Appearance
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
This is a fine book, a real eye-opener. For people who don't have a lot of background in Islamist politics, the first half is a hard read because the issues are extremely complicated. However, this is good place to start if you want to try to begin sorting the threads of religious and political Islam. For US citizens with even a modicum of political background, the rest is a piece of cake, and fascinating. Especially interesting is reading about how the Clinton administration was shackled and thwarted as it tried to accomplished some of its more humanitarian objectives. While I believe that Mamdani is not an apologist for 'suicide' bombings, some people are going to have difficulty with his explanation of this phenomenon, which he frames in light of Israeli aggression and compares to similar oppression and violent reactions in South Africa. In any case, it forced me to think of what drives this behavior, and how far humanity must be pushed to the wall in order to exhibit it. The final chapter is heart-wrenchingly poignant, and calls for a world-wide peace movement in the face of what the author believes to be one of the most volatile political scenarios in recorded history: the 'good vs. evil' standoff between the political Christian Right and militant political Islam, a standoff with no hope of negotiation or reconciliation - a fight to the finish resulting in total annihilation of the other.
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
The book explodes the myth of the `good' versus the `bad' Muslim and renders baseless US claims that the war on terror is a war between good and evil, civilized and uncivilized peoples. Mamdani locates the origins of terror in American Cold War foreign policy and shows how Al Qaeda is a product of American efforts to `contain' and `rollback' communism. These efforts did not just produce `Afghan jihad' with all the pernicious apparatuses for terror supplied by the CIA, it also created conditions for the movement to grow into an independent organization targeting the Soviet infiltration of Afghanistan and later directing its ire against Egypt, Saudi Arabia and yes, the US. But for Mamdani, terror is not simply an anti-American thing; rather, on many occasions American terror has had equally devastating consequences in Angola, Mozambique and Nicaragua. Reading this book leads you to understand whose definition of terror is in operation at the moment and why this definition receives lukewarm support in the international community. Mamdani knowledge of Islam in general and political Islam in particular is exceptional and his analysis of different strands of Islamic thought in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria is meticulously matched by his understanding of political processes in these countries. A must read book if you want to think outside the `you are either with us or against us'box.
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
Mamdani, who is a professor of political science at Columbia, has written one of the best books on this topic. This book brings out issues that are often disregarded in the media. Mamdani provides a very clear and through analysis of the Islamic world and the origin of the modern tension between the U.S. and Muslim countries. I specifically liked his analysis of Reagan years. Overall, the book is well-written and all the claims in the book are supported with ample evidence.
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
The blurb on the dust jacket says: "a provocative and important book that will profoundly change our understanding both of Islamist politics and the way America is perceived in the world."This is probably true. The book presents a view of the Muslim world that is quite different from others such as Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" which holds that the next big struggles between Muslims and the Christians will be the world's next big battlefield based on cultural differences. Mamdani sees the Muslim's current actions as an extension of the Cold War. (He grew up in Africa, among who's nations the US and the Soviet Union fought the war.) That he is probably right does not alter Huntington's view in my mind.I'd also like to see a chapter, maybe two, on the impact of oil on the crisis. Would 9/11 have happened if Iraq's invasion of Kuwait hadn't happened right over the oil we need to import?I further question some of his historical aspects. Mohammed was both a religious and military leader. (He was pretty good until he came up against one of the Greats - Genghis Kahn.) There seems to be to me more of an emphasis on uniting the two in the current Muslim thinking.I really like his closing statement: "To win the fight against terrorism requires accepting that the world has changed, ... that to occupy foreig places will be expensive, in lives and money. America cannot occupy the world. It has to live in it.
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
Mr. Mamdani's book is a good read all through. His thesis is novel, arguments sound and conclusion is unbiased. His analysis of America's cold war policy of transition from containment to rollback is an eye-opener. Specially noteworthy is his observation of how covert operations undertaken during Reagan era in order to bypass obtaining funds from tax-payers' money through rampant act of aiding and abetting drug trafficking changed to Bush's approach of privatizing military with similar goal of keeping American people in dark regarding its imperial policy in Iraq and elsewhere. Also, his arguments showing parallel mind sets of imperial Europe and modern America regarding the practice of democratic despotism is laudable. European historians always argued in favor of colonizing "lower" races with the `sacred' interest to civilise and enlighten them, the so called "White men's burden" (Rudyard Kippling) and that mass slaughter (genocide), mass starvation and plundering natural wealth and enslavement to feed industrial revolution in their home countries are but the `collateral' damages. Similar `collateral' damages inflicted on the Third world countries in the name of containment during cold war and globalisation following that era by America bears all the diagnostic features of imperial Europe. Finally, I share his frustration when he concludes by saying that whereas serious efforts are being made by the world at large to restrain the terrorism of Muslim origin, an absolute lack of similar efforts to check American and Israeli fundamentalism (the Judeo-Christian terrorism) gives a helpless feeling.
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror
First I must say this book is very well written and easy to read.The stated purpose of the author is to stimulate a deeper and more intelligent debate on how to tackle the problem of terrorism. To solve a problem, one needs to first understand it. The author explains why common presumptions often based on ignorance and racism should be dismissed since they are too simplistic and too inaccurate to provide a real understanding of the complex problem of radical political extremism. His thorough discussion of the various political and religious movements in the middle east (and in the US) helped me understand the various philosophies and alliances that have influenced politics in the middle east in the last few decades.In the second half of the book, Mamdani spends much time on the emergence of the jihadist movement in Afghanistan. He shows how an ideology that had gathered only marginal support since the 60's became so influencial as a result of the Russian invasion, and the involvement of Pakistan and the US. This section was very well written and very informative.Up to this point, I found the content of the book to be extremely enlightening and it indeed fulfilled its goal of stimulating a more intelligent debate on terrorism.When it came to discussing the post-9/11 period (namely, the US invasion of Iraq and Israel's policy in the occupied territories), I found more bias and partisan views than I found scholarly analysis. This disappointed me, it gave me the impression that the author finished the book in a hurry and just spoke with his heart instead of his mind... Instead of promoting rational debate, this section was more similar to the ridiculous partisan and self-interested debates we hear from our politicians!