Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

As an American, even one who disagrees with much of our foreign policy since the early 1980s, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim is a tough pill to swallow. If you're the kind of person who needs the reassurance of a staunchly pro-American ideological screed to sooth your delicate sentimentalities and shore up your patriotism without questioning your beliefs, this is definitely not the book for you. But if you go into this book with an open mind, willing to have your preconceptions about your country challenged, you will learn a lot from it, albeit painfully.

This book seems to have two main purposes: First, to dispense with the notion that terrorism carried out by Muslims is somehow an intrinsic element of either Islam or Muslim culture; and second, to identify the root causes of that terrorism. The second point is actually a bit more complex though, because what the author really sets out to do is blame the US for causing terrorism. And although he makes some excellent and well-supported points, this is one of the weaknesses of the book, as I'll discuss below.

It was only natural for me to squirm a bit when I read many of the accusations in this book, and because I'm not the kind of person who immediately believes everything he reads in a book that is very obviously tilted heavily toward a single viewpoint I did not simply swallow everything the author says. However, I have to concede that, on most of the major points, I cannot offer a rebuttal. One would think that a book of this nature would spawn a mountain of heated and defensive responses, but I have been very surprised to find that the overwhelming response has been no response at all. In fact, I have been unable to find a single rebuttal to anything in this book. It has either somehow managed to remain under the radar of its likely critics or those critics simply have nothing to say in response.

In the end I shorted this book one star because there were several glaring problems in both the central thesis and some of the factual details, some of which I'll mention here. Before beginning it is important to point out that the author goes to great pains to essentially blame the US for the very existence of Muslim terrorism today. But focusing on such a narrow mission I believe he goes astray from time to time and loses some credibility in what is otherwise a very well-reasoned book. First is his claim that the US was "the source" of chemical weapons to Iraq. This is simply not true, and while the US certainly did help Iraq develop its chemical and biological weapons programs, it is well-documented that Iraq's program was the product of a fairly fragmented system involving quite a lot of other countries.

The author makes the point several times that terrorism is a political response to certain repressive conditions rather than simply a religious response. And while I agree with this 100%, he overplays his hand by next claiming that the US is primarily to blame for the political conditions to which terrorists are responding. In doing so the author almost completely ignores decades of often brutal oppression by Muslim governments. Perhaps it is convenient for disenfranchised elements of the populations in those countries to blame the US for their plight in life (and to be sure, the governments often promote that view as a safety valve to shield themselves), but that doesn't mean they are correct in blaming the US. The author should have explored the subject of Muslim oppression of other Muslims much more thoroughly. Somewhat related to this issue is the fact that the governments and people of many Muslim countries (such as Saudi Arabia) have contributed a tremendous amount of support to terrorist organizations. The author acknowledges this in passing but fails to explore it further, focusing instead on how actions of the US have contributed to terrorism.

Where the author really went overboard was his claim that the US committed widespread war crimes and used weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and in Kosovo. Specifically, he says the use of depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, and Mark-77 firebombs violated humanitarian law because they are "incapable of distinguishing between civil and military targets." He also says the US conducted bombing with no regard to the civilian population. These claims are really quite silly. Had the US really wanted to kill the civilian populations in those engagements it could very easily have conducted the sort of saturation bombing so prevalent during WW II. Instead, it is quite clear that great pains were taken to minimize civilian casualties in all these engagements. The fact that these efforts were not always successful does not mean the US simply disregarded those concerns. With regard to the specific weapons used, there really is no such thing as a weapon that can distinguish between civil and military targets. The best one can do is try to hit the intended target, but obviously that doesn't always work as planned. I feel that I need to specifically address depleted uranium weapons. The author makes it sound like some kind of nuclear weapon was used, when in fact it is simply a very dense metal (albeit one with low grade radioactivity) used in armor-piercing munitions and even in the armor of some vehicles. Even after it impacts with a target it does not add significantly to the normal background radiation we encounter in the natural environment every day. And while the potential danger of these materials is not disputed, there is a lot of misinformation out there about them, and their long-term health risk is very debatable. Referring to them as a "weapon of mass destruction" and calling their use a "war crime" is way over the top and exposes the author's predisposition.

There are other instances where the author overreached, but this book review is already long enough and I don't want to nitpick every single little point I disagreed with. In the end the problems I have identified do not negate the central theme of the book. However, they do damage the credibility of the author a bit and help illustrate how the book goes a bit off course by focusing almost solely on the US rather than discussing many other factors that have contributed to terrorism. I still believe this book is very much worth reading, with the understanding that the reader will encounter some claims that need not be accepted as completely accurate or evenhanded.

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!

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.