Rating: 
Summary: Think Outside the Box
Review: The book explodes the myth of the 'good' versus the 'bad' Muslim and renders baseless US claims that the war on terror is a war between good and evil, civilized and uncivilized peoples. Mamdani locates the origins of terror in American Cold War foreign policy and shows how Al Qaeda is a product of American efforts to 'contain' and 'rollback' communism. These efforts did not just produce 'Afghan jihad' with all the pernicious apparatuses for terror supplied by the CIA, it also created conditions for the movement to grow into an independent organization targeting the Soviet infiltration of Afghanistan and later directing its ire against Egypt, Saudi Arabia and yes, the US. But for Mamdani, terror is not simply an anti-American thing; rather, on many occasions American terror has had equally devastating consequences in Angola, Mozambique and Nicaragua. Reading this book leads you to understand whose definition of terror is in operation at the moment and why this definition receives lukewarm support in the international community. Mamdani knowledge of Islam in general and political Islam in particular is exceptional and his analysis of different strands of Islamic thought in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria is meticulously matched by his understanding of political processes in these countries. A must read book if you want to think outside the 'you are either with us or against us'box.
Rating: 
Summary: Fundamentalism as Distinct From Political Islam
Review: There are some outstanding reviews of this book by amazon readers; additional description would contribute little. The aim of this book is twofold. First, it wants to demonstrate the extent to which the U.S. helped "fuel" terrorism through its own actions in Afghanistan. These actions were, according to Dr. Mamdani, an extension of the US desire to privatize and to rely on proxies to combat the Soviets during the Cold War. In fact, Dr. Mamdani refers throughout to the American, or U.S. jihad. (Note: Dr. Mamdani seems meticulous about the use of that term, at least until he applies to U.S. actions.) Second, Dr. Mamdani wants us to understand exactly how the outward projection of terrorism from within Islam evolved. The latter objective, emphasized throughout the text, is quite revealing. His thesis is that the West errs insofar it applies the blanket description, fundamentalism, to what are otherwise quite disparate movements within Islam. Fundamentalism is a "counter-cultural," not a political movement. Within political Islam, society centered Islamists attempt to reconcile democracy and justice, while state centered Islamists eschew popular organization. This book's attempt to enhance our understanding of contemporary Islam is a complex, but worthy and welcome undertaking. The principal problem with this book is that it is overly ambitious. Dr. Mamdani did us a great service in introducing us to nuances in contemporary Islamic society, and these merit further investigation. His effort to place those in Islam who resort to terror in the context of U.S. 20th century diplomacy -- Central America, Vietnam, Laos, Iran-Contra, the Boland Amendment, Afghanistan, and politics in the Middle East generally -- dilutes his discussion of Islam and its many facets.
Rating:
Summary: A Must read
Review: This book and author were interviewed on Friday 16 April by Bill Moyers on PBS. Fascinating. The book is insightful and explains so much we in the west truly do NOT understand. All government officials need to read this! Well written. Makes you think.
Rating:
Summary: Catchy title, false conclusions
Review: This book is a multi-faceted analysis of Islam, the west and the Islamists. The book purports to try to lift the veil off of Islamism and explain the Jihadists, their motives and origins. The first chapter deals with Culture Talk, which is to say an open dialogue about Islam, the West and Jihad. Here the book tries to show that 'Jihad' as a term was first employed by Muslims who were fighting fellow Muslims, whether it was against the rich slave traders of Africa or the effendis of Saudi, we are told it was not a term aimed at non-muslims. The second portion of the book tries to show how America grafted Jihad onto its goals in the cold war. Typical of the 'America is the greatest terrorist' this book tries to show that terrorism was invented by America to fight the cold war in Africa and central America. Then the book tries to show that, having learned about terrorism while aiding the contras, the CIA created the Jihadist elements in Afghanistan. In the final analysis the book argues that the CIA basically came up with the idea of Jihad and that by extension the CIA basically planned 9/11. Here is where the book fails. Apparently forgotten in these pages are several incidents of genocide against non-muslims by muslims that had nothing to do with the west. No chapter sheds light on the Armenian massacres, the Assyrian genocide or the Hindu/Sikh genocide in Pakistan. And of course no chapter explains the virtual genocide against the Chinese and East Timorese in Indonesia. These incidents of mass slaughter had nothing to do with the cold war, just as the Moro Jihadist insurgency in the Philippines had nothing to do with the cold war. It is true that their was massive funding for the Anti-Russian resistance in Afghanistan, and it is true that radical anti-western elements in the ISI of Pakistan encouraged the creation of Islamism. But this doesn't fit the argument that this book is trying to convey, namely that the West is 100% responsible for 9/11 and Al Queida. The reality is this book wants to blame the victim and to never blame those who are the actual terrorists. Although the book quickly condemns terrorism by S. Africa it never once condemns the same exact terrorism when practiced against the west. Why? Is the argument here that when terrorism is employed by western countries then the west is 'evil' and when terrorism is employed by Jihadists then it is also the west's fault. Hypocrisy is the name of the game in the conclusion. Thus there is a major failure of honesty in this read and many who hate America will be happy with this analysis but someone interested in the roots of Islamism will be left cold. Two facts remain, first the CIA is given far too much credit for being competent, which it is not and Second there is a total ignoring of previous Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim nationalists like Nasser. Lastly the book tries to compare Christian 'fundamentalism' with Islamic 'fundamentalism'. But the problem is their is not one incident where Christian terrorists have gone to an Islamic country and bombed mosques or schools while shouting 'God if Great'. Their is simply nothing to compare, because witht he exception of Ireland their hasn't been any Christian terrorism in the 20th century. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: A chronicle of the momentous 1980s and 90s
Review: This book is yet another chronicle, and by a Muslim author too, of one of the momentous crimes of the 20th century, now coming to fruition in the 21st: Of how the United States of America used the drug trade and the institution of a culture of mafia-style political corruption implemented in Pakistan and Afghanistan, combined with the revival of the inherent extreme and backward tendencies in doctrinaire Islam (whose influence was on the wane) to fashion it into a viable ideology - to use to combat the Soviet Union and bring it down. That objective has been accomplished, but the US has ended up with a nightmare of an enemy that is far more harmful exponentially than the Soviet "threat" ever could have been. Afghanistan lies trashed beyond repair, while Pakistan is well on the way to becoming one of the world's most dangerous failed states. The book is an excellent read, however I do not agree with the author's attempt to distinguish US created "political Islam" from "normal/everyday Islam"; the Americans just amplified and fuelled the abominable, rigid characteristics latent in the very corpus of Islam itself to turn it into a formidable Frankenstein. As a former Muslim having been brought up and still living here in the Islamic world, I know that not only scholastically, but also from personal experience! Any regional variations in Islamic culture that can be described as moderations are in fact just that, dilutions of the original doctrine by the local milieu, and not vice versa. I give this book a five star rating on account of its rendering of the chronicle of events, not the author's opinions.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: This is a fine book, a real eye-opener. For people who don't have a lot of background in Islamist politics, the first half is a hard read because the issues are extremely complicated. However, this is good place to start if you want to try to begin sorting the threads of religious and political Islam. For US citizens with even a modicum of political background, the rest is a piece of cake, and fascinating. Especially interesting is reading about how the Clinton administration was shackled and thwarted as it tried to accomplished some of its more humanitarian objectives. While I believe that Mamdani is not an apologist for 'suicide' bombings, some people are going to have difficulty with his explanation of this phenomenon, which he frames in light of Israeli aggression and compares to similar oppression and violent reactions in South Africa. In any case, it forced me to think of what drives this behavior, and how far humanity must be pushed to the wall in order to exhibit it. The final chapter is heart-wrenchingly poignant, and calls for a world-wide peace movement in the face of what the author believes to be one of the most volatile political scenarios in recorded history: the 'good vs. evil' standoff between the political Christian Right and militant political Islam, a standoff with no hope of negotiation or reconciliation - a fight to the finish resulting in total annihilation of the other.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Reading
Review: This is an excellent book rooting terrorism in its political/historical context and contingencies. Apart from "culture talk" which obscures more than it reveals, Prof. Mamdani provides a coherent theory for the development of al-Qaeda. The story started when the U.S. government chose to win the war against Communism with whatever means necessary. The main method after Vietnam was proxy wars and covert operations. Why? Because their conduct could be hidden from vigilant Congressional oversight and public scrutiny. The result was not only complicity in illicit trade (because covert operations cannot be easily financed by public funds) , but also the support of vicious terrorist groups and organizations that deliberately targeted civilians to undermine the "nationalist" governments they were fighting and, hence, brought into question their ability to provide safety and security for the citizens and their property. Initially the U.S. government did not think of Islam as a challenger civilization. In fact Islam was perceived as anti-Communist and anti-nationalist. (Anti-nationlist before the Iranian revolution and the response to that was to back Iraq, despite its secular nationalism, because its brand of nationalism was sort of the lesser of the two evils.) Therefore, the Afghan Jihadis were wholeheartedly supported and even described as the moral equivalents of the Founding Fathers. The Jihadis were taught the state-of-the-art techniques of killing and destruction because they represented a tool to bleed the Soviet Union to death. From there one can start the story of al-Qaeda which is often presented as if al-Qaeda appeared out of the blue. Terrorists are made, not born. The analysis of Prof. Mamdani is somewhat reductionist as it fails to address the internal circumstances of Muslim societies. However, it is a great step toward understanding the foundations of the catastrophes we are witnessing today.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, important reading.
Review: This is the best of the forty or so books I have read recently on the results of recent US foreign policy, on forms of political Islam, on the roots and character of terror, as well as on common misperceptions. Chapter two on "Culture Talk" is itself worth the price of the book. The origins of our enemies in US policy, CIA training, even University of Nebraska contracted textbooks is damaging to the myths supporting US policies now. Discussion is painfully frank, honest, and thought provoking. Some will be unwilling to face this. The origins of the worst may be in the Reagan era and now with this preemptive war but Carter and Clinton's errors are noted in what is a constructive rather than partisan analysis. The types and motives of political Islam is a useful antidote to the simplistic poisonous tripe so common from the Media and the Administration and even scholars who should know better like Lewis and Huntington. The summary of major costs of the focal Afghan War include, and continue to include, eroding democracy at home; US blowback from the creation of international trained and experienced terrorist Alumni; dramatic increases in Drug trade and users from financing methods of the wars; increased incoherence and decreased communication between the CIA and FBI. One can add that Press self censorship and complicity recently rated the US as not in the top 20 world wide for having a "free Press." The author does not mention that after first disarming then attacking Iraq the US 'bully' inadvertently makes a case for nukes for all for some deterrent (remember that word?). The analysis of an commonality of irrational interest with Israel as another settler state and the discussion of the nature of suicide bombing will upset assumptions widely held but deserve thoughtful consideration. Read this book! More importantly, THINK about what is said. Definitely worth buying. I'm giving a copy to the local library too!
Rating:
Summary: If Only the West Would Learn
Review: When he tells us that the political sensibility of Western modernity "sees political violence as necessary to historical progress," Mamdani reminds us of a fundamental flaw that should give us pause and elicit our individual and collective self-examination. When he tells us that this same sensibility "is not horrified by pervasive violence," we should see ourselves as sharing in this same modern sensibility. And, in the same way that anticolonial violence was never merely "an irrational manifestation," so we should see the rationality of contemporary terrorism as the political violence of "yesterday's victims." Americans in particular need to learn, as Mamdani tells us, that this political violence has been sustained by American assertions of hegemony--a violence exercised by those who, as victims, have come to realize that the United States, as hegemon, "understands nothing but force." Mamdani reminds us that we cannot understand the events of 9/11 without comprehending its connection to America's "brazen embrace" of political terror during the post-Vietnam Cold War era. I should think that we, as Americans, would be horrified, thereby, to realize that there is "growing common ground between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the official response to it called 'the war on terror.'" Mamdani's interpretive work is a must-read for anyone seeking a way beyond "a war to the finish." Mamdani is a good teacher in our time in need of this teaching. If only the Western powers, and the Bush Administration in particular, would learn....
Rating: 
Summary: A Justification for Terrorism
Review: When I bought this book I was hoping to find a balanced analysis on the roots of terrorism and how American mistakes in foreign policy could have contributed to the situation. Intead, this book is a 260 page diatribe blaming the United Staes for most of the ills of the world. The author uses half-truths, innuendo, and slippery slope arguments to paint the picture of the United States as an omnipotent power that seeks to control other nations. The author sees no distinction between the actions of the United States military and terrorists to include Al Qaeda. He criticizes the US for explaining away civilian deaths as collateral damage viewing it as an Orwellian term. He does this while also distorting the term low intensity conflict equating it to terrorism. However, he fails to point out that the US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, which at times puts them at greater risk. He sees no contrast in the terrorist who deliberately targets civilians. As a result actions of the US and terrorists are morally equivalent since they are both driven by politcical objectives. While the author goes to great lengths to criticize the US and Israel, he fails to assign any responsibility to the actions of Middle Eastern nations that have threatened and invaded Israel over the past 50 years. While Israel shares some of the responsibilty, a balanced approach would look at the how all nations in the area have had a hand in the security and political situation. This book will confirm the beliefs of those on the political left. The right will lose the legitimate issues in the author's obvious political agenda and biases. For those in the center, look for another book. For an American, the greatest value in reading this book is gaining insight in how others see us. While we may not agree with their perceptions, for them it is the reality they base their judgements and decisions on.
|
