Rating: 
Summary: Total Vindication for Peters
Review: "Beyond Terror" by Ralph Peters leads off with a perceptive and upbeat essay on America in the post-9-11 environment ("Our Place in History"), and a ringing indictment of Islam ("The world of Islam must now decide whether to wallow in a comforting, medieval form of religion that warms the heart with hatred of others and whose greatest strength lies in its ability to shift blame, or to make the far more difficult choice of attempting to build tolerant, more equitable, open, and honest societies.") In the current War on Terrorism, Peters warns his readers, "Ferocity is the ultimate guarantor of peace." The balance of the book, with the exception of the final chapter, consists of essays published by Peters between 1994 and 2001. During my four-year tenure as a faculty member at the U.S. Army War College, Peters' controversial and usually irreverent views were often showcased, either via his published works, or when he would appear as a guest lecturer. Having worked closely with him during an assignment in 1992-93 to uncover the truth about American military men who were missing in action during the Cold War, I considered Ralph to be perhaps the Army's premier intellect. His is a keen mind, steeped in history and fertilized by on-the-ground experience, its brilliance equalled only by its brashness and Peters' willingness to bluntly rail out at the many innanities of the post-Cold War defense establishment. I unashamedly pushed Peters and his essays on my War College students (colonels all), and was a bit dismayed at how many tuned him out, often because Peters, then a "lowly" major, seemed to them to be a bit of a pretentious upstart. But as the essays in "Beyond Terror" demonstrate, Peters had it right all along. In 1999, for example, Peters wrote in "MacLean's," "Conventional war remains a threat, but a diminishing one. Today's--and tomorrow's enemies are half-trained killers in uniform, tribesmen, mercenaries, criminals, children with rusty Kalashnikovs, shabby despots, and gory men of faith. The most dangerous enemy will be the warrior who ignores, or who does not know,the rules by which our soldiers fight, and who has a gun in one hand, a cell phone in the other, and hatred scorching his heart." Small wonder that Peters reserves special contempt for some senior military officers ("Hucksters in Uniform") who steadfastly remain married to "heavy" forces of the Cold War, and who retire to positions in the defense industry to reap the harvest of seeds they sowed while on active duty. Concerning the Army and its pursuit of leviathan systems like the Crusader artillery system, Peters wrote in May 1999, "Obsessed with building the perfect division at Ft. Hood, Texas, the Army refuses to acccept that the number one requirement for the future is the ability to get out of Texas on short notice." It is a page out of Donald Rumsfeld's book, but the book is Peters', and he was saying it when such views were heresy and Rumsfeld had yet to re-emerge from corporate America. All in all, those who have followed Ralph Peters' personal intellectual odyssey since the early 1990s will see in this fine collection of essays vindication of the warnings issued by Peters, usually far in advance of other defense "experts." Peters' hard-hitting essays, many of which were written and published while he was a serving officer, are a testament to a fine mind, a love of country, and a remarkably keen sense of smell for the future. They are also a tribute to the military establishment that encouraged him to speak out, even when his messages often gored sacred cows. If you are serious about understanding the business of national defense in the age of the War on Terrorism, you must read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Very insightful and unexpected
Review: I should say that I've read nothing else by this author, and none of the other reviews listed here (I'll do that later). Between what we read of the war in Iraq and elsewhere according to the Bush spin, and the windy, footnoted mea culpa-type "we brought it on ourselves" books on terrorism, this book brings to light many, many facts and things you may not have considered. It defines a lot of the reasons terrorists that do what they do, that America does what it does -- and it never gets into name-calling. Dump those Chomsky and Coulter propaganda flash-in-the-pans. They look like circus barkers compared to this guy. If you've got questions (and who doesn't) about:
* What did America do to become a terrorist target?
* What should we do now?
* Are we an empire or what? What does that entail?
Than you better read this book. So much of this post-911 literature is so predictable just from the back cover excerpts, but this book really surprised me. The author is obviously very literate, but has the unique distinction of actually having served as an officer in the military, but without being some kind of knee-jerk, Pattonesque patriot. He is very even-handed, and writes with a refreshing style that keeps you reading. With most books, I can put a little pencil mark on half the statements someone makes, with a "unverifiable", "hearsay", "propaganda only" or such. I did a few here, too -- don't get me wrong -- but so often Peters confronts my objection in the very next argument. Peters early on advocates an "extraterrestrial" view, in the original meaning of "outside earth" to take a look at who's doing what and what's going on. No "Bush is the Antichrist" or "Bush is God" or, in fact, much naming of presidents or people at all. No "Bowling movie" to sell, no talk show -- Peters is the old-fashioned, pre-pundit, experienced analyst telling you how he sees it. I don't necessarily agree with everything in this book, but for straight historical, political and military knowledge, those academic tomes look like ill-informed propaganda. I didn't come away with any "pro war" or "pro Republican" or whatever impression from this book, although, since it was written by a military man, you can't expect too much "let's all love each other" content. He takes down a lot of the same "peacekeeping" and "liberating" US missions as the rest of them, but man, does he do it better. This is a collection of essays, and some of them were written before 9-11, but read like they came out yesterday. Can't say that with most terrorism books. For my money, this is the best book going on the whole America-versus-the-world books. Maybe he's written other stuff that discredits my opinion, but I withhold that decision until I actually read it.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating look at the challenges facing America
Review: If it were in my power I would make this book required reading for every officer in the US Military and every senior leader in the Pentagon and State Department. In "Beyond Terror" Ralph Peters gives us the best and most accurate look at the threats and challenges facing American presently and in the near future. He discusses in detail the background to the war we are fighting now and that our children will fight in years to come. Peters is one of the few authors today who is not afraid to call a spade a spade. His writing is literate, but refreshingly free of the conventions of political correctness that seem to infest present day writings about non-western cultures. He candidly points out the difficulties facing many nations in the underdeveloped (or in the case of the Gulf Arabs; unwisely developed) world. Like a good knowledgable doctor looking at an illness in its advanced stages, some of Peters' prognosis for these societies is quite grim. However, it is accurate. Peters has a natural and conversational writing style that carries the reader along easily. Peters makes his points with wit and charm. There are lines in this book that are laugh out loud funny. Although this is a book about policy and America's place in the world, you don't have to be a wonk to enjoy it. Each of it's 18 essays can be read as a stand alone piece.
This is an honest, funny, informative and ultimately uplifting book to read. Ralph Peters, above everything else, is an American Patriot and he outlines in this book his vision for the New American century. His vision of the world is one to which our leaders should pay attention.
Rating: 
Summary: The tragedy of being right
Review: It doesn't always feel good to be right. 10 years ago, while most of our country was getting in line for a golden age of globalization, fueled by technology and free trade, Ralph Peters, an Army Intelligence officer, was trying to find an audience for his theories on the deadly threat global terrorism would soon pose to the West. Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World collects articles written by Peters both before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Peters' main argument is that the US has to do some serious catching up in order to do battle with its new enemies. The strategies and, more importantly, the mindset of the Cold War just won't do. Of course, in hindsight, it's easy for us to read a book like this, proclaim Peters a seer, and accuse our military and government of wilfull ignorance and hubris. These accusations may very well be warranted, but it's important to remember that 10 years ago, Peters' voice was just one among many trying to predict the future. However, since Peters did turn out to be right, Beyond Terror is worth reading, not for the "I told you so" moments (which are the most unfortunate parts of the book), but because, better than almost anyone else I've read, Peters is able to frame the war on terror in concrete, as opposed to ideological or philosophical, terms. That it is a war on terror and not a "matter of law enforcement", Peters makes very clear, although, in general he maintains a non-partisan stance (he's as hard on Donald Rumsfeld as he is on former President Clinton). He provides a "How To" guide for fighting terror, builds a damning case against the way our intelligence services' bureaucratic, civil service framework undermines quality intelligence work, shines a light on the political causes for America's military defeats in the 1990s, and shows that from its beginnings America has been most effective militarily while fighting against empires. Part of the problem in America today, he argues, is that our traditional role of fighting empires conflicts with our current role of existing as a de facto post-modern empire. However, the most interesting article isn't about strategy. It deals with the role information plays in a culture's ability to compete on a worldwide level. Societies that accept in the flood of information of our computer age and provide tools for their people to deal with it have become the most successful in the history of mankind. However, those countries with autocratic leaders who have tried to stop this flood from washing away their traditional, closed societies are fighting a losing battle. Unfortunately, though the spread of information is inevitable, the damage has already been done. A vast majority of the people in the world simply do not have the skills to process the level of information we in the West are faced with every day. Already, this information shock has fueled the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, and Peters argues that things are likely to get worse unless the autocratic leaders in the world bring their countries fully into the information age. Of course, these leaders are unlikely to do this out of the goodness of their hearts: freedom of information is the first step in undermining autocracy. The concept of information-friendly cultures vs. restricted information cultures is a much less inflammatory way of looking at the global conflict than some other models that have been offered over the last few years. People who are put off by "clash of civilization" arguments should find Peters' approach appealing. Now, I don't agree with everything in this book. I believe Peters is far too hard on Cold Warriors, in general. Communism was a genuine threat to the world to which I'd have us overreact rather than underreact. But overall, Peters makes sond arguments based on his experience in military intelligence and his observations of the world we live in.
Rating:
Summary: Machiavelli updated and shock-jocked
Review: It's easy to get swept up in the rhetoric that jumps so glibly from the adroit fingertips of the verbally gifted former army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters. Indeed Peters occasionally gets swept up in it himself. For example, while marveling at the rapid change and dislocation characteristic of our times (so that "the collapse of the Roman Empire looks glacial by comparison"), Peters is lead to exclaim, "Much of humanity is returning to the days of witches, anti-Christ, and self-willed apocalypse." (p. 87) Well, not exactly. The degenerating culture in the Middle East that Peters so well delineates in the second essay in this collection has nothing to do with Christian apocalyptic delusions, nor have the horrors experienced by the people in sub Saharan Africa. And while there are nut cases in this country (as there have always been in Europe and the US) that believe in witches and warlocks and the Biblical anti-Christ, most of humanity is actually just trying to make a living. Peters also loses it a bit when he writes "Men like to kill." He adds that some dislike it, but "the latter are few." Furthermore, "For many men, there is no more empowering act than taking a human life." (p. 83) Again the generalization would be acceptable if indeed it applied to even a bare 51% of humanity. But it doesn't. The thugs and henchmen and Saddam Hussein-like warlords and bullies are greatly in the minority. Otherwise we could hardly cross the street. Peters shows that he realizes that he is overstating the case when he writes: "The crucial violence is usually perpetrated by a smallish number of actors...with a still larger group enjoying the spectacle of the violence and, perhaps looting." (pp. 86-87) This is closer to the truth. Most people do not actually like to kill. We like to get others to do it for us. We don't even like to kill the cows and the pigs that we eat. We have specialists to do that for us. It would be easy to dismiss Peters as a kind shock jock for those that can read or a postmodern son of Strangelove were it not for the fact that he is often right, and that he makes some critical points that cannot be ignored. He is especially effective in the opening essays in the book, "Our Place in History" which was written for this volume, and the above mentioned second essay, "When Devils Walk the Earth: The Mentality and Roots of Terrorism and How to Respond," which was written for a thinktank a month after September 11th, and could easily serve as guidance for President Bush. I suspect Bush has read this essay, although I don't expect him to admit it publically. Peters's Machiavellian advice would not play well in the media and is not the sort of reasoning that heads of state reveal to the public. In the first essay (also perhaps given as advice to the Commander-in-Chief) Peters calls for an "enlightened" American empire, arguing that given the state of real politics in the world, mainly that we are the only superpower left, we have no choice but to accept the mantle and do our best. I think there is more truth to this than most people, both here and especially in Europe, would like to admit. He makes the salient point that the American empire (already a partial reality) differs from that of Rome in that "our empire is cultural and economic, a matter of influence and the occasional exercise of military power, and not one of conquests and exploitation." (p. 19) I would add that our battalions take the form of multi-national corporations that serve to direct tribute and lucre to the US through economic power rather than by force of the sword. In "When Devils..." Peters psychoanalyzes the Islamic Middle East coming up with an indictment that could be summed up with these words from page 46: "We [the vibrant, creative states of the West and the Pacific Rim] are succeeding, the Islamic world is failing, and they hate us for it." This is almost exactly the diagnosis presented (more gently) by Middle Eastern scholar Bernard Lewis in his books, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002) and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Holy Terror (2003), and it is one that I think is substantially correct. The central point of the essay however is to make a distinction between "practical terrorists" who just want to seize power, and "apocalyptic terrorists" who want to destroy our civilization and kill us all. Peters presents a 25-point "take no prisoners" program for dealing with such "monsters." His advice, simply put, is kill them before they kill us. By the way, his contention that apocalyptic Islamic terrorists are typically unable to form lasting, healthy relationships with the opposite sex (p. 33) and are the products of "sexual fears and humiliation as young adults" rings only too true. He recalls that September 11th hijacker Mohammed Atta demanded that "women not be allowed to pollute his grave by their presence." (p. 11) Also good is the third essay in which Peters emphasizes the strength of free flowing information and how closed societies such as those in Islamic lands and North Korea are at a disadvantage economically and militarily because of their self-imposed ignorance. It is only in the fourth essay, "Heavy Peace," that Peters begins to reveal that in places he is patching over the cracks in his understanding with rhetoric. I would also like to observe that his central message, that we must meet terror with terror, needs to be thoroughly examined lest we allow the end to justify the means and tumble down the slippery slope to the level of our terrorist enemies.
Rating:
Summary: Hope GW has a copy on his desk.....
Review: Maximum read for anyone wishing to remotely understand the failures of the Arab world. Offers all of us clear insight to the underlying forces of this anachronistic arena.
Read it, grasp it, learn it, know it.
Best wishes to Mr. Peters.
Rating:
Summary: A serious book on political philosophy
Review: Peters' is the high-quality thinking on geopolitical and military matters. Having written much the same unpopular truths over the years for Russian audience, I can only admire his courage and honesty.
Peters' approach to Arab-Israeli conflict is unusually balanced. His point is, basically, that both sides are content with status quo bellum, which allows them to draw the citizens' attention from otherwise unattractive civil realities. This is most definitely true.
His view of bin Laden and the likes as irrational terrorists is more dubious, until we realize that Peters probably speaks of their strategy rather than tactics. Evidently, they employ cruelly rational means to reach irrational objectives.
Peters' views on the professional intelligentsia sound very much Chomskian, though from entirely different perspective.
His critique of the US geopolitical strategy is incisive and quite correct. He concentrates on the often-overlooked major tenet of the American policy, preservation of borders, rightly arguing that this policy virtually guarantees ethnic conflicts of the Yugoslavian type.
Overall, this is one of the best books on modern politics.
Rating:
Summary: A bit preachy
Review: Ralph Peters knows his history and has a great deal of expertise on foreign policy, geo-politics, and military strategy. You will find much to think about here - if you can wade through the sections where he rambles and gets side-tracked on some off-topic discourse. This book is comprised of a series of lengthy essays Mr. Peters wrote over the past several years as reactions to world events, and some of his observations are a bit dated and proved to be incorrect. To his credit, he acknowledges this in the introduction and explains that he made the decision to leave his opinions just as they were at the time and not update them. He is very good at what he knows. The chapter on understanding the two basic types of terrorists, what motivates them, what causes them to kill, and how each must be defeated is excellent and particularly relevant to today's conflict. My main problem with Mr. Peters (and the thing that made this book a sometimes difficult and laborious read) is that he tends to ramble at times and venture into topics, such as religion, about which he is perhaps not as qualified to speak as authoritatively as he is about foreign policy and geopolitics. When he strays off these topics, his biases show and undermine his credibility. It's almost as if he thinks he knows too much about too many things, and can't resist letting the reader know he knows it. He also tends to pontificate at times and comes off as if he is smarter than and could have done a better job than any presidential administration in the history of our country. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20.
Rating:
Summary: Probing, Often Infuriating, Yet Fine Look at War on Terror
Review: Retired U. S. Army colonel Ralph Peters may be the United States' best strategic military thinker since Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan. In a series of prescient, and often infuriating, essays written primarily in the 1990's, Peters argues why we have to fight the War on Terror, recognizes possible mistakes in judgement by senior civilian and military leaders, and how this war should be fought. He lays much of the blame for our inability to fight this war well on the Clinton administration; it is an assessment that is unfortunately correct due to Clinton's inability to deal with terrorism (a mission which former advisor Dick Morris urged him to do back in 1996; Morris has noted that this was Clinton's greatest failure, not the Lewinsky sex scandal.). Peters is a brilliant, persuasive, and yes, frequently infuriating writer, who is a splendid prose stylist. I was most intrigued with his observations on Clausewitz's and Sun Tzu's observations on the necessity of waging war. This splendid book should be required reading for all interested in why we are waging war in Iraq and elsewhere against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Rating: 
Summary: Shockingly Naive
Review: The only thing more disappointing than having taken the time to read this drivel, is coming to Amazon.com and seeing that it has been so undeservedly highly acclaimed. This is, in fact, the worst, most meagerly researched (putting it charitably) book that I have ever read...on terrorism or any other topic associated with national security. Mr. Peters is straightforward from the outset--he hates all academics and diplomats who, he claims, possess much less knowledge about the world than (him?) they often think they do. Mr. Peters then goes on, with the broadest of brushes in hand, to make other sweeping, universal, unsubstantiated generalizations based on the analysis of ZERO data points (a most egregious error). In doing so, he demonstrates quite clearly that he knows next to nothing about terrorism. It is no coincidence that Peters provides no references or citations of any kind for some of these most bizzare of generalizations (terrorists are simply sexually deprived?)--even a casual reading of the terrorism literature, specifically that which has relied on detailed examinations of terrorist data, would not support precious few (if any) of his contentions.
This is an ideologically inspired fairy tale, maquerading as an "authoritative" work of non-fiction. It's truly frightening to learn that it actually has an influence over policy in these most troubling and dangerous of times when what policymakers need are honest, objective, and thorough examinations of terrorism, its causes, characteristics, and the strengths and weaknesses of alternative counter-terror approaches. Peters provides no insight into any of these issues, and thereby does more to obfuscate than illuminate.
|
