Slashdot Mirror
Book Review: The Terrorists of Iraq
benrothke writes: The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting random typewriter keys for an infinite amount of time will eventually be able to create the complete works of Shakespeare. Various scientists such as Nobel laureate Arno Penzias have shown how the theorem is mathematically impossible. Using that metaphor, if you took every member of United States Congress and House of Representatives and wrote their collected wisdom on Iraq, it's unlikely they could equal the astuteness of even a single chapter of author Malcolm W. Nance in The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014. It's Nance's overwhelming real-world experiential knowledge of the subject, language, culture, tribal affiliations and more which make this the overwhelming definitive book on the subject. Read below for the rest of Ben's review.
The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014, 2nd Edition
author
Malcolm W. Nance
pages
404
publisher
CRC Press
rating
10/10
reviewer
Ben Rothke
ISBN
978-1498706896
summary
Definitive text on the Iraq War written by one of the few Americans who truly understand the issue
Nance is a career intelligence officer, combat veteran, author, scholar and media commentator on international terrorism, intelligence, insurgency and torture. In 2014 he became the executive director of the counter-ideology think tank the Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics and Radical Ideologies (TAPSTRI).
While it's debatable if most members of Congress could elucidate the difference between the Sunnis and Shiites; Nance knows all of the players in depth. He understands and describes who there are, what they are and how their methods work. His unique analysis provides an in-depth understanding of who these groups are and what they are fighting about.
The book details how the many terror groups formed to create the Iraqi insurgency that led to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Nance places the blame on the Bush administrations 2003 invasion of Iraq that lead to the destabilization of the country. While the war was based on faulty evidence, the insurgency was created by myriad mistakes, misperceptions and miscalculations by L. Paul Bremer, who lead the occupational authority of Iraq during the war.
A common theme Nance makes throughout the book is that the US ignored history and didn't learn the lessons of the Iraqi revolt against the British in 1920 or the events of the Vietnam War. Those lessons being that insurgents and foreign terrorist operations were much more effective despite the enormous manpower and firepower that the U.S. troops brought to bear in Iraq.
Nance details how much of the coalition's strategy was based on wishful thinking. He writes that Washington never had a realistic plan for post-war Iraq. Only Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the ex-Ba'athists has a definitive strategy for what to do in post-war Iraq. Unlike the Americans, they mobilized the right resources and persons for the job, with devastating and horrifying effects.
The book writes of the utterly depravity and evil nature of Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay. Following the first Gulf War. Qusay revealed a brutality to match both his father's and brother's. The Hussein family was responsible for the death and torture of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq's and others.
The insurgency was and is made up of countless different groups. Some of these groups number under a hundred members, others in the tens of thousands. Nance details who these groups are, their makeup and leadership structure and what they hope to achieve.
Nance quotes Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks who described the insurgency as dead-enders; namely small groups dedicated to Hussein, and not large military formations or networks of attackers. Yet the reality was that Hussein started creating the insurgency in the months before the invasion. Rather than being a bunch of dead-enders, the insurgency was a group that was highly organized, heavily armed, with near unlimited funds based on looting hundreds of millions of dollars.
From a reporting perspective, the book details how the U.S. government made the same mistakes in Iraq as it did in Iran. Underreporting U.S. casualties, over reporting enemy losses, and obfuscating how terrible the situation on the ground was.
The term IED (improvised explosive device) became part of the vernacular during the Iraq War. The book details how the insurgency used the many different types of IED's (including human-based IED) at specific times and places for their political and propaganda goals.
Nance writes that the biggest gift the U.S. gave to Osama bin Laden was to invade Iraq. The invasion provided him with an opportunity for inspirational jihad. bin Laden envisioned a holy war with heroic men fights against desperate odds in the heart of historic Islam, just like the first battles of the Prophet Mohammed.
Nance spends a few chapters dealing with ISIS and how it came to be. There are multiple iterations of the group, which developed as the Iraq mess evolved.
The book closes with a disheartening overview of the current state. Nance writes that the Middle East is in far more danger from destabilizing collapse of states due to the effects of the American invasion today than it has ever been.
As ISIS is currently the dominant force in Iraq; Nance states that he fears ISIS will have no intention of going back to being a small insurgent group. It will attempt to consolidate captured terrain. It will offer the Sunni a chance to rule under it at the technocrat level, but that is when the pogroms will start.
In the end, Nance writes, the Islamic caliphate will attempt and fail at creating a popular Iraqi-Syrian nation out of stolen governorates. But unless confronted quickly and forcefully, it may become an isolated jihadistan from which no end of terror will spawn.
For those that want to truly understand the Iraq conflict, Nancy is eminently qualified and this book is uniquely superb. There is no better book than The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014 on the subject.
Reviewed by Ben Rothke.
You can purchase The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014, 2nd Edition from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. If you'd like to see what books we have available from our review library please let us know.
While it's debatable if most members of Congress could elucidate the difference between the Sunnis and Shiites; Nance knows all of the players in depth. He understands and describes who there are, what they are and how their methods work. His unique analysis provides an in-depth understanding of who these groups are and what they are fighting about.
The book details how the many terror groups formed to create the Iraqi insurgency that led to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Nance places the blame on the Bush administrations 2003 invasion of Iraq that lead to the destabilization of the country. While the war was based on faulty evidence, the insurgency was created by myriad mistakes, misperceptions and miscalculations by L. Paul Bremer, who lead the occupational authority of Iraq during the war.
A common theme Nance makes throughout the book is that the US ignored history and didn't learn the lessons of the Iraqi revolt against the British in 1920 or the events of the Vietnam War. Those lessons being that insurgents and foreign terrorist operations were much more effective despite the enormous manpower and firepower that the U.S. troops brought to bear in Iraq.
Nance details how much of the coalition's strategy was based on wishful thinking. He writes that Washington never had a realistic plan for post-war Iraq. Only Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the ex-Ba'athists has a definitive strategy for what to do in post-war Iraq. Unlike the Americans, they mobilized the right resources and persons for the job, with devastating and horrifying effects.
The book writes of the utterly depravity and evil nature of Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay. Following the first Gulf War. Qusay revealed a brutality to match both his father's and brother's. The Hussein family was responsible for the death and torture of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq's and others.
The insurgency was and is made up of countless different groups. Some of these groups number under a hundred members, others in the tens of thousands. Nance details who these groups are, their makeup and leadership structure and what they hope to achieve.
Nance quotes Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks who described the insurgency as dead-enders; namely small groups dedicated to Hussein, and not large military formations or networks of attackers. Yet the reality was that Hussein started creating the insurgency in the months before the invasion. Rather than being a bunch of dead-enders, the insurgency was a group that was highly organized, heavily armed, with near unlimited funds based on looting hundreds of millions of dollars.
From a reporting perspective, the book details how the U.S. government made the same mistakes in Iraq as it did in Iran. Underreporting U.S. casualties, over reporting enemy losses, and obfuscating how terrible the situation on the ground was.
The term IED (improvised explosive device) became part of the vernacular during the Iraq War. The book details how the insurgency used the many different types of IED's (including human-based IED) at specific times and places for their political and propaganda goals.
Nance writes that the biggest gift the U.S. gave to Osama bin Laden was to invade Iraq. The invasion provided him with an opportunity for inspirational jihad. bin Laden envisioned a holy war with heroic men fights against desperate odds in the heart of historic Islam, just like the first battles of the Prophet Mohammed.
Nance spends a few chapters dealing with ISIS and how it came to be. There are multiple iterations of the group, which developed as the Iraq mess evolved.
The book closes with a disheartening overview of the current state. Nance writes that the Middle East is in far more danger from destabilizing collapse of states due to the effects of the American invasion today than it has ever been.
As ISIS is currently the dominant force in Iraq; Nance states that he fears ISIS will have no intention of going back to being a small insurgent group. It will attempt to consolidate captured terrain. It will offer the Sunni a chance to rule under it at the technocrat level, but that is when the pogroms will start.
In the end, Nance writes, the Islamic caliphate will attempt and fail at creating a popular Iraqi-Syrian nation out of stolen governorates. But unless confronted quickly and forcefully, it may become an isolated jihadistan from which no end of terror will spawn.
For those that want to truly understand the Iraq conflict, Nancy is eminently qualified and this book is uniquely superb. There is no better book than The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014 on the subject.
Reviewed by Ben Rothke.
You can purchase The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency 2003-2014, 2nd Edition from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews (sci-fi included) -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. If you'd like to see what books we have available from our review library please let us know.
career intelligence officer
Was he one of the career intelligence officers who claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Or was he one of the career intelligence officers who completely didn't see 9-11 coming at all? Or perhaps was he one of the career intelligence officers who had no idea where Osama Bin Laden was until some random tipster called them up and told them his address?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
What is meant by the U.S. government made the same mistakes in Iraq as it did in Iran.? The U.S. has not invaded Iran any time recently.
Just how the weapons became ubiquitous is also not touched on in this summary: Saddam Hussein had an armory. The U.S. forces took that armory. Then they carried on towards Baghdad, towards the major prize and *glory* (cue exciting music). One undefended armory.
One thing that totally stank is that the whole thing was then lost in U.S. party politics. The Republicans lied about having lied and all their supporters started claiming black was white and that the weapons of mass destruction had really existed. We are getting the same kind of crud now from the St Petersburg Propagandazentral with respect to the Ukraine.
Another thing that stank was the sacking of pretty much all Baath party members. Being a party member was a requirement for many kinds of job, sacking all these people created a large pool of disaffected people. This was known at the time but the idiots in charge "knew better". I found it difficult to believe that so much stupidity was not malicious.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Monkey keystrokes and infinite time does produce the works of Shakespeare.
So let's show monkeys a little more respect than comparing them members of Congress.
ok...so I am not a scholar...who is Thomas Friedman?
He is a neo-con idiot, one of many, who predicted that American troops would be greeted by Iraqis as heroic liberators, and that Iraq would soon be a beacon of democracy, and pave the way for peace and love throughout the Middle East.
The assertion that the infinite monkeys theorum has been disproved seems incorrect. Searches for the named scientist in conjuction with monkey also fail.
IOW, I suspect the entire article is garbage. I will admit that this is based on the fact the the only easily checkable statement appears to be factually incorrect, but if it's wrong where you can check, what should you believe about the places where you can't check?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He is a neo-con idiot, one of many, who predicted that American troops would be greeted by Iraqis as heroic liberators
They were, at least by the Shia and Kurds. Of course, we fucked that up, through our own incompetence, and of course the Shia never going to be particularly happy when we got in the way of their pogrom against the Sunnis. The whole country is an artificial creation that is destined for the trash bin of history; everything we're seeing now would have happened eventually without our intervention. Fake countries rarely survive when their strongman dies. Our mistake was in being the one to break it, thus owning the problem.
Recent events (Libya) suggest that we still haven't fully digested this lesson. If you're gonna blow it up you should probably have a plan for what happens afterwards.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that it took only a finite number of monkeys a finite period of time to "randomly" produce the works of Shakespeare.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
One of the Gawker sites interviewed this guy a few weeks ago. I went into it ready to criticize, but now I wish more people like him were in charge of the armed forces.
http://phasezero.gawker.com/an...
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
Every country is fake. We tend to forget that after they've been around for awhile. It's a form of bias. The whole anti-colonial "artificial states" argument has no substance. There's no dichotomy between "natural" and "unnatural" nation-states. The reasons why some stick around and others turn into hell holes is, like many things, not amenable to simple explanations.
Believing in such simple theories is precisely how we ended up thinking that Iraq was a slam dunk. Remember, we were told that Iraq, much like other dictatorships-cum-democracies around the world, was a modern nation with an educated elite and a large middle-class. The very things that we were told were responsible for bridging ethnic divides in successful countries everywhere.
Anyhow, it's only been 15 years. Countries like the UK, for example, took hundreds (if not thousands) of years to become non-violent. The U.S. seemed to be solid until the Civil War. Basically, how about we dispense with the lofty rhetoric and highfalutin political theories and focus on more concrete problems and solutions. History will play out in ways we haven't even begun to fathom.
Resisting invasion and occupation of one's country does not make one a terrorist except to the invaders.
1. From Slashdot's own Book Review Guidelines (emphasis mine): "In particular, we're interested in reviews of books on programming, computer security, the history of technology and anything else (including Science Fiction, cyberpunk, etc.) that fits under the "News for Nerds" umbrella."
The reviewed book doesn't seem to fit any of the name checked categories and even to fit in the more general "News for Nerds" umbrella seems to be very generous for most interpretations of what a "nerd" would be in this context (of computer, technology, science fiction and cyberpunk).
2. Here are the reviews from the past 12 months. Despite of the lack of reviewers the theme is almost always related to technology (even if as a pretext to discuss infosec, law enforcement and natsec). Curiously the same reviewer that submitted this review submitted most of the barely related ones.
Of course, to be fair it likely didn't help that the current administration decided to yank nearly all US troops out of the country before the job was done, either.
No matter your feelings or opinions on how the war began or was handled during the Bush administration, you cannot deny that finishing it properly should have been a top priority no matter who started it. Consider, if the allies had withdrawn from Germany that soon after WWII, the Nazis (or a derivative group thereof) would have arisen once more, and Germany would likely still be a mess today. Instead, post-WWII the allies (for better or worse) kept occupation for years on end, slowly passing control, then autonomy, then self-defense, etc to the post-war German government ( well, governments, as we did have two of them for the longest time thanks to the USSR.)
Why this wasn't done properly in Iraq is a serious head-scratcher, especially given that Iraq was indeed an artificial country (thanks, England!), and doubly so because of the regional culture plus pre-existing secular tensions. It would have been a long, expensive road, but it was certainly at least doable.
Incidentally, it probably didn't help that Syria went straight to hell in recent years, either - or that Iran has been working like hell behind the scenes to keep things unstable. But to be honest, those only serve as stronger arguments for keeping treasure and troops committed towards reconstruction in Iraq (and maybe a bit of that towards keeping Iran's little activities clamped down as hard as possible).
Long story short: anyone who tries to place the blame for the mess on any one person or political party is an idiot. There's plenty of blame to go around on this one...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Both your position and TFA's to be perfectly clear. Members of the House, Military, and all of the various intelligence agencies are masses of people with a huge amount of collective knowledge. That "Bob" didn't know something is complete crap, because last time US Security relied on one person was... well, absolutely NEVER!
Saddam had no Nuclear weapons, and the whole story about yellow cake was fabricated by various intelligence agencies to fit an agenda. Everyone in politics and the Military knew it was bullshit, and everyone knew why it was invented by the Italian version of the CIA (which is why they attempted to hide the source). Bush was going to go to war no matter what. It was sold to the public by lots of politicians using every method imaginable (free oil, those damn terrorists, that evil dictator, etc...). The point in the propaganda game is not to convince other politicians of an action, it is to convince the public that the action is justified. That is right, the war was going to happen regardless of public opinion so it was purely justification.
Why do some people that believe politicians are stupid, do things from complete ignorance, and do things without understanding all of the possible outcomes? Well, those same people are quite frankly batshit crazy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Regime change in Iraq was stated US policy, signed into law by Bill Clinton. The AUMF was approved by Congress, with a bipartisan vote. None of this is to defend GWB, simply to point out the GP is accurate when he said there's plenty of blame to go around.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You made a false claim. The current administration did not decide to yank troops out of Iraq. The Bush administration made an agreement with the Iraqi government on when US troops would be withdrawn. See Pact, Approved in Iraq, Sets Time for U.S. Pullout. It was, as nearly every bit of policy from the Bush administration related to Iraq, optimistic and a bad choice.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request. See Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay for just one of many contemporaneous articles on the attempts to keep US troops in Iraq.
Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around, but, contrary to your claim, the reason troops were pulled out of Iraq was because of an agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
Silly...Bush 2 started the 2nd Iraq war which destabilized it all. Had he not done that, there would be no ISIS in Iraq.
Bush 2 defeated proto-ISIS (al-Quaeda in Iraq) with US troops and Sunni tribal fighters in the An Bar Awakening. Proto-ISIS sent word to al-Quaeda leadership to stop sending fighters, that the battle was lost.
Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq. The departure of Occupational/Stabilization forces was negotiated under Bush 2 but since it would be occurring on the next President's watch it was left to that next President to negotiate any residual force that would be left. Obama had no interest in doing so. When the Iraqis said no immunity for US troops Obama used that as an excuse to bail. The fact is the Iraqis *always* open negotiations with that position and then they *always* drop it when the US adds enough money and resources to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic, but Obama didn't want a successful negotiation. If a residual force had been left behind they would not even have had to engage ISIS directly on the ground. Such a force would have access to air support and could have called in air strikes on ISIS convoys of pickup trucks with heavy weapons traveling down open desert highways. You can't really find a scenario more vulnerable to air power, see Highway of Death from the first Gulf War. So what ISIS personnel survived would have lacked heavy weapons and would have been far more easily handled by local Iraqi forces. Not to mention with US backing these same Iraqi tribal forces beat ISIS the first time around. Its only because of US abandonment and abandonment by Baghdad too did these tribal forces decide to flip and join rather than fight.
The circumstances that led to the resurrection of ISIS is entirely Obama's doing, not Bush 2's. At least for the US' share of the blame, Baghdad's treatment of the Sunnis is responsible for a share too. Of course with greater US involvement such things had been mitigated in the past, so US abandonment had a role in that too.
The facts are clear and incontrovertible:
You can believe whatever you want about how hard the Obama administration tried, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter; the claim made by the GP was false.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true. Things like a lack of immunity for US troops were used as an excuse to leave. The Iraqis opened with such a position in past negotiations and gave in once sufficient money and resources were added to the deal. Its a negotiating tactic. The problem is the new administration did not want a deal, they wanted all out at any cost, so this initial position became a convenient impediment to a deal.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
The Obama administration tried to extend the presence of US troops in Iraq, but the Iraqi government denied the request.
That is not really true.
Nothing you wrote backs up that assertion. The Obama administration requested US troops be allowed to stay in Iraq after the negotiated deadline. The Iraqi government said no. Yes, the two governments negotiated, and you have your belief about how that went, but that's your belief. I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Actually you ignore some facts. Fact 1. No immunity was a deal breaker. Fact 2. No immunity was an opening position in past deals and was negotiated away.
The fact of the situation is that BHO was sitting in office when things went to shit. I believe it was a Democrat that said, "The buck stops here." BHO doesn't get a pass here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm just talking about the facts of the situation.
Oops there is a 3rd fact. Fact 1. No immunity was a deal breaker. Fact 2. No immunity was an opening position in past deals and was negotiated away. Fact 3. The Iraqis granted immunity in Dec 2014.
Neither of those claims are pertinent. You are discussing the negotiations, not the fact that the Bush administration made the agreement that caused the withdrawal of the troops.
Also, while the first is true, the second is false.
Quoting from Immunity for troops was Iraq deal breaker
Look, I get it, blaming President Obama for an early troop withdrawal has become accepted truth for many. That doesn't mean it's true, though. You have two options - continue to cling to a falsehood, defending it with ever more unlikely claims, or move on.
Your first two claims were dealt with above.
The immunity agreement given by Iraq for fighting against Daesh is different than the one required in 2011.
I was right. You were wrong.
How do you answer Krugman's question: "Why didn't you see the obvious back then?"
That's Judith Miller's version. This is one of those situations where credibility and accuracy counts, and don't trust her to get the story straight. She didn't before.
I read Miller's stories in the NYT during the debate over WMDs. She gave one source who verified the WMDs, but she didn't speak to him -- her handlers pointed to a guy some distance away, and told her what he said, but they wouldn't let her talk to him. She was quoting a claim second-hand.
Yes, they fed her cherry-picked information. The information from the UN inspection team, whose members I heard interviewed on NPR, was that the US gave them the location of WMD facilities, they conducted surprise inspections, and the WMDs weren't there. The Pentagon didn't tell Miller about that.
It's not the job of a reporter to uncritically repeat the claims of high-placed sources. The job of a reporter is to check their claims with people who disagree, and get both sides. I learned that in Freshman English.
Bottom line: I knew that there were no WMDs. Krugman knew. Lots of people knew. You didn't need any fancy intelligence sources to figure that out. All you had to do was listen to both sides and see whose arguments held up. Reporters were talking to independent military experts, and the experts overwhelmingly told them that the claims weren't true. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists had military experts who said they weren't true. The aluminum tubes story was provably false. The yellowcake story was provably false. How many times do you have to see their stories proven false before you realize that they're not reliable?