[fluff]

Two people have commented favourably on this book, can anyone give a pocket review?

I had decided not to buy any books this month but I could be tempted by this...

 

[ohio]

I, too, am intrigued.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574888498/qid=1094145606/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-0708120-0790455#product-details

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.

 

[Toshi]

i read the introduction and first chapter a few days ago. it's well written and the author's familiarity with the material is obvious. the first chapter basically covered the discrepancy between the administration's public characterization of al qaeda and al qaeda's own stated goals. "thow thy enemy". (which is why my recent spate of pol. forum posts are all on that subject heh)

 

[narlus]

didn't they unmask anonymous? i recall seeing an interview in a paper (maybe the Guardian?) a few weeks ago talking about something similar. i thought he was in the CIA or NSC or something like that.

 

[Slugman]

didn't they unmask anonymous? i recall seeing an interview in a paper (maybe the Guardian?) a few weeks ago talking about something similar. i thought he was in the CIA or NSC or something like that.

There was a post around here (somewhere) that stated he was CIA...

 

[Toshi]

didn't they unmask anonymous? i recall seeing an interview in a paper (maybe the Guardian?) a few weeks ago talking about something similar. i thought he was in the CIA or NSC or something like that.

http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+scheuer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

his name is michael scheuer. cia.

 

[narlus]

goddamn you googler!

 

[MikeD]

I'll put one up tonight. I'm about 2/3 through it.

MD

 

[MikeD]

OK, here goes.

He points out that Bin Laden is not the 'psychotic hater of freedom' that he's painted to be by mainstream America. He lists his motives, his open statements, and his actions, all of which are perfectly comprehensible from his Bin Laden's point of view, and shows a progression of attacks since the early 90s in which Bin Laden has repeatedly voiced his aims, and America's basic total lack of response or understanding that it has actually been at war for a decade. (Thanks, Clinton...those tomahawks in the Sudan were a reeeeealll help.)

He shows that Bin Laden isn't actually as radical as we think with respect to mainstream Islamic thought, and that democracy and nation-building might not be as cross-culturally appreciated as most Americans expect. (The 'we will be greeted as liberators'-think that permeated the Afghan and Iraq wars.)

He points out that the 9/11 attacks were not only predictable, they were basically declared...yet we did nothing. He doesn't offer all of this by way excusing Bin Laden's attacks, just as a basic definition of reality that has escaped 99.8% of Americans. He then points out the basic choice America has refused to make...modify its policies to comply with Bin Laden's demands, or begin to fight a real war. Then he gets into the realities we're going to have to face...the old "war means fighting and fighting means killing" adage.

Then he gets into analysis of the Afghan and Iraq wars specifically, with pretty damning evaluations of their conduct, partially directed against an American public that's unwilling to face reality, and turns to politicians who tell them only what they want to hear.

That's basically it. It's a good read. There are some issues to be had with it...for example, we thought the Japanese after WWII would never be able to culturally accept democracy...but look at them now.

I'm on the cusp of thinking that the US should give Bin Laden what he wants...and wait. We'll see if his motives are really limited, as he states, or whether this is all a prelude to worldwide offensive jihad (the current jihad is considered a defensive one by Islam). If he continues to take offensive action, the US populace might actually be ready to do the fighting that needs to be done...not the limited strikes, occupation, nation-building and such, but the real destruction of the enemy, followed by immediate withdrawl from the smoking ruins.

That's probably a dumb and unrealistic plan, but hey, I'm just tossing off ideas...and right now, I can't decide whether I think Bin Laden is as limited in his objectives as Mr. Anonymous would have us believe. Then again, he was a CIA analyst and I'm not, so I tend to give him some credit for knowing his sh1t.

MD

 

[Changleen]

Given that Bin Laden is well educated and apparantly pretty smart, I'd err on the side of saying him aims and objectives arn't as whacked out as some peoples... cough..rumsfield..PftNAC..cough...

 

[Toshi]

Given that Bin Laden is well educated and apparantly pretty smart, I'd err on the side of saying him aims and objectives arn't as whacked out as some peoples... cough..rumsfield..PftNAC..cough...

anyone else see somewhat eery parallels between osama bin laden and ayn rand's character Francisco d'Anconia?

 

[Changleen]

Atlas Shrugged begins on September 2. One learns from Dagny's flashbacks that Francisco's ancestor Sebastian had been a Spanish aristocrat who fled from the Inquisition to the New World. This, and the fact that he first established himself in Argentina, and only then sent for his beloved - as so many Jewish immigrants to the New World had done, well into the twentieth century - is a hint, to be confirmed when we meet Francisco in person. By then it is the start of winter: "A few snowflakes came down, past the dark windows of empty stores, to melt in the mud of the sidewalks." Hannukah time.
"Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia sat on the floor, playing marbles." Playing a child's game on the floor is a celebration of the Maccabee revolt. The Maccabees were guerillas, and chose carefully the few battles they fought. They hid for years in caves and wadis, and fought boredom with games played on the ground. The reader who knows the origin of this custom now also knows that Francisco must be, in some sense, the soldier of a rebellion, fighting from cover behind enemy lines.

In Jewish custom, one commemorates one's ancestors by re-enacting their practice. Francisco's Converso ancestors could not keep Jewish objects, such as spinning tops with Hebrew letters, since such objects would have immediately marked them as secret Jews. They played, instead, with marbles unstrung from a rosary. If a curious neighbor or servant wandered in, all he would see would be an accidentally broken rosary, and children helping to pick beads off the floor. Francisco is hiding his true self, and things are not what they seem.

From this point on, whenever Francisco D'Anconia appears in the novel, there is a pointedly Jewish, often specificly anti-altruist and anti-Christianity subtext. Dagny, not being Jewish, clearly has no idea why Francisco is playing with marbles, and is too well-brought-up to ask. Frank O'Connor, Ayn Rand's non-Jewish spouse, must have been in on many occasions when Ayn did something Jewish and _he_ didn't have a clue. Thus, another perversely distinctive Randian joke: In the role of Francisco D'Anconia Frank gets to play the role of a Jew, and Dagny is the clueless one.

 

[Changleen]

Sorry, forgot

etc...

Er, a bit? Maybe - Is this about George Bush or Actually Osama?

 

[Toshi]

Sorry, forgot [ quote ] etc...

Er, a bit? Maybe - Is this about George Bush or Actually Osama?

osama. francisco is a "pirate" in the novel. born to a rich family, he spurns it. (only francisco runs the factories into the ground, bankrupt, vs. rejecting the billion dollar construction business of the bin laden family and running off to the afghan hills.)

 

[Changleen]

And that "Francisco must be, in some sense, the soldier of a rebellion, fighting from cover behind enemy lines."

Yeah, fair enough.