Review: America's Secret War : Inside the Hidden Worldwide truggle Between America and Its Enemies

I finished up listening to America’s Secret War today. I honestly can’t offer a complete review because the audio format that I used left a huge gaping hole in my take on the book. Notably, I don’t know what sort of foot notes the author was using. This is a pretty crucial point, especially as you reach the later points in the book. It will become clear why as I give my review on America’s Secret War, by George Friedman.

Consider this book a history lesson. The history lesson starts some time around the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and runs right up to the date that the book was published (late 2004). What sets this book’s perspective apart from other perspectives is that finds intention and motive in everything. Every single news headline is really a feint or thrust by one power or another, motives are rarely what they seem, everyone practices realpolitik, and conspiracies are abound. If there is a weakness to the book, it is that at times the voice that describes the thinking of all sides speaks with such authority as to leave one skeptical of the analysis. It is one thing to state potential motivations and for a particular action, but to claim in a certain and authoritative voice that one nation or group did something for one reason or another comes off as overconfident at times. The story that is told is coherent and makes sense in the view of the world Friedman has taken, but buying Friedman’s world view might be hard for some to do (and I include myself in this camp). Footnotes might help resolve some of my skepticism, but some assertions are so bold that there is little that could shake my skepticism.

That said, don’t let Friedman’s apparent overconfidence that he understands that truth of the world dissuade you entirely from this book. For every over confident assertion of one entity’s motives, there is another very believable and plausible perspective brought to the table that is enlightening. In particular, Friedman picks apart al-Qaeda’s origins and motivations and offers up a plausible strategy that al-Qaeda could be following that expands well beyond Giuliani’s “they hate our freedom” analysis. Not only does Friedman offer up a compelling description of al-Qaeda and its motives, he offers up evidence to support his claims. Unlike later in the book when he talks about post 9/11 politicking, his pre-9/11 assertions seem sound and mostly supported.

If there is one real failing of this book, beyond the questionable authoritative assertions of each parties actions, it is that Friedman starts to lose the thread of his original claim near the end of the book. Friedman originally makes the compelling claims that al-Qaeda had a goal and a plan to enact a pan-Islamic caliphate, and that provoking the Americans was al-Qaeda’s attempt to unite the Islamic world in revolution. Friedman’s analysis fails near the end of the book when he devolves from talking about al-Qaeda’s motives and strategy, to focusing on al-Qaeda’s tactics. He seems to imply that al-Qaeda wants to launch future attacks on the US, but fails to explain how this would advance al-Qaeda’s cause. He starts to make the same mistake that most people make and focus on tactics instead of grand overarching goals and strategy. The book begs for an analysis of al-Qaeda’s post 9/11 actions in the context of their overarching goals, but for the most part fails to do so. That said, a wise reader can easily come to his own conclusions.

I do suggest reading this book, but qualify this recommendation suggesting that you read it with skepticism. If nothing else, the world view presented in this book is unique and coherent, if impossible to prove at times. Beyond the interesting world view, the book offers up some very solid analysis of al-Qaeda’s rise and goals pre-9/11. The description of the American foreign policy maneuvers taken in response to 9/11 might leave you skeptical, but it is, if nothing else, entertaining and perhaps even plausible.