The War Against the Terror Masters is a must-read guide to the terrorist crisis. Michael A. Ledeen explains in startling detail how and why the United States was so unprepared for the September 11th catastrophe; the nature of the terror network we are fighting--including the state sponsors of that network; the role of radical Islam; and the enemy collaboration of some of our traditional Middle Eastern "allies";--and, most convincingly, what we must do to win the war.
The War Against the Terror Masters examines the two sides of the war: the rise of the international terror network, and the past and current efforts of our intelligence services to destroy the terror masters in the U.S. and overseas. Ledeen's new book also visits every country in the Near East and describes the terrorist cancers in each. Among many revelations that will attract wide attention: *How the terror network survived the loss of its main sponsor, the Soviet Union. *How the FBI learned from a KGB defector--twenty years before Osama's bin Laden's murderous assault--of the existance of Arab terrorist sleeper networks inside the United States. *How moralistic guidelines straight-jacketed the FBI from even collecting a file of newspaper clippings on known terror groups operating in America. *How the internal culture of the CIA, and severe limitations on its ability to operate, blinded us to the growth of terror networks. And much more.
This occasionally simplistic polemic calls for a "revolutionary war" on the "coherent terror network" organized by the governments of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the "driving force behind international terrorism," Iran. Ledeen, a member of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute and a former National Security Council consultant, persuasively details the links between these regimes and terrorist groups, and castigates previous presidents (particularly the "corrupt" and "self-indulgent" Bill Clinton) for discounting the terrorist threat and tolerating the complacency and bungling of U. S. intelligence agencies. His unnuanced theory of terrorism, however-the "terror masters" are "tyrants" who loathe America because of its mere "existence" as a symbol of freedom-downplays political complexities and ignores America's tarnished record in the Middle East. And while Ledeen urges the United States to help the citizens of terrorist states overthrow their despotic rulers, he warns that to do so-i.e., to be ready for war-Americans must give up their faith in "radical egalitarianism" and "the perfectibility of man" in favor of Machiavellian principles ("The only important thing is winning"; "It is better to be feared than loved"). Some readers will applaud Ledeen's hard-nosed demand to "reconcile our democratic values with the necessity of imposing our will," but others may think the compromise too great. (Sept.) Copyright 2003 Cahners Business Information.
More Reviews and RecommendationsMichael A. Ledeen, a noted political analyst and highly knowledgeable about the Near East, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprises Institute. He is the author of Machiavelli on Modern Leadership and Tocqueville on American Character. A contributer to The Wall Street Journal, he lives and works in Washington, D.C.
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
March 12, 2004: A tough to swallow narrative! Anyone who feels compelled to believe the threat of the current international terrorist network has its origins in the former Soviet Union should take the time to learn of our own government's once secret involvement in training, arming, and funding many of the current terrorist networks worldwide(including--and especially--Al Quaeda). It's true that Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are 'hotbeds of ant-western sentiment', but one should stop and wonder why. To say that it's only because they hate our freedom is not only laughable but dangerously misleading. We should only take a second to consider the effect of Western Imperial foreign policy leading to crippling sanctions and overt military campaigns in the region--all suposedly to create freedom and stability in the Middle East? Some would say that by stability for Middle-East democracy, what we really mean to say is stabilty for U.S. capitalism in the Middle-East. That's not to say that the author was incorrect in accusing these countries of wrongly supporting terrorism--However if one would only take a minute to try to understand the way that American foriegn policy looks in the eyes of any foriegn nation (excluding Israel,England, and a few other cohorts to the exploitation of third world's resources), maybe they would understand what 'antiwestern sentiment' is about. I know that some may simply label my opinion as that of a liberal and disregard it as foolish, but I challenge anyone to read other more 'liberal' publications on the matter and inteligently defend this authors interpretation of the current terrorist crisis.
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
July 02, 2003: Eugene Burdick?s 43-year old classic, ?The Ugly American?, shook the US Administration?s morals of the time to its core. Eisenhower was said to be 'infuriated...' and Dulles 'shocked ...'. As history will no doubt record later, the ?American' nowadays is considered not only more ugly, but also an archetypical schoolyard bully. On the international scene at the moment, no one dares to face up to the All-American action-primed ' bully', who is able to intimidate whole nations by a mere threatening flick-of-the-eye from someone called Ari Fleischer. Like father like son, George Bush Jr. has inherited the role of the school bully, reassured by the backing of a coerced coalition to perpetuate his bidding and of those around him. Common to all bullies are their servile followers who outwardly admire them and attend to their needs, managing to live on their tidbits of kindness, but inwardly fearing their power. One such prominent follower is the Rt. Hon.Tony Blair. This ?Hush Puppies? of a prime minister has faithfully sucked up to US administrations in a most subservient manner. His humiliating fawning confirms Britain?s isolation in Europe and preserves its tattered pretension to prominence in the political world. Can we forget the label of ?terrorists? applied by Blair and many previous British prime ministers to Irish Republicans and the IRA in Northern Ireland? The frustration and agony of successive British governments, and their failure to stop such ?terrorism? from migrating to ?the mainland?, has been an embarrassment for over 25 years. Margaret Thatcher was nearly bombed to bits by one of their bombs. Yet, it was a badly kept secret how IRA funds were legitimately collected in the US in order to finance such ?terrorism?, and, at the same time, every US administration turned a blind eye to ?guns & money? making their way across the Atlantic, for the sake of winning Irish votes. It is puzzling how Mr. Blair can square up the killing and maiming of thousands of British civilians, army and police by such ?terrorism?, knowing that it was supported by American bank accounts and miss-guided Americans sympathetic to IRA ?terrorists?. Perhaps Ireland should have been cluster-bombed for exporting ?terrorism? to Britain. Few people can accurately define the difference between a ?terrorist? and a ?freedom fighter?, least of all Mr. Ledeen with his so-called 'vast' expertise on the subject. US politicians, especially, have always fudged this irksome question. If it could be argued that the IRA or the Basque separatists were ?terrorists?, then what about the Kurds in northern Iraq? They are protected by a coalition force... So should there be a similar coalition force perhaps to protect the Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka, or to wipe them out? Who categorises the rebels in Nicaragua, southern Sudan, Nepal, and Columbia, or hangs a label on the Polisario Movement for that matter? Such complex questions would be swiftly answered, however, if the Tamil Tigers decided to bomb the Lincoln Memorial, or the Kurds to abduct an American journalist, or when the IRA became an embarrassment to the US authorities through money laundering activities. For the moment, however, the US Adminstration, and Mr. Ledeen for that matter, enjoy calling ?freedom fighters? terrorists. Equally, ?terrorists? are called ?freedom fighters? even if they are fighting against legitimate and established governments. Or can they? If it is possible to...