Finishing Business: Ten Steps to Defeat Global Terror

I rated this book 5* because even though it spells out 10 steps to Defeat Global Terror,it does an excellent job of detailing the approach that has been going on ever since the end of WWII,in dealing with the enemies of the Western World. The whole idea of blameing those who are being attacked rather than those who are doing the attacking ,taking the approach that the attacker needs to be understood rather than destroyed,only extends the time,and cost in lives and resources to eliminate it. We saw this clearly with the march of Nazism,Fascism,Japanese Imperialism and Marxism. No amount of money,understanding,appeasement,negotiating,agreements;would ever had any effect in changing the will or intent of these evil powers. It took too long for that to happen,and in the end it was nothing short of a total commitment to destroy them ,that resulted in victory. The stated object, of total destruction of western civilization, by Islam,attacks throughout Europe,Southwest Asia and America,are nothing short of declarations of war,and no different than we saw during the 1920's and 1930's ;and until they are taken as such;the future will be no different than it was then. All that is proposed in this book is more of the same thing that has encouraged the enemy to continue on its present path. This book scapegoats Bush over and over again as if he is the problem. This war by Islam was well underway many years before Bush came to power and will continue long after his Presidency is up.Which,by the way,is less than a year away---then who to blame? How much has been spent to date by the US .Well over $400 Billion. What have most other countries done;other than to critcize America and Bush. The message is quite clear;they would be pleased if the US lost the fight,as would many on the Left and in the media. Their heads are in the sand,if they don't understand these forces are not only out to destroy Bush and America,but themselves as well. This book proposes huge increases in Bureauracy,American Funds,restructuring of organizations similar to the adage of "Rearranging Deckchairs on the Titanic",huge increases in security,that can never be enough to guarantee total protection,proposing that the UN and NATO will solve the problem,and on and on . This war that Islam has embarked on must be confronted head on with the destruction of the evils they are intent on subjecting on others,and not a condition that needs to be "understood". This book follows the thinking of Neville Chamberlain who said; "In war,whichever side may call itself the victor,there are no winners but all are losers." Just imagine if the Nazis,Fascists,Marxists or Imperial Japan had won-- -now imagine if Islam were to triumph. Where are the leaders today who safeguarded the Liberties and Freedoms we now enjoy.Here's what they had to say; "In war there is no subsitute for victory" Dwight D. Eisenhower "In war there is no second prize for runner-up."General Omar Bradle

C-Span2 Book TV has an excellent author event available. The author is very articulate and the book is brilliant. Some of the main points of the book are listed below. 1. We do not understand the danger of terrorism. We are dealing with a political movement with political ambitions. The terrorists are using religion as a cover. 2. Our government needs major reforms. Discipline and accountability has to be a responsibility of government officials. 3. We need to change our focus from national defense to national security. We need to form a national security university. 4. We need better ways to respond globally to the terrorism threat. We need to rejuvenate NATO. NATO now has a global mission. 5. The danger is in the Middle East. The real terrorist threat is to the Middle East, not so much to the USA mainland.

This book is brilliant in multiple ways. It gives insights to many otherwise puzzling events in the recent past. Unfortunately, perhaps in the rush to get it to press while still topical, the editing is dreadful and makes the book a Murmansk run for the reader. Example from page 42: "After the terrorist attacks, had Al Gore been president, it is unlikely that he would have had little option except to go after al Qaeda in Afganistan." I read that to mean that he'd have had other options, but who knows? The flying leaps from topic to topic, often even within a single paragraph lead one either to give up and skim downwind touching only the wavetop highlights or beat to windward through mounting syntactic surf in trying to follow the argument. Ever hear of transitions ? (Usually taught in freshman comp.) The obscure syntax sometimes reads as if English were an almost-mastered second language to Ullman. As a current member of the Naval Institute and a fan of Ullman's work, I am embarassed by the egregious editing failures of this otherwise outstanding work. The Naval Institute has failed Ullman. His work deserves better.

Outstanding book with great insights into political options. Extremely timely and highly recommended.

First, let me just list the people whose names appear on the back of the book making comments on the the book and/or its author. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Former National Security Advisor John Lehman, Former Secretary of the Navy Anthony Zinni, Former Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence John Hamre, Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense. The theme of the book is far different, far more wide ranging and comprehensive than most of the writing on the subject, far more than television coverage shows, and infinitely more than the gibberish that was the election rhetoric. The book says that the War on Terror, like our Wars on drugs, poverty, crime and other social ills is so far a war on symptoms, not on a cause. And unless some dramatic changes in the thought processes of those in charge, is likely to be just as ineffective. Dr. Ullman defines the danger as Jihadist Extremism, a polititial ideology just as Bolshevism or Nazism, with a thin veneer of religion that is intent on establishing some form of a fundamentalist state backed by Saudi oil money, with an almost unlimited supply of radical young men from Africa to Indonesia, and potentially with nuclear weapons from the Pakistani arsenal. To fight such forces will require a fundamental change in the way the United States and the rest of the world addresses the problem. To go on further would require that this review be nearly as long as the book itself. Let me just conclude that this book has the ring of George Kennan, Paul Nitze, Herman Kahn and Henry Kissinger in their early days of defining the danger of the post World War II Soviet Union. The country will ignore this book at its peril.