I've been juggling these two books because they have a similar theme - basically both authors attack the Bush administration's attempts to take on the spectre of terrorism. The first book, "Overblown," is by Dr. John Mueller. You can tell he's a PhD (Ohio State Univ) because his subtitle is so long: "How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them." So you can probably see where this is going...
Mueller has a habit of exaggerating some of Bush's excesses, but the purpose of this is clear. He resents (as do I) how some Very Serious People use the term "existential threat" to describe the threat of terrorism, when (as compared to so many other threats) the capability of a terrorist group to defeat a nation is hardly possible, even with "weapons of mass destruction." He uses a great deal of statistics and quotes, and the book is well-footnoted. He goes on a great deal about the "terrorism industry" - and certainly, there is one, although most analysts don't like to mention it.
Mueller talks about how politicians and military-industrial types have used McCarthy's Commie-hunting and the Cold War nuclear threat to similarly drive public agendas of fear. He has an alternative policy approach, of course. He wants us to put risks in the right context, with reasoned discussion (as opposed to hysteria) with the public. Given the exaggerated threat, the impact on society, and the possibility for escalation into truly dangerous areas (such as attacking Iran as an extention of this foolish appproach), he believes there's a better way.
The second book, "Winning the Un-War," is by Charles Pena. In addition to having a much shorter subtitle, this one is a little more objective, more aimed at examining how we're prosecuting "The Long War." Like many, Pena is tired of politicians talking about this amorphous mass called "terrorists" when it is clearly al Qaeda that is the focus. Similar to Mueller, he takes a close look at the statements of threat and finds them overrated, and in particular, the charges that led us into Iraq in 2003.
The weakest part of the book is where Pena tries to demonstrate how the US military could be cut down in size and equipment in order to allow for funds that might be spent more wisely against the "un-war" on terror. Pena has some good analysis in this book, but discussing force restructuring is not his forte'. Fortunately, this section is short and he gets back on track, talking about the strengths and weaknesses of terrorist organizations and proposing a regional strategy to defeat terrorists and their support. For instance, he suggests that some nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Uzbekastan, ought to be treated less as a close ally due to their failure to embrace basic rights (and thus represent a breeding pool for terrorism).
Finally Pena examines US homeland security efforts, and again, this may not be his strong point, but he does quickly review the horizon. He notes (accurately) that the myopic focus on WMDs allows the US government to overlook other, more prominent threats such as air defense missiles, radioactive material, and attacks against chemical facilities. He suggests that, while not all of the PATRIOT act is bad, certainly there are sections that need to be reviewed and stripped out, given the abuse of priviledges that we have seen to date.
Both of these books are solid, good reads, not too preachy, not too academic, and the authors build a persuasive case. If you're annoyed by the ridiculous arguments that we hear so often on the right about the War on Terror(TM), these books will offer a good discussion on the issues to which to rebut the right. Our nation is not more secure today after more than six years of the Bush administration's actions. These two authors demonstrate where it has failed and where the next administration can do better.
The average American is more endangered by a bath-tub slip or a lightning strike than by a terrorist act, yet Homeland Security maintains an "elevated" threat level while stating that there is no specific threat, and corporate welfare payments to counter the elevated non-threatening threat increase exponentially (which is the goal).
Posted by: Don Bacon | 17 August 2008 at 06:37 PM