The Last Crusade: Americanism and the Islamic Reformation

As a former student of the author, I was familiar with his writing style. As usual Prof. Palmer was scholarly and thorough in his hypothesis. Since I was a history teacher myself, it appealed to me. Useful to any teacher of the Middle Ages or Modern Western History.

"Imagine a civilization that once outstripped the West in virtually every measure before something `went wrong.' Imagine that civilization victimized by Western encroachment, colonialism, and imperialism. Imagine some lands of that once-great civilization still occupied in the 20th century by Westerners or their proxies.... By this point, you might have assumed that I am speaking of the Islamic world; actually, I am referring to China." Michael Palmer, "The Last Crusade." Michael Palmer delivers a book on the simplified history of the Middle East for the average reader. There are far more scholarly works on the history of the Middle East, but his readable, engaging style kept me rapt from the first page. Palmer points out gaping holes in jihadist thought. For example, take the rise of the Caliphate and its near destruction, not at the hands of crusaders but at the hands of the mongol hordes. Palmer also points out that the most influential technological revolution of the Middle Ages, the printing press, was made available to Christians and Jews living in the ummah, however, the Muslims were not. Palmer later argues this strategic error lead to intellectual economic growth across Europe, but left the Islamic world struggling to keep up. With strong military forces, the Islamic Caliphate was still able to control vast regions of land. However, the massive economic growth of European powers lead to the ability to field larger armies, which the Islamic world could not match due to the small economies which did not enjoy the same exponential growth. The Caliphate came to an end in 1929 when Turkey separated the government and religious aspects of Islam. For the first time in its history, Islam did not have a single leader that all Muslims could look to. As I was reading this book, a thought occurred to me, if the Caliphate were recreated today, who would lead it - a Sunni or a Shia? Palmer's final chapter identifies recent American policy decisions. Interestingly enough, Palmer points out it was President Clinton's administration that established the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - not President Bush. Palmer lays out the reasons behind the Iraq war beyond the WMD issue. The Middle East needs to change for the better, and Iraq is the right country to begin with. In summary, this book is an excellent academic summary of Islamic history, written in a style that the general public can understand.

The U.S. is engaged in a battle of ideals, trying to modernize the Islamic world - and THE LAST CRUSADE represents professor Michael Palmer's argument that America's goals are in direct conflict with Islamic principles. THE LAST CRUSADE provides the essential background history needed to understand the Muslim world's past up to present times, and makes a case for the fact that the 'Islamic reformation' is in fact happening - but with bin Laden and others reflecting this change. A striking survey, highly recommended for any definitive college-level holding on Islamic history, culture, or terrorism issues. Diane C. Donovan California Bookwatch

In this book, Michael Palmer makes some interesting points. He begins by explaining that there is a civilization that the West has outstripped recently. An Oriental one! And it is not the Islamic world, but China. It is worth noting that the Chinese are busy improving their society, not hijacking American airliners and flying them into American landmarks. The next point is that the jihadists are utopian, totalitarian, and anti-Semitic. Their main enemy is modernity, and the author believes that the jihadists will indeed fail. We're taught a little ancient history, so we can see something of the origins of Islam and its expansion. And Palmer says, quite reasonably, that Islam expanded as it did not primarily because of serendipitous military adventures against weak opponents but because of a sincere desire to be aggressive conquerors. After some of the history of wars between Islam and Christianity in Europe, we then read about America's war with the Barbary States. The war was a response to having Barbary pirates capturing American merchant ships (ironically, to having Africans sell white Americans into slavery). It seems that we Americans have fought an asymmetrical war against Islamic foes before. I was surprised to learn in this book that the original lyrics Francis Scott Key wrote to John Stafford Smith's music were not the Star Spangled Banner, but something quite different. One verse went as follows (imagine singing this to the tune of our national anthem!): "In the conflict resistless, each toil they endured, `Till their foes fled dismayed from the war's desolation: And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscured By the light of the Star Spangled flag of our nation. Where each radiant star gleamed a meteor of war, And the turbaned heads bowed to its terrible glare, Now mixed with the olive, the laurel shall wave, And form a bright wreath for the brows of the brave." Some more history of the region follows, although I found some of it to be unnecessarily oversimplified. And we then get to what many people consider to be the present war between Islam and the West. And there are several possible outcomes, including a Muslim Islamization of the West or a Muslim embrace of modernization. Here, we get to the book's conclusions. We've seen that war is an imitative form of human behavior. We Americans have fought and won an asymmetrical war against the American Indians, in a very brutal manner. In the war against the jihadists, we haven't even shown our cards yet, much less played them. That means that we may be in for a very brutal fight indeed. Palmer says that we'll probably win the war against the jihadists, and that the sooner we do so, the less brutal it will be. And that political divisions that make us reluctant to fight will, in the long run, cause more destruction and misery. It's an intriguing book. In spite of my many disagreements with parts of it, I recommend it.