Just as it says in the title. The different interrogation stories reflect different terrorists with different motives, some religious, some material, some political. All real and true stories.

The author clearly supports the war in Iraq. But he does so without dehumanizing anyone or anything, which is how things should be.

He describes how he uses psychological tactics to literally, break terrorists. Often with a sense of urgency as well.

If you read my other reviews, you know that I work in intelligence. Out of every book I read so far this year, this is the best. Anyone interested in intelligence, criminal justice, psychology, terrorism, etc will love this story. The author cuts out the crap and provides us with the real story.

I cannot recommend this book any more highly. It is a must read.

This isn't an episode of 24. This is the best episode of Law and Order you'll ever see.

Jack Bauer has a ticking time bomb. What does he do? Well he shoots the guy in the knee and sticks the barrel in the wound. The guy always talks. The truth is, giving the guy a Harry Potter book would have worked just as well.

After Dick Cheney's championed 80+ instances of waterboarding to KSM and Abu Zubaydah, which yielded practically nothing. Much like Matthew, it was F.B.I. agent Ali Soufan who got information from people like this to talk through trust and intelligence. This is the real dirty work in this war - talking to really awful people to get what we need.

Torture only works in 60 minute doses within the walls of CTU on Monday nights. The fact is deep inside, we all want to talk. Finding that tell is what these people do. The book, on the surface, is a laborious procedural yarn, but when you hit the farmhouse raid, there's no way this episode of Law and Order is going to end until you find out if the Strike Force can catch up with Rahman's car. It's a stunning read with heavy doses of mistakes and human sacrifice of the people we trust to do a hard job. And it takes place almost completely in the tiny world of coca cola, sinus spray, plywood rooms and white plastic chairs.

To the detractors out there, there are people in my family who do this very job and were trained at the very place the author was. What they have told me and what is spoken of in this book matches up quite well. Deal with it.

Matthew Alexander's book is written in an informal style which makes it an easy read. Alexander did not portray himself as any kind of saint, but as a military person trying to do the right thing with new--within the bounds of the Geneva Convention--interrogation techniques. These techniques were not always appreciated by his old-style-interrogation peers, but these techniques proved highly successful.

Some passages were absolutely horrific. This is not for the faint of heart, nor young readers.

A worthwhile read. I appreciate that it gave me a broader perspective on the situation of the people in Iraq (how Al Qaeda garners followers, etc.), an understanding that I'll never forget.

The psychological techniques used to build rapport with the prisoners in the situations described in this account were successful because the subjects were not 100% committed to their organizations - they joined for personal protection. They were also able to be manipulated because of their obligations to their family- especially their children. It was an interesting read but i reject the notion that the psychological techniques presented represent some kind of new paradigm for interrogation. I doubt that they would work against individuals who were 100% committed to their cause or who didn't have family ties to be exploited. I am not endorsing 'hard techniques' like water-boarding, only pointing out the limitations on these psychological techniques.

It sounds like a bit of a cliche to say I couldn't put it down but that was literally the case. As I got further into the book I found myself staying up on work nights to finish it. It's hard to get into any details without giving anything away, but it was a great telling of how the newer interrogation techniques work. It was frustrating to read about how bureaucracy and sycophancy got in the way, and I learned the difference between Sunni and Shia. All in all I'm really glad I bought it.

I bought this book with very high expectations. I had read reviews that indicated Matthew Alexander was very critical of many of the harsher techniques the US has been demonstrated to use in interrogations in Iraq, with specific reference to the Abu Gharib scandal.

Whilst there were definitely references to the scandal, for the most part they were simply in passing or referenced the fact that the army was hoping to clean up it's image as much as possible.

Simply put the book doesn't criticise the US Army as a whole at nearly any point in the book. It certainly criticised a few individuals, and it stressed the importance of more humane and better techniques at getting useful information, however this certainly fell short of my hopes that it would point out why harsher torture techniques didn't work and more humane and traditional approaches work better.

I feel that the reason the book is written this way is that the Author was probably under some kind of obligation to write a book that would be approved by the army itself. This is evident from the chunks of paragraphs that are blacked out entirely. This also seems to be detrimental from the book. In most cases if the words had simply been removed rather than blacked out you would not notice there was anything missing. It does however give the book a more official document feel which I guess was the intent.

Matthew Alexander makes the case by example that coercive interrogation is neither effective nor reliable. In fact, Hanns-Joachim Gottlob Scharff, a German Luftwaffe interrogator during World War II, was renowned for his abilities as an interrogator to produce reliable intelligence information. He specifically and emphatically eschewed harsh or coercive treatment of captives, and demonstrated that, as the old adage says, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Even Bernard Gui, the infamous inquisitor who wrote a manual on the conduct of the Inquisition cautioned against "confessions" or information obtained through the use of torture. (See, for instance, Jonathan Kirsch's The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God.)
The validity of the "soft" approach has been shown time and time again. (We even got the Miranda warnings as a result of information gained using a non-coercive interrogation).
This is an excellent book, and the points within are well worth considering.

I can't recommend this book enough to any American. With our government caught up in the justification of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques this book is an essential read for the American people. Matthew Alexander is from the new school of interrogation, meaning, no torture, no pain, nothing illegal (Illegal based on the Geneva Conventions). These men and women who refuse to torture their prisoners manage to get all the information they need to capture one of the most wanted man in Iraq.

The book is very easy to read. I finished the book in a matter of hours. I could not put it down. My only wish was that it was longer. I enjoyed this book so much I've made all my friends and family members read it. I've given it as gifts. This is a book I feel everyone needs to read.

If you plan to debate enhanced interrogation techniques read this book. If you think torture is necessary to get information out of prisoners, you need to read this book.

This book was utter [...]. If you can make it to about the 40th page in, you will be treated to a wondrous tale of a detainee so stupid he falls for the "OMG, someone is bombing the compound where your wife and kids are hiding, quick tell us what building they are in so we can go make sure they're safe, whew, they're safe, what? You wanted to talk to them? Sorry, the line is breaking up. Now, how about telling us where the terrorists are."

I wonder if this is another Frey -- a fiction novel too ridiculous to even bother picking up repackaged as a memoir.

It comes as no surprise that the co-author on this, Bruning, also co-authored another pathetic war memoir, House by House.

Save your money and find a book written by someone who's being honest.

This is a fascinating must-read for anyone who is interested in the war on terror. I was handed this book by a friend and I assumed it was going to be a typical anti-war screed that demands that terrorists be "understood" and coddled. There is also little fear of coddling with Alexander. He is repulsed and haunted by the senseless butchery that went on in Iraq and was sickened by those that were willing to kill innocents with suicide bombings. Alexander's techniques only prove that his eyes were strictly on the goal - stop Zarqawi.

Alexander's techniques are hardly "touchy-feely" - in a way they are a form of psychological trickery. He fools his interview targets into giving him the information he wants and then expolits their trust. It is also the type of technique that any regular viewer of TV detective shows see every day.

The methods Alexander espouses only make sense to me, a veteran teacher. It is easier to get cooperation from someone that you can create a sense of rapport with, even if it is only temporary.

Anyway, the book reads like a suspense novel. It is a quick and intense read and absolutely riveting and informative.

Well done. Highly recommended.

This book was a bit hard to believe. These people being interrogated live in a tough society under a dictator that was further torn apart by war and we are supposed to believe that a little trickery and role playing makes them emotional basket-cases willing to spill their guts. I enjoyed the book but found myself doubting much of it.

I read this book four months ago, before I came to Iraq. I am currently interrogating detainees for the Army in a facility here in Iraq. I am so glad I read this book before deploying.

At Fort Huachuca, AZ, I learned the basics of interrogation but to succeed at Fort Huachuca you just needed to be able to hold your own against the instructor. If it wasn't for this book, getting hit with the reality of real interrogations would have been ugly. The lies, confusion, cover stories, acting and occasional "I'm going to tell you everything" is nowhere near what is shown in the schoolhouse. One of the complaints that a lot of my fellow trainees had was not being able to watch a real interrogation while at school. Just read this book and you'll get the satisfaction that you want quick. Not only that, you'll have some pretty good examples of how to use your approaches. Heck, I used the "conspiracy technique" (with approaches, of course) similar to the one in the book and it worked like a charm (didn't the second time, though lol).

Like I said before, if you're an interrogator headed downrange (deploying), you need to read this book and have your family and friends read it if they want a better understanding of what you do. It'll help you out tremendously.... Now all I need is for Matthew to write a book on cutting down the time of report writing and I'll be good :) (if you get that joke, you're probably a gator) Thanks for the book, Matthew.

How to Break a Terrorist is an insightful and entertaining account of the U.S. intelligence operation that was instrumental in the killing of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This non-fiction book is a fast-paced psychological thriller. In addition to being exciting to read, the book makes a political statement on torture and intelligence gathering. The author presents a viable and arguably more effective alternative to torture to get information out of detainees. Through the well-crafted storyline, the author illustrates these new interrogation techniques of psychology, building rapport, respect (or at least the perception of it), and ultimately, deception.

By and large, I enjoyed the book and have only a couple minor complaints. One, I didn't care for the blacked out sentences. I suppose the intention is to make the reader feel that they are getting a glimpse of the top secret intelligence world. And blacking out sentences makes the account seem more authentic and special. Instead, I felt that it was purposely done, like special effects in a movie, and hence fake. Two, because the book is written as a story (which I appreciate), I wonder about all that is missing. The book recounts the successful interrogations with minimal emphasis on the unsuccessful ones. Hence, attaining the end goal almost seems too easy. Nonetheless, I am forgiving on this point because I understand that recounting all the false leads and dead end interrogations would detract from the storyline and make the book boring.

I definitely recommend this book to everyone, but especially to Americans who have little interest in or knowledge of our conflicts in the Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the book reads like a psychological thriller, it is easy to become engrossed in the story. You don't have to be up to date on current events to enjoy this book. And meanwhile, it will open up your eyes and give you a glimpse of what may be going on in the Middle East.

A first-person-account of experiments with 'new ways' of interrogating terrorists to obtain vital information to save lives.
A book I would never ever have thought of reading in my whole life, had it not been for a suggestion.
An entirely new experience and window on the world.
A book read within a 24 hour period.
A book which taught me some things I really needed to learn and allowed me to visualise a world from which I am so far removed, yet which is so close in so many ways.

I picked up the book, intending to read a couple of chapters (they are short), then did "just one more chapter" until I had read it all in one sitting. ?Would I _encourage_ someone to read this book? No. But I certainly wouldn't discourage reading it.

The book is best described as a police procedural that charges straight ahead, pulling the reader along with it. But the key element of the procedural is immersion in the details, and this book stops far short, presumably because revealing additional details about the techniques and the personalities would make their jobs harder. For example, on interrogation technique, there was nothing I hadn't read/watched in popular accounts of police interrogation (the author's background). However, this absence of deeper detail didn't sink in until I was finishing the book. Despite these considerable constraints, it is a very well told story.

There are a lot of tidbits about the Iraq war. However, if you are interested enough in this topic to read this book, you have likely already encountered those details elsewhere. Nonetheless, it is interesting hearing them again in this context, plus hearing what was known when by whom. For example, long after reporters were describing support for al-Qaeda in Iraq as complex, most of the members of this intelligence unit - and the people they reported to - still hung on to the myth of its members as religious fanatics, thereby hobbling their ability to produce badly needed intelligence.

This book is disappointing in how constricted its viewpoint is. It describes the conflict between "old school" techniques (control, fear, "extraordinary measures") and "new school". The author could have been expected to have access to insights about the whys and wherefores of the rise of the "new school", both on the basis of his rank (Major) and this success. It would have been fascinating to understand why the "old school" practitioners resisted change despite evidence in their midst, but I suspect this would have involved profiling the interrogators as well as revealing organizational culture and weaknesses (which could help an enemy with their countermeasures). One of the few surprises - noted in the Foreword - was that this shift to "new school" had occurred in the US military but received scant outside notice.

Note: This conflict (over interrogation methods) has been widely covered in the media, but primarily as one of the CIA and the Bush Administration (ineffective/"old school") versus the FBI ("new school" from way back), with the military's participation dominated by Pentagon lawyers focused on adhering to the Geneva Conventions as protection for captured US warfighters (in subsequent conflicts). For example, see the recent book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals . Also "The Dark Side" has an abstract/policy view (rather than a personal one), thereby providing a broader perspective, for example, providing detainees with lawyers can help "break" them because the lawyer can shift the detainee's perspective from resistance to looking out for himself by cutting a deal.

The US military emphasizes operating within an enemy's "decision cycle" as critical, and intelligence gathering and exploitation is a key component. In immediate _tactical_ situations the US has a massive (but shrinking) advantage over the rest of the world. However, at the strategic level, the US military failed badly, going into the Iraq war with doctrines that were over a decade out-of-date. Echoing criticism by many, Defense Secretary Gates said that the US military has to prepare for the wars the nation _needs_ them to fight rather than the wars the generals _want_ to fight. Once in Iraq, the military was inconceivably slow to adapt, routinely being months, if not years, behind the curve. This story is one example of the US military's failure to push critical doctrinal changes into the field in a timely manner. For example, the unit should have being using the incoming "new school" interrogators to also train the existing ones in those techniques rather than letting them continue using ineffective techniques. This whole aspect goes unmentioned in this book.

At the very end of the book, there is a most unsatisfying comment on how military careerism had hobbled the hunt for al-Qaeda leadership, presenting it as an isolated incident. Although the author had little visibility into this particular situation, the very long history of problems for specialist operations (such as intelligence) from careerists such as "ring-bangers" (a type of Academy grad), "ticket-punchers", "bureaucrats" and "politicians" should have provided the author, with his many years of military service, with the basis for much more. With the author using the word "treason", it was boggling that he just let it drop.

I picked up the book, intending to read a couple of chapters (they are short), then did "just one more chapter" until I had read it all in one sitting. ?Would I _encourage_ someone to read this book? No. But I certainly wouldn't discourage reading it.

The book is best described as a police procedural that charges straight ahead, pulling the reader along with it. But a key element of the procedural is immersion in the details, and this book stops short, presumably because revealing additional details about the techniques and the personalities would make their jobs harder. For example, on interrogation technique, there was nothing I hadn't read/watched in popular accounts of police interrogation (the author's background). However, this absence of deeper detail didn't sink in until I was finishing the book. Despite these considerable constraints, it is a very well told story.

There are a lot of tidbits about the Iraq war. However, if you are interested enough in this topic to read this book, you have likely already encountered those details elsewhere. Nonetheless, it is interesting hearing them in this context, plus hearing what was known when by whom. For example, long after reporters were describing support for al-Qaeda in Iraq as complex, most of the members of this intelligence unit - and the people they reported to - still hung on to the myth of its members as religious fanatics, thereby inhibiting their ability to produce badly needed intelligence.

This book is disappointing in how constricted its viewpoint is. It describes the conflict between "old school" techniques (control, fear, "extraordinary measures") and "new school". The author could have been expected to have access to insights about the whys and wherefores of the rise of the "new school", both on the basis of his rank (Major) and this success. It would have been fascinating to understand why the "old school" practitioners resisted change despite evidence in their midst, but I suspect this would have involved profiling the interrogators as well as revealing organizational culture and weaknesses (which could help an enemy with their countermeasures). One of the few surprises - noted in the Foreword - was that this shift to "new school" had occurred in the US military but received scant outside notice.

Note: This conflict (over interrogation methods) has been widely covered in the media, but primarily as one of the CIA and the Bush Administration (ineffective/"old school") versus the FBI ("new school" from way back), with the Pentagon's lawyers focused on adhering to the Geneva Conventions as protection for captured US warfighters (in subsequent conflicts). For example, see the recent book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals

The US military emphasizes operating within an enemy's "decision cycle" as critical, and intelligence is a key component. In _tactical_ situations has a massive advantage over the rest of the world. However, at the strategic level, the US military failed badly, going into the Iraq war with doctrine that was over a decade out-of-date: Echoing criticism by many, Defense Secretary Gates said that the US military has to prepare for the wars the nation _needs_ them to fight rather than the wars the generals _want_ to fight. Once in Iraq, the military was inconceivably slow to adapt, routinely being months, if not years, behind the curve. This story is one example of the US military's failure to push critical doctrinal changes into the field in a timely manner: The unit should have being using the incoming "new school" interrogators to also train the existing ones in those techniques. This whole aspect goes unmentioned in this book.

At the very end of the book, there is a most unsatisfying comment on how military careerism had hobbled the hunt for al-Qaeda leadership, presenting it as an isolated incident. Although the author had little visibility into this particular situation, the very long history of problems for specialist operations (such as intelligence) from careerists such as "ring-bangers" (a type of Academy grad), "ticket-punchers", "bureaucrats" and "politicians" should have provided the author, with his many years of military service, with the basis for much more. With the author using the word "treason", it was boggling that he just let it drop.

There's a five-star book written between the lines of this one. I found the author's account of interrogations of Iraqi prisoners fascinating and his defense of noncoercive techniques persuasive. I'd like to believe that it's a fair and accurate portrayal of these techniques, but the book's credibility is affected by several editorial decisions.

Written as an as-told-to, first-person account by someone clearly convinced of his own beliefs, there's a question of his bias as the sole reporter of what happened behind those closed doors. The magazine-style of the writing makes a real page-turner out of the book - like good detective fiction, you can't put it down - but the breezy, breathless storytelling makes it all seem much more superficial than the material deserves. Finally, the "blacked out" passages suggest a further ratcheting up of drama, when they could simply have been deleted from the final version of the book like everything else that was edited out. Frankly, they seem more like a marketing ploy.

As torture remains an issue in the detention and interrogation of prisoners suspected of connections with enemies of the state, this is an important book for Americans especially to read. Written in a less accessible style, as an argument with substantiated evidence, instead of as an exciting story, it would surely not reach a large audience. But with its entertainment value emphasized, one can wonder whether its ultimate objective - reducing the reliance on and acceptance of torture - isn't finally compromised.

I saw publicity for this book on the Daily Show, and believed that it's an important enough topic to purchase the book. Sadly, it turned out not to be about Saddam Hussein, but the disappointment was more than made up for by the story told. Should be a mandatory read for all soldiers entering war in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an "Islam for Dummies" or basic introduction to the Koran and Iraqi/Afghanistani culture.

This is a quality book. Though real-life events (to the best of the recollection of the author) we get a gripping novel. There are great, round characters, an engaging plot building to climax, and edge-of-your-seat writing.

The content of the book is likewise laudable. "Matthew Alexander" presents an incredibly convincing case for the use of non-violent methods for dealing with your enemy during interrogation. He uses both argument and the power of a good story well told to show that the best information is obtained through relationship, viewing your enemy as human, and even expressing compassion for the enemy. Matthew isn't an stereotypical archetype like Jack Bauer- he's a real human, and is moved by the plight of the Iraqi people and even that of members of al Qa'ida. He shows us his humanity by recognizing the humanity in others.

At the same time, there are moments when I would wish for greater compassion for the enemy. And there are numerous moments when truth is tossed to the side for the sake of intel. Certainly, Matthew and others are to be commended for rejecting the use of torture and violence in this arena. The next step is to also embrace the truth testimony, if not for the pure ethics of the matter, at least for the purely pragmatic. I can imagine members of al Qa'ida reading this and appreciating the lack of torture, but also being forwarned that, if they are ever captured, never, never trust the deals the interrogator offers, for too often they are mere lies and not followed through on. True, Matthew also does follow through on many of his commitments, but he has no intention of doing so often enough that the result is one could not trust that they would receive what they were promised in exchange for information.

The primary reason to read this book, however, is for the sections that are blacked out, presumably by military intelligence. I've never run across a book like that before, and there is no discussion of it within the text, or the forward, so it's rather shocking to turn the page and see large sections that look like someone has taken a black marker to them. It's rather titillating, and of course makes the reader feel like they are in on a secret- or at least the edge of it. I look forward to reading the 25th anniversary copy of this book, when the Freedom of Information takes effect.

The story and the author's new techniques for interrogation are fascinating and impressive. They find relevance far beyond military or police personal - for that matter, building trust and reciprocity with friends and adversaries would do almost all of us a lot of good. And obviously the title sells the book much better than a review will be able to.

I do have two criticisms that undermined the credibility of the book. They may seem small but they are difficult to ignore both during and after reading.

1) The other annoyingly refers to himself and colleagues as 'gators (short for interrogators) and it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous. I'm sure it's different in person but in the book it is off-putting and obnoxious. Using the actual word would have made no difference whatsoever other than removing a colloquialism most of us are not familiar with.

2) Mark Bowden's foreword is a marketing ploy. Without exaggeration, it is 3 pages but has above the title billing on the book. Worse, Bowden says little and in no way provides context for the book. Anyone picking the book up for that reason will be disappointed.

Those two points of contention aside, the book is good. Unfortunately for the reader they are difficult to ignore and that prevents How to Break a Terrorist from being excellent.

I highly recommend this book for anyone seeking a greater understanding of the war in the Middle East, anyone interested in special ops, and anyone looking for great psychological suspense! I'm amazed at how Alexander transformed his experience in Iraq into such a fascinating story full of hard truth, cultural understanding, and haunting convictions. I am horrified that we, as a nation, can be so ignorant of the cultural differences and conflicts within the Middle East, and buy into the extreme propaganda leading us to believe that all Al Qaeda members are hard core mass murderers, who cut all ties with their former lives. I myself, was guilty of this ignorance. However, this book gave me the insight to understand that many of the members join only out of desperation, not devotion, in a last ditch effort to preserve their livelihoods and protect their families. They do what any of us might do, in desperate times, to provide for and protect our families. It was a hard dose of reality, softened with a touch of humanity.

I have always felt that forceful coercion and "torture" tactics are ultimately not the most effective way to get information or a desired response. In my opinion, this is not the way to "reason" with a fellow human being. I am of the " positive reinforcement" school of thought and a firm believer that treating people with respect, compassion, and understanding are the most effective ways to elicit a desired response. Being a mother of a two year old, I can assure you that the later method seems to work mostly effectively with someone yet unable to reason... and would likely be more effective on these individuals, unable to reason due to being immersed in anti-American propaganda. Our "torture" methods, forceful coercions, and degradation of detainees, only validates what they are being told and strengthens their resolve. I truly believe the use of these "new methods" could utterly transform the way we are perceived not only by our enemies, but by the entire world, and hopefully return America into a nation that can be respected for her humanity, without sacrificing safety.

This is a story that needed to be heard! I am so thankful that Alexander is a man of conviction and followed through, despite the hurdles he encountered with the DOD, and the potential implications on his career. Am deeply touched that Alexander, in light of all the inhumane and horrific things he experienced, was able to stand by his moral convictions and beliefs in a better way of interrogation. I am truly grateful to him
and all of the courageous men and women serving our country in such uncertain times... as I now see that their emotional sacrifice continues long after they return from their tours!

When thinking of Matthew Alexander and his story, I am reminded of a favorite quote by Gandhi... "Be the change you wish to see in the world." This is a perfect example of how embracing change, however difficult, can reap dramatic results!

This book reads like a fast-paced episode of the television series 24. The writing and attention to detail are exceptional. I read the entire 280 page book in less than day because I was simply riveted. The approaches "Matthew Alexander" uses in his interrogations just illustrates that the "old school" method of torture simply does not work. You don't have to be on the left or right of the political spectrum to appreciate the knowledge that is in this book and everyone who has an opinion on the methods of interrogations or even the war in Iraq should give this a read.

Great book I read it in two days because I couldn't put it down. A really great story.

very hard to put down. lost a lot of sleep staying up to read it

Good read. I just wish he would have went further explaining the results of this tactic and it's future use.

While this is an interesting and quick read, it is also fairly superficial. The author tells how he tried a new approach to interrogation and how well it seemed to work. We don't have any way of evaluating his claim as to how effective his methods were vs. the methods used by other 'gators'. The dialogue in interesting, and he reveals some facts about the methods he used. But overall I wasn't convinced that his way was superior. And there are times when interrogators can't wait, as lives are at stake.

Quick read - hard to put down. I love the philosophy used to get the intelligence needed to find Al Zarqawi and how it differed from the old school style of interrogation. I would have given five stars, but felt like the end of the book was a bit rushed.

How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq

A fascinating read, Matthew used a man's emotions to get him to disclose
his terrorist activities. In one case Matt pretended he knew the problems associated with supporting a mistress and a wife. The terrorist
when on to speak about the problems with maintaining a young mistress who
was always asking for more and more money. Eventually the terrorist who
was a TV repair man in Iraq had to take money from Zarqawi the head of Iraqi terrorist organizations to assemble suicide bomb vests. He later
disclosed he had made several hundred of the vests in attempts to satisfy
his mistress. He disclosed who had contact with Zarqawi. That bit of information led to our ability to nail Zarqawi.

Doc Haskell

This book is very important and a MUST read.

You might also want to check out an interview/panel discussion on the same SUBJECT held at

the Center for Strategic and International Studies (this past Summer 2008):

[...]

Simply put, this is a book that NEEDED to be written and NEEDS to be read. Not only does the book provide valuable insight regarding our country's intelligence and interrogation efforts in finding and quelling insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, it also requires the reader to closely examine his or her conscience and convictions.

These are the type of books that are "must reads" regardless of the genre because they educate the ignorant, call out injustices, and embolden those who understand that to do nothing against injustice is to accept it and cooperate with it.

Matthew Alexander's writing style is easy(not at all laborious considering the topic) which allows the reader time to consider the setting, the scenes, the characters, and to become further engaged in the book. It does read like a great novel...engrossing as well as haunting when the realization sets in that these are real not fictional characters.

While reading "How To Break a Terrorist", I was reminded on several occasions of another of my favorite books, the Pulitzer Prize winning novel "To Kill a Mockingbird." Perhaps, it is because I view Matthew Alexander to possess many of the qualities that made 'Atticus Finch' so memorable, or perhaps it is because Matthew Alexander, like Harper Lee, risked much to tell a story of injustice and did so in such a way that even younger readers could appreciate the lesson to be learned...

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Sir Edmund Burke

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

As a former DLI-trained linguist Army Intel officer, I will tell you that this clown is a complete imposter and phony.

1st - the "Air Farce", which he claims to have been, does no such interrogation of captured ground combatants -DUH!- the Army or the Marines who capture them do it...and that's why about 90+% of military interrogators are Army (MOS 97E). If it's a high value target, there will be CIA or NSA "observers" present...I've never seen an Air Farce weenie. (Military Intelligence - all service branches - take their strategic tasking from the DirNSA).

2nd - He/you may call it "torture" but coercive interrogation DOES work.....that's why it's been used throughout the history of mankind, and quite effectively when done right.

3rd - I'd look at this imposter's funding to see who he really is and who's propping him up.

In summary - he's a 100% liar and a fraud.

I've read a number of books on the Iraq War, from soldiers' memoirs to journalists' observations. "How to Break a Terrorist" stands alone from that group, as it gives an inside look into specific tactics on the most personal level.

I can see why the book ruffled some feathers--it is a complete rejection of the ways of old, and the new methods expressed in it could certainly raise some eyebrows. Creating relationships and developing mutual respect seems counter intuitive when dealing with mass murders. Why show respect to people who would just as easily blow you up as they would sit in a room with you? And indeed, the author's inner turmoil over this point, combined with his persistent dedication to the cause (nailing Al Zarqawi) and trust in new methods of interrogation, is one of the more compelling subplots of the book.

The characters we meet are fascinating. I won't talk too much about that, because you should read about them yourself, but the men he interrogates are all distinctly different, and the methods he uses change based on the subject, from the street peddlers up to the final link to Al Zarqawi, whose breaking requires the most creative interrogation tactic of all.

To make it even more interesting, the new methods aren't even entirely accepted by the other members of the interrogation team, who prefer control tactics instead--the office politics--set in a warzone--remind us that old ways die hard. Also, as someone who only has a view of the military from the outside, I was surprised to read about the structure of the interrogation unit. Matthew is a major, but his rank doesn't matter--one of the funnier exchanges comes within the books first few pages, when an NCO asks him if he'll have a "hard f***ing time" with a sergeant giving him orders. Nearly everyone is an equal in this endeavor.

Beyond the interrogation and workrooms, though, the author also makes a poignant commentary on the conflict itself: many Sunni join Al-Qaida out of economic and security reasons, and not because they care too much about the cause or are particularly fanatical. It's a decision to maintain the livelihoods of them and their families. By building good relations with the Sunni and presenting an alternative to joining Al-Qaida, the author posits, we can better go about creating a strong Iraq (he is vindicated--and I don't think this gives anything away--by some of General Petraeus's later initiatives that do exactly that).

The author manages to convey his message about the effectiveness of the new, psychological interrogation methods without sounding preachy. He mentions torture sparingly, and focuses on why his ways work far more than on why others don't. Unlike other Iraq commentaries I've read, he doesn't have an ulterior agenda, and isn't out to get anyone, destroy careers, or anything even close to that. The DoD censures a good chunk of lines in the book, and yet, besides some exasperation linked to the aforementioned office politics, he never once says anything bad about his command--that's quite admirable.

I suggest picking up a copy, pronto. It's short (275 pages or so) and a total page turner--I read about 150 pages tonight alone, promising myself after each chapter that I'd go to sleep. But the book kept reeling me back in.

Cliff notes version? Enthralling read that offers an alternative perspective on the war, and a micro view of how we might enjoy overall success in the conflict.

How to Break a Terrorist is a terrific book, and one that reinforces our country's ideals and values. We can beat these terrorists without getting down to their level. I just read another hero's book, WWII vet Arvy Geurin's Walking Through Fire, An Iwo Jima Survivor's Remembrance

As a person who feels very disappointed in our government's torture policies, I was intrigued by this book. Once I started it, I could not put it down. It reads like finely crafted fiction, even though it's purely factual.

As the interrogations unfold, you get to feel the full range of emotions experienced by the terrorist, and then see how they are used by a new breed of interrogator. These interrogators use their brains, rather than force, to 'break' one terrorist after another, leading them to the most wanted man in Iraq.

The book has left me with a better sense of how complex the situation is in Iraq, and also a deeper understanding of what it means to be human...and why some people do inhuman things. In the face of these inhuman things, I deeply admire the courage of the author to maintain his moral compass and lead change.

This book should be read because it's one hell of an exciting story, it's beautifully written, and it conveys a hopeful message!

I finished this book in less than 24 hours. The author's account of what he did and what he saw opened my eyes to the "behind the scenes" of war. The book is very straight-forward and easy to read. You may be uneasy with some of the material, but it paints a vivid, unedited picture of the hows and whys of the war. However, the author's description of his seemingly incompetent colleagues and the apparent improper use of authority to keep people who were not performing in their jobs was quite appalling. But, in the end, our guys were victorious. The author performed his job well, and for that, I am grateful.

WOW!! What an amazing read from a brave American hero! From the first page, this book will tempt you to the next page and the next until you are completely riveted. Matthew Alexander writes with excellent detail a story that all Americans need to hear. Kudos to him for using his brains not brutality to take down the deadliest man in Iraq! That's the true American way!

As a mother of two young kids, I am very particular about the books I read because my spare time is too valuable to waste on mediocre books. I didn't know what to expect. Military history is not my typical genre, but the book title piqued my interest. I was not let down by the author. The book reads like a good novel and completely captivated my attention for hours. It still amazes me that the events depicted in this book really occurred.

Not only is "How to Break a Terrorist" a great book to read by the fire, I am heartened that there is a positive lesson learned from the Iraq war. Torture is not necessary. Bravo!

This is a very, very important book. It rekindles my belief in the integrity of America, it's moral values and my support for our brave men and women in the US military. This book should and will hopefully be the catalyst which changes the way we do things in Iraq, Afghanistan and all future military operations.

How to Break a Terrorist is a riveting story that teaches us that we, The United States, can win the war against terrorism; not by using brutality and coercion but by living up to the ideals which make our country great.

Once you begin reading How to Break a Terrorist, you will be drawn into the secret world of interrogation. You WILL NOT want to put the book down. Despite knowing the ending - you will be on the edge of your seat the entire journey.

Don't want to present any spoilers. Mr. Alexander tells a very compelling story about his experiences in Iraq. His story runs the gambit of emotions and really makes you think about what is happening in the wars that we are fighting. I also could not put the book down and read it over two days. Highly recommended for the story and the writing style.

Given the author's background and first hand knowledge of how brains vice brutality works better I have to agree with the basis of this book. Irregardless of what we think about torture the point of this book is that every interrogation is different especially when you're dealing with such a dynamic culture such as those encountered in the middle east. The same concept needs to be adapted if we were to engage in a war with China and had to conduct debriefings of POWs. As for torture...lets save that discussion for another day like the day we have to save our country from a WMD attack and we need rapid elicitation of information from someone who we think could prevent this catastrophe from occurring. What if it was your town that was being targeted and your love ones were in harms way, then how would you feel about using torture. I don't agree with torture but just like there's various tools for construction the same principle could apply here. GREAT Book!

It's non-fiction that reads with taut suspense...a hard dose of truth. A game within a game with the highest of stakes: American lives.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and literally could not put it down.

If you enjoy reading mystery, intrigue, military warfare, special ops, good vs evil, covert ops, psychological ops, and good old fashioned tactics, you will love this book and keep it displayed on your bookshelf long after you've read it.

An awesome read.

This book ends the debate about torture. It does not work and cannot be relied upon for valid information - besides IT IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL.

I believe those responsible for the torture crimes committed during the Iraq War should be investigated in accordance with Scott Horton's article, "Justice after Bush: Prosecuting an Outlaw Administration", in the December 2008 issue of Harper's magazine.

This excellent book will help convince others that torturers must be stopped and punished.

Some people don't see eye to eye with the Bush Administration. Some do. That's okay. We're still America. We can disagree amicably.

The author presents a story involving how psychology was used to obtain better data more rapidly than through the use of brutality. I see that as a positive thing.

People die in war. Many times the innocent suffer far out of proportion to the gulty. There is no way to eliminate "collateral damage" as long as there are wars.

And there is no way for free peoples to avoid war without just surrendering to anyone who demands it.

I liked the stories in the book. No, I'm not offering any spoilers here; but I was fascinated by the ways the captured terrorists were manipulated into willingly revealing data that they might never have given up under torture.

We all hate war; but this book shows that we can win and still be the good guys...