Imperial Hubris: Anonymous
I found this book to be something of a mixed bag. His analysis of the motives of Al Qaeda and related organizations is the most on-target, honest reporting on the men and their motives that I've seen anywhere in the American press. In particular, his discussion of the error in defining what we are facing as "terrorists" rather than "insurgents" is spot on. The "they hate freedom" rhetoric that comes from the current American administration has always been patently false, and the author gives us a good look at the strategic dangers of fighting against a misconception of the enemy. You do very different things when fighting a low-intensity, assymetrical war with a non-state opponent rather than a terrorist organization.
The analysis of the writings of Bin Laden is particularly refreshing. Bin Laden's case against the U.S. is laid out in explicit, itemized detail, and while I (obviously) can't agree with many of the points in Bin Laden's fatwas, it's clear that he could care less how easy it is to start a small business in America, or our porno industry; he would be just as pissed at a Stalinist dictatorship that executed the policies he's objecting to. The discussion of the true motives of Al Qaeda should have been up front and center in American political discussion, the "they hate freedom" sound bite notwithstanding. It doesn't take much reading or deep thought to see that this view of Bin Laden is ridiculous, but early discussions of what American policies caused the attacks on Sept. 11 were purposefully derailed by rhetoric confusing "caused" with "deserved". Immediately, this set any reevaluation of American foreign policies that have been causing mistrust and hatred of us outside the bounds of debate in any significant national forum. This has greatly hampered our ability to make reasoned judgements about whether the cost of, say, propping up repressive dictatorships in the Middle East is worth the increased enmity we earn through doing so.
The last bit of the book, where the author discusses potential remedies is where the book comes of the rails a bit for me. Most of his suggestions are good, but one of his points is that we cannot commit troops or treasure to the preventing of civil wars and genocides that don't directly bear on our national interest. "We must learn to bear with equanimity the death of others," is his way of putting it. His quote from John Quincy Adams to illustrate his point: "[America] is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own," I find unconvincing post-Holocaust. There must be some middle ground between intervening to stop genocides in Darfur, and our current adventure in Iraq that would better serve our national self-image than blithely ignoring atrocities that don't affect people that can't harm us or buy things from us.