Homeland: The War on Terror in American Life

by Richard Beck

A groundbreaking argument on how the decades-long War on Terror changed virtually every aspect of American life, from the erosion of democracy down to what we watched on TV—by an acclaimed n+1 writer

For twenty years after September 11, the war on terror was simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. With all of the military violence occurring overseas even as the threat of sudden mass death permeated life at home, Americans found themselves living in two worlds at the same time. In one of them, soldiers fought overseas so that nothing at home would have to change at all. In the other, life in the United States took on all kinds of unfamiliar shapes, changing people’s sense of themselves, their neighbors, and the strangers they sat next to on airplanes. In Homeland, Richard Beck delivers a gripping exploration of how much the war changed life in the United States and explains why there is no going back.

Though much has been made of the damage that Donald Trump did to the American political system, Beck argues that it was the war on terror that made Trump’s presidency possible, fueling and exacerbating a series of crises that all came to a head with his rise to power.Homeland brilliantly isolates and explores four key issues: the militarism that swept through American politics and culture; the racism and xenophobia that boiled over in much of the country; an economic crisis that, Beck convincingly argues, connects the endurance of the war on terror to at least the end of the Second World War; and a lack of accountability that produced our “impunity culture”—the government-wide inability or refusal to face consequences that has transformed how the U.S. government relates to the people it governs.

To see American life through the lens of Homeland’s sweeping argument is to understand the roots of our current condition. In its startling analysis of how the war on terror hollowed out the very idea of citizenship in the United States, Beck gives the most compelling explanation yet offered for the ongoing disintegration of America’s social, political, and cultural fabric.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Politics, American History, Terrorism, Audiobook, American

592 pages, Hardcover

First published September 3, 2024

About the author

Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“I have tried in this book to use the war on terror to bring several but distinct related crises into focus, and to describe how those crises have shaped what it felt like to be an American during the early years of the twenty-first century. From drone campaigns over Pakistan to armored police vehicles idling outside government buildings, the war’s militarism fueled a social climate of overriding anxiety and dread, and it made a mockery of the idea that democratic governments use military violence only as a means of last resort. The war’s racism shored up and strengthened one of the ugly cornerstones of what one still must call…the national psychology. Forged in the crucible of a centuries-long race war that pitted white settlers driven by visions of unlimited wealth and freedom against dark natives who supposedly disdained the very idea of civilizational progress, America lurched into a new millennium hunting new groups of savages across unfamiliar landscapes abroad and obsessively scrutinizing and policing nonwhites at home for any signs of political dissent. The war exposed the country’s inability to cope with slowing global growth and the end of America’s unquestioned economic supremacy in a constructive way…”
- Richard Beck, Homeland: The War on Terror in American Life

Nothing stops time. Not even the greatest of tragedies. In many ways, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 remain as vivid as ever. But in terms of pure numbers, hours and days, months and years, it is starting to recede. Many of those who survived the attacks have since passed away from more natural causes. If you were a young adult at the time, you’re now middle aged. Even the youngest child alive that day is a legal adult. Perhaps the best way to think about the gulf that now exists between us and the smoking rubble of the Twin Towers is to recall that John Walker Lindh, the so-called “American Taliban,” has been caught, tried, convicted, sentenced to twenty years in federal prison, and been released.

Given that we are nearing the quarter-century mark of the 9/11 attacks, it is not surprising that we are starting to see books attempting to make sense of all that has happened since. In Homeland, Richard Beck tries – with varying degrees of success – to connect our present moment with the “war on terror” waged by the United States in the aftermath of the most shocking event in its history.

***

Homeland is not a standard history in which certain events are broken down, analyzed, and discussed. Instead, it is trying to capture something a bit more ephemeral: the impact on American social, cultural, and political life in September 11’s wake. I think this is important to state up front, because I know a lot of people don’t like this kind of approach, which relies heavily on subjective interpretations that cannot be neatly quantified.

Now, I would argue that even the most rigorously objective work of history is a lot more subjective than we like to admit, due to the myriad observational limitations, biases, and neuroscientific cognitive realities faced by the witnesses and participants upon whom we depend for primary sources. With that said, there is an inherent squishiness – which I believe is the correct technical term – in any book like this, which is essentially trying to capture a national mood.

***

As you’ve probably already guessed, Homeland does not follow a strict chronology, though we are generally moving forward in time. Beck instead divides the book into four big thematic sections.

The first section covers the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, including the heroization of first responders, the death of football-player-turned-Ranger Pat Tillman, and the risible advent of “security theater,” with its color-coded threat levels and ritual humiliations at the airport.

To me, this opening part was really good, in a twisted sort of way. There should be a word for the way it made me feel, a combination of horror, sadness, and nostalgia. The best I could come up with was melanstolgia. For instance, Beck – following in the footsteps of Susan Faludi – recounts how 9/11 allegedly meant the return of manly-men who would protect us all. This notion is well encapsulated by a September 13 edition of Newsweek that used a picture of a firefighter carrying a little girl out of harm’s way. The problem, however, was that the picture came from the Oklahoma City Bombing six years earlier. In reality, 75% of victims were men, and the eight children who died on 9/11 were all aboard the hijacked planes.

One of the big takeaways here is the complicity of the mass media as an organ of government propaganda. Over and over, events – such as the rescue of Jessica Lynch – were mythologized to push an agenda. This happened very potently with the New York City Fire Department, who were credited with saving thousands of lives, though almost all the World Trade Center deaths occurred above the impact zone, and almost all those who survived did so by walking out on their own. The indisputable bravery of the firefighters was cynically used by politicians to cover up for their own lack of preparation.

***

Next, Beck covers the treatment of Muslims at home and abroad. Following 9/11, President George W. Bush made an effort to avoid blaming Islam as a whole for the actions of a few. Unfortunately, this nuance never filtered down to the federal law enforcement agencies he led, who flooded mosques with confidential informants, and did their best to convince young Muslims to say something radical, so they could be arrested. Things went even worse overseas, where black sites were used for torture, and where pictures of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib destroyed just about all of America’s dwindling moral authority.

From this response, Beck tries to extrapolate forward to the treatment of other nonwhite persons living in the United States. This is not entirely successful, mainly because the causality is strained. More importantly, the legacy of race in this country goes back much, much further.

***

Beck’s third section, covering economic matters, is probably the least successful, because it does not fit within his thesis. The Great Recession had a lot of causes, but none of them are clearly attributable to the Age of Terror. Rather, the subprime mortgage crisis, the collapse of a number of super-banks, the government’s 1% bailouts, and the mass unemployment that followed is part of a long pattern of speculative-driven boom-and-bust cycles. As Beck rightly notes, this is a country whose bounty has been hoarded by the few. More specifically, 10% of the population has 70% of the wealth, leaving the other 90% to fight over the remaining 30% – or to fight each other over media-and-corporate-funded culture wars. But again, this has been an American reality since the republic’s earliest days.

***

Beck’s final section on impunity culture is probably his strongest, and has the direst implications for the future. In short, despite the incalculably destructive actions from September 12 onward, there has been almost no accountability for any of the responsible parties. The powerful have always been protected from consequences, of course, but never more so than in the post-9/11 era. Lie about weapons of mass destruction; invade two countries, then abandon one; unleash new terrorists upon the world; break an economy; put a dog leash on a man; then go about your life, as though it never happened. This feels very relevant now, when you can break the law and profit; when you can be convicted and then pardoned; when you can entirely abdicate your core values, and then rationalize the same.

***

Beck is a writer for n+1, a literary magazine that can be irritatingly pretentious, even when you agree with the content. Classifiable as left-of-center, it is not politically affiliated, and traffics in the kind of elitism that looks down on everyone. Beck mostly avoids that condescension, and Homeland reads well, generally avoids dogma, and digests a wide array of sources.

None of this means that Beck proves the thesis he sets out at the beginning. The reality is that one cannot draw a straight line from September 11, 2001 to today, because there are numerous intervening proximate causes. Moreover, it’s possible that humans just aren’t good at global peace and prosperity, given that library shelves are filled with titles on the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years’ War, the First World War, and its cousin the Second. Despite this, Beck attempts to end on a positive note, quoting the famous aphorism of Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci: pessimism of the intellect; optimism of the will. It’s a slender limb upon which to cling, but it’s all we have.

[AJ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing. This could have been a thoroughly-researched journalistic survey of two decades spent in a constant state of “global war” against terrorism and it’s permeation through American society. Instead, it is discursive, rambling, and yet singularly focused on GDP growth as the driver and catalyst of the rise of transnational terrorism and what is sold as the United States’ inevitable response based on the original sin of our founding. In the end, there’s too much commentary and not enough solid analysis that makes room for any explanations beyond the strictly economic.

[Emmet Sullivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Random thoughts:

As a work of journalism, it’s impressive, but as a book, it failed pretty miserably for me. It’s well written, but the author’s political ideology just absolutely overwhelmed the entirety of the book (particularly the last 2/3). It starts to read like a progressive manifesto that at times totally divorces itself from the war on terror that the book purports to be about.
I disagree that SUVs are “the equivalent of small tanks”. This seems like a deliberately dramatic comparison designed to prove a point that strains credulity.

Just because a building has to meet the security standards of an embassy does not mean such a building must be built to survive in a war zone. We have an embassy in London…

“Increased police presence at BART stations made them less safe for homeless people…looking for somewhere to spend the night.”

The economic analysis/connection to terrorism seems legit and well thought.

Lazy with the term racist/racism. Islam is a religion, not a race.

I’m not convinced that a previously-held assumption now looks “absurd” when only half of people no longer agree with it

The author’s obvious political leanings clearly cover his analysis in a way that makes the book feel predictable and often very sensationalized: “the central demand of OWS was an end to the wealth and income inequality has turned daily life into a constant, low-grade anxiety attack for millions of people”… give me a break

“…the government has made it clear that it is not willing to negotiate with its citizens at all.” Aren’t these just elections? We still have those.

There’s an assumption that souring economic conditions necessitates the use of US military force baked into a lot of the reasoning. I’m not saying that’s wrong per se, but this book doesn’t convince me of it ( or even try to)

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

My thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for and advanced copy of this title in exchange for an honest review.

Homeland: The War on Terror in American Life makes the bold claim that our current political and historical moment, everything from the election of Donald Trump to the Black Lives Matter movement, can be understood as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks and America’s response to them. This thesis, tall order that it is, is borne out in resounding fashion in this gripping and competent book. In an engrossing read that feels far shorter than its nearly six hundred pages, readers will find a saddening, disturbing, but ultimately convincing and timely account of how the aftermath of September 11th 2001 has shaped America, and indeed the world, for the worse.

Homeland beings with the attacks themselves and shows how in the subsequent climate of nationwide fear, increasingly direct and unilateral levels of power were given to the executive branch of the government. This sweeping authority was used to surveil Americans and harass those of middle eastern origin or Muslim faith all in the name of security and preventing another attack. From there the book describes the War on Terror and how America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was both different from any previous military conflict and set the tone for America’s use of military force in the new century, increasing numbers of private contractors, nebulous war aims, and ever less accountability to the American people. After a few brief chapters about the history of global capitalism and how its market pressures have impacted nations throughout time, the book goes on to detail how mass protests movements illustrate the character of post 9/11 America and its relationship to its citizens. Indifferent or aggressive official responses to movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter are examples of what author Richard Beck compellingly calls “Impunity Culture”, the glaring lack of interest the government has in even pretending to care about the will or opinions of the people it claims to represent. Finally, while Homeland doesn’t downplay the severity of America’s problems it also ends on a note, not of abject gloom, but of informed awareness.

This book set out to prove a point and succeeded ably. Much writing about recent history, even when done well, can come across as either bone dry and dull or read as nothing more than a sophomoric recounting of headlines. Homeland avoids both these pitfalls and threads the needle between informative and accessible with skill and verve. In reading I learned so much about post 9/11 security measures, things I didn’t know even though I lived through them. This book also makes a compelling case for its thesis and connects disparate threads from two decades of history into a coherent narrative. Not just recounting historical events and dates but interrogating the rationale and the impact history makes. Despite its length, Homeland never once loses sight of this central idea yet it brings everything together in a way that feels organic and commonsense. The original ideas expounded in this book are exceptionally persuasive as well. The author’s use of “Impunity Culture” to describe the fundamental shift in how the American government interacts with its citizens is a kind of eureka moment that perfectly encapsulates so much of what feels wrong with our country today.

With the subject matter being what it is, parts of the book were undoubtedly hard to read. It was however, rewarding, and history is often more painful than we would like to remember. The chapters about profiling after 9/11 and those dealing the War on Terror in particular, showcase instance of extreme and alarming hypocrisy and injustice. Past failings America needs to acknowledge and atone for going forward. After turning the final page, I feel like I better grasp the significance of the tumultuous and difficult years since 2001. Whereas before I had a vague but persistent sense that things had overall gotten worse since 9/11, I now have a better understanding of what exactly happened to create the America I live in today and how it might be improved.

[Ben Ingraham · Rating 3 out of 5]

More like a 2.5/5 than a 3/5.

Disappointed in this book! 500 pages of news headlines you'll remember if you've been alive and cogent since 2001. I got a bigass tome out from the library and its main conclusion is "liberals are disappointed by the war on terror not living up to American values, but in my view, the War on Terror exemplifies American values... Sorry if that's too radical for anyone reading this book" - c'mon dude everybody reading this already thinks that! A book with such an ambitious theme should try fucking me up a little more - make big claims! Try to change my mind or amplify my awareness! I already knew that Abu Ghraib sucked and nobody got punished for it! In the conclusion he brags about not voting for Obama lol.

When I heard that a millennial wrote a tome about the War on Terror I felt so much shame wondering why I hadn't come up with a tome of my own yet, but I think it's best to come out with a big historical survey when one has matured a bit.

[Madison ✨ (mad.lyreading) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am one of the many American millennials who watched the Twin Towers fall while at school. The more I have learned about the world and politics, the more I have wondered about how this tragic event impacted the world and the U.S.'s foreign affairs. This book was probably not the best place to start, as this book is quite hefty at almost 600 pages, but it is written in a way that does not expect much background knowledge on the history of Iraq. This is probably the longest nonfiction book I have read for "fun," but it was also extremely engrossing.

This book is not neutral; the author takes a pretty strong stance against the way the government handled the aftermath of 9/11. This take will deter some readers, but the author does a great job of backing up his opinions with examples of how the government has truly worked with impunity and without representing the actual wishes of the people. I learned a lot in this book, so I cannot really comment on the historical accuracy to it, but it matches up enough with other things I have read that I perceived it to be extremely well researched.

Thank you to Crown Publishing and NetGalley for an ARC in exchange for an honest review!

[paige (ptsungirl) · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Security and safety are not the same thing."

[Lee Candilin · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars for his guts in saying things that are politically incorrect. I might not fully agree with all his points, but different opinions are what we need more, not less. We can learn more when we listen to different perspectives, rather than shutting them out.
Ever since 911, the world has been divided into us (US) and them. The opinionated media hammers deviating views and reduces opinions to patriotic ones and not. The increase in surveillance inflate fear, and impunity reduces trust.
It is time you start listening and stop shouting. It is time you start hugging and stop shooting.

A section in the book reads like a warning to America now:
“One in fifty Iraqis lost their jobs, which caused exactly the kind of anger you would expect if someone flew into America (Trump), outlawed both the Democratic and Republican Parties (belittle established rules and laws), and fired six and a half million of the country's most experienced officials (DOGE).”
The comparisons in brackets are mine.

[James S. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Journalist writes history. The kind of book this guy I used to work with would like: blame everything on capitalism and bonus points if you can fit Bush in there too. The author tries to make his vast subject fit into his narrow ideological lens, but it doesn't fit. Joseph Stieb's review nails it (I found this from his own Goodreads review):

https://warontherocks.com/2024/09/the...

[tinyirishpotato · Rating 2 out of 5]

At a high-level, I agree with many of the points made in the book, but the author's bias overrides the facts that he, as a journalist, should be presenting with limited commentary (i.e. allowing the reader to achieve their own conclusions). The blatant editorialisation both diminishes the overall quality of the work and inevitably alienates the people who most need the information herein, thus making HOMELAND a book less interested in historical record or education than becoming part of our cultural maelstrom. But if courting controversy was the goal, then it works a treat, which is yet another knock on the work for its own merits – the book will always be shadowed by this element and bias, it will never be allowed to stand alone, and that is the fault of a writer too insecure in their thesis.

Ultimately, it's very Harvard (Beck's alma mater): it takes 500 self-indulgent pages to deliver a set of conclusions that don't hold up to closer inspection. There's a lot of wiffling and waffling. There's a ton of deeply unnecessarily, extraordinarily verbose, meta analysis of a major historical event that makes you think of the girl who's had too much to drink at the bar and is now in the toilet having an existential crisis. Other hyper-educated progressives or left leaning types should eat this up, but it's forgettable, has no broad appeal, and frustrates me from a craft perspective for how it rewards groupthink, which is disingenuous and at odds with a journalist's core mission. Disappointing to say the least and I was SO excited to read this one.

[Dale · Rating 2 out of 5]

A somewhat jaded look at American society after 9/11. I usually enjoy books that challenge my assumptions but the author makes some outrageous conclusions. His comments on the border patrol were just terrible and I think largely unfair.

[Sydney Dozois · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alright alright alright. Whew.

I have so many praises for this book and Richard Beck’s insane research intensity but I cannot spit it all out at this second. There were sections of the book that I chewed and swallowed like a beast and sections where i kind of glazed over (im sorryyyyy I cannot force myself to be interested in GDP). I do also feel like Beck was a wee bit tangential in ways that made it really difficult to track what the initial purpose of the tangent was when he got back on course, but he chose tangents I found interesting so it is okay.

I love Susan Sontag and I wish she were alive today.
The list of banned songs post-9/11 is so so so so so silly I encourage everyone to google it.

Good quotes:

“I don’t think the answers to America’s problems lie in America’s past. In order to publish such a wish list, you have to believe that the government is capable, or could be capable in the future, of actually enacting the necessary reforms. I don’t. ”

"pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" In other words, do not trick yourself into seeing things as better than they are, but behave and act as though justice were within reach.”

“The conclusion that I now believe I was avoiding back in 2012 is that it drastically oversimplifies things to say that the war on terror betrayed America's values. In many respects, it embodied them.”

“This is a systematic refusal by the U.S. political system as a whole to pursue any measure of accountability for the crimes committed during a war that most people agree was detrimental to the country’s international reputation and its capacity for global leadership”

[Hasan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Beck's "Homeland" delivers a compelling, though sometimes controversial, analysis of the War on Terror's impact on America. Beck effectively argues that this conflict has fueled militarism, xenophobia, and inequality, illustrated by the seemingly endless post-9/11 engagements lacking clear objectives or accountability. His critique of the Obama administration's drone program, particularly the killing of an American citizen, powerfully indicts executive power and the erosion of due process. This exploration of governmental impunity is a key strength.

However, the book's assertion that America has been fundamentally racist since its founding feels oversimplified. While acknowledging racism's historical and ongoing impact, this claim doesn't capture the complexities of American identity and history. This particular argument weakens the book's overall impact.

Despite this, "Homeland" remains valuable and thought-provoking. Beck's examination of the War on Terror's permeation of state and public life is insightful and disturbing. It serves as a crucial reminder of the costs of perpetual war and the need for government transparency and accountability. While readers may disagree with some points, "Homeland" sparks important conversations about 9/11's legacy and American democracy's future.

[Nick Moran · Rating 5 out of 5]

The central thesis of Richard Beck's HOMELAND is, "whatever President Trump did to harm democracy between 2016 and January 6, 2021, what the Bush administration and the rest of the federal government did to get the war on terror off the ground was worse." And damned if Beck doesn't make a convincing argument—presented comprehensively and articulated beautifully. The best writing grafts itself onto your own unexpressed thoughts. Reading this book was like walking down a darkened path in my own mind, tripping lights to illuminate each step I took, revealing that the intuition and vague feelings I've sensed since 8th grade—when I was sent home from school because of the WTC attack—were in fact well-founded. It really is as bad as it's felt.

[Sherbert Says · Rating 4 out of 5]

To keep it simple: what this book is, is deconstruction of the historical foundations to the political society we live in today, from Presidencies to Civil Movements, since 9/11.

What it is not is concise measure of cause to effect. The author rambles around issues, providing context when there often need not be any, to act as an answer-all to too many questions.

I have more thoughts to come… 11/30/2024

[Alyssa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whew. I knew going in this was either going to be really good or really bad. And I'm happy to say that this was really, really great. And naturally, I have a lot to say.

"The conclusion I now believe I was avoiding back in 2012 is that it vastly oversimplifies things to say the war on terror betrayed America's values; in many respects, it embodied them. Part of the reality that needs to be faced going forward is that notions of American ideals will not be sufficient to guide us through the rest of the century."

"Keeping these images in mind as authentic representations of America's values also helps to clarify why it is that those Americans who excuse or endorse the worst abuses of the 'war on terror' also have the easiest time understanding themselves as "patriots." Why is it that people who supported the invasion of Iraq are also the most eager to embrace the flag? Why is it that those who endorsed or excused indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition and torture, also chant "USA!" the loudest? Why is it that people who are quickest to identify themselves as 'pro-America' are also more likely to think that Islam is incompatible with being American?"

This book takes us from early 2000's - namely 9/11 - through present day in a way that dissects how 9/11 and the resultant measures implemented have led us to where we are today. It's pretty clear how the nationalism that 9/11 bred is a problem not only for domestic Americans, but everyone worldwide. Take for example the increased TSA security - not only was it completely ineffective, but we have paid so much money as taxpayers for it to only be heavily inconvenienced for no reason. They did their own undercover operation to test the effectiveness and the failure rate was anywhere between 75-96% where they didn't find the weapon/bomb/whatever that the undercover was trying to sneak through security. Then you get into the NSA and the increased surveillance of all citizens. With all the irony being that those 'patriots' who constantly yell "Don't Tread on Me" are in full support of these things because they're so blinded by their racism and bigotry thinking these things are stopping the "Arab and Muslim terrorists" when these things are doing none of that. Also look at how the fibbies and CIA ops of "stopping domestic terrorism" was actually just them pretending to be terrorist recruiters and targeting random people practicing Islam who also were in need of financial support or other things. You're telling me that had they done this set up ops to recruit for the KKK and targeted poor, whites (especially in the south) that every single one would turn them away and not jump at the chance to put their racism into action? I know so many that you wouldn't even have to have any financial incentive or spend months trying to talk them into joining the plot. Think about why they spent years targeting Arabs but never once did anything to target the KKK (which still isn't classified as a terrorist organization, btw).

Americans were faced with one (1) morning of violence and used that to 'justify' a twenty (20) year of annihilation of multiple countries. It's disgusting, honestly. Decades before 9/11 was even on the radar, we had already killed millions of innocent civilians across the globe - Japan, Vietnam, indigenous Americans, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the entire continent of Africa, among so many others, then added Palestine, Syria, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and others to the long, long list after 9/11. How can you truly look at the USA after the complete carnage and still believe they're 'the good guys'? Millions upon millions of innocent people killed - and for what? It's certainly not to 'keep us safe'. We are seeing this exact thing play out with Israhell and Palestine (which I'm glad was referenced in the book and talked about) the last 15 months. It's representative of the absolute annihilation we have bestowed upon the entire world. Israhell bombing the ever living fuck out of Palestine isn't making Israhellis any safer - just as the 'war on terror' and all other wars and bombings haven't made the US any safer. It is only providing other nations with more reasons to hate us and to retaliate.

I'm appreciative of the author saying that the nationalism that has so plagued this country for the last 2 decades falsely separates domestic and foreign policy. "The problems we face at home and the problems they confront abroad are part of the same problem." What we allow them to do abroad, they are already doing to us. Palestine has been the most surveilled populace on the planet, and guess where American cops and agencies like fibbies, CIA, and NSA get their security stuff from? Israhell. What has been done to the Palestinians for 80 years that is now resulting in ethnic cleansing and genocide has already begun here. They ramped up security and surveillance after 9/11 (hey, it's me again 👋 to the fibbie reading this review rn) and have continued to increase it. Look at who the police have time and again sided with during protests or walk outs. Look at all the violence they have bestowed upon peaceful protests year after year. Look at when they pulled a gun on Aaron Bushnell as he was self-immolating in protest of the Gazan genocide. Why would you pull a gun on someone who is literally burning themselves alive? They side with the corporations every time. The police are there to protect the ruling class ONLY and we have let them have immunity from any consequences. Look at current state of affairs. Luigi Mangione is charged as a 'terrorist' for shooting one (1) healthcare CEO, who lined his own pockets year after year allowing thousands of people to die each year from preventable deaths from denying health insurance claims. Yet mass shooters and [white] hate groups have never been labeled as "terrorists". Look at how whistleblowers are so heavily penalized for revealing the truth (usually killed); and yet there's no prosecution or anything towards the actual heinous crimes committed. The US empire is a walking contradiction.

The messaging behind the 'war on terror' was that we have to fear Arabs and Muslims because they're all out to kill Americans; yet look at the 'war heroes' they parade around, for example Chris Kyle or the people at Abu Ghraib, and they are absolute psychopaths. Chris Kyle shot hundreds and saying he 'had to' because 'they were all evil', and even applied that to children. The abuse as Abu Ghraib was revealed in 2003, yet the killing spree was allowed to go on for 17 more years. The acts they committed were similar or more extreme than ones that were tried and had generals sentenced to death at the Nuremburg trials, yet these Americans were given immunity and never faced any consequences. GWB chose not to investigate it. Pat Tillman was killed by our own troops; yet they propagandized and lied about his death to further the "Iraqis are barbaric" narrative, and it was only revealed years later that it was all lies. The USA likes to say that it's a champion of human rights and has to invade other countries due to human rights abuses, yet no one has violated more human rights than the US. It's absolutely astounding how much that farce still hasn't been peeled back by so many. And the thing is, we will never be able to do anything about it while so many are choosing to not acknowledge it and keep their heads in the sand about the real history and conditions about the US. Ironically, it is those that are so heavily propagandized that still believe all the lies that call everyone else "sheep" when they are literally following the US Empire to their own death.

And I want to insert here, and heavily emphasize, what the author also was saying in this. The other side of the coin (Dems) are NOT any better, and as we can see in the case of Obama, actually much worse. Obama was more deadly than GWB, and while it is true that GWB lied about the weapons of mass destruction and was the one that started the entire war, Obama not only lied about and hid his true war policies when running for the presidency, his following (which I used to be a part of) ignored it and pretended it didn't exist, and/or stopped caring about the injustice of slaughtering Arabs for no reason. Red and blue are BOTH the same war criminals with the same war criminal policies. They're all killers. They just go to different lengths to hide it. They all talk out one side of their mouth, but then do the exact opposite in their actual policies. The Dems will never have a "January 6th". I don't say that as some moral superiority on behalf of the Dems, but actually as an insult. While Jan 6 was poorly planned and all that; they at least stood up to the institution and did something, even if a lot of what they based it on was lies and falsehoods. Dems will sit back and try to vote their way into things or be passive about everything. Like I said, just look at how Obama's presidency was portrayed. It makes me sick that I used to admire and look up to him. But now that I've seen him for what he truly was, I can't unsee it (through this book and many others before this). It's difficult to come to terms with the fact that our entire society is based on falsehoods and lies, that things we think to be true aren't. But we need to do so. The rest of the world is literally dying due to our apathy. "American nationalism is an impediment to solving the global problems that confront us. There is no version of American nationalism can help to solve climate change."

There's a ton of information in here. It is heavy to listen to. As Beck writes: "My public-school civics education was based on 2 premises: The first... was that history had ended. Humans had tried many different kinds of government over several thousand years and US style capitalism and liberal democracy had turned out to be the best. Whatever happened going forward, it wasn't going to involve the kinds of revolutions and upheavals that characterized the past. The second premise was that the US was something more than a country. Yes it had a certain structure of government and a particular set of economic arrangements, but it also embodied an ethics, a belief in universal equality, a vision of human freedom. Everything evoked by the 17th century sermon about 'a city upon a hill' and the moving opening words of the Declaration of Independence. 9/11 disabused me of the first premise but the second proved to be more tenacious. It's not that I believed the whole story about America's shining moral example. I knew about slavery and racism, segregation and sexism, My Lai and nuclear weapons, Japanese internment camps and the federal government's homophobic response to AIDS; but I had been taught to understand these things as mistakes, deviations from what the country actually stood for." Those aren't deviations. That is the entire premise of what the US empire stands for. We are fighting against 400+ years of propaganda and people need to start being honest about it. They need to see it for what it is and what we can do to make it into something that transcends American nationalism and become a better place for us and for the rest of the world. We are our own demise.

[David Hymas · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5 This isn’t a book about the security state or even about the influence of 9/11 on the country. It’s a screed masquerading as a review of the security state when in reality it’s the author’s shallow critique of everything he disagrees with in modern American history. I knew I had made a mistake an hour into the 22-hour audiobook when he started his history with Last of the Mohicans and discussions of Daniel Boone’s violent exploits. Also included are discussions of Bretton-Woods, the Cold War, the 2000 Supreme Court decision handing the presidency to Bush, Occupy Wall Street, Michael Brown, George Floyd, BLM, and on and on. If you’re wondering how these are related to 9/11 and the security state, you are in company with me. Its journalistic treatment of key areas like the AT&T surveillance and the Patriot Act isn’t bad but there’s precious little of it sandwiched between his endless criticisms that are of course free of alternative solutions. You’ll be smarter than me if you skip this one.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Man.

I'm not quite done, but I'll be done in the next day or so when I get some time to finish this thing.

I really, really, really wanted to like this book and - at times? There were moments that the author really seemed knowledgeable and made his case as best he could, though there are a bevy of issues with this work. It ...kind of... scratches this itch I have to read about this period in world/US history since I lived through it and served from 2002-2022 in the US Army during it. The book Fiasco comes to mind as one of the first I did find, and it was eye-opening. This book tried but didn't quite make the mark.

First - the style. The author and this book remind me of two things simultaneously. 1 - I was in NYC in 2019 for a week while on a business trip. While there, I remember visiting this multistory bookstore in Manhattan which had some amazingly old and rare selections. Anyhoo - went up a couple of floors in search of books on gunslingers and the Old West. I'll never forget the guy in there - lol. He, at some point, asked what I was looking for specifically and I said the above, verbatim. His response? Bah, that's all fake anyway, no such thing. (Paraphrasing). I don't know if he caught the irony when I placed a stack of books on Jesse James, Billy the Kid, and Wild Bill down in front of him. We'd call that "True Crime" these days. Why am I rambling about this? Because this dude seems like that dude - at least in mentality.

Second - the content. This reads like a "omfg why is this still going on so long" Reddit thread in some horrible Lovecraftian hybrid of r/latestagecapitalism (grow up), r/whitepeopletwitter, r/MURICA, r/antiwork, and your usual selection of "constantly whining about capitalism and the US" Redditors and their posts all blended into one overly long treatise which, ultimately - is primarily incorrect regarding terrorism, but I'll get into that later on in this write-up.

Now - the actual material.

I don't usually take the time to write reviews for things unless there is something seriously wrong or I've run across an absolute gem in the rough. So - to avoid a Dickensian treatise on this... work... I'll try to aim for brevity.

1 - The author clearly is unfamiliar (in a personal sense) with the US military and, if I was a betting man (haven't looked yet, but will) I'd say he never served a day in his life. I want to draw attention to Part 1: A Sense of War, Chapter 2: Iron Men, Page 58 toward the bottom: "Unlike America's regular troops and reservists, many of whom flew off to combat out of shape and with no more than basic training." To which he provides a reference to Kennard "Irregular Army: How the US Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals to fight the War on Terror." Not sure how that title = physical fitness, combat training, and weapons proficiency, but we'll go with that for a couple of more seconds until you know. You stop and consider that neither this dude - nor the resident from the UK he references - ever served.

Now - moving into reality for a second?

I was in the Army from 2002-2022. Here's your reference: me. Physical fitness and height/weight tests every six months for 20 years, which - if you failed - you were washed out if you didn't get right. Weapons training and qualification every six months for support and more for line units - for 20 years - long guns, pistols, and other weapons systems - across the force. Then there's the sheer amount of training we do as a military. In fact, that training regimen is so well-known and established that we have foreign militaries who come to train with us. But I wouldn't expect NYC here nor dude from the UK who called us all racists to know wtf we were actually doing while serving.

So - to the author? I'd get over the weird borderline fetish you have with SF and stop to realize that the reason we're so effective at head-to-head combat isn't because of SF alone bub. Also, that last bit about our effectiveness? Is hard truth, not - you know - an "Internet debate point" meaning - it's correct and you're either wrong or delusional.

2 - The idea the military "lost." This is bleed-in from the Internet and seeing that the author is on X, I would be hard-pressed to be convinced this dude isn't online somewhere else as well. The Internet's DNA is woven into this work and is almost . . . jarring . . . in a sense. I actually stopped reading a book on finance because the author of that work spent too much page real estate throwing in as many culture war/mid-2010s Internet as she possibly could. I mean - look guys - I love books. It's why I'm on here. I have a library in my house. Not some shelves, mind you. A room, that is a library. That library contains hundreds of books on History, Science, Politics, and a smattering of other subjects. In fact I love history so much I went and did so good in a side degree in it I'm part of Phi Alpha Theta and the NSCS for my work in History.

But for the love of fuck - keep the Internet out of your pages unless it's about the Internet or a tech book, please? As best you can?

Anyhoo - the idea we "lost" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I want to be clear about some stuff not just for the author, but for the general person who happens across these reviews.

War is the failure of diplomacy. Let's make that clear from the start. War is what happens when people we elected or pay to handle our foreign affairs fail at their jobs.

In Iraq, the US military's goal from day one was the destruction of Saddam's regime and his capture. Which brings me to another glaring error in this book: Part 1: A Sense of War, Chapter 2: Iron Men, Page 53: "The Iraq War began on the evening of May 19, 2003..."

Incorrect.

20 March 2003.

Source: me. I was with the 4th Infantry Division in Fort Hood and watched the opening bombings with friends on the news while having lunch. But don't trust me, I'm a guy on the Internet. Go look it up. Kind of disheartening neither the author nor the editors of this work bothered to look it up. But you can and blam-o, that automatically makes you a better researcher!

But what's even more ironic is that the author makes light of Bush's aircraft carrier speech on 1 May 2003 BEFORE this passage. So . . . which is it? Did the Iraq War start after Bush gave his victory speech? Don't know man. Just for clarification - we pulled Saddam out of his rathole on 13 December 2003. Just, you know, in case you ever write about that in the future.

But back to "losing."

The US military's missions were - respectively: In Iraq: toppling Saddam and capturing him. We did half of that prior to Bush stepping onto the deck of that carrier. (I'm not defending him, btw, I'll get to that shortly), then - we caught Saddam in December of the same year. You know? The exact stuff we were charged with before the invasion?

In Afghanistan: toppling the Taliban and capturing UBL. Now - to be fair to critics here 20 years later, an argument could be made that the first half was a loss, but we 100% killed UBL. I'll touch on the first half below.

When these "pundits" and people like the author (people on Twitter and Reddit, really), say that the military "lost" in these two conflicts - they're giving a HUGE, unnecessary "by" to the outsized influence that politicians in the US, policymakers, Presidents, the media, and finally the public have on military operations. Refer to my earlier statement about how war is the failure of diplomacy.

Once you have failed in your job, you should thereby have no say in how we do ours.

The "failure" that happened in both cases is the collection of ham-handed attempts at nation building that started back in the early 2000s (and to be fair to the author, yes - Bremer was a colossal fucking idiot - so he does touch on this stuff), 4 Presidents, a populace that became disillusioned, and a number of other geopolitical factors across the 20 years we spent in AFG and the near-decade in Iraq. These all combined to contribute to the "loss." So - I always get a smirk/chuckle when I run across a pure civilian with zero experience/education in this stuff claiming we "lost" and the subsequent remarks regarding "the trauma associated with the losses." Bro - what are you talking about? Honestly? The only trauma of late was that FUBAR withdrawal from AFG that Trump demanded, and Biden followed through on.

My opinion on this? Once you - as elected leaders - FAIL your jobs and need to resort to killing people? Stay out of our way. Period. The past 20 years have shown that we cannot maintain true consistency in long-term combat operations due to the fact our entire government shifts every 4-8 years and has become wildly polarized since the mid-2010s (and before, if we're being honest).

I could go on, but as a general message to the author and those on Reddit/Twitter like him.

If you never served, a book entitled “Irregular Army: How the US Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals to fight the War on Terror” prrroooooobbbbaaaaabbbblllyyyyy is too biased a place to start doing adult research on the topic.

Third – Terrorism.

The author is making a 500+ page argument that we are more-or-less in “Late-Stage Capitalism” (though as of yet, he’s carefully avoided stating that outright) and it is due to being in this state, that terrorism arose purely because of economics.

Incorrect.

Source: me. I was a counterintelligence agent for 15 of the 20 I spent in the Army. I trained people on terrorism and extremism. That being said – in SOME cases, money can be a factor for extremists. In …some… cases. However, the author has been blinded or blinded himself to the actual underpinnings of the type of terrorism he’s referring to in this work. Again, reference mid-2010s Internet when there was a vast overcorrection re: Islam as if that religion is deserving of special protections from criticism whilst others are free reign.

So – let me distill his argument as I have read it up to this point.

“9/11 and terrorism happened because America is racist, and capitalism is failing.”

More or less.

lol

Typical Internet tripe you could almost laugh off if it weren’t in a 500-page book purporting to be a work of history.

But I digress.


Incorrect.


The 9/11 attacks had their genesis in our foreign policy of the 80s where we supported the fight against the USSR’s invasion of AFG. I’m not getting into a discussion on the merits of the decisions taken back then, but it was due to our abandonment of these trained and equipped fighters, along with a following 15 years of other ham-handed foreign policy nonsense in the Middle East that Al Qaeda attacked us.

Since the author and N+1 seem to have interesting definitions of “research,” see below:

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dreamed up the tactical innovation of using hijacked planes to attack the United States, al-Qaeda provided the personnel, money, and logistical support to execute the operation, and bin Laden wove the attacks on New York and Washington into a larger strategic framework of attacking the “far enemy”—the United States—in order to bring about regime change across the Middle East.” – Britannica

“The terrorists did not have the capacity to destroy the United States militarily, so they set their sights on symbolic targets instead. The Twin Towers, as the centerpieces of the World Trade Center, symbolized globalization and America’s economic power and prosperity.

The Pentagon, as the headquarters for the U.S. Department of Defense, serves as a symbol of American military power. It is thought that Flight 93 was headed to the Capitol building, the center of American legislative government.

Al-Qaeda hoped that, by attacking these symbols of American power, they would promote widespread fear throughout the country and severely weaken the United States’ standing in the world community, ultimately supporting their political and religious goals in the Middle East and Muslim world.” – 9/11 Memorial and Museum.

I can’t finish this review at the moment, but will return with updates and a conclusion.

This actually annoyed me so much I might push a longer write-up to N+1 directly.

If you're going to tout yourself as an intellectual 3-times-a-year publication, have some standards guys. Do thorough editing and research, as well as citations. Know what your authors are putting out, because stuff like this isn't it.

Follow-up:

I spent a lot of space up there pointing out issues, so it's only fair to point out the good qualities.

For what this is - the author's writing style is decent. It reads well and more or less "feels" like one of any number of the other history (though I'm leery to call this an actual work of history considering I cannot locate the author's credentials anywhere) books I've read. So - to that end, good work.

Ripping out the threads regarding the argument the author is intending to make for a moment, the rest of the work (which is quite a bit) is great for learning about the goings on of the times and using as a sort of springboard to launch into independent research on a host of topics, which I love in a book.

Overall 3/5. Wouldn't recommend for use as a serious academic source (note the errors in the argument, the errors in the work, and the lack of the author's credentials) but it is an okay general reader for that time period.

Cheers.

[Gareth Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps the most depressingly honest book I have ever read about the worst characteristics of this country. Combined with the insanity of what may be the outcome of the Presidential election less than 3 weeks away, it was almost too much. I need to go and look at some photos of some puppies to change my mind set.

[Saif · Rating 4 out of 5]

This books is required for reading for anyone struggling within the US and is trying to understand the reality of the past twenty years. It is long, occasionally meandering, covering a lot of topics although by the end of them the tangents feel necessary for the point that the author is making about the war on terror and the current phase of capitalist empire that we are heading into the repercussions for people here. A lot of people have only recently woken up to the fact that the wars on brown people abroad for made up racist capitalist messianic reasons will come back and be used on the domestic population. The Author covers this reality in detail although he never uses the term "imperial boomerang". We have lost our privacy, and the violence racism that fueled the founding of this country is alive and well and is what American "values" are. I am saying it more bluntly than the author did but that is my ultimate takeaway. I read this as a muslim Palestinian American trying to understand why my neighbors are so okay with my people being exterminated. Why they fall for the propaganda so easily. While ultimately it's addressed at the end of the book, the author is on the right side of history and slices the propaganda of the past year and half, which so closely follows the propaganda post 9/11. The only reason I am not giving this a 5 is becasue, while there are clues and hints throughout the book, I think it lacks an emphasis on zionism and evangelical zionism'a influence on the war on terror. He covers a lot but I think it is more central to the topic than some of the other context he goes through in detail. Especially the connections with the invasion of Iraq, and the tools of surveillance and police militarism he discusses being produced and developed in Israel, and those police exchanges where the tools and methods of occupation are taught to local police by the IDF. This was a large oversight that's a part of the picture he is painting. Israel is not just a client state, and strategically important for US empire. It goes much deeper than he discusses it. Otherwise the arguments are sound, the retelling of the past 20+ years seeing through the propaganda is necessary for all of us that want to survive the future.

[Carol · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was recommended for me by a library app - and I am not sure I can pass that recommendation along. To my read, this book primarily looks at the American responses and some very notable examples of government/military overreach from the perspective of losing our sense of economic place in a world that has an oversupply of production facility that swamps global need. This part of the book is reasonably well researched and written (noting that there is a clear bias from the author). The author muddies this portrayal with an overlay on people of color, immigrants, and protestors as being systematically used and fought. He is clearly pessimistic about the current state of American politics of both parties. This part of the book is scattered and non-coherent. In the end, he really does not include any solutions for moving forward.

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and very well written book analysing the impacts of the War on Terror on the American psyche. He argues that the 9/11 attacks led to a widespread sense of shame in the US, provoking a harsh response that was waged both abroad and at home. He points to several key trends resulting from the War on Terror: increased militarism, racism/xenophobia, and the rise of an "impunity culture" where neither government nor military were held responsible for their actions when they violated rates, murdered civilians, or committed widespread abuses. Beck argues that these trends led to the erosion of the US place in the world, its respect for democracy and human rights, and the rise of populism.

[Colin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bleak, bloated, disjointed, meandering, a couple of good nuggets of cultural history and analysis making up the first third but devolved by trying to give solid accounts of the impacts on immigration, surveillance, diplomacy, economics, each kind of propping up the other by way of each being used to explain the other. Also kind of a weird foray into, or perhaps a projection on, the psychological thinking of those involved. I wish the whole thing focused more on the elements of American life and culture that changed as opposed to tying the war to several other political issues that don’t necessarily require such a connection.

[Mads Floyd · Rating 1 out of 5]

I burnt this book behind my house. Here’s why:

I shall have to excuse myself in advance for my use of snuff terms during this reviews, yet I view it as essential and absolutely necessary when critiquing utter slop such as this book is in 90% of its runtime. The first point I shall make is that this book takes the evergreen liberal insult of “media illiteracy” to a fever pitch by bizarrely comparing The Dark Knight trilogy to the war on terror itself, along with a litany of other ill-fitting comparisons. This segment tops off with the utter bullshittery that is a post-Marxist anti-American (not in the good contrastive way, but in that whiny, fat Brooklyn nepo baby sort of manner) back-narrative of America’s “war on natives” which is anthropologically equivalent to rape porn for white leftists who’ve read one Franz Fanon book and begin collecting African tribal artifacts. In addition, the author’s seeming defense of the Taliban rides on the back of several foundational untruths which any two-bit layman scholar such as myself is aware of, the largest of which being the contextual nightmare that was the “…Taliban offer to give up Bin Laden in late 2000”, which not only never occurred, but the closest thing discussed to this was a ploy much spoken about in a far more serious text, that being the legendary “Bin Laden Papers” by Nelly Mahoud. Lies such as this one undermine the entire scope of the book, and that is only concerning the first two chapters. Another major lie (or rather a distillation of truth beyond what one might dismiss as omission) occurs in the latter half of the book, where the author absurdly claims that Anwar Al- Maliki was assassinated with “no real proof he was involved in” any sort of terror act, despite the state department releasing copious amounts of information concerning his recruitment for Al Quaeda AP. There is a large section dedicated to what I can only call a deliberate undermining of the bravery of firefighters on the day of 9/11, (though the author, as so many closeted hitlerites, thinks himself so very witty but outright denying his doing so directly following the act) by pointing to a maximum two cases of firefighters acting inappropriately. Again, all of this rubbish is only contained within the first two chapters of the book. Let me tell you earnestly, I have never encountered a tome so vast and so ridiculously shitty that I began taking notes with which to dissect it later. There is also the continuous annoyance of a severely disconnected personal narrative which does not even include experience of the event itself whatsoever. This, however, is a comparative nitpick in comparison to the utter retardation with which the author butchers countless trees to take up this book’s five hundred-odd pages. The author continues a peculiar tradition of millennial dipshits to remain entirely aloof from the concept of national security in response to a terrorist attack. Calling security checks and high-alert measures “Violations of freedom” or “Islamophobia” (though thankfully as time passes the later term becomes more of a byword for sanity) the author falls victim to the same bitchy sort of blame-misappropriation which has made his entire generation in the west a halcyon of shame and apathy to both their precedents and those that follow them down the chain of societal time. The author calls TSA measures to prevent further terrorism “ruthless utilitarianism” which is so beyond comical irony that I cannot even touch the statement while feeling like a serious individual. There is seemingly no end to the raucous arrogance of the average white liberal millennial, replete as the book is with that old, classic, bafflingly foolish depiction of anyone even slightly over their own age as a bumbling buffoon; a less-cynical reading of this attitude (probably only by a dipshit millennial) would be that this is the latter „boomer fatigue” which is now so commonplace. I beg to differ, as almost everyone is now aware of the constant pretense of intellectual-grandstanding which the stereotype that the author so perfectly represents. As I get further into the book, I grow tired with critiquing it honestly. An absolutely pathetic misreading of economic history (not even sure how the author printed this with a straight face) follows a bunch of rubbish which I could barely be bothered to pay attention to. For some reason the author seems yet again aloof from the reality of war, whether justified or not. He speaks of “executions of wounded Islamic state fighters” as war crimes, as if such combatants were legitimate! He speaks of human dignity as if he had not spent his entire 500 odd-page hit piece trying to degrade the job of less innocent men at the absolutely unnecessary cost of raising the goddamned Islamic State to sainthood.
If I could sum up the entire point this unworthy tome makes (though the author of course completely misses it himself whilst he pens the words) it is that Bin Laden’s act succeeded in instilling terror in the American people, yet that -for some unrealistic, idealistic, foolishly utopian reason which could only stem from the mouth of a heedless neoliberal - the actions which the government took in response were somehow unfair.
OH! And just when I was finishing the book and this review - as if it couldn’t get any worse- the author ends the tome with apologist rhetoric towards Vladimir Putin and his war in Ukraine! What a continuous useful idiot of an author.
Only the final bit is my true reasoning for taking such a drastic step.

[J Crist · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first half of this book is great. The second half..............

[David Stephens · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s easy to soften the past or merely forget how bad it was in years gone by, but Richard Beck doesn’t want us to do that. So in Homeland, he posits that Donald Trump would never have become president if it weren’t for 9/11 and America’s concomitant fall into militarism, xenophobia, financial ruin, and unquestioned impunity for anyone who degraded our laws, politics, or culture.

To make his argument, he draws heavily on Richard Slotkin and his reading of American mythology. According to Beck and Slotkin, America has never really been about moving toward an ideal of freedom and democracy with certain setbacks along the way. It has, instead, been about covering up feelings of shame and vulnerability through shows of power culled from allegations of the savagery of others.

As Beck says of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq against anonymous brown people, “In order for Americans to feel that the war was justified, the enemy needed to be omnipresent, vicious, irrational, devoid of scruples, and capable of bringing down the country from the inside.” The wars and crackdowns of the last few decades work the same ways as the captivity narratives of the seventeenth century: they are meant to quell the anxieties Americans have about the dispossession they have caused rather than solve any real problems.

While the book probably spends too long recounting every detail of post-9/11 life, it does add some unique insights as well. For instance, Beck argues that the invasion of Iraq was not so much about oil revenues as it was about working Iraq into the global economic system at a time when income inequality was spiraling out of control and, therefore, capital markets needed to be expanded outward. And while plenty of journalists have acknowledged impunity culture, Beck makes some astute points about how a lack of accountability not only allows for wrongdoing to continue but also degrades citizenship and makes people feel alienated from their government.

In the end, even Beck’s less novel analyses are still very important to remember.

[yuni · Rating 4 out of 5]

useful 101 especially on how the management of surplus populations is inherent to capitalism, and how the WOT upgraded this slaughterhouse process - the prose style is like clear water and is deeply satisfying - arguments often begin with taking liberal values and international law at face value, which I can see the utility of when the author commits to analysis that exposes said values for their cruel market logic, this is definitely written for a broad audience - however he is most lacking in his assessments of flashpoints in mass protest pre 2020 (especially claims around BLM demands and politics), not convinced by his periodizing of US impunity culture, and curious about the epilogue argument that the WOT is waning as he also engages with the ongoing genocide in Palestine (his writing completed December 2023)

overall solid and I appreciated his emphasis on the sadism at every level of state decision making especially at Abu Ghraib. glad that he shouts out Retort for Afflicted Powers and expands on their argument around the no-blood-for-oil conception.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been searching for a book like this for a long time. While it didn't have the microscopic inspection or essays on immediate life post-9/11 I was hoping, the goals of the book as it set out were met in spades. At times it feels wandering and verbose where it doesn't need to be. And it is a strange mix of informative with occasional pot shots (warranted) at public officials or policy positions. Setting aside what I wanted, I really wish it had a more cohesive voice.
However, these are minor criticisms in light of the importance of the message of the book. I was reading Capital and Ideology by Picketty and Stolen Focus by Johann Hari at the same time. It was striking how such different books all coalesced around the same theme. Economic greed and lust for constant growth has destroyed this world and will continue to do so until we see a united opposition that will start with small, but persistent pressure. It's the only hope for a better future. At worst, it's the only hope for our ancestors to view us with sympathy as they're swallowed by the sea.

[Mary Agnes Joens · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was excited to read this but unfortunately it was wildly uneven. There are sections that are really interesting and incisive, and others which are self-indulgent and tangential or poorly argued. The author has a very clear point of view about the US and the US-led economic order, which is fine, but sometimes that gets in the way of his analysis. For example, his discussion of how US founding frontier myths (about white settlers proclaiming the necessity of violence to control 'savage' populations) shaped national narratives about the War on Terror was interesting, but ultimately gets carried too far/gets too much weight in the author's overall assessment of the war's causes and course. Same goes for his theory of the economic origins of the war; interesting, but ultimately given too much weight, and results in the author ignoring or giving short shrift to other key factors.

Definitely an interesting read, but not a necessary one.

[Jim Araby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Beck argues that 9/11 fundamentally reshaped American democracy, shifting public priorities from civil liberties to national security. In the name of safety, Americans have accepted increased surveillance, curtailed speech, and a militarized state apparatus—developments that have persisted across both political parties. Beck links this transformation to rising economic inequality and xenophobia, showing how both the left and right have supported the expansion of the security state, even as they diverge on other issues.

He traces how the government's increasingly forceful responses to moments of public dissent—from the Iraq War protests to Occupy Wall Street, the Women’s March, and Black Lives Matter—reveal a political class more committed to control than reform. Beck concludes that America’s post-9/11 trajectory is not a break from its ideals, but a distortion of them, repurposed to entrench elite power. Real democratic renewal, he suggests, may depend less on internal reform and more on global pressures and events.