingly refers to himself and colleagues as 'gators (short for interrogators) and it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous. I'm sure it's different in person but in the book it is off-putting and obnoxious. Using the actual word would have made no difference whatsoever other than removing a colloquialism most of us are not familiar with.
2) Mark Bowden's foreword is a marketing ploy. Without exaggeration, it is 3 pages but has above the title billing on the book. Worse, Bowden says little and in no way provides context for the book. Anyone picking the book up for that reason will be disappointed.
Those two points of contention aside, the book is good. Unfortunately for the reader they are difficult to ignore and that prevents How to Break a Terrorist from being excellent.
April 10, 2023
The book gives an admirably succint account of new interrogation techniques development in 2006 Iraq. Drawing a line between the old Guantanamo-style physical coercion and the new ways of non-violent approaches to getting intel, the divide is seen in the polarised interrogator crew. The office politics are a backdrop to this fast-paced story, and you find yourself pulled into the daily routine of a ‘gator squad: strategic briefings, 1:1s with detainees, quick watercooler exhanges of tips, some friendly competition between the ‘gators (and othertimes outright hostility — illustrating the divide between oldschool and the new ways).
What surprised me was a subtle message on what is good leadership: staying in the shadows to score a meaningful team win. It’s not something I expected to find in a military/intelligence book.
What surprised me was a subtle message on what is good leadership: staying in the shadows to score a meaningful team win. It’s not something I expected to find in a military/intelligence book.
November 23, 2023
I read the book and it is great. It is simply written and a fast read. This book is suspenseful as if reading a murder mystery.
This book details interrogation of prisoners in Iraq during the Shia-Sunni civil war created by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the interrogators or ‘gators as the author calls them and himself and the old, coercive, controlling and enhanced methods vs newer methods geared towards earning the respect of each prisoner by acting to extract the needed information.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and I highly recommended it.
This book details interrogation of prisoners in Iraq during the Shia-Sunni civil war created by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the interrogators or ‘gators as the author calls them and himself and the old, coercive, controlling and enhanced methods vs newer methods geared towards earning the respect of each prisoner by acting to extract the needed information.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and I highly recommended it.
January 10, 2022
This is, next to the hunt for UBL, one of the greatest interrogation and intelligence stories ever told. The narrative is direct, Easy to read, well-written, and wastes no pages in building up toward the conclusion. In addition, this story is a testament to Matthew Alexander’s approach to interrogations versus the force and control methods.
September 9, 2026
i got very few, if any, useful takeaways from this that didn't feel incredibly obvious, but here are some of them so that you can save the time and not read this book:
- "What does it mean to be 'nice' to a subject under interrogation? ...it often means one thing to the subject and another to the interrogator. It means, ideally, getting to know the subject better than he knows himself and then manipulating him by role-playing, flattering, misleading, and nudging his or her perception of the truth slightly off center. The goal is to turn the subject around so that he begins to see strong logic and even wisdom in acting against his own comrade and cause" (xii). (can confirm that this works on siblings as well)
- "You can't motivate a guy who doesn't care what's going to happen to him. How can you offer a carrot to a horse with no appetite?" (38)
- “Love of Family. Futility. Logical Reasoning. Fear Down. And rapport, always rapport” (91).
- “Fear Down. We learned this at Fort Huachuca; it’s a twist on an old-school, straightforward approach. Show him the true consequences and then give him an out and become his savior” (103).
- “'Maybe we should try a Boss Introduction.’
Marcia lights up at that. ‘That’s what I was thinking.’
If you’ve ever bought a car at a dealership, then you’ve probably been a victim of the boss introduction. When the negotiation stalls, the salesman calls in his boss, a person with social prestige, to pressure you. This method works even better against Arabs since their culture is strongly hierarchical” (194).
my main complaint: this is not a book that will give you any truly actionable insights about how to break a terrorist, or, as i was hoping, how to break a toxic family member you keep having to see at Thanksgiving. maybe all the good tips were classified? i need something more complicated than what gets used at a dealership to sell a Kia! FIND IT!
anyway—a book like this is inherently an act of intellectual imperialism, but i’m not totally sure that it’s successful at that. for starters, it’s cheapened by prose that reads like an action novel, including notes on his female colleague who plays on the Air Force volleyball team and has “long blonde hair peek[ing] out from under her Kevlar helmet” (6). notably, the coifs of male colleagues are generally not remarked upon. the author also has what i can only describe as a “noble savage” view of the Iraqi people. a suspect is described as a “human skeleton” (29) and another detainee is referred to as “an aged mole” (92)—a far cry from the descriptions of the cast of characters he works with, who come off like Bond girls and Ethan Hunt clones. Alexander describes an anguished detainee as such: “Is he crying? I can’t tell. As the wait continues, he slaps his forehead repeatedly. This is an Arabic sign of extreme duress and angst” (56). is crying and hitting yourself not a UNIVERSAL sign of distress?? for all that Alexander is attempting to move away from the “old methods” of interrogation, he clearly struggles to view the people he is responsible for breaking as actual human beings. it’s particularly fascinating when he says things like this: “Iraqis are total conspiracy theorists. They’ve been marinated in so many tribal plots and counterplots over the decades that these things come naturally to them. What’s more, they love being a part of a successful conspiracy” (265). quite frankly, nothing reads as more quintessentially American than being a conspiracy theorist! paradoxically, he never has more in common with the people he is interrogating than when he’s reflecting on their culture and emotions as somehow alien to his own.
this is a problem that clearly pains him, and he grapples with it in each chapter (though not very successfully). in a conversation with his colleague, Bobby (fondly deemed a ‘gator in their argot), the man “whispers, ‘Un-fucking-believable. How can you help but hate these people?’” (82). Alexander tries to overcome this: “Intolerance must be rooted out if Iraq is to have a chance. Either way you look at it, the new ways work better. Hate and contempt don’t get our prisoners talking” (83). but there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance that bleeds through, like in an exchange on page 43, where Alexander and Bobby are discussing the brutality of Al Qaeda. Bobby says, "'You can't believe what Al Qaida does to members who turn on them. I'll show you the videos sometime...Believe me. They use power drills on the squealer's arms and legs. Sometimes on their heads, too.'"
are we...forgetting The Hooded Man at Abu Ghraib? literally 2 years before the events of this book take place? Alexander is in Iraq to turn things around with new interrogation methods that can supposedly take us away from the brutality of the past, but it is dishonest and inconsistent to imply that the American military somehow doesn’t have the same capacity for violence as the people it is fighting. intelligence-gathering is a necessary and unavoidable fact of life in the world that we live in and i’m not passing judgement on the morality of it, but there’s a false sense of superiority in the narrative that’s quite difficult to get past.
- "What does it mean to be 'nice' to a subject under interrogation? ...it often means one thing to the subject and another to the interrogator. It means, ideally, getting to know the subject better than he knows himself and then manipulating him by role-playing, flattering, misleading, and nudging his or her perception of the truth slightly off center. The goal is to turn the subject around so that he begins to see strong logic and even wisdom in acting against his own comrade and cause" (xii). (can confirm that this works on siblings as well)
- "You can't motivate a guy who doesn't care what's going to happen to him. How can you offer a carrot to a horse with no appetite?" (38)
- “Love of Family. Futility. Logical Reasoning. Fear Down. And rapport, always rapport” (91).
- “Fear Down. We learned this at Fort Huachuca; it’s a twist on an old-school, straightforward approach. Show him the true consequences and then give him an out and become his savior” (103).
- “'Maybe we should try a Boss Introduction.’
Marcia lights up at that. ‘That’s what I was thinking.’
If you’ve ever bought a car at a dealership, then you’ve probably been a victim of the boss introduction. When the negotiation stalls, the salesman calls in his boss, a person with social prestige, to pressure you. This method works even better against Arabs since their culture is strongly hierarchical” (194).
my main complaint: this is not a book that will give you any truly actionable insights about how to break a terrorist, or, as i was hoping, how to break a toxic family member you keep having to see at Thanksgiving. maybe all the good tips were classified? i need something more complicated than what gets used at a dealership to sell a Kia! FIND IT!
anyway—a book like this is inherently an act of intellectual imperialism, but i’m not totally sure that it’s successful at that. for starters, it’s cheapened by prose that reads like an action novel, including notes on his female colleague who plays on the Air Force volleyball team and has “long blonde hair peek[ing] out from under her Kevlar helmet” (6). notably, the coifs of male colleagues are generally not remarked upon. the author also has what i can only describe as a “noble savage” view of the Iraqi people. a suspect is described as a “human skeleton” (29) and another detainee is referred to as “an aged mole” (92)—a far cry from the descriptions of the cast of characters he works with, who come off like Bond girls and Ethan Hunt clones. Alexander describes an anguished detainee as such: “Is he crying? I can’t tell. As the wait continues, he slaps his forehead repeatedly. This is an Arabic sign of extreme duress and angst” (56). is crying and hitting yourself not a UNIVERSAL sign of distress?? for all that Alexander is attempting to move away from the “old methods” of interrogation, he clearly struggles to view the people he is responsible for breaking as actual human beings. it’s particularly fascinating when he says things like this: “Iraqis are total conspiracy theorists. They’ve been marinated in so many tribal plots and counterplots over the decades that these things come naturally to them. What’s more, they love being a part of a successful conspiracy” (265). quite frankly, nothing reads as more quintessentially American than being a conspiracy theorist! paradoxically, he never has more in common with the people he is interrogating than when he’s reflecting on their culture and emotions as somehow alien to his own.
this is a problem that clearly pains him, and he grapples with it in each chapter (though not very successfully). in a conversation with his colleague, Bobby (fondly deemed a ‘gator in their argot), the man “whispers, ‘Un-fucking-believable. How can you help but hate these people?’” (82). Alexander tries to overcome this: “Intolerance must be rooted out if Iraq is to have a chance. Either way you look at it, the new ways work better. Hate and contempt don’t get our prisoners talking” (83). but there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance that bleeds through, like in an exchange on page 43, where Alexander and Bobby are discussing the brutality of Al Qaeda. Bobby says, "'You can't believe what Al Qaida does to members who turn on them. I'll show you the videos sometime...Believe me. They use power drills on the squealer's arms and legs. Sometimes on their heads, too.'"
are we...forgetting The Hooded Man at Abu Ghraib? literally 2 years before the events of this book take place? Alexander is in Iraq to turn things around with new interrogation methods that can supposedly take us away from the brutality of the past, but it is dishonest and inconsistent to imply that the American military somehow doesn’t have the same capacity for violence as the people it is fighting. intelligence-gathering is a necessary and unavoidable fact of life in the world that we live in and i’m not passing judgement on the morality of it, but there’s a false sense of superiority in the narrative that’s quite difficult to get past.
September 21, 2010
How to Break a Terrorist is an insightful and entertaining account of the U.S. intelligence operation that was instrumental in the killing of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This non-fiction book is a fast-paced psychological thriller. In addition to being exciting to read, the book makes a political statement on torture and intelligence gathering. The author presents a viable and arguably more effective alternative to torture to get information out of detainees. Through the well-crafted storyline, the author illustrates these new interrogation techniques of psychology, building rapport, respect (or at least the perception of it), and ultimately, deception.
By and large, I enjoyed the book and have only a couple minor complaints. One, I didn't care for the blacked out sentences. I suppose the intention is to make the reader feel that they are getting a glimpse of the top secret intelligence world. And blacking out sentences makes the account seem more authentic and special. Instead, I felt that it was purposely done, like special effects in a movie, and hence fake. Two, because the book is written as a story (which I appreciate), I wonder about all that is missing. The book recounts the successful interrogations with minimal emphasis on the unsuccessful ones. Hence, attaining the end goal almost seems too easy. Nonetheless, I am forgiving on this point because I understand that recounting all the false leads and dead end interrogations would detract from the storyline and make the book boring.
I definitely recommend this book to everyone, but especially to Americans who have little interest in or knowledge of our conflicts in the Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the book reads like a psychological thriller, it is easy to become engrossed in the story. You don't have to be up to date on current events to enjoy this book. And meanwhile, it will open up your eyes and give you a glimpse of what may be going on in the Middle East.
By and large, I enjoyed the book and have only a couple minor complaints. One, I didn't care for the blacked out sentences. I suppose the intention is to make the reader feel that they are getting a glimpse of the top secret intelligence world. And blacking out sentences makes the account seem more authentic and special. Instead, I felt that it was purposely done, like special effects in a movie, and hence fake. Two, because the book is written as a story (which I appreciate), I wonder about all that is missing. The book recounts the successful interrogations with minimal emphasis on the unsuccessful ones. Hence, attaining the end goal almost seems too easy. Nonetheless, I am forgiving on this point because I understand that recounting all the false leads and dead end interrogations would detract from the storyline and make the book boring.
I definitely recommend this book to everyone, but especially to Americans who have little interest in or knowledge of our conflicts in the Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the book reads like a psychological thriller, it is easy to become engrossed in the story. You don't have to be up to date on current events to enjoy this book. And meanwhile, it will open up your eyes and give you a glimpse of what may be going on in the Middle East.
Want to Read
December 19, 2008I really, really hate terrorists. When I was pregnant with Benjamin, my husband's best friend Ben got shot in Afghanistan by terrorists. We named Benjamin after him. My husband was also in Kuwait then, and I was home alone for almost a year and a half, pregnant, then with a baby for what seemed like forever. I got guns and a security system, and I started to have rage filled (I will blame pregnancy hormones) fantasies about someone breaking into my house, assuming I was a helpless pregnant lady (or lady with a baby) with no husband home, who would be an easy target. I'd shoot them in the legs, possibly maiming them before turning them over to authorities, and then go do the talk show circuit. Criminals everywhere would learn that you should not mess with army wives! I also dreamed of killing terrorists, who were constantly trying to kill many of my army wife friend's deployed husbands. Oh, I hated those terrorists so much. I thought, "They think trained American soldiers are scary? They should see this crazy angry pregnant lady with a gun!!"
My ultimate fantasy: a high ranking terrorist comes to Utah and breaks into my home in the middle of the night to steal my TV. I hold his whole group of thugs hostage with my personal home arsenal, proving you should not break into an army wive's house, and becoming a national hero by ending lots of wars and genocides.
Seriously, I really hate terrorists.
My ultimate fantasy: a high ranking terrorist comes to Utah and breaks into my home in the middle of the night to steal my TV. I hold his whole group of thugs hostage with my personal home arsenal, proving you should not break into an army wive's house, and becoming a national hero by ending lots of wars and genocides.
Seriously, I really hate terrorists.
October 24, 2012
A fascinating read
How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq is a fascinating must-read for anyone who is interested in the war on terror. I was handed this book by a friend and I assumed it was going to be a typical anti-war screed that demands that terrorists be "understood" and coddled.
There is also little fear of coddling with Alexander. He is repulsed and haunted by the senseless butchery that went on in Iraq and was sickened by those that were willing to kill innocents with suicide bombings. Alexander's techniques only prove that his eyes were strictly on the goal - stop Zarqawi.
Alexander's techniques are hardly "touchy-feely" - in a way they are a form of psychological trickery. He fools his interview targets into giving him the information he wants and then exploits their trust. It is also the type of technique that any regular viewer of TV detective shows see every day.
The methods Alexander espouses only make sense to me, a veteran teacher. It is easier to get cooperation from someone that you can create a sense of rapport with, even if it is only temporary.
Anyway, the book reads like a suspense novel. It is a quick and intense read and absolutely riveting and informative.
Well done. Highly recommended.
http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/
How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq is a fascinating must-read for anyone who is interested in the war on terror. I was handed this book by a friend and I assumed it was going to be a typical anti-war screed that demands that terrorists be "understood" and coddled.
There is also little fear of coddling with Alexander. He is repulsed and haunted by the senseless butchery that went on in Iraq and was sickened by those that were willing to kill innocents with suicide bombings. Alexander's techniques only prove that his eyes were strictly on the goal - stop Zarqawi.
Alexander's techniques are hardly "touchy-feely" - in a way they are a form of psychological trickery. He fools his interview targets into giving him the information he wants and then exploits their trust. It is also the type of technique that any regular viewer of TV detective shows see every day.
The methods Alexander espouses only make sense to me, a veteran teacher. It is easier to get cooperation from someone that you can create a sense of rapport with, even if it is only temporary.
Anyway, the book reads like a suspense novel. It is a quick and intense read and absolutely riveting and informative.
Well done. Highly recommended.
http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/
November 16, 2013
This book is a fascinating take on a virtually unknown subject - military intelligence. Matthew Alexander is an interrogator for the US military and this book is the story of how he and his team gathered intelligence from POWs which led to the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, an Islamic fanatic who was trying to instigate a civil war amidst the United States' efforts to bring peace.
The common idea of interrogation is one of waterboarding, dark rooms with the single light bulb focused on the prisoners face as he sits handcuffed to his chair. Alexander expels this theory with an in-depth revelation of new philosophies of intelligence-gathering. No more a process of intimadation and threatening, it has rather become a game of psychology, manipulating emotions until the prisoners trust is gained. The author comes through with accounts of exact conversations and situations.
I highly recommend this to anyone interested in anything military. It is a refreshing and unusual view into the behind-the-scenes work of the United States.
The common idea of interrogation is one of waterboarding, dark rooms with the single light bulb focused on the prisoners face as he sits handcuffed to his chair. Alexander expels this theory with an in-depth revelation of new philosophies of intelligence-gathering. No more a process of intimadation and threatening, it has rather become a game of psychology, manipulating emotions until the prisoners trust is gained. The author comes through with accounts of exact conversations and situations.
I highly recommend this to anyone interested in anything military. It is a refreshing and unusual view into the behind-the-scenes work of the United States.
December 8, 2019
The only problem with this book is the title: It really should be "How to Break a Criminal."
In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal (aka, crimes against humanity), defense officials realized they needed actual trained interrogators, not torturers, to get information about the people we call terrorists but the Iraqi government call criminals. This book details, as best possible and with redactions, how that's done. And how it was used to bring down a genuine threat.
The author is a trained criminal investigator and he shows more than you might think about the tension between the "new guys"(interrogators) and the "old school" (the ineffective brutes). I read this for research and have taken copious notes. But it's a little weird carrying it around where I live with that title, so in addition to the paperback, I went and bought the Kindle so I can do my research with less drama.
In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal (aka, crimes against humanity), defense officials realized they needed actual trained interrogators, not torturers, to get information about the people we call terrorists but the Iraqi government call criminals. This book details, as best possible and with redactions, how that's done. And how it was used to bring down a genuine threat.
The author is a trained criminal investigator and he shows more than you might think about the tension between the "new guys"(interrogators) and the "old school" (the ineffective brutes). I read this for research and have taken copious notes. But it's a little weird carrying it around where I live with that title, so in addition to the paperback, I went and bought the Kindle so I can do my research with less drama.
May 26, 2009
This book feels like a well-restrained diatribe against torture from a man who interrogates prisoners for a living. It consists of anecdotes about real people, complete with the black bars of government censorship. It would have been a stronger book had the author done research and included background information and corroboratign examples rather than relying soley on his own experience, but I commend him for hiring a skilled ghostwriter.
March 15, 2023
3.25 ⭐️ easy read, fast paced, very linear timeline to the end goal. Would have liked a deeper dive into the interrogation methods
February 7, 2020
This was a good, quick and easy read. I really enjoyed how easy the flow of the dialogue and how the conversations went. It grabbed you and holds your interest. I was eager to see the next piece of the puzzle fall into place. It was interesting to see how playing to the emotions of the terrorists gathered more and better intel. I wasn't surprised to see petty politics and internal strife in the military push back on these methods and even take offense that they worked (Lenny). It's amazing to me that we still can't get past personal egos in the military at all levels in order to achieve our goals and objectives.
This is a good read for anyone interested in interrogation or the recent events in the middle east (Iraq war).
This is a good read for anyone interested in interrogation or the recent events in the middle east (Iraq war).
February 16, 2019
Boring. I expected much more. There are probably much better books on the subject. It was a short, quick, easy read, but left me unimpressed. I was also disappointed that the information provided by the terrorists was used to simply hunt and kill other higher-level terrorists instead of using the information to surveil them, try to work up the chain more and potentially expose the whole network. Short-sighted thinking, in my opinion, but what do I know?
May 18, 2017
Decent if perhaps self-serving
Decent if perhaps self-serving book, which makes a good case for the author's main points. However, it's easy to imagine that the author sees himself as perhaps more of a hero fighting against the odds, than would be borne out by a discussion with all those involved.
Decent if perhaps self-serving book, which makes a good case for the author's main points. However, it's easy to imagine that the author sees himself as perhaps more of a hero fighting against the odds, than would be borne out by a discussion with all those involved.
December 29, 2024
It is an inside raw look at the takedown of AMZ. I cannot help but think of how cruel it is so many people who were put into situations where they felt as if their only choice was to join Al-Qaeda for survival. It single handily changed the way I have viewed terrorism, although I suspected my views were incomplete and leaning a particular way for some time.
March 12, 2018
Riveting and Examples of Why Humans should be treated with respect
I couldn’t put this book down. An easy read, it was a good reminder that people should be treated with respect and dignity, no matter how evil they may be.
I couldn’t put this book down. An easy read, it was a good reminder that people should be treated with respect and dignity, no matter how evil they may be.
April 3, 2018
Passages blacked out by the DoD aside, it’s a fairly transparent look at modern interrogation tactics. The author seemed falsely modest until you learn he was screwed out of a Bronze Star. Probably the motivation for the book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 12, 2019
It is a must read book for all interrogators. It is difficult to imagine, how the author was able to recall so many details, yet the book justifies the title with convincing arguments and ideas. The suggestions given do work well.
September 22, 2020
Absolutely best book I’ve read
Always wondered how interrogations worked and the info they give really interesting and informative thank God for such brave and patriotic men & women we owe you so much
Always wondered how interrogations worked and the info they give really interesting and informative thank God for such brave and patriotic men & women we owe you so much
June 4, 2024
it was a pretty good book! took a couple chapters to get interesting, but then i couldn’t put it down. wish that there was some sort of glossary for all the characters because at certain points it got confusing.
February 19, 2018
***+/5
September 18, 2019
it's more effective to interrogate suspects using basic psyops than by waterboarding them, and here's proof. lol
July 18, 2020
3.75 stars. Definitely a slow start but an impactful book overall. I’ve been interested fin interrogation techniques for a while and this book explains experiences with just that. Worth the read!
November 6, 2021
A phenomenal read. A gripping step by step.. day by day description of the way team of interrogators got through one the most dreaded terrorist on Iraqi soil.
December 31, 2021
A fascinating, page-turning read!
November 22, 2023
Absolutely captivating story that explains perfectly the principles of modern negociation methods. Great read!
December 10, 2023
lmao if he really did this stuff he wouldn’t be writing about it. Well written, definitely written to stroke his own ego
January 2, 2025
Super interesting!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 121 reviews