< Continued from page 1

About.com Rating



Instead of maintaining control over training, the CIA allowed private organizations to obtain and then spread detailed information on violence ? specifically, terrorism and tactics necessary to drive out the Russians. Once the war was over, knowledge of how to commit terrorism didn?t go home with the CIA. It stayed in religious schools that continued combining military and religious training, thus producing holy warriors ? but warriors against the godless West instead of the godless Russians.

• ?The CIA was key to the forging of the link between Islam and terror in central Asia and to giving radical Islamists international reach and ambition. The groups it trained and sponsored shared a triple embrace: of terror tactics, of holy war as a political ideology, and of a transnational recruitment of fighters, who acquired hyphenated identities.?

Who are the ?bad Muslims? menacing America? They are highly motivated, religious Muslims who believe they have the key to creating a just, equitable, and divinely sanctioned society. They believe the culture and politics of the West corrupts Muslims and are willing to challenge Western power over the future of the Arab world, convinced that because they are fighting for God they will win.

They are willing to use terror and violence to achieve their goals.

In all of this, they are exactly what America helped make them to be in order to more effectively fight against the Soviet Union. America needed motivated fighters in what must have seemed like an unwinnable conflict.

They needed people willing to stand up to and fighting one of the largest militaries in the world. They needed people willing to use terror and violence on both military and civilian targets. All of these needs were met, but the solution didn?t go away once the problem disappeared; instead it remained and grew, looking for a new ?problem? to address.

The Islamist perception of the West as representing a corrupting influence on Islam and Muslims is probably right. Ironically, though, it is the Islamic terrorists themselves who are the expression of that corruption ? they are the ones who are deviating from Muslim tradition and they are the ones who threaten to undermine Islamic civilization.

Mamdani does a good job connecting the dots and revealing America?s complicity in the creation of current Islamic terrorist movement.

However, there is no discussion (or acknowledgment) about whether the U.S. had good reasons to undermine the Soviets in Afghanistan. There is no discussion about whether better options existed than the bad one chosen.

I think that at times he succumbs to the errors he points out in others. It may be true that the label ?bad Muslim? is used in a political rather than religious manner, this doesn?t mean that the religious ideology of these ?bad Muslims? is good or even neutral.

There are Islamic terrorists who are ?bad Muslims? because they want to impose an authoritarian theocracy on people ? making them ?bad? not simply for the West but for other Muslims as well. Mamdani, however, doesn?t seem to fully appreciate this and attacks people like Bernard Lewis who are critical of extremists.

Mamdani?s perspective on America also leads him to uncritically accept others? attacks on American actions, for example the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War. He describe DU as ?radioactive and highly toxic,? claiming that it is responsible for a huge increase in cancers in Iraq. That, however, is implausible.

He notes that U-238 has a ?half-life of four and a half billion years,? but fails to appreciate what that means.

Quite often the shorter an element?s half-life, the more energy is gives off; the longer an element?s half-life, the less energy it gives off. The half-life of U-238 is as long as the age of the earth because it gives off so little energy.

Depleted uranium munitions are not a radioactive danger ? but that doesn?t mean that they are harmless. They represent the same threat of toxicity as other heavy metals, for example, if you inhale them as oxidized dust that is a problem. But what should the military do, go back to using lead munitions? When did lead become a safe alternative? Depleted uranium causes problems, but not in a way that is significantly worse than the alternatives.

Mamdani gives the impression that he is looking for anything he can find to attack America with, perhaps hoping that if enough is thrown against the wall some will stick. That is unfortunate because errors like this could have been easily eliminated; by including them, he seriously undermines his credibility and what is otherwise a very insightful and thought-provoking work. I still recommend it, but only with reservations ? anyone who reads it must do so carefully and critically, lest they be swept up in Mamdani?s excesses and errors.

« Back...