Imperial Hubris: Why The West Is Losing War On Terror; by Michael Scheuer.

The official description of the book goes :-

["Though U.S. leaders try to convince the world of their success in fighting al Qaeda, one anonymous member of the U.S. intelligence community would like to inform the public that we are, in fact, losing the war on terror. Further, until U.S. leaders recognize the errant path they have irresponsibly chosen, he says, our enemies will only grow stronger. According to the author, the greatest danger for Americans confronting the Islamist threat is to believe—at the urging of U.S. leaders—that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do. Blustering political rhetoric “informs” the public that the Islamists are offended by the Western world’s democratic freedoms, civil liberties, inter-mingling of genders, and separation of church and state. However, although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims, no Islamist leader has fomented jihad to destroy participatory democracy, for example, the national association of credit unions, or coed universities. Instead, a growing segment of the Islamic world strenuously disapproves of specific U.S. policies and their attendant military, political, and economic implications. Capitalizing on growing anti-U.S. animosity, Osama bin Laden’s genius lies not simply in calling for jihad, but in articulating a consistent and convincing case that Islam is under attack by America. Al Qaeda’s public statements condemn America’s protection of corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Bin Laden’s supporters thus identify their problem and believe their solution lies in war. Anonymous contends they will go to any length, not to destroy our secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific attacks on their lands, their communities, and their religion. Unless U.S. leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, even moderate Muslims will join the bin Laden camp. Download the Complete Bibliography for this book."]

It is always more comforting to find a way out of having to fight, especially when the war is not for immediately perceived gains. With a Vietnam still fresh in memory, and the overall reluctance of the US public and corporate powers alike to get involved in any matters where such gains or comforts, luxuries, perceived needs of US people are not involved (recall the extreme reluctance of US to get in both the world wars no matter how necessary), it is tempting to make a truce and try a sharing of the world - you guys rule this and this, the other guy takes that and that, US keeps what remains.

But what if this truce is never enough and salami tactics (read Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister) is what the other guy is using, along with a strategy following that of totalitarian regimes (given explicitly in Zbiegniew Brzezinski's Permanent Purge) generally followed in restricted regions but very well applicable to the whole world when a totalitarian regime would impose itself on the whole world and destroy civilisation as we know it.

Far fetched this is not - recall that Neville Chamberlain, the then prime minister of England, (which means UK, Great Britain, British Empire, the whole kit and caboodle) returned back from his peace talks triumphant, having (along with the French leader) browbeaten Czechoslovakia to accept being invaded in the interest of peace for England and France and the world. Or so he thought, not having read or not having taken seriously the opponents's declaration of intentions clearly stated in his book (still sold everywhere except in Germany where it is illegal).

So, all in all, what if this pretty and comfortable scenario is not entirely correct? What if, while most of Muslims want peace (in their way and on their terms, which amounts to not tolerating "other" people around, not allowing "other" faiths to exist around, forcing women in the two out of three nazi kkk's - no kirche, only kinder and küche, justifying killing of those that they don't want around in name of faith, ...), the Taliban and Al Qaeda and so forth merely use any and every excuse to get whatever young males they can find to join for jihad, and no matter what you do it is a never ending story?

For, that is very likely to be the realistic scenario. It is all very well going on about poor Pakistanis, but the nation received several billion dollars of free aid apart from arms, all unaccounted for (unless attacking India in a proxy war with terrorists trained and supplied with agenda, transport and arms, with second to second instructions about next minute strategy on cell phones from Pakistan high up, takes care of accounting), so someone has to ask why the people are so poor Pakistan has to go on insisting on more aid at every opportunity for its poor.

The people are poor due to the military and the mostly west Punjab based power nexus has eaten up the moolah which leaves nothing for the poor and if that is to be encouraged do go on supplying them with "aid", taxpayers of US!

But ultimately you have to remember that being Gandhian - loving your enemy and giving in to each and all demands hoping they would wake up the conscience of the opponent - works only when you are not facing fascist, nazi or similar creeds of totalitarian dictatorship, with unfair rules and no compunctions about lies and fraud, and intentions of taking over the world.

However painful the memory of Vietnam for various reasons, the war did help to contain the spread of communism - or is it pleasant to imagine US surrounded by an ocean of the creed? Soviets survived with makeshift solutions (take Ukraine's harvest, wipe out Ukraine's people, there is more food and less mouths to feed) and this could very well have continued on world scale, but for the strong stance of US in Vietnam.

This is not to say everything was done right in Afghanistan, far from it; or that Iraq occupation must continue at all costs. A fresh look is necessary but it is not what the book - judging from the official description - proposes.

What is needed is to scrap the convenience first method of relying on military dictatorships simply in order to be able to bargain with bad guys - they won't care what they promised and can blackmail you right back, too - while allowing undermining of democracies that are succeeding, undermining them for fear of having other nations with healthy democracy and good economy around in other parts of the world.