America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies

STARTLING AND GRIPPING EXPOSE. Complex inter relations, bitter history, cultural clashes, espionage, quid quo pros, and killing. Cannot wait to read Chapter Two.

This book is the best overview of the current situation regarding the US war on terror and the war in Iraq (the two are part of the same.) At some 350 pages or so it can't be hugely in depth, but it packs in a lot of punch, epxlaining all the major and important trends. The writing is concise, straight to the point and lucid. For me it wasn't boring at all, although at times the seriousness of our situation was more than sobering. The book attempts to explain, in as unbiased a manner as possible, the strategic reasoning behind both America's and the terrorist's actions, how the war had its origins in the end of the Cold War, and how the two sides' strategies are playing out. It's an excellent primer for anyone who wants to know such things as: - What is Al-Qaeda, how did it start, and what does it want? (Basically a reinstating of the Abbasid Caliphate. The Afghanistan victory against the Soviets convinced radical Islam that it had the power to do this.) - What is Al-Qaeda's strategy for obtaining what it wants? (Don't expect any quarter or any scruples, their capabilities are limited so they make up for it with extremism, trying to provoke America into a much larger war with Islam in general. It's hard to deny someone a war when they want to kill you and try extremely hard to do so.) - What is America's strategy for dealing with Al-Qaeda? (Al-Qaeda is designed to be extremely survivable. Defeating it won't be easy or quick and will require a large amount of sacrifice and patience. Its survivability limits its effectiveness though, ensuring a long campaign.) - What role does the Iraq campaig play in the struggle? (It's become the equivalent of the Solomons campaign in the Pacific in WWII, or the battle of Stalingrad. It's losing its original strategic significance with both US and Al-Qaeda objectives being left unfulfilled, but it is becoming the campaign where the victor -although not the victory- is determined.) - What role do the Saudis play? (They have to fight Al-Qaeda since that's where Al-Qaeda's funding comes from. This would mean a civil war in the country. The Government, which is very detached from the highly Wahabi population, is trying to avoid this at all costs dragging the problem along even more. Stagnation and failure in Iraq means the Saudis won't stand up to Al-Qaeda because they will feel Al-Qaeda is more powerful / has stronger will to fight than America.) - What role does Iran play? (They hate us and want us destroyed. They hate Al-Qaeda too and want them destroyed. They are developing nuclear weapons. Worst case scenario? Play Al-Qaeda and America off each other, supporting both, one with weapons and the other with intelligence, and then step into the power vacuum.) The book is history and analysis rolled into one, starting with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and going to the present day. As such the parts explaining the more distant past are better than the parts explaining the present, since hindsigh

Once you begin to read this book, you will find it difficult to put down. Friedman writes clearly and forcefully about the real reasons why America invaded Iraq and the role that the invasion plays in the War on Terror. Friedman begins his narrative with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, a nightmare development that threatened to give the Soviets control of the Persian Gulf and to lead to America's expulsion from the Middle East. The Carter Administration recognized the strategic threat and began moving quickly to assemble an Islamist guerrilla force to bog down the Soviets in their own Vietnam. The US strategy was intensified by the Reagan Administration and ultimately proved successful, but it had the side effect of convincing the Islamists that they could, if they fought hard enough, topple a superpower. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War did much to enrage the Islamists, convincing them that their best chance of re-establishing an Islamic caliphate lay in provoking a war with the United States. Friedman's book explores the Byzantine details of American and Islamist Realpolitik in a fairly balanced way. He argues that the invasion of Iraq was not about WMDs or connections to Al Qaeda or even about oil, but was intended to show the Islamic world (and particularly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) that the United States meant business and that those who didn't get with the program were going to be dealt with very harshly. The fact that the United States has substantial ground and air forces within easy striking distance of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others, has no doubt been noticed by the leaders of those countries, dampening their enthusiasm for tolerating Al Qaeda. The details of this Realpolitik are not pretty. To facilitate the invasion of Afghanistan, the United States obtained Russia's permission to base troops in the Islamic states of the former Soviet Union--in exchange for which, America agreed to mute its criticism of Russia's excesses in Chechnya. After Islamist terrorists attacked the Indian parliament in New Delhi, America secured Pakistan's reluctant cooperation in the War on Terror by making it clear that the United States wouldn't mind very much if India launched a nuclear attack on Pakistan (if America didn't launch one first). The book contains numerous other examples of why America, Iran and other countries behave in ways that are portrayed in the newspapers as peculiar, but are actually quite understandable when taken in context. Although I think it is fair to say that Friedman is sympathetic with the Bush Administration's approach, he is not an apologist. He documents numerous strategic, tactical and intelligence failures in Iraq, not the least of which was the Administration's failure to appreciate the control that Iran exercised over Iraq's Shi'ite population. He is properly critical of the separation between the American political leadership and the sold

The fundamental premise of George Friedman's recent insightful book America's Secret War: Inside The Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America And Its Enemies is that the events of 9/11, the Afghanistan war and the Iraq War, are all inter-related and form a coherent pattern. Furthermore, as Friedman argues, the principal actors such as Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others are quite aware of what they are doing and are not, as the media would want us sometimes to believe, irrational human beings. We may not agree with their repugnant behavior at times, however, this does not translate into their being stupid, dumb or fools. Friedman is the founder of a global intelligence company, Stratfor that has provided considerable analytical consultations to Fortune 500 companies, as well as the US Government. He is in the business of analyzing information that his staff and contacts have gathered pertaining to strategic intelligence on global business, economic security and geopolitical affairs. As mentioned on its website, Stratfor delivers actionable intelligence rather than reactive information prevalent in much of the media today. It is with this in mind, that Friedman approaches his subject matter in order to provide a synthesis and make sense of what we have experienced these past few years and what lies ahead. From the very onset of the book, the author hammers home the point that we are engaged in a Global War, although it may not look like any of the previous wars. As the author quotes the renowned theorist of war, Karl von Clausewitz "War is politics carried out by other means." In other words, in order to make sense of wars you have to know something about the politics. Among the highlights of the book is Friedman's take on the Afghanistan War and the events leading up to the war. No doubt, according to Friedman, one of the principal reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was the war's length and brutality sapping its Army of its strength and credibility. However, what is more important, as Friedman states, is that it was here where "the base"- or "Al Qaeda" in Arabic, established their movement. Friedman informs us that one of the principal outcomes of the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan was the creation of experienced Islamist soldiers, many trained by American Special Force personnel, who were armed with captured Soviet weapons as well as American weapons. Drawing upon this inventory of soldiers and armament, bin Laden succeeded in putting together his fighting forces, which were quite eager to join the eventual Jihad against the United States and other non-Muslim countries. To add a little fuel to the fire, it should be pointed out, as Friedman does, that many of these operatives were left stranded after the war and found themselves in the unenviable situation of not being welcomed backed to wherever they may have originated. Moreover, according to Friedman, and no doubt in hind sight, the decision by

In "America's Secret War", George Friedman, the chairman of Stratfor, a private intelligence and information service, guides us through the intricacies of the origins and consequences of what he calls the `Fourth Global War'. He starts by comparing the war to a game of chess where, to the unknowledgeable, there are many possible opening moves, but to the initiated there are only a few. This is a book of current events and recent history. It is, by design, more informative than inspirational. Friedman has an opinion, not always expressed in his Stratfor reports, but it is not obvious. He claims, in the foreword that he is trying to be cold and objective, rather than passionate, and while he is successful in maintaining objectivity, his passion or intensity comes through. He challenges conventional wisdom with his allegations that Desert Storm was not about Iraq, but about Iran and her challenge to Saudi Arabia over who will be the leader of the Moslem world. In the West, he says the war was seen as a perfect example of modern statecraft with proper objectives and an exit strategy'. It had something for everyone. It appealed to three different groups, and to each within their own geopolitical constructs. For the `cold-warrior' perception of global politics the war was the proper defense of a Cold-War ally. For those who have a more Kissingerian realpolitik interpretation of the world saw the war as the proper containment of Iraq and of Saddam in balance of power terms. Finally the `End of History' post-modernists viewed the war as an expression of the multi-lateral `new world' working together against a rogue state. All of these views combined to make this a popular war in the West. Friedman says that what was not appreciated in this view was that the perception in the Moslem world was wholly different. In his opinion, the Islamic world saw this intervention as anti-Islamic rather than anti-Saddam and by supporting this use of `infidel' troops to pursue war against other Moslems the Saudis pushed the anti-Saudi fundamentalist factions over-the-top. These factions recruited disaffected, newly trained, mujahedin empowered by their successful pursuit of the anti-Soviet Afghan war to create the anti-western Al Qaeda organization. Al Qaeda is a working intelligence organization that pursues the goals of toppling the current Islamic regimes that they see as illegitimate, creating an uprising in the Moslem world and reestablishing the Caliphate. Friedman says that in spite of the errors we have made in the war, Al Qaeda has still failed to meet any of these objectives. According to Friedman, in the Clinton administration foreign policy was more about doing good things to help deserving people, than about pursuing America's national interests. As the worlds only superpower, war was now optional, to be pursued or declined at our option, since no enemy had the power, it was assumed, to force us into war. The attack on 9/11

I just finished reading this book when I saw the author on CNN this morning. Synchronicity. He was what I had expected: sharp, smart, to the point, and not self-evidently in the thrall of a particular political bias. In fact, this is what drew me to the book. In the introduction he makes a point of saying, "This is not a passionate book. Passion is overrated." Instead, his book is a coldly (and very provocatively) analytical look at the strategic chess match between the U.S. and Al Qaeda since 9-11. There were quite a few things I hadn't seen reported before about the Afghan War (B-52's as sky writers -- who knew?). He sees the Iraq war as a strategic flanking move aimed at influencing Saudi Arabia. Deep strategic thinking underlies the U.S. strategy there, but of course it's too complex and ruthless to explain or sell to the American people, so we got WMD. But it makes good cold sense, and Friedman describes and analyzes this new angle quite convincingly. He's a clean writer and an insightful thinker with access to a great deal of evidently fresh information. I like his lack of passion. The executives at MSNBC should take one of their screaming blowhards -- Joe Scarborough or Chris Matthews, take your pick -- and replace them with a real-deal analyst like Friedman. A voice of reason in an unreasoning time. I had never heard of George Friedman before grabbing his book off the shelf and striking gold. This book is full of smart analysis delivered straight. And it may just make you optimistic about the long-term prospects for the war against Islamo-fascism.