Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror

Author Mahmood Mamdani is a scholarly writer and thinker who combines the intellect of a fact-seeking philosopher with the heart of a Gandhi. This book, _Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror_ is classically written, that is, the thesis statement and argument is clearly presented in the Introduction; Chapters 1 through 4 present the evidence, and the concluding chapter tightens up the presentation of the evidence while synthesizing the facts with a solution to war, a proposal that will lead to world peace. (In my view, if the U.S.A. is to retain global leadership and respect, we have to show that the way to peace is through peace not permanent global warfare.) I won't restate Mamdani's argument here--other reviewers have done that--but let me encourage the reader to follow Mamdani's argument from beginning to end. Please do not cherry-pick the chapters or read only bits, for when you get to the concluding pages, the heart and soul of the author's wisdom and state-craft will be obvious.This book was originally published four years ago, and since then much of what Mamdani wrote has now become well-known: for example, there is no "war" in Iraq that can be "won," only a "political" solution will create peace, the militarization of the Christian right in the U.S.A. is similar to the militarization of Islam, and many of Ronald Reagan's policies have resulted in current U.S. troubles. What makes this book a must read is the author's synthesis of facts and his love of humanity. There is some tough-love medicine that Americans must acknowledge in order to become world leaders; every educated voter owes to himself or herself to study this book.

As a British reader, it's fascinating to read all the reviews of this book which describe it as "biased". Having lived in the US for several months now, it is a constant source of astonishment to me how biased (pro-Israeli government) the US media is in covering the Israel-Palestine conflict.I'm not just talking about the European media: Haaretz (a respectable left-wing newspaper in Israel) has the following to say about operation 'Cast Lead': "Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it when it blew up a tunnel, while still asking Egypt to get the Islamic group to hold its fire." ([...] You would never read anything like this in the mainstream US media.So I find Mamdani's analysis to be pretty even handed and insightful. He has done the research to back up his thoroughgoing historical analysis of the conflict. I urge people to read this account to see how much of the rest of the world views the Israel-Palestine conflict and the rest of the US' 'interventions' in other nations over the past fifty years. Unlike many US citizens, the rest of the world has neither forgiven nor forgotten the US' actions, and as a Brit I know only too well that the actions of an imperial nation have consequences that last decades and affect untold millions.Mamdani's thesis is simply this: only by understanding the historic context of current events and acting accordingly can we create a world of peace and mutual respect.

As an American, even one who disagrees with much of our foreign policy since the early 1980s, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim is a tough pill to swallow. If you're the kind of person who needs the reassurance of a staunchly pro-American ideological screed to sooth your delicate sentimentalities and shore up your patriotism without questioning your beliefs, this is definitely not the book for you. But if you go into this book with an open mind, willing to have your preconceptions about your country challenged, you will learn a lot from it, albeit painfully.This book seems to have two main purposes: First, to dispense with the notion that terrorism carried out by Muslims is somehow an intrinsic element of either Islam or Muslim culture; and second, to identify the root causes of that terrorism. The second point is actually a bit more complex though, because what the author really sets out to do is blame the US for causing terrorism. And although he makes some excellent and well-supported points, this is one of the weaknesses of the book, as I'll discuss below.It was only natural for me to squirm a bit when I read many of the accusations in this book, and because I'm not the kind of person who immediately believes everything he reads in a book that is very obviously tilted heavily toward a single viewpoint I did not simply swallow everything the author says. However, I have to concede that, on most of the major points, I cannot offer a rebuttal. One would think that a book of this nature would spawn a mountain of heated and defensive responses, but I have been very surprised to find that the overwhelming response has been no response at all. In fact, I have been unable to find a single rebuttal to anything in this book. It has either somehow managed to remain under the radar of its likely critics or those critics simply have nothing to say in response.In the end I shorted this book one star because there were several glaring problems in both the central thesis and some of the factual details, some of which I'll mention here. Before beginning it is important to point out that the author goes to great pains to essentially blame the US for the very existence of Muslim terrorism today. But focusing on such a narrow mission I believe he goes astray from time to time and loses some credibility in what is otherwise a very well-reasoned book. First is his claim that the US was "the source" of chemical weapons to Iraq. This is simply not true, and while the US certainly did help Iraq develop its chemical and biological weapons programs, it is well-documented that Iraq's program was the product of a fairly fragmented system involving quite a lot of other countries.The author makes the point several times that terrorism is a political response to certain repressive conditions rather than simply a religious response. And while I agree with this 100%, he overplays his hand by next claiming that the US is primarily to blame for the political conditions to which terrorists are responding. In doing so the author almost completely ignores decades of often brutal oppression by Muslim governments. Perhaps it is convenient for disenfranchised elements of the populations in those countries to blame the US for their plight in life (and to be sure, the governments often promote that view as a safety valve to shield themselves), but that doesn't mean they are correct in blaming the US. The author should have explored the subject of Muslim oppression of other Muslims much more thoroughly. Somewhat related to this issue is the fact that the governments and people of many Muslim countries (such as Saudi Arabia) have contributed a tremendous amount of support to terrorist organizations. The author acknowledges this in passing but fails to explore it further, focusing instead on how actions of the US have contributed to terrorism.Where the author really went overboard was his claim that the US committed widespread war crimes and used weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and in Kosovo. Specifically, he says the use of depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, and Mark-77 firebombs violated humanitarian law because they are "incapable of distinguishing between civil and military targets." He also says the US conducted bombing with no regard to the civilian population. These claims are really quite silly. Had the US really wanted to kill the civilian populations in those engagements it could very easily have conducted the sort of saturation bombing so prevalent during WW II. Instead, it is quite clear that great pains were taken to minimize civilian casualties in all these engagements. The fact that these efforts were not always successful does not mean the US simply disregarded those concerns. With regard to the specific weapons used, there really is no such thing as a weapon that can distinguish between civil and military targets. The best one can do is try to hit the intended target, but obviously that doesn't always work as planned. I feel that I need to specifically address depleted uranium weapons. The author makes it sound like some kind of nuclear weapon was used, when in fact it is simply a very dense metal (albeit one with low grade radioactivity) used in armor-piercing munitions and even in the armor of some vehicles. Even after it impacts with a target it does not add significantly to the normal background radiation we encounter in the natural environment every day. And while the potential danger of these materials is not disputed, there is a lot of misinformation out there about them, and their long-term health risk is very debatable. Referring to them as a "weapon of mass destruction" and calling their use a "war crime" is way over the top and exposes the author's predisposition.There are other instances where the author overreached, but this book review is already long enough and I don't want to nitpick every single little point I disagreed with. In the end the problems I have identified do not negate the central theme of the book. However, they do damage the credibility of the author a bit and help illustrate how the book goes a bit off course by focusing almost solely on the US rather than discussing many other factors that have contributed to terrorism. I still believe this book is very much worth reading, with the understanding that the reader will encounter some claims that need not be accepted as completely accurate or evenhanded.