Utterly paranoid viewpoint from someone who cobbled together a book with a skewed viewpoint. I wouldn't be surprised that he feels black helecopters are hovering above his house.

Scheuer has long been arguing that Arab violence against the United States is "blowback" for US policies. It's not a matter of Muslims hating our freedoms or passages from the Koran inciting them; but rather, they hate that U.S. policy planners have supported a brutal occupation of Palestine (which degrades the security of both Israelis and, obviously, Palestinians)Washington Report on Middle East Affairs - Without Supplemen, we've propped up vicious dictators in countries like Saudi Arabia The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity, and we imposed sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq Iraq Under Siege, Updated Edition: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War. Scheuer sites policies that go back to 1973, but U.S. aggression in the region goes back much further. Authors like Stephen Kinzer point to 1953 as a pivotal moment, with the U.S. overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. Few are aware of the history of U.S. intervention in places like Lebanon, books like Seeds of Hate: How America's Flawed Middle East Policy Ignited the Jihad provide insight. And documentaries like Our Own Private Bin Laden illustrate how we gave birth to the militant Muslims. The West's meddling in the region, including Britain's, goes back even further.

Scheuer suggests that we in the U.S. have a "pacifist" media. He must have a different cable system than I do, because I regularly see warfare being glorified in movies like "Blackhawk Down" and on channels like the Military Channel. The military is the subject of idolatry during sporting events and in programs like JAG and others The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. Militarism and Popular Culture. Then there are all the video games that serve to train kids to be killers, as Lt. Col. Dave Grossman points out in his book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence
Scheuer also feels the intelligentsia is "pacifist," yet it is often there to promote our permawar Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship.

Lastly, Scheuer feels the U.S. military hasn't applied enough savagery to defeat the people responding to our state terror. How many hundreds of thousands of people dead, even more wounded, and millions of refugees would he like to see? I would like for U.S. citizens to break free from various delusions and work toward less pathologically violent policies that are allegedly committed in the "national interest," but which actually serve corporate interests Why We Fight.

An angry, but solid intellectual case against the spin doctors of both the republican and democratic parties. Well researched and pulls no punches. Would get 5 stars if Michael did not have certain gaps in his intellectual understanding of religion; he should follow Lincoln's, Paine's and his own advice -- and read the experts, in this case Dawkins and Dennett.

Michael Scheuer provides a useful review of the our foreign policy errors which now, more than ever, threaten the security of the USA. The author's
emphasis on the regrettable uncritical support for Israel by the USA leadership since 1973 is well placed and argued. His brief on this issue is informed and documented. But the author shows major inconsistency in arguing that Bush I should have gone on to Baghdad after the repelling of the invasion of Kuwait when in another part of his book he is persuasive that Bush II's invasion and destruction of Iraq destroyed the effective Iraqi and Syrian wall against movement of Al Quaeda westward to the Mediterranean. One can't have it both ways. Mr.Scheuer is correct that lifting the USA's (and the EU's) boot from the Muslim neck would neutralize Al Aquaeda's appeal and achieve major healing of relations with the indigenous people's of the Middle East.

If you've misplaced your copy of Mein Kampf and want to read something that would make Hitler happy, here's your book. Right up there with Pat Buchanan's latest screed, this book is comforting in it's reliable idiocy. Let me make my position clear so that the above does not sound left wing:I'm voting for McCain.

This is a wise, irritating, condemnatory, even funny book written by someone who knows his stuff and has a fine sense of the bizarre, and ignorant, and even humor! Apparently his main point is that shallow willful ignorance, a gloating sense of cultural superiority, in step with obviosuly inane and dangerous foreign mishaps and disasters, have caused Islamic terrorism. Why do they hate us? Not because of our elections, "superior culture", (though this is surely debatable), or our love of freedom. Simply our occupation and wars in the Mid East, never ending support of Israel, and not just minding our own business over there! Obviously with oil, this is a near impossibility, but still his point is well taken..So what do we do? Though acknowledging our catastrophic mistakes, first and foremost invading Iraq, we should show real mettle, resolve, and basically stop pussyfooting around with the strongest military in the world. The numbers (reproduction rates) are against us, and he says we should learn from our mistakes, unlike the Europeans, and other soft power types out there. Quite a contradiction, and it sounds good, but the author, though leading us along with some great quips and criticisms, and knocking just about everyone out there, of any political stripe, seems vague about the obvious question."So what do we do about this mess?" For this simplistic approach, and an inability to find anything right about we in the USA have attempted, only 4 stars, though it was a great read, with many. many fine ideas and criticisms.

Having lived in the Middle East, I concur with most of the author's assessment of what one might call the "Muslim mindset." I cannot, however, agree with his political and moral assessments. He heaps blame on Clinton for not responding to terrorist acts, but fails to condemn Reagan for the initial (and fatal) decision to withdraw our troops from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks.

His suggestion that fire-bombing Kabul and Kandahar (killing many hundreds of thousands of innocents) would have been an appropriate response to 9/11 is sickening. If we're going to become barbarians ourselves, what's the point?

Scheuer is an expert on middle east policy and is one of few Americans whom Bin Laden has quoted by name. He is a CIA veteran and former head of the UBL unit. As with Imperial Hubris, this book provides the reader a cogent understanding of why so many citizens and radicals alike in the middle east hate us. Scheuer disputes the notion that 9/11 marked the commencement of hostilities between the west and the middle east. Rather, he traces said friction back to 1973 following the oil embargo and America's reaction to the Yom Kippur war. A must read.

Michael Scheuer worked for the CIA for 20 years until he resigned in November 2004. In this brilliant book, he argues that the US ruling class has a single overriding aim which is harming the USA - "an unquenchable ardour to have the United States intervene abroad in all places, situations, and times." He believes that US foreign policies should focus on defending US national interests, citizens and sovereignty, not on crusades to change the world.

He denounces Non-Governmental Organisations' `unquenchable thirst for western intervention'. He describes them as `arrogant and self-righteous engines of Western imperialism and intervention abroad'. For example, in company with Republican candidate John McCain, they want to send a US-UK military force to Darfur, where there are no conceivable US or British interests at stake "and where a military action can only waste American lives and money, worsen the civil war, and again validate the Islamists' contention that Washington intends to destroy the Sudanese and all Muslim regimes that will not do its bidding."

Scheuer also criticises the US policies of support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, noting that backing Israel is "absolutely irrelevant and manifestly counter-productive to the national-security interests of the United States." He urges the maximum practicable energy self-sufficiency to end dependence on Saudi Arabia's oil. He points out that Saudi Arabia is not a friend: it hikes up oil prices then uses the profits to fund worldwide anti-Western activities. He proposes that the USA should exploit its oil, gas and coal reserves, increase its use of nuclear power and invest in renewables.

He argues that the attack on Iraq diverted resources away from the war on al-Qaeda and destroyed the Iraqi bulwark against al-Qaeda. Now, as Bush's Iraq Study Group has said, "there is no action the American military can take that ... can bring success in Iraq."

Scheuer writes, "For the United States, the war in Afghanistan has been lost. By failing to recognize that the only achievable U.S. mission in Afghanistan was to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda and their leaders and get out, Washington is now faced with fighting a protracted and growing insurgency." As he writes, "it was the United States that had been attacked ... the US military could and should have taken care of Afghanistan by itself." Why should we in Britain be involved at all? Scheuer urges a limited war against al-Qaeda, not worldwide, unending war on `terror'.

He sums up that current US foreign policy increases the threat to the USA, creates enemies faster than they can be killed and puts the USA in a worse position today than it was on 9/11.

I have not read, (n)or plan to read this book. Why? Because all it is a diatribe against Clinton, while going easy on Bush, just like Imperial Hubris (which I should probably sell and did read). It is quite apparent what Mr. Scheuer is about (no wonder he wanted to write the already mentioned other book as "Anonymous" until someone "outed" him). Then, he had to put his name on that pro Islamic propoganda. He may have made a few points, and while Clinton is not blameless, Bush is the one who got us into this mess in Iraq, which, by Scheuer's own words has nothing to do with 9/11. If Clinton's people didn't listen to Richard Clarke, who writes a much better analysis of these matters, then, Bush's people should have listened; thinking that they were so much tougher, and they didn't. Bush should have listen to Clarke, not Condi, and if he had, we might not have had 9/11. After all, the final, horrific, attacks that brought down the towers, occurred under Bush, not Clinton, ok? Enough said.

Michael Scheur is back, and his latest book "Marching Toward Hell" is another critical analysis of America's foreign policy, national security policy, and the strategy employed by both the intelligence community and the Armed Forces. To be honest this book is a little overcritical, but that's what makes an after actions review good. By showcasing his intelligence he really demonstrates why he was a head of the CIA Bin Laden unit. Bottom line his this book was hard to read in some places because he's a better analyst than he is a writer, but his unique experience provides for a book that should be read national security and foreign policy experts, senior leaders in the I.C. and military, as well as anybody interested in the subject.

Former CIA officer Michael Scheuer's first two books, Through our Enemies' Eyes and Imperial Hubris, provided timely and necessary correctives to Western governments' contention that Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamists in general had declared and were waging war against the West because of some fundamental hatred for the democracy, rights, mores, consumerism and social habits that it epitomizes. Rather than a madman, Scheuer rightfully portrayed bin Laden as an adept student of Islam and a not unreasonable voice for the millions of Muslims who have clearly defined political grievances against the US for its encroachment in the Arabian Peninsula, unqualified support for Israel, tolerance of authoritarian regimes (Russia, China) that repress Muslim minorities, open support for and arming of police states (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan) that can only be characterized as an affront to Islam, and now the open-ended occupation of two Muslim countries.

Based on his experience as an intelligence officer and as the head of the unit in charge of hunting bin Laden, Scheuer's main argument that the US and the West would be locked in a war without end unless they changed the policies that were generating so much anger in the Muslim world -- policies that, as he argued, bin Laden has clearly decried in his declarations of war against the US -- had much traction, so much so that it was imperative that I quote him in Smokescreen: Canadian security intelligence after September 11, 2001, my book on the subject and Canada's disastrous participation in the US-led "war" on terrorism.

Sadly, aside from reiterating those very helpful points, Scheuer's latest book, Marching Toward Hell offers little else, aside from a contradiction in strategy that can only be described as apocalyptic. Building his argument toward a prescription for success, Scheuer savages every US president (except Ronald Regan), non-governmental organizations, Amnesty International, leftists, peace activists, "antinationalists," neoconservatives, academics, Europe, expatriates and the Clinton and Bush administrations, and bemoans the lack of courage that, in his view, is necessary to win the war militarily, through means that would put to shame the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the carpet bombing of Vietnam. Through vengeance disguised as Machiavellian wisdom, Scheuer writes that only the muscular, no-holes-barred use of military force that punishes both non-uniformed terrorists, their supporters and those who tolerate their presence in their midst (that is, civilian populations) -- the incineration of Kabul and Kandahar soon after Sept. 11, 2001, for example -- would bring back global awe of the US' power to deter its enemies, the kind of deterrence that existed at the height of the Cold War, which Scheuer seems to miss dearly.

The contradiction in Scheuer's argument could not be starker: While, at one level, he correctly and wisely identifies the 30-year-old grievances that gave rise to the jihad against the US, and furthermore argues for a change of course in such areas as support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and over-dependence on oil, he then mortally undercuts his argument by saying that overwhelming force -- using an arsenal that includes landmines, depleted uranium ammunition and total disregard for collateral damage -- should be used to exterminate the enemy. Given that he has named the political grievances in all of his three books, it defies the imagination that he would then propose military action on such a scale as would not only fail to address those grievances but surely fuel even greater hatred for US policies and potentially spark a cycle of violence from which no one could possibly benefit. If the US' problem in the Islamic world can be fixed by correcting its policies -- which Scheuer points out on numerous occasions -- why the use of overwhelming force? For some quaint reason, Scheuer fails to understand that the two are not subsets of the same strategy.

To his credit, Scheuer gets many things right that even other intelligence officers fail to grasp, including the West's self-defeating policies on Hamas and Hezbollah, or the fact that Iran should be left alone and that the invasion of Iraq was not only a fiasco but prevented efforts in Afghanistan, where he rightly sees defeat, both on military terms and in the "hearts and minds" campaign, on the horizon, if not already upon us. On those points and in his assessment of the nature of the al-Qaeda threat, Scheuer offers quality advice that one wishes our leaders would follow. But unfortunately, his anger, thirst for vengeance and ostensible need to demonstrate his support for the military and intelligence officers is such that it overwhelms the reader and, as David Rieff wrote in his review in the New York Times, makes it difficult for the reader to take him seriously, just as it is difficult to take seriously another proponent of overwhelming force, Ralph Peters, for whom Mr. Scheuer seems to have boundless admiration.

When he sticks to assessing the nature of the threat, Scheuer has few equals and remains a helpful guide. But the strategic prescriptions he provides in his latest book will -- and wisely should -- be ignored.

Another informative read from Mr "Didactic" Scheuer ,he is right we have weakened Israel ,when the "Peace Now" crowd went to Israel in the 90's under the Clinton administration and literally forced them to Accept the Treasonous Oslo peace Accords which were a total disaster what we are left with is the present Quagmire ....Land for peace ...when is the West going to get it !!!!!..there is no such thing as Achievable peace with Terrorist ..they want to completely wipe out Israel!!!so any Land that they are given puts them one step closer to that Objective.As far as the CIA is concerned How could President Bush Award George Tenet the Congressional Medal of Freedom ?,reading this Book and Gary Berntsen Book "Jawbreaker " reveals Tenet was a inept ,disloyal ,Beaurocractic insider ,who did everything he could to AVOID making a decision on the AL Qaeda problem .

Scheuer does it again! I appreciate that he tells it like it is and has no political agenda to spout. He blames those involved who rightfully should be. There is only one reason why we are in the Middle East and that is for OIL. What Russia and England did in the Big Game, what England and France did in the Levant, the existence of Israel and the US presence in the land of Islam have now all come home to roost and we are paying the price for it. I cannot wiat for his next book.

Well, Michael Scheuer certainly doesn't pull his punches. As a former CIA officer, he was in a position to know a lot more than most people about what was going on before and after 9/11, in the Middle East and in Washington and Langley. He also reads widely in world history and politics (A favorite author is Machiavelli). His verdict, delivered with a pen often dipped in acid, is discouraging. Basically, he finds all our recent presidents failing their prime duty to (a) understand reality in foreign affairs (b) focus completely on what serves America's interests and ignore anything else. The wellbeing of other states, for instance Israel, is not our concern, and we certainly have no role in trying to export our political system to other countries.

His diagnosis of our current troubles is clearly accurate. I've always been astonished that Bush could get away with claiming that Muslim activists hate us because they don't like out freedom or social structure. As Scheuer points out, they have made it perfectly clear that are not really interested in what kind of society the infidels choose to live in - in fact they are somewhat ambivalent about it, liking some aspects but considering it decadent - but they are infuriated by the presence of non Muslim troops in their own countries. They also feel their oil has been sold off cheaply and the profits have benefited only rich, decadent and corrupt rulers like the House of Saud. And of course there is the one-sided US support of Israel.

However, his prescription is one that many will find far off track. He has a good analysis of some of our military problems as being related to the hangover of a "Cold War" mentality - hostility between well-defined, technically advanced, nation-states, and how this does not fit the Middle East. Well, that's convincing - who was it said that generals are always ready to fight the last war, but not this one? But he thinks that the only way to win the "war on terror" is to apply rapid and overwhelming force. Anything less, he feels, causes an opponent - especially those who are accustomed to living with much violence and respect force - to think you are weak and step up their efforts. In this he considers civilian casualties, while regrettable, of minor importance. For instance, his approach to Afghanistan in 2001 would have been dramatic - reduce Kabul and Kandahar to rubble and strew salt over the remains. Strong hint of using nukes for this. He fully approved of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He optimistically thinks this kind of action would be a knock-out punch that would save us from further troubles. It's surprising that he doesn't consider what an incredible reaction of horror in the whole world - including our allies - this would provoke. That, he may not care about: but what about the fury throughout the Muslim world, which as he well knows, contains over a billion individuals - three times the population of the US! Also, in 2008, where would you aim such a blow anyway? The Iraq and Afghanistan insurgencies are widely-based and it's hard to see a defined target.

Other weird ideas include sealing off some Middle Eastern borders - has he ever seen those mountains? and our Mexican and Canadian ones, with no particular evidence that these two countries are terrorist entry points. Besides, making the land entry difficult will just make it more attractive to send that little old cargo ship into a major port with something very nasty in its hold.

To me, because there is really no practical defense against that last kind of attack, it makes much more sense to do what Scheuer cannot bring himself, in his macho attitude, to consider: actually address some of the reasons that Muslims are so angry with the US. He seems to understand them well enough. He has just read too many mailed-fist writers in the ancient and modern military fields.

But read this book, because whether you agree with him or not he gives a consistent viewpoint and much fascinating information.

Must read for those of us that have supported the Bush Administration. As a conservative Republican, the book has given me a new perspective on what we should be doing to address Islamic terror and influence the Muslim world.Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq

There was little real information or insight in this book that a semi-informed observer of the Iraq disaster would'nt already know. I would sum the book's 3 main points as follows - The Islamic world genuinely hates us, the Saudis are not really our friends and US support for Israel is a big cause of our problems over there.

An uncomfortable book. Scheuer starts from indisputable facts (which he knows better than almost anyone) and uses unbreakable logic to reach some conclusions that are equally indisputable.

Trouble is, neither political team can bear to follow his advice; and failure to follow his advice means we're dead.

No matter which team you're on, if you read this book honestly and follow its logic accurately, you'll have to change your mind about nearly all of our current political and cultural trends.

Uncomfortable indeed, sir!

Michael Scheuer comes off as a Tridentine Catholic for whom half the world ended at Worms, 1521, and the rest on a Paris tennis court in 1789. Or else, as though he had just stepped out of the receiving line at a soiree for Andrew Jackson's first inauguration.

In short, he dishonestly tries to write two books under one title. One is about his attempt at Realpolitik in the Middle East/Muslim world. The other is a screed, a diatribe, about alleged "culture wars" in America and how, in his view, secularists are trying to take over our country.

As for any plaudits for Scheuer's alleged Realpolitik, this is not Realpolitik but rather Scheuer's schizophrenic distortion of that.

From questioning our relationship to Israel to analyzing just how broad our professional class' ignorance of the Muslim world is, one can find actual Realpolitik in new books. Mearsheimer and Walt admirably cover what's wrong with our one-way relationship with Israel, while Robert Fisk, though not a current or former intelligence agent, gives a wonderful journalist's insight on today's Arab "street." I suspect that another retired or soon-to-retire CIA agent has done (if I don't know about it), or will do, better on the intelligence insider information part of Realpolitick.

And, even in Realpolitik, he often gets it wrong, such as his call to have annihilated Iraq in the Gulf War.

Elsewhere:
1. He puts Reagan on an undeserved pedestal for "toppling" the USSR, ignoring that country's internal fissures while calling Gorbachev a "nuclear gangster";
2. Openly wonders whether the First Amendment can successfully be extended to the religious liberty of atheists and generally decries "secularism," "atheism" and (implied atheist) "European elites";
3. Repeats the Carter "malaise" myth;
4. Blames "environmental purists" whose "fanaticism" keeps us from having "reasonable and much-needed environmental protections";
5. Apparently doesn't believe in a free press, when he talks about "the U.S. military stupidly televised its killing of Muslims" in the Gulf War (I'm unaware of the existence of a Military Channel);
6. Claims humans are hardwired for war, both overstating claims of realistic empirical psychology and making the elemental "is" vs. "ought" mistake David Hume describes;
7. Stereotypes NGOs as "antinationalist organizations";
8. And, speaking of schizophrenic, can rip a person to shreds on page, then praise them to the heavens the next.

And that's just in the first third of the book.

Later on, Scheuer:
1. Supports his work in developing the CIA "extraordinary renditon" program;
2. Lays much of the blame for starting the U.S. Civil War on the North;
3. Wants to use the Army and Marines as Border Patrol, either ignoring, or being unaware of, how that has not worked well in the recent past;
4. Misdefines "American exceptionalism."

Beyond this, the only bits of insight that he forcefully gets right is that we've lost Afghanistan and need to move on, and that the nuclear arms/power deal with India hugely, and stupidly, undercut Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf with his own military and the ISI.

In short, don't bother reading this mix of diatribe and canard. Basically, think of Pat Buchanan as a career CIA officer and you have the tone of this book about right.

I also have a gripe about his inconsistent transliteration of Arabic words.

He does update "Bekaa," as in the Lebanese valley, to "Biqa," but "Shi'ite" is spelled "Shiite."

And, some of his footnotes are so long, part of their material should have been incorporated into the bod of the text in some way.

Michael Scheuer comes off as a Tridentine Catholic for whom half the world ended at Worms, 1521, and the rest on a Paris tennis court in 1789. Or else, as though he had just stepped out of the receiving line at a soiree for Andrew Jackson's first inauguration.

As for any plaudits for Scheuer's alleged Realpolitik, this is not Realpolitik but rather Scheuer's schizophrenic distortion of that.

From questioning our relationship to Israel to analyzing just how broad our professional class' ignorance of the Muslim world is, one can find actual Realpolitik in new books. Mearsheimer and Walt admirably cover what's wrong with our one-way relationship with Israel, while Robert Fisk, though not a current or former intelligence agent, gives a wonderful journalist's insight on today's Arab "street." I suspect that another retired or soon-to-retire CIA agent has done (if I don't know about it), or will do, better on the intelligence insider information part of Realpolitick.

And, even in Realpolitik, he often gets it wrong, such as his call to have annihilated Iraq in the Gulf War.

Elsewhere:
1. He puts Reagan on an undeserved pedestal for "toppling" the USSR, ignoring that country's internal fissures while calling Gorbachev a "nuclear gangster";
2. Openly wonders whether the First Amendment can successfully be extended to the religious liberty of atheists and generally decries "secularism," "atheism" and (implied atheist) "European elites";
3. Repeats the Carter "malaise" myth;
4. Blames "environmental purists" whose "fanaticism" keeps us from having "reasonable and much-needed environmental protections";
5. Apparently doesn't believe in a free press, when he talks about "the U.S. military stupidly televised its killing of Muslims" in the Gulf War (I'm unaware of the existence of a Military Channel);
6. Claims humans are hardwired for war, both overstating claims of realistic empirical psychology and making the elemental "is" vs. "ought" mistake David Hume describes;
7. Stereotypes NGOs as "antinationalist organizations";
8. And, speaking of schizophrenic, can rip a person to shreds on page, then praise them to the heavens the next.

And that's just in the first third of the book.

Later on, Scheuer:
1. Supports his work in developing the CIA "extraordinary renditon" program;
2. Lays much of the blame for starting the U.S. Civil War on the North;
3. Wants to use the Army and Marines as Border Patrol, either ignoring, or being unaware of, how that has not worked well in the recent past;
4. Misdefines "American exceptionalism."

Beyond this, the only bits of insight that he forcefully gets right is that we've lost Afghanistan and need to move on, and that the nuclear arms/power deal with India hugely, and stupidly, undercut Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf with his own military and the ISI.

In short, don't bother reading this mix of diatribe and canard. Basically, think of Pat Buchanan as a career CIA officer and you have the tone of this book about right.

I also have a gripe about his inconsistent transliteration of Arabic words.

He does update "Bekaa," as in the Lebanese valley, to "Biqa," but "Shi'ite" is spelled "Shiite."

And, some of his footnotes are so long, part of their material should have been incorporated into the bod of the text in some way.

MTH is a depressing but eye opening book. The writer does a great job of laying all the problems America faces on the table regarding Islamic terrorism. Here is a warning; if we elect McCain, Obama, or Hillary the present problems with the Middle East will still continue and never get better. We will have different directors but the same music will be played by our government.

I was surprised about the Author's view towards politicians and law enforcement. His view of the CIA on the fact gathering arm is very good. The author glosses over the fact that the CIA itself is involved in its share of debacles. The author makes it clear that the present political situation is really terrible. All of our leaders - Democratic and Republican - are more interested in looking good towards leaders of Europe and the rest of the world community than taking care of American citizens. The FBI, all the high US military commanders, and most government agency personnel only really care about their careers and not really protecting the average citizens. The author gives legion stories about all the various government agencies caring more about their piece of turf than protecting the average American.

Some of the book is depressing to read. We support some Islamic dictatorships, the logic is "better the devil you know". The CIA knows of most of the terrorist training camps in Islamic nations, such as Pakistan. We don't want to attack them because it will provoke them. This is insanity. During the 1860s the USA successfully had Britain stop supplying arms to the Confederates. In the same period Britain had the US government stop cross border raids into present day Canada by Irish insurgents. In both cases the British and American governments had the interests of their citizens at heart. Now the author gives case after case of all the western leaders are more concerned about looking good to one another than to their own citizens.

I knocked off a star because the Author has no military back ground and says the governors of each state could stop the national guards from being called up for military service. Sorry, but the national guards were all de facto nationalized back in 1963 under a defense reform act. A National Guard unit is actually - from a command point of view - an Army Reserve unit detached for duty in a state.

The author also writes, truthfully, that the USA had lost every war its been in since 1945. Our enemies know this fact. They count on it. The giant American military is commanded by career oriented politicans who wear both suits and uniforms.

I should have knocked off a star because the author gives no solution to the present Middle East situation from an American point of view. Honestly, there may be no solution except for the insolvency of the American government. The fact of the matter is the poor American taxpayer is bound by his feckless government to give billions to Israel and the neighboring Arab states. If the taxpayer says anything against this unholy relationship they are called anti-Semite. This is mind boggling in concept. Actions by a citizen's government put the citizen at risk, put the citizen in physical jeopardy, and if the citizen complains about it the result is the citizen is then made to seem like an ignorant bigot instead of somebody shrewd enough to have figured out that his own government is working against their own best interests. The author makes this fact abundantly clear and any reader will have to come to the logical conclusion that they are right.

But this book is very well researched and will give great background to people who want to learn how we got into such a tangled mess. Don't expect anything to change regarding terrorism against average Americans because our American leadership does not want things to change. Our leaders want to look good to their fellow leaders in Europe or Western Civilization. And that's the most damning fact of this book.

Michael Scheuer comes off as a Tridentine Catholic for whom half the world ended at Worms, 1521, and the rest on a Paris tennis court in 1789. Or else, as though he had just stepped out of the receiving line at a soiree for Andrew Jackson's first inauguration.

As for any plaudits for Scheuer's alleged Realpolitik, this is not Realpolitik but rather Scheuer's schizophrenic distortion of that.

From questioning our relationship to Israel to analyzing just how broad our professional class' ignorance of the Muslim world is, one can find actual Realpolitik in new books. Mearsheimer and Walt admirably cover what's wrong with our one-way relationship with Israel, while Robert Fisk, though not a current or former intelligence agent, gives a wonderful journalist's insight on today's Arab "street." I suspect that another retired or soon-to-retire CIA agent has done (if I don't know about it), or will do, better on the intelligence insider information part of Realpolitick.

And, even in Realpolitik, he often gets it wrong, such as his call to have annihilated Iraq in the Gulf War.

Elsewhere:
1. He puts Reagan on an undeserved pedestal for "toppling" the USSR, ignoring that country's internal fissures while calling Gorbachev a "nuclear gangster";
2. Openly wonders whether the First Amendment can successfully be extended to the religious liberty of atheists and generally decries "secularism," "atheism" and (implied atheist) "European elites";
3. Repeats the Carter "malaise" myth;
4. Blames "environmental purists" whose "fanaticism" keeps us from having "reasonable and much-needed environmental protections";
5. Apparently doesn't believe in a free press, when he talks about "the U.S. military stupidly televised its killing of Muslims" in the Gulf War (I'm unaware of the existence of a Military Channel);
6. Claims humans are hardwired for war, both overstating claims of realistic empirical psychology and making the elemental "is" vs. "ought" mistake David Hume describes;
7. Stereotypes NGOs as "antinationalist organizations";
8. And, speaking of schizophrenic, can rip a person to shreds on page, then praise them to the heavens the next.

And that's just in the first third of the book.

Beyond this, the only bit of insight that he forcefully gets right is that we've lost Afghanistan and need to move on.

In short, don't bother reading this mix of diatribe and canard. Basically, think of Pat Buchanan as a career CIA officer and you have the tone of this book about right.

I also have a gripe about his inconsistent transliteration of Arabic words.

He does update "Bekaa," as in the Lebanese valley, to "Biqa," but "Shi'ite" is spelled "Shiite."

Michael Scheuer does us a great service from the research he did for his latest book, "Marching to Hell..." by sounding the alarm...loud and clear...that our country...and all of Europe...is in great jeopardy of being defeated and overrun by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups...but also how we can get American strategy and our foreign policy back on track. You may not like what you read...but you will be glad you did...Don

The author was not a "spook." He was an analyst. Analysts do not work under cover and they very rarely if ever go in harm's way.

What I admire most about this author is that he kept his integrity, as did Dick Clarke. Both stand in sharp contrast to Tony Lake and Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright in the Clinton Administration, and Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and Condi Rice in the Bush Administration.

Folks have been reluctant to understand that from the first book by Anonymous, this author has been practically shouting from the rooftops:

BIN LADEN IS RIGHT. BIN LADEN HAS LIMITED OBJECTIVES.

The fact is that the US armed presence in the Middle East, first off remaining in Saudi Arabia, a violation of the promise Dick Cheney made, and second of all being loyal to the despotic, debauched Saudi "Royal" family that is consuming the national commonwealth at the expense of the people, are both legitimate grounds for any well-educated revolutionary and patriot to say ENOUGH.

I only give this book four stars because as right as the author is, the end of the book and its varied prescriptions are the only really new ground (from this author) and they are basically no more or less than any well-schooled PhD would tell you: put your own house in order, do no harm, support no despots, and mind your own business.

Of the author's previous books, I continue to regard Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror as the best, and recommend that it be read AFTER reading:
Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)
See No Evil
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude

For a broader more sensible strategic perspective, consider:
A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility--Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change
Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition
Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace

Bottom line: Bush is a village idiot with a semblance of integrity. Cheney is a nakely amoral war criminal who should be run out of town--he's not worth impeaching. The well-intentioned managers of the Department of State, Department of Defense, and the US Intelligence Community do not have a clue about how to create a long-term global strategy to create a prosperous world at peace. They are trapped in pyramidal organizations and have all--without exception--lost the ability to think for themselves. Thus does the Republic stagger to its demise.

Michael Scheuer is a distinctly (and valuably) American phenomenon, the lone-gun unafraid to take a stand, no matter the odds against him. As a writer on security affairs myself, I may disagree with Scheuer on some specifics (such as terrorist motivation or Israel), but I can only admire the fierce integrity and citizen's passion that fills every page of this book. We are all fortunate to have this voice in the debate and this book--written by a man whose insider experience didn't corrupt him, but, on the contrary, led him to dig in his heels and fight for the country he loves on the battlefield of ideas. And whether or not a given reader agrees with Scheuer's analysis of issue X or Y, it's undeniable that he has no agenda beyond wishing the best for our country--it's just a marvelous thing to have so fearless an author, a man who isn't angling for a job in the next administration or worried about a promotion, but who is just deep in the fight and swinging for the United States of America. This is a book of great character, courage and raw anger--a book worth reading, reacting to, arguing with and, ultimately, absorbing. It is not a well-mannered book in the typical Washington vein, but a frontal attack on the follies Scheuer personally witnessed (not least, the utter unwillingness of the Clinton administration to take any meaningful action against Islamist terrorists--a fateful cowardice I saw myself from a different angle while serving in the Pentagon).
In this read-it-now recommendation, I've concentrated on the character of the book, letting others address the contents. I'm glad I read it myself and hope that many others will. In the great American tradition of constructive provocateurs, Mike Scheuer doesn't demand that you agree with him on every point--but he does want us all to think for ourselves, instead of accepting the platitudes delivered from on high by the governing "elite." I value the book, and I admire the man who wrote it. It's encouraging to have this voice crying out in the Washington wilderness.
--Ralph Peters

Scheuer realizes that the U.S. is involved in a struggle with Radical Islam which it is not winning, and which can eventually be disastrous for the United States. He also has much to say about missed opportunities to prempt Bin-Laden and Zarqhawi in previous Administrations. His understanding that the Saudi lobby is extremely powerful is also correct.
But Scheuer excoriates almost everyone who has dealt with U.S. foreign policy over the past thirty years, except for Reagan for whom he has the highest praise.
He advocates a form of neo- isolationism in which the U.S. would place massive forces on its Mexican and Canadian borders. He advocates a U.S. detaching itself from global responsibilities.
He also misreads the character of expansionist Islamism. He argues that the fanaticism and jihadism of the Islamic world come in response to U.S. actions in the Middle East.This is to a degree true, but it omits the major part of the story. He ignores the internal dynamic of these backward societies that have been frustrated in their efforts at modernization. They thus aim to restore their Power and Pride by the sword.Their effort is to through Jihad, ilitary conquest achieve world- domination. The United States for them is the Big Satan standing in their way, the dominant element in the West they believe they must destroy.
Scheuer has a capacity for attacking friends and allies. He urges the U.S. betrayal of Israel and says he does not care whether or not Israel continues to exist. This puts him in the camp of the Islamists, , Chomskyite Extreme Leftist hypocrites,Ahmadinejad, Hamas, Hizbollah, and all the other would be continuers of the work of the Nazis. This point alone is indication of the truth of what every major - reviewer of this book I have seen says; i.e Scheuer has some interesting things to say but he has by and large gone off- the- wall, ranting at everyone while maintaining that he alone knows what's going on. They too point to a progression in irresponsibility the further he is in time from his former governnment position.

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's terrorism desk, and author of two other very impressive and prescient books on how the U.S. has failed to properly address the issue of terrorism, finally unloads with all guns: aimed "full bore" on the misguided bipartisan political elite's bad assumptions about how the "New World Order" is finally to be played out. To wit: that bin Laden hates democracy and freedom; and that our "Israel-first foreign policy;" our bases on Islamic territories, and our encrusted Cold War" mentality and hubris, has nothing at all to do with it.

His view is that even with his earlier clarion calls, this incestuous cabal is continuing to drive the foreign policy bus into a ditch by becoming "tone deaf" from listening to its own high-pitched, shrill, incessant and incestuous rhetoric about how bin Laden "hates democracy and freedom," when in fact this has little or nothing at all to do with post-Cold War reality. According to him, our "misguided bipartisan political elite" had better wake up, or soon it will be too late.

In part, because of the misguided assumptions of "neo cons" like (their guru) Francis Fukuyama, the reality of the "new world order" has yet to penetrate through the dense skulls of this new insulated and incestuous elite cabal of Zionists religious nuts, greedy lobbyists, limp-wristed democrats, racists republicans, and outlaw capitalists. They seem not to understand, or are incapable of accepting, that the reality "out there" is about asymmetry of military forces and commitment to higher ideals, not about the anachronistic "Pax Atomica" whose subtext is a rapidly dying "Pax Americana."

According to Scheuer, we are marching straight into hell in our encrusted "Cold Warrior ideas" and obsolete Cold War weapons, and that ain't going to cut it in the 21st Century: Our inbred ignorance is giving bin Laden's ragtag bunch of religious zealots and nuts an incredible advantage, an advantage the Islamic world apparently has already "banked" on: our own hubris and belief in the invincibility of our own cultural ideas. This arrogance has allowed them to get inside our heads, inside our decision-making cycle and inside our military's center of gravity. And strategic disadvantages do not get any worse than that.

Scheuer's solution is an eschatological laundry list leaning heavily on gaining energy independence (but he does not tell us how to gain it), on a cleaner, and very much meaner, and leaner military, and on putting America (rather than Israel) first in shaping U.S. Foreign policy options. He also suggests that we make common cause with other nations who fear the emerging Islamic threat, countries such as Russia, China and India.

This is the most far-reaching and sober of Scheuer's three books, and the reader can sense that he is now getting much, much more impatient. Hell, must be getting much hotter than it used to be. Five stars.

The New York Times published a damning review of "Marching Toward Hell", which, after Scheuer's ranting presentation on the Charlie Rose television program, appears to be completely accurate. Given Scheuer's contempt for and belittlement of anyone who questions or disagrees with him, and his natural tendency to influence policy makers' decisions rather than simply provide intelligence, his departure from the CIA may have given the employees there a sigh of relief.

This is a book that one could hope every American would read with an open mind, regardless of political ideology. And it is a very enjoyable read. Dr. Scheuer delivers a closely reasoned challenge to the concepts on which our current foreign policy is largely based, with a savagely eloquent and engaging style, seasoned with ironic humor. Members of the "bipartisan governing elite" are individually and collectively castigated, scathingly and without mercy, and also without evident political bias. Open the book to almost any page at random, and you will find a succinct and logical argument, or a quotable quote.
As a longtime fan of Israel, I was dismayed that I could not devise a logical response to his assertion that our support serves no compelling American national security objective. Indeed, most critics who disagree with him can only resort to ad hominem fallacies, not to logical expostulation.
Dr. Scheuer's prognosis for America is quite dismal on our present course, a conclusion which he bases on a study of history, critical analysis of the performance and concepts of our governing elite, and comprehensive knowledge of our global adversaries. He concludes that a reversal of our policy to one of non-intervention and strict adherence to national self-interest is our only hope of salvation.

Michael Scheuer should be read by all American's. He is a good writer - lots of great words and verbiage and he doesn't pull punches.

We need a Commander in Chief with his mentality. He understands the enemy and how to defeat the enemy. He also understands American history and the lessons of it's founders. Too many of our leaders neglect both American history and the wisdom of our elders.

We will not come close to winning this war until we do two things - drop the politically correct bunk and put America and the security of it's people first.

Michael Scheurer has a history of understanding some aspects of the global situation, but his analysis is spotty. He was correct in his earlier book, Imperial Hubris, in stating that "they" hate us, not for what we are, but for what we have done. He is correct in his new book, "Marching Towards Hell" that the U.S. has already lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the American public will eventually be forced to wake up to the fact that our national leadership has long been not only mistaken, but has lied and deceived the American public.

What Michael Scheurer still does not seem to understand is that Islam and Christianity and freedom and democracy are all peripheral issues to the basic issues at play here. We are talking about resource wars over strategic control over petroleum and other resources. If the Persian Gulf and Central Asia happened to be dominated by Buddhist or Taoist or Hindu peoples, then we would be waging resource wars against "Buddhist terrorism" or "Hindu terrorism", etc. If those lands were held by Eastern Orthodox Christians who opposed our control over their resources for our benefit and against theirs, we would be talking about fighting against "Eastern Orthodox terrorism". Those who oppose U.S. resource control in Nigeria are rarely referred to at all, even though Islam may be a major religion there, because their black race makes identification as Muslims difficult and to speak of "Negro" or "Black terrorists" would probably be politically intolerable in today's world societies, especially in the U.S.

The reality that Mr. Scheurer fails to address is that all this conflict is over attempts by the U.S. and its allies to control the strategic possession and transport of the remaining petroleum supplies of the planet after we have already long ago sold and profited from our own national endowment of these resources. America became wealthy and powerful, not because of innate superiority, but because of aggressive, harmful, even genocidal foreign policies that allowed us to rape countless nations of their raw materials and natural resources. We did this all over the planet, and the problem for us now is that intelligent Moslem peoples are resisting our hegemony, resisting our puppet governments installed or supported by us against the interest of the locals. We are seeing a conspiracy of opposition to hegemony and are forced to extreme violence to attempt to maintain domination.

Mr. Scheurer observes that our military now is held in contempt by our enemies (really, our intended victims) and he urges that the U.S. regain its hegemony over world wealth and resources by pulling off the gloves altogether and enacting scorched earth policies against those who oppose us rather than suffer willing victimhood. In so doing, Mr. Scheurer reveals his own moral bankruptcy and willingness to serve the interests of empire as long as the violence enacted by the American empire is effective in subduing our victims, no matter how brutal.

If America were to follow the horrific suggestions of Michael Scheurer seriously, America really would "March into Hell" and the cycle of violence would no doubt put all of humanity at risk. What a terrible state of affairs we face, and perhaps the march into hell is inevitable.

Others, such as Professor Richard Heinberg, have described a pathway to equitable sharing of earth's resources, including the petroleum resources now being fought over with untold violence. Clearly, a destiny different from a march into hell is possible, but clearly the greed associated with power of nations and corrupt oligarchs makes this pathway seem unlikely and the outcome described by Scheurer a pathetic likelihood.


Stan Moore
Petalama, CA

Along with a handful of writers, including Mark Steyn and Pat Buchanan, Michael Scheuer writes books that should be read by any and all Americans who are concerned with something foundational -- our lives.

America faces all sorts of threats -- e.g., the end of the Hollywood writers' strike. But the most serious threat of all is the large number of Muslims (not "Islamo Fascists") committed to killing us. And what are those sworn to protect us doing in the face of this extreme hostility? Well, outside of mouthing politically correct platitudes, not a whole lot.

Things would be different if Scheuer were in charge. A couple of for-instances. First, we would bring to an end the archaic and self-defeating policy of Israel-pandering (and Abe Foxman can rant and rave all he wants. He's a whining Christophobe, worthy of no more than a sneer of unmitigated contempt). Second, we would bring to a halt President Bush's fatuous Wilsonianism. Along with Scheuer and a multitude of other Americans, I couldn't care less if democracy -- of any type or to any degree -- is brought to Afghanistan, Iraq, or even to the EU. It's an experiment that's largely failed here in the West; it has no chance of success in a part of the world where the history and culture are about as antithetical to democracy as matter is to antimatter. Iraqui women now have the right to vote? Goody! That's been worth the gallons of blood American servicemen have gushed forth, hasn't it? Scheuer is right: If we go into battle, it should be for reasons beneficial to us, and the war should be short and decisive.

Well, Scheuer isn't in charge. But McCain, Clinton, or Obama soon will be. God help us.

Scheurer's CIA career and innate intellect combine in "Marching Toward Hell" to create an outstanding and very timely book. He begins by pointing out that our bipartisan governing elite has an unquenchable ardor to have the U.S. intervene abroad in all places. Some prefer diplomatic, others military, humanitarian, covert, and/or foreign aid mixed with Christian proselytizing. The result is that we live in a prolonged Cold War hangover that creates more problems than it solves.

Scheuer's intent in the book is to reconstruct how the U.S. found itself with an untenable set of foreign policies and national security strategies on 9/11, and to explain the costs of trying to maintain them.

U.S. ties to Israel, a state that contributes nothing to America's economic welfare or strategic security, are absurd, per Scheuer. Responding to those claiming Israel has a "right to exist," he states that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" applies; further, "Are we to also resuscitate the USSR, Sparta, etc.?" "You form your country, and you take your chances."

The second major nonsensical decision that burdens America is our doing little in response to the '73 oil embargo. Thus, we have ended up playing both sides (Israel vs. the Arab states) in a religious fight-to-the-finish.

American policies are further undermined by human rights groups - eg. they pushed the Senate to pursue human rights for Afghan women instead of us being able to try to get the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. Other secondary issues have stayed our hand numerous times - eg. blowing up Iraq's Intelligence Service headquarters at night (minimize casualties) in response to its effort to assassinate Bush I in Kuwait, and calling off multiple efforts to kill Bin Laden.

Scheuer believes we have lost both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and that launching the Iraq War was a major blunder. Further, we need to stop believing that a "post-war Marshal Plan" will change the hearts and minds of Arabs - not unless we stop backing Arab tyrants and Israel.

As for Europe, Scheuer sees it becoming overrun by Muslim immigrants and their children. Meanwhile, its support for the U.S. is weakening - witness the recent fall of supporting leaders in the U.K., Spain, and Poland.

Concluding, Scheuer states that Islam is the fastest growing religion, U.S. officials have lied to citizens (providing erroneous reasons why terrorists hate us - eg. "they hate democracy)," instead of telling the truth while counteracting terrorists, and the U.S. is VERY vulnerable to more terrorism subce we've cut funding to help Russia secure its nuclear weapons, failed to close our borders, and failed to even propose an effective energy policy.

As for "preventing follow-up terrorist attacks in the U.S.," Scheuer is unimpressed - they're simply defeating us without bombs, through dragging us down towards bankruptcy. His recommendation - focus on "America first" - issues that truly threaten our survival.

Michael Scheuer, Ph.D and former CIA career officer, made a big splash in June 2004 as the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. At that time he contradicted Rumsfeld and other officials by informing us there was an insurgency in Iraq.

Now Scheuer tells us where we're going. We're going to hell.

Marching Toward Hell claims that U.S. foreign policy is often based on faulty assumptions and is driven by some lobbyists whose interests are different than those of the American people. This book goes well beyond the themes of Imperial Hubris.

Scheuer gave up his career at the CIA in order to publicly denounce the 9/11 Commission. He did this at a time when other insiders protected their careers and are only now coming out. That is one reason why I gave Scheuer's book 5 stars.

Scheuer is to be taken seriously because of his 22-year career as a top intelligence analyst. Some points from this academic yet angry diatribe: U.S. policymakers still prefer to present the Bin Laden Movement as a lunatic fringe even though it has broad appeal in the Islamic world; U.S. support of Israel and U.S. troop presence contributes to the perception within the Muslim world that the West is bent on destroying Islam; some officials possibly never intended to win in Iraq, otherwise more troops would have been sent.

Scheuer concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid war with Islamists and that it will be much more violent that what we've seen so far, and also that it's too late to win in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The author is definitely very angry for several reasons including the reluctance of Americans to understand how they are seen in the Muslim world, and also the Bush administration dismissal of Middle East experts' wisdom and advice.

A synopsis of Marching Toward Hell might make you think this is a book about how Americans should wise up and then start putting America first. In my view, Scheuer's strength is in getting Americans to wise up. As for the rest, he's mainly sounded the alarm that there is grave danger ahead no matter what. In other words, it's possible he thinks hell is our destiny.

Scheuer wants America to change it's message to Muslims by changing foreign policy. This means, among other things, to stop the current brand of support provided to Israel and to remove troops from the Arabian Peninsula. The wars, he says, are lost regardless - that we're in a fourth generation war where adversaries have a scorched earth strategy, leaving nothing for the occupier to occupy anyway. But he goes further and includes Russia and China as countries against Islam that the U.S. supports. Even so, he concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid an even more violent war with Islam.

Nobody expected Scheuer to write a book about what is well in the world. This one exceeds expectations.

Michael Scheuer, Ph.D and former CIA career officer, made a big splash in June 2004 as the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. At that time he contradicted Rumsfeld and other officials by informing us that there was an insurgency in Iraq.

Now Scheuer tells us where we're going. We're going to hell.

Marching Toward Hell claims that U.S. foreign policy is often based on faulty assumptions and is driven by some lobbyists whose interests are different than those of the American people. This book goes well beyond the themes of Imperial Hubris.

Scheuer gave up his career at the CIA in order to publicly denounce the 9/11 Commission. He did this at a time when other insiders protected their careers and are only now coming out. That is one reason why I gave Scheuer's book 5 stars.

Scheuer is to be taken seriously because of his 22-year career as a top intelligence analyst. Some points from this academic yet angry diatribe: U.S. policymakers still prefer to present the Bin Laden Movement as a lunatic fringe even though it has broad appeal in the Islamic world; U.S. support of Israel and U.S. troop presence contributes to the perception within the Muslim world that the West is bent on destroying Islam; some officials possibly never intended to win in Iraq, otherwise more troops would have been sent.

Scheuer concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid war with Islamists and that it will be much more violent that what we've seen so far, and also that it's too late to win in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The author is definitely very angry for several reasons including the reluctance of Americans to understand how they are seen in the Muslim world, and also the way that the Bush administration disregarded the wisdom of Middle East experts from the intelligence community.

A synopsis of Marching Toward Hell might make you think this is a book about how Americans should get smart and then start putting America first. It's not that simple. In my view, Scheuer is enigmatic on long-term American strategy. First, he wants America to change it's message to Muslims by changing foreign policy. This means, among other things, to stop the current brand of support provided to Israel and to remove troops from the Arabian Peninsula. But he goes further and includes Russia and China as countries against Islam that the U.S. supports. Even so, he concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid an even more violent war with Islam.

Nobody expected Scheuer to write a book saying things are well in the world. This one exceeds expectations.

Michael Scheuer, Ph.D and former CIA career officer, made a big splash in June 2004 as the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. At that time he contradicted Rumsfeld and other officials by informing us that there was an insurgency in Iraq.

Now Scheuer tells us where we're going. We're going to hell.

Marching Toward Hell claims that U.S. foreign policy is often based on faulty assumptions and is driven by some lobbyists whose interests are different than those of the American people. This book goes well beyond the themes of Imperial Hubris.

Scheuer gave up his career at the CIA in order to publicly denounce the 9/11 Commission. He did this at a time when other insiders protected their careers and are only now coming out. That is one reason why I gave Scheuer's book 5 stars.

Scheuer is to be taken seriously because of his 22-year career as a top intelligence analyst. Some points from this academic yet angry diatribe: U.S. policymakers still prefer to present the Bin Laden Movement as a lunatic fringe even though it has broad appeal in the Islamic world. U.S. support of Israel and U.S. troop presence contributes to the perception within the Muslim world that the West is bent on destroying Islam. Some officials possibly never intended to win in Iraq, otherwise more troops would have been sent.

Scheuer concludes that the U.S. cannot avoid war with Islamists and that it will be much more violent that what we've seen so far, and also that it's too late to win in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Nobody expected Scheuer to write a book saying things are well in the world. This one exceeds expectations.