Michael F. ScheuerReseñas

Mr. Scheuer was a senior U.S. Intelligence official in the CIA, and has clear positions on what is being done wrong, and what needs to be done, to keep America and American citizens safe. He is critical of the Bush Administrations simplistic position that "... they hate us because of our Freedoms...".

Instead, Mr. Scheuer points out that the writings and speeches of Al Qaeda indicate that the key issues continue to be the presence of U.S. troops in "Holy Lands", the U.S. unabashed, one-sided, and unquestioning unilateral support for anything Israel does, and the U.S. continuing support of repressive Arab regimes such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. To more and more Muslims, the U.S. championing of Human Rights is hypocritical in that it only applies to enemies, but does not appear to apply to pseudo-allies like Saudi Arabia, (since we need their oil), or Egypt (if they maintain a peace treaty with Israel). Scheuer points out that these are the issues which must be addressed, and the causes of our troubles.

While taking issue with the Bush policies, hard core Party loyalists from both the Republican as well as the Democratic sides of the aisle can take issue with "Marching Toward Hell". Mr. Scheuer is clearly a Reagen Republican, but while criticizing the current administration's handling of the war on terror following 9/11, he's no supporter of Clinton's earlier actions against Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda either. The common theme is that neither the current nor previous Administration, in this ex-CIA manager's opinion, have taken the appropriate steps to combat radical Islam, and if the US is to succeed, the Country must change it's approach.

It's true that many Muslims may be offended by aspects of Western culture, organizations such as al Qaeda are not fighting against us because of our democratic system of government, our civil liberties, gender equality, or our policy of separation of church and state. Those among them who preach violence are prompted by specific US military, political, and econimic policies that create antagonism in the Islamic world. Those strategies convince many into believing their communities, lands, and religion are under attack. Mr. Scheuer makes the argument that the longer we continue to fight and remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more enemies we are creating. He is a supporter of the earlier Powell policy of , if faced with war, go in with overwhelming force, win quickly, and get out. The auther states that if our leaders fail to recognize the true issues, and US policies and rhetoric do not change, the west will continue to lose the war on terror.

I read this at the beginning of 2005, which was a pretty good time given I read a good number of books. This was an interesting book. It discusses the issue with an emphasis on looking at it from Bin Laden's and the Middle East's point of view. It is clear that the author knows his material, which he presents in a thoughtful fashion with various examples to illustrate the arguments. He brings in history, political, cultural and other sources, many unclassified that anyone can read to show Bin Laden is not just a mere terrorist, but a competent leader of an Islamist insurgency. He also points out that Muslims hate the U.S. for its policies, not for their democracy, contrary to what every other demagogue or politician would have us think. Overall, an excellent book that more people should be reading to better understand the real nature of Al Qaeda's threat to the U.S.

Michael Scheuer's previously brilliant analyses of al-Qaeda and the War on Terror, notwithstanding the author's bourgeois, imperialist bias, really deteriorated in this book. Don't even bother picking this book up.

The original version published 2002 with the author listed as Anonymous.

For all of it's clout, I frankly did not find this book very interesting or very convincing. Rather, it sounded like the author had a bone to pick with his former employers.

I actually read this sometime in 2003, but the image is still in my head (God how I hate penmanship lessons). At any rate this book provides an insightful look into the thought process of how the American mind looks at both itself and the world.

Scheuer does not disappoint here in his biography of bin Laden. The work highlights primary sources and dispels common misconceptions about bin Laden perpetuated by the naive and misguided Obama regime.

Scheuer outlines five narratives about Osama: The "Old Hands" Narrative, The "Former Comrades" Narrative, The Riyadh Narrative, The Imperialist Narrative, and The "bin Laden Experts" Narratives. Scheuer does not agree with any of these narratives but his biography does attempt to give weight to what bin Laden actually said and did in the bin Laden era. Some of the best known works on bin Laden, Steve Coll's account on the family for example, is taken to task for quoting extensively from Osama's enemies, while downplaying what bin Laden has stated himself (pp. 19-20). Bin Laden provides an Islamist framework to extend the reach of an international, movement although Scheuer stops short of maintaining that bin Laden could usher in a Caliphate. Based on the evidence provided by Scheuer though it is conceivable.

The most important element of the work is as a corrective though of the commonplace, though mistaken narratives.

Chechnya, pp. 67, 73, 180

I'd give this a miss, especially if you have read his previous volume, Imperial Hubris. This ex-CIA analyst is one enormous, relentless pain in the ass. (Please note he was an analyst, an Arabist, and not with any operational duties. )He is/was/will be always right. You certainly can't slot him into any political grouping: both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Tenet, Cheney, Steve Coll, the FBI, Congress, Republicans, Democrats ... except for Reagan, he hates 'em all equally vehemently.

Anyway, I would still seek out Scheuer's book on Osama bin Laden, which was scheduled to come out after this one. It must have been published shortly before Osama's death. One of Scheuer's more persuasive complaints is that mere translations of Osama's words don't convey very much to non-believers and non-Arabic speakers; more important are Osama's specific Koranic references and their impact on listeners.

Even if your grasp of Arabic is good, as is the case with many Western journalists nowadays (think Tony Shadid or Azadeh Moaveni), deep knowledge of the Koran is something else altogether. Let's see if Scheuer can do a better job.

An interesting biography of bin Laden by the former head of the CIA bin Laden Unit. Scheuer believes the West continually underestimates and demonizes bin Laden rather then attempting to understand his motives, causing the West to be more vulnerable. This isn't a book you can enjoy, but it's a good book to read if you want to understand the continuing "war on terror." While a good book, I don't think it equals Scheuer's earlier, Imperial Hubris or Marching Toward Hell, both of which I highly recommend.

Bad timing in that the book was released just a few months before OBL's death. Still worth reading however.

Whether as man or myth, arguably no one since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has more profoundly affected American daily life than Osama bin Laden. As author Michael Scheuer argues cogently in his new biography of bin Laden, since his formal declaration of war against the United States in 1996, bin Laden has deliberately drawn America into armed conflicts of varying durations but substantial costs in Africa, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Since past is present's prologue, likely bin Laden will goad further American military action in the turmoils currently roiling north Africa and the Middle East. Using a plethora of authoritative sources, including most importantly the words and writings of bin Laden himself, Scheuer demonstrates that bin Laden attempts these manipulations to lure America into ruinous wars where victory is ever elusive but the prolonged loss of American blood and treasure is assured. In this concise and well-written book, former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit Scheuer presents a compelling argument that American political, military and media leaders are engaged in mortal combat with a fabricated enemy of their own creation and preference, instead of with bin Laden himself. Scheuer's book is a valiant effort to present bin Laden the man, rather than the phantasm he's become in many American minds. Only when America understands the man and his true motives, strengths and limitations, says Scheuer, can America engage and defeat bin Laden in realistic and definitive terms. As America finds itself mired in the second decade of a multi-front Al Qaeda War bin Laden began during the Clinton administration, Scheuer's book should be mandatory reading both for anyone curious why this war rages on without seeming end, and for American politicians and generals eager to fight the enemy they have, rather than the one they imagine.

Michael Scheuer who worked in the “bin Laden” unit while with the CIA has continued is interest if not constant focus on Osama bin Laden. This is not necessarily a bad thing and in his book we have what is the first objective biography of the man who has declared war on not just the U.S.A. but on all who stand in the way of the teachings of Islam of eight hundred years ago. This includes the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I found this not to be the normal biography and read more like an intelligence briefing with the end notes being an important part of the book. We get a glimpse of Osama bin Laden the educated businessman, family man, farmer, Islamic solider and lover of nature. All that made him the intelligent and patient adversary Mr. Scheur pro-ports him to be. Along with his short biography is the author insight into the thinking and motivations of Osama bin Laden using the hundreds of pages of documents written by bin Laden himself and those close to him for his research.

We see through the writings and broadcast that Osama bin Laden has laid out his philosophy and plan of action and has done so in a way that the over one billion Muslims of the world can understand his reason based on their cultural and religious history. It is obvious that the author has tremendous respect for his subject yet knows he must be defeated. He points out many of the errors that are made by the western politicians and academia who have completely misread this man and his intentions. Though an insightful analysis and based on many facts there is still interpretations made on subjects that can only be known to the subject.

Having lived in Saudi Arabia I do know that many believe that America is a paper tiger that will leave as soon as the populace sees some casualties; as we did in Lebanon and Somalia. I do not judge these decisions for only the President, we hope, has an accurate assessment of all the facts at hand. Some of the author's assessments seem to not take account the logistical abilities that allow armies to deploy in strength. Though Osama bin Laden is the new and real threat the west faces this is a conflict that has been going on since the founding of Islam...and between other factions as far back as history has been recorded.

The author also seems to expect the reader to have a fundamental understanding of the players that have also been involved for over a decade in this conflict but it does shed some light on the man who is Osama bin Laden. An interesting overview on this complex man whose plans according to the author drew the west into war on Islamic lands.

This book does many things well. Namely, an analysis of what the middle eastern wars really are, and what the nature of these wars is really like. All of this does much to show the difference between the world we live in and how it is marketed to us. Scheuer, however, is not able to give us a very good plan for what needs to be done about the problems he brings up.½

Scheuer remains one of the most perceptive analysts about Bin Laden. On 7 January 2009, following his latest book, Marching, Scheuer warned the U.S. about Obama's choice of Leon Panetta as the head of CIA.

On CNN, Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer in charge of the hunt for Bin Laden is critical of former President Clinton and the man reported to be President-elect Obama's pick to head the CIA, Leon Panetta:

"He clearly has nothing on his curriculum vitae that suggests he should be the candidate for this job," Scheuer said. "It's not apparent he has any talent that is pertinent to the job."

Scheuer said Panetta's lack of experience could damage the agency and jeopardize national security.

"What Mr. Panetta's appointment says is that there's no urgency in the mind of the Obama administration that they think they can send somebody over there who can learn on the job and that the enemy will wait to attack us," he said."

Appearing on the Fox News' "Special Report," Scheuer stated:

"The agency officers will be well aware that bin Laden is a problem today because Mr. Panetta and Mr. Clinton and their colleagues chose to do nothing to protect America."

"Moscow puts heavy culpability on Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula states for funding Islamist insurgents organizations, allowing their nationals to fight alongside the Chechens and others in the region, and sending Islamist NGOs to the North Caucasus to inculcate Wahhabism among the inhabitants" (p. 169).

One of the few books personally approved of by Bin Laden himself who has praised the work as one of the few Western writers who understand him. Scheuer is one of the foremost experts on Bin Laden who tracked him for the CIA.

In the early 1980s, a Palestinian ideologue named Abdullah Azzam was coordinating the jihad from Peshawar, near the Afghanistan border. Azzam, who also taught at Islamabad’s International Islamic University, visited America numerous times during the 1980s, urging support for the war in Afghanistan .

Described as a charismatic orator, he told fanciful tales of Islamic warriors not being harmed by Soviet tanks and bullets, and slain martyrs whose corpses did not decay.

Azzam’s Peshawar center was known as the Afghan Bureau. His deputy and financier was a Saudi named Osama bin Laden. Azzam is regarded by many scholars as having laid the ideological groundwork for modern-day jihad. After his assassination in a 1989 bomb blast, bin Laden took over the bureau and developed what would become al-Qaeda.

Was the idealistic 19- or 20-year-old Barack Obama inquiring about the Afghanistan jihad?

I'm about a third of the way through it now and it's bordering on unreadable. And I really, really, enjoyed Imperial Hubris and other articles by Scheuer that I've read. I might get around to finishing this but Christ is it a whole lot of effort for not a lot of joy.

Short list of some of the things and people Scheuer despises up to page 110:

FBI (nosy, incompetent, actively sabotaging the CIA)
NSA (pretentious, not willing to do their job)
Entire Clinton administration (no balls)
Entire Bush administration (no clue)
All US Presidents since WWII with one exception (see below)
Europeans (a.k.a. land of "hedonistic atheists")
Non-Governmental Organizations (especially Amnesty International and other members of the "human rights mafia")
Academics (in particular just-war theorists)

Short list of some of the things and people Scheuer loves up to page 110:

Michael Scheuer
The CIA
Margaret Thatcher
Ronald Reagan

Apparently later on in the book he proposes a solution to protecting US from Al Qaeda which includes a crash program to set landmines along the entirety of the Mexican and Canadian borders. I can't wait.

Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer once upon a time in the late 90's was the chief of a unit tracking the whereabouts and deciphering the meanings of the words of Osama Bin Laden. In 'Imperial Hubris' he weighs mostly in on the events post 9-11 that has led the United States into two conflicts into which it seems we have cornered ourselves with no means of exit without making an even greater mess. Written in 2004 the book is very much dated in terms of current events. Even so what unfolds between the covers can be useful in understanding the mindset of Bin Laden and the people who have rallied to his cause.
Some of Scheuer's comparisons can be hard to digest--for instance Bin Laden in another era and time might = Robert E. Lee. Scheuer does though argue for the need to respect Bin Laden and his aims in order for us to come to a clear understanding of what he wants and how we are going to deal with him. Simply casting insults at him and his cohorts from afar is not going to make them go away--it is more likely to turn him into a kind of a boogeyman you use to terrify yourself and/or your children. In this respect Scheuer even makes clear his dislike for the term terrorists those he considers to be insurgents or soldiers of a fundamentalist Islam.

According to Scheuer Bin Laden has six reasons for targeting the United States that he has been clear and consistent about for many years. They are 1) American support of Israel against the Palestinians 2) American troops in the Arabian penisula 3) American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan 4) American support of other nations particularly Russia, China and India in their oppression of Muslims 5) American pressure on Arab states to keep oil prices low (well I guess we don't have to worry about that one anymore) 6) American support for apostate and tyrannical Muslim governments including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc. etc.

Scheuer goes on to argue that the reasons for 9-11 aren't as the Bush administration would like us to believe--that we were attacked because of who we are--the real reason is for what we are and have been doing in the Muslim world for many years. The hatred is policy oriented. He argues further that we will never be able to battle with him effectively until we look beyond all the rhetoric and start taking he and his comrades in arms seriously--something in his opinion the White House--intelligence bureaucrats, the media and politicians in general are loathe to do.

Amongst other things he suggests cutting ties--at least somewhat with the state of Israel. Making real efforts to end our energy dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Changing foreign policy so it is more even-handed. Deciding once and for all either to pull out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq or going after the insurgents in both countries in the most brutal way possible using as an example William T. Sherman's swathcutting through the South in the Civil War keeping in mind that perhaps hundreds of thousands of people are going to die including many many times what we've lost in lives of American soldiers. He suggests we will not win by pussyfooting around--that either way we will not build a democracy where one is not wanted--so we should strip ourselves of the illusions that we are the only good guys in this war between cultures. A couple excerpts:

'The U.S. approach to Afghanistan must be judged one that is suffused with arrogance. Knowing nothing of what we were getting into, we staged a mighty air attack followed by a dainty ground war that limited U.S. casualties but allowed most of the enemy to go home with their guns. We next installed a puppet regime in Kabul with no credible members from the largest Afghan ethnic group--from which Afghan rulers historically come--and assigned it the task of pushing a Westernized political agenda unacceptable to the Afghans' tribal traditions and offensive to Islam. (This will sound familiar to those watching developments in Iraq.) In sum, our policies and actions in Afghanistan have marginally reduced the mobility there of al Qaeda and the Taleban, have reinvigorated a broad, popular, and predictable xenophobia toward foreign occupation--even among the late Masood's men, the bulk of Karzai's military, who will not trade Russian for U.S. masters--and have ensured the United States must soon decide whether to exponentially increase its military presence and wage a destructive nationwide war, or tuck its tail and skedaddle for home a la Vietnam and Somalia. As matters stand, Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and their Gulf benefactors need expend only patience and the modest costs of insurgency to make America pay the extraordinary high price that, sadly, is the merited wages of arrogance and willful ignorance.' Goes on to quote Niall Ferguson describe America today as 'a colossus with an attention deficit syndrome'.

'What does it mean to be at war with Islam? It meands deadly, matter of survival businsess that must be taken more seriously than it has been to date. War is being waged on us because of what we, as a nation, are doing in the Islamic world. Bin Laden's September 1996 declaration of war specifies U.S. actions causing him to incite war. His declaration is a neutral, factual statement, parts of it like Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. As a sovereign state, the United States is free to decide and implement its policies and actions in the Muslim world. They have been designed by elected leaders to meet national interests, approved and funded by elected representatives, and validated repeatedly in presidential and congressional elections. To say America is responsible for the policies against which Islam is waging war is a truism, as it is to say that those policies have propelled us into a religious war. So, what does it mean to be in a war with Islam? First, it means we must accept this reality and act accordingly. Second, it means a U.S. policy status quo in the Muslim world ensures a gradually intensifying war for the forseeable future, one that will be far more costly than we now imagine. Third, it means we will have to publicly address issues--support for Israel, energy self sufficiency, and the worldwide applicability of our democracy--long neglected and certain to raise bitter, acrimonious debates that will decide whether the American way of life survives or shrinks to a crabbed, fearful, and barely recognizable form.'--then going on to say that our founding fathers knew well enough the costs of creating our country and that ideas about our way of life were not ones that could be assimiliated or easily assimilated elsewhere and that those founding fathers knew enough to leave well enough alone--that we should only be responsible for ourselves and our way of life.

So there is a lot to digest here and having finished it yesterday I don't think I've quite reached the point of full digestion. I liked it for the most part--agreed with most of its analyses but think I will be brooding over this one for some time.

Outstanding book by the formerly "Anonymous" head of the CIA's Bin Laden office.

Fabulous early analysis of US activities in what we know as the Middle East. (Ever think - middle and east of what?)½

Scheuer is a strange fellow, I think, but he knows his business (Osama bin Laden) quite well. Far better than the decision makers in the Bush administration. A coldly realistic but rather too masculinist take on the war on terror.

The single most important work on terrorism written by the foremost tracker of Bin Laden who retired from the CIA. Scheuer critically points out that the West should not dismiss Bin Laden nor underestimate him. Scheuer's analysis is timely and right on the money. His description of Pakistan for example, although written in 2007, still very much applies and he predicted, correctly, that al Qaeda will be resilient.

His prose, although forceful, is clear. According to Scheuer Bin Laden has six reasons for targeting the United States: 1) American support of Israel against the Palestinians; 2) American troops occupying the Arabian penisula; 3) American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; 4) American support of other nations particularly Russia, China and India in their oppression of Muslims; 5) American pressure on Arab states to keep oil prices artificially low (they are, in comparison with other countries); 6) and American support for apostate and tyrannical Muslim governments including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, among others.

In the early 1980s, a Palestinian ideologue named Abdullah Azzam (p. 76) was coordinating the jihad from Peshawar, near the Afghanistan border.

Azzam’s Peshawar center was known as the Afghan Bureau. His deputy and financier was a Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

Was the idealistic 19- or 20-year-old Barack Obama inquiring about the Afghanistan jihad?

There is a great deal to mull over in this work and Scheuer is a good example that qualified people at the analyst, and based on other evidence, in the field, levels continue to serve this country well. George Tenet, in his memoirs, remarks that Scheuer was six levels below him and therefore he did not heed Scheuer's warnings that Bin Laden, et. al., were becoming a much more significant threat. The failure of our leaders to heed the warnings by those at the operations and analyst levels led to the deaths of Americans.

Chechnya, pp. 12

"Chechnya is included to warn those in the West who believe the Islamist threat would dissipate if Bin Laden is captured or killed." Since 2002, after the Russians killed the leading Islamist Ibn-al-Khattab, the "pace and lethality" of attacks increased (p. 86).