better than his book on Blackwater, but still, such a superficial treatment, even basic things not covered, like military refusal to obey order to kill American citizens without trial, how then it was done, and obvious Al Qaeda basics on Awlaki and Samir Khan...very annoying, not sure why he writes such 1/2 stories....even so, at least he gives some exposure to the US assassination of her own citizens and names names, even some of the few who spoke out against it (Dennis Kucinich, for ex) ( )

Audiobook. ( )

My God.

Imagine there's a country out there that asserts it can assassinate it's own citizens based on executive power alone? Further, it can assassinate that citizen's children with impunity, even when that child is a citizen too.

That country is America. That executive wasn't just the Bush Administration or the current batshit one. No the President at the time was Barack Obama.

Scahill takes what might be merely an anti-state polemic in another journalist's hands and crafts an amazing collection of stories on the war on terror and all it's unintended consequences. This isn't a Bob Woodward special, but rather like Chomsky in the field with teeth. From the blowback of the US radicalizing allies and it's own citizens, to the sheer lack of concern for civilian casualties and the assumption that American black ops are unquestionable, Scahill just crushes any hope you can have in the competence of US anti-terrorism let alone the state's moral authority in that war.

The investigation behind the Gardez Massacre alone--a botched JSOC raid of innocent civilians which was then covered up via carving bullets out of butchered women--is stunning. https://theintercept.com/2016/06/01/pentagon-special-ops-killing-of-pregnant-afg...

The Raymond Davis "incident" reads like a John Le Carre novel except it exposes US officials for lacking the spymaster's knowing sense of moral ambiguity and humanity.

America's use and embrace of extrajudicial killing is pure nightmare fuel. ( )

Scahill goes into realms less traversed; that of dirty politicking in which governments set-up and arm belligerents for multiple gains but only to have them later turn against their benefactors. What is worse is that to subdue these belligerents, governments resort to underhand tactics in which non-combatants suffer more than the actual combatants. This only exacerbates an already escalating conflict. Scahill does not advise as to how to prevent these conflicts, but treads the moral high ground to evoke our sympathies and he succeeds.

The only discouraging element of this book is its military-political jargon. Keep your dictionaries close for this one. ( )

Picture this: On one side, you have a fanatical group with exceptionally strong opinions, who plan and execute an operation to terrorize their enemies. They have a specific target (or targets) in mind, and they aren't really concerned with the loss of innocent life. After all, if those innocents are within the blast range of their targets, well, they're obviously colluding with the enemy, right? So, they're collateral damage, and no one will shed a tear for them.

Now...am I talking about the 9/11 attacks? Or the attacks the US waged over the next two decades against their global enemies?

There's no good guys to be found in this book.

I can remember watching President Bush on TV in the days after the attacks on 9/11, and his call to arms for all allies of the US to help defeat those that hated the US. And believe me, I was as horrified by what I watched on my TV on the morning of September 11, 2001 as anyone else.

But as I watched Bush, I couldn't help but draw parallels with the rhetoric he pushed, and those that had perpetrated the attacks on the US.

George W. Bush: "This is a reminder that we are at war with extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives."

Because, under both Bush and Obama, the US happily, gleefully, and with full awareness, murdered probably more innocent people during their reigns as presidents than the Al-Qaeda managed on that horrible day in the pursuit of achieving their own ideological objectives.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's justified? Who's not?

It gets muddy.

But really, for me, this became the modern day "Red Scare" that we went through in the 50s. Instead of a Red under your bed, and a Commie coming after your freedoms, it was some scary brown-skinned guy who worshipped Allah. And just like when we were terrified of the Commies and got into a nuclear arms race to see who could build up more weapons to wipe out the planet, now the US, goaded by the initial attacks, entered into a terror race, to see which side could rack up more kills.

I'm not defending either side. And I totally understand the desire, after watching the towers fall, for revenge. I do.

But, an eye for an eye ultimately leads to blind rage, and that's what this terrifying book lays out. There's no single person to blame, just a lot of old men with too much pride and bloodlust and fervent belief in "our side"—whichever side that may be—to take a step back and wonder if what they're doing is right. To wonder if, in their push for revenge, they're not increasing the need for the other side—whichever side that may be—for revenge as well.

This is a tough book to read, and there's a lot to unpack here. But it's worth the read.

( )