|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq
und über 1 Million weitere Bücher verfügbar für Amazon Kindle .
Erfahren Sie mehr
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Produktinformation
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
Ist der Verkauf dieses Produkts für Sie nicht akzeptabel? |
Mehr über den Autor
Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Michael Scheuer auf Amazon
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Michael Scheuer auf Amazon
Produktbeschreibungen
Kurzbeschreibung
Michael Scheuer is the author of Imperial Hubris, which was a New York Times hardcover bestseller for fifteen weeks and stirred up attention in every national and local media outlet. He is a veteran CIA counterterrorism analyst who for many years headed the Osama bin Laden unit. In Marching Toward Hell, Scheuer offers a scathing and frightening look at how the Iraq war has contributed to the enemy's strength and fundamentally changed the geopolitical landscape in a way that is harmful to U.S. interests and security concerns. Scheuer will examine the ways in which the war has widened the conflict by almost every measure, made America less secure, and left us all increasingly vulnerable to attack.
Synopsis
Michael Scheuer is the author of Imperial Hubris, which was a New York Times hardcover bestseller for fifteen weeks and stirred up attention in every national and local media outlet. He is a veteran CIA counterterrorism analyst who for many years headed the Osama bin Laden unit. In Marching Toward Hell, Scheuer offers a scathing and frightening look at how the Iraq war has contributed to the enemy's strength and fundamentally changed the geopolitical landscape in a way that is harmful to U.S. interests and security concerns. Scheuer will examine the ways in which the war has widened the conflict by almost every measure, made America less secure, and left us all increasingly vulnerable to attack.
In diesem Buch
(Mehr dazu)
Ausgewählte Seiten ansehen
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Stichwortverzeichnis | Rückseite
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Stichwortverzeichnis | Rückseite
Tags(Was ist das?)Bei einem Tag handelt es sich um ein Schlagwort, das zum Produkt passt.
Tags erleichtern allen Kunden die Suche und die Sortierung ihrer Lieblingsprodukte. |
Kundenrezensionen
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
Die Rezession von Herrn Funk ist schon recht gut muss ich zugeben aber hier vergisst er:
Dieses Buch beschreibt sehr gut wie die USA, Europa und Israel derzeit im Konflikt mit der islamischen Welt falsch handeln und sich gegenseitig durch Rücksichtnahme behindern und weist ganz konkret Lösungsvorschläge auf.
Hierbei kristallisiert sich heraus, dass Probleme mit islamischen Terroristen viel leichter und effizienter im Alleingang des jeweiligen Landes gelöst werden könnten (ggf. allein durch Spezialeinheiten) als im trägen Verbund, das diese Leute nur eine sprache Verstehen und die Reaktion heftig und schnell genug sein muss, damit auch der letzte Islamist eine Beziehung zu seiner vorgehenden Tat erkennen kann.
Leute, die einer 72-Jungfrauen-Traumwelt leben, kann man nicht dadurch wieder geradeziehen, indem man seine Gesetze im jeweiligen Land anwendet und frei Entschädigungszahlungen verteilt, wenn Terroristen durch Militäroperationen beschädigt werden.
Go America!
Dieses Buch beschreibt sehr gut wie die USA, Europa und Israel derzeit im Konflikt mit der islamischen Welt falsch handeln und sich gegenseitig durch Rücksichtnahme behindern und weist ganz konkret Lösungsvorschläge auf.
Hierbei kristallisiert sich heraus, dass Probleme mit islamischen Terroristen viel leichter und effizienter im Alleingang des jeweiligen Landes gelöst werden könnten (ggf. allein durch Spezialeinheiten) als im trägen Verbund, das diese Leute nur eine sprache Verstehen und die Reaktion heftig und schnell genug sein muss, damit auch der letzte Islamist eine Beziehung zu seiner vorgehenden Tat erkennen kann.
Leute, die einer 72-Jungfrauen-Traumwelt leben, kann man nicht dadurch wieder geradeziehen, indem man seine Gesetze im jeweiligen Land anwendet und frei Entschädigungszahlungen verteilt, wenn Terroristen durch Militäroperationen beschädigt werden.
Go America!
4 von 6 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
Wer Lawrence Wrights Buch "Der Tod wird euch finden" gelesen hat, kennt CIA-Mann Michael Scheuer als polternden Leiter der Bin Laden Unit "Alec Station". Er musste unter heftigem Protest mit ansehen, wie mehrere Gelegenheiten, Osama Bin Laden per Cruise Missile zu töten, von den Entscheidungsträgern bewusst nicht wahrgenommen wurden. Der verbitterte al-Quaida-Jäger wurde letztlich kaltgestellt.
Scheuer lässt in diesem Buch seinen Frust ab, der sich gegen die beiden Bush-Regierungen sowie Bill Clinton und dessen Chefkoordinator für Terrorbekämpfung Richard A. Clarke ("Against All Enemies") richtet. Er sieht die gesamte geistige Elite Amerikas auf dem Holzweg. Lediglich Ronald Reagan wird aufgrund seiner kompromisslosen Haltung gegenüber dem "Reich des Bösen" positiv hervorgehoben. Der CIA-Veteran beruft sich auf die amerikanischen Gründerväter, wenn er der Sicherheit der USA erste Priorität einräumt. Seit Ende des kalten Krieges sieht er diese Kernaufgabe durch die politische Elite des Landes über alle Parteigrenzen hinweg ("bipartisan") nicht mehr als erfüllt an.
Man muss in diesem Werk unterscheiden zwischen dem wahren Kern und der emotionalen und zornigen Reaktion Michael Scheuers, die in schaurigen Gewaltfantasien gipfelt, welche diejenigen der islamistischen Terroristen noch übertreffen.
Zunächst zu den Sachargumenten:
- Al Quaida bekämpft die USA nicht aufgrund des dortigen "way of life" mit freien Wahlen, sekulärem Staat, Gleichberechtigung der Frauen, Pressefreiheit etc., wie es Politik und Medien darstellen, sondern wegen der Außenpolitik, die einseitig für Israel Partei ergreift und despotische Staaten im Nahen Osten, wie Saudi-Arabien und Ägypten unterstützt sowie der ständigen Militärpräsenz auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, auf der sich die heiligen Stätten des Islams befinden. Die "Ungläubigen" werden hier von einer breiten Bevölkerungsmehrheit als Eindringlinge und Eroberer wahrgenommen.
- Die USA haben sich trotz der Ölkrise in den Siebzigerjahren und des Erpressungspotentials der Araber nicht von den Rohstoffquellen im Nahen Osten unabhängig gemacht sondern aufgrund einer fehlenden Energiepolitik ihre gesamte Volkswirtschaft den Scheichs ausgeliefert, was unmittelbar mit der Unterstützung korrupter Regime zusammenhängt. Gleichzeitig wird deren Wohlverhalten gegenüber Israel erkauft.
- Bei bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen vertraut Amerika auf seine hochtechnisierte Armee mit ihren "Präzisionswaffen", die allerdings gegen Djihadis kaum etwas ausrichten und folglich Kriege wie in Afghanistan und im Irak nicht gewinnen kann.
Die Schlussfolgerungen Scheuers sind mehr als zwiespältig. Sie stehen alle unter der Überschrift "America first", was zunächst ja nicht falsch ist:
- Unabhängige Energiepolitik mit Fokus auf Erschließung eigener Rohstoffquellen, Energieeinsparung, Atomkraft und erneuerbare Energien. Das klingt vernünftig.
- "Mind our own business" heisst, dass Kriege nicht überall auf der Welt geführt werden dürfen, um islamischen Kulturen westliche Werte wie Demokratie und Emanzipation der Frauen zu bescheren, sondern allein um den Schutz des eigenen Landes zu garantieren und Terroristen zu bekämpfen. Das kann man unterschreiben. Wir Deutsche können uns fragen, ob unsere Freiheit am Hindukusch durch "THW-Einsätze" der Bundeswehr langfristig zu verteidigen ist.
- Keine Unterstützung von despotischen und korrupten Regierungen, auch um den Preis, dass diese dann durch Islamisten hinweggefegt würden. Völlig richtig, denn die Glaubwürdigkeit der USA würde dadurch wiederhergestellt.
Nun wird es grenzwertig:
- Kein Staat auf der Welt hat ein Existenzrecht, weder die USA noch Frankreich, Deutschland - und auch nicht Israel. Jedoch wird niemand auf der Welt das Existenzrecht der USA oder anderer Staaten anzweifeln. Das völkerrechtlich garantierte Existenzrecht Israels wird dagegen täglich durch radikale Moslems, westliche Linksintellektuelle und Rechtsradikale in Frage gestellt. Scheuer kümmert es nicht. Sollen die Araber mit Israel machen was sie wollen. Auf die Idee, dass Israel bei einer existentiellen Bedrohung als Ultima ratio einen Atomkrieg auslösen könnte, kommt er nicht.
- Wenn Amerika im Falle der Selbstverteidigung wie bei 9/11 zu einem Militärschlag gezwungen ist, dann sollte dieser mit aller Brutalität erfolgen. Amerika wäre heute ein sichererer Ort "if ... we had fire-bombed Kabul and Khandahar, demolished whatever ruins were left, and sown salt over the length and width of both sites." Ein ähnlicher Tonfall des gläubigen Katholiken Scheuer kommt in diesem Buch häufiger vor. Da fängt es den Leser an zu grausen. Menschenrechtsorganisationen, NGOs und die europäischen Verbündeten sieht er grundsätzlich als Verhinderer an, wenn es darum geht, dass die USA im Krieg konsequent durchgreifen könnten. Ausgerechnet die US Army würde ständiges "Appeasement" betreiben!
- Guantanamo Bay und Abu Ghraib werden in ihrer Wirkung auf die moslemische Welt mit dem Zitat eines byzantinischen Kaisers durch Papst Benedikt gleichgesetzt. Wie bitte? Das Gefangenenlager auf Kuba erachtet Scheuer in dem assymetrischen Kampf als notwendige Maßnahme.
- Die Europäer werden als gottlose, unmännliche Schwächlinge dargestellt, die nach dem 2. Weltkrieg innerhalb der Europäischen Gemeinschaft ihre "Tugenden" wie Autoritarismus, Nationalismus und Kriegsbereitschaft drangegeben haben, um in einer Superbürokratie aufzugehen. Aber das wäre sowieso egal, denn durch die demographische Entwicklung stürben wir langsam aus, und der Kontinent würde von den Muslimen übernommen. Wir sollten nur die Türkei in die EU aufnehmen, dann ginge dieser Prozess schneller.
Schade, dass Scheuer die im Grunde richtigen Kernaussagen dieses Buches nicht vertieft und in eine rationale Strategie weiterentwickelt, wie man es von einem Wissenschaftler mit Doktortitel, einem Bachelor- und zwei Mastergrades erwarten könnte, sondern in emotionale und zornige Tiraden verfällt, die das ganze Werk diskreditieren.
Scheuer lässt in diesem Buch seinen Frust ab, der sich gegen die beiden Bush-Regierungen sowie Bill Clinton und dessen Chefkoordinator für Terrorbekämpfung Richard A. Clarke ("Against All Enemies") richtet. Er sieht die gesamte geistige Elite Amerikas auf dem Holzweg. Lediglich Ronald Reagan wird aufgrund seiner kompromisslosen Haltung gegenüber dem "Reich des Bösen" positiv hervorgehoben. Der CIA-Veteran beruft sich auf die amerikanischen Gründerväter, wenn er der Sicherheit der USA erste Priorität einräumt. Seit Ende des kalten Krieges sieht er diese Kernaufgabe durch die politische Elite des Landes über alle Parteigrenzen hinweg ("bipartisan") nicht mehr als erfüllt an.
Man muss in diesem Werk unterscheiden zwischen dem wahren Kern und der emotionalen und zornigen Reaktion Michael Scheuers, die in schaurigen Gewaltfantasien gipfelt, welche diejenigen der islamistischen Terroristen noch übertreffen.
Zunächst zu den Sachargumenten:
- Al Quaida bekämpft die USA nicht aufgrund des dortigen "way of life" mit freien Wahlen, sekulärem Staat, Gleichberechtigung der Frauen, Pressefreiheit etc., wie es Politik und Medien darstellen, sondern wegen der Außenpolitik, die einseitig für Israel Partei ergreift und despotische Staaten im Nahen Osten, wie Saudi-Arabien und Ägypten unterstützt sowie der ständigen Militärpräsenz auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, auf der sich die heiligen Stätten des Islams befinden. Die "Ungläubigen" werden hier von einer breiten Bevölkerungsmehrheit als Eindringlinge und Eroberer wahrgenommen.
- Die USA haben sich trotz der Ölkrise in den Siebzigerjahren und des Erpressungspotentials der Araber nicht von den Rohstoffquellen im Nahen Osten unabhängig gemacht sondern aufgrund einer fehlenden Energiepolitik ihre gesamte Volkswirtschaft den Scheichs ausgeliefert, was unmittelbar mit der Unterstützung korrupter Regime zusammenhängt. Gleichzeitig wird deren Wohlverhalten gegenüber Israel erkauft.
- Bei bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen vertraut Amerika auf seine hochtechnisierte Armee mit ihren "Präzisionswaffen", die allerdings gegen Djihadis kaum etwas ausrichten und folglich Kriege wie in Afghanistan und im Irak nicht gewinnen kann.
Die Schlussfolgerungen Scheuers sind mehr als zwiespältig. Sie stehen alle unter der Überschrift "America first", was zunächst ja nicht falsch ist:
- Unabhängige Energiepolitik mit Fokus auf Erschließung eigener Rohstoffquellen, Energieeinsparung, Atomkraft und erneuerbare Energien. Das klingt vernünftig.
- "Mind our own business" heisst, dass Kriege nicht überall auf der Welt geführt werden dürfen, um islamischen Kulturen westliche Werte wie Demokratie und Emanzipation der Frauen zu bescheren, sondern allein um den Schutz des eigenen Landes zu garantieren und Terroristen zu bekämpfen. Das kann man unterschreiben. Wir Deutsche können uns fragen, ob unsere Freiheit am Hindukusch durch "THW-Einsätze" der Bundeswehr langfristig zu verteidigen ist.
- Keine Unterstützung von despotischen und korrupten Regierungen, auch um den Preis, dass diese dann durch Islamisten hinweggefegt würden. Völlig richtig, denn die Glaubwürdigkeit der USA würde dadurch wiederhergestellt.
Nun wird es grenzwertig:
- Kein Staat auf der Welt hat ein Existenzrecht, weder die USA noch Frankreich, Deutschland - und auch nicht Israel. Jedoch wird niemand auf der Welt das Existenzrecht der USA oder anderer Staaten anzweifeln. Das völkerrechtlich garantierte Existenzrecht Israels wird dagegen täglich durch radikale Moslems, westliche Linksintellektuelle und Rechtsradikale in Frage gestellt. Scheuer kümmert es nicht. Sollen die Araber mit Israel machen was sie wollen. Auf die Idee, dass Israel bei einer existentiellen Bedrohung als Ultima ratio einen Atomkrieg auslösen könnte, kommt er nicht.
- Wenn Amerika im Falle der Selbstverteidigung wie bei 9/11 zu einem Militärschlag gezwungen ist, dann sollte dieser mit aller Brutalität erfolgen. Amerika wäre heute ein sichererer Ort "if ... we had fire-bombed Kabul and Khandahar, demolished whatever ruins were left, and sown salt over the length and width of both sites." Ein ähnlicher Tonfall des gläubigen Katholiken Scheuer kommt in diesem Buch häufiger vor. Da fängt es den Leser an zu grausen. Menschenrechtsorganisationen, NGOs und die europäischen Verbündeten sieht er grundsätzlich als Verhinderer an, wenn es darum geht, dass die USA im Krieg konsequent durchgreifen könnten. Ausgerechnet die US Army würde ständiges "Appeasement" betreiben!
- Guantanamo Bay und Abu Ghraib werden in ihrer Wirkung auf die moslemische Welt mit dem Zitat eines byzantinischen Kaisers durch Papst Benedikt gleichgesetzt. Wie bitte? Das Gefangenenlager auf Kuba erachtet Scheuer in dem assymetrischen Kampf als notwendige Maßnahme.
- Die Europäer werden als gottlose, unmännliche Schwächlinge dargestellt, die nach dem 2. Weltkrieg innerhalb der Europäischen Gemeinschaft ihre "Tugenden" wie Autoritarismus, Nationalismus und Kriegsbereitschaft drangegeben haben, um in einer Superbürokratie aufzugehen. Aber das wäre sowieso egal, denn durch die demographische Entwicklung stürben wir langsam aus, und der Kontinent würde von den Muslimen übernommen. Wir sollten nur die Türkei in die EU aufnehmen, dann ginge dieser Prozess schneller.
Schade, dass Scheuer die im Grunde richtigen Kernaussagen dieses Buches nicht vertieft und in eine rationale Strategie weiterentwickelt, wie man es von einem Wissenschaftler mit Doktortitel, einem Bachelor- und zwei Mastergrades erwarten könnte, sondern in emotionale und zornige Tiraden verfällt, die das ganze Werk diskreditieren.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
58 Rezensionen
202 von 218 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Former top spook is critical of U.S. foreign policy. Very pessimistic
13. Februar 2008
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
Michael Scheuer, PhD and former CIA career officer, made a big splash in June 2004 as the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. At that time he contradicted Rumsfeld and other officials by informing us there was an insurgency in Iraq.
Now Scheuer tells us where we're going. We're going to hell.
Marching Toward Hell claims that U.S. foreign policy is often based on faulty assumptions and is driven by some lobbyists whose interests are different than those of the American people. This book goes well beyond the themes of Imperial Hubris.
Dr. Scheuer's book merits 5 stars. He sacrificed his career at the CIA in order to publicly denounce the 9/11 Commission for having become politicized. He did this at a time when other insiders protected their careers and are only now coming out. He's also superb at explaining the relationship between the intelligence community and elected officials in the U.S.
Scholars take Scheuer seriously because of his 22-year career as a top intelligence analyst and also the success of his first book, Imperial Hubris. He stalked and studied Osama bin Laden (ObL) for years and urged superiors to remove ObL no less than 10 times when the opportunity arose. No action was taken each time for political reasons.
ObL has recommended Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris, to the American people in a taunting missive. Marching Toward Hell strikes back with recommendations aimed at helping the American people to wise up.
According to Scheuer, U.S. policymakers still prefer to present the bin Laden Movement as a lunatic fringe even though it has broad appeal in the Islamic world. Also, U.S. support of Israel and U.S. troop presence contributes to the popular perception within the Muslim world that the West is bent on destroying Islam.
As if that wasn't disturbing enough, Scheuer says that some officials possibly never intended to win in Iraq (and certainly not before the 2004 presidential election). Otherwise, more troops would have been sent. While the logic of this argument is irrefutable, it is almost too disturbing to think about.
Other points: the fact that very few political leaders have children serving in the wars is disturbing on many levels; the divide in the U.S. between the political elite and the rest of the people has never been wider; and young people will be sent to war in the coming 8 years regardless of election results.
Scheuer concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid war with Islamists, that it will be much more violent that what we've seen so far, and also that it's too late to win in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Scheuer is angry for several reasons including the reluctance of Americans to understand Muslim viewpoints, the Bush administration dismissal of Middle East experts' wisdom and advice, and the lack of political leadership regarding energy policy.
Marching Toward Hell includes a thoughtful proposal that is already being discussed seriously in the nation's universities. A summary of Scheuer's proposal (The Scheuer Proposal) is that the U.S. must reduce its foreign commitments and to first focus on domestic security, including stationing the Army along America's borders. Problems with U.S. foreign policy include operating without regard to the best interests of the country and also budget limitations. Simultaneously, the country would begin to take steps to reduce oil dependency. Then the U.S. would prepare to defeat its enemies such as Al-Qaeda. (That is my summary of his proposal, not endorsement.)
Among other things, the Proposal calls for effective use of intelligence assets and willingness to use the military differently, more violently. The Scheuer Proposal is filled with surprises and brings into question to what extent it speaks for the intelligence community as a whole.
The author says foreign policy is going to become more important, not less. He wants America to change its message to Muslims by changing foreign policy. This means, among other things, to stop the current brand of support provided to Israel and to remove troops from the Arabian Peninsula. The wars, he says, are lost regardless - that we're in a fourth generation war where adversaries have a scorched earth strategy, leaving nothing for the occupier to occupy anyway. Remarkably, he goes much further and includes Russia, China and India as countries against Islam that the U.S. supports. Even so, he concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid an even more violent war with Islam.
In my view, the Scheuer Proposal cuts across so many emotional pressure points that Scheuer is guaranteed to get the attention of Middle America this time. I think the least contentious point is to change the way the President and Congress use the intelligence information and assets provided by taxpayers at great expense. The most controversial point is probably assignment of blame to Israeli lobbyists for encouraging the war in Iraq. (Notably Scheuer does not blame these lobbyists for the mismanagement of same. He also says this has made Israel less secure.) And the weakest point of the Scheuer Proposal is probably the lack of specifics for how the U.S. will reduce its energy dependency. The Scheuer Proposal relies heavily on a successful new energy policy.
Possibly Scheuer thinks hell is our destiny as the Proposal holds that alarming horror is in our future. Such an approach from such a man attracts and holds the reader's interest as if by a spell.
Now Scheuer tells us where we're going. We're going to hell.
Marching Toward Hell claims that U.S. foreign policy is often based on faulty assumptions and is driven by some lobbyists whose interests are different than those of the American people. This book goes well beyond the themes of Imperial Hubris.
Dr. Scheuer's book merits 5 stars. He sacrificed his career at the CIA in order to publicly denounce the 9/11 Commission for having become politicized. He did this at a time when other insiders protected their careers and are only now coming out. He's also superb at explaining the relationship between the intelligence community and elected officials in the U.S.
Scholars take Scheuer seriously because of his 22-year career as a top intelligence analyst and also the success of his first book, Imperial Hubris. He stalked and studied Osama bin Laden (ObL) for years and urged superiors to remove ObL no less than 10 times when the opportunity arose. No action was taken each time for political reasons.
ObL has recommended Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris, to the American people in a taunting missive. Marching Toward Hell strikes back with recommendations aimed at helping the American people to wise up.
According to Scheuer, U.S. policymakers still prefer to present the bin Laden Movement as a lunatic fringe even though it has broad appeal in the Islamic world. Also, U.S. support of Israel and U.S. troop presence contributes to the popular perception within the Muslim world that the West is bent on destroying Islam.
As if that wasn't disturbing enough, Scheuer says that some officials possibly never intended to win in Iraq (and certainly not before the 2004 presidential election). Otherwise, more troops would have been sent. While the logic of this argument is irrefutable, it is almost too disturbing to think about.
Other points: the fact that very few political leaders have children serving in the wars is disturbing on many levels; the divide in the U.S. between the political elite and the rest of the people has never been wider; and young people will be sent to war in the coming 8 years regardless of election results.
Scheuer concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid war with Islamists, that it will be much more violent that what we've seen so far, and also that it's too late to win in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Scheuer is angry for several reasons including the reluctance of Americans to understand Muslim viewpoints, the Bush administration dismissal of Middle East experts' wisdom and advice, and the lack of political leadership regarding energy policy.
Marching Toward Hell includes a thoughtful proposal that is already being discussed seriously in the nation's universities. A summary of Scheuer's proposal (The Scheuer Proposal) is that the U.S. must reduce its foreign commitments and to first focus on domestic security, including stationing the Army along America's borders. Problems with U.S. foreign policy include operating without regard to the best interests of the country and also budget limitations. Simultaneously, the country would begin to take steps to reduce oil dependency. Then the U.S. would prepare to defeat its enemies such as Al-Qaeda. (That is my summary of his proposal, not endorsement.)
Among other things, the Proposal calls for effective use of intelligence assets and willingness to use the military differently, more violently. The Scheuer Proposal is filled with surprises and brings into question to what extent it speaks for the intelligence community as a whole.
The author says foreign policy is going to become more important, not less. He wants America to change its message to Muslims by changing foreign policy. This means, among other things, to stop the current brand of support provided to Israel and to remove troops from the Arabian Peninsula. The wars, he says, are lost regardless - that we're in a fourth generation war where adversaries have a scorched earth strategy, leaving nothing for the occupier to occupy anyway. Remarkably, he goes much further and includes Russia, China and India as countries against Islam that the U.S. supports. Even so, he concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid an even more violent war with Islam.
In my view, the Scheuer Proposal cuts across so many emotional pressure points that Scheuer is guaranteed to get the attention of Middle America this time. I think the least contentious point is to change the way the President and Congress use the intelligence information and assets provided by taxpayers at great expense. The most controversial point is probably assignment of blame to Israeli lobbyists for encouraging the war in Iraq. (Notably Scheuer does not blame these lobbyists for the mismanagement of same. He also says this has made Israel less secure.) And the weakest point of the Scheuer Proposal is probably the lack of specifics for how the U.S. will reduce its energy dependency. The Scheuer Proposal relies heavily on a successful new energy policy.
Possibly Scheuer thinks hell is our destiny as the Proposal holds that alarming horror is in our future. Such an approach from such a man attracts and holds the reader's interest as if by a spell.
52 von 55 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Admirable diagnosis, questionable prescription
5. April 2008
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
Well, Michael Scheuer certainly doesn't pull his punches. As a former CIA officer, he was in a position to know a lot more than most people about what was going on before and after 9/11, in the Middle East and in Washington and Langley. He also reads widely in world history and politics (A favorite author is Machiavelli). His verdict, delivered with a pen often dipped in acid, is discouraging. Basically, he finds all our recent presidents failing their prime duty to (a) understand reality in foreign affairs (b) focus completely on what serves America's interests and ignore anything else. The wellbeing of other states, for instance Israel, is not our concern, and we certainly have no role in trying to export our political system to other countries.
His diagnosis of our current troubles is clearly accurate. I've always been astonished that Bush could get away with claiming that Muslim activists hate us because they don't like out freedom or social structure. As Scheuer points out, they have made it perfectly clear that are not really interested in what kind of society the infidels choose to live in - in fact they are somewhat ambivalent about it, liking some aspects but considering it decadent - but they are infuriated by the presence of non Muslim troops in their own countries. They also feel their oil has been sold off cheaply and the profits have benefited only rich, decadent and corrupt rulers like the House of Saud. And of course there is the one-sided US support of Israel.
However, his prescription is one that many will find far off track. He has a good analysis of some of our military problems as being related to the hangover of a "Cold War" mentality - hostility between well-defined, technically advanced, nation-states, and how this does not fit the Middle East. Well, that's convincing - who was it said that generals are always ready to fight the last war, but not this one? But he thinks that the only way to win the "war on terror" is to apply rapid and overwhelming force. Anything less, he feels, causes an opponent - especially those who are accustomed to living with much violence and respect force - to think you are weak and step up their efforts. In this he considers civilian casualties, while regrettable, of minor importance. For instance, his approach to Afghanistan in 2001 would have been dramatic - reduce Kabul and Kandahar to rubble and strew salt over the remains. Strong hint of using nukes for this. He fully approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
He optimistically thinks this kind of action would be a knock-out punch that would save us from further troubles. It's surprising that he doesn't consider what an incredible reaction of horror in the whole world - including our allies - this would provoke. That, he may not care about: but what about the fury throughout the Muslim world, which as he well knows, contains over a billion individuals - three times the population of the US! Also, in 2008, where would you aim such a blow anyway? The Iraq and Afghanistan insurgencies are widely-based and it's hard to see a defined target.
Other weird ideas include sealing off some Middle Eastern borders - has he ever seen those mountains? and our Mexican and Canadian ones, with no particular evidence that these two countries are terrorist entry points. Besides, making the land entry difficult will just make it more attractive to send that little old cargo ship into a major port with something very nasty in its hold.
To me, because there is really no practical defense against that last kind of attack, it makes much more sense to do what Scheuer cannot bring himself, in his macho attitude, to consider: actually address some of the reasons that Muslims are so angry with the US. He seems to understand them well enough. He has just read too many mailed-fist writers in the ancient and modern military fields.
But read this book, because whether you agree with him or not he gives a consistent viewpoint and much fascinating information.
His diagnosis of our current troubles is clearly accurate. I've always been astonished that Bush could get away with claiming that Muslim activists hate us because they don't like out freedom or social structure. As Scheuer points out, they have made it perfectly clear that are not really interested in what kind of society the infidels choose to live in - in fact they are somewhat ambivalent about it, liking some aspects but considering it decadent - but they are infuriated by the presence of non Muslim troops in their own countries. They also feel their oil has been sold off cheaply and the profits have benefited only rich, decadent and corrupt rulers like the House of Saud. And of course there is the one-sided US support of Israel.
However, his prescription is one that many will find far off track. He has a good analysis of some of our military problems as being related to the hangover of a "Cold War" mentality - hostility between well-defined, technically advanced, nation-states, and how this does not fit the Middle East. Well, that's convincing - who was it said that generals are always ready to fight the last war, but not this one? But he thinks that the only way to win the "war on terror" is to apply rapid and overwhelming force. Anything less, he feels, causes an opponent - especially those who are accustomed to living with much violence and respect force - to think you are weak and step up their efforts. In this he considers civilian casualties, while regrettable, of minor importance. For instance, his approach to Afghanistan in 2001 would have been dramatic - reduce Kabul and Kandahar to rubble and strew salt over the remains. Strong hint of using nukes for this. He fully approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
He optimistically thinks this kind of action would be a knock-out punch that would save us from further troubles. It's surprising that he doesn't consider what an incredible reaction of horror in the whole world - including our allies - this would provoke. That, he may not care about: but what about the fury throughout the Muslim world, which as he well knows, contains over a billion individuals - three times the population of the US! Also, in 2008, where would you aim such a blow anyway? The Iraq and Afghanistan insurgencies are widely-based and it's hard to see a defined target.
Other weird ideas include sealing off some Middle Eastern borders - has he ever seen those mountains? and our Mexican and Canadian ones, with no particular evidence that these two countries are terrorist entry points. Besides, making the land entry difficult will just make it more attractive to send that little old cargo ship into a major port with something very nasty in its hold.
To me, because there is really no practical defense against that last kind of attack, it makes much more sense to do what Scheuer cannot bring himself, in his macho attitude, to consider: actually address some of the reasons that Muslims are so angry with the US. He seems to understand them well enough. He has just read too many mailed-fist writers in the ancient and modern military fields.
But read this book, because whether you agree with him or not he gives a consistent viewpoint and much fascinating information.
88 von 99 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Outstanding and Very Timely!
14. Februar 2008
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
Scheurer's CIA career and innate intellect combine in "Marching Toward Hell" to create an outstanding and very timely book. He begins by pointing out that our bipartisan governing elite has an unquenchable ardor to have the U.S. intervene abroad in all places. Some prefer diplomatic, others military, humanitarian, covert, and/or foreign aid mixed with Christian proselytizing. The result is that we live in a prolonged Cold War hangover that creates more problems than it solves.
Scheuer's intent in the book is to reconstruct how the U.S. found itself with an untenable set of foreign policies and national security strategies on 9/11, and to explain the costs of trying to maintain them.
U.S. ties to Israel, a state that contributes nothing to America's economic welfare or strategic security, are absurd, per Scheuer. Responding to those claiming Israel has a "right to exist," he states that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" applies; further, "Are we to also resuscitate the USSR, Sparta, etc.?" "You form your country, and you take your chances."
The second major nonsensical decision that burdens America is our doing little in response to the '73 oil embargo. Thus, we have ended up playing both sides (Israel vs. the Arab states) in a religious fight-to-the-finish.
American policies are further undermined by human rights groups - eg. they pushed the Senate to pursue human rights for Afghan women instead of us being able to try to get the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. Other secondary issues have stayed our hand numerous times - eg. blowing up Iraq's Intelligence Service headquarters at night (minimize casualties) in response to its effort to assassinate Bush I in Kuwait, and calling off multiple efforts to kill Bin Laden.
Scheuer believes we have lost both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and that launching the Iraq War was a major blunder. Further, we need to stop believing that a "post-war Marshal Plan" will change the hearts and minds of Arabs - not unless we stop backing Arab tyrants and Israel.
As for Europe, Scheuer sees it becoming overrun by Muslim immigrants and their children. Meanwhile, its support for the U.S. is weakening - witness the recent fall of supporting leaders in the U.K., Spain, and Poland.
Concluding, Scheuer states that Islam is the fastest growing religion, U.S. officials have lied to citizens (providing erroneous reasons why terrorists hate us - eg. "they hate democracy)," instead of telling the truth while counteracting terrorists, and the U.S. is VERY vulnerable to more terrorism subce we've cut funding to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons, failed to close our borders, and failed to even propose an effective energy policy.
As for "preventing follow-up terrorist attacks in the U.S.," Scheuer is unimpressed - they're simply defeating us without bombs, through dragging us down towards bankruptcy. His recommendation - focus on "America first" - issues that truly threaten our survival.
Scheuer's intent in the book is to reconstruct how the U.S. found itself with an untenable set of foreign policies and national security strategies on 9/11, and to explain the costs of trying to maintain them.
U.S. ties to Israel, a state that contributes nothing to America's economic welfare or strategic security, are absurd, per Scheuer. Responding to those claiming Israel has a "right to exist," he states that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" applies; further, "Are we to also resuscitate the USSR, Sparta, etc.?" "You form your country, and you take your chances."
The second major nonsensical decision that burdens America is our doing little in response to the '73 oil embargo. Thus, we have ended up playing both sides (Israel vs. the Arab states) in a religious fight-to-the-finish.
American policies are further undermined by human rights groups - eg. they pushed the Senate to pursue human rights for Afghan women instead of us being able to try to get the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. Other secondary issues have stayed our hand numerous times - eg. blowing up Iraq's Intelligence Service headquarters at night (minimize casualties) in response to its effort to assassinate Bush I in Kuwait, and calling off multiple efforts to kill Bin Laden.
Scheuer believes we have lost both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and that launching the Iraq War was a major blunder. Further, we need to stop believing that a "post-war Marshal Plan" will change the hearts and minds of Arabs - not unless we stop backing Arab tyrants and Israel.
As for Europe, Scheuer sees it becoming overrun by Muslim immigrants and their children. Meanwhile, its support for the U.S. is weakening - witness the recent fall of supporting leaders in the U.K., Spain, and Poland.
Concluding, Scheuer states that Islam is the fastest growing religion, U.S. officials have lied to citizens (providing erroneous reasons why terrorists hate us - eg. "they hate democracy)," instead of telling the truth while counteracting terrorists, and the U.S. is VERY vulnerable to more terrorism subce we've cut funding to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons, failed to close our borders, and failed to even propose an effective energy policy.
As for "preventing follow-up terrorist attacks in the U.S.," Scheuer is unimpressed - they're simply defeating us without bombs, through dragging us down towards bankruptcy. His recommendation - focus on "America first" - issues that truly threaten our survival.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?
Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Anhand des Sachgebietes nach ähnlichen Produkten suchen:
Ihr Kommentar
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
|
