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

by Mahmood Mamdani

In this brilliant look at the rise of political Islam, the distinguished political scientist and anthropologist Mahmood Mamdani brings his expertise and insight to bear on a question many Americans have been asking since 9/11: how did this happen? Good Muslim, Bad Muslim is a provocative and important book that will profoundly change our understanding both of Islamist politics and the way America is perceived in the world today.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Islam, Middle East, Religion, Race

324 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Mahmood Mamdani is Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Professor of Anthropology and of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) at Columbia University and Director of the Makerere Institute of Social Research in Kampala. He is the author of Citizen and Subject, When Victims Become Killers, and Good Muslim, Bad Muslim.

Mamdani is married to Mira Nair, the acclaimed Indian film director and producer. Mamdani and Nair's only son, Zohran Mamdani, is the mayor-elect of New York City.

Reviews

[Hafsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely a must-read for those who need some fodder when dealing with American jingoists. Mamdani covers the double standards in US foreign policy from Latin America and Africa, to the Middle East and Afghanistan. The first part of the book is mainly about Latin America & Africa and read a bit more slowly than the rest (he was building up to show how American involvement in Middle East/Afghanistan is related to cold war politics---including support for right wing despotic governments over left wing nationalist groups). The part on the US support for what became the Taliban (the US essentially crafted the Afghan war against the Soviets in religious terms in order to garner more support for it across the Muslim world) is something we all know, but reading the detailed account was still pretty shocking. I wish every American could read Chapter Three: Afghanistan: The High Point in the Cold War." So, so, so many issues that just keep on recurring today.

The only reason I didn't give this book a five was that he went less into the rise and development of political Islam in respose TO the US foreign policy that he described pretty thoroughly.

[Ram · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is virtually the authentic history of the genesis of islamic terrorism as we see today. It starts with the hey days of the Cold War, the US role in privatising war and conflict, its nefarious role in South Africa, Mozambique, Nicaragua, the use of drug money for financing war, creation of Afghani jihad forces to fight Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the CIA role in creating conflict situations, which has resulted in the menace of Islamic Terrorism as we see today. The book does not exonerate terrrorism, but carefully places vital facts for the reader to conclude the real villian in this drama.

[Kat · Rating 5 out of 5]

I finally exhaled... it had been since last week when I finished Clash of Civilizations. My face has returned back to my shade of brown. Excellent read. Very accessible. Pick up a copy, start reading, let´s talk. "Not only must we learn to forget, we must also not forget to learn."

[Annette · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read if you understand that no event in the modern world is abstracted from decades of history, politics, and complicated relationships. It will open your eyes.

[J.I.]

The beginning of this book would have the reader believe that it is going to talk about political Islam and the question of how 9/11 happened. It doesn't however. Instead it says, essentially, political Islam is not about terror and besides, you did it first.

While there are some insightful sections in this book about the difference of secularism in Islam vs secularism in Christianity, it is mostly about the proxy wars and CIA influence in the US since Vietnam. For those that aren't familiar with this, it is insightful, but for me, it was simply rehashing things I have known for a while. Yes, I know of the Iran-Contra affair, yes I know of the assassination of Patrice Lamumba, etc.

I give this book 4 stars simply because the rehash of history is well done for those not already very familiar with it. I would have liked this book to look more closely at the intersection of US political strategy and political Islam as we know it today rather than a history of how the US has trained guerrilla fighters that we've come to regret later.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

"America cannot occupy the world. It has to learn to live in it."

This book was difficult for me, as someone born in 1992 and who really came of age in post-9/11 America. My eternal refrain bewailing the state of the U.S.'s public education must be repeated again: many of the political events related in this book were incredibly difficult to understand because I knew nothing or next-to-nothing about them. The Cold War era through, pretty much, George W. Bush's presidency just . . . isn't really taught in most public schools? At least, it wasn't taught in mine.

Still, I think it's a critical text for American citizens, not the least because it contextualizes our place on the world stage and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the political events leading up to the present. Mamdani stresses in the latter part of his book that the U.S. controls public perception of its actions (its atrocities) abroad through carefully controlled media and the framing of our actions in a righteous "good" vs. "evil" fashion. It's also sadly true that they control public perception through the lack of education and the rewriting or plain erasing of historical fact. When you know nothing of the horrors your country committed ten, twenty, or even two years ago in some far-away country you can't even point out on a map, it isn't that hard to be led in any direction a skilled propagandist wants you to be led.

One of the best takeaways from this text was the earlier discussion regarding the perceived morality/justness of colonization - and the amount of violence allowed - based on the so-called "civility" of the place being occupied ("savage" cultures vs. pseudo-Westernized ones). I of course loved that Mamdani did the work of holding the United States responsible for the terror it has cultivated abroad for its own political purposes, terror which has now grown out of our control and which we very desperately refuse to admit culpability for creating (esp. the role of the CIA in working with drug lords and training troops to wage our proxy wars). I also really appreciated the sheer amount of effort that went into drawing connections between key political events spanning half a century and multiple continents. It got muddled at times, both because of my own ignorance and because I think the scope of this work was enormous, but ultimately it provided me, the reader, with a very necessary historical and political context, which I will take into other readings.

My main complaint is that the citations in this edition, at least, were terrible. We had a huge amount of chapter notes tucked away in the back, but no citations on the page indicating that anything was being referenced. I don't care if it's a valid citation style; I think it hurts the credibility of the author's arguments. It was as if he was trying to hide his endnotes for some reason, which is probably not true but is nevertheless the vibe I ended up with.

I also noticed a breakdown in the lucidity of his arguments where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was concerned, particularly in the last chapter when he begins to discuss the U.S.'s relationship with Israel. I'm not pro-Israel (I actually don't know enough about it to be pro-either of them at this point), but even I could see that his arguments became thin, emotional, and less supported by fact in those sections.

A lot of great information in here, much of which surprised and dismayed me, and some interesting arguments made by Mamdani.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an ambitious book that attempts to cover the involvement of the US in the Middle East (and Asia as a whole) during the time of the Cold War. Mamdani argues a number of points, many of them in attempt to debunk the idea that Muslims are the world's only terrorists, that it was cultural determination that lead to violence in the Middle East and not American and foreign meddling, and that there are no solutions to the US vs Middle East controversy other than American occupation of nations in that area. Although it is sometimes too broad in its scope and Mamdani gets a bit carried away in his zeal, thereby allowing some great points to slip by, "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim" is an excellent book that is incredibly relevant at the moment, especially to Americans who are seeking to better understand the situation in which our country finds itself with respect to Arab nations.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 1 out of 5]

A book that draws a moral equivalence between the United States government and al Qaeda isn't worth a longer review, or your time, for that matter. Among the dozens of distortions and exaggerations in this book is the direct claim that the al Qaeda is both a U.S. creation and ally. This is about what you would expect from a book Noam Chomsky blurbed. If you are already a doctrinaire leftist, don't read it; he won't challenge your views. If you aren't, read it only to get a sense of what far left screeds say. If you want well-sourced, fair, and rigorous criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially of culture and Orientalism, try Zach Lockman's "Contending Visions of the Middle East" instead.

[Lindsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd like to read again, or parts of it again, now that I am out of an academic setting, to see how it applies to the practicalities of most work.

[Brooke Eubanks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Significant depiction and reminder of the mutual relationships between the U.S. military, the CIA, Israel, cocaine drug traffickers and opium growers, the religious right, and Ivy League schools that have been intentionally hidden and go without actual accountability. The violence of the settler, especially in terms of the U.S and Israel, is utterly clear and deeply unsettling.

The quotes below were all too relevant despite its publication in 2004. I drive or walk to the grocery store and cannot hide from the signs spanning streets throughout eastern Massachusetts that claim their support of Israel. It's embarrassing, degrading, and exactly what the settlers were looking for.

"The same American liberal, who will uphold your democratic right to criticize any government in the world, including that of the United States, will consider criticism of the state of Israel, as potentially anti-Semitic, in the words of the current president of Harvard, and in effect, if not in intent."

"The state of Israel is a state. It is not a religion or a people. The Israeli state should be submitted to the same scrutiny as any other state, not only for the sake of the Palestinian people or Israeli people, but, now more than ever, for the sake of humanity."

[giovi · Rating 5 out of 5]

America cannot occupy the world. It has to learn to live in it.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great Book. It did a great job of placing the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in historical perspective by connecting the dots from American clandestine interventions in Laos, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan (1980's). The American intelligence agencies privatized war by funding terrorists, gangs, warlords, and the like throughout the Cold War to defeat pro-Soviet regimes and "roll-back" the Soviet Union. One can view Al Qaeda as a product of this process, and the Afghanistan War as "Cold War cleanup". The writing style was particularly dense, hence the 4 stars as opposed to 5, but still a really good book.

[Chad · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book has a very deceptive title. One third of the book is devoted to a literature review of culture talk and other semantics. The rest is a tinted and inadequate history of U.S. wars abroad and the mistakes and shortcomings of the United States and Israel. Criticism of such a sort is well and good, but the author's descriptions were entirely too one sided. It would have received more stars from me if the title had been an accurate reflection of what is in the book rather than a catchy phrase sure to sell copies.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant analysis of how political zeal and religious piety are wrongly mixed thus creating a distorted understanding of Muslim grievances toward the US and former colonial powers.

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the most challenging book I've read so far this year. Mamdani has assembled a devastating history of American involvement in terror organizations throughout Asia, Africa, and South America. It's a damning account of the CIA and other government officials, and it effectively rebuts the broader "Culture Talk" emphasizing the global south as pre-modern savages striking out against a civilized European West. Instead, he reminds us that the pervasive threat of terrorism has only flourished because of the "global environment where at least one superpower turned a blind eye to 'its' terror." The horrific examples make clear that terrorism is not an inevitability of a singular religion, but rather an outgrowth of the devastating political context of the Cold War.

Mamdani hasn't produced an unassailable text, however. On a textual level, some material is repeated between essays and could have used more editing for the final publication. Intellectually, he often introduces a few factors for a specific event or broader trend, then only meaningfully addresses one or two of them. This wouldn't necessarily be an issue, as he clearly outlines the limitations of his focus and reminds readers that other contextual information remains integral to a holistic understanding, except some of these unaddressed factors leave important questions regarding his argument - particularly in his discussion of post-Soviet Afghanistan. Additionally, his conclusion provides the first significant dive into the historical and philosophical role of Israel in the global political context, but feels like it needs an essay of its own.

This book is remarkably important and poignant (perhaps even moreso) 21 years after its original publication. It has certainly improved my understanding of terror at the turn of the century and has challenged me to think more critically about the formation of terror organizations, without making me an apologist for their adherents or actions. It succeeds in one of the most critical tasks of history and storytelling in general: to broaden reader's understandings of human history and break down simplistic narratives that hurt the innocent and sanitize the perpetrator.

I would recommend this to those interested in American foreign policy, those interested in terror, those interested in propaganda, and those interested in the events of 9/11. Among my friends, I include Carter, Tom, Russ, and Victoria. In a small piece of unexpected intertextuality, I think this book would also be an amazing book to read alongside Frank Herbert's Dune. As such, I would also recommend it to Seamus, Ethan, and Carter again.

One important note I'd like to add: Like with other political and historical books I've read, my enjoying this book and drawing value from it does not mean I agree with everything the book argues, and is a reflection of my own experience reading the book - not an endorsement of the author and text.

[Ali Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an article he wrote in Dawn, the Pakistani political thinker and activist Eqbal Ahmad draws our attention to an American television image from 1985. On the White House lawn, President Ronald Reagan is introducing, with great fanfare, a group of Afghan men, all leaders of the mujahideen, to the media: “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” This was the moment when America tried to harness extreme versions of political Islam in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The link between Islam and terrorism became a central media concern following September 11, resulting in new rounds of "culture talk. This talk has turned religious experience into a political category, differentiating 'good Muslims" from "bad Muslims, rather than terrorists from civilians. The implication is undisguised: Whether in Afghanistan, Palestine, or Pakistan, Islam must be quarantined and the devil must be exorcized from it by a civil war between good Muslims and bad Muslims. Beyond the simple but radical suggestion that if there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, there must also be good Westerners and bad Westerners, the very tendency to read Islamist politics as an effect of Islamic civilization—whether good or bad—and Western power as an effect of Western civilization. Both those politics and that power are born of an encounter, and neither can be understood outside of the history of that encounter. Cultural explanations of political outcomes tend to avoid history and issues. Thinking of individuals from "traditional" cultures in authentic and original terms, culture talk dehistoricizes the construction of political identities. This book places the terror of September 11 in a historical and political context. Rather than a residue of a premodern culture in modern politics, terrorism is best understood as a modern construction. Even when it harnesses one or another aspect of tradition and culture, the result is a modern ensemble at the service of a modern project.
P.S. Read this book only if you know about orientalism.

[Zihad Azad · Rating 5 out of 5]

De-linking Islam from the roots of terror is no easy fit and from that perspective, this book is a monumental undertaking. Yet, Mahmood Mamdani writes with an ease rare among his peers, hopping from politics to history to philosophy with seeming abandon. The density of information might often present a real obstacle to reading fluidity; yet, for the major part, his incisive analysis is too good to be passed up for something else that might be more amenable to a relaxed reading..

The best accomplishment of this book is the differentiation between two strands of analysis as it pertain to Islam and Terrorism: The "Culture Talk" and The "Politics Talk". Culture talk attempts to find the causes of the violence perpetrated by an individual or a group in the culture of said individual or group. The cultural traits that dominate the causality debate are either religious (Al Qaeda, Taliban) or racial ("Black-on-black" violence in Apartheid South Africa) identity. On the other hand, Politics Talk sees violence largely as a manifestation of the historical and political grievances of a dis-enfranchised group of people. In the author's view, the latter, and not the former, is the preferred way if we truly want to address and redress global terror. This book also does a pretty good job of distinguishing Islamic Terror from Political Islam by showing that not all varieties of Political Islam degenerated into terrorist movements. Some, like that of Jinnah in pre-partition India, were deeply rooted in secularism.

All in all, this book makes for a rich read, as you would expect from something recommended by THE NOAM CHOMSKY. However, that does not mean that this book can only lend itself to the expert. Each chapter offers enough backdrop and introductory details for the uninitiated too. And therein lies the true strength of this work.

[Baher Soliman · Rating 3 out of 5]

في عام 1985م وفي مقابلة تليفزيونية وقف الرئيس الأمريكي " رونالد ريجان" في حديقة البيت الأبيض يُقدِّم مجموعة من قادة المجاهدين الأفغان وهو يقول متباهيًا " هؤلاء السادة هم النظراء الأخلاقيون للآباء المؤسسين لأمريكا". هذا المشهد كما يقول محمود ممداني معبِّر عن اللحظة التي حاولت أمريكا تقديم صورة قصوى للإسلام السياسي في النضال ضد الاتحاد السوفيتي. وفي مشهد آخر مقابل لتلك اللحظة الريجانية -بعد ذلك بسنوات كثيرة- وقف الرئيس بوش بعد أحداث الحادي عشر من سبتمبر ليتكلم عن المسلمين الصالحين والمسلمين الطالحين، وكان الطالحون هم المسؤولون عن الإرهاب، بينما المسلم الصالح هو الذي لا يُعادي الثقافة ولا الهوية الأمريكية، كان الطالحون في نظر بوش –وللمفارقة- هم الذين سبق واستعملتهم المخابرات الأمريكية في الحرب الأفغانية.. إنَّ أمريكا وفق ممداني ووفق هذا التقسيم لا تتكلم عن هوية دينية بل هوية سياسية.

إنَّ قضية ممداني هنا هي قضية العنف والإرهاب بوصفه نتاجًا للهيمنة الأمريكية، بل وللحداثة الغربية كلها، إنَّ جزءًا من هذا الطرح يُشبِه كلام سينشا مالسيفيتش في كتابه " سوسيولوجيا الحرب والعنف" عن ربط العنف بالحداثة الغربية وبنية الدولة الحديثة، ومن ثم قبل أنَّ يُحلِّل ممداني مدى مصداقية ربط الأصولية الإٍسلامية بالإرهاب، يُحلِّل ما أطلق عليه " خطاب الثقافة" حول الإرهاب، وتأسيس ذلك في كتابات برنارد لويس وهنتجتون، وبكل صدق يقول ممداني أنَّ برنارد لويس وليس هنتنجتون هو الذي قدَّم الدعم الفكري للرأي القائل بأنَّ هنالك " صالحين" معارضين للمسلمين و" طالحين"، وهو الرأي الذي غدا القوة الدافعة للسياسة الخارجية الأمريكية.

ربما بعض التمييزات الدينية تعبِّر عن رأي قابل للنقاش عند ممداني مثل رؤيته للحركات السياسية التي تتحدث لغة الدين بوصفها إسلامًا سياسيًا وليست أصولية إسلامية، هذا التمييز دقيق عنده، لأنه سيبني عليه رأيه بأنَّ الإرهاب ليس نتاجًا للأصولية الإٍسلامية، ولكن نتاج للإسلام السياسي الذي غذَّته الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية سواء عبر وكالة المخابرات الأمريكية أو عبر ممارساتها القمعية بتبنيها ودعمها للأنظمة القمعية، نعم ..هذا هو المهم عند ممداني، والمهم عندنا ليس بطبيعة الحال هو موافقة ممداني في هذا التقسيم ولا في هذا الرأي، ولكن المميز في طرح ممداني هو رصد حالة التشابك بين الإسلام السياسي -إن جاز القول- والممارسات الأمريكية في الحرب الباردة بما يشملها من حرب المصطلحات مثل الإرهاب الأصولي وغيره، هو تكلَّم عن قطب والمودودي وغيرهم، لكنه سرعان ما يتجاوز أفكارهم، لأنه ليس مهمومًا بفكرة كيف ولماذا ظهر فكر التركيز على الدولة في الإٍسلام السياسي، ولكن المهم عنده كيف استطاع هذا الفكر أن يقفز من القوة إلى الفعل أو من الحاشية الثقافية إلى المجرى العام للسياسة في أجزاء كثيرة من العالم الإسلامي، وفي ذلك يضع ممداني " الإسلام السياسي" في سياق الحرب الباردة ليصل إلى أنَّ مأساة الحادي عشر من سبتمبر يمكن تتبع أثرها من الحرب الباردة الأخيرة التي خاضتها الولايات المتحدة في فيتنام وأفغانستان.

يرصد ممداني ملامح الحرب الباردة بعد الهند الصينية، وظهور فكرة الحرب بالوكالة التي تم تمويلها من التجارات المحرَّمة مثل تجارة المخدرات، فيرصد الكتاب كيف تحالفت المخابرات الأمريكية مع لوردات المخدرات مثل المافيا في إيطاليا وفرنسا والقوى الصينية المعادية للشيوعية على حدود بورما- الصين، وذلك كمصدر لتمويل حربها الباردة. يتكلم ممداني عن الحرب بالوكالة في الكونغو وأنجولا ونيكاراجوا...حكايات مأساوية من القتل والانقلابات وتجارة الكوكايين، أعمال قذرة شاركت فيها المخابرات الأمريكية، لكن ذروة الحرب الباردة كانت هناك .. في أفغانستان.

وفق الكتاب أرادت المخابرات الأمريكية تحويل الحرب الأفغانية إلى فيتنام للاتحاد السوفيتي، وكانت الثورة الإيرانية مُلهِمة للأمريكان كي تُعيد علاقتها مع الإسلام السياسي، دعّمت الولايات المتحدة المجاهدين الأفغان، لا يقول مم��اني أنهم كلهم كانوا عملاء للأمريكان، ويقول أنَّ كثيرًا منهم لم يكونوا يعلمون دور الاستخبارات الأمريكية في دعمهم، لكنه بشكل مؤكَّد يتكلم عن كون الشيخ عبد الله عزام و بن لادن وعمر عبد الرحمن صنائع المخابرات الأمريكية، وبشكل واضح يقول " إن الجهاد الأفغاني كان جهادًا أمريكيًا"، وبغض النظر عن مدى دقة هذا الموضوع الذي يحتاج لبحث يفوق جهد بحث ممداني هنا، لكنه يوضح مرة أخرى أنَّ المخدرات كانت مصدرًا لتمويل الجهاد الأفغاني، إنَّ هدف ممداني من طرحه واضح.. المخابرات الأمريكية صنعت الإرهاب عبر دعم من انقلبت عليهم بعد ذلك بالتعاون مع المخابرات الباكستانية، ثم بعد أن صنعت الإرهاب قامت بالربط بين الإسلام والإرهاب في مرحلة تالية.

سردية ممداني بلاشك مهمة .. لكنها وللحقيقة لا تُفسِّر كلَّ شيء وتختصر وتتجاوز أشياء كثيرة، مثلًا تتجاوز مأزق الإسلام والعلمانية، والإسلام وبن��ة الدولة الحديثة، هذه إشكاليات لابد وأن تُوضع ضمن إطار عام لتفسير صعود العنف، إنَّ ممداني يقول إنَّ الإرهاب صنيعة الإسلام السياسي لا الأصولية الإسلامية، دون أن يوضح لنا بشكل حازم وفاصل كيف يفارق الإسلام السياسي الأصولية الإسلامية! إن دور الأمريكان لاشك حاسم في صعود العنف والإرهاب، لكن هل هو دور أساس أم هو دور ثانوي قام باستغلال أفكار قادة الإسلام السياسي لمصلحته، هذا هو ما تجاوزه الكتاب.

يسير ممداني بالحرب بالوكالة إلى أن يصل إلى العراق، ويقول بشكل حاسم أنه لمعرفة كيف غدا العراق مرتكزًا أساسيًا لاستراتيجية الولايات المتحدة يجب العودة إلى إيران عام 1979، فقد دعَّمت أمريكا العراق في حربها ضد إيران، ودرَّبت أمريكا الضباط العراقيين على استعمال الأسلحة الكيماوية، ارتكب صدام حسين مجازر بحق الإيرانيين و الأكراد تحت الحماية الأمريكية، كان الهدف من هذا الدعم كما يقول كيسنجر " إننا نأمل أن يقتل الواحد منهما الأخر". جرائم أخرى ارتكبتها العراق خلال حرب الخليج، والآن حان دور العقاب والحصار وظهور مبدأ " النفط مقابل الغذاء"، وموت نصف مليون طفل عراقي، وبلا مبالاة قالت مادلين أولبريت " الأمر كما نعتقد يستحق هذا الثمن"، لقد أراد الأمريكان عبر ضرب العراق ليس فقط احتلاله ولكن وفق ممداني أرادت رسم الخريطة السياسية للمنطقة كلها.

وفق سردية الكتاب صنعت أمريكا الطغاة والديكتاتورية العسكرية و مجاهدي الإسلام السياسي واستغنت عن حكم القانون عالميًا. إنَّ الإدارة الأمريكية هي الإدارة الدموية كما يقول ممداني، إدارة دموية تعيش عليها إسرائيل في المنطقة، لقد تلاعبت أمريكا بالإرهاب، وكانت النتيجة كما يقول الكتاب تآكل الديمقراطية و صناعة إرهابيين مدربيين وإقامة بنية تحتية للإجرام مرتبطة بإقامة تجارة المخدرات، ربما قد يكون هذا صحيحًا.. لكن مساواة ممداني بين صناعة أمريكا للإرهاب الصهيوني بالمشروع الإسلامي السياسي في أسيا الوسطى بوصف كليهما تمدد في ظل المظلة السياسية الأمريكية هو مما يحتاج معه إلى إعادة نظر، هناك فرق بين صناعة مجموعة من الصهاينة المجرمين وبين استغلال مجموعة من الإسلاميين في أعمال تخدم المصالح الأمريكية، وليس صحيحًا كما زعم ممداني أنَّ أٍسلمة الدولة الباكستانية يُعادل الصهيونية الدينية في إسرائيل، على الأقل ليس فيما يحاول المحاججة فيه، وهو دور المخابرات الأمريكية في هذا وذاك.

بالنهاية الكتاب جيد، كاشف وفاضح للممارسات الأمريكية في المنطقة، ستُدرك معه أنّ اللعبة الأمريكية أكثر تعقيدًا مما تبدو، يختم ممداني كتابه وهو يؤكد أنَّ أمريكا لابد أن تُدرك أنَّ الزمن الكولونيالي قد انتهى، كتب ممداني هذا أثناء غزو أمريكا للعراق، والحقيقة أن أمريكا تعي هذا، فهي تُدرك أنَّ الزمن الكولونيالي بشكله القديم لم يعد له وجود، وبالتالي هي تُمارس نوع آخر من الكولونيالية .. الكولونيالية الوطنية أو الكولونيالية بالوكالة.

[Sol · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s not about Muslims, it’s about America, lol. Basically you’re a Good Muslim if you align with American state interests but you are Bad Muslim if you do not…. and this book explains in depth the changes in US politics that got us here in the first place. Was an extremely wild ride.

Political Islam used to be a fringe ideology until the CIA decided to give them resources paid for by the drug trade in order to fight their Cold War - it didn’t matter cause at least the Muslims were not Communist lol…. Turns out you can’t do the same thing in South America as in the Middle East bc fanning the fires of extremist political Islam means there’s no stopping it once you’re done with it…. RIP to all the countries in Africa and South America who got couped tho…. As usual America Ruined My Life Personally

[Moataz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a minefield. I never felt both helpless and angry, ever in my life. Growing up, I always heard the same narrative about US, but never from US officials or CIA documents/manuals. I don't know what's worse: CIA fucking us up in the middle east, or fucking up its own country with drugs and such? I was brought more than once to the same thought: if this knowledge (despite being overlooked by media in the US) exists in documents and research, why no one is doing anything about it? (I mean in the American Administration to halt the influence of CIA.) Don't they care about the American people's welfare? Don't they care about their soldiers?
The author doesn't really explain this. Again, how come the USA intelligence agency betraying the very people they serve and protect?

[Kingslee]

I would love to finish this book but I read it originally for class. EXTREMELY HARD READ as the material is HEAVY on the heart. I cried in the introduction. Made it to chapter two and had to get a hug from Allie. This subject is so important as people are important. We must always be on guard against generalizations of people but rather view and treat people in light of the individuals they are. Individuals with a story.

Hurt people hurt people and to understand conflicts, we must understand what conditions gave birth to the violence. No one is innocent, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

[Sabrina Lauv · Rating 4 out of 5]

You always hear about how the US gets into everyone's business, but you never realized how recent this all started until you read this book. From staying out of WW2 as long as possible, to taking hawkish stances and building on executive powers present day.

[Shoto Azikuri]

I picked up this book in response to current events in Gaza and because I was baffled by the West's reaction to the conflict. It proved to be a good choice. Even though current public discourse is full of discussions about the history of the conflict and the region, and everybody can follow arguments online, it is not enough to get a comprehensive picture.

This book is rich in historical nuances. I've learned many facts, even though I thought I knew a lot about the Cold War period and post-9/11 American wars. What makes it a really good read is that these historical narratives are cleverly connected to more theoretical insights about politics, religion, race, culture, and moral and ethical questions. Written post-9/11, Mamdani offers a deep historical analysis of topics that were hotly debated at the time. October 7 is often compared to 9/11, and old debates are reactivated. Reading this book, you will understand that not much has changed in 20 years, and Mamdani's insights are still very valuable.

Another virtue of this book is that it avoids simplistic denunciation of the "evil U.S. empire." Mamdani shows that the discourse of evil empires, whether by Reagan against the Soviet Union or by Bin Laden against the U.S., brought so many atrocities to the world in the 20th century. Instead, he attempts to understand what motivates U.S. foreign policy with intellectual conscientiousness, avoiding the easy caricature of an oil-grabbing empire. He offers a more fine-grained analysis of U.S. motives for its wars throughout the Cold War and the War on Terror, though these motives in no way absolve the U.S. from blame for its actions.

"America cannot occupy the world. It has to learn to live in it." This is the last sentence of the book. It represents not only his analysis but also his message and advice to America, I believe. It is interesting to read the book, assess current world events, and draw your conclusion about whether the American foreign policy establishment has taken that advice.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good look at the cultivation of terror by the United States during the Cold War. The book begins with a chapter on what Mamdani calls "culture talk", which shows the problems inherent in describing non-westerners and especially Muslims using Western terms (fundamentalist, for example) that already have clearly defined meanings in their Western contexts that do not describe non-western counterparts. This leads into a helpful and productive discussion of "political Islam" and its variants. The simple matter of finding clear and accurate language goes miles toward understanding the roots of the problem of terror. The remaining chapters walk the reader through the Cold War and the development of "low intensity" tactics by the US and especially by the CIA. The history runs from Vietnam and Laos to the culmination of the Cold War proxy war in Afghanistan. Mamdani shows how political and low-intensity/terror tactics developed by the US in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central America were used to cultivate terrorist proxies, gathered from around the globe, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Mamdani then walks the reader through the results of the dispersal of that international insurgent force and the consequences: the Gulf Wars, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. His conclusions are helpful as well, calling for a condemnation not only of "their terror", but "our terror" as well and the need for the United States to learn to live in the post-Cold War world rather than trying to occupy it. The book is very broad in scope and moves very quickly. Some readers may find they need more background information to fully grasp what Mamdani is saying. I'm well-studied in the Middle East, but not so much in Africa and found myself having to do a bit of research "on the side" as Mamdani discussed the Cold War proxies in Africa.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mamdani provides a lot of important detail about the roots of the modern terror, starting from U.S. late Cold War policy in Vietnam, to proxy warfare in Southern Africa, Central America, and Central Asia, to invasion of Afghanistan and finally the Gulf War.

While it's clear that a lot of research went into the book, its structure is totally muddled, as he goes on tangents constantly throughout, and, unlike the rest of his work, the theoretical perspectives he tries to bring in are incoherent and explained poorly. Which is shame, considering how important his other books are.

Ultimately, there's a lot of useful information that, at the same time, isnt particularly groundbreaking. If you want to understand the roots of Islamist terror, I'd recommend Lawrence Wright or Robert Fisk.

[P · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are some interesting parts, but his main ideas were more fully expanded in books like Legacy of Ashes, The Looming Tower, Orientalism and Sowing Crisis. Mamdani has moments, but for someone who went though a Hizballah appreciation phase 3 years ago, Mamdani's fawning repetition of Fanon and general Third World-ist view really does not provide a superior alternative. See Olivier Roy for why this book was not fantastic.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is quite the Bush-era relic. There's a definite hidden agenda here, and a predictable bias toward blaming the US and Israel for all the world's problems. No surprises here, and nothing you haven't heard a zillion times before. Skip this one and pick up Wright's The Looming Tower instead.

[Komal · Rating 3 out of 5]

great book to read up on the political nature of islam. i felt somewhat lost at parts because i have no political background and little history background on some of the things he discussed. i felt that if i had more knowledge, i'd enjoy the book a lot more, since the chapters i did have previous knowledge of, were the ones i enjoyed the most out of this book.

[Sebastian Schwark · Rating 1 out of 5]

not convincing at all. a conceptually confused, partially preposterous narration.

[Ashley Willis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gets a little technical at times, but I think everyone who wants to get a feel for all perspectives of terrorism should read this book.